Abstract
Global food consumption threatens climate stability and ecosystem resilience. Because hard regulation of food choice through taxes and bans is politically difficult, behavioral approaches provide a promising alternative, given that they influence food choice to a meaningful extent. We test the effect of framing of a menu on the choice of ordering climate-friendly dishes in a randomized controlled experiment. Rearranging the menu in favor of vegetarian food has a large and significant effect on the willingness to order a vegetarian dish instead of meat. Our results demonstrate that small, inexpensive interventions can be used toward decreasing carbon emissions from food consumption.
Generated Summary
This research paper presents a field experiment that investigates the impact of menu design on climate-friendly food choices in a restaurant setting. The study employs a randomized controlled trial to assess whether rearranging a menu to favor vegetarian options can significantly influence customers’ willingness to order vegetarian dishes instead of meat. The core methodology involves comparing the choices of customers presented with different menu layouts over a three-week period. The study aims to determine the effectiveness of a simple ‘nudge’ in promoting sustainable food choices, which aligns with the broader discussion on reducing carbon emissions from food consumption. The study’s scope is limited to a specific restaurant in Gothenburg, Sweden, and examines the short-term effects of the intervention.
Key Findings & Statistics
- The study was conducted at a restaurant in Gothenburg, Sweden, during May 2016, with data collected over a three-week intervention period.
- The experiment’s pre-intervention data, spanning four weeks, revealed an average of approximately 64 dishes sold per day when only the indoor area was open.
- During the intervention and post-intervention periods, the restaurant’s outdoor seating area was open, resulting in about 114 dishes sold per day.
- In the pre-intervention period, approximately 2.5% of the dishes sold were vegetarian, without a vegetarian option explicitly featured on the menu.
- The study found that the share of meat dishes sold dropped from 47% to 34% on average during the intervention period (weeks 1–3), representing a 38% reduction (p < 0.01).
- The vegetarian dishes sales increased from 3% to 9% on average during the intervention period, representing a 200% increase (p < 0.01).
- The share of meat dishes sold was 46% on average in the meat menu area, but less than half of that (21%) in the vegetarian menu area (p < 0.01).
- The share of fish dishes sold increased from 51% to 64% (p < 0.01) in the vegetarian menu area.
- During the intervention period, 15% of dishes sold in the vegetarian area were vegetarian, compared to only 3.5% in the meat menu area (p < 0.01).
- The last three columns in Figure 1 show that switching to the old menu layout, though still keeping the note that a vegetarian dish was available, immediately restored the pre-treatment sales shares.
- The study noted that a conservative estimate of the CO2 emissions from a 150g piece of Swedish beef is 4kg (Röös, 2014), while the emissions from a vegetarian cabbage dish is 0.03 kg.
- The study also states that the restaurant’s management deemed the intervention to have had positive effects on profits, but could not quantify the magnitude of this effect.
Other Important Findings
- The study found that rearranging the menu in favor of vegetarian food has a significant effect on the willingness to order a vegetarian dish instead of meat.
- The intervention involved two different menus: one with meat and fish options and a note about a vegetarian option available on request (used in the back area of the restaurant) and another that listed vegetarian and fish dishes, with a note that meat was available on request.
- The study determined that simply providing information about the availability of a vegetarian dish can increase the sales of vegetarian dishes.
- The study highlights that merely providing information on the availability of a vegetarian dish was not the cause of the treatment effect, but rather the menu design itself.
- The study reveals that there was a decrease in the treatment effect over time, with the share of vegetarian dishes decreasing in the treated area.
- The study suggests that the nudge might work best in a setting with a lower share of regular customers, so that more people experience the nudge as new.
- The study found that around two out of ten customers who would have chosen meat switched to either vegetarian or fish dishes.
- The study noted that the share of vegetarian dishes sold remained low (between 2% and 4%) during the whole intervention in the control area.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study’s focus on a single restaurant limits the generalizability of the findings.
- The study acknowledges potential spillover effects between different areas of the restaurant, which could bias the treatment effect.
- Peer effects, where customers might influence each other’s choices, were not accounted for, and the study could not identify such effects.
- The study notes that the intervention had no lasting effects, which is not surprising given the high share of one-time customers.
- The study acknowledges that the opening of the outdoor seating area during the experiment may have changed the customer composition, potentially influencing the treatment effect.
- The study indicates that the staff’s implementation of the experimental design may have varied over time.
- The study could not rule out that customers may have compensated for their vegetarian choices by eating more meat later.
- The study does not have any information about the behavior of regulars who visited the restaurant more than once during the experiment.
Conclusion
The study successfully demonstrates that a straightforward rearrangement of a restaurant menu can significantly impact the choices of customers, leading to a reduction in meat consumption. The findings reveal that by making meat options less prominent, the sales of vegetarian and fish dishes can increase without any apparent negative effects. This approach provides an accessible and potentially profitable alternative to imposing restrictions or raising prices. A primary insight from the research is that even in settings with relatively low initial demand for vegetarian options, menu design can be an effective tool. The authors stress that restaurants do not need to ban meat to shift customer preferences toward more sustainable choices. It also underscores the need for further research on nudging in the long term to refine recommendations. The authors point out the observed decrease in the treatment effect throughout the intervention and show the need for more research on the impact of nudges over time to formulate recommendations on long-term strategies. The study’s results encourage further exploration of strategies to reduce meat consumption by decreasing meat dishes sold, rather than banning them. Ultimately, the research supports the implementation of similar approaches, specifically focusing on how public and private entities can partner with restaurants to develop and evaluate tailored strategies. The authors also discuss the need for more research to understand the long-term effects of these kinds of interventions and their potential impact on climate change. The study points to the idea of nudging as a practical strategy for promoting sustainable food choices. This also suggests that this type of intervention can be profitable for the restaurants involved, especially when compared with options such as banning meat or limiting choices, which could deter customers. The key message is that small changes in how food is presented can lead to meaningful shifts in behavior, which can have a positive impact on both the environment and the financial performance of restaurants. Furthermore, the study supports the idea of nudging as a fast, easy, and profitable way to reduce meat consumption in restaurants without affecting the restaurant’s profit.