4.5 Article

Consumer acceptance of insect-based foods in the Netherlands: Academic and commercial implications

期刊

APPETITE
卷 107, 期 -, 页码 47-58

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.023

关键词

Consumer acceptance; Insects as food; Edible insects; Novel foods

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/J500215/1]
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [1510352] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite growing interest in the use of insects as food, uptake of insect -basedfoods in Europe is low. Existing research into Western consumer acceptance of insects as food tends to emphasise the role of individual cognition in food choice at the expense of social or contextual factors, and typically frames consumer acceptance as a general issue, rather than relevant only for relatively few early adopters. This paper outlines empirical work, theoretically and methodologically informed by a critical appraisal of previous research, with consumers of insect-based convenience foods in the Netherlands. Reported initial motivations for trying insect foods are shown to be substantially different from factors - such as price, taste, availability, and 'fit' with established eating practices - which affect repeat consumption. Such factors are congruent with those affecting routine consumption of more conventional foods, indicating that insect foods should be analysed according to similar criteria and should be designed with more practical considerations in mind. Further, a reorientation of consumer acceptance research is proposed. Research should shift from attempts to forecast acceptance and engage with 'actual' examples of insect consumption; social, practical and contextual factors affecting food consumption should be emphasised; and - following work on the establishment of other novel foods - early adopters, rather than general populations, should receive greater analytic attention. (C) 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据