Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Land-Use Carbon Efficiency on Ecological Resilience—The Moderating Role of Heterogeneous Environmental Regulations
Previous Article in Journal
Examining Teachers’ Computational Thinking Skills, Collaborative Learning, and Creativity Within the Framework of Sustainable Education
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 22
10.3390/su16229840
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

EU Citizens’ Perception of Risks Posed to the Sustainability of EU Food Security

by
Fernando Mata
*,
Diana Barros
,
Ricardo Pereira-Pinto
and
Preciosa Pires
CISAS—Centre for Research and Development in Agrifood Systems and Sustainability, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(22), 9840; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229840
Submission received: 1 September 2024 / Revised: 5 November 2024 / Accepted: 7 November 2024 / Published: 12 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Security, Food Recovery, Food Quality, and Food Safety)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Food security is a core global sustainability challenge and priority of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Events like COVID-19, extreme weather, and global conflicts have significantly impacted food prices, as evidenced by the FAO food price index rising from 95.1 in 2019 to 143.7 in 2022, heightening EU food security concerns. The European Commission responded with a food supply contingency plan. According to Eurobarometer data, our study shows that EU citizens’ food security concerns vary by demographic, political, and socioeconomic factors. While men prioritize external factors like climate change, women express greater concern for local social issues, including small farm viability. Age influences the concern focus, with younger people worried about agricultural stagnation, and older individuals recalling past economic crises. Education and income also play roles, with educated and wealthier citizens worried about environmental risks, and less educated, poorer individuals more concerned about socioeconomic impacts. Political leanings and urban/rural divides shape concerns, as well as EU policy dissatisfaction, which links to worries over economic vulnerability and nationalism. Effective EU food security policies require understanding complex factors, stakeholder collaboration, and tailored strategies for diverse needs. Our findings suggest the need for EU policies to incorporate demographic nuances, ensuring food security sustainability across socioeconomic and political spectrums.

1. Introduction

1.1. Food Security Within the EU

Food security is one of the main humanitarian concerns and was designated as part of the second of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations to be achieved by 2030: “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture” [1]. Achieving food security through sustainable practices is essential for building long-term resilience in food systems, ensuring that communities can withstand environmental, economic, and social challenges while providing reliable access to nutritious food for future generations [2].
The Global Food Security Index (GFSI) was implemented by Economist Impact and is calculated based on four items: affordability, availability, quality and safety, and sustainability and adaptation. It has annual editions and, in 2022, its 11th edition was published [3]. Out of the top ten countries in the world with the highest score, six are within the EU, scoring between 83.7 and 78.7 out of 100 (Finland, Ireland, Norway, France, Netherlands, Sweden, and Portugal). The EU countries with the lower scores are Romania (45th in the world and scoring 68.8), Slovakia (36th in the world and scoring 71.1), and Hungary (34th in the world and scoring 71.4). Despite an apparent abundance of food in the EU, the Global Hunger Index (GHI) indicates some situations of chronic child undernutrition (Romania 8.7%, Slovakia 8.6%, Bulgaria 6.5%, Hungary 6.4%) [4].
The contrast between the highest- and lowest-scoring EU countries in the GFSI illustrates significant disparities in food security, highlighting the sustainability challenges faced. Countries like Finland, Ireland, and the Netherlands lead globally, with scores between 83.7 and 78.7, reflecting robust food security systems that include high agricultural sustainability, strong infrastructure, and effective food safety measures. Conversely, lower-ranking EU countries (Romania, Slovakia, and Hungary) have ongoing vulnerabilities. These disparities indicate that sustainable food policies must address not only national food security but also localized factors that affect nutrition and access to food.
Chronic undernutrition in the EU is linked to broader sustainability challenges in rural areas, such as limited access to sustainable agricultural practices, inadequate infrastructure, and economic disparities that impede the consistent availability and distribution of nutritious food [5].
Since 2019, the weaknesses of the global food system have been made evident. The COVID-19 pandemic, extreme weather events, and conflicts, particularly that between Russia and Ukraine, have led the FAO food price index (FPI) to soar above the 140 threshold [6]. The FPI was 95.1 in 2019 and reached 143.7 in 2022, showing an increase of 66.6%. These shocks have brought down food security, highlighting an urgent need for resilient and sustainable food systems
In response to the recent food security crisis, the European Commission (EC) in 2021 drew up a contingency plan for food supply and food security [7], leading to the creation of the European Food Security Crisis Preparedness and Response Mechanism (EFSCM). Within the EFSCM framework, the EC has planned to produce a qualitative assessment of food supply and food security in the EU twice a year, the first of which was recently published [8]. In the document, the EC reports the state of food security within the EU and the EU’s self-sufficiency in food production. In terms of food security, a growing concern is reported about extreme weather events’ impact on food security, namely, depending on the region, floods, droughts, rain surplus, rain deficit, and heat waves. Price volatility has unfolded since Russia invaded Ukraine, and together with the expected impacts of climate change, these create uncertainty in terms of affordability [9]. Concerning self-sufficiency, the EU has a surplus of animal products, a surplus of soft wheat but a deficit in maize, and a deficit in oilseeds and vegetable oils, despite a surplus in olive oil; concerning vegetables and fruits, there is a deficit in processed oranges [8].

1.2. Theoretical Framework

Food security, a complex and multifaceted issue, is influenced by various demographic factors, including gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, political ideology, and perceptions of governance. Demographic differences shape perceptions of food security across the EU, as these factors influence concerns about access to affordable, nutritious food, which in turn affects support for sustainable policies that aim to create resilient, equitable food systems [10]. Understanding these influences is crucial for developing effective policies within the European Union (EU), where diverse populations face different food security challenges.
Gender differences in risk perception have been extensively studied, with research suggesting that these differences are rooted in both biological and social–environmental factors. Men are often characterized by traits such as aggressiveness and risk-taking, while women tend to exhibit higher levels of nurturing and social orientation, influencing their respective concerns [11,12]. These different priorities highlight the importance of incorporating diverse perspectives into sustainable food policies, particularly those aimed at enhancing the resilience of smallholdings and addressing the impacts of climate change [13].
Age also significantly affects how individuals perceive food security risks. According to the Socioemotional Selectivity Theory, as people age and perceive their remaining time as limited, they tend to prioritize emotionally meaningful goals over long-term planning [14]. This shift in focus may lead older individuals to emphasize immediate community needs and food access, potentially influencing sustainable food practices that prioritize local, short-term solutions rather than broader, long-term environmental priorities, which could be perceived as less relevant to their immediate concerns. As this demonstrates, aging affects individuals’ goals and priorities, which shift towards emotionally meaningful objectives, which can influence decision-making related to food security and sustainability practices [14].
Education is a key determinant of how people perceive food security risks. Those with higher education levels are generally more aware of global and environmental issues, such as climate change and resource depletion. In contrast, the less educated may focus on immediate threats like poverty and health, which directly impact their daily lives [15].
Political ideology also influences food security perceptions, with some studies pointing to differences between left- and right-wing individuals. Left-wing individuals are typically more concerned with environmental issues and resource scarcity, reflecting their broader commitments to social justice and environmental sustainability [16]. These ideological perspectives shape how different groups perceive and prioritize risks, with left-leaning citizens more likely to be concerned about the long-term implications of climate change and resource depletion [13]. This inclination often translates into greater support for sustainable agricultural practices, including ecological reforms that prioritize environmental health and resource conservation, thereby fostering resilience in food systems [17]. Nevertheless, the contextualization of studies needs careful consideration before creating stereotypes.
Socioeconomic status is another critical factor. Wealthier individuals tend to focus on global risks like climate change, while poorer individuals are more concerned with immediate threats like poverty and health. This divergence highlights the importance of policies that address both systemic and immediate drivers of food insecurity, particularly for vulnerable populations [18].
Perceptions of governance also plays a crucial role in shaping food security concerns. Individuals with a positive view of the EU’s governance are more likely to trust in its ability to manage external threats like climate change and health issues. In contrast, those with negative perceptions often focus on economic and agricultural vulnerabilities, reflecting a lack of confidence in governance structures to protect against these risks. This highlights the importance of building trust in governance to address diverse food security concerns [19].
In the most recent Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, the EC devised a Farm to Fork and a Biodiversity strategy with the adoption of production policies that may lead to reductions in overall agricultural output of 7 to 12%, placing further pressure on food prices [20]. However, as recent demonstrations by farmers across Europe have proven, there is disagreement with some EU agricultural policies. Farmers argue that farming is overregulated in Europe and that countries elsewhere take unfair advantage of the fact they do not have to comply. As a result, potential deals with Mercosur, Australia and others have been halted. Furthermore, in Ukraine, duty-free access to Europe beyond 2025 is in doubt [21]. All these aspects may have an impact on food supply and prices in Europe.

1.3. Research Objectives

In 2023, the EC conducted a survey in the EU to assess the European citizens’ position concerning the CAP. One question in this survey related to their food security perception. This study used the answers to that question and relate those to demographic and socioeconomic variables to investigate Europeans’ perceptions of food security, namely, the most important risks posed to food security within the EU.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Source and Variables

Data were accessed in GESIS, The Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences Eurobarometer web page, and were retrieved from the European Eurobarometer 97.1 survey [22]. This survey was conducted between 21 February and 22 March in 2022, producing n = 26,502 interviews with European citizens from all 27 EU countries. Full methodological aspects of the survey may be found in the GESIS Eurobarometer repository [22].
In this study, we used certain variables of the Eurobarometer survey. As a dependent variable, we used the answers to question Q21—‘What do you think are the most important risks to food security in the EU?’ To answer the question, the interviewees were allowed a maximum of three choices from the following list:
  • Diminishing number of farm holdings in the EU;
  • Stagnating EU agricultural production and increasing dependency on imports;
  • Extreme weather events (severe droughts, floods, etc.) and climate change;
  • Natural resource scarcity or degradation (water, soil, fish stock, biodiversity, etc.);
  • Animal health events, such as bird flu, or plant health events, such as pest attacks;
  • Human health events, such as COVID-19;
  • Economic downturns and poverty;
  • Geopolitical events, e.g., large-scale trade disputes;
  • Technological events, such as cyber threats.
As independent variables, ‘Gender’ (taken from question D10) was used as a factor, and as covariates, we used the following: ‘Age’ (taken from question D5), ‘Age Education’ (taken from question D8), ‘Political Position’ (taken from question D1), ‘Social Class’ (taken from question D63), ‘Economic Status’ (taken from question D60), ‘EU Direction’ (taken from question D73-2), ‘EU Democracy’ (taken from question D18-b), ‘EU Image’ (taken from question D78), ‘EU Future’ (taken from question D17), and ‘Community Size’ (taken from question D25). Full details of the questions are given in Appendix A.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

The dependent variables were dichotomic (being chosen or not). As such, each dependent variable was fit with multivariable logistic regressions using the demographic, political, and socioeconomic independent variables. The independent variables that entered the models were selected with a backward stepwise procedure using the Wald chi-square to test its significance. The omnibus test used for the significance of the models was the likelihood ratio chi-square test. The odds ratios of the parameters in the models were also calculated. The level of significance was set for all the tests as p < 0.05.
The models were adjusted via the polytomous universal model (PLUM) routine of the statistical package SPSS® Statistics (IBM Corp.®, Armonk, NY, USA, Version: 29.0.0.0 (241)).

3. Results

The EU surveyed citizens’ responses to the main question ‘What do you think are the most important risks to food security in the EU?’, and the answers are presented in Figure 1.
The choice ‘Stagnating EU agricultural production and increasing dependency on imports’ received the most interest, followed by ‘Natural resource scarcity or degradation (water, soil, fish stock, biodiversity, etc.)’. All nine options offered had a noteworthy number of picks, and therefore, it can be assumed that all the options are very relevant for EU citizens. The options ‘Other’ and ‘Don’t know’ had marginal numbers of picks and were, therefore, excluded from further analysis.
The parameterization of the fitted models is reported in Table 1. The odds ratios for each of the parameters in the models are given in Table 2.

3.1. Model 1—Diminishing Number of Farm Holdings in the EU

The significant variables in this model are ‘Gender’, ‘Age Education’, ‘Social Class’, ‘Economic Status’, ‘EU Future’, and ‘EU Image’. The probability of this option being chosen by an EU citizen tends to decrease if the citizen is a man, with an 8.6% lower likelihood compared to women. It also tends to decrease as the education level increases, with a 1% reduction for each additional year of full-time education completed. Similarly, the probability decreases as social class rises, showing a 3.3% reduction per point increase on the scale, and as economic status becomes wealthier, leading to a 13.2% reduction per point increase on the scale. Additionally, individuals who are more pessimistic about the future of the EU are 10.7% less likely to choose this option per point increase on the pessimism scale. However, the probability tends to increase for individuals who have a more negative image of the EU, with an 8.5% increase per point increase on the scale.

3.2. Model 2—Stagnating EU Agricultural Production and Increasing Dependency on Imports

In Model 2, which examines stagnating EU agricultural production and increasing dependency on imports, the significant variables are ‘Gender’, ‘Age’, ‘Community Size’, ‘Social Class’, ‘EU Direction’, and ‘EU Image’. The probability of this option being chosen by an EU citizen tends to decrease if the citizen is a man, with a 12.9% lower likelihood compared to women. It also decreases with the individual’s age, showing a 0.7% reduction per additional year of age. The likelihood decreases further as community size increases, with a 4.6% reduction per point increase on the scale, and as social class rises, leading to a 15.9% reduction per point increase on the scale. If the individual believes that the EU is moving in the right direction, the probability decreases by 4.1% per point increase on the scale. Conversely, the likelihood increases for individuals who have a more negative image of the EU, with a 3.8% increase per point increase on the scale.

3.3. Model 3—Extreme Weather Events (Severe Droughts, Floods, Etc.) and Climate Change

In Model 3, which focuses on extreme weather events and climate change, the significant variables are ‘Gender’, ‘Age’, ‘Age Education’, ‘Political Position’, ‘Community Size’, ‘Social Class’, ‘Economic Status’, ‘EU Direction’, and ‘EU Image’. The probability of this option being chosen by an EU citizen tends to increase if the citizen is a man, with a 10.9% higher likelihood compared to women. It also tends to increase with age, by 0.9% per year, and as the education level rises, with a 0.9% increase for each additional year of full-time education completed. However, the probability tends to decrease as the individual’s political positioning shifts to the right, by 2.2% per point on the scale. It also decreases as the community size increases, by 5.3% per point as one moves from rural to a town, and another 5.3% from a town to a city. The probability further decreases as social class increases, by 3.2% per point, but tends to increase as economic status improves, by 19.8% per point on the scale. Additionally, it decreases by 6.3% per point if the individual believes the EU is moving in the right direction and by 4.8% per point if they have a negative image of the EU.

3.4. Model 4—Natural Resource Scarcity or Degradation (Water, Soil, Fish Stock, Biodiversity, Etc.)

Model 4 addresses natural resource scarcity or degradation. The significant variables here are ‘Age Education’, ‘Political Position’, ‘Community Size’, ‘Economic Status’, and ‘EU Direction’. The probability of this option being chosen by an EU citizen increases with higher education levels, by 0.8% for each additional year of full-time education. However, it tends to decrease as the individual’s political position shifts to the right, by 5.6% per point on the scale, and as the community size increases, by 3.9% per point from rural to a town and another 3.9% from a town to a city. The probability tends to increase with a wealthier economic status, by 9.1% per point, but decreases by 4.1% per point if the individual believes the EU is moving in the right direction.

3.5. Model 5—Animal Health Events, Such as Bird Flu, or Plant Health Events, Such as Pest Attacks

In Model 5, which focuses on animal health events like bird flu or plant health events such as pest attacks, the significant variables are ‘Gender’, ‘Age Education’, ‘Community Size’, ‘EU Democracy’, ‘EU Direction’, and ‘EU Image’. The probability of this option being chosen by an EU citizen tends to increase if the citizen is a man, with an 11.5% higher likelihood compared to women. It decreases as education levels rise, by 1.5% for each additional year of full-time education completed, and as community size increases, by 11.2% per point as one moves from rural to a town and another 11.2% from a town to a city. The probability also tends to increase by 5.3% per point as satisfaction with EU democracy grows. However, it decreases by 6.1% per point if the individual believes the EU is moving in the right direction and by 11% per point if they have a negative image of the EU.

3.6. Model 6—Human Health Events, Such as COVID-19

Model 6 examines human health events such as COVID-19. The significant variables in this model are ‘Gender’, ‘Age’, ‘Age Education’, ‘Community Size’, ‘Social Class’, ‘Economic Status’, ‘EU Democracy’, ‘EU Direction’, and ‘EU Future’. The probability of this option being chosen by an EU citizen tends to increase if the citizen is a man, by 17.4% compared to women. It decreases with age, by 0.4% per year, and as education levels rise, by 2.9% for each additional year of full-time education. The probability increases by 6% per point as community size grows from rural to ta own and another 6% from a town to a city. However, it decreases as social class increases, by 7.9% per point, and as economic status improves, by 17.5% per point on the scale. Additionally, the probability decreases by 8.8% per point as satisfaction with EU democracy increases, but it tends to increase by 5.9% per point if the individual believes the EU is moving in the right direction. It also decreases by 7.9% per point if the individual is more pessimistic about the future of the EU.

3.7. Model 7—Economic Downturns and Poverty

Model 7 focuses on economic downturns and poverty. The significant variables are ‘Age’, ‘Age Education’, ‘Community Size’, ‘Social Class’, ‘Economic Status’, ‘EU Direction’, and ‘EU Future’. The probability of this option being chosen by an EU citizen decreases with age, by 0.2% per year, and as education levels rise, by 1.1% for each additional year of full-time education completed. It increases by 4.7% per point as community size grows from rural to a town and another 4.7% from a town to a city. The probability decreases by 10.2% per point as social class increases and by 14.2% per point as economic status improves. However, it tends to increase by 5.1% per point if the individual believes the EU is moving in the right direction and by 6.3% per point if they are more pessimistic about the future of the EU.

3.8. Model 8—Geopolitical Events, e.g., Large-Scale Trade Disputes

In Model 8, which examines geopolitical events such as large-scale trade disputes, the significant variables are ‘Gender’, ‘Age’, ‘Age Education’, ‘Political Position’, ‘Community Size’, ‘Social Class’, ‘Economic Status’, ‘EU Future’, and ‘EU Image’. The probability of this option being chosen by an EU citizen tends to decrease if the citizen is a man, with a 29% lower likelihood compared to women. It decreases with age, by 0.8% per year, but increases as education levels rise, by 1.3% for each additional year of full-time education completed. The probability tends to decrease by 2.2% per point as the individual’s political position shifts to the right and by 24.6% per point as community size increases from rural to a town and another 24.6% from a town to a city. It tends to increase by 11.7% per point as social class rises but decreases by 11.2% per point as economic status improves. Additionally, the probability decreases by 6.7% per point when the individual is more pessimistic about the EU Future and by 7.8% per point if the individual has a more negative image of the EU.

3.9. Model 9—Technological Events, Such as Cyber Threats

Model 9 addresses technological events such as cyber threats. The significant variables in this model are ‘Age’, ‘Age Education’, ‘Community Size’, ‘Social Class’, ‘Economic Status’, and ‘EU Future’. The probability of this option being chosen by an EU citizen decreases with age, by 0.7% per year, and as education levels rise, by 3.5% for each additional year of full-time education completed. The probability also decreases as community size increases, by 9.4% per point as one moves from rural to a town and another 9.4% from a town to a city. It also increases as social class rises, by 8.6% per point, and as economic status improves, by 29.8% per point on the scale. Additionally, the probability decreases by 23.4% per point if the individual is more pessimistic about the future of the EU.

4. Discussion

4.1. Independent Variables’ Effects

4.1.1. Gender Effects

While evaluating risks posed to food security, EU men have a higher probability than EU women of thinking about extreme weather events and climate change, as well as human and animal health events. Meanwhile, women have a higher probability of thinking about the diminishing number of farm holdings and the stagnating EU agricultural production with the loss of self-sufficiency, and the eventual negative influence of geopolitical events and disputes.
The human gender stereotypes indicate that men and women have different personality traits (e.g., [23]). Psychologists explain these differences based on biological and social–environmental theories (e.g., [24]). Consequently, men have developed a personality showing higher levels of aggressiveness, risk-taking, and status-seeking, while women have developed higher levels of nurturance, tendermindedness, and people-orientated social skills [25]. Women are more inclined toward sustainable food practices, enhancing the resilience of smallholdings and addressing the impacts of climate change [13]. These differences may explain the results obtained in this study; while women tend to worry more about social aspects such as the survival of small farm holdings, or geopolitical events such as wars and/or disputes affecting communities, men tend to worry more about external consequences affecting productivity and the economy, such as disease and climate. From a different perspective, women attach a greater importance to household food administration, and particularly in Europe, it has been reported that women experience food insecurity more frequently than men [18], which again may explain the different social perspectives. Not only in Europe but also in other parts of the world where the gender gap is more pronounced, in terms of access to education and employment, women tend to be the primary group to experience food insecurity [26,27].

4.1.2. Age Effects

Older EU citizens have a higher probability of choosing extreme weather events and climate change as risks posed to food security. In contrast, younger individuals have a higher probability of choosing stagnating EU agricultural production and loss of self-sufficiency, human health, and geopolitical events as the main risks posed to EU food security.
Research in psychology has shown that older adults are more motivated about and capable of engaging in emotion-regulated behaviors when compared to young adults [28], explained by the socioemotional selectivity theory that conjectures that as one’s life is perceived to be shorter, individuals tend to prioritize emotion regulation in comparison to instrumental achievement objectives [29]. Furthermore, older individuals tend to respond in a way informed by past emotional experiences, as they have a higher probability of having a relevant memory or having experienced this directly in the past; in the case of the present study, this may be associated with natural catastrophic events.
A study in the USA [30] has also found that elderly individuals, especially those retired and with a low income, are at a higher risk of food insecurity. Expenses with care and medicine are in some cases prioritized, creating grounds for malnutrition, food insecurity, and even hunger. A study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA confirmed this older-age insecurity, based mainly on a decrease in food quality [31]. The same effect was found in Canada [32] and in European countries such as Switzerland [33], the UK, the Netherlands, Germany [34], and Portugal [35].

4.1.3. Education Effects

More educated individuals have a higher probability of picking extreme weather events and climate change, natural resource scarcity or degradation, and geopolitical events as the main concerns in terms of EU food safety, while the less educated pick a diminishing number of farm holdings, human and animal health events, economic downturns and poverty, and technological events as their main concerns in terms of EU food safety.
Grimaccia and Naccarato [18], while studying the gender perspective on food insecurity in Europe, have reported that particularly concerning women, the less educated are more vulnerable to food insecurity. The correlation between food security and income in Europe has previously been reported [36,37] and is common sense, as it is common knowledge that individuals with higher levels of education obtain higher levels of income, and therefore, food security. It is, therefore, understandable that less-educated individuals have as their main concerns in terms of EU food safety social aspects such as smallholding farms’ survival, disease, and poverty. Technology may enter the equation as less educated individuals perceive technological advancements as innovations that put jobs at risk [38,39].

4.1.4. Political Positioning Effects

Regarding the political positioning of EU citizens, individuals leaning more to the left have a higher probability of perceiving extreme weather events, natural resource scarcity or degradation, and geopolitical events and disputes as the main possible sources of food insecurity in the EU.
Traditionally, left-wing individuals used to have a higher probability of belonging to the working class and therefore having lower levels of income, which as previously discussed, relates to a higher level of food insecurity. It has also been acknowledged that left-wing partisans present a higher level of concern for the environment (e.g., [40,41,42]), which relates to the concerns demonstrated in this study.

4.1.5. Community Size Effects

EU citizens living in larger communities (cities) have a higher probability of choosing human health events, economic downturns, and poverty as their main concerns with food security in the EU. In contrast, small (rural) communities have a higher probability of choosing the other aspects studied, except struggling smallholding farms, which is not significant. This last result is probably the most unexpected, as the rural world was expected to be most sensitive to the problems of small farm holdings. It is, however, true that in rural areas, natural aspects such as extreme weather events, climate change, and depletion of natural resources are intensively recognized as threats. Citizens from larger communities are more concerned with economic downturns and poverty as these types of impacts leave them without purchasing power. On the other hand, rural areas are less dependent on income to buy food as these can more easily produce food or find it locally (e.g., [43]).

4.1.6. Social Class Effects

Higher classes of society tend to choose geopolitical events. In contrast, lower classes tend to choose a diminishing number of farm holdings, loss of food self-sufficiency within the EU, extreme weather events, human health issues, economic downturns and poverty, and technological events. The diminishing number of smallholdings, and economic downturns and poverty, were equally chosen by the poorer and the lower classes of society, in accordance with a report of the WHO [44].

4.1.7. Economic Status Effects

Wealthier individuals tended to identify extreme weather events and natural resource scarcity as the main drivers of eventual food insecurity in Europe. In contrast, poorer individuals tended to identify the diminishing number of farm holdings, human health events, economic downturns and poverty, geopolitical events, and technological events.
Poverty was identified by the World Health Organization of the United Nations [28] as the main determinant of food insecurity in the world. This observation was made for both the developing and the developed countries in the EU. The most vulnerable groups of citizens include the working class, the landless peasants, minorities, women, children, older adults, and people with disabilities.

4.1.8. Effect of the Degree of Satisfaction with the EU Democracy

Individuals more satisfied with EU democracy tended to identify human health events as their main concern for food safety in Europe. In contrast, those less satisfied tended to identify geopolitical events.
The Food Sovereignty Movement took its first steps in Belgium in 1996 and rapidly spread across Europe and the rest of the world, including international forums such as the World Bank and the United Nations. By 2007, the initial joint declaration of Nyéléni in Mali was adopted by 80 countries, and it was later reviewed by European countries in 2011. This process evolved to the point of incorporation in some national constitutions. The movement advocates for the right of those who produce, distribute, and consume food locally produced to be given access to and control of resources and policies that rule the food chain [29]. Scholars have identified this movement as the democratization of the food chain, where a voice is given to key actors normally disregarded, such as pastoralists, Indigenous peoples, fishers, agricultural workers, or small-scale farmers [45]. We assert that the results of this study may be explained by the statement that if democracy works, people’s most basic needs are better guaranteed, whereby only disease can threaten them. On the other hand, geopolitical confrontation, which is normally promoted by a lack of democracy at least in one of the counterparts, may create insecurity, this being the reason for the choice of geopolitical events as a concern for food safety in Europe among those less optimistic about EU democracy.

4.1.9. Effects of the Perception of the Direction the EU Is Moving in

Individuals thinking the EU is moving in the right direction tend to choose human health events, economic downturns, and poverty as their main concerns regarding food security in Europe, while individuals thinking the EU is moving in the wrong direction tend to choose lack of self-sufficiency, extreme weather events, natural resource scarcity, and animal and plant health events.
Food imports compete with the local economy, often leading to a lack of competitiveness of local producers, introducing a sense of lack of self-sufficiency [46,47]. The growth of nationalistic discourse in Europe, which proclaim that the EU and its external policies [48,49] are moving in the wrong direction, may have contributed to these results.

4.1.10. Effects of Optimism About the Future of the EU

It has been acknowledged that, due to the war in Ukraine, Europe may be shifting towards a war economy where social standards and working classes tend to be less important [34]. This may justify why individuals more pessimistic about the future of the EU tend to choose, as their main causes of concern for food security in Europe, the economic downturns and poverty. On the other hand, individuals more optimistic tend to choose the diminishing number of farm holdings in the EU, human health, and technological events. It is reasonable to argue that if an EU citizen is not optimistic about the future of the EU, the reason may be associated with the prediction of economic struggle and consequently poverty.

4.1.11. Effects of the Image Conveyed by the EU

Individuals who think the EU conveys a negative image tend to choose the diminishing number of farm holdings, loss of self-sufficiency, economic downturns and poverty, and geopolitical events as their main concerns with European food safety. Individuals thinking the EU conveys a positive image tend to choose extreme weather and human and animal health events. Individuals perceiving a negative image are more exposed to food security factors dependent on human action, such as policies, the economy, and geopolitical events. Those perceiving a positive image of the EU are less exposed to the factors mentioned earlier and tend to identify factors out of human control, such as weather extremes and disease, as the threats to food security in Europe.

4.2. Policy and Practical Implications of the Findings

Understanding the social interactive dynamics is crucial for developing effective interventions and policies addressing the different dimensions of food insecurity [50].
The EU needs gender- and age-sensitive policies and interventions to address the different concerns of men and women, older and younger, ensuring inclusive approaches to addressing food security issues. The engagement of the diversity of demographic groups in the policy-making process will ensure that food security policies reflect the concerns and needs of all citizens. The need to foster gender inclusion in food systems to ensure food security has been reported by several authors (e.g., [50,51]). Recommendations have been drawn up for the EU’s need to pay attention to inequalities on farms, to the trade-offs between gender equality and the goals of capitalism, to the recognition of differences in a gendered approach to farming, and to the need to create specific spaces for women [51]. Also, food insecurity in women in Europe has been reported, and women are found to be more vulnerable when they possess lower levels of education and are poorer, particularly in Eastern Europe [18].
Velardo et al. [52] found that in Britain, children’s responses to food insecurity are significantly shaped by social pressures, with the children’s decision-making processes being influenced by their desire to maintain their social standing. This study highlights the need to understand the social context in which food insecurity occurs and its impact on children’s lives. Furthermore, these dynamics can inform sustainable food policies that not only address immediate food needs but also promote long-term resilience within communities.
Concerning education, the EU should enhance educational actions to raise awareness about food security issues, especially among less educated individuals, focusing on technological advancements and their benefits for sustainable agricultural practices. Concerning wealth distribution, support mechanisms should continue to be implemented for poorer individuals and lower social classes, who are more vulnerable to a wider range of food security issues. Social safety nets must be strengthened for vulnerable populations, including the working class, elderly, and low-income groups, to allow the mitigation of the impacts that economic downturns and poverty may have on food security [39]. The war in Ukraine has been disrupting the world food supplies, and food prices have increased to their highest, which creates problems of affordability in poorer countries around the world, but also in Europe [36,53].
The EU must foster democratic participation and satisfaction with the EU to build trust and address the concerns of those less satisfied with the current state of democracy. A positive EU narrative must also be promoted, considering the EU’s role in managing food security, emphasizing the importance of tackling both human-controlled and natural threats. The EU must pay attention to smallholdings and provide them with targeted support, especially in rural areas (smaller communities), to enhance local food production, self-sufficiency, and food security. The current CAP does not respond to the needs of smallholdings; however, smallholding subsistence is paramount for a robust food European security system [54]. Smallholdings, leisure farming, urban farming, and other low-scale forms of agriculture may play a key role in enhancing farmers’ generation and renewal and fostering sustainable practices that can adapt to changing environmental conditions [55].

5. Conclusions

The analysis presented reveals a complex interplay of gender, age, education, wealth, social class, and political perspectives shaping European citizens’ concerns about food security. This multidimensional understanding is crucial for EU institutions as they strategize on how to enhance food security across diverse demographic segments.
The EU should adopt gender-sensitive and age-inclusive policies. Women’s concerns about social aspects like the survival of small farm holdings and geopolitical events, as well as older adults’ focus on economic downturns and poverty, highlight the need for tailored approaches that resonate with these groups. Policies that ensure women’s participation in food systems and address their vulnerabilities, particularly in Eastern Europe, are essential. There is a clear correlation between education levels, wealth, and perceptions of food security threats. The EU must prioritize educational initiatives that raise awareness about food security, particularly targeting less-educated populations. Furthermore, support mechanisms for poorer individuals and lower social classes should be enhanced to mitigate their vulnerability to a broad range of food security challenges, including economic downturns and technological changes. Political orientation and community size also influence perceptions, with left-leaning individuals and those in larger communities showing distinct concerns. Small-scale farming is critical for food security, especially in rural areas. The EU must revise the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to better support smallholdings, leisure farming, and urban agriculture, which are vital for local food production, self-sufficiency, and fostering new generations of farmers [46]. The new CAP policies should also be directed to sustainability, including climate change mitigation using policies limiting fossil energy sources [56].
Understanding these complex factors is crucial for creating effective policies to address various EU food security issues. Policymakers can enhance interventions for EU citizens’ diverse needs by considering the factors highlighted in the present study. Understanding these factors allows for tailored strategies addressing immediate food security threats and underlying structural issues. Collaboration among stakeholders, including government and intergovernmental agencies and NGOs, is vital for implementing sustainable solutions. EU institutions must develop nuanced, inclusive, and targeted policies that address the diverse concerns of the EU’s citizens, ensuring food security for all. By understanding and addressing these varied concerns, EU institutions can better tailor policies that strengthen resilience, promote equitable resource use, and foster long-term sustainability.
To achieve this, a stronger commitment to integrated and sustainable food security policies is essential, as they must not only tackle the immediate challenges of food access but also address the socioeconomic disparities that hinder equitable food distribution across the EU.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.M.; methodology, F.M.; formal analysis, F.M.; investigation, F.M., R.P.-P., D.B. and P.P.; writing—original draft preparation, F.M., R.P.-P., D.B. and P.P.; writing—review and editing, F.M., R.P.-P., D.B. and P.P.; supervision, F.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to the authors used third-party open-access data (Creative Commons 4.0) from the Eurobarometer as stated in the methodology.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are publicly available at https://doi.org/10.4232/1.14101. Accessed on 11 January 2024.

Acknowledgments

To acknowledge the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, Portugal) for its financial support via CISAS UIDB/05937/2020 and UIDP/05937/2020.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Questions as they are shown in the questionnaire
Sustainability 16 09840 i001aSustainability 16 09840 i001bSustainability 16 09840 i001cSustainability 16 09840 i001d

References

  1. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  2. Tendall, D.M.; Joerin, J.; Kopainsky, B.; Edwards, P.; Shreck, A.; Le, Q.B.; Kruetli, P.; Grant, M.; Six, J. Food System Resilience: Defining the Concept. Glob. Food Sec. 2015, 6, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Harrington, K.; Karim, S.; Kothari, A.; Labalme, E.; Rathod, B.R.; Sharma, A.; Singh, P. Global Food Security Index 2022; London, UK, 2022. Available online: https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/project/food-security-index/reports/Economist_Impact_GFSI_2022_Global_Report_Sep_2022.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2024).
  4. Concern; Welthungerhilfe Global Hunger Index. Available online: https://www.globalhungerindex.org/ (accessed on 25 November 2023).
  5. Blay-Palmer, A.; Sonnino, R.; Custot, J. A Food Politics of the Possible? Growing Sustainable Food Systems through Networks of Knowledge. Agric. Human. Values 2016, 33, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. FAO FAO Food Price Index. Available online: https://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/fao-food-price-index/en (accessed on 25 November 2023).
  7. European Commission. Contingency Plan for Ensuring Food Supply and Food Security in Times of Crisis; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0689 (accessed on 5 January 2024).
  8. State of Food Security in the EU: A Qualitative Assessment of Food Supply and Food Security in the EU within the Framework of the EFSCM (Number 1, Autumn 2023); Brussels, Belgium, 2023. Available online: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-11/efscm-assessment-autumn-2023_en.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2024).
  9. Chepeliev, M.; Maliszewska, M.; Pereira, M.F.S.E. The War in Ukraine, Food Security and the Role for Europe. EuroChoices 2023, 22, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Niles, M.T.; Bertmann, F.; Belarmino, E.H.; Wentworth, T.; Biehl, E.; Neff, R. The Early Food Insecurity Impacts of COVID-19. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wood, W.; Eagly, A.H. A Cross-Cultural Analysis of the Behavior of Women and Men: Implications for the Origins of Sex Differences. Psychol. Bull. 2002, 128, 699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Eagly, A.H.; Wood, W. The Origins of Sex Differences in Human Behavior: Evolved Dispositions versus Social Roles. Am. Psychol. 1999, 54, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. van der Linden, S. The Social-Psychological Determinants of Climate Change Risk Perceptions: Towards a Comprehensive Model. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 41, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Carstensen, L.L.; Mikels, J.A. At the Intersection of Emotion and Cognition: Aging and the Positivity Effect. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2005, 14, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mata, F.; Dos-Santos, M.; Cano-Díaz, C.; Jesus, M.; Vaz-Velho, M. The Society of Information and the European Citizens’ Perception of Climate Change: Natural or Anthropological Causes. Environ. Manag. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. McCright, A.M.; Dunlap, R.E. Cool Dudes: The Denial of Climate Change among Conservative White Males in the United States. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 1163–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Boix-Fayos, C.; de Vente, J. Challenges and Potential Pathways towards Sustainable Agriculture within the European Green Deal. Agric. Syst. 2023, 207, 103634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Grimaccia, E.; Naccarato, A. Food Insecurity in Europe: A Gender Perspective. Soc. Indic. Res. 2022, 161, 649–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Mata, F.; Jesus, M.S.; Cano-Díaz, C.; Dos-Santos, M. European Citizens’ Worries and Self-Responsibility towards Climate Change. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Beckman, J.; Ivanic, M.; Jelliffe, J.L.; Baquedano, F.G.; Scott, S.G. Economic and Food Security Impacts of Agricultural Input Reduction under the European Union Green Deal’s Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies. 2020. Available online: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/327231/?v=pdf (accessed on 5 January 2024).
  21. Analytica, O. Farmer Protests Will Disrupt EU Trade Relations. Emerald Expert Brief. 2024. Available online: https://dailybrief.oxan.com/Analysis/ES285672/Farmer-protests-will-disrupt-EU-trade-relations- (accessed on 10 March 2024).
  22. European Commission Eurobarometer 97.1 (2022) 2023. GESIS, Cologne. ZA7886 Data File Version 2.0.0. Available online: https://search.gesis.org/research_data/ZA7886?doi=10.4232/1.14101 (accessed on 5 January 2024).
  23. Hentschel, T.; Heilman, M.E.; Peus, C.V. The Multiple Dimensions of Gender Stereotypes: A Current Look at Men’s and Women’s Characterizations of Others and Themselves. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Helgeson, V.S. Gender and Personality. In APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 4. Personality Processes and Individual Differences; Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P.R., Cooper, M.L., Larsen, R.J., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; pp. 515–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lippa, R.A. Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why? Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2010, 4, 1098–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Broussard, N.H. What Explains Gender Differences in Food Insecurity? Food Policy 2019, 83, 180–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Schutter, O.D. Gender Equality and Food Security: Women’s Empowerment as a Tool Against Hunger. 2013. Available online: http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/otherdocuments/20130724_genderfoodsec_en.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2024).
  28. Ready, R.E.; Robinson, M.D. Do Older Individuals Adapt to Their Traits?: Personality–Emotion Relations among Younger and Older Adults. J. Res. Pers. 2008, 42, 1020–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Carstensen, L.L. The Influence of a Sense of Time on Human Development. Science 2006, 312, 1913–1915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hall, B.; Brown, J.L. Food Security among Older Adults in the United States. Top. Clin. Nutr. 2005, 20, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jackson, A.M.; Weaver, R.H.; Iniguez, A.; Lanigan, J. A Lifespan Perspective of Structural and Perceived Social Relationships, Food Insecurity, and Dietary Behaviors during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Appetite 2022, 168, 105717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Leroux, J.; Morrison, K.; Rosenberg, M. Prevalence and Predictors of Food Insecurity among Older People in Canada. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Rigling, M.; Schuetz, P.; Kaegi-Braun, N. Is Food Insecurity Contributing to Malnutrition in Older Adults in Switzerland?—A Cross-Sectional Study. Front. Nutr. 2023, 10, 1228826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Loibl, C.; Bruine de Bruin, W.; Summers, B.; McNair, S.; Verhallen, P. Which Financial Stressors Are Linked to Food Insecurity among Older Adults in the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands? An Exploratory Study. Food Secur. 2022, 14, 533–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fernandes, S.G.; Rodrigues, A.M.; Nunes, C.; Santos, O.; Gregório, M.J.; De Sousa, R.D.; Dias, S.; Canhão, H. Food Insecurity in Older Adults: Results from the Epidemiology of Chronic Diseases Cohort Study 3. Front. Med. 2018, 5, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Penne, T.; Goedemé, T. Can Low-Income Households Afford a Healthy Diet? Insufficient Income as a Driver of Food Insecurity in Europe. Food Policy 2021, 99, 101978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Garratt, E. Food Insecurity in Europe: Who Is at Risk, and How Successful Are Social Benefits in Protecting against Food Insecurity? J. Soc. Policy 2020, 49, 785–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Roskies, E.; Liker, J.K.; Roitman, D.B. Winners and Losers: Employee Perceptions of Their Company’s Technological Transformation. J. Organ. Behav. 1988, 9, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nam, T. Technology Usage, Expected Job Sustainability, and Perceived Job Insecurity. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 138, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Neumayer, E. The Environment, Left-Wing Political Orientation and Ecological Economics. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 51, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ziegler, A. Political Orientation, Environmental Values, and Climate Change Beliefs and Attitudes: An Empirical Cross Country Analysis. Energy Econ. 2017, 63, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mata, F.; Cano-Díaz, C.; Jesus, M. The European Citizens’ Stance on the Subsidies Given to The Eu Farmers. Eur. Countrys. 2024, 16, 324–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Opitz, I.; Berges, R.; Piorr, A.; Krikser, T. Contributing to Food Security in Urban Areas: Differences between Urban Agriculture and Peri-Urban Agriculture in the Global North. Agric. Human. Values 2016, 33, 341–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019: Safeguarding Against Economic Slowdowns and Downturns; Food & Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2019; Volume 2019, ISBN 9251315701. [Google Scholar]
  45. Duncan, J.; Claeys, P.; Rivera-Ferre, M.G.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Van Dyck, B.; Plank, C.; Desmarais, A.A. Scholar-Activists in an Expanding European Food Sovereignty Movement. J. Peasant. Stud. 2021, 48, 875–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mata, F.; Dos-Santos, M.J.P.L. European Citizens’ Evaluation of the Common Agricultural Policy. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cadillo-Benalcazar, J.J.; Renner, A.; Giampietro, M. A Multiscale Integrated Analysis of the Factors Characterizing the Sustainability of Food Systems in Europe. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 271, 110944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, Z. From Crisis to Nationalism? Chin. Political Sci. Rev. 2021, 6, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ichijo, A. Food and Nationalism: Gastronationalism Revisited. Natl. Pap. 2020, 48, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Clapp, J.; Moseley, W.G.; Burlingame, B.; Termine, P. The Case for a Six-Dimensional Food Security Framework. Food Policy 2022, 106, 102164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Diamanti, G.; Duncan, J. Gender and Agriculture: Policy Tensions behind the EU Gender Gap: Summary Report of a Systematic Literature Review of the Gender Responsiveness of Europe’s Agriculture and Rural Policy; Wageningen University & Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  52. Velardo, S.; Stevens, K.; Watson, M.; Pollard, C.; Coveney, J.; Shipman, J.; Booth, S. How Do Children Perceive and Understand the Experience of Household Food Insecurity? A Narrative Review of the Literature. Br. Food J. 2024, 126, 1698–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rabbi, M.F.; Ben Hassen, T.; El Bilali, H.; Raheem, D.; Raposo, A. Food Security Challenges in Europe in the Context of the Prolonged Russian–Ukrainian Conflict. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Toma, I.; Redman, M.; Czekaj, M.; Tyran, E.; Grivins, M.; Sumane, S. Small-Scale Farming and Food Security–Policy Perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe. Glob. Food Sec. 2021, 29, 100504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Żmija, K.; Fortes, A.; Tia, M.N.; Šūmane, S.; Ayambila, S.N.; Żmija, D.; Satoła, Ł.; Sutherland, L.-A. Small Farming and Generational Renewal in the Context of Food Security Challenges. Glob. Food Sec. 2020, 26, 100412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mata, F.; Nunes, L.J.R. European Citizens’ Stance on Limiting Energy Use for Climate Change Mitigation. PeerJ 2023, 11, e15835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 09840 g001
Figure 1. Choices to the question ‘What do you think are the most important risks to food security in the EU?’ The n = 26,502 interviewees were allowed to pick up a maximum of three options. On the top axis, values are in percentages (rounded to the unit). Notes: 1—Diminishing number of farm holdings in the EU; 2—Stagnating EU agricultural production and increasing dependency on imports; 3—Extreme weather events (severe droughts, floods, etc.) and climate change; 4—Natural resource scarcity or degradation (water, soil, fish stock, biodiversity, etc.); 5—Animal health events, such as bird flu, or plant health events, such as pest attacks; 6—Human health events, such as COVID-19; 7—Economic downturns and poverty; 8—Geopolitical events, e.g., large-scale trade disputes; 9—Technological events, such as cyber threats; 10—Others, 11—Don’t know.
Figure 1. Choices to the question ‘What do you think are the most important risks to food security in the EU?’ The n = 26,502 interviewees were allowed to pick up a maximum of three options. On the top axis, values are in percentages (rounded to the unit). Notes: 1—Diminishing number of farm holdings in the EU; 2—Stagnating EU agricultural production and increasing dependency on imports; 3—Extreme weather events (severe droughts, floods, etc.) and climate change; 4—Natural resource scarcity or degradation (water, soil, fish stock, biodiversity, etc.); 5—Animal health events, such as bird flu, or plant health events, such as pest attacks; 6—Human health events, such as COVID-19; 7—Economic downturns and poverty; 8—Geopolitical events, e.g., large-scale trade disputes; 9—Technological events, such as cyber threats; 10—Others, 11—Don’t know.
Sustainability 16 09840 g001
Table 1. Omnibus test (likelihood ratio χ2), and parameters (β) of the indicated independent variables of the multivariable logistic regression models fit to each of the choices (1 to 9) for the question ‘What do you think are the most important risks to food security in the EU?’ Cells left blank are indicative of the non-significance of the variable (p > 0.05) in the model.
Table 1. Omnibus test (likelihood ratio χ2), and parameters (β) of the indicated independent variables of the multivariable logistic regression models fit to each of the choices (1 to 9) for the question ‘What do you think are the most important risks to food security in the EU?’ Cells left blank are indicative of the non-significance of the variable (p > 0.05) in the model.
Models
123456789
Likelihood Ratio χ2 (df)24,946 (7) ***4633 (7) ***464 (10) ***771 (5) ***2954 (7) ***9616 (10) ***4588 (7) ***6021 (10) ***17,258 (6) ***
Independent VariablesModels’ parameters (β)
Gender Men−0.090 **−0.138 ***0.103 *** 0.109 **0.160 *** −0.343 ***
WomenReference
Age −0.008 ***0.006 *** −0.004 ***−0.002 *−0.008 *−0.007 *
Age Education−0.010 *** 0.009 ***0.008 ***−0.015 ***−0.030 ***−0.011 ***0.013 ***−0.036 ***
Political Position −0.023 ***−0.058 *** −0.023 **
Community Size −0.047 *−0.054 ***−0.150 ***−0.118 ***0.058 **0.046 **−0.158 ***−0.099 **
Social Class−0.034 * −0.033 * −0.082 ***−0.107 ***0.111 ***0.082 **
Economic Status−0.142 ***−0.173 ***0.180 ***0.087 *** −0.192 ***−0.275 ***−0.128 ***−0.340 ***
EU Democracy 0.051 *−0.092 **
EU Direction −0.042 **−0.065 ***−0.063 ***−0.063 ***0.057 **0.050 **
EU Future−0.113 *** −0.083 *0.061 **−0.070 *−0.266 ***
EU Image0.082 ***0.037 *−0.161 *** −0.116 *** −0.081 ***
Notes: df—degrees of freedom; p-value * <0.05, ** <0.01, *** <0.001; 1—Diminishing number of farm holdings in the EU; 2—Stagnating EU agricultural production and increasing dependency on imports; 3—Extreme weather events (severe droughts, floods, etc.) and climate change; 4—Natural resource scarcity or degradation (water, soil, fish stock, biodiversity, etc.); 5—Animal health events, such as bird flu, or plant health events, such as pest attacks; 6—Human health events, such as COVID-19; 7—Economic downturns and poverty; 8—Geopolitical events, e.g., large-scale trade disputes; 9—Technological events, such as cyber threats.
Table 2. The odds ratios (eβ) for the parameters (β) of the models indicated in Table 1.
Table 2. The odds ratios (eβ) for the parameters (β) of the models indicated in Table 1.
Exp (β)
123456789
Gender Men0.9140.8711.109 1.1151.174 0.710
Women
Age 0.9931.006 0.9960.9980.9920.993
Age Education0.990 1.0091.0080.9850.9710.9891.0130.965
Political Position 0.9780.944 0.978
Community Size 0.9540.9470.8610.8881.0601.0470.8540.906
Social Class0.967 0.968 0.9210.8981.1171.086
Economic Status0.8680.8411.1981.091 0.8250.7590.8800.712
EU Democracy 1.0530.912
EU Direction 0.9590.9370.9390.9391.0591.051
EU Future0.893 0.9211.0630.9330.766
EU Image1.0851.0380.852 0.890 0.922
Notes: 1—Diminishing number of farm holdings in the EU; 2—Stagnating EU agricultural production and increasing dependency on imports; 3—Extreme weather events (severe droughts, floods, etc.) and climate change; 4—Natural resource scarcity or degradation (water, soil, fish stock, biodiversity, etc.); 5—Animal health events, such as bird flu, or plant health events, such as pest attacks; 6—Human health events, such as COVID-19; 7—Economic downturns and poverty; 8—Geopolitical events, e.g., large-scale trade disputes; 9—Technological events, such as cyber threats.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mata, F.; Barros, D.; Pereira-Pinto, R.; Pires, P. EU Citizens’ Perception of Risks Posed to the Sustainability of EU Food Security. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229840

AMA Style

Mata F, Barros D, Pereira-Pinto R, Pires P. EU Citizens’ Perception of Risks Posed to the Sustainability of EU Food Security. Sustainability. 2024; 16(22):9840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229840

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mata, Fernando, Diana Barros, Ricardo Pereira-Pinto, and Preciosa Pires. 2024. "EU Citizens’ Perception of Risks Posed to the Sustainability of EU Food Security" Sustainability 16, no. 22: 9840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229840

APA Style

Mata, F., Barros, D., Pereira-Pinto, R., & Pires, P. (2024). EU Citizens’ Perception of Risks Posed to the Sustainability of EU Food Security. Sustainability, 16(22), 9840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229840

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop