IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlage/v65y2019i10id87-2019-agricecon.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The willingness to consume insect-based food: an empirical research on Italian consumers

Author

Listed:
  • Enrica Iannuzzi

    (Department of Economics, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy)

  • Roberta Sisto
  • Claudio Nigro

    (Department of Economics, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy)

Abstract

Nowadays, scholars, entrepreneurs and policy makers focus their attention on food-related health challenges, nutritional value and food safety. Among these themes, the use of processed animal protein developed from insects as alternative food source is increasingly debated. The main goal of this paper is to contribute to filling this gap with an empirical analysis focused on the willingness of Italian potential consumers to eat insect-based food. By applying the conjoint analysis technique, the study identifies the cause of consumers' reactions to novel food based on cultural bias rather than on 'neophobia in itself' or on knowledge about the product. In this new scenario, the companies operating in the food sector could reduce this bias by devising effective marketing strategies that are oriented to underline the link between consumption of insect-based food and the associated nutritional benefit. In other terms, consumption based on cultural elements can be seen as the result of a strategic dynamic process.

Suggested Citation

  • Enrica Iannuzzi & Roberta Sisto & Claudio Nigro, 2019. "The willingness to consume insect-based food: an empirical research on Italian consumers," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 65(10), pages 454-462.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlage:v:65:y:2019:i:10:id:87-2019-agricecon
    DOI: 10.17221/87/2019-AGRICECON
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/87/2019-AGRICECON.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/87/2019-AGRICECON.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/87/2019-AGRICECON?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heather Looy & Florence Dunkel & John Wood, 2014. "How then shall we eat? Insect-eating attitudes and sustainable foodways," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(1), pages 131-141, March.
    2. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    3. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    2. Emmanuel Olateju Oyatoye & Sulaimon Olanrewaju Adebiyi & Bilqis Bolanle Amole, 2013. "An Application of Conjoint Analysis to Consumer Preference for Beverage Products in Nigeria," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 9(6), pages 43-56, December.
    3. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    4. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    5. Shakila Yasmin & Khaled Mahmud & Farzan Afrin, 2016. "Job Attribute Preference of Executives: A Conjoint Analysis," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(2), pages 1-68, February.
    6. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    7. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    8. Shuto Mikami & Yutaka Ito & Hernan Gabriel Oyola Gonzales, 2021. "Assessing Peruvian University Students’ Preferences for Labor Conditions in Mining Site," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-13, August.
    9. P. De Pelsmacker & L. Driesen & G. Rayp, 2003. "Are fair trade labels good business ? Ethics and coffee buying intentions," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 03/165, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    10. Nikou, Shahrokh & Bouwman, Harry, 2012. "Mobile service platform competition," 19th ITS Biennial Conference, Bangkok 2012: Moving Forward with Future Technologies - Opening a Platform for All 72515, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    11. Roest, Henk & Rindfleisch, Aric, 2010. "The influence of quality cues and typicality cues on restaurant purchase intention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 10-18.
    12. Florian Schreiber, 2017. "Identification of customer groups in the German term life market: a benefit segmentation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 254(1), pages 365-399, July.
    13. Yutaka Ito & Shuto Mikami & Hyongdoo Jang & Abbas Taheri & Kenta Tanaka & Youhei Kawamura, 2020. "University Students’ Preferences for Labour Conditions at a Mining Site: Evidence from Two Australian Universities," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, March.
    14. Konstantinos Pouliakas & Ioannis Theodossiou, 2010. "Measuring the Utility Cost of Temporary Employment Contracts Before Adaptation: A Conjoint Analysis Approach," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(308), pages 688-709, October.
    15. Vinaytosh Mishra & Cherian Samuel & S. K. Sharma, 2019. "Patient’s Utility for Various Attributes of Diabetes Care Services," IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, , vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, January.
    16. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    17. Fa Wang & Haifeng Wang & Joung Hyung Cho, 2022. "Consumer Preference for Yogurt Packaging Design Using Conjoint Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, March.
    18. Paul R. Steffens & Clinton S. Weeks & Per Davidsson & Lauren Isaak, 2014. "Shouting from the Ivory Tower: A Marketing Approach to Improve Communication of Academic Research to Entrepreneurs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(2), pages 399-426, March.
    19. Marie Caussimont & David Carassus, 2015. "L’audit financier en contexte territorial : vers un audit de performance de la gestion locale ?," Post-Print hal-02141946, HAL.
    20. Meyerding, Stephan G.H., 2018. "Job preferences of agricultural students in Germany – A choice-based conjoint analysis for both genders," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(2), March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnlage:v:65:y:2019:i:10:id:87-2019-agricecon. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.