4.7 Article

Factors Influencing Consumption of Edible Insects for Chinese Consumers

Journal

INSECTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/insects11010010

Keywords

edible insect; consumer behavior; insect food; meat substitute; protein source; entomophagy

Categories

Funding

  1. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions PAPD Project
  2. Social Science Foundation for Universities in Jiangsu, China [2017ZDIXM096]
  3. International Cooperation Project of Nanjing Agricultural University [2018-EU-18]
  4. Cyrus Tang Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Edible insects are often considered a healthier and more sustainable meat substitute and protein source. Many studies have examined factors affecting the consumption behavior towards edible insects among Western consumers. However, little is known about factors influencing consumer behavior towards edible insects in Asian countries even though Asians have a long history of consuming insects. In this study, we surveyed 614 Chinese consumers from Beijing and Nanjing to examine the factors influencing their consumption and purchase behavior of edible insects. We find that insect phobia, feelings of disgust, knowledge level, and social demographic factors such as age, household size, household income and region (Northern or Southern China) are the main factors influencing purchase decisions. In addition, the results indicate that the perceived positive attributes associated with edible insects, the preferences of children in the household, as well as age and knowledge level have positive impacts on consumption frequency. On the other hand, concerns of food safety and the shape of the insects have negative impacts on consumption frequency. Finally, the results suggest that educating consumers to increase knowledge of edible insects increases their probability to purchase insect foods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available