| Literature DB >> 31861955 |
Ai-Jun Liu1, Jie Li2, Miguel I Gómez2.
Abstract
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.Entities:
Keywords: consumer behavior; edible insect; entomophagy; insect food; meat substitute; protein source
Year: 2019 PMID: 31861955 PMCID: PMC7023216 DOI: 10.3390/insects11010010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 2.769
Descriptive statistics for logit model to estimate consumer purchase decisions.
| Variable | Description | Mean | Standard Deviation | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
| Whether participant purchased edible insects or not (yes = 1, no = 0) | 0.391 | 0.488 | 0 | 1 |
|
| |||||
|
| =1 if participants choose afraid of insects as the primary reason for not buying edible insects, =0 otherwise | 0.588 | 0.493 | 0 | 1 |
|
| =1 if participants choose | 0.205 | 0.404 | 0 | 1 |
|
| =1 if participants have zero knowledge of edible insects, =2 if participants have a little knowledge, =3 if participants have some knowledge, and =4 if participants have lots of knowledge | 1.344 | 0.563 | 0 | 3 |
|
| =1 if participants were born in the northern part of China, =0 otherwise | 0.450 | 0.498 | 0 | 1 |
|
| The age group of the participant | 2.733 | 1.489 | 1 | 6 |
|
| The household annual income level of each participant | 2.627 | 1.433 | 1 | 6 |
|
| The number of people living with the participant | 3.845 | 1.091 | 2 | 8 |
|
| =1 if the survey was collected in Nanjing located in the southern part of China, =0 if the survey was collected in Beijing | 0.653 | 0.476 | 0 | 1 |
Descriptive statistics for ordered logit model.
| Variable | Description | Mean | Standard Deviation | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
| =1 if participants have a low CF, =2 if participants have a medium CF, and =3 if participants have a high CF | 1.500 | 0.608 | 1 | 3 |
|
| |||||
|
| The number of benefits of eating edible insects that each participant identified | 1.956 | 1.376 | 0 | 10 |
|
| The importance rating of each participant for the function factor when making purchase decisions | 4.706 | 1.564 | 1 | 6 |
|
| The importance rating of each participant for the safety factor when making purchase decisions | 5.490 | 1.129 | 1 | 6 |
|
| The importance rating of each participant for the shape of the insect factor when making purchase decisions | 3.397 | 1.802 | 1 | 6 |
|
| The importance rating of each participant for the flavor factor when making purchase decisions | 4.765 | 1.520 | 1 | 6 |
|
| The importance rating of each participant for the brand factor when making purchase decisions | 3.098 | 1.759 | 1 | 6 |
|
| The preference level of participant’s kids for edible insects | 1.632 | 0.841 | 1 | 4 |
|
| =0 if participants have zero knowledge of edible insects, =1 if participants have a little knowledge, =3 if participants have some knowledge, and =4 if participants have lots of knowledge | 1.539 | 0.573 | 0 | 3 |
|
| The age group of the participant | 2.985 | 1.423 | 1 | 6 |
|
| The household income level of each participant | 2.877 | 1.435 | 1 | 6 |
|
| The number of people in the household | 4.044 | 1.188 | 2 | 8 |
|
| =1 if the survey was collected in Nanjing, =0 if the survey was collected in Beijing | 0.740 | 0.440 | 0 | 1 |
Logit model for the decision to buy or not buy.
| Variable Name |
| |
|---|---|---|
| Coefficients | Marginal Effects | |
|
| −0.506 ** | −0.120 ** |
| (0.232) | (0.055) | |
|
| −0.598 ** | −0.133 ** |
| (0.285) | (0.059) | |
|
| 0.846 *** | 0.199 *** |
| (0.161) | (0.038) | |
|
| 0.446 | 0.105 |
| (0.273) | (0.064) | |
|
| 0.121 * | 0.027 * |
| (0.062) | (0.014) | |
|
| 0.156 ** | 0.037 ** |
| (0.062) | (0.015) | |
|
| 0.225 *** | 0.053 *** |
| (0.082) | (0.019) | |
|
| 1.095 *** | 0.242 *** |
| (0.298) | (0.061) | |
| Number of observations | 614 | - |
| Log likelihood | −372.061 | - |
| LR Chi Square | 77.58 | - |
| Prob > Chi Square | 0 | - |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.0944 | - |
Notes: The number of observations in the model is 614. We evaluated the difference of the probability of 1 and 0 for the discrete variables while holding all other variables at their means. For continuous variables, we obtained the marginal effects by taking the derivatives of the variable while fixing all variables at the mean. We employed STATA for estimation. *, **, and *** denote coefficient estimates that are statistically significant at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively. Standard errors are presented in parentheses. Each variable is defined in Table 1.
Ordered logistic regression results and marginal effects.
| Variable Name | Three Consumption Levels | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficients | Odds Ratio | Low CF | Medium CF | High CF | |
| Marginal Effect | Marginal Effect | Marginal Effect | |||
|
| 0.482 *** | 1.619 *** | −0.086 *** | 0.064 *** | 0.022 *** |
| (0.129) | (0.210) | (0.021) | (0.017) | (0.007) | |
|
| 0.025 | 1.025 | −0.004 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| (0.116) | (0.119) | (0.021) | (0.016) | (0.005) | |
|
| −0.446 *** | 0.640 *** | 0.080 *** | −0.060 *** | −0.020 ** |
| (0.156) | (0.0998) | (0.026) | (0.020) | (0.008) | |
|
| −0.175 * | 0.839 * | 0.031 * | −0.023 * | −0.008 |
| (0.106) | (0.0889) | (0.019) | (0.014) | (0.005) | |
|
| −0.067 | 0.935 | 0.012 | −0.009 | −0.003 |
| (0.121) | (0.113) | (0.022) | (0.016) | (0.006) | |
|
| 0.142 | 1.152 | −0.025 | 0.0190 | 0.006 |
| (0.107) | (0.124) | (0.019) | (0.014) | (0.005) | |
|
| 0.442 ** | 1.556 ** | −0.079 ** | 0.059 ** | 0.020 * |
| (0.197) | (0.307) | (0.034) | (0.025) | (0.010) | |
|
| 0.805 *** | 2.237 *** | −0.145 * | 0.108 *** | 0.037 ** |
| (0.301) | (0.674) | (0.515) | (0.039) | (0.016) | |
|
| 0.287 ** | 1.332 ** | −0.051 ** | 0.038 ** | 0.013 ** |
| (0.119) | (0.158) | (0.021) | (0.016) | (0.006) | |
|
| 0.067 | 1.069 | −0.012 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| (0.118) | (0.126) | (0.021) | (0.016) | (0.005) | |
|
| −0.104 | 0.902 | 0.019 | −0.014 | −0.005 |
| (0.142) | (0.128) | (0.025) | (0.019) | (0.007) | |
|
| 0.162 | 1.176 | −0.029 | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| (0.401) | (0.472) | (0.072) | (0.054) | (0.018) | |
| Number of observations | 204 | ||||
| Log likelihood | −139.966 | ||||
| LR Chi Square | 70.72 | ||||
| Prob > Chi Square | 0 | ||||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.2017 | ||||
Notes: The number of observations is 204 instead of 240 because some values were missing when the independent variable was constructed. Three levels of consumption: low consumption frequency (value = 1), medium consumption frequency (value = 2), high consumption frequency (value = 3). We evaluated the difference of the probability of 1 and 0 for the discrete variables while holding all other variables at their means. For the continuous variables, we obtained the marginal effects by taking the derivatives of the variable while fixing all variables at the mean. We employed STATA for estimation. *, **, and *** denote coefficient estimates that are statistically significant at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively. Standard errors are presented in parentheses. Each variable is defined in Table 2.