Jellna Chung; Yeong Gug Kim

doi:10.5720/kjcn.2026.00052

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Korean J Community Nutr > Volume 31(4); 2026 > Article

Research Article
Consumer responses to upcycled foods in sustainable diets in Korea: a protection motivation theory-based cross-sectional study: Jellna Chung¹⁾, Yeong Gug Kim^2),†; Korean Journal of Community Nutrition 2026;31(4):328-338.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2026.00052
Published online: August 31, 2026

¹⁾Assistant Professor, Department of Tourism & Hotel Management, College of Humanities & Social Sciences, Sun Moon University, Asan, Korea

²⁾Professor, Department of Tourism Administration, College of Business Administration, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Korea

†Corresponding author: Yeong Gug Kim Department of Tourism Administration, College of Business Administration, Kangwon National University, 1 Kangwon-daero, Chuncheon 24341, Korea Tel: +82-33-250-6169 Fax: +82-33-259-5532 Email: yeongkim@kangwon.ac.kr

• Received: February 2, 2026 • Revised: February 28, 2026 • Accepted: March 7, 2026

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

168 Views
5 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Objectives
This study aims to examine how perceived risks associated with upcycled foods shape consumer decision-making through the lens of Protection Motivation Theory (PMT). Although upcycled foods have gained increasing attention as a promising approach to reducing food waste and supporting sustainable diets, consumer acceptance remains uncertain due to concerns about safety, quality, unfamiliarity, and perceived contamination. Specifically, this study investigates the cognitive mechanisms by which threat and coping appraisals influence protection motivation and purchase intention.
Methods
Using a cross-sectional survey design, data were collected from 211 consumers in South Korea through an online questionnaire. The survey measured perceived risk, perceived severity, perceived vulnerability, response efficacy, self-efficacy, protection motivation, and purchase intention toward upcycled foods. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling were employed to assess the validity and reliability of the measurement model and to test the proposed PMT-based framework and hypothesized relationships among perceived risk, cognitive appraisals, motivation, and intention.
Results
Perceived risks significantly increase perceived severity and vulnerability while reducing response efficacy. These findings indicate that consumers who perceive greater risks associated with upcycled foods are more likely to recognize potential negative consequences and their personal susceptibility, and to question whether purchasing such products can effectively address sustainability-related concerns. Both threat appraisal and coping appraisal significantly affect protection motivation, which in turn positively influences purchase intention. The relationship between perceived risk and self-efficacy was not supported, suggesting that risk perception alone may not directly undermine consumers’ confidence in their ability to choose or consume upcycled foods.
Conclusion
The findings demonstrate that perceived risks do not uniformly inhibit consumption of upcycled food but operate through nuanced cognitive pathways. By highlighting the central role of coping appraisal, this study suggests that strengthening consumers’ efficacy beliefs is critical to promoting informed, sustainable adoption of upcycled foods. The results have practical implications for marketers, policymakers, and food industry stakeholders by emphasizing the need for transparent information, credible communication, and consumer education to reduce uncertainty and reinforce the perceived effectiveness and accessibility of upcycled food choices.
Keywords: food loss and waste; consumer behavior; risk; decision making; food safety

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, upcycled foods have emerged as a promising response to growing concerns regarding food waste, environmental sustainability, and the efficiency of food systems [1, 2]. Upcycled foods are generally defined as food products developed by repurposing surplus ingredients, by-products, or imperfect raw materials that would otherwise be discarded, thereby creating new value from underutilized resources [3]. This approach aligns closely with the principles of sustainable diets and circular food systems [4, 5].

Previous research has documented the substantial scale of food waste generated across the food supply chain, contributing to environmental degradation, economic inefficiencies, and ethical concerns related to food insecurity [4, 6, 7]. By reintegrating edible materials into the food system, upcycling practices reduce the environmental burden of waste disposal and encourage innovation in the food industry [4, 8-10]. Furthermore, when appropriately processed, upcycled foods can enhance food system resilience and support equitable resource distribution without compromising nutritional quality [4, 8]. Consequently, they are increasingly recognized not merely as waste-reduction tools, but as integral components of future sustainable food systems and responsible consumption patterns [1, 2, 5, 11, 12].

Despite their potential benefits, upcycled foods often face considerable consumer resistance, primarily due to negative perceptions and heightened risk concerns [5, 13, 14]. Research consistently indicates that perceived risks related to safety, quality, and processing play a central role in shaping acceptance, often intensified by the symbolic association with waste [6, 9]. One of the most prominent barriers is food safety; consumers frequently express concerns regarding hygiene and contamination of surplus ingredients, relying on intuitive and affective responses rather than objective information [11-14]. As a result, the mere notion that an ingredient was previously unused can trigger perceptions of elevated risk.

Alongside safety, perceived quality represents another critical dimension. Upcycled foods may be perceived as inferior in taste, freshness, or nutritional value compared to conventional products, leading to skepticism that persists even in the presence of safety certifications [3, 12, 15]. Technological unfamiliarity further contributes to this resistance. Consumers often lack clear knowledge about how surplus ingredients are processed and transformed, amplifying perceived risk and avoidance tendencies [13-16]. Additionally, while recognizing the environmental value, consumers may experience moral ambivalence or discomfort rooted in cultural norms around food purity and the appropriateness of consumption [12, 13].

Recent research emphasizes that these negative perceptions are not merely information deficits, but are shaped by complex interactions among cognitive evaluations, emotional reactions, and contextual factors [15, 16]. Therefore, while upcycled foods hold significant promise, their successful adoption depends heavily on a systematic understanding of how consumers perceive and respond to these associated risks [6, 15]. Without addressing these perceptions, efforts to promote upcycled foods may fail to achieve their intended objectives.

Given this critical need, this study aims to clarify the cognitive processes consumers use to handle perceived threats when making purchasing decisions. Going beyond merely listing perceived risks, we apply Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) to analyze how threat and coping assessments interact to turn risk-averse views into informed, sustainable choices [7, 17]. In the context of upcycled foods, perceived risks are expected to activate threat appraisals (perceived severity and vulnerability), which subsequently influence coping appraisals (response efficacy and self-efficacy), reflecting consumers’ beliefs about the feasibility of managing those risks [2, 15-17]. This study conceptualizes protection motivation as a risk-management-oriented construct that captures the dual nature of upcycled foods as both sustainable solutions and perceived risks [12, 15, 16]. Ultimately, by identifying the cognitive pathways through which risk perceptions shape purchase intention, this study provides evidence-based insights for policymakers and practitioners to develop effective communication and educational strategies that support the long-term integration of upcycled foods into sustainable diets.

METHODS

Ethics statement

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants and/or their guardians for the survey. The survey procedures and protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Kangwon National University (IRB No. 2026-02-009).

1. Study design

This study used a cross-sectional design. The study is described in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guidelines (https://www.strobe-statement.org/).

2. Proposed framework and hypotheses

Prior research on sustainable and novel food consumption consistently highlights perceived risk as a central determinant of consumer decision making, particularly when foods deviate from conventional production norms [3]. Upcycled foods, which utilize surplus ingredients or food by-products, are often perceived as unfamiliar and potentially risky despite their environmental benefits [4, 6]. Studies on food risk perception suggest that concerns related to food safety, quality, and processing uncertainty play a critical role in shaping consumers’ cognitive evaluations and behavioral responses [2]. PMT provides a well-established framework for explaining how individuals respond to perceived threats by linking risk perceptions to threat appraisal, coping appraisal, and subsequent motivation. In food-related contexts, PMT has been widely applied to examine how perceived risks elicit cognitive appraisals that guide protective decision-making. Accordingly, this study adopts PMT to explain how perceived risks associated with upcycled foods influence consumer responses by shaping protection motivation and purchase intention [7, 17].

Although PMT encompasses a broad range of cognitive components, prior empirical studies demonstrate that its explanatory power can be effectively captured by selectively applying core constructs [18]. Consistent with this approach, the present study focuses on perceived severity and perceived vulnerability as key elements of threat appraisal, and response efficacy and self-efficacy as core components of coping appraisal [19-21]. These variables have been widely employed in food safety and environmental behavior research to explain how consumers evaluate potential risks and assess their ability to manage such risks. In the context of upcycled foods, threat appraisal reflects consumers’ assessments of the seriousness and personal relevance of perceived risks, whereas coping appraisal captures beliefs regarding the effectiveness and feasibility of risk management strategies [22]. By examining how these cognitive appraisals shape protection motivation and, in turn, purchase intention, the study offers a parsimonious yet theoretically grounded application of PMT that is well suited to analyzing consumer responses to upcycled foods [23, 24] (Fig. 1).

Previous research on food risk perception consistently indicates that higher perceived risk intensifies evaluations of the seriousness of potential adverse consequences [2, 12]. When foods are perceived as unfamiliar or unconventional, consumers tend to associate them with more severe health- or quality-related outcomes. In the context of upcycled foods, which use surplus ingredients or by-products, perceived risks related to hygiene, contamination, or processing uncertainty are likely to amplify judgments about the seriousness of potential negative effects [9]. Accordingly, greater perceived risk is expected to heighten perceived severity. Also, the risk perception literature suggests that perceived risk not only affects severity evaluations but also increases individuals’ beliefs about personal susceptibility. Foods perceived as novel or non-traditional often lead consumers to feel more exposed to potential harm [24]. In the case of upcycled foods, uncertainty regarding ingredient origins or processing methods may increase consumers’ sense of personal vulnerability. Thus, higher perceived risks are expected to strengthen perceived vulnerability in the context of upcycled food consumption.

H1: Perceived risks associated with upcycled foods are expected to influence consumers’ perceived severity of potential outcomes.

H2: Perceived risks associated with upcycled foods are expected to influence consumers’ perceived vulnerability to outcomes.

Response efficacy reflects beliefs about whether available actions can effectively mitigate perceived threats. Prior PMT-based studies indicate that heightened risk perceptions may undermine confidence in the effectiveness of coping strategies. In upcycled food contexts, consumers who perceive high levels of safety or quality risk may doubt whether certification, labeling, or personal evaluation can sufficiently reduce such risks [19, 20]. Consequently, increased perceived risk is expected to weaken beliefs in the effectiveness of available risk-management responses. Also, Self-efficacy refers to individuals’ confidence in their ability to manage perceived threats. Prior research suggests that excessive perceived risk can reduce feelings of control and competence, particularly when risks are viewed as difficult to assess or manage. In the case of upcycled foods, complex processing information and limited consumer familiarity may lower confidence in one’s ability to evaluate safety or quality [9]. Accordingly, higher perceived risks are expected to reduce self-efficacy.

H3: Perceived risks associated with upcycled foods are expected to influence consumers’ response efficacy.

H4: Perceived risks associated with upcycled foods are expected to influence consumers’ self-efficacy.

Within PMT, protection motivation may represent either adoption-oriented or avoidance-oriented behavior, depending on the context. In food risk contexts, prior studies suggest that heightened perceptions of severity often trigger avoidance rather than engagement. When upcycled foods are perceived as posing a serious health or quality threat, consumers may interpret protective behavior as refraining from purchase [21, 22]. Therefore, greater perceived severity is expected to reduce purchase-oriented protection motivation. On the other hand, perceived vulnerability reflects beliefs about personal exposure to risk. Research on food safety behavior indicates that when consumers feel personally susceptible to harm, they are more likely to avoid perceived risk sources [19, 22]. In the context of upcycled foods, higher perceived vulnerability may strengthen avoidance tendencies rather than motivate purchase. As a result, perceived vulnerability is expected to negatively influence protection motivation toward purchasing upcycled foods.

H5: Perceived severity of outcomes is expected to influence consumers’ protection motivation toward purchasing upcycled foods.

H6: Perceived vulnerability to outcomes is expected to influence consumers’ protection motivation toward purchasing upcycled foods.

Response efficacy has been identified as a key determinant of protection motivation across health and food-related contexts. When individuals believe that available actions effectively reduce perceived risks, they are more likely to engage in protective decision-making. In upcycled food consumption, confidence in the effectiveness of safety information, certification, or quality control is expected to facilitate motivated and deliberate purchasing behavior [23, 24]. Thus, higher response efficacy should strengthen protection motivation. Self-efficacy enhances individuals’ willingness to engage in protective behaviors by increasing confidence in their ability to manage perceived risks. Prior research shows that consumers who feel capable of evaluating food information and making informed choices exhibit stronger motivation to act [3, 4, 6]. In the context of upcycled foods, higher self-efficacy is expected to support active risk management and, consequently, stronger protection motivation.

H7: Response efficacy is expected to influence consumers’ protection motivation toward upcycled foods.

H8: Self-efficacy is expected to influence consumers’ protection motivation toward upcycled foods.

Protection motivation represents the proximal cognitive driver of behavioral intention within PMT [25]. When consumers believe risks can be effectively managed and feel motivated to engage in protective decision-making, this motivation is likely to translate into purchase intention [26, 27]. In upcycled food contexts, protection motivation reflects conditional and risk-managed willingness to purchase rather than unconditional acceptance. Therefore, higher protection motivation is expected to increase purchase intention.

H9: Protection motivation is expected to positively influence consumers’ purchase intention toward upcycled foods.

3. Data collection

A pilot test was first conducted with a convenience sample of 50 university students to assess the clarity, reliability, and applicability of the measurement instrument and to refine the questionnaire items. Following the pilot study, the main survey was implemented using an online convenience sampling approach [28]. Data collection was conducted between January 1 and January 15, 2026, using a structured questionnaire to empirically test the proposed research framework and hypotheses. The questionnaire was administered through a web-based survey platform. An invitation message explaining the purpose of the study and providing a link to the online questionnaire was distributed to potential participants. Participation was voluntary, and respondents completed the survey self-administered. To reduce the risk of common method bias, several procedural steps were taken: respondent anonymity was strictly maintained to lessen social desirability bias, and the order of measurement items was randomized within the survey platform. A minimum of 200 cases is recommended for structural equation modeling (SEM) to ensure stable parameter estimation and reliable goodness-of-fit indices [29, 30]. This threshold has typically been adopted in studies involving multiple latent constructs and complex pathways. Accordingly, the present study secured more than 200 valid responses, thereby satisfying the minimum requirement for SEM analysis and enhancing the robustness of the statistical results. A total of 230 panel members were invited to participate in the survey. The target population was adult consumers aged 18+ in South Korea with access to online surveys. After excluding incomplete or invalid responses, 211 usable questionnaires were retained for analysis, resulting in an effective response rate of 91.73%.

4. Statistical analysis

The validity and reliability of the measurement model were assessed. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and SEM were conducted on the main sample using IBM AMOS version 26.0 (IBM Co.). Model fit was assessed using multiple indices, including the chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio (χ²/df), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Following the recommendations of previous research [29], values closer to 1.0 for GFI, AGFI, NFI, and CFI were considered to indicate better fit, while RMSEA values below 0.08 and χ²/df values below 3 were considered indicative of acceptable model fit. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

1. Profile of respondents

The general characteristics of the participants are listed in Table 1. Female respondents accounted for 55.0% (n = 116), while males accounted for 45.0% (n = 95). In terms of age distribution, the largest proportion of respondents was aged 25–34 years (n = 89, 42.2%). Participants younger than 25 years comprised 19.9% of the sample (n = 42), followed by those aged 35–44 years (19.4%, n = 41), 45–54 years (14.2%, n = 30), and 55 years or older (4.3%, n = 9). Regarding educational attainment, nearly half of the respondents had completed an undergraduate degree (48.8%, n = 103). In addition, 28.9% held a postgraduate degree (n = 61), 14.7% had completed high school education (n = 31), and a small proportion (7.6%) reported other educational backgrounds.

2. Measurement model estimation

All measurement items (perceived risks, perceived severity, perceived vulnerability, response efficacy, self-efficacy, protection motivation, and purchase intention) were adapted from validated scales in prior literature and modified to fit the context of upcycled foods [26, 27]. All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Before testing the hypothesized structural relationships among the latent variables, a CFA was conducted to assess the adequacy of the measurement model [28, 29]. The CFA specified a model comprising seven latent constructs, each measured by a total of 21 observed indicators. The results indicated that the measurement model provided an acceptable fit to the data. As reported in Table 2, the goodness-of-fit indices met commonly recommended thresholds (χ² = 243.091, degrees of freedom [df] = 168; χ²/df = 1.45; goodness-of-fit index [GFI] = 0.940; adjusted goodness-of-fit index [AGFI] = 0.868; normed fit index [NFI] = 0.912; comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.970; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.046), suggesting a satisfactory overall model fit.

The construct validity of the measurement model was evaluated by examining both convergent and discriminant validity, in accordance with established criteria. As shown in Table 3, all factor loadings were statistically significant at the P < 0.01 level, and the average variance extracted (AVE) values for all constructs exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.50. These results indicate that the measurement items adequately captured the underlying latent constructs, thereby supporting convergent validity. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the AVE values of each construct with the squared correlations between constructs. Consistent with recommended guidelines, discriminant validity is established when the AVE for a given construct is greater than the squared correlation between that construct and any other construct [29]. The results presented in Table 3 demonstrate that, for all construct pairs, the squared inter-construct correlations were lower than the corresponding AVE values, providing evidence of adequate discriminant validity.

3. Structural model

SEM was employed to examine the hypothesized relationships among the latent constructs. To establish the measurement scale for each construct, one indicator loading per factor was fixed at unity, and the model parameters were estimated using maximum likelihood. The structural model incorporated the following latent variables: perceived risks, perceived severity, perceived vulnerability, response efficacy, self-efficacy, protection motivation, and purchase intention. The adequacy of the proposed model was evaluated prior to hypothesis testing [30, 31]. As presented in Table 4, the overall model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data (χ² = 333.424, df = 179; χ²/df = 1.86; GFI = 0.873; AGFI = 0.836; NFI = 0.879; CFI = 0.939; RMSEA = 0.064). These fit indices indicate that the structural model provides a satisfactory representation of the observed data and is appropriate for examining the proposed causal relationships [29, 31].

The structural paths were then assessed to determine whether the hypothesized relationships among the latent constructs were supported. The standardized path coefficients revealed that perceived risks had a significant positive effect on perceived severity (β = 0.224) and perceived vulnerability (β = 0.222), while exerting a significant negative effect on response efficacy (β = −0.173). Perceived severity (β = 0.167) and perceived vulnerability (β = 0.326) both showed significant positive effects on protection motivation. In addition, response efficacy (β = 0.512) and self-efficacy (β = 0.184) were positively associated with protection motivation. Protection motivation, in turn, exhibited a significant positive effect on purchase intention (β = 0.545). Overall, Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were supported by the data. However, the hypothesized relationship between perceived risks and self-efficacy was not statistically significant, thereby rejecting Hypothesis 4.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine how perceived risks shape consumers’ responses to upcycled foods using PMT. The structural model results provide meaningful insights into the cognitive mechanisms underlying consumers’ evaluation and response to perceived risks associated with upcycled foods, thereby extending prior research on sustainable food consumption and food risk perception [2].

Consistent with previous studies on food risk and novel food acceptance, perceived risks were positively associated with perceived severity and perceived vulnerability. This finding aligns with established risk perception literature, which suggests that uncertainty about food quality and safety heightens consumers’ assessments of the seriousness of potential negative outcomes and their personal susceptibility to harm [18, 25]. In the context of upcycled foods, which are often associated with unfamiliar production processes or surplus ingredients, perceived risks appear to activate threat appraisal processes in a manner consistent with PMT [7, 17]. The negative relationship between perceived risks and response efficacy further supports prior PMT-based research, indicating that heightened risk perceptions may undermine consumers’ confidence in the effectiveness of available coping strategies [18, 23]. When consumers perceive upcycled foods as risky, they may question whether regulatory measures, certifications, or labeling systems are sufficient to mitigate those risks [9]. Furthermore, the observed non-significant link between perceived risks and self-efficacy (H4) refines the PMT model for novel foods. Unlike threat appraisals, which respond to product risks, self-efficacy is a stable resource that is unaffected by general risk perceptions. Confidence in evaluating upcycled foods stems from existing food literacy and environmental skills, rather than from situational factors or the origin of the waste. Thus, PMT-based models should treat self-efficacy as a stable trait rather than a direct response to perceived risk [20]. Regarding the formation of protection motivation, both perceived severity and perceived vulnerability were found to positively influence it, indicating that stronger threat appraisals increase consumers’ motivation to engage in protective decision-making [25]. This study reconceptualizes protection motivation in the PMT framework. Unlike traditional views of threat avoidance, findings show that adoption of upcycled foods is a risk-managed process. Consumers do not just abstain; high threat and coping appraisals lead to informed, motivated adoption. This extends PMT by highlighting its dual role in harm prevention and sustainable consumption through proactive risk management [8]. Coping appraisal variables played a particularly important role in shaping protection motivation. Response efficacy emerged as the strongest predictor, followed by self-efficacy, underscoring the importance of consumers’ beliefs regarding both the effectiveness of external risk-reduction mechanisms and their own ability to make informed choices [18, 23]. These results are consistent with PMT research, which emphasizes that protection motivation is most strongly driven by coping-related evaluations when individuals perceive that risks can be effectively managed [7,17]. Finally, protection motivation was found to have a significant positive effect on purchase intention. This finding reinforces the notion that under conditions in which consumers feel capable of managing perceived risks, protection motivation can facilitate rather than inhibit purchasing behavior [6]. Together, these results contribute to the literature by demonstrating that risk perceptions do not uniformly suppress acceptance of upcycled foods, but instead operate through nuanced cognitive pathways that balance threat awareness with coping confidence.

From a theoretical perspective, this study extends PMT by applying it to the emerging context of upcycled foods and by highlighting the dual role of protection motivation as both a risk-management mechanism and a driver of conditional purchase intention. The findings also contribute to sustainable diet research by illustrating how food-related risks interact with motivational processes in shaping consumer behavior [2, 16]. From a practical standpoint, the results suggest that efforts to promote upcycled foods should not focus solely on reducing perceived risks but also on strengthening consumers’ coping appraisals. Clear safety certifications, transparent labeling, and accessible information regarding production processes may enhance response efficacy, while consumer education initiatives may reinforce self-efficacy [11, 12]. By addressing both dimensions, stakeholders can support informed and confident consumer decision-making, thereby facilitating the long-term integration of upcycled foods into sustainable diets [8, 9].

In summary, this research goes beyond a simple application of PMT by identifying the specific cognitive pathways that can convert risk-averse consumers into sustainable adopters. By demonstrating that coping appraisals exert a more decisive influence than threat appraisals in driving purchase intention, this study provides a theoretical bridge between risk perception and pro-environmental behavior, offering a more robust framework for future studies on unconventional food technologies.

Limitations

Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design restricts the ability to draw causal inferences regarding the relationships among perceived risks, protection motivation, and purchase intention. Longitudinal or experimental research designs would provide stronger evidence of causal mechanisms. Second, data were collected using self-reported measures, which may be subject to common-method bias and social desirability bias. Future studies could incorporate behavioral data or experimental manipulations to address this limitation. Third, the sample was obtained through convenience sampling, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Subsequent research should examine more diverse populations and cultural contexts to validate and extend the present results. Finally, future studies may explore additional moderating variables, such as food-related knowledge or trust in regulatory institutions, to further refine the understanding of consumer responses to upcycled foods.

Conclusion

This study provides empirical evidence that perceived risks play a critical role in shaping consumer responses to upcycled foods through the cognitive mechanisms proposed by PMT. The findings demonstrate that threat and coping appraisals jointly influence protection motivation, which, in turn, promotes purchase intention when consumers perceive that risks can be effectively managed. By conceptualizing protection motivation as a form of informed and conditional purchasing behavior, this research offers a nuanced understanding of how consumers navigate the tension between sustainability goals and food-related risk concerns. The results underscore the importance of strengthening coping-related beliefs through transparent communication and consumer education, thereby supporting the sustainable adoption of upcycled foods within contemporary diets.

NOTES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There are no financial or other issues that might lead to a conflict of interest.

FUNDING

None.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Research data are available upon request to the corresponding author.

Fig. 1.

Proposed research model.

Table 1.

Profile of respondents

Variable	Value
Sex
Male	95 (45.0)
Female	116 (55.0)
Age (year)
Younger than 25	42 (19.9)
25–34	89 (42.2)
35–44	41 (19.4)
45–54	30 (14.2)
≥ 55	9 (4.3)
Education
High school	31 (14.7)
Undergraduate degree	103 (48.8)
Postgraduate degree	61 (28.9)
Others	16 (7.6)

n (%).

Table 2.

Results of confirmatory factor analysis for the measurement model

Factors and items	Standard loadings	t-values	CR	AVE
F1: Perceived risks			0.932	0.824
I believe that upcycled foods may involve potential quality risks	0.825	Fixed
I am concerned about the safety of foods produced using upcycled ingredients	0.806	9.260
The production process of upcycled foods seems uncertain to me	0.609	8.097
F2: Perceived severity			0.911	0.774
If upcycled foods were unsafe, the consequences for health would be serious	0.873	Fixed
Health problems caused by unsafe upcycled foods would be severe	0.859	14.863
Consuming unsafe upcycled foods could result in serious long-term health effects	0.831	14.176
F3: Perceived vulnerability			0.911	0.773
I believe that I could be personally affected if upcycled foods were unsafe	0.894	Fixed
I feel vulnerable to potential health risks associated with upcycled foods	0.878	13.845
If problems exist in upcycled foods, I think they could affect me directly	0.784	13.666
F4: Response efficacy			0.868	0.686
Choosing certified upcycled foods is an effective way to reduce potential risks	0.859	Fixed
Clear labeling and safety information can effectively address concerns about upcycled foods	0.835	13.016
Proper regulation and quality control make upcycled foods safe to consume	0.790	12.697
F5: Self-efficacy			0.869	0.687
I am confident in my ability to evaluate the safety of upcycled foods	0.819	Fixed
I can understand labels and information related to upcycled food products	0.776	11.051
I am capable of selecting upcycled foods that meet safety and quality standards	0.774	10.669
F6: Protection motivation			0.826	0.614
I am motivated to make careful and informed choices when purchasing upcycled foods	0.815	Fixed
I intend to manage potential risks when considering upcycled food products	0.769	10.051
I feel motivated to choose upcycled foods that are safe and trustworthy	0.697	9.637
F7: Purchase intention			0.922	0.797
I intend to purchase upcycled foods in the future	0.967	Fixed
I would consider buying upcycled foods if they meet safety standards	0.881	21.029
I would choose upcycled foods when I believe the risks are properly managed	0.847	16.978

Goodness-of-fit indexes: chi-square value (df) = 243.091 (168); chi-square/df = 1.45; GFI = 0.940; AGFI = 0.868; NFI = 0.912; CFI = 0.970; RMSEA = 0.046.

CR, construct reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.

Table 3.

Construct validity of the measurement model

	F1	F2	F3	F4	F5	F6	F7	Mean ± SD
F1	0.824^*1)							3.71 ± 0.44
F2	0.196	0.774^*						3.81 ± 0.80
F3	0.163	–0.121	0.773^*					3.46 ± 0.80
F4	–0.116	–0.053	–0.476	0.686^*				3.48 ± 0.85
F5	–0.045	–0.037	–0.386	0.487	0.687^*			3.21 ± 0.77
F6	–0.186	0.057	0.487	0.558	0.422	0.614^*		3.76 ± 1.02
F7	–0.104	0.155	0.301	0.402	0.334	0.515	0.797^*	3.87 ± 0.98

F1, perceived risks; F2, perceived severity; F3, perceived vulnerability; F4, response efficacy; F5, self-efficacy; F6, protection motivation; F7, purchase intention.

¹⁾AVE, the scores range from 1 to 5.

^*All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level or better.

Table 4.

Structural parameter estimates

Paths		Estimate	Critical ratio	Result
H1	Perceived risks → Perceived severity	0.224	2.78^**	Accepted
H2	Perceived risks → Perceived vulnerability	0.222	2.75^**	Accepted
H3	Perceived risks → Response efficacy	–0.173	–2.12^*	Accepted
H4	Perceived risks → Self-efficacy	–0.084	–1.01	Reject
H5	Perceived severity → Protection motivation	0.167	2.46^*	Accepted
H6	Perceived vulnerability → Protection motivation	0.326	3.97^***	Accepted
H7	Response efficacy → Protection motivation	0.512	6.13^***	Accepted
H8	Self-efficacy → Protection motivation	0.184	2.29^*	Accepted
H9	Protection motivation → Purchase intention	0.545	6.36^***	Accepted

Goodness-of-fit indexes: chi-square value (df) = 333.424 (179), chi-square/df = 1.86, GFI = 0.873, AGFI = 0.836, NFI = 0.879, CFI = 0.939, RMSEA = 0.064.

^*P < 0.05,

^**P < 0.01,

^***P < 0.001.

REFERENCES

1. Aschemann-Witzel J, Asioli D, Banovic M, Perito MA, Peschel AO. Consumer understanding of upcycled foods - exploring consumer-created associations and concept explanations across five countries. Food Qual Prefer 2023; 112: 105033.Article
2. Zhang XY, Chao CT, Chen HS. Fostering sustainable food consumption: a theoretical framework for upcycled foods. Front Psychol 2025; 16: 1682850.Article PubMed PMC
3. Grasso S, Fu R, Goodman-Smith F, Lalor F, Crofton E. Consumer attitudes to upcycled foods in US and China. J Clean Prod 2023; 388: 135919.Article
4. Chang MY, Lai KL, Lin IK, Chao CT, Chen HS. Exploring the sustainability of upcycled foods: an analysis of consumer behavior in Taiwan. Nutrients 2024; 16(15): 2501.Article PubMed PMC
5. Vermeir I, Verbeke W. Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecol Econ 2008; 64(3): 542-553. Article
6. Moshtaghian H, Bolton K, Rousta K. Upcycled food choice motives and their association with hesitancy towards consumption of this type of food: a Swedish study. Br Food J 2024; 126(1): 48-63. Article
7. Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol 1975; 91(1): 93-114. Article PubMed PMC
8. Mori R, Seo Y. Unpacking consumer motivations for upcycled food purchases in Japan. Food Humanit 2025; 4: 100562.Article
9. D’Souza C, Mancuso Tradenta JC, Marimuthu M, Fleming-Muñoz D, O’Keefe S. The upcycled appetite: exploring intentions behind choosing food waste-based functional products and food neophobia. Br Food J 2025; 127(13): 760-780. Article PDF
10. Huang WS, Tsai TY, Lai KL, Chen HS. Analyzing consumer motivations and behaviors towards upcycled food from an environmental sustainability perspective. Agriculture 2024; 14(11): 1967.Article
11. Ma S, Zheng XJ, Lu P, Xu Z. Promoting upcycled food: an analysis of social media communication strategies of Upcycled Food Association. Future Foods 2024; 10: 100483.Article
12. Yu CC, Chang TY. Evaluating the ethics of purchasing upcycled foods: insights into consumer intentions from an ethical decision-making perspective. Curr Psychol 2025; 44(21): 17040-17055. Article PDF
13. Cox DN, Evans G. Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers’ fears of novel food technologies: the food technology neophobia scale. Food Qual Prefer 2008; 19(8): 704-710. Article
14. Siegrist M. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends Food Sci Technol 2008; 19(11): 603-608. Article
15. Matthews T. Consumer perceptions of upcycled products: understanding facilitators and barriers to upcycled product adoption. [master’s thesis]. Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington; 2025.
16. Chen HS, Chao CT. Solutions to food waste: investigating Taiwanese consumer attitudes and behavioral drivers toward upcycled food. Br Food J 2025; 127(3): 971-989. Article
17. Maddux JE, Rogers RW. Protection motivation and self-efficacy: a revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Exp Soc Psychol 1983; 19(5): 469-479. Article
18. Chen MF. Extending the protection motivation theory model to predict public safe food choice behavioural intentions in Taiwan. Food Control 2016; 68: 145-152. Article
19. Basha MB, Lal D. Indian consumers’ attitudes towards purchasing organically produced foods: an empirical study. J Clean Prod 2019; 215: 99-111. Article
20. Chen MF. The joint moderating effect of health consciousness and healthy lifestyle on consumers’ willingness to use functional foods in Taiwan. Appetite 2011; 57(1): 253-262. Article PubMed
21. Nguyen HV, Nguyen N, Nguyen BK, Greenland S. Sustainable food consumption: investigating organic meat purchase intention by Vietnamese consumers. Sustainability 2021; 13(2): 953.Article
22. Dowd K, Burke KJ. The influence of ethical values and food choice motivations on intentions to purchase sustainably sourced foods. Appetite 2013; 69: 137-144. Article PubMed
23. Janmaimool P. Application of protection motivation theory to investigate sustainable waste management behaviors. Sustainability 2017; 9(7): 1079.Article
24. Vastola A, Romano S, Cozzi M, Viccaro M. Are consumers ready to consider insect-based foods as a sustainable food choice? An application of the extended protection motivation theory to Italian consumers. Agriculture 2024; 14(12): 2232.Article
25. De Steur H, Mogendi JB, Wesana J, Makokha A, Gellynck X. Stakeholder reactions toward iodine biofortified foods. An application of protection motivation theory. Appetite 2015; 92: 295-302. Article PubMed
26. Mokhtari Karchegani A, Savari M. Integrating the protection motivation model with place attachment theory to examine rural residents’ intentions toward low-carbon behaviors: empirical evidence from Iran. Results Eng 2025; 28: 107180.Article
27. Zhu Y, Wen X, Chu M, Sun S. Consumers’ intention to participate in food safety risk communication: a model integrating protection motivation theory and the theory of reasoned action. Food Control 2022; 138: 108993.Article
28. Ping RA. On assuring valid measures for theoretical models using survey data. J Bus Res 2004; 57(2): 125-141. Article
29. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with EQS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2013.
30. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev 2019; 31(1): 2-24. Article
31. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci 2015; 43(1): 115-135. Article PDF

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Consumer responses to upcycled foods in sustainable diets in Korea: a protection motivation theory-based cross-sectional study

Korean J Community Nutr. 2026;31(4):328-338. Published online August 31, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2026.00052

XML Download

Figure

We recommend

Consumer responses to upcycled foods in sustainable diets in Korea: a protection motivation theory-based cross-sectional study

Fig. 1. Proposed research model.

Fig. 1.

Consumer responses to upcycled foods in sustainable diets in Korea: a protection motivation theory-based cross-sectional study

Variable	Value
Sex
Male	95 (45.0)
Female	116 (55.0)
Age (year)
Younger than 25	42 (19.9)
25–34	89 (42.2)
35–44	41 (19.4)
45–54	30 (14.2)
≥ 55	9 (4.3)
Education
High school	31 (14.7)
Undergraduate degree	103 (48.8)
Postgraduate degree	61 (28.9)
Others	16 (7.6)

Factors and items	Standard loadings	t-values	CR	AVE
F1: Perceived risks			0.932	0.824
I believe that upcycled foods may involve potential quality risks	0.825	Fixed
I am concerned about the safety of foods produced using upcycled ingredients	0.806	9.260
The production process of upcycled foods seems uncertain to me	0.609	8.097
F2: Perceived severity			0.911	0.774
If upcycled foods were unsafe, the consequences for health would be serious	0.873	Fixed
Health problems caused by unsafe upcycled foods would be severe	0.859	14.863
Consuming unsafe upcycled foods could result in serious long-term health effects	0.831	14.176
F3: Perceived vulnerability			0.911	0.773
I believe that I could be personally affected if upcycled foods were unsafe	0.894	Fixed
I feel vulnerable to potential health risks associated with upcycled foods	0.878	13.845
If problems exist in upcycled foods, I think they could affect me directly	0.784	13.666
F4: Response efficacy			0.868	0.686
Choosing certified upcycled foods is an effective way to reduce potential risks	0.859	Fixed
Clear labeling and safety information can effectively address concerns about upcycled foods	0.835	13.016
Proper regulation and quality control make upcycled foods safe to consume	0.790	12.697
F5: Self-efficacy			0.869	0.687
I am confident in my ability to evaluate the safety of upcycled foods	0.819	Fixed
I can understand labels and information related to upcycled food products	0.776	11.051
I am capable of selecting upcycled foods that meet safety and quality standards	0.774	10.669
F6: Protection motivation			0.826	0.614
I am motivated to make careful and informed choices when purchasing upcycled foods	0.815	Fixed
I intend to manage potential risks when considering upcycled food products	0.769	10.051
I feel motivated to choose upcycled foods that are safe and trustworthy	0.697	9.637
F7: Purchase intention			0.922	0.797
I intend to purchase upcycled foods in the future	0.967	Fixed
I would consider buying upcycled foods if they meet safety standards	0.881	21.029
I would choose upcycled foods when I believe the risks are properly managed	0.847	16.978

	F1	F2	F3	F4	F5	F6	F7	Mean ± SD
F1	0.824^*1)							3.71 ± 0.44
F2	0.196	0.774^*						3.81 ± 0.80
F3	0.163	–0.121	0.773^*					3.46 ± 0.80
F4	–0.116	–0.053	–0.476	0.686^*				3.48 ± 0.85
F5	–0.045	–0.037	–0.386	0.487	0.687^*			3.21 ± 0.77
F6	–0.186	0.057	0.487	0.558	0.422	0.614^*		3.76 ± 1.02
F7	–0.104	0.155	0.301	0.402	0.334	0.515	0.797^*	3.87 ± 0.98

Paths		Estimate	Critical ratio	Result
H1	Perceived risks → Perceived severity	0.224	2.78^**	Accepted
H2	Perceived risks → Perceived vulnerability	0.222	2.75^**	Accepted
H3	Perceived risks → Response efficacy	–0.173	–2.12^*	Accepted
H4	Perceived risks → Self-efficacy	–0.084	–1.01	Reject
H5	Perceived severity → Protection motivation	0.167	2.46^*	Accepted
H6	Perceived vulnerability → Protection motivation	0.326	3.97^***	Accepted
H7	Response efficacy → Protection motivation	0.512	6.13^***	Accepted
H8	Self-efficacy → Protection motivation	0.184	2.29^*	Accepted
H9	Protection motivation → Purchase intention	0.545	6.36^***	Accepted

Table 1. Profile of respondents

n (%).

Table 2. Results of confirmatory factor analysis for the measurement model

Goodness-of-fit indexes: chi-square value (df) = 243.091 (168); chi-square/df = 1.45; GFI = 0.940; AGFI = 0.868; NFI = 0.912; CFI = 0.970; RMSEA = 0.046.

CR, construct reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.

Table 3. Construct validity of the measurement model

F1, perceived risks; F2, perceived severity; F3, perceived vulnerability; F4, response efficacy; F5, self-efficacy; F6, protection motivation; F7, purchase intention.

AVE, the scores range from 1 to 5.

All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level or better.

Table 4. Structural parameter estimates

Goodness-of-fit indexes: chi-square value (df) = 333.424 (179), chi-square/df = 1.86, GFI = 0.873, AGFI = 0.836, NFI = 0.879, CFI = 0.939, RMSEA = 0.064.

P < 0.05,

P < 0.01,

***

P < 0.001.