Consumer support for restrictive policies on unhealthy food and beverage delivery via drones.

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health Pub Date : 2024-10-04 DOI:10.1016/j.anzjph.2024.100193

Victoria Farrar, Leon Booth, Xiaoqi Feng, Jason Thompson, Branislava Godic, Rajith Vidanaarachchi, Simone Pettigrew

{"title":"Consumer support for restrictive policies on unhealthy food and beverage delivery via drones.","authors":"Victoria Farrar, Leon Booth, Xiaoqi Feng, Jason Thompson, Branislava Godic, Rajith Vidanaarachchi, Simone Pettigrew","doi":"10.1016/j.anzjph.2024.100193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Drone delivery services are set to increase unhealthy food and alcohol accessibility. The aim of this study was to evaluate public receptiveness to various options for regulating drone food and beverage deliveries and to identify sociodemographic differences in receptiveness.Methods: In total, 1079 adults were surveyed to assess total support and differences in support between population subgroups (e.g. age, sex, location, existing habits) for nine potential drone policies covering curfews, quotas, and product bans. Support was measured on five-point agreement scales, with mean individual policy support (M) and grand mean support calculated for all assessed policies (grand M).Results: There was moderate support for all assessed policies (grand M=3.5), ranging from M=3.2 (drone delivery quotas for shopping centres and dwellings) to M=3.7 (night curfews, airspace quotas). Factors associated with policy support were older age, metropolitan residence and using grocery delivery services.Conclusions: Public support exists for policies designed to restrict drone food and beverage deliveries.Implications for public health: Drone food and beverage delivery policies will likely be supported by the public and could assist in controlling the accessibility of such products for the benefit of population dietary health.","PeriodicalId":8620,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health","volume":" ","pages":"100193"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anzjph.2024.100193","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Drone delivery services are set to increase unhealthy food and alcohol accessibility. The aim of this study was to evaluate public receptiveness to various options for regulating drone food and beverage deliveries and to identify sociodemographic differences in receptiveness.

Methods: In total, 1079 adults were surveyed to assess total support and differences in support between population subgroups (e.g. age, sex, location, existing habits) for nine potential drone policies covering curfews, quotas, and product bans. Support was measured on five-point agreement scales, with mean individual policy support (M) and grand mean support calculated for all assessed policies (grand M).

Results: There was moderate support for all assessed policies (grand M=3.5), ranging from M=3.2 (drone delivery quotas for shopping centres and dwellings) to M=3.7 (night curfews, airspace quotas). Factors associated with policy support were older age, metropolitan residence and using grocery delivery services.

Conclusions: Public support exists for policies designed to restrict drone food and beverage deliveries.

Implications for public health: Drone food and beverage delivery policies will likely be supported by the public and could assist in controlling the accessibility of such products for the benefit of population dietary health.

查看原文本刊更多论文

消费者支持对通过无人机运送不健康食品和饮料的限制性政策。

目标：无人机送餐服务将增加不健康食品和酒类的可获得性。本研究旨在评估公众对各种无人机食品和饮料递送监管方案的接受程度，并确定接受程度的社会人口差异：共调查了 1079 名成年人，以评估不同人群（如年龄、性别、地点、现有习惯等）对九种潜在无人机政策的总支持率和支持率差异，这些政策包括宵禁、配额和产品禁令。支持度采用五点同意量表进行测量，并计算出单项政策支持度的平均值（M）和所有评估政策支持度的总平均值（grand M）：所有评估政策均获得中等程度的支持（总平均支持率=3.5），支持率从 M=3.2（购物中心和住宅的无人机送货配额）到 M=3.7（夜间宵禁、空域配额）不等。与政策支持相关的因素包括年龄较大、居住在大都市以及使用杂货配送服务：公众支持旨在限制无人机送餐的政策：无人机食品和饮料递送政策很可能会得到公众的支持，并有助于控制此类产品的可获得性，从而有利于人们的饮食健康。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

5.70%

发文量

121

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health (ANZJPH) is concerned with public health issues. The research reported includes formal epidemiological inquiries into the correlates and causes of diseases and health-related behaviour, analyses of public policy affecting health and disease, and detailed studies of the cultures and social structures within which health and illness exist. The Journal is multidisciplinary and aims to publish methodologically sound research from any of the academic disciplines that constitute public health.