research paper on new food product development

1 Introduction to Food Product Development

To start, let’s think about what product development is:.

• How new things show up in the grocery store or in foodservice
• The process of creating, processing, and commercializing a new food product
• The process generally takes a group of people from different disciplines working together to develop (or improve) a product.

Product Development Key Stages

Formulation, commercialization.

At each stage, or even within the stages, there are checkpoints to decide to continue or stop the project. This can be done through a Stage and Gate System like the example shown here or it can be done in a modified system. The principle is the same, though, to develop new products strategically and use time and resources wisely.

Typically this Stage and Gate process works like a funnel. You may start with 12 to 15 ideas and then research and evaluate those ideas. Some ideas will get discarded because you will find the product concept already exists. Others will get discarded because the ingredients or processing will cost more than what consumers are willing to pay (based on products in the relevant category). Some ideas will seem great, but will be too niche and will not have a large enough target audience to be successful. Once the ideas have been narrowed down, the best 3 to 5 ideas may be moved to the Formulation stage. In this stage, the product will be made on a small scale and consumer testing will be done to confirm interest. Then products will go through the second gate to determine which products have enough consumer interest to continue. During the Processing stage, 2 to 3 products are scaled up on larger equipment. This helps determine production costs and efficiency. Food safety and quality testing also are done to determine how to produce a safe and consistent product. Shelf-life testing is conducted at the end of the Processing stage to make sure the product will remain at an acceptable and safe quality long enough for the product to made, shipped, purchased, and consumed. The third gate evaluates production, food safety, quality, and shelf life to decide which products can actually be made efficiently and consistently. The Commercialization stage includes work to get the product ready to sell on the grocery store shelves. Typically this includes the final costing, additional consumer sensory testing, and package design. The final gate makes sure that no errors or significant drawbacks have been missed before the product is launched. Through the Stage and Gate process, 12 to 15 ideas may get narrowed down to 1 or 2 products. The Stage and Gate process allows many ideas to be considered efficiently. The more viable the idea, the more time and work is needed. When an obstacle is found at a gate, no more time or resources are committed to that idea.

Each company may work through the stages of product development a bit differently depending on resources, timelines, and product types being developed. In a product development course, a product is likely developed from start to finish, so more market, consumer, and product research will need to be done during the ideation stage to catch significant drawbacks.

Often the most difficult part of product development is coming up with the initial idea. Many food products exist in the marketplace, so coming up with a new food product that does not exist and consumers are interested in buying can be a challenge. It is best to simply jump in and start generating ideas. From there, concepts can be refined and narrowed down. Ideas can come from a variety of sources. Some ideas are for a brand-new product and some are for a line extension of an existing product. Once ideas have been generated, it is important to identify the target customer. Trends are followed closely to determine what is new and upcoming. Trends often spark ideas for new products. Trends change over time, so it is difficult to list current examples, but convenience products, comfort foods, and plant-based foods have been trending over the last few years. 

Some issues with ideation include regional vs. global preferences and market size vs. target market. Flavors that are commonly known and liked in the Midwest may not sell well in other parts of the country. Consumers outside of the Midwest may not like those flavors or may simply be unfamiliar with the flavors. If your target market is a small part of a product category and the product category itself is small, there may not be a large enough market share for your product. It also can be a challenge to realize that just because you like something, many others may not. We tend to develop products we like, but sometimes you may have to develop a product for a target audience that does not include you.

• Procure ingredients and make them into a product on a small laboratory scale
• Produce a “gold standard” of the new product
• Sourcing ingredients and ingredient costs
• Product shelf life (often not tested in formulation, but needs to be considered early in the process)
• Can the product really be made on a large scale?
• Avoid Patent and Copyright infringement
• The formulated product process is “scaled up” to produce greater volumes
• Pilot plant testing
• Plant testing
• There are always product changes with scale-up.
• Quality & Proximate Analysis testing done to set specifications, determine food safety concerns, and estimate shelf life
• Processing experiments and runs allow a more accurate product cost to be determined (include processing efficiency, rework used, etc.).

Processing Key Questions:

• Sensory Attributes
• Nutritional Profile
• Product Specifications
• Overall Functionality
• Once the new product has been made successfully, it is sent to commercialization to launch the new product into the store for sale.
• determining packaging
• creating a label (logo, nutrition facts, etc.)
• finalizing costs
• developing advertising and/or literature for the product

Commercialization Key Questions:

• How should the product be positioned for the best sales?
• What attributes do you highlight?
• Where does it go in the grocery store (should consider this throughout the development process)?
• What effect will the distribution system have on product quality?

After the launch of a new product:

• Determine if the new product was successful.
• Growing interest, increase in sales
• Market share
• Company sales revenue

Key Team Members

It takes many roles to develop a new food product. A product development team can be very successful with all members contributing an expertise. The challenge is communicating effectively to make sure everyone is on the same page with the status and goals of the project. Key team members include product development, engineering, production, purchasing, quality, regulatory, marketing, sales, and upper management. Their typical roles are laid out below.

Product Developers

• In charge of developing new products, especially in terms of the hands-on testing and managing the development process
• May be the Team Leader
• Formulate Product
• Determine Sensory Attributes
• Run Shelf Life Testing
• Know Food Safety Concerns
• Test the Process
• Consider Nutrition
• Calculate Costs (may need input from others)

Engineering and Production

• Equipment Design and Maintenance
• Process Controls
• Production Costs (line speeds, overhead cost)
• Employee Training
• Consumer Safety
• Consumer Handling
• Ensures consumer expectations are met
• Sensory and Quality attributes are tested to make sure the product meets specifications
• HACCP and Preventative Controls plus Prerequisite Programs
• Microbiology Testing
• Foreign Material Testing
• Process Checks
• Incoming ingredient and packaging safety checks
• Makes sure the new product is legal and safe
• Coordinates a Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) dossier if necessary (typically for ingredient development)
• Product Name
• Standard of Identity
• Nutrition Labeling
• Product Codes

Marketing & Sales

• Defines product market and positioning
• Confirms consumer need for a new product through surveys and consumer data
• Develops advertising strategy
• Monitors competitor’s sales and new product introductions
• Helps design product packaging, especially tied to attracting the target audience
• Has input on the product name

Challenges of Product Development

• Just because you think it is a good idea, does not mean everyone else does.
• Sometimes things just do not work like they are supposed to (scale-up changes product characteristics, shelf life is not long enough, low consumer acceptance, etc.)
• Ingredient sourcing and costs
• Processing and equipment limitations
• Area of Expertise
• Goals and Objectives
• Ability to understand other disciplines
• Can be overlap or gaps in functions depending on company structure

Timeline for new product development

• A line extension for an already existing product
• Example: A new flavor of a popular soda
• A new product, but still can be made on existing equipment
• Example: A new type of cereal
• A brand new product – could be hard to make or new equipment may need to be designed/purchased.
• Examples: co-extruded snacks and plant-based meat alternatives
• Developing a new ingredient often takes longer than developing a finished food product because there are more regulatory and sales hurdles involved. 

Recap on the Product Development Process

• Product Development is the process of creating, processing, and commercializing a new product.
• New products need to be of interest to a target market.
• The timeline can range from 3 months to 3 years.
• Product development teams are made up of members with a variety of backgrounds.

Product Development Scope

It is important to be able to ideate openly & creatively.  However, ask yourself, “Does the product already exist?” and “What are our company’s new idea limitations?”. Below are common limitations for product development courses:

• Avoid mixes, line extensions, and assembly products.
• Avoid expensive ingredients or be ready to discuss how to pay for them.
• Typically a course does not have an alcohol license.
• CBD oil is not yet legal in food items in some states.
• Processing equipment availability needs to be considered for your new product idea.

Food Product Development Lab Manual Copyright © 2021 by Kate Gilbert and Ken Prusa is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

new food product development | new food products

2023, food research lab

There are several options in almost every product area in today’s market, and the difficulty is in coming up with unique items that stand out and connect with customers. Guires Food Research Lab (FRL) takes a holistic approach to creating food and beverage products. We also help with a cost analysis of new products for your specification and certification process of your food product development. Visit Now >> https://www.foodresearchlab.com/ Our Service >> https://www.foodresearchlab.com/what-we-do/new-product-development-service/new-food-product-development/ Contact Now UK - +44 – 161 818 4656 India - +91 9566299022 [email protected]

Related Papers

Food Processing Operations and Scale-Up

Leon Levine

Sustainability

Guillermo Garcia-Garcia

Ahmed Karalic

Keerthana Surakala

Paula Martins-Lopes

Food in Society: Economy, Culture, Geography

Peter Atkins

Sandor Némethy

Barry Winkless

The 40 inventive principles can be an aid to new product development. The question that this article attempts to answer is: Are the 40 inventive principles relevant to new food product development and innovation? This article examines selected, relatively innovative food products that exhibit one or more of the inventive principles. It also highlights other inventive principles that may assist food product development and some that are less relevant.

Mabel Narcisa Yaguache Ordoñez

Trends in Food Science & Technology

RELATED PAPERS

Etnografica Revista Do Centro Em Rede De Investigacao Em Antropologia

Irene Rodrigues

Acta Crystallographica Section A Foundations of Crystallography

Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology

Yasin Emre Kitiş

Khadije Abdolmaleki

The Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England

Richard Steven

victor armando martinez ramirez

Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer

Nir Shiloah

ETD - Educação Temática Digital

Samuel Mendonça

Eleven International Pub.

Pasquale Policastro

IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques

Diego Masotti

Homotopy Theory: Tools and Applications

James Turner

毕业证 成绩单 学位证 毕 业 证 成 绩 单 学 位 证 毕业证 成绩单 学位证

Biophysical Journal

Daniel Coman

ASHOK PANDEY

Pediatria Polska - Polish Journal of Paediatrics

Ernest Kuchar

Food and Bioproducts Processing

nicolas scenna

Neuroscience

Joseph P Huston

Cecilia Osuna Lever

International journal of pharmaceutical sciences review and research

mohammed safeer

Environmental geology

yavuz corapcioglu

Alla Yurchenko

International Journal of ChemTech Research

Milind Ubale

Acta Mechanica

Vassilis Panoskaltsis

Call Girls In Delhi

Call Girls in Paharganj Delhi (Just_dial 9599632723)

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Trends of Using Sensory Evaluation in New Product Development in the Food Industry in Countries That Belong to the EIT Regional Innovation Scheme

Katarzyna Świąder.

1 Department of Functional and Organic Food, Institute of Human Nutrition Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW–WULS), 159C Nowoursynowska Street, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland

Magdalena Marczewska

2 Department of Organization and Management Theory, Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw, 1/3 Szturmowa Street, 02-678 Warsaw, Poland; lp.ude.wu.zw@akswezcramm

Associated Data

Data is contained within the article.

Sensory evaluation plays an important role in New Product Development (NPD) in food industry. In the present study, the current trends of using sensory evaluation in NPD in the food industry in countries that belong to EIT Regional Innovation Scheme (RIS) were identified. The research was conducted in the first quarter of 2020. Computer assisted self-interviewing (CASI) technique for survey data collection was used. The sample included 122 respondents representing RIS countries that are the EU Member States and European Horizon 2020 Associated Countries that are classified as modest and moderate innovators according to European Innovation Scoreboard. The analysis presented in the paper allowed to describe the methods of sensory evaluation that can be used to support NPD in the food industry, identify the trends of using sensory evaluation in NPD in the food industry companies in RIS countries. The research results showed that almost 70% of companies apply sensory evaluation methods in NPD. The larger the company, the more often the methods of sensory evaluation are used in NPDs. Almost 60% of companies employing 51–100, 101–1000 and more than 5000 people, respectively declare the use of expert (analytical) test. However, regardless of size, most companies prefer consumer (affective) test to expert tests. Based on the results, it seems that the potential of usage sensory evaluation methods is not yet fully exploited in the food industry.

1. Introduction and Background

One of the basic conditions for the development of the company and its long-term success is its innovation [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Innovative companies are able to respond to the challenges of the world around much faster and more effectively than non-innovative ones [ 1 , 4 ]. Companies, both small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and large corporations, have begun to consider innovation as an integral part of their strategy in order to create a lasting competitive advantage and to adapt the products or services offered to the needs of consumers, which has led to a greater need for teams mainly involved in the development of new products [ 1 ].

New product development (NPD) is “the process of designing a new product, producing it and bringing it to market” [ 5 ]. The definitions of the new product proposed by Fuller [ 6 ] are as follows “A product not previously manufactured by a company and introduced by that company into its marketplace or into a new marketplace” or “The presentation or rebranding by a company of an established product in a new form, a new package or under a new label into a market not previously explored by that company”. NPD is based on customized procedures, models and is supported by appropriate tools; thus, it brings significant benefits in terms of production costs, product quality and supply chain availability, which is crucial for success and business development [ 5 ]. Moreover, it is one of the ways to increase the company’s profitability [ 6 ]. However, we must bear in mind that the success of a new product depends on many factors and in some cases the development of a new product may involve a high risk [ 5 , 7 , 8 ].

There are many different types of new food products on the market, such as line extensions [ 6 , 8 ] (e.g., new flavors for an ice-cream), repositioned existing product [ 6 ] (e.g., oil as one of the main constituents of mayonnaise or vegetable paste), new form or size of existing product [ 6 ] (e.g., instant oatmeal in ready to eat cup), reformulation of existing product [ 6 ] (e.g., sugar-reduced or sugar-free cakes), repackaging of existing product [ 6 ] (e.g., infant food containers changed from glass to squeezed), innovative products [ 6 ] (e.g., the plant-based analogue of tuna meat), creative products [ 6 ] (e.g., 3D printing food). However, one must remember that consumers purchase products regardless of their category, but rather because they meet their needs [ 9 ]. The growing awareness of consumers and their needs for natural, safe and healthy food [ 10 ] as well as consumers preferences for personalized, customized food products have led to diversity in the food market [ 5 ]. These changes led to new food trends such as functional food [ 10 , 11 ] with their healthful properties and nutritional value [ 10 , 12 ], novel food or use of nanotechnology in food sector [ 11 ].

It is not difficult to develop a recipe for a new product, but it is difficult to develop a new product that meets the expectations of the assumed number of consumers and is profitable to sell [ 8 ]. Every manufacturer’s dream is to have their new product on the shelf as soon as possible and to sell it with great success, but the pathway from idea to shelf can be long and winding and leads through different stages of the process of designing new products. New product process proposed by Cooper [ 13 ] assumes the following stages: (1) new product idea; (2) costumer defined, internally defined, idea refined; (3) project formally opened; (4) development; (5) prototyping; (6) field trials; (7) launch. O’Sullivan [ 8 ] presents NPD process from the inception to the shelf divided into the following steps: (1) ideation; (2) project pre-planning; (3) validation of proof of concept; (4) process optimization and up-scaling; (5) commercialization; (6) pre and post-approval and shelf-life testing. The commonly used framework listing the main stages in the NPD process is based on four stages: (1) opportunity identification; (2) product design and development; (3) testing; (4) introduction and launch [ 14 ]. Azanedo [ 5 ] points out, however, that currently in the development of new food products (NFPD), the NPD models used need to be modified in order to better and more effectively support the food industry. Moreover, the study suggests that the most attention should be paid to areas such as meeting consumer demands, consumer preferences and sensory characteristics of products, taking into account the seasonality of ingredients and the traceability and safety of final products, and the large-scale production of food with respect for the environment and the supply and distribution of local ingredients.

In the process of designing food products, it is important to recognize the needs of the customer, direct the designed product towards them, and then communicate and explain the value of this designed product to the consumer [ 9 ]. Consumers buy image, comfort, nutrition, using their senses, sensory sensitivity, they buy sensory properties. That is why sensory methods are an important, integral tool that should be used in NPD process. When designing products, the most important quality feature of a product is its direct relationship to satisfaction, perception and ultimate acceptance by the consumer of the sensory qualities of the product [ 8 , 15 ].

Sensory evaluation and new product development are strongly linked. Sensory analysis methods can be used at many stages of the design process to assess the quality of the product and the expectations of consumers and their reactions to the product. Following the framework indicating the importance of sensory evaluation in NPD [ 5 , 8 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ] this empirical research aims to identify the trends of using sensory evaluation in New Product Development in the food industry companies in countries that belong to EIT Regional Innovation Scheme (RIS) by addressing research questions listed below. There are only a few studies tackling application of sensory evaluation methods in food industry companies that focus on general trends and compare the use of sensory evaluation methods between companies of different size and those that value the most diverse stages of the NPD process. Thus, this paper seeks to fill this research gap by addressing the following research questions:

RQ1 What methods of sensory evaluation can be used to support NPD in the food industry?

RQ2 What are the trends of using sensory evaluation in NPD in the food industry companies in countries that belong to EIT Regional Innovation Scheme (RIS)?

RQ3 What sensory evaluation methods are used by companies that tend to value the most a specific stage of the NPD process?

RQ4 What are the differences in applying sensory evaluation methods among companies of different sizes from RIS countries?

The first research question will be answered based on desk research results and literature review, whereas the answers to the questions 2-4 will be based on the results of empirical research.

The article proceeds as follows. First the research background along with the research aims are presented in the introductory part. The next section of the paper is devoted to sensory evaluation methods, their use and importance in NPD process with the focus on food industry. The third part of the paper describes methods used for the analysis, along with data selection and extraction process. It is followed by the presentation of results of a pilot study aimed to identify the trends of using sensory evaluation in New Product Development in the food industry in countries that belong to EIT Regional Innovation Scheme (RIS) and its discussion. The paper ends with concluding remarks and future research directions.

2. Sensory Evaluation in New Product Development

Sensory tests have been used since people began to assess everything that can be used by them and to distinguish between good and bad, from water and food, starting with and ending with weapons and other objects. The increase in trade, on the other hand, has inspired the formal application of sensory testing significantly [ 17 ].

The history of “sensory” analysis also dates back to the wars, when efforts were made to provide the American forces with acceptable food [ 17 ]. The early 1900s gave rise to a professional taster and consultant in emerging industries food, beverages, and cosmetics. The term “organoleptic examination” was then used to describe allegedly objective sensory characteristics. However, these tests were still often subjective rather than objective [ 17 ].

International interest in food and agriculture in the mid-1960s and on into the 1970s, the energy crisis, food production and raw material costs, competition and market internationalization have created opportunities for sensory evaluation [ 22 ]. The course of events has made sensory evaluation a recognized scientific specialty [ 17 , 22 ]. Sensory evaluation is defined as “a scientific discipline used to evoke, measure, analyze and interpret reactions to those characteristics of foods and materials as they are perceived by the senses of sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing” [ 18 , 22 , 23 ]. Sensory evaluation, like other scientific methods in which we take measurements, is based on taking measurements in a precise and accurate way, considering the sensitivity and aiming at avoiding false-positive results [ 24 ]. In order to be considered a reliable method, sensory analysis must be based on the skills of a sensory analyst to optimize definition of the problem (what should be measured) and test design (produce the desired accuracy of results), instrumentation (selected and trained panelists) and interpretation of results [ 17 , 18 ].

When assessing the characteristics of a food product, we first assess its appearance, then its odor, texture/consistency and flavor/taste [ 17 ]. The reaction to a sensory stimulus, on the other hand, can be divided into three different dimensions: qualitative perception, quantitative perception, and hedonic reaction [ 25 ]. In order to obtain that information, we must use analytical or affective methods during the sensory evaluation [ 16 , 17 , 22 , 25 ].

The purpose of analytical tests is to assess in detail the sensory quality of a product, while affective tests are used to measure the acceptability or preference of a product by consumers [ 8 , 25 ]. The basic goal while choosing sensory evaluation methods is to match the right test with the right question that we want to answer. Among the analytical tests ( Table 1 ) that are mainly evaluated by the panel experts, we can use the discrimination test to determine if there are sensory differences or similarities between products, without describing their nature. We can use the Triangle test, Duo-trio test, Two out of five test. As far as the nature of the differences between products is known, we can use a grading test such as paired comparison test, to position different products according to their sensory characteristics. A ranking test can be used to assess noticeable differences between several products depending on the intensity of the difference, and a scoring test may be used to assess the specific intensity of the sensory characteristics of products. In the analytical test, a descriptive test (called sensory profiling) is very often used to describe and evaluate both the intensity and quality of perceived product characteristics, i.e., Quantitative Descriptive Analysis®, Texture Profile® [ 8 , 18 , 22 , 25 , 26 ].

Types of most popular analytical and affective tests used in sensory evaluation.

Source: Own elaboration based on [ 8 , 18 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 27 ].

Apart of above-mentioned methods, there are new one called rapid sensory evaluation methods, that are more flexible, simple and easy to perform and can be used with semi trained assessors or naive assessors such as: flash profiling, ultraflash profiling, ranking test, napping, free sorting, optimized descriptive profiling, ideal profile method, check-all-that-apply, temporal dominance of sensation [ 8 ].

Sensory acceptance of the product by the consumer, its hedonic reaction, can be assessed using an affective test ( Table 1 ). This may be a paired comparison test, in which the consumer chooses the sample he or she prefers or likes most from two or more, or a ranking test, in which the consumer rank the product according to his or her preferences, whereas in order to determine the scale of preference among the products or the degree of pleasure/liking the product gives, a hedonic scoring test with scales can be used [ 22 , 25 , 27 ]. An example of a qualitative affective sensory test is the focus group, a rapid method to test the product and packaging concepts and ideas [ 8 ].

Sensory evaluation of a product, including both the analytical sensory evaluation carried out by a panel of experts and the affective test carried out on consumers, allows to obtain more information about the product being analyzed, its quality and to verify factors influencing its acceptability by consumers, which facilitates work on improving the quality of the product or its reformulation [ 10 ].

It is quite common practice in food companies to use inappropriate sensory analysis methods for specific research purposes [ 8 ].

Both affective tests and analytical (expert) sensory tests can be use on each step of new product development ( Table 2 ). During ideation, the initial project planning and validation of proof-of-concept affective test, such as focus groups, can be used, but also methods such as free elicitation, information acceleration (IA), Kelly repertory grid, laddering, lead user technique and Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique (ZMET) are recommended. The stage where both the affective test and the sensory test can be applied is process optimization and up-scaling, where the sensory acceptance test (affective test) can be applied, as well as the analytical test: a descriptive test such as the Quantitative Descriptive Analysis® and a rapid test such as the Ranking Descriptive Analysis. A very important aspect during the commercialization of a product is to carry out sensory Acceptance Tests. Carrying out Consumer Tests is also very important during pre- and post-approval tests and product durability tests [ 8 ].

Use of sensory evaluation methods on each step of new product development.

IA *, information acceleration; ZMET, Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique; QDA ® , Quantitative Descriptive Analysis; RDA, Ranking Descriptive Analysis. Source: Own elaboration based on [ 8 ].

Besides new product development, sensory evaluation can also be used in other product development activities, such as product prototype evaluation [ 8 , 28 ]; product concept fit [ 8 , 28 ]; pilot plant scale-up; cost reduction study by substituting or modifying ingredients [ 28 ]; process change [ 29 , 30 ]; ingredients changes for example caused by reduction of salt [ 20 , 21 , 31 ], sugar [ 21 , 32 , 33 ], or fat [ 21 , 31 ] or purchase specifications change [ 19 ] as well as product improvement and optimization of product formula [ 34 , 35 ].

Moreover, sensory evaluation methods are used to supports marketing and marketing research activities [ 19 , 28 ], beginning with new product development and assessment of market potential, continuing through tracking product performance, and contributing to special assignments such as developing tests. They can be used in sensory marketing as data to support or challenge advertising claims [ 36 ]. Sensory marketing defined as “ marketing that engages the senses of consumers and influences their perception, judgement and behavior” examines how acoustic, tactile and olfactory sensory stimuli influence decision making processes and the formation of consumer attitudes and can thus be used for advertising design and effectiveness [ 36 ].

Sensory evaluation is also used to compare the quality of competing products [ 37 ]. Consumer test can be used to define the most important characteristics of food affecting purchasing decisions, identify preferences and to know consumers when purchasing food products [ 12 , 37 ].

Sensory evaluation methods can be used in several food industry departments; however, they are mainly used for quality control and product research and development (R&D) in big companies [ 17 , 19 ] so their potential is not yet fully exploited in the food industry.

Sensory evaluation methods can be used for shelf-life assessment of food products [ 38 , 39 , 40 ] and new technologic that can extend product durability and quality such as pulsed electric fields [ 29 , 30 ]. Changes in the sensory characteristics of food products affect the determination of their shelf-life, and the freshness of a product’s safety and quality are characteristics to which consumers are now paying increasing attention [ 40 ].

Expert tests such as sensory descriptive analysis and consumer test can be well used to investigate exotic, authentic, ethnic, or artisanal foods [ 23 ] such as green tea [ 41 , 42 ], soy sauce [ 43 , 44 ], kimchi [ 45 , 46 ], tofu [ 47 , 48 ], dates [ 49 , 50 ] as well as innovative one such as tea-infused yoghurts [ 10 ] or plant-based yogurts made from almond, cashew, coconut, hemp or soy [ 51 ].

There are many possible ways to apply sensory evaluation in NPD in the food industry. Companies can use analytical and affective (hedonic) sensory tests and choose from a variety of sensory methods that can be used at different stages of the NPD process and allow the different characteristics of food products to be studied and consumer reactions to these products and their expectations.

3. Materials and Methods

The study was conducted as a part of the project “Summer school on the New Product Development for the food industry” (2020 edition) financed by the EIT Food under Horizon2020, which aimed to address contemporary challenges related to NPD in the food industry. The research was carried out as a pilot study (part of the project) to identify the trends of using sensory evaluation in New Product Development in the food industry in countries that belong to EIT Regional Innovation Scheme (RIS); thus, the research sample was composed of respondents representing these countries. The EIT’s Innovation Communities are strengthening the innovation ecosystem in parts of Central, Eastern and Southern Europe and have been set up to increase the number and business maturity of start-ups coming from these regions [ 52 ].

The EIT RIS countries are the EU Member States and European Horizon 2020 Associated Countries who are classified as modest and moderate innovators according to European Innovation Scoreboard [ 53 ]. These are Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain, as well as Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Faroe Islands, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine. Modest and moderate innovators show an innovation performance below the EU average. Since NPD is one of the dimensions of countries’ innovation performance, it seems important to analyze it, especially in the context of countries which are not best performers, in order to identify the ways to boost its development, as well as explore and design new potential pathways to support it.

The data used in this research were collected through computer assisted self-interviewing (CASI). This technique allows to collect data from respondents who complete the survey questionnaire via computer without any external assistance. The use of such research method is based on the assumption that respondents can read and understand the questions well enough to give precise answers [ 54 ]. The questionnaires were conducted in the first quarter of 2020, before the CODIV-19 pandemic.

The sample included 122 respondents representing RIS countries. All participants have agreed to participate in the study and received a link to the questionnaire for them only. If respondents provided their questionnaires with missing/unreliable data, they were excluded from the sample analyzed ( n = 8).

The respondents were employed in companies from the food industry and performed various jobs related to NPD. Most of them were food technologists, project/program managers or C-level executives. The characteristics of the respondents are presented in ( Table 3 ). Respondents differ in gender, age and length of professional experience in the food sector.

The characteristics of the respondents ( n = 122).

* number of respondents. ** STEM, Science, Technology, Engineering and Math; STEAM, Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Math.

The respondents were employees of food industry companies of various sizes, where SMEs constituted almost three quarters of the sample. Further, almost 40% of the sample were micro enterprises with fewer than 10 employees and around 20% represented small enterprises. Table 4 presents details on sample characteristics.

Sample characteristics ( n = 122).

** AL, Albania; BG, Bulgaria; CZ, Czech Republic; EE, Estonia; ES, Spain; GE, Georgia; GR, Greece; HR, Croatia; HU, Hungary; IT, Italy; LT, Lithuania; LV, Latvia; ME, Montenegro; PL, Poland; PT, Portugal; RO, Romania; RS, Serbia; SI, Slovenia; SK, Slovakia; TR, Turkey; UA, Ukraine. * Number of respondents.

The questionnaire was composed of questions of different types, i.e., single-choice questions and open-ended questions. Most of the questions had already defined answers to choose from; however, in many cases, there was space left for participants to write additional comments. The questionnaire used in the study was related to various aspects of NPD and sensory analysis, including average length of NPD project, most important stages of NPD, application of sensory evaluation in NPD, sensory methods used in NPD, use of consumer tests to verify consumer preferences or acceptance for the developed product and use of expert tests performed by a panel of trained experts to determine the quality of products. The obtained data were analyzed considering the sample of companies from RIS countries in general, and also taking into account the specificity of companies of different sizes and comparing the importance of a specific stage of NPD and its impact on the use of sensory evaluation. Sample survey questions and answers are presented in ( Table 5 ).

Sample survey questions and answers.

* STEM, Science, Technology, Engineering and Math; STEAM, Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Math; CEO, chief executive officer, CTO, chief technical officer, QA, Quality Assurance.

4. Results and Discussion

On the basis of the studies carried out, it is worth pointing out that the NPD projects in the analyzed food sector companies are relatively short ( Table 6 ), i.e., 34.4% of the companies claim that they manage to develop and introduce an entire project within a year, and 41.8% need less than 2 years to complete it. The companies argue that due to market dynamics and growth they have to act fast in order to be competitive.

Average length of New Product Development (NPD) project.

* Number of respondents.

One of the main factors influencing product development is the speed with which the product is placed on the market. If this process took too long, the research previously carried out may no longer correspond to reality, e.g., demographic consumer segments initially identified as potential buyers and optimistic users may have changed their minds about wanting to buy the product [ 8 ]. Moreover, because the development of a new product may involve a high risk [ 5 , 7 , 8 ] it is worth running the NPD process relatively fast.

According to Dijksterhuis [ 55 ], 50 to 75% of newly developed products placed on the market are disposed of, which is far from the assumed financial targets. More than 90% (some say it is even 98%) of all NPDs in the food and drink industry fail, while the remaining 10% (or rather 2%) have been extremely successful, and the final prize is huge [ 8 ]. The main research problem behind the high failure rate of new products is the lack of understanding of consumers’ motivation and choice. Therefore, the research on consumer behavior should be used more effectively to address this problem [ 55 ].

Sensory evaluation seems to be an important element of NPD in RIS countries. 67.2% of analyzed companies claim to apply sensory evaluation methods while working on new products.

Sensory food science is a discipline that is increasingly used and needed in order to better understand the factors influencing consumer preferences. Sensory evaluation is an essential tool for use by the food industry now and in the future, when, due to social and industrial needs that are consumer-oriented, their use will increase in the future [ 18 ].

There are differences in applying sensory evaluation among companies from RIS countries, which value the most different stages of NPD. It is not surprising that the use of consumer assessment tests, expert tests and other sensory evaluation methods is most common among companies, which see “sensory quality of the product and its acceptability by consumers” as the most important stage of NPD process ( Table 7 ). However, “developing a product recipe, selection and safety of raw materials, its health-promoting properties” is seen as crucial in the NPD process by more than one fourth of the researched companies and within this group sensory evaluation, along with consumer assessment and expert tests are also seen as valuable. Table 7 presents the use of various sensory evaluation methods by companies that tend to value the most a specific stage of the NPD process. E.g., 74.4% of companies that see as the most important stage of NPD “developing a product recipe, selection and safety of raw materials, its health-promoting properties” apply sensory evaluation in NPD, 66.7% use consumer tests, and 46.2% use expert tests. This means that there are some companies that use both types of tests, and other focus only on one specific test.

Most important stages of NPD and use of sensory evaluation.

In theory, sensory analysis is applied at many stages of new product development. Affective tests, e.g., focus group, can be used at the product concept stage, while from the assessment of a prototype, affective methods such as examining product preference or acceptability can be used. Analytical research, e.g., discrimination tests, can be used to optimize the product, e.g., nutritional optimization of the product related to the reduction or exchange of sucrose in the product. However, to determine the quality of the product prototype and the differences between the variants, it is worth using Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA®). In order to obtain more complete information about the product, descriptive analysis can be carried out in parallel with sensory affective analysis and consumer testing and instrumental measurements. Before a product is placed on the market, Multivariate Data Analysis (MVA) can be used to correlate sensory descriptive analysis with factors affecting the consumer [ 8 ].

There are three most popular sensory methods used in NPD in the food sector in RIS countries ( Figure 1 ), and discrimination test is the most popular one (37.8%). However, companies usually use more than one method in order to verify, compare and combine the results of sensory methods used.

Sensory methods used in NPD.

The discriminatory test is a powerful sensory evaluation method in terms of its sensitivity, which provides reliable and important results that, because of its effectiveness, have saved companies a considerable amount of time, money and effort [ 22 ].

Sensory methods can be used at many stages of the NPD, so it is important to use them at many stages, but you can see that discriminatory methods are most often used, and the use of methods depends on the purpose of the research.

Companies from the sample tend to value consumers opinions. Of the companies, 63.1% use consumer tests (affective tests) to verify consumer acceptance or preferences for the developed product. Interestingly, the average number of consumer test participants differs significantly between the companies form the sample. On the one hand, almost 33% of companies collect information from a small number of consumers, i.e., ≤30. On the other hand, over 33% conduct consumer assessment on relatively big samples of more than 100 consumers ( Figure 2 ). As confirmed by other researchers, consumer acceptance testing can be used during the product development and optimization based on 25–75 individuals, while a large number of consumers (more than 100) is used in consumer tests before product lunch [ 8 ].

Average number of consumer test participants.

Interest in consumer (hedonic) research in both basic psychophysics and applied and consumer food research has increased significantly in recent years. Research on the identification of differences in the hedonic response to chemical stimuli has become the basis for a better understanding of the role of sensory, perceptual, cognitive and genetic factors influencing consumer food preferences and choice. Now that the consumer market has become more crowded and competitive, applied product research is not only investigating which products are more popular with consumers than others, but it has become more important than ever to discover the basic segmentation of consumers [ 56 ].

Compared to other types of sensory evaluation methods, expert tests performed by a panel of trained experts to determine the quality of products seem to be rather unpopular among companies representing food industry companies from RIS countries. Only 42.6% of these companies perform expert tests. There are several primary reasons mentioned by the food industry companies from RIS countries why such tests are not popular. First, these companies do not employ such experts and are not willing to outsource such service. Second, these companies have no knowledge or experience in this field, thus prefering to use other, better known methods of sensory evaluation. Third, the sensory quality of products is assessed by company owners, management board or employees and friends. Among secondary reasons for not using such tests, companies list high expenses and lack of need. However, looking at the answers given by the companies from the sample, along with additional justifications, it seems that companies representing the food industry in RIS countries do not have sufficient knowledge in the field to use expert tests.

The use of sensory evaluation methods differs among companies of various sizes from RIS countries. In general, the bigger the company, the more popular and used sensory evaluation methods in NPD ( Table 8 ). Most of the companies, regardless of size, prefer consumer assessment tests over expert tests. However, almost 60% of companies employing 51–100, 101–1000 and above 5000, respectively, declare to use expert tests. These results seem to confirm the research results presented by other authors stating that the bigger the company, the wider knowledge and application of sensory evaluation methods.

Use of sensory evaluation in companies from RIS countries by company size.

Consumer assessment tests run by companies of different sizes vary in average number of consumer test participants. Almost 60% of companies employing 1–10 employees run these tests on the sample of ≤30 consumers. Companies employing 11–50 and 51–100 employees prefer samples of 31–50 or more than 100 consumers; more than 40% of companies employing 101–1000 people conduct these tests with more than 100 consumers, whereas 33.3% of those employing 1001–5000 run tests on the samples of ≤30 and more than 100 consumers, respectively. Not surprisingly, almost 82% of the biggest companies tend to research more than 100 consumers at a time.

When it comes to specific sensory methods used in NPD by companies of different sizes, consumer acceptance tests are the most popular among those employing 1–10 and 1001–5000 employees, whereas discrimination tests are more widely used by those employing 11–50, 101–1000 and above 5000 people.

Sensory evaluation is beginning to be applied in many food companies, and research results of other authors also confirm that its adoption depends, among others, on the size of the company [ 19 ]. For example, in the case of large companies such as Puleva Biotech S.A., Spain, sensory testing is carried out daily in several departments, i.e., quality control, research and development and marketing. In the case of small companies, the situation is completely different. Small companies do not have the structure, personnel and/or qualifications to carry out sensory research, although they are aware of its existence and effectiveness. Medium-sized companies try to include sensory evaluation as one of the modern tools to improve their efficiency and thus their income [ 19 ].

All in all, sensory food research can contribute to understanding consumer response to emerging trends in food production, processing and consumption. In order to make better use of sensory research, it is necessary to allow access to appropriate university training programmes, funding for fundamental research and multidisciplinary cooperation [ 18 ].

5. Conclusions

The analysis presented above, based on desk research and CASI, allowed to answer the research questions (RQ) outlined in the introductory part of the paper.

Thereby RQ1 allowed to describe the methods of sensory evaluation that can be used to support NPD in the food industry. Companies can benefit from the many achievements of the scientific discipline of sensory evaluation, and they can use analytical and affective sensory tests. They have many different sensory methods at their disposal, which can be used at different stages of the NPD process, from the idea and conception of the product to its launch and subsequent approval, which allows them to assess both the quality of the product and the factors influencing consumers and their purchasing decisions.

RQ2 addressed the trends of using sensory evaluation in NPD in the food industry companies in RIS countries. The research results showed that almost 70% of companies apply sensory evaluation methods in NPD; however, among them there are the following three most popular ones: discrimination test, descriptive analysis and consumer test. Moreover, the companies generally value consumers opinions and more than 63% of them uses consumer assessment tests to verify the match between the products they offer and expectations of consumers. Nevertheless, looking at the answers given by the companies from the sample, along with their additional justifications, it seems that companies representing food industry in RIS countries do not have sufficient knowledge in the field to use expert tests, which may lead to the use of unsuitable methods of sensory analysis to achieve the research objectives set companies.

RQ3 was aimed at identifying sensory evaluation methods that are used by companies, which mostly tend to value a specific stage of the NPD process. First, it allowed to identify that more than one fourth of the companies from the sample see “developing a product recipe, selection and safety of raw materials, its health-promoting properties” as the most important stage of the NPD process, almost one fifth values the most “creating a new product, idea”, whereas around 10%, respectively, treat “ensuring the safety of produced food” and “sensory quality of the product and its acceptability by consumers” as highly important. Second, the analysis allowed to link specific sensory methods used with companies valuing different staged of NPD. Almost 82% of companies that value the most “sensory quality of the product and its acceptability by consumers” apply sensory evaluation methods in NPD; 73% use consumer assessment tests, and 64% use expert tests. The knowledge of sensory evaluation methods and their application is really high in this group of companies, compared to the whole sample. Among other groups of companies identified based on the stage of NPD process they value, 70% of companies focused on “creating a new product, idea” use consumer assessment tests and 67% of those focused on “developing a product recipe, selection and safety of raw materials, its health-promoting properties”. The knowledge and application of different sensory evaluation methods is diverse among companies representing different groups; however, interestingly, companies focused on “obtaining funds/grants” and “product distribution” seem to disregard expert tests.

RQ4 allowed to characterize the differences in applying sensory evaluation methods among companies of different sizes from RIS countries. Sensory evaluation is increasingly being used in many food companies, and the use of these methods depends to a large extent on the size of the company. Among the companies analyzed in the RIS countries, it can be seen that the larger the company, the more often the methods of sensory evaluation are used in NPDs. Almost 60% of companies employing 51–100, 101–1000 and more than 5000 people, respectively, declare the use of expert (analytical) test. However, regardless of size, most companies prefer consumer (affective) test to expert tests. Consumer tests are most popular among companies with 1–10 and 1001–5000 employees, while discrimination tests included in analytical test are more frequently used by companies with 11–50, 101–1000 and over 5000 employees.

All in all, it seems that the potential of usage sensory evaluation methods is not yet fully exploited in the food industry. Since this pilot study has been carried out on a sample including many countries from a specific group (RIS countries), a further study is planned to analyze a specific group of companies from selected RIS countries in order to take a closer look at specific sensory analysis methods used in the development of selected food products.

Drawing on research results presented above, future research directions in investigating the importance of sensory evaluation in NPD in the food industry may also include the following topics: focus on analytical test or affective test, one sensory method, one method and one country only; focus on SMEs from specific branch of food industry in RIS countries and/or comparison with other countries; focus on size and experience of food industry in RIS countries; focus on specific stage of NPD and the use of sensory evaluation.

Acknowledgments

The research presented in the paper has been conducted as a part of the project ID 20228 that has received funding from EIT Food, the European Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) on Food, as part of Horizon 2020.

Author Contributions

Study conception and design, K.Ś., M.M.; methodology, K.Ś., M.M.; performed research, K.Ś., M.M.; analyzed the data, K.Ś., M.M.; interpreted the data, K.Ś., M.M.; writing, K.Ś., M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding from the Rector of WULS-SGGW as part of the system of financial support for scientists and teams.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to publish the results.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Analyzing spatio-temporal changes and trade-offs/synergies of gross ecosystem product based on water-energy-food nexus

• Research Article
• Published: 12 April 2024

Cite this article

• Jia He 1 , 2 ,
• Lingjing Wang 1 &
• Chuanhao Wen 3  

The value of the ecosystem’s ultimate goods and services for human welfare and long-term economic and social development is known as the gross ecosystem product (GEP). For the study of GEP accounting, the suggested water-energy-food (WEF) nexus offers a fresh viewpoint. This work aims to build a GEP accounting index system based on WEF, investigate its spatio-temporal evolution characteristics, and assess trade-offs and synergies between and within the water, energy, and food subsystems. Using the Three Gorges Reservoir area (TGRA) as an illustration, the findings revealed that, firstly, the comprehensive benefit of GEP based on WEF showed an upward trend in TGRA. Still, it was worth noting that the total production of the food ecosystem decreased. Secondly, the GEP based on WEF in five periods showed a spatial pattern of “high east and west, low middle.” Thirdly, the Pearson correlation coefficient indicated that the GEP trade-off relationships based on WEF were dominant in TGRA, with the strongest trade-offs between AQV, SCV, APV, and LEV. In addition, in bivariate local spatial autocorrelation, the value of the six ecosystem service function relationships was dominated by the trade-off relationship, and the distribution of trade-offs and synergies showed significant heterogeneity at the county scale in the TGRA. Finally, hot spot analysis showed that the hot spots of the gross water and energy ecosystem products were scattered in the tail area of the study area. In contrast, the hot spots of the gross food ecosystem product were concentrated in the belly region. The findings of this study provided a basis for the scientific formulation of territorial spatial pattern optimization for water, energy, and agricultural resources in the TGRA and can more accurately reflect the status of the ecological environment and changes of WEF over time. Moreover, this paper also gives full play to the growth advantages of shipping and aquatic products, implements effective soil erosion prevention and control measures, and establishes water-saving mechanisms and other measures in terms of water resources. Subregional plans for industrial structure and strengthening of waste gas and wastewater treatment facilities regarding energy resources are developed. Implement the cultivated land protection system and promote the superiority of crop varieties and other measures in terms of food resources.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data availability

Not applicable.

Anselin L (1995) Local indicators of spatial association-LISA. Geogr Anal 27:93–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1995.tb00338.x

Article   Google Scholar  

Basu S, Thibodeau TG (1998) Analysis of spatial autocorrelation in house prices. J Real Estate Finance Econ 17:61–85. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007703229507

Baveye P (2017) Quantification of ecosystem services: beyond all the “guesstimates”, how do we get real data? Ecosyst Serv 24:47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.006

Bo W, Wang L, Cao J, Wamg X, Xiao Y, Ouyang ZY (2017) Valuation of China’s ecological assets in forests. Acta Ecol Sin 37. https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201606161172

Boisvert V, Méral P, Froger G (2013) Market-based instruments for ecosystem services: institutional innovation or renovation? Soc Nat Resour 26:1122–1136. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.820815

Costanza R, De Groot R, Braat L, Kubiszewski I, Fioramonti L, Sutton P, Farber S, Grasso M (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv 28:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008

Cui YP, Wang BD, Chen QW (2014) The spatial-temporal dynamics of chlorophyll a and DO in the Yangtze estuary after normal impoundment of the Three Gorges Reservoir. Acta Ecol Sin 34:6309–6316. https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201302050242(inChinese)

Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, Bartuska A, Baste IA, Bilgin A, Brondizio E, Chan KM, Figueroa VE, Duraiappah A, Fischer M, Hill R, Koetz T, Leadley P, Lyver P, Mace GM, Martin-Lopez B, Okumura M, Pacheco D, Pascual U, Pérez ES, Reyers B, Roth E, Saito O, Scholes RJ, Sharma N, Tallis H, Thaman R, Watson R, Yahara T, Hamid ZA, Akosim C, Al-Hafedh Y, Allahverdiyev R, Amankwah E, Asah ST, Asfaw Z, Bartus G, Brooks LA, Caillaux J, Dalle G, Darnaedi D, Driver A, Erpul G, Escobar-Eyzaguirre P, Failler P, Fouda AMM, Fu B, Gundimeda H, Hashimoto S, Homer F, Lavorel S, Lichtenstein G, Mala WA, Mandivenyi W, Matczak P, Mbizvo C, Mehrdadi M, Metzger JP, Mikissa JB, Moller H, Mooney HA, Mumby P, Nagendra H, Nesshover C, Oteng-Yeboah AA, Pataki G, Roué M, Rubis J, Schultz M, Smith P, Sumaila R, Takeuchi K, Thomas S, Verma M, Yeo-Chang Y, Zlatanova D (2015) The IPBES Conceptual Framework-connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

Ding TH, Chen JF, Fang LP, Ji J, Fang Z (2023) Urban ecosystem services supply-demand assessment from the perspective of the water-energy-food nexus. Sustain Cities Soc 90:104401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104401

Ding XW, Dong XS, Hou BD, Fan GH, Zhang XY (2021) Visual platform for water quality prediction and pre-warning of drinking water source area in the Three Gorges Reservoir area. J Clean Prod 309:127398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127398

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Feng CY, Qu S, Jin Y, Tang X, Liang S, Chiu ASF, Xu M (2019) Uncovering urban food-energy-water nexus based on physical input-output analysis: the case of the Detroit Metropolitan Area. Appl Energy 252:113422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113422

Feng YY, Zhao YL, Yang ZM, Xue CL, Liu Y (2021) Spatio-temporal differentiation of trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services in typical mountain areas of China. J Resour Ecol 12:268–279. https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.02.013

Gao X, Shen JQ, He WJ, Zhao X, Li ZC, Hu WF, Wang JZ, Ren YJ, Zhang X (2021) Spatial-temporal analysis of ecosystem services value and research on ecological compensation in Taihu Lake Basin of Jiangsu Province in China from 2005 to 2018. J Clean Prod 317:128241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128241

Grimsrud K, Graesse M, Lindhjem H (2020) Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: a better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management. Ecol Econ 170:106588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106588

Grizzetti B, Lanzanova D, Liquete C, Reynaud A, Cardoso AC (2016) Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management. Environ Sci Policy 61:194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.008

Guan S, Liao Q, Wu WJ, Yi C, Gao YM (2022) Revealing the coupling relationship between the gross ecosystem product and economic growth: a case study of Hubei Province. Sustainability 14:7546. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137546

Han DN, Yu DY, Cao Q (2020) Assessment on the features of coupling interaction of the food-energy-water nexus in China. J Clean Prod 249:119379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119379

Hao CZ, Wu SY, Zhang WT, Chen YQ, Ren YF, Chen X, Wang H, Zhang LB (2022) A critical review of Gross ecosystem product accounting in China: status quo, problems and future directions. J Environ Manage 322:115995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115995

Hoff H (2011) Understanding the nexus. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm

Google Scholar  

Hopkins KG, Noe GB, Franco F, Pindilli EJ, Gordon S, Metes M, Claggett PR, Gellis A, Hupp CR, Hogan DM (2018) A method to quantify and value floodplain sediment and nutrient retention ecosystem services. J Environ Manage 220:65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.013

Hui Y, Yong L, Shao QL, Yong W, Yong Y, Wei DL (2015) The influences of topographic relief on spatial distribution of mountain settlements in Three Gorges Area. Environ Earth Sci 74:4335–4344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4443-2

Han L, Yang ML, Liu Z, Zhao YH, Zhao ZL, Zhang YF (2022) Ecosystem service tradeoffs and synergies in typical farmland conversion area of the Loess Plateau: taking Yan’an City as an example. Acta Ecol Sin 42:8115–8125. https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb202110102836 . (inChinese)

Jopke C, Kreyling J, Maes J, Koellner T (2015) Interactions among ecosystem services across Europe: bagplots and cumulative correlation coefficients reveal synergies, trade-offs, and regional patterns. Ecol Indic 49:46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.037

Kulaixi Z, Chen YN, Wang C, Xia QQ (2023) Spatial differentiation of ecosystem service value in an arid region: a case study of the Tarim River Basin. Xinjiang Ecol Indic 151:110249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110249

Li T, Lü YH, Fu BJ, Hu WY, Comber AJ (2019a) Bundling ecosystem services for detecting their interactions driven by large-scale vegetation restoration: enhanced services while depressed synergies. Ecol Indic 99:332–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.12.041

Li Z, Sun Z, Tian Y, Zhong J, Yang W (2019b) Impact of land use/cover change on yangtze river delta urban agglomeration ecosystem services value: temporal-spatial patterns and cold/hot spots ecosystem services value change brought by urbanization. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16:123. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16010123

Liang YH, Li YM, Liang S, Feng CY, Xu LX, Qi JC, Yang XC, Wang YF, Zhang C, Li K, Li H, Yang ZF (2020) Quantifying direct and indirect spatial food–energy–water (FEW) nexus in China. Environ Sci Technol 54:9791–9803. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06548

Lorilla RS, Kalogirou S, Poirazidis K, Kefalas G (2019) Identifying spatial mismatches between the supply and demand of ecosystem services to achieve a sustainable management regime in the Ionian Islands (Western Greece). Land Use Policy 88:104171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104171

Li GT, Zhao ZJ, Huang YF, Li BG (2002) Effect of straw returning on soil nitrogen transformation. J. Plant Nutr Fert 8:162–167. https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1008-505X.2002.02.006 . (in Chinese)

Lin YQ, ChenM Zhang JY, Chen QW, Li QY (2022) Accounting system of gross water ecosystem product and its application. Water Resour Prot 39:234. https://doi.org/10.3880/j.issn.10046933.2023.01.030 . (in Chinese)

Muhirwa F, Shen L, Elshkaki A, Zhong S, Hu S, Hirwa H, Chiaka JC, Umarishavu F, Mulinga N (2022) Ecological balance emerges in implementing the water-energy-food security nexus in well-developed countries in Africa. Sci Total Environ 833:154999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154999

Nkiaka E, Bryant RG, Manda S, Okumah M (2023) A quantitative understanding of the state and determinants of water-energy-food security in Africa. Environ Sci Policy 140:250–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.12.015

Ouyang ZY, Zhu CQ, Yang GB, Xu WH, Zheng H, Zhang Y, Xiao Y (2013) Gross ecosystem product: concept, accounting framework and case study. Acta Ecol Sin 33:6747–6761. https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201310092428(inChinese)

Peng S (2022a) 1 km monthly potential evapotranspiration dataset in China (1990-2021). National Tibetan Plateau Data Center https://doi.org/10.11866/db.loess.2021.001

Peng S (2022b) 1-km monthly precipitation dataset for China (1901–2021). . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3185722 National Tibetan Plateau Data Center, Beijing China.

Pokhrel A, Soni P (2019) Energy balance and environmental impacts of rice and wheat production: a case study in Nepal. Int J Agric Biol Eng 12:201–207. https://doi.org/10.25165/ijabe.v12i1.3270

Posner S, Verutes G, Koh I, Denu D, Ricketts T (2016) Global use of ecosystem service models. Ecosyst Serv 17:131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.12.003

Qiao XN, Gu YY, Zou CX, Xu DL, Wang L, Ye X, Yang Y, Huang XF (2019) Temporal variation and spatial scale dependency of the trade-offs and synergies among multiple ecosystem services in the Taihu Lake Basin of China. Sci Total Environ 651:218–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.135

Rasul G, Sharma B (2016) The nexus approach to water–energy–food security: an option for adaptation to climate change. Clim Policy 16:682–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1029865

Ren GY, Guo J (2006) Change in pan evaporation and the influential factors over China: 1956–2000. J Nat Resour 21:31–44. https://doi.org/10.11849/zrzyxb.2006.01.005 . (in Chinese)

Rao EM, Xiao Y, Ouyang ZY (2014) Assessment of flood regulation service of lakes and reservoirs in China. J Nat Resour 29:1356–1365. https://doi.org/10.11849/zrzyxb.2014.08.008 . (in Chinese)

Sangha KK, Evans J, Edwards A, Russell-Smith J, Fisher R, Yates C, Costanza R (2021) Assessing the value of ecosystem services delivered by prescribed fire management in Australian tropical savannas. Ecosyst Serv 51:101343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101343

Sanon S, Hein T, Douven W, Winkler P (2012) Quantifying ecosystem service trade-offs: the case of an urban floodplain in Vienna, Austria. J Environ Manage 111:159–172

Shao HM, Long D, He JQ, Zhang L (2022) Evaluation and evolution analysis of water ecosystem service value in the Yangtze River Delta region based on meta-analysis. Front Environ Sci 10:964168. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.964168

Sun J, Xie X (2020) Estimation of water-energy-food (WEF) servicing values based on a case study on Guizhou province. Resour Indus 22:37–47. https://doi.org/10.13776/j.cnki.resourcesindustries.20200902.004 . (in Chinese)

Su XR, Yu P, You QM, Pang WT, Wang QX (2023) Phytoplankton community structure and water ecological assessment in the Three Gorges Reservoir. J Lake Sci 2:1–16

van den Heuvel L, Blicharska M, Masia S, Sušnik J, Teutschbein C (2020) Ecosystem services in the Swedish water-energy-food-land-climate nexus: anthropogenic pressures and physical interactions. Ecosyst Serv 44:101141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101141

Wang AY, Liao XY, Tong ZJ, Du WL, Zhang JQ, Liu XP, Liu MS (2022a) Spatial-temporal dynamic evaluation of the ecosystem service value from the perspective of “production-living-ecological” spaces: a case study in Dongliao River Basin. China J Clean Prod 333:130218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130218

Wang JK, Wu KX, Du YH (2022b) Does air pollution affect urban housing prices? Evidence from 285 Chinese prefecture-level cities. J Clean Prod 370:133480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133480

Wang J, Zhou W, Guan YJ (2022c) Optimization of management by analyzing ecosystem service value variations in different watersheds in the Three-River Headwaters Basin. J Environ Manage 321:115956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115956

Wang YC, Zhao J, Fu JW, Wei W (2019) Effects of the Grain for Green Program on the water ecosystem services in an arid area of China—using the Shiyang River Basin as an example. Ecol Indic 104:659–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.05.045

Wong CP, Jiang B, Bohn TJ, Lee KN, Lettenmaier DP, Ma D, Ouyang Z (2017) Lake and wetland ecosystem services measuring water storage and local climate regulation. Water Resour Res 53:3197–3223. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019445

Xiao Q, Xiao Y, Tan H (2020) Changes to soil conservation in the Three Gorges Reservoir area between 1982 and 2015. Env Monit Assess 1:192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7983-1

Xue J, Papadimitriou E, Reniers G, Wu C, Jiang D, van Gelder PHAJM (2021) A comprehensive statistical investigation framework for characteristics and causes analysis of ship accidents: a case study in the fluctuating backwater area of Three Gorges Reservoir region. Ocean Eng 229:108981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.108981

Xue L, Ma JJ (2016) Effect of CCS technology for CO_2 leakage on biomass of C_4 crops. Soil Water Res 23:350–353. https://doi.org/10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2016.05.047 . (in Chinese)

Yang J, Huang X (2021) The 30 m annual land cover dataset and its dynamics in China from 1990 to 2019. Earth Syst Sci Data 46:3907–3925. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3907-2021

Yin DY, Yu HC, Shi YY, Zhao MY, Zhang J, Li XS (2023) Matching supply and demand for ecosystem services in the Yellow River Basin, China: a perspective of the water-energy-food nexus. J Clean Prod 384:135469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135469

Zheng L, Liu H, Huang YF, Yin SJ, Jin G (2020) Assessment and analysis of ecosystem services value along the Yangtze River under the background of the Yangtze River protection strategy. J Geogr Sci 30:553–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-020-1742-7

Zang Z, Zhang YQ, Xi X (2022) Analysis of the gross ecosystem product—gross domestic product synergistic states, evolutionary process, and their regional contribution to the Chinese mainland. Land 11:732. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050732

Zeng JW, Xu JP, Li WY, Dai XA, Zhou JY, Shan YF, Zhang JJ, Li WL, Lu H, Ye YK, Xu L, Liang SN, Wang YL (2022) Evaluating trade-off and synergies of ecosystem services values of a representative resources-based urban ecosystem: a coupled modeling framework applied to Panzhihua City China. Remote Sens 14:5282. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14205282

Zhang G, Ding W, Liu H, Yi L, Xu L, Ouyang Z (2021) Quantifying climatic and anthropogenic influences on water discharge and sediment load in Xiangxi River Basin of the Three Gorges Reservoir area. Water Resour 48:204–218. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0097807821020184

Zhang J, Song Y, Wang J (2022) Spatiotemporal patterns of gross ecosystem product across China’s cropland ecosystems over the past two decades. Front Ecol Evol 10:959329. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.959329

Zhang LB, Hao CZ, Song Y, Wang YY, Zhang WT, Huang Y, Liang H, T, (2022) Basic principles of gross ecosystem product (GEP) accounting. J Resour Ecol 13:501–10. https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.03.014

Zhang N, Ren R, Zhang Q, Zhang T (2020) Air pollution and tourism development: an interplay. Ann Tour Res 85:103032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103032

Zhao X, Yi P, Xia JJ, He WJ, Gao X (2022) Temporal and spatial analysis of the ecosystem service values in the Three Gorges Reservoir area of China based on land use change. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:26549–26563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17827-2

Zhou X, Wang Q, Zhang R, Ren B, Wu X, Wu Y, Tang J (2022) A spatiotemporal analysis of Hainan Island’s 2010–2020 gross ecosystem product accounting. Sustainability 14:15624. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315624

Zhang B, Gao JX, Xie GD, Wang YP (2012) Preliminary evaluation of air temperature reduction of urban green spaces in Beijing. Acta Ecol Sin 32:7698–7705. https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201203150345 . (inChinese)

Zan X, Zhang YL, Jia XY, Xiong GS (2020) Evaluation on the ecosystem services value of the upper reaches of Yongding River. J Nat Resour 35:1326–1337

Zhu LY, Chen YY, Wang YY, Wang CR, Wei YS, Zhang W, Chu TC (2022) Impact assessment of the ecological restoration project on Qingjing lake in Tianjin. J Hydrol 43:18–24. https://doi.org/10.15928/j.1674-3075.202004150102 . (in Chinese)

Zhu KW, Liu Z, Lv ZC, Pu GQ, Guo W (2015) The ecological development potential and time-space analysis of Chinese main agricultural crop biomass energy. Chin Agric Sci 48:4285–4301. https://doi.org/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2015.21.009 . (inChinese)

Zhao QT, Ouyang ZY, Wang XK, Miao H, Wei YC (2003) Ecosystem services and their valuation of terrestrial surface water system in China. J Nat Resour 18:443–452. https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-3037.2003.04.008 . (in Chinese)

Zhang WB, Xie Y, Liu BY (2003) Spatial distribution of rainfall erosivity in China. J Mt Sci 21:33–40. (in Chinese)

Download references

This work was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 23BJY199), the university-level Key Platform Open project of Chongqing Technology and Business University (Grant No. KFJJ2019010), Chongqing Technology and Business University graduate research innovation project (yjscxx2023-211–59), and the Science and Technology research project of Chongqing Education Commission (Grant No. KJQN202000840). Additionally, this research was supported by the Upper Yangtze Basin Complex Ecosystem Management Innovation Team.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Economics, Chongqing Technology and Business University, Chongqing, 400067, China

Jia He & Lingjing Wang

Institute of Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Zone Development, Chongqing Technology and Business University, Chongqing, 400067, China

School of Economics, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650091, China

Chuanhao Wen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Jia He: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, funding acquisition, writing, review, and editing. Lingjing Wang: data curation, formal analysis, validation, visualization, writing original draft, writing, review, and editing. Chuanhao Wen: project administration, supervision, writing, review, and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chuanhao Wen .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Eyup Dogan

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

He, J., Wang, L. & Wen, C. Analyzing spatio-temporal changes and trade-offs/synergies of gross ecosystem product based on water-energy-food nexus. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32842-9

Download citation

Received : 04 August 2023

Accepted : 04 March 2024

Published : 12 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32842-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Gross ecosystem product (GEP)
• Water-energy-food nexus
• Trade-offs/synergies
• Three Gorges Reservoir area
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research