4.5 Article

Extending indigenous knowledge to unveil the evolutionary journey of food preferences and socio-cultural phenomena

期刊

APPETITE
卷 170, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105884

关键词

Indigenous knowledge; Traditional knowledge; Evolution; Eating behavior; Decoding; Thai Food

资金

  1. 90TH ANNIVERSARY OF CHULA-LONGKORN UNIVERSITY FUND (Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Food acceptance is influenced by eating behavior and societal norms, and indigenous knowledge plays an important role in uncovering social phenomena and interpreting local views, culture, and behavior. This study presents a systematic process for investigating scattered indigenous food knowledge and revealing the evolution of socio-cultural movements and food preferences.
Food acceptance is substantially influenced by eating behavior and society norms in relation to preferences, lifestyles, and socio-cultural practices. Food innovation communities need to comprehend the impact of changing trends in eating behavior as a driving force. Meanwhile, many studies indicate that indigenous knowledge plays an important role in uncovering various social phenomena and interpreting local holistic views, cultural ecology, and behavior. However, it is not easy to employ this knowledge due to its fragmented form. This study aims to exhibit a systematic process for investigating scattered indigenous food knowledge and revealing the evolution of socio-cultural movement and food preferences. Initially, ontology-based indigenous food knowledge was structured for this study using the qualitative method, with data subsequently gathered from cookbooks and cremation festschrifts using the quantitative method to construct a knowledge-based system. A total of 2486 recipes recorded in cookbooks dating back to 1782 were retrospectively considered; the findings of which revealed the evolutionary journey of food preferences and its cultural culinary impact.

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