# Flatbread and consumers from the Mediterranean area: preference, perception, and innovation acceptance

Nour Doumani, Haneen Hanee Al-Dmoor, Cynthia Helou, Dubravka Novotni, Maria Papageorgiou, Antonella Pasqualone, Cristina Rosell, Vasilis Valdramidis, Francesca Vurro, Alain Le-Bail, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Nour Doumani, Haneen Hanee Al-Dmoor, Cynthia Helou, Dubravka Novotni, Maria Papageorgiou, et al. Flatbread and consumers from the Mediterranean area: preference, perception, and innovation acceptance. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 2025, 234, pp.118586. 10.1016/j.lwt.2025.118586. hal-05366290

HAL Id: hal-05366290

https://hal.science/hal-05366290v1

Submitted on 14 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Flatbread and consumers from the Mediterranean area: preference, perception, and innovation acceptance

Nour Doumani<sup>a,†,*</sup>, Haneen Hanee Al-Dmoor<sup>b</sup>, Cynthia Helou<sup>c</sup>, Dubravka Novotni<sup>d</sup>, Maria Papageorgiou<sup>e</sup>, Antonella Pasqualone<sup>f</sup>, Cristina Rosell<sup>g,h</sup>, Vasilis Valdramidis<sup>i,j</sup>, Francesca Vurro<sup>f</sup>, Alain Le-Bail<sup>k,l,**</sup>, Patricia Le-Bail<sup>a,L</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords:

- Flatbread industry
- Mediterranean area
- Gluten-free
- Part-baked
- Innovative flours

## ABSTRACT

The FLAT BREAD MINE international research project, funded by PRIMA with EU support, explores innovative technologies and reformulations to develop healthy flatbreads for Mediterranean consumers. A survey across eight Mediterranean countries examined consumption habits, preferences, perceptions, and openness to innovation. Statistical analyses, including logistic and linear regressions, and principal component analysis (PCA), were applied. PCA identified three distinct consumer segments: Mindful (34 %), Aesthetic (32 %), and Practical (34 %), prioritizing nutrition, sensory qualities, and convenience, respectively. The Mindful group showed the strongest interest in innovation, positioning them as the primary target group for project outcomes. Geographic origin strongly influenced preferences: Middle Eastern consumers favoured double-layered flatbreads and considered them essential, while Europeans preferred single-layered types for their gastronomic and health appeal. Pita was the most popular variety (45.9 %). Taste and texture were major drawbacks of gluten-free flatbreads. Part-baked flatbreads were seldom consumed (~16 %) largely due to misconceptions, though interest was higher for shelf storage (40.6 %) than for frozen (24.8 %). The most accepted alternative flours were durum wheat (59.7 %), corn (53.1 %), and oat (53 %). Overall, the study enhances understanding of flatbread preferences in the Mediterranean area, underscoring the importance of cultural origin and consumer attitudes in driving innovation in the flatbread industry.

## 1. Introduction

Flatbread, with its mono- or double-layered structure, is a staple traditional food in the Mediterranean area, produced in several countries including France, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Malta, Greece, Lebanon, and Jordan (Pasqualone et al., 2022). The world's oldest flatbread was found in Jordan around 14 400 years ago (Arranz-Otaegui et al., 2018). It is

traditionally made from simple ingredients: water, flour, yeast, and salt, and its cooking temperature can vary from 200 °C (mono-layered) up to 350 °C-600 °C (double-layered) (Boukid, 2022). Flatbread currently faces several challenges: i) climate change in the Mediterranean, which affects the yield and quality of soft wheat, the cereal most commonly used in flatbread preparation, though other cereals are also used; ii) health issues, including excessive salt intake, the prevalence of celiac

<footnote><sup>a</sup> ISD Team, BIA Unit, INRAE, 3 impasse Yvette Cauchois, 44300, Nantes, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Scientific Food Center, 68 rue Prs. Taghrid St., Amman, Jordan</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Pharmacy, Saint Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut, 1004 2020, Lebanon</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> University of Zagreb Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, Pierottijeva 6, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup> Department of Soil, Plant and Food Science (DISSPA), University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Via Amendola 165/a, 70126, Bari, Italy</footnote>

<footnote><sup>f</sup> Department of Food Science and Technology, International Hellenic University, POB 141 Alexandrian Campus, GR57400, Thessaloniki, Greece</footnote>

<footnote><sup>g</sup> Institute of Agrochemistry and Food Technology (IATA-CSIC), C/Catedratico Agustin Escardino, 7, Paterna, Spain</footnote>

<footnote><sup>h</sup> Department of Food and Human Nutritional Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada</footnote>

<footnote><sup>i</sup> Department of Food Sciences and Nutrition, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Malta, Msida, 2080, Malta</footnote>

<footnote><sup>j</sup> National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laboratory of Food Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, Zografou, 157 71, Athens, Greece</footnote>

<footnote><sup>k</sup> GEPEA, VetAgroBio Campus ingénieur, ONIRIS, Rue de la Géraudière, 44322, Nantes, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>l</sup> USC 1498 INRAE-TRANSFORM Dept and GEPEA UMR CNRS, Nantes, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author. ISD Team, BIA Unit, INRAE, 3 impasse Yvette Cauchois, 44300, Nantes, France.</footnote>

<footnote>** Corresponding author. GEPEA, VetAgroBio Campus ingénieur, ONIRIS, Rue de la Géraudière, 44322, Nantes, France.</footnote>
disease in the region; iii) and the fact that flatbread is a high glycaemic index food. To address these health-related challenges, reformulation strategies such as salt reduction (Crucean et al., 2023) and the incorporation of alternative flours (e.g., legume, pseudo-cereal, and fibre-enriched blends) have been widely explored (Singh et al., 2025; Wang & Jian, 2022). These approaches can also support the use of locally available crops, promoting more sustainable and regionally adapted food systems (Capriles & Aréas, 2014; Crucean et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2021). At the same time, they can improve the nutritional profile of flatbreads by enhancing protein content, mineral bioavailability, and dietary fibre. Ingredients such as soluble and insoluble fibres, β-glucan-rich oats, and barley have also been shown to lower the glycaemic index of breads by slowing starch digestibility and improving postprandial glucose response, while contributing to improved satiety (Boers et al., 2017; Mansoor et al., 2022; Sagnelli et al., 2018; Thondre & Henry, 2009; K. Zhang, Hu, et al., 2021). However, such modifications may also impact dough rheology and sensory attributes (Dankwa et al., 2021; Piga et al., 2021; Y. Zhang, Hu, et al., 2021). For individuals with coeliac disease, gluten-free flatbreads are increasingly in demand. However, the absence of a gluten network creates technological and sensory challenges, compromising gas retention and dough elasticity. This often results in reduced volume, crumbly texture, faster staling, and occasional off-flavours, depending on the alternative flours used (Ashraf et al., 2021; Cappelli et al., 2020; Capriles & Areas, 2014; Culetu et al., 2021; Renzetti & Arendt, 2009). These limitations are widely recognised as barriers to consumer acceptance.

A further challenge is the high energy consumption of flatbread making and its short shelf-life. To address this, food technologists are also exploring partially baked technologies, which can help extend product shelf-life and reduce energy use by allowing final baking at the point of sale or consumption. However, these processes may also affect moisture retention, staling kinetics, and crust development (Gerardo-Rodríguez et al., 2021; Verbeke et al., 2024). Balancing technological feasibility with sensory quality is critical for consumer acceptance.

These challenges highlight the importance of understanding consumer expectations and acceptance of innovative flatbreads across different cultural contexts.

Numerous consumer surveys have explored conventional breads, focusing on sensory preferences, health perceptions, and motivational factors (Gębski et al., 2019; Rødbotten et al., 2015). For instance, Rødbotten et al. (2015) examined consumer preferences for wheat-barley pan breads with different salt levels across five European countries, while Gębski et al. (2019) assessed how nutritional information affected Polish consumers' preferences for plain rolls with reduced sodium and added fibre. Similarly, Lambert et al. (2009) conducted a large survey in five European countries (n = 1050), identifying two main consumer groups: frequent buyers who valued pleasure and freshness (common in France and Southern Europe), and less frequent buyers who prioritised longer shelf life and nutritional value, prevalent in Northern and Eastern Europe (Lambert et al., 2009).

Other studies have examined consumer segmentation in detail. A Slovenian study (n = 547) found functional ingredients like chia, linseed, and buckwheat to be highly valued, and identified four distinct consumer segments: uninvolved, conservative, health conscious, and moderate (Kušar et al., 2023). A study on bread quality perception among Belgian consumers (n = 251) identified four consumer segments based on sensory, health, and nutrition views, ranging from “enthusiastic” to those seeing bread as tasteless or unhealthy (Gellynck et al., 2009). A Poland-based study (n = 1013) clustered consumers into groups such as ‘Enthusiastic’, ‘Involved’, ‘Ultra-Involved’, and ‘Neutral’, highlighting the relation of these groups with different motives in choosing breads (nutritional, sensory, practical marketing motives) in addition to finding the group favouring bread with added fibre (Sajdakowska et al., 2020). In the United States, a survey showed that older consumers view bread as a staple, while younger and multicultural

groups see it as affordable and convenient. This shift, along with rising demand for health-focused and longer-lasting options demonstrated the urge for the industry to adapt (Atchley, 2024).

However, these studies focus exclusively on conventional breads such as pan bread, sourdough, and rolls. Flatbreads, despite being widely consumed in regions like the Middle East, North Africa, and Southern Europe, remain underexplored from a consumer perspective. Structurally and functionally, flatbreads differ markedly from conventional breads, featuring little or no crumb, no crust, and a sensory emphasis on pliability rather than crispness. These differences, along with strong cultural and regional associations, limit the applicability of findings from conventional bread studies to flatbread products.

Although the global flatbread market is growing rapidly, reaching a value of 43.8 billion US dollars in 2024 with a projected annual growth rate of 6.3 per cent (Metatech Insights, 2025), consumer-focused research on flatbread remains scarce. Existing studies lack the scale, segmentation, and demographic profiling that characterise conventional bread research (Boukid, 2022).

This study addresses this gap by investigating consumer choices and preferences related to different types of flatbread. Based on data from eight Southern European and Middle Eastern countries (France, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Malta, Greece, Lebanon, and Jordan), the study applies consumer segmentation methods to identify patterns in preference and behaviour. Beyond profiling distinct consumer groups, the study explores how these preferences vary across countries, how consumers perceive innovative ingredients such as alternative flours, and how they respond to health-related product claims about flatbread. It also examines mental associations with flatbread products, offering a comprehensive understanding of how flatbread is viewed and valued in culturally diverse contexts. Cross-cultural consumer research is increasingly essential in today's globalised marketplace, as a multinational approach enhances product formulation by capturing cultural and regional differences in consumer expectations, helping to guide food innovation strategies that are both locally adapted and globally scalable (Cruz et al., 2022; Rohani, 2017).

The FLAT BREAD MINE project emphasises understanding consumer diversity to support relevant and targeted food innovation. Particular attention is given to strategies that enhance nutritional quality, address gluten-free demands, and improve technological performance, while also promoting energy efficiency and sustainable processing. By aligning innovation with consumer expectations, this study seeks to generate insights that are both scientifically robust and practically relevant for industry.

"Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you who you are," wrote French gastronomie Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin in 1825, a reminder that food choices reflect cultural identity, habits, and lifestyle.

Building on this rationale, the present study addresses the following research questions:

1) What are the main drivers of consumer preference for flatbread in the Mediterranean region?

2) How do consumers perceive traditional and innovative flatbread attributes, including nutritionally improved, gluten-free, and partially baked options?

3) To what extent are consumers willing to accept flatbread innovations, particularly those made with alternative flours or novel processing technologies?

By addressing these questions, the study seeks to generate insights that can guide food innovation strategies, while offering practical applications for industry and enriching academic understanding of consumer behaviour in the Mediterranean context.
## 2. Materials and methods

### 2.1. Study design and data collection

This study was conducted as part of the FLAT BREAD MINE project running from October 2021 to April 2025. Data collection took place between March and October 2022, carried out simultaneously in all participating countries, and targeted bread consumers aged 18 years and above in France, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Malta, Greece, Lebanon, and Jordan. This questionnaire was translated into seven languages to align with partner countries and was developed using the Lime Survey TM (Fa. Carsten Schmitz/Germany, version 3.24.3 + 201027). An invitation was sent via online platforms including a link to the questionnaire to participate anonymously. The first page included the information about the survey and the informed consent. Providing informed consent was mandatory for participation. Responses to each question was required to proceed to the next page. A convenience sampling approach was used to recruit participants across the eight participating countries (France, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Malta, Greece, Lebanon, and Jordan). Participants were reached through institutional mailing lists, social media, and in-person recruitment conducted via communication platforms and in common spaces (e.g., universities, research centres, industries). This strategy was chosen due to practical constraints of time and resources while enabling broad, cross-cultural coverage. Although this method may introduce selection bias and limit representativeness, it offers valuable exploratory insights into under-researched consumer attitudes toward flatbread.

The sample size targeted from each country was calculated based on Yamane (1967). Around 87 persons at least per country were targeted considering over five hundred thousand the population size of each country, 5% level of precision, 95% confidence of interval, and a rough estimation of at least 94% of bread consumers (staple food in Europe and the Middle East with 98% consumption in France (Szabo De Edelenyi et al., 2014). From the total 1866 queries sent, the unresponsive rate of the study was 34% including individuals who did not participate and the ones who withdrew from the study for the lack of time. 1233 participants completed the questionnaire and 1201 were retained for the analysis as 32 persons reported not to consume bread (2.6% in line with our rough estimation of at least 94% of the population consuming bread). The sample selection flowchart is presented in Fig. 1.

### 2.2. Questionnaire sections

The duration of the questionnaire was around 15 min. Its validity was assessed on 25 people via a pilot study. The questionnaire was

divided into seven sections as follows: I) General sociodemographic information about participants; including close ended questions about origin, gender, age, level of education, place of residence, occupation, family structure, household income; II) Bread: consumption, habits of purchase and storage; included close ended questions about preference towards bread types (i.e. precisely including flatbread or not), frequency of consumption, meal preference, frequency and place of purchase, criteria affecting the decision to buy bread; III) Flatbread: perception; including the most representative picture of flatbread among 17 types (Piadina, Pizza, Fougasse, Pissaladiere, Pita, Lagana, Koulouri, Khubz, Tannour, Saj, Shrak, Taboon, Somun, Pogaccia, Coca de recapte, Torta cenceña, Talo), single or double-layered flatbread, mental representation of flatbread, and preference including: organic or not, shelf life, storage, fermentation type; IV) Gluten-free bread knowledge, consumption, problems; V) Part-baked bread: knowledge, consumption, acceptable time for preheating, waste reduction, interest, problems; VI) Knowledge: mould effects, gluten, glycaemic index, sodium chloride, beta-glucans, acrylamide, phytates; VII) Innovation and improvement in flatbread: interest in new flour types and improvements of flatbread, and acceptance of nutritionally improved, gluten-free improved, part-baked improved flatbread with higher price. The full questionnaire is provided in the supplementary material (Annex 1).

### 2.3. Distinction of flatbread consumer's groups

2.4. A Principle Component Analysis (PCA) with a rotation method (varimax with Kaiser Normalisation) was conducted to find out the flatbread consumer groups based on criteria affecting the decision to buy flatbread. A correlation matrix between the 12-criteria (freshness, convenience of use, shelf-life, price, taste, colour, texture, nutrition facts, calories, ingredients, organic, eco-friendliness) influencing flatbread purchasing decision was studied. Prior to running the PCA, two pre-requisite tests were verified: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test with a value greater than 0.6 and Bartlett test of sphericity with a significant chi square test (p-value <0.05). The resulting principal components were retained based on three elements 1) the Kaiser rule (eigenvalues >1), 2) scree plot's inflection point, and 3) the interpretability of factors (Doumani et al., 2021). Each component was labelled based on the set of criteria with a rotated factor loading greater than 0.5. Additionally, each participant obtained a factor score for each characteristics pattern of flatbread consumers. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to calculate these factor scores and is detailed in a previous study (Naja et al., 2011).

### 2.4. Statistical analysis

Prior to analysis, responses were screened for completeness and consistency. Cases with missing responses or clear inconsistencies were excluded from the final analysis. For descriptive analysis (sociodemographic characteristics, lifestyle, flatbread consumption habits) frequencies and percentages were used. Chi-square tests were performed to compare categorical variables and *p-values* were derived from Pearson's Chi-square test. A binomial logistic regression analysis was run to investigate the sociodemographic factors that influence flatbread preference. The dependent variable is "Bread including flatbread usual consumption and preference," with two categories: "Yes", and "No". The independent variables include origin, gender, age, education level, place of residence, occupation, family structure, and household income. The association between the obtained bread type preference and other variables (sociodemographic characteristics, lifestyle, flatbread consumption habits) were examined with Pearson's correlation. Additional binomial logistic regressions were done to predict the odds of improvement acceptance or not (dependent variable) of flatbread with higher price for each of the following separately: nutritional, gluten-free, and part-baked; with the independent variables being the sociodemographic characteristics on one hand and the scores of the consumer

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Flowchart of participant recruitment and selection.</figcaption></figure>
groups on another hand. Separate linear regressions were performed for each consumer group as the dependent variable. The predictors included mental representation of flatbread, frequency of consumption, frequency of purchase, and place of purchase. For the multivariable analyses, multicollinearity was assessed using a linear regression that included all independent variables. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values below 5 were considered acceptable, and Tolerance values (calculated as 1 divided by VIF) above 0.2 indicated no concern for multicollinearity. Model fit for the logistic regression analyses was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. A non-significant p-value (p > 0.05) was considered to indicate acceptable model fit. In addition, pseudo R² values (Cox & Snell and Nagelkerke) were studied to estimate the proportion of variance explained by the model. For the logistic regression analysis, the effect sizes of the independent variables on the dependent variable were interpreted using Exp (B), which represents the Odds Ratios (OR). For all analysis, a p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Outliers and influential cases were assessed for both logistic and linear regression models using studentized residuals (cut-off ±3) and Cook's distance (>1). Any detected outliers were excluded from the analyses, and these exclusions are documented where applicable. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (version 19.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) was used for all the data treatment.

# 3. Results

## 3.1. Sociodemographic characteristics

Table 1 presents the sociodemographic profile of respondents. Participants were drawn from eight countries across the Middle East and Europe: France, Italy and Greece each contributed roughly one-sixth of the sample; Spain, Lebanon, Jordan and Croatia about a tenth each; Malta slightly less. Women slightly outnumbered men in the sample. The age profile was well balanced across 18–29, 30–44 and 45–65 years, with a small 66+ group. Education was high overall, with nearly three-quarters holding at least a bachelor’s degree. About half lived in towns or villages and half in cities. The most common occupations were employees/workers, high-level professionals and students; other categories were less represented. Households were split between family households and single/couple households. Most respondents reported incomes at or above the level needed to meet basic needs.

## 3.2. Flatbread preference

While the bivariate analysis of the extended Table 1 in the supplementary material (Table S1) provides an initial overview of the correlations between sociodemographic characteristics and the outcome variable, the binomial logistic regression presented in Table 2 analyse the sociodemographic factors for flatbread preference by adjusting for potential confounders.

The binomial logistic regression model confirmed that country of origin was the strongest predictor of flatbread preference (Table 2). Respondents from Middle Eastern countries had dramatically higher odds of preferring flatbread compared to those from France, with the strongest effects in Jordan (OR≈60) and Lebanon (OR≈35). Participants from Malta, Greece, Croatia, and Italy also showed elevated odds, though to a lesser extent. Even so, flatbread accounted for at least one quarter of respondents in every country (details in SI1), underscoring its broad relevance and supporting evidence that consumers value bakery products perceived as convenient and adaptable to modern lifestyles (Eglite & Kunkulberga, 2017, avril 27; Woy et al., 2024). Other sociodemographic variables, including gender, education, occupation, and family structure, were not significant predictors. Age and household income showed only marginal, non-significant effects. Overall, these results highlight the central role of cultural background in shaping flatbread preference, above and beyond individual sociodemographic characteristics.

## 3.3. Representative flatbread by countries

Fig. 2 illustrates the predominant flatbreads according to respondents.

Pita was the most frequently cited type, mentioned by forty-six percent of participants, followed by pizza, khubz and piadina. In contrast, several local varieties such as Pissaladière, Coca de recapte and Torta cenceña received only minimal recognition (fewer than five percent of participants). This finding indicates that only a few flatbreads dominate international consumer perceptions, while others remain highly localised.

## 3.4. Bread consumption habits by region

After examining bread type preferences by sociodemographic criteria (Table S1 and Table 2) and identifying the most representative

<table><caption>**Table 1**
Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents (N = 1201).</caption><thead><tr><th>Characteristics</th><th></th><th>Count (%)</th><th>Characteristics</th><th></th><th>Count (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Origin</td><td>Jordan</td><td>116 (9.7)</td><td rowspan="5">Place of residence</td><td>Village</td><td>262 (21.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Lebanon</td><td>124 (10.3)</td><td>Small town (&lt;50 000 habitants)</td><td>287 (23.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>219 (18.2)</td><td>Town (50 000 to 100 000 habitants)</td><td>118 (9.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Croatia</td><td>121 (10.1)</td><td>City (&gt;100 000 habitants)</td><td>534 (44.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Malta</td><td>97 (8.1)</td><td rowspan="5">Occupation</td><td>Farmer</td><td>17 (14)</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>190 (15.8)</td><td>Manager, merchant, craftsman</td><td>88 (7.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>147 (12.2)</td><td>High-level professionals</td><td>250 (20.8)</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>187 (15.6)</td><td>Intermediate professions</td><td>140 (11.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>491 (40.9)</td><td>Employee, worker</td><td>312 (26.0)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Age</td><td>Women</td><td>704 (58.6)</td><td>Student</td><td>232 (19.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Not disclosed</td><td>6 (0.5)</td><td>Retired</td><td>80 (6.7)</td></tr><tr><td>[18–29]</td><td>422 (35.1)</td><td>Other</td><td>82 (6.8)</td></tr><tr><td>[30–44]</td><td>340 (28.3)</td><td rowspan="4">Family structure</td><td>Single</td><td>381 (31.7)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Education level</td><td>[45–65]</td><td>384 (32.0)</td><td>Couple</td><td>219 (18.2)</td></tr><tr><td>[66 +]</td><td>55 (4.6)</td><td>Family</td><td>601 (50.0)</td></tr><tr><td>≤Elementary</td><td>28 (2.3)</td><td rowspan="7">Household income</td><td>Insufficient</td><td>69 (5.7)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Baccalaureate or high school</td><td>Baccalaureate or high school</td><td>129 (10.7)</td><td>Allows to meet basic needs only</td><td>220 (18.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Vocational/technical</td><td>43 (3.6)</td><td>Allows to meet basic needs and more</td><td>836 (69.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Baccalaureate + 2</td><td>107 (8.9)</td><td>Not disclosed</td><td>76 (6.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor or equivalent</td><td>355 (29.6)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Masters/Engineer or equivalent</td><td>379 (31.6)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PhD or equivalent and more</td><td>160 (13.3)</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Binomial logistic regression predicting flatbread preference from sociodemographics (N = 1201). OR=Odds ratio; CI = 95 % confidence of interval; b = reference category.

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Estimated Coefficient</th><th>p-value</th><th>OR</th><th>95 % CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Origin</td><td>Constant</td><td>16.164</td><td>0.058</td><td>10474844.13</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Jordan</td><td>4.062</td><td>&lt;0.001*</td><td></td><td>21.770-155.055</td></tr><tr><td>Lebanon</td><td>3.581</td><td>&lt;0.001*</td><td>58.099</td><td>16.078-80.140</td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>0.872</td><td>&lt;0.001*</td><td>35.896</td><td>1.521-3.762</td></tr><tr><td>Croatia</td><td>0.604</td><td>0.024*</td><td>1.830</td><td>1.081-3.098</td></tr><tr><td>Malta</td><td>1.019</td><td>&lt;0.001*</td><td>2.770</td><td>1.611-4.764</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>0.487</td><td>0.038*</td><td>1.627</td><td>1.028-2.575</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>0.465</td><td>0.071</td><td>1.592</td><td>0.961-2.637</td></tr><tr><td>France <sup>b</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Gender</td><td>Men</td><td>0.037</td><td>0.794</td><td>1.037</td><td>0.788-1.366</td></tr><tr><td>Women <sup>b</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td></td><td>-0.182</td><td>0.075</td><td>0.833</td><td>0.682-1.019</td></tr><tr><td>Education level</td><td></td><td>-0.049</td><td>0.304</td><td>0.952</td><td>0.867-1.045</td></tr><tr><td>Place of residence</td><td></td><td>0.070</td><td>0.073</td><td>1.072</td><td>0.994-1.157</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="8">Occupation</td><td>Farmer</td><td>0.135</td><td>0.821</td><td>1.145</td><td>0.353-3.709</td></tr><tr><td>Manager, merchant, craftsman</td><td>0.487</td><td>0.190</td><td>1.628</td><td>0.785-3.376</td></tr><tr><td>High-level professionals</td><td>-0.175</td><td>0.593</td><td>0.839</td><td>0.441-1.596</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate professions</td><td>-0.064</td><td>0.843</td><td>0.938</td><td>0.496-1.774</td></tr><tr><td>Employee, worker</td><td>-0.181</td><td>0.548</td><td>0.834</td><td>0.462-1.506</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>-0.341</td><td>0.291</td><td>0.711</td><td>0.377-1.339</td></tr><tr><td>Retired</td><td>-0.509</td><td>0.218</td><td>0.601</td><td>0.267-1.351</td></tr><tr><td>Other <sup>b</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Family structure</td><td></td><td>-0.026</td><td>0.718</td><td>0.974</td><td>0.845-1.123</td></tr><tr><td>Household income</td><td></td><td>-0.130</td><td>0.086</td><td>0.878</td><td>0.757-1.019</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Most representative flatbread types by country (N = 1201).</figcaption></figure>

flatbreads in each country (Fig. 2), Table 3 presents a broader overview of bread consumption habits, purchasing behaviours, and product characteristics among Middle Eastern and Southern European participants.

Table 3 shows clear regional contrasts in bread practices. Middle Eastern participants consumed bread more frequently, with daily intake reported by nearly three-quarters, and mainly purchased from traditional bakeries. In contrast, fewer than half of Southern Europeans ate bread daily, and they relied more heavily on supermarkets. Storage practices also differed: Middle Eastern households commonly used refrigerators, while Southern Europeans typically kept bread on the shelf. Regarding flatbread type, double-layered breads were preferred in the Middle East, whereas single-layered formats were favoured in Southern Europe. Perceptions likewise diverged, with Middle Eastern respondents often describing flatbread as indispensable, while Southern Europeans associated it more with gastronomy or health. Differences were also observed in product characteristics (reported further in Table S2). Overall, these findings reflect a stronger cultural attachment to bread and flatbread among Middle Eastern participants compared to their

Southern European counterparts.

### 3.5. Consumer groups

#### 3.5.1. Principle component analysis

The component plot in rotated space (Fig. 3) illustrates the distribution of respondents across the three orientations identified in the factor loading matrix. The Mindful, Aesthetic and Practical groups were of comparable size, each representing roughly one third of the sample (34 %, 32 % and 34 % respectively). This balanced segmentation suggests that different value orientations coexist in the population, providing a broad base for tailoring product development and marketing strategies.

The three groups were named based on the combination of variables with factor loadings greater than 0.5 that contributed to each component.

#### 3.5.2. Factor loading matrix

The factor loading matrix (Table 4) revealed three distinct consumer
<table><caption>**Table 3**

Bread consumption habits and practices by region (middle East vs southern Europe).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Middle East (n = 240)</th><th colspan="2">Southern Europe (n = 961)</th><th rowspan="2">p-value</th></tr><tr><th>Count</th><th>Column N %</th><th>Count</th><th>Column N %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Consumption frequency</td><td>Less than once/week</td><td>1</td><td>0.40 %</td><td>32</td><td>3.30 %</td><td rowspan="5">&lt;0.001*</td></tr><tr><td>Once/week</td><td>7</td><td>2.90 %</td><td>51</td><td>5.30 %</td></tr><tr><td>2-3 times/week</td><td>30</td><td>12.50 %</td><td>208</td><td>21.60 %</td></tr><tr><td>4-6 times/week</td><td>36</td><td>15.00 %</td><td>214</td><td>22.30 %</td></tr><tr><td>Daily</td><td>166</td><td>69.20 %</td><td>456</td><td>47.50 %</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Preferred meal(s)<sup>a</sup></td><td>Breakfast</td><td>180</td><td>75.00 %</td><td>414</td><td>43.10 %</td><td rowspan="3">&lt;0.001*</td></tr><tr><td>Lunch</td><td>83</td><td>34.60 %</td><td>542</td><td>56.40 %</td></tr><tr><td>Dinner</td><td>116</td><td>48.30 %</td><td>415</td><td>43.20 %</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Purchase frequency</td><td>Less than once/week</td><td>8</td><td>3.33 %</td><td>96</td><td>9.99 %</td><td rowspan="5">0.015*</td></tr><tr><td>Once/week</td><td>49</td><td>20.42 %</td><td>184</td><td>19.15 %</td></tr><tr><td>2-3 times/week</td><td>78</td><td>32.50 %</td><td>303</td><td>31.53 %</td></tr><tr><td>4-6 times/week</td><td>37</td><td>15.42 %</td><td>156</td><td>16.23 %</td></tr><tr><td>Daily</td><td>68</td><td>28.33 %</td><td>222</td><td>23.10 %</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Place of purchase<sup>a</sup></td><td>Traditional bakeries</td><td>202</td><td>84.20 %</td><td>695</td><td>72.30 %</td><td rowspan="2">&lt;0.001*</td></tr><tr><td>Small shops</td><td>56</td><td>23.30 %</td><td>178</td><td>18.50 %</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Storage<sup>a</sup></td><td>Supermarkets</td><td>76</td><td>31.70 %</td><td>474</td><td>49.30 %</td><td rowspan="2">&lt;0.001*</td></tr><tr><td>Refrigerator</td><td>159</td><td>66.30 %</td><td>156</td><td>16.20 %</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Flatbread layering</td><td>Freezer</td><td>84</td><td>35.00 %</td><td>302</td><td>31.40 %</td><td rowspan="5">&lt;0.001*</td></tr><tr><td>Shelf</td><td>69</td><td>28.70 %</td><td>734</td><td>76.40 %</td></tr><tr><td>Single-layered</td><td>55</td><td>22.92 %</td><td>380</td><td>39.54 %</td></tr><tr><td>Double-layered</td><td>104</td><td>43.33 %</td><td>159</td><td>16.54 %</td></tr><tr><td>Both equally</td><td>81</td><td>33.75 %</td><td>381</td><td>39.65 %</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Flatbread perception<sup>a</sup></td><td>None of the above</td><td>0</td><td>0 %</td><td>41</td><td>4.27 %</td><td rowspan="5">&lt;0.001*</td></tr><tr><td>Indispensable</td><td>112</td><td>46.70 %</td><td>41</td><td>4.30 %</td></tr><tr><td>Traditional</td><td>115</td><td>47.90 %</td><td>412</td><td>42.90 %</td></tr><tr><td>Convenient</td><td>134</td><td>55.80 %</td><td>531</td><td>55.30 %</td></tr><tr><td>Gastronomic</td><td>16</td><td>6.70 %</td><td>187</td><td>19.50 %</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Healthy</td><td>18</td><td>7.50 %</td><td>130</td><td>13.50 %</td><td>0.011*</td></tr></tbody></table>

p-values were obtained using Pearson's Chi-square test.

* p-values <0.05 are statistically significant.

<sup>a</sup> Variables with multiple answers choice.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Component plot in rotated space with the variance percentages.</figcaption></figure>

orientations. Mindful consumers placed higher importance on nutrition, health and environmentally friendly attributes. Aesthetic consumers prioritised sensory qualities such as taste, aroma, and appearance while Practical consumers emphasised convenience and price in their bread choices. Together, these orientations illustrate how bread purchase decisions are shaped by contrasting values including health and

<table><caption>**Table 4**

Factor loading matrix for bread-purchase criteria by component (Mindful, Aesthetics, Practical); loadings >0.50 are shown.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Purchase decision criteria</th><th colspan="3">Bread consumer type</th></tr><tr><th>Mindful (n = 408)</th><th>Aesthetic (n = 383)</th><th>Practical (n = 410)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Organic</td><td>0.817</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Eco-friendly</td><td>0.810</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ingredients</td><td>0.791</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nutrition facts</td><td>0.764</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Calories</td><td>0.680</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Texture</td><td></td><td>0.745</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Taste</td><td></td><td>0.718</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Colour</td><td></td><td>0.619</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Freshness</td><td></td><td>0.589</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Shelf-life</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.719</td></tr><tr><td>Convenience of use</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.719</td></tr><tr><td>Price</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.709</td></tr></tbody></table>

sustainability, sensory enjoyment and practicality, highlighting the diversity of consumer drivers in the flatbread market.

### 3.5.3. Distribution across countries

Fig. 4 presents the distribution of consumer orientations across countries. A more detailed interpretation of these differences is provided in the Discussion.

## 3.6. Specific breads consumption and perception

### 3.6.1. Gluten-free bread

Southern European participants in this study have a significantly higher consumption of gluten-free flatbread compared to Middle eastern participants (8.30 % and 15.50 %, respectively with *p* < 0.05; Table S2). Across consumer orientations, at least two-thirds of respondents were
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Distribution of consumer groups by country.</figcaption></figure>

familiar with gluten-free bread. Consumption was most common among the Mindful group, while Aesthetic consumers reported the most dissatisfaction, particularly with texture and taste. These findings highlight that while awareness of gluten-free bread is widespread, negative sensory perceptions remain a major barrier to broader acceptance (Fig. 5).

### 3.6.2. Part-baked bread

Only about one sixth of Middle Eastern (15.5%) and European (16.8%) participants reported consuming part-baked bread from time to time (Table S2). Lack of familiarity and misconceptions, such as not realizing that part-baked bread requires finishing at home or believing that bread should always be consumed fresh, were the main concerns. These issues led many to perceive part-baked bread as less fresh or undercooked, and were particularly evident among the Mindful group, with seventy-two percent reporting low familiarity or misconceptions (Fig. 6). The role of cultural dynamics also helps explain these perceptions: traditional flatbreads are deeply embedded in family practices, regional identity and rituals, and are usually made and consumed fresh. In this context, industrially produced part-baked formats may be perceived as less aligned with these traditions, especially given that most flatbreads in Europe are still produced artisanally and consumers often value

products tied to cultural heritage and freshness (Crucian et al., 2019; Mefleh et al., 2024; Pasqualone et al., 2022; Soare et al., 2023). These findings underscore the need for clearer product communication and culturally sensitive positioning to improve acceptance.

### 3.7. Innovation and improvement

#### 3.7.1. Interest in innovative flours

Durum wheat, corn and oat were the most widely accepted alternative flours, while less familiar options such as sorghum and acorn attracted only niche interest (Fig. 7). This suggests that consumer openness to innovation remains stronger for ingredients already present in their food culture. These findings highlight opportunities to incorporate alternative flours into flatbread formulations through partial substitution of wheat flour or blended combinations, depending on their impact on sensory, technological, texture and shelf-life properties. Targeted studies are needed to determine optimal substitution levels for each flour type or mix. A core objective of the FBM project is to evaluate the incorporation of diverse alternative flours into new flatbread products, supporting consumer-driven innovation and the use of regionally relevant cultivars.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. Attitudes toward gluten-free bread by consumer orientation.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.** Perceptions/motivations related to part-baked bread by consumer orientation.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7.** Interest in flour types by consumer orientation.</figcaption></figure>

### 3.7.2. Interest in improved attributes

Fig. 8 illustrates the interest in different improved aspects of flat-bread across the study population. “Better taste” (70.5 %) and “Better nutrition facts” (69.3 %) emerged as the two top priorities, closely followed by “Better texture,” “More fibre” and “Less acrylamide.” In contrast, “Part-baked & frozen” was of limited interest, with only about

one quarter of respondents considering it desirable. The three consumer groups showed some differences: Mindful consumers emphasised nutritional improvements such as fibre, vitamins and reduced acrylamide, while Aesthetic and Practical consumers placed greatest weight on taste and texture. These findings highlight that successful product development will require enhancing sensory properties while also
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 8. Interest in improved flatbread attributes by consumer orientation.</figcaption></figure>

improving nutritional quality. Within the FBM project, a central goal is to combine these priorities by creating flatbread formulations that deliver both flavour and health benefits.

## 3.8. Improved flatbread with higher price

### 3.8.1. Sociodemographic predictors of acceptance

Fig. 9 presents the graphical representations of the binary logistic regressions (Table S3) of the sociodemographic characteristics vs: nutritionally improved (A), gluten-free improved (B), part-baked improved flatbreads (C). The country of origin was the strongest predictor of interest in improved flatbreads. Jordanian, Croatian and Italian respondents were among the most receptive, while Spanish, Maltese and French respondents showed lower levels of interest. Lebanese participants were especially open to nutritionally improved and part-baked products, whereas Greek participants showed higher interest in part-baked products. Age tended to be neutral or negatively correlated with acceptance, with older groups generally less receptive. Other sociodemographic factors showed only weak or inconsistent associations, indicating that national and cultural context is the key driver of openness to flatbread innovation.

### 3.8.2. Consumer groups predictors of acceptance

This section presents the binomial logistic regression analyses for the three consumer groups and their predicted acceptance of improved flatbreads at a higher price. The results for nutritionally improved, gluten-free, and part-baked flatbreads are reported in Table 5.

Multicollinearity diagnostics revealed no concerns. Consumer group scores demonstrated independence with VIF = 1.0 and Tolerance = 1.0.

The logistic regression models showed that consumer orientation significantly influenced acceptance of nutritionally improved, gluten-free, and part-baked flatbreads (Table 5). The Mindful group consistently displayed greater willingness to pay, with odds nearly twice as high for nutritionally improved breads compared to the reference category. In contrast, neither the Aesthetic nor Practical groups showed significant positive associations, and in some cases their odds were lower than the baseline. These findings suggest that health- and sustainability-oriented consumers are the main drivers of demand for innovative flatbread products, while more price- or convenience-driven groups remain hesitant.

## 3.9. Representation and consumption of bread

The supplementary material (Table S4) presents the results of linear regressions conducted separately for each consumer group as the

dependent variable, using the following predictors: mental representation of flatbread, frequency of consumption, frequency of purchase, and place of purchase. The graphical representation of these results is shown in Fig. 10.

# 4. Discussion

Our study confirms that origin significantly predicts flatbread preference, emphasizing the role of cultural and regional factors in shaping consumer choices (Tiu Wright et al., 2001). Indeed, bread, including flatbread, holds deep cultural meaning and is considered a classic “soul food,” strongly linked to the culture of the communities where it is consumed (Mefleh et al., 2024). Respondents from Jordan and Lebanon demonstrated the highest preference for flatbread, due to the high familiarity with this type of bread, which is the most popular in these countries (Pasqualone et al., 2022; UNESCO - Decision of the Intergovernmental Committee, 2020).

The reduction of the data led to the identification of three distinct consumer groups through PCA: Mindful, Aesthetic, and Practical, each valuing different aspects of flatbread consumption. The analysis showed that Lebanese and Maltese consumers were more likely to be Practical (48.4 % vs. 43.4 %) and Aesthetic (33.9 % vs. 34.0 %), while Jordanians and Greeks were predominantly Practical (43.1 % vs. 43.8 %) and Mindful (34.5 % vs. 30.6 %). Spanish consumers were mainly Mindful (41.5 %) and Practical (34.7 %), whereas Croatians and Italians were largely Mindful (41.3 % vs. 40.0 %) and Aesthetic (38.0 % vs. 36.8 %). French respondents were primarily Aesthetic (40.1 %) and Mindful (37.4 %). Among these groups, France had the highest representation of Aesthetic consumers, supported by findings that French consumers prioritise taste above all despite economic pressures and price concerns (Consumer Food Trends and Insights in France, 2025), Spain led in Mindful consumers, and Lebanon in Practical consumers. This segmentation highlights the strong influence of cultural background on consumer attitudes toward flatbread, offering valuable insights for targeted marketing and dietary interventions.

The study concludes that Mindful consumers are significantly more interested in improved flatbreads: with better nutrition properties, gluten-free and part-baked. This aligns with several published studies demonstrating that mindful eating is associated with improved diet quality, promoting eating habits that benefit both individual health and the environment (Mindful Eating—The Nutrition Source, 2020; Paolassini-Guesnier et al., 2025; Warren et al., 2017). Whereas Aesthetic-oriented individuals, who were shown to make purchase decisions driven mainly by taste, do not have significant correlations with any specific type of improved flatbread. This can be explained by
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 9.** Odds of accepting nutritionally improved (A), gluten-free (B), and part-baked (C) flatbreads (higher price) by sociodemographic characteristics (N = 1201).</figcaption></figure>

numerous studies showing that the impact of taste, may outweigh that of health benefits, as that consumers are often unwilling to sacrifice taste in favour of health advantages (Lyly et al., 2007; Moons et al., 2018; Temesi et al., 2019). And finally, the Practical people are not interested in improved flatbreads with enhanced nutrition properties. This may be explained by other findings showing that practical orientations tend to favour convenient, low-priced food options, often placing less emphasis on nutritional properties (Machado et al., 2017; Peltner & Thiele, 2018; Steenhuis et al., 2011).

Moreover, the study revealed that the Mindful group consumes flatbread less frequently than the other groups. This can be explained by the multiple linear regression (Table S4), between the mental representation of flatbread and the three consumer groups, showing that Mindful individuals were the only group that did not view bread as an indispensable food. In contrast, the Aesthetic group was characterised with frequent bread purchases, as they consider flatbread an essential and traditional food. These findings align with previous research on

bread consumers in Europe, which showed that frequent buyers tend to prioritise taste, while less frequent buyers are more focused on nutritional aspects (Lambert et al., 2009), as seen with the Mindful group. Regarding purchase locations, the Aesthetic group showed a significant and positive correlation with buying bread from traditional bakeries, where freshness is guaranteed. The Practical group was contrasted with purchasing from traditional bakeries but positively correlated with buying from supermarkets, which adopt more competitive pricing strategies. For other reasons, it can be the lack of availability of this type of bread in traditional bakeries. For instance, flatbread mostly consumed in Greece is pita bread that is not available in traditional bakeries but only in supermarkets. This study also showed that all participants agreed that flatbread is traditional and convenient, but Europeans emphasised also on its health and taste, while Middle Eastern participants considered it essential to every meal. Pita and Pizza emerged as the most recognised flatbread types in this study. Notably, both are consumed as complete meals rather than side dishes, typically featuring a variety of
<caption>**Table 5**</caption>

Odds of accepting nutritionally improved, gluten-free, and part-baked flatbreads (higher price) by consumer group.

<table><thead><tr><th>Improved flatbread types</th><th>Estimated Coefficient</th><th>p-value</th><th>OR</th><th>95 % CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Nutritional<sup>a</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td>0.723</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>2.060</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mindful</td><td>0.403</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>1.497</td><td>1.321-1.695</td></tr><tr><td>Aesthetic</td><td>0.099</td><td>0.106</td><td>1.105</td><td>0.979-1.246</td></tr><tr><td>Practical</td><td>-0.237</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.789</td><td>0.695-0.897</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gluten-free<sup>a</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td>-0.481</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.618</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mindful</td><td>0.476</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>1.610</td><td>1.411-1.824</td></tr><tr><td>Aesthetic</td><td>-0.054</td><td>0.373</td><td>0.947</td><td>0.840-1.067</td></tr><tr><td>Practical</td><td>-0.023</td><td>0.708</td><td>0.978</td><td>0.868-1.101</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Part-baked<sup>a</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td>0.017</td><td>0.773</td><td>1.017</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mindful</td><td>0.269</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>1.308</td><td>1.165-1.469</td></tr><tr><td>Aesthetic</td><td>0.087</td><td>0.138</td><td>1.091</td><td>0.972-1.224</td></tr><tr><td>Practical</td><td>-0.056</td><td>0.339</td><td>0.945</td><td>0.843-1.061</td></tr></tbody></table>

p-value<0.05 is significant.

a For each type of improved flatbread, a binary regression was run separately.

fillings or toppings. Over time, they have evolved into standalone dishes, reflecting their versatility and cultural importance within their respective culinary traditions.

Overall, the primary factor driving participants' interest in improved flatbread was better taste (70.5 %), lining up with previous research that highlights taste as a key driver of food choices (Kourouniotis et al., 2016). Moreover, interest in improved nutritional content was also significant (69.3 %), reflecting a strong consumer demand for products that not only offer sensory satisfaction but also promote health benefits. These findings underscore the increasing preference for products that balance both taste and nutritional value.

The most accepted innovative flours for flatbreads among all participants were durum wheat (59.7 %), corn (53.12 %), oat (53.04 %), barley (48.63 %), and buckwheat (46.54 %). Additionally, the study revealed a significant shift in participants' interest towards improved flatbread when provided with information about the product's or process's benefits, aligning with previous findings (Bower et al., 2003; KtihkGnen, 1996). However, it is essential to consider consumers' attitudes and personal motivations, as these factors influence the relevance and impact of the information provided (Lyly et al., 2007; Shepherd et al., 1992).

To improve consumer acceptance, especially for part-baked flatbreads, targeted interventions are needed. These could include clearer front-of-pack messaging (e.g., “Finish baking at home for fresh-from-the-

oven bread in minutes”), pictorial preparation instructions for ease of use, and QR codes linking to short videos demonstrating final baking. Culturally sensitive marketing, highlighting convenience without compromising authenticity, could also help. For example, messaging that frames part-baking as a way to enjoy “fresh hot bread when you want it” can bridge the tradition/convenience gap. Educational campaigns, sampling in-store, or influencer-based content could further familiarise consumers with the benefits and ease of preparation. These practical tools, aligned with insights from food communication and behavioural science, are essential for building trust and promoting broader acceptance of part-baked formats.

These findings provide a roadmap for the flatbread industry to align product innovation with consumer segmentation. For instance, producers can develop nutritionally enhanced flatbreads with innovative flours for the Mindful group, improve taste and texture in gluten-free products for the Aesthetic group, and expand affordable, convenient part-baked options for the Practical group. In addition, the industry can use clear labelling, provide simple preparation instructions, and collaborate with researchers to test and refine formulations, ensuring that new products closely match consumer expectations.

## 5. Conclusion

In conclusion, consumer preference for flatbread is strongly influenced by cultural, geographical, and individual factors. A key strength of this study is its multinational sample, which includes participants from France, Italy, Spain, Croatia, Greece, Jordan, Lebanon, and Malta. This broad coverage enables meaningful cross-cultural comparisons and provides a robust foundation for identifying regional differences in consumer behaviour. Understanding these preferences is crucial for improving flatbread, particularly in terms of nutrition and functional attributes, as these aspects must be adapted to the specific needs of different consumer groups.

The PCA-based segmentation of this diverse dataset identified three distinct and transferable consumer profiles: Mindful, Aesthetic, and Practical. This segmentation model offers a valuable framework for product innovation and marketing that can be adapted beyond the Mediterranean context, providing guidance for industries in other culturally diverse markets.

The findings further show that while the improved nutritional profile and use of alternative flours such as durum, corn, and oat captured the interest of at least half of the participants, the benefits of partial baking remain less recognised, even among environmentally aware Mindful consumers. Targeted communication is therefore for promoting adoption and maximising the benefits of this technology. Importantly,

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 10.** Mental representation and consumption habits by consumer groups.</figcaption></figure>
providing information about the advantages of part-baked breads significantly increased consumer interest across all segments, under-scoring the power of effective messaging and the practical utility of consumer segmentation.

While the international nature of the sample strengthens the diversity of insights, the use of convenience sampling introduces potential selection bias and limits generalisability. Future research should employ randomised or stratified sampling approaches and experimental validation, including sensory and in-lab testing, to further confirm and expand these findings. Nevertheless, within the scope of this exploratory study, these insights offer a robust and transferable segmentation model that provides practical guidance for industry and researchers, enabling the development of targeted, sustainable, and innovative flatbread products that align with consumer expectations.

## 6. Strengths and limitations

A major strength of this study is the inclusion of 1201 participants from eight Mediterranean countries, allowing the assessment of flat-bread attitudes and consumption patterns across diverse contexts. However, the use of convenience sampling limits the representativeness of the findings. This limitation does not affect the purpose of the study, which was to identify the target population potentially interested in the outcomes of the FLAT BREAD MINE project. Convenience sampling was also the most practical approach for gathering a large dataset across multiple countries (Bimbo et al., 2022). Given that bread is a staple food consumed by more than 90 % of the population in these regions, the topic of this study remains broadly relevant despite sampling constraints. The findings represent perceptions during the data collection period (March–October 2022) and may evolve over time as market trends, product availability, and consumer awareness change. Finally, this study did not include technical evaluations of the proposed flat-bread formulations, such as texture, shelf-life, or baking performance, which are essential for practical implementation. These aspects are planned in other tasks of the FLAT BREAD MINE project.

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Nour Doumani:** Writing – original draft, Visualization, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. **Haneen Hanee Al-Dmoor:** Resources, Methodology, Investigation. **Cynthia Helou:** Writing – review & editing, Resources, Methodology, Investigation. **Dubravka Novotni:** Writing – review & editing, Resources, Methodology, Investigation. **Maria Papageorgiou:** Writing – review & editing, Resources, Methodology, Investigation. **Antonella Pasqualone:** Writing – review & editing, Resources, Methodology, Investigation. **Cristina Rosell:** Resources, Methodology, Investigation. **Vasilis Valdramidis:** Resources, Methodology, Investigation. **Francesca Vurro:** Writing – review & editing, Investigation. **Alain Le-Bail:** Supervision, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Patricia Le-Bail:** Supervision, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.

### Informed consent

Prior to taking part in the questionnaire, the participants were informed about the study objective, context, length, questions parts, and their freedom to agree or to take part in the study and withdraw at any time. Their informed consent was obligatory to access the online survey.

### Funding

This paper is supported by the PRIMA programme under grant agreement No. 2031, project Flat Bread of Mediterranean area: INnovation & Emerging process & technology (FLAT BREAD MINE). The

PRIMA programme is an Art.185 initiative supported and funded under Horizon 2020, the European Union's Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. The results and content found on this paper reflects only the author's view. The PRIMA Foundation is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

### Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

### Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to all FLAT BREAD MINE partners for their contribution in the translation process of the questionnaire, its validation and diffusion.

## Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2025.118586.

### Data availability

The data that has been used is provided in the supplementary material.

### References

Arranz-Otaegui, A., Gonzalez Carretero, L., Ramsey, M. N., Fuller, D. Q., & Richter, T. (2018). Archaeobotanical evidence reveals the origins of bread 14,400 years ago in northeastern Jordan. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 115(31), 7925–7930. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1801071115

Ashraf, S., Sofi, S., Muzaffar, K., Majid, D., & Kour, J. (2021). *Nutritional Quality of Gluten-Free Breads*, 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73898-3_6

Atchley, C. (2024). GFF consumer insights study reveals attitudes toward packaged bread. *Baking business*. https://www.bakingbusiness.com/articles/61470-gff-cons-umer-insights-study-reveals-attitudes-toward-packaged-bread.

Bimbo, F., Viscecchia, R., De Devitiis, B., Seccia, A., Roma, R., & De Boni, A. (2022). How do Italian consumers value sustainable certifications on fish?—an explorative analysis. *Sustainability*, 14(6), 3654. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063654

Boers, H. M., MacAulay, K., Murray, P., Dobriyal, R., Mela, D. J., & Spreeuwenberg, M. A. M. (2017). Efficacy of fibre additions to flatbread flour mixes for reducing post-meal glucose and insulin responses in healthy Indian subjects. *The British Journal of Nutrition*, 117(3), 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114517000277

Boukid, F. (2022). Flatbread - A canvas for innovation : A review. *Applied Food Research*, 2(1), Article 100071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afres.2022.100071

Bower, J. A., Saadat, M. A., & Whitten, C. (2003). Effect of liking, information and consumer characteristics on purchase intention and willingness to pay more for a fat spread with a proven health benefit. *Food Quality and Preference*, 14(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00019-8

Cappelli, A., Oliva, N., & Cini, E. (2020). A systematic review of gluten-free dough and bread : Dough rheology, bread characteristics, and improvement strategies. *Applied Sciences*, 10(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10186559. Article 18.

Capriles, V. D., & Aréas, J. A. G. (2014). Novel approaches in gluten-free breadmaking : Interface between food science, nutrition, and health. *Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety*, 13(5), 871–890. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12091

Consumer Food Trends and Insights in France. (2025). Geopost. https://www.geopost.com/en/news/consumer-food-trends-and-insights-in-france/.

Crucean, D., Debucquet, G., Rannou, C., le-Bail, A., & le-Bail, P. (2019). Vitamin B4 as a salt substitute in bread : A challenging and successful new strategy. Sensory perception and acceptability by French consumers. *Appetite*, 134, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.12.020

Crucean, D., Pontoire, B., Debucquet, G., Le-Bail, A., & Le-Bail, P. (2023). The use of choline chloride for salt reduction and texture enhancement in bread. *Applied Food Research*, 3(2), Article 100371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afres.2023.100371

Cruz, A. G. B., Cardoso, F., & Rojas-Gaviria, P. (2022). Crafting food products for culturally diverse markets : A narrative synthesis. *Journal of Business Research*, 153, 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.07.051

Culetu, A., Susman, I. E., Duta, D., & Belc, N. (2021). Nutritional and functional properties of gluten-free flours. *Applied Sciences*, 11, 6283. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11146283

Dankwa, R., Aisala, H., Kayitesi, E., & de Kock, H. L. (2021). The sensory profiles of flatbreads made from sorghum, cassava, and cowpea flour used as wheat flour alternatives. *Foods*, 10(12), 3095. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10123095
Doumani, N., Maalouly, J., Bou-Maroun, E., Sok, N., Cayot, P., & Tueni, M. (2021). Iron intake among Lebanese women: Sociodemographic factors, iron-rich dietary patterns, and preparation of hummus, a mediterranean dish. *Food & Nutrition Research, 65*. https://doi.org/10.29219/fnr.v65.5556, 10.29219/fnr.v65.5556.

Eglite, A., & Kunkulberga, D. (2017). Bread choice and consumption trends. Faculty of Food Technology, Latvia University of Agriculture. *Baltic conference on food science and technology FOODBALT* "food for consumer well-being. https://doi.org/10.22616/foodbalt.2017.005.

Gębski, J., Jezewska-Zychowicz, M., Szlachciuk, J., & Kosicka-Gębska, M. (2019). Impact of nutritional claims on consumer preferences for bread with varied fiber and salt content. *Food Quality and Preference, 76*, 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.03.012

Gellynck, X., Kühne, B., Van Bockstaele, F., Van de Walle, D., & Dewettinck, K. (2009). Consumer perception of bread quality. *Appetite, 53*(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2009.04.002

Gerardo-Rodríguez, J. E., Ramírez-Wong, B., Torres-Chávez, P. I., Ledesma-Osuna, A. I., Carvajal-Millán, E., López-Cervantes, J., & Silvas-García, M. I. (2021). Effect of part-baking time, freezing rate and storage time on part-baked bread quality. *Food Science and Technology, 41*(suppl 1), 352–359. https://doi.org/10.1590/fst.06820

Kourouniotis, S., Keast, R. S. J., Riddell, L. J., Lacy, K., Thorpe, M. G., & Cicerale, S. (2016). The importance of taste on dietary choice, behaviour and intake in a group of young adults. *Appetite, 103*, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.03.015

KtihkGnen, P. (1996). *HOW INFORMATIOENNHANCESACCEPTABILITYOFA low-FATSPREAD*.

Kušar, A., Pravst, I., Pivk Pukirovič, U., Grunert, K. G., Kreft, I., & Hristov, H. (2023). Consumers' preferences towards bread characteristics based on food-related lifestyles: Insights from Slovenia. *Foods, 12*(20), 3766. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12203766

Lambert, J. L., Le-Bail, A., Zuniga, R., Van-Haesendonck, I., Vnzeveren, E., Petit, C., Rosell, M. C., Collar, C., Curic, D., Colic-Baric, I., Sikora, M., & Ziobro, R. (2009). The attitudes of EUROPEAN consumers toward innovation in bread; interest of the consumers toward selected quality attributes. *Journal of Sensory Studies, 24*(2), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2008.00203.x

Lly, M., Roininen, K., Honkapää, K., Poutanen, K., & Lähteemäki, L. (2007). Factors influencing consumers' willingness to use beverages and ready-to-eat frozen soups containing oat β-glucan in Finland, France and Sweden. *Food Quality and Preference, 18*(2), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.12.001

Machado, P. P., Claro, R. M., Canella, D. S., Sarti, F. M., & Levy, R. B. (2017). Price and convenience: The influence of supermarkets on consumption of ultra-processed foods and beverages in Brazil. *Appetite, 116*, 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.027

Mansoor, R., Ali, T. M., Arif, S., Saeed, M., & Hasnain, A. (2022). Impact of barley flour addition on dough rheology, glycemic index, textural and sensory characteristics of taftaan flat bread. *Food Chemistry Advances, 1*, Article 100148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.focha.2022.100148

Mefleh, M., Vurro, F., Summo, C., & Pasqualone, A. (2024). Traditional Italian flatbreads: Cultural diversity, processing technology and future perspectives. *Journal of Ethnic Foods, 11*(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42779-024-00238-2

Metatech Insights. (2025). *Flatbread market share, market size & forecast 2025-2035*. Metatech Insights. https://www.metatechinsights.com/industry-insights/flatbrea-d-market-1695.

Mindful Eating—The Nutrition Source. (2020). https://nutritionsource.hsp.harvard.edu/mindful-eating/.

Moons, I., Barbarossa, C., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2018). The determinants of the adoption intention of eco-friendly functional food in different market segments. *Ecological Economics, 151*, 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.012

Naja, F., Nasreddine, L., Itani, L., Chamieh, M. C., Adra, N., Sibai, A. M., & Hwalla, N. (2011). Dietary patterns and their association with obesity and sociodemographic factors in a national sample of Lebanese adults. *Public Health Nutrition, 14*(9), 1570–1578. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898001100070X

Paolassini-Guesnier, P., Van Beekum, M., Kesse-Guyot, E., Baudry, J., Srour, B., Bellicha, A., Shankland, R., Rodhain, A., Leys, C., Hercberg, S., Touvier, M., Allès, B., & Péneau, S. (2025). Mindful eating is associated with a better diet quality in the NutriNet-Santé study. *Appetite, 206*, Article 107797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107797

Pasqualone, A., Vurro, F., Summo, C., Abd-El-Khalek, M. H., Al-Dmoor, H. H., Grgic, T., Ruiz, M., Magro, C., Deligeorgakis, C., Helou, C., & Le-Bail, P. (2022). The large and diverse family of mediterranean flat breads: A database. *Foods, 11*(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152326. Article 15.

Peltner, J., & Thiele, S. (2018). Convenience-based food purchase patterns: Identification and associations with dietary quality, sociodemographic factors and attitudes. *Public Health Nutrition, 21*(3), 558–570. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980017003378

Piga, A., Conte, P., Fois, S., Catzeddu, P., Del Caro, A., Sanguinetti, A. M., & Fadda, C. (2021). Technological, nutritional and sensory properties of an innovative gluten-free double-layered flat bread enriched with amaranth flour. *Foods, 10*(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10050920. Article 5.

Renzetti, A., & Arendt, E. K. (2009). Effects of oxidase and protease treatments on the breadmaking functionality of a range of gluten-free flours. *European Food Research and Technology, 229*(2), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-009-1048-6

Redbotten, M., Tomic, O., Holtekjølen, A. K., Grini, I. S., Lea, P., Granli, B. S., Grimsby, S., & Sahlström, S. (2015). Barley bread with normal and low content of salt; sensory profile and consumer preference in five European countries. *Journal of Cereal Science, 64*, 176–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2015.05.001

Rohani, L. S. (2017). A framework for cross-cultural consumer research. 8(7).

Sagnelli, D., Chessa, S., Mandalari, G., Di Martino, M., Sorndech, W., Mamone, G., Vincze, E., Buillon, G., Nielsen, D. S., Wiese, M., Blennow, A., & Hebelstrup, K. H. (2018). Low glycaemic index foods from wild barley and amylose-only barley lines. *Journal of Functional Foods, 40*, 408–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2017.11.028

Sajdakowska, M., Gębski, J., Jeżewska-Zychowicz, M., & Królak, M. (2020). Consumer choices in the bread market: The importance of fiber in consumer decisions. *Nutrients, 13*(1), 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13010132

Shepherd, R., Sparks, P., Bellier, S., & Raats, M. M. (1992). THE EFFECTS OF INFORMATION ON SENSORY RATINGS AND PREFERENCES: THE IMPORTANCE OF ATTITUDE. *Food Quality and Preference, 14*, 147–155.

Singh, K., Anjali, & Rajput, R. (2025). Nutritional enhancement of baked goods using alternative flours: A review. *European Journal of Nutrition & Food Safety, 17*, 240–252. https://doi.org/10.9734/ejnsf/2025/v17i41695

Soare, I., Zugravu, C. L., & Zugravu, G. A. (2023). Research on consumer perception regarding traditional food products of Romania. *Foods, 12*(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12142723. Article 14.

Steenhuis, I. H. M., Waterlander, W. E., & de Mul, A. (2011). Consumer food choices: The role of price and pricing strategies. *Public Health Nutrition, 14*(12), 2220–2226. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980011001637

Szabo De Edelenyi, F., Julia, C., Courtois, F., Méjean, C., Péneau, S., Galan, P., Hercberg, S., & Kesse-Guyot, E. (2014). Starchy food consumption in French adults: A cross-sectional analysis of the profile of consumers and contribution to nutritional intake in a web-based prospective cohort. *Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 64*, 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000358888

Temesi, Á., Bacsó, Á., Grunert, K. G., & Lakner, Z. (2019). Perceived correspondence of health effects as a new determinant influencing purchase intention for functional food. *Nutrients, 11*(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11040740. Article 4.

Thondre, P. S., & Henry, C. J. K. (2009). High-molecular-weight barley β-glucan in chaptis (unleavened Indian flatbread) lowers glycemic index. *Nutrition Research, 29* (7), 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nutres.2009.07.003

Tiu Wright, L., Nancarrow, C., & Kwok, P. M. H. (2001). Food taste preferences and cultural influences on consumption. *British Food Journal, 103*(5), 348–357. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700110396321

UNESCO - Decision of the Intergovernmental Committee. (2020). 15.COM 8.B.39 http://ich.unesco.org/debug/en/decisions.

Verbeke, C., Debonne, E., Van Leirsberghe, H., Van Bockstaele, F., & Ecckhout, M. (2024). An impact assessment of par-baking and storage on the quality of wheat, whole wheat, and whole rye breads. *Foods, 13*(2), 224. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13020224

Wang, Y., & Jian, C. (2022). Sustainable plant-based ingredients as wheat flour substitutes in bread making. *Npj Science of Food, 6*, 49. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-022-00163-1

Wang, Y., Maina, N. H., Coda, R., & Katina, K. (2021). Challenges and opportunities for wheat alternative grains in breadmaking: *Ex-situ*- versus *in-situ*-produced dextran. *Trends in Food Science & Technology, 113*, 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.05.003

Warren, J. M., Smith, N., & Ashwell, M. (2017). A structured literature review on the role of mindfulness, mindful eating and intuitive eating in changing eating behaviours: Effectiveness and associated potential mechanisms. *Nutrition Research Reviews, 30*(2), 272–283. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954422417000154

Woy, P., Wilson, G. T., & Cockbill, S. (2024). The sustainability of convenience food: A review and design research agenda. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 451*, Article 142083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142083

Yamane, T. (1967). *Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd éd.)*. Harper and Row.

Zhang, K., Dong, R., Hu, X., Ren, C., & Li, Y. (2021). Oat-based foods: Chemical constituents, glycemic index, and the effect of processing. *Foods, 10*(6), 1304. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10061304

Zhang, Y., Hu, R., Tilley, M., Siliveru, K., & Li, Y. (2021). Effect of pulse type and substitution level on dough rheology and bread quality of whole wheat-based composite flours. *Processes, 9*, 1687. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9091687