Willingness to Consume and Purchase Food with Edible Insects among Generation Z in Poland
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Sample
2.2. Questionnaire and Data Analysis
2.3. Statistical Methods
3. Results
- Individuals with positive intentions towards purchasing food containing edible insects were over five times more likely to consume this type of food than those with negative intentions, all other things being equal.
- Individuals with positive attitudes towards food containing edible insects were over four times more likely to consume these types of foods compared with individuals with negative attitudes towards food containing edible insects, all other things being equal.
- Individuals with ambivalent attitudes towards food containing edible insects are approximately 30% more likely to consume such foods compared with individuals with negative attitudes towards food containing edible insects, all other things being equal.
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ranganathan, J.; Waite, R.; Searchinger, T.; Hanson, C. How to Sustainably Feed 10 Billion People by 2050, in 21 Charts. World Resources Institute 2018. Available online: https://www.wri.org/insights/how-sustainably-feed-10-billion-people-2050-21-charts (accessed on 6 May 2024).
- Whitton, C.; Bogueva, D.; Marinova, D.; Phillips, C.J.C. Are We Approaching Peak Meat Consumption? Analysis of Meat Consumption from 2000 to 2019 in 35 Countries and Its Relationship to Gross Domestic Product. Animals 2021, 11, 3466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willett, W.; Rockstrom, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; Declerck, F.; Wood, A. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Béné, C.; Prager, S.D.; Achicanoy, H.A.E.; Toro, P.A.; Lamotte, L.; Bonilla, C.; Mapes, B.R. Global map and indicators of food system sustainability. Sci. Data 2019, 6, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atabek-Yĭgit, E.; Köklükaya, N.; Yavuz, M.; Demirhan, E. Development and validation of environmental literacy scale for adults (ELSA). J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 2014, 13, 425–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Disinger, J.F.; Roth, C.E. Environmental education research news. Environmentalist 1992, 12, 165–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sustainable Healthy Diets Guiding Principles. Available online: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/329409/9789241516648-eng.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 6 May 2024).
- Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001. Off. J. Eur. Union 2015, L327, 1–22.
- The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023. Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/a69f5540-6ee7-43f4-a8ef-9eb7b3e7b677/content/cc3017en.html (accessed on 6 May 2024).
- How Will Cultured Meat and Meat Alternatives Disrupt the Agricultural and Food Industry? Available online: https://www.kearney.com/documents/291362523/291366549/How+Will+Cultured+Meat+and+Meat+Alternatives+Disrupt+the+Agricultural+and+Food+Industry.pdf (accessed on 6 May 2024).
- Boland, M.J.; Rae, A.N.; Vereijken, J.M.; Meuwissen, M.P.; Fischer, A.R.; van Boekel, M.A.; Rutherfurd, S.M.; Gruppen, H.; Moughan, P.J.; Hendriks, W.H. The future supply of animal-derived protein for human consumption. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 29, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Huis, A.; van Itterbeeck, J.; Klunder, H.; Mertens, E.; Halloran, A.; Muir, G.; Vantomme, P. Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Popkin, B.M.; Adair, L.S.; Ng, S.W. Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutr. Rev. 2012, 70, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stull, V.J. Impacts of insect consumption on human health. J. Insects Food Feed 2021, 7, 695–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilman, D.; Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 2014, 515, 518–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, G.; Fanzo, J.; Miller, D.D.; Pingali, P.; Post, M.; Steiner, J.L.; Thalacker-Mercer, A.E. Production and supply of high-quality food protein for human consumption sustainability, challenges, and innovations. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014, 1321, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer-Rochow, V. Food Taboos: Their Origins and Purposes. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2009, 5, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meyer-Rochow, V.B. Therapeutic Arthropods and Other, Largely Terrestrial, Folk-Medicinally Important Invertebrates: A Comparative Survey and Review. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2017, 13, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Olivadese, M.; Dindo, M.L. Edible Insects: A Historical and Cultural Perspective on Entomophagy with a Focus on Western Societies. Insects 2023, 14, 690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Svanberg, I.; Berggren, Å. Insects as past and future food in entomophobic Europe. Food Cult. Soc. 2021, 24, 624–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svanberg, I.; Łuczaj, Ł.; Pardo-de-Santayana, M.; Pieroni, A. History and Current Trends of Ethnobiological Research in Europe. In Ethnobiology; Anderson, E.N., Adams, K., Pearsall, D., Hunn, E., Turner, N.J., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 191–212. [Google Scholar]
- Holt, V.M. Why Not Eat Insects? Leadenhall Press: London, UK, 1885; pp. 9–31. [Google Scholar]
- Brøndegaard, V.J. Folk og Fauna: Dansk Etnozoology; Rosenkilde og Bagger: København, Denmark, 1985; Volume 1, pp. 20–59. [Google Scholar]
- Ulicsni, V.; Svanberg, I.; Molnár, Z. Folk Knowledge of Invertebrates in Central Europe—Folk Taxonomy, Nomenclature, Medicinal and Other Uses, Folklore, and Nature Conservation. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2016, 12, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Łuczaj, Ł. Handbook of Worm-Eaters or Edible Invertebrates of Central Europe; Chemigrafia: Krosno, Poland, 2005; pp. 10–45. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Sandroni, P. Aphrodisiacs past and present: A historical review. Clin. Auton. Res. 2001, 11, 303–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stokker, K. Remedies and Rituals: Folk Medicine in Norway and the New Land; Minnesota Historical Society Press: St. Paul, MI, USA, 2007; pp. 23–61. [Google Scholar]
- Overstreet, R.M. Presidential Address: Flavor Buds and Other Delights. J. Parasitol. 2003, 89, 1093–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vallejo, J.R.; González, J.A. The Use of the Head Louse as a Remedy for Jaundice in Spanish Folk Medicine: An Overview. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2013, 9, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bodenheimer, F.S. Insects as Human Food; Springer: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1951; pp. 7–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cowan, F. Curious Facts about Insects Including Spiders and Scorpions; J. B. Lippincott: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1865; pp. 78–101. [Google Scholar]
- Mitsuhashi, J. Edible Insects of the World; CRC Press: Danvers, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazzette, R.; Colleo, M.; Riu, G.; Piras, G.; Piras, F.; Addis, M.; Pes, M.; Pirisi, A.; Meloni, D.; Mureddu, A.; et al. Production under controlled conditions of “Casu Marzu” cheese: Effect of the Piophila casei Colonization on microbial and chemical composition of the cheeses. Ital. J. Food Saf. 2010, 1, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Modlinska, K.; Adamczyk, D.; Maison, D.; Goncikowska, K.; Pisula, W. Relationship between acceptance of insects as an alternative to meat and willingness to consume insect-based food—A study on a representative sample of the Polish population. Foods 2021, 10, 2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Öner, N.; Durmuş, H.; Yaşar Fırat, Y.; Borlu, A.; Özkan, N. Sustainable and Healthy Eating Behaviors and Environmental Literacy of Generations X, Y and Z with the Same Ancestral Background: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Twenge, J.M. IGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood and What That Means for the Rest of Us; Atria Books: New York, NY, USA, 2017; ISBN 978-1-5011-5198-9. [Google Scholar]
- Zeren, H.Z.; Bali, E.B.; Demir, H. Nutritional habits comparison of the baby boomer, X, Y, and Z generations located at a private college in Mŭgla, Türkiye. Czech. J. Food Sci. 2023, 41, 436–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The State of Consumer Spending: Gen Z Shoppers Demand Sustainable Retail. Available online: https://www.firstinsight.com/white-papers-posts/gen-z-shoppers-demand-sustainability (accessed on 15 May 2024).
- Platta, A.M.; Mikulec, A.T.; Radzymińska, M.; Ruszkowska, M.; Suwała, G.; Zborowski, M.; Kowalczewski, P.Ł.; Nowicki, M. Body image and willingness to change it—A study of university students in Poland. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0293617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mikulec, A.; Platta, A.; Radzymińska, M.; Ruszkowska, M.; Mikulec, K.; Suwała, G.; Kowalski, S.; Kowalczewski, P.Ł.; Nowick, M. Attitudes and purchase intentions of Polish university students towards food made from insects—A modelling approach. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0300871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turunen, L.L.M.; Pöyry, E. Shopping with the resale value in mind: A study on second-hand luxury consumers. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 43, 549–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdelkader, O.A.; Attallah, S. Attitudinal and behavioural’ loyalty toward green buildings among generations from baby boomers to Z. Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2021, 40, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lombardi, J.A. The New Rules of Green Marketing: Strategies, Tools, and Inspiration for Sustainable Branding, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Gen Z’s Influential Food Preferences. Available online: https://foodinstitute.com/focus/gen-z-preferences/ (accessed on 15 April 2024).
- The Future Consumers—Food and Generation, Z. FSA Research Report. Available online: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/generation-z-full-report-final.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2024).
- Kymäläinen, T.; Seisto, A.; Malila, R. Generation Z Food Waste, Diet and Consumption Habits: A Finnish Social Design Study with Future Consumers. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seemiller, C.; Grace, M. Generation Z: A Century in the Making; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Burns, D.J.; Reid, J.; Toncar, M.; Anderson, C.; Wells, C. The effect of gender on the motivation of members of generation Y college students to volunteer. J. Nonprofit Public Sect. Mark. 2008, 19, 99–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, M.; Bonn, M.A.; Han, S.J. Generation Z’s Sustainable Volunteering: Motivations, Attitudes and Job Performance. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Likert, R.A. Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 1932, 22, 5–55. [Google Scholar]
- Roberts, J.A. Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for advertising. J. Bus. Res. 1996, 36, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verbeke, W. Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Wiegerinck, V.; Krikke, H.; Zhang, H. Understanding the purchase intention towards remanufactured product in closed-loop supply chains: An empirical study in China. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. 2013, 43, 866–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kornher, L.; Schellhorn, M.; Vetter, S. Disgusting or Innovative-Consumer Willingness to Pay for Insect Based Burger Patties in Germany. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.S.; Hsu, L.T.; Han, H.; Kim, Y. Understanding how consumers view green hotels: How a hotel’s green image can influence behavioral intentions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 901–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardoin, R.; Prinyawiwatkul, W. Product appropriateness, willingness to try and perceived risks of foods containing insect protein powder: A survey of U.S. Consumers. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 55, 3215–3226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- House, J. Consumer acceptance of insect-based foods in the Netherlands: Academic and commercial implications. Appetite 2016, 107, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Herbert, M.; Beacom, E. Exploring consumer acceptance of insect-based snack products in Ireland. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2021, 27, 267–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazurek, A.; Palka, A.; Skotnicka, M.; Kowalski, S. Consumer Attitudes and Acceptability of Wheat Pancakes with the Addition of Edible Insects: Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor), Buffalo Worm (Alphitobius diaperinus), and Cricket (Acheta domesticus). Foods 2023, 12, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Skotnicka, M.; Mazurek, A.; Kowalski, S. The Acceptance of Cream Soups with the Addition of Edible Insects (Mealworm, T. molitor; House Cricket, A. domesticus; Buffalo Worm, A. diaperinus; Grasshopper, R. differens) among Young People and Seniors in Poland. Nutrients 2023, 15, 5047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Orkusz, A.; Wolańska, W.; Harasym, J.; Piwowar, A.; Kapelko, M. Consumers’ Attitudes Facing Entomophagy: Polish Case Perspectives. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kowalski, S.; Mikulec, A.; Mickowska, B.; Skotnicka, M.; Mazurek, A. Wheat bread supplementation with various edible insect flours. Influence of Chemical Composition on Nutritional and Technological Aspects. LWT 2022, 159, 113220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowalski, S.; Mikulec, A.; Skotnicka, M.; Mickowska, B.; Makarewicz, M.; Sabat, R.; Wywrocka-Gurgul, A.; Mazurek, A. Effect of the addition of edible insect flour from yellow mealworm (Tenebrio Molitor) on the sensory acceptance, and the physicochemical and textural properties of sponge cake. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2022, 72, 393–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pauter, P.; Różańska, M.; Wiza, P.; Dworczak, S.; Grobelna, N.; Sarbak, P.; Kowalczewski, P.Ł. Effects of the replacement of wheat flour with cricket powder on the characteristics of muffins. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2018, 17, 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- García-Segovia, P.; Igual, M.; Noguerol, A.T.; Martínez-Monzó, J. Use of insects and pea powder as alternative protein and mineral sources in extruded snacks. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2020, 246, 703–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowalski, S.; Oracz, J.; Skotnicka, M.; Mikulec, A.; Gumul, D.; Mickowska, B.; Mazurek, A.; Sabat, R.; Wywrocka-Gurgul, A.; Żyżelewicz, D. Chemical Composition, Nutritional Value, and Acceptance of Nut Bars with the Addition of Edible Insect Powder. Molecules 2022, 27, 8472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ruszkowska, M.; Tańska, M.; Kowalczewski, P.Ł. Extruded Corn Snacks with Cricket Powder: Impact on Physical Parameters and Consumer Acceptance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, H.S.G.; Verbaan, Y.T.; Stieger, M. How will better products improve the sensory-liking and willingness to buy insect-based foods? Food Res. Int. 2017, 92, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, S.M.; Thien, C.N.; Toure, A.K.; Poh, B.K. Factors Influencing Acceptance of Grasshoppers and Other Insects as Food: A Comparison between Two Cities in Malaysia. Foods 2022, 11, 3284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guiné, R.P.F.; Duarte, J.; Chuck-Hernández, C.; Boustani, N.M.; Djekic, I.; Bartkiene, E.; Sarić, M.M.; Papageorgiou, M.; Korzeniowska, M.; Combarros-Fuertes, P.; et al. Validation of the Scale Knowledge and Perceptions about Edible Insects through Structural Equation Modelling. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ros-Baró, M.; Sánchez-Socarrás, V.; Santos-Pagès, M.; Bach-Faig, A.; Aguilar-Martínez, A. Consumers’ Acceptability and Perception of Edible Insects as an Emerging Protein Source. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lisboa, H.M.; Nascimento, A.; Arruda, A.; Sarinho, A.; Lima, J.; Batista, L.; Dantas, M.F.; Andrade, R. Unlocking the Potential of Insect-Based Proteins: Sustainable Solutions for Global Food Security and Nutrition. Foods 2024, 13, 1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ranga, L.; Vishnumurthy, P.; Dermik, M. Willingness to consume insects among students in France and Ireland. Irish J. Agric. Food Res. 2024, 62, 108–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheseto, X.; Baleba, S.B.S.; Tanga, C.M.; Kelemu, S.; Torto, B. Chemistry and Sensory Characterization of a Bakery Product Prepared with Oils from African Edible Insects. Foods 2020, 9, 800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, S. Consumers’ value, environmental consciousness, and willingness to pay more toward green-apparel products. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2011, 2, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomes, S.; Lopes, J.M.; Nogueira, S. Willingness to pay more for green products: A critical challenge for Gen Z. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 390, 136092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dragolea, L.L.; Butnaru, G.I.; Kot, S.; Zamfir, C.G.; Nu¸tă, A.C.; Nu¸tă, F.M.; Cristea, D.S.; Stefănică, M. Determining factors in shaping the sustainable behavior of the generation Z consumer. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1096183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durukan, A.; Gül, A. Mindful eating: Differences of generations and relationship of mindful eating with BMI. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2019, 18, 100172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piwowar, A.; Wolańska, W.; Orkusz, A.; Kapelko, M.; Harasym, J. Modelling the Factors Influencing Polish Consumers’ Approach towards New Food Products on the Market. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puteri, B.; Jahnke, B.; Zander, K. Booming the bugs: How can marketing help increase consumer acceptance of insect-based food in Western countries? Appetite 2023, 187, 106594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barton, A.; Richardson, C.D.; McSweeney, M.B. Consumer attitudes toward entomophagy before and after evaluating cricket (Acheta domesticus)-based protein powders. J. Food Sci. 2020, 85, 781–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dupont, J.; Fiebelkorn, F. Attitudes and acceptance of young people toward the consumption of insects and cultured meat in Germany. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 85, 103983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Barbera, F.; Verneau, F.; Amato, M.; Grunert, K. Understanding Westerners’ disgust for the eating of insects: The role of food neophobia and implicit associations. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 64, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lammers, P.; Ullmann, L.M.; Fiebelkorn, F. Acceptance of insects as food in Germany: Is it about sensation seeking, sustainability consciousness, or food disgust? Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 77, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orsi, L.; Voege, L.L.; Stranieri, S. Eating edible insects as sustainable food? Exploring the determinants of consumer acceptance in Germany. Food Res. Int. 2019, 125, 108573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Petrescu-Mag, R.M.; Rastegari Kopaei, H.; Petrescu, D.C. Consumers’ acceptance of the first novel insect food approved in the European Union: Predictors of yellow mealworm chips consumption. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 10, 846–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schäufele, I.; Barrera Albores, E.; Hamm, U. The role of species for the acceptance of edible insects: Evidence from a consumer survey. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 2190–2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onwezen, M.C.; Bouwman, E.P.; Reinders, M.J.; Dagevos, H. A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plantbased meat alternatives, and cultured meat. Appetite 2021, 159, 105058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribeiro, J.C.; Sposito Gonçalves, A.T.; Moura, A.P.; Varela, P.; Cunha, L.M. Insects as food and feed in Portugal and Norway—Cross-cultural comparison of determinants of acceptance. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 102, 104650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wassmann, B.; Siegrist, M.; Hartmann, C. Correlates of the willingness to consume insects: A meta-analysis. J. Insects Food Feed 2021, 7, 909–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horvat, A.; Fogliano, V.; Luning, P.A. Modifying the Bass diffusion model to study adoption of radical new foods–The case of edible insects in the Netherlands. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0234538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mancini, S.; Sogari, G.; Menozzi, D.; Nuvoloni, R.; Torracca, B.; Moruzzo, R.; Paci, G. Factors Predicting the Intention of Eating an Insect-Based Product. Foods 2019, 8, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Casalegno, C.; Candelo, E.; Santoro, G. Exploring the antecedents of green and sustainable purchase behaviour: A comparison among different generations. Psychol. Market. 2022, 39, 1007–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ham, C.-D.; Chung, U.C.; Kim, W.J.; Lee, S.Y.; Oh, S.-H. Greener than others? Exploring generational differences in green purchase intent. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2022, 64, 376–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khare, A.; Pandey, S. Role of green self-identity and peer influence in fostering trust towards organic food retailers. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. 2017, 45, 969–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, N.; Saha, R.; Sreedharan, V.R.; Paul, J. Relating the role of green self-concepts and identity on green purchasing behaviour: An empirical analysis. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 3203–3219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitmarsh, L.; O’Neill, S. Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahasuweerachai, P.; Suttikun, C. The Effect of Green Self-Identity on Perceived Image, Warm Glow and Willingness to Purchase: A New Generation’s Perspective towards Eco-Friendly Restaurants. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andruszkiewicz, K.; Grzybowska-Brzezińska, M.; Grzywińska-Rąpca, M.; Wiśniewski, P.D. Attitudes and Pro-Environmental Behavior of Representatives of Generation Z from the Example of Poland and Germany. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraj-Andrés, E.; Martínez-Salinas, E. Impact of Environmental Knowledge on Ecological Consumer Behaviour. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2007, 19, 73–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiba-Janiak, M.; Cheba, K.; Mucowska, M.; Oliveira, L.K. Segmentation of e-customers in terms of sustainable last-mile delivery. Oeconomia Copernic. 2022, 13, 1117–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steurer, R.; Martinuzzi, A.; Margula, S. Public Policies on CSR in Europe: Themes, Instruments, and Regional Differences. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2011, 19, 206–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arora, N.; Manchanda, P. Green perceived value and intention to purchase sustainable apparel among Gen Z: The moderated mediation of attitudes. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2022, 13, 168–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogueva, D.; Marinova, D. Cultured Meat and Australia’s Generation Z. Front. Nutr. 2020, 7, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Song, Y.; Qin, Z.; Qin, Z. Green Marketing to Gen Z Consumers in China: Examining the Mediating Factors of an Eco-Label–Informed Purchase. Sage Open 2020, 10, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohr, K.A.; Mohr, E.S. Understaning Generation Z Students to Promote a Contemporary Learning Environment. J. Empower Teach. Excell. 2017, 1, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaturvedi, P.; Kulshreshtha, K.; Tripathi, V. Investigating the determinants of behavioral intentions of generation Z for recycled clothing: An evidence from a developing economy. Young Consum. 2020, 21, 403–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cong Doanh, D.; Gadomska-Lila, K.; Thi Loan, L. Antecedents of green purchase intention: A cross-cultural empirical evidence from Vietnam and Poland. Oeconomia Copernic. 2021, 12, 935–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Łęska, M.; Kuś, A. Ecological awareness in the behaviour of young consumers—Students of the Faculty of Economic and Technical Sciences of Pope John Paul II State School of Higher Education in Biala Podlaska. Econ. Reg. Stud. 2018, 11, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mańkowska-Wróbel, L. Ecological Determinants of Consumer Behaviours. Handel Wewnętrzny 2014, 1, 141–150. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Roberts, J.A.; Bacon, D.R. Exploring the Subtle Relationships between Environmental Concern and Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior. J. Bus. Res. 1997, 40, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noor, M.N.; Jumain, R.S.; Yusof, A.; Ahmat, M.A.; Kamaruzaman, I.F. Determinants of generation Z green purchase: A SEM-PLS approach. Int. J. Adv. Appl. Sci. 2017, 4, 143–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biswas, A. A nexus between environmental literacy, environmental attitude and healthy living. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2020, 27, 5922–5931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelikánová, R.; MacGregor, R. The Willingness of Generation Z to Financially Support CSR—A Central European Study. Danube 2020, 11, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. A/RES/70/1 Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2024).
Construct | Cronbach α |
---|---|
Concern for health | 0.82 |
Concern for the environment | 0.86 |
Attitudes towards insect food | 0.83 |
Intention to purchase insect food | 0.94 |
Predicted | |||
---|---|---|---|
Observed | Positive | Ambivalent | Negative |
Positive | 103 | 80 | 3 |
Ambivalent | 47 | 341 | 76 |
Negative | 1 | 72 | 227 |
Products | 1 * | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitudes of respondents towards health concerns | Negative | No | 30.00 | 30.80 | 31.28 | 30.93 | 30.66 | 30.77 | 30.03 | 28.99 | 29.69 | 30.28 | 30.19 |
No op. ** | 38.82 | 40.25 | 38.48 | 39.26 | 39.48 | 41.03 | 40.10 | 40.48 | 39.85 | 39.29 | 39.31 | ||
Yes | 31.18 | 28.95 | 30.25 | 29.81 | 29.86 | 28.21 | 29.87 | 30.53 | 30.46 | 30.43 | 30.49 | ||
Ambivalent | No | 32.23 | 28.36 | 27.54 | 25.95 | 25.74 | 29.66 | 25.93 | 29.08 | 24.63 | 26.67 | 26.62 | |
No op. | 45.45 | 48.51 | 50.00 | 46.56 | 47.06 | 48.28 | 52.59 | 46.81 | 47.01 | 45.93 | 46.76 | ||
Yes | 22.31 | 23.13 | 22.46 | 27.48 | 27.21 | 22.07 | 21.48 | 24.11 | 28.39 | 27.41 | 26.62 | ||
Positive | No | 25.08 | 25.53 | 25.15 | 25.45 | 26.67 | 24.50 | 26.48 | 27.43 | 27.71 | 22.46 | 23.24 | |
No op. | 40.44 | 36.78 | 38.65 | 39.07 | 38.41 | 34.90 | 32.88 | 35.40 | 36.14 | 39.13 | 38.03 | ||
Yes | 34.48 | 37.69 | 36.20 | 35.48 | 34.92 | 40.60 | 40.64 | 37.17 | 36.14 | 38.41 | 38.73 | ||
Statistics | Median | No | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
No op. | 2.00 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | ||
Yes | 2.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | ||
R *** | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.05 | ||
Chi2 | 7.53 | 13.12 | 12.63 | 6.31 | 5.74 | 20.72 | 19.58 | 7.94 | 4.99 | 6.94 | 7.51 | ||
df | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
p | p = 0.10 | p = 0.01 | p = 0.01 | p = 0.18 | p = 0.22 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p = 0.09 | p = 0.28 | p = 0.14 | p = 0.11 |
Products | 1 * | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitudes of respondents towards environmental concerns | Negative | No | 19.22 | 19.71 | 20.58 | 19.07 | 58.72 | 19.92 | 19.30 | 19.73 | 17.85 | 18.02 | 17.79 |
No op. ** | 56.27 | 57.29 | 57.20 | 58.52 | 19.04 | 57.99 | 56.91 | 57.63 | 57.85 | 57.16 | 57.70 | ||
Yes | 24.51 | 23.00 | 22.22 | 22.41 | 22.24 | 20.09 | 23.99 | 22.64 | 24.30 | 24.82 | 24.51 | ||
Ambivalent | No | 9.09 | 8.96 | 9.42 | 9.92 | 8.83 | 11.03 | 12.59 | 10.64 | 8.21 | 9.63 | 9.35 | |
No op. | 61.16 | 60.45 | 65.22 | 61.07 | 60.29 | 57.94 | 58.52 | 57.45 | 61.19 | 60.74 | 63.31 | ||
Yes | 29.75 | 30.60 | 25.36 | 29.01 | 30.88 | 31.03 | 28.89 | 31.91 | 30.60 | 29.63 | 27.34 | ||
Positive | No | 13.79 | 13.68 | 12.27 | 13.26 | 14.60 | 12.08 | 9.59 | 10.08 | 15.66 | 13.04 | 14.79 | |
No op. | 53.92 | 52.58 | 50.61 | 49.11 | 50.16 | 52.01 | 52.97 | 51.33 | 45.18 | 46.38 | 41.55 | ||
Yes | 32.29 | 33.74 | 37.12 | 37.63 | 35.24 | 35.91 | 37.44 | 38.51 | 39.16 | 40.58 | 43.66 | ||
Statistics | Median | No | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
No op. | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | ||
Yes | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 | 2.50 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | ||
R *** | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.14 | ||
Chi2 | 12.63 | 19.88 | 32.50 | 26.39 | 23.58 | 24.83 | 21.95 | 29.39 | 22.44 | 19.07 | 27.02 | ||
df | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
p | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 |
Products | 1 * | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitudes of respondents towards novel foods containing edible insects | Negative | No | 40.59 | 42.92 | 43.00 | 39.26 | 41.48 | 40.43 | 35.23 | 36.36 | 32.15 | 31.31 | 31.69 |
No op. ** | 50.78 | 51.33 | 50.41 | 51.85 | 52.10 | 50.10 | 52.52 | 52.66 | 54.00 | 54.36 | 54.56 | ||
Yes | 8.63 | 5.75 | 6.59 | 8.89 | 6.42 | 9.47 | 12.25 | 10.98 | 13.85 | 14.33 | 13.75 | ||
Ambivalent | No | 6.61 | 3.73 | 3.62 | 4.58 | 4.41 | 5.52 | 3.70 | 4.26 | 5.22 | 4.44 | 4.32 | |
No op. | 77.69 | 79.10 | 80.43 | 74.81 | 75.74 | 76.55 | 72.59 | 70.92 | 70.90 | 67.41 | 67.63 | ||
Yes | 15.70 | 17.17 | 15.95 | 20.61 | 19.85 | 17.93 | 23.71 | 24.82 | 23.88 | 28.15 | 28.05 | ||
Positive | No | 2.20 | 2.43 | 2.45 | 1.43 | 2.86 | 3.02 | 3.20 | 1.77 | 3.61 | 2.90 | 2.82 | |
No op. | 45.45 | 43.16 | 43.56 | 43.01 | 42.86 | 44.63 | 39.73 | 40.27 | 31.33 | 28.26 | 27.46 | ||
Yes | 52.35 | 54.41 | 53.99 | 55.56 | 54.28 | 52.35 | 57.07 | 57.96 | 65.06 | 68.84 | 69.72 | ||
Statistics | Median | No | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
No op. | 2.00 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | ||
Yes | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | ||
R *** | 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.60 | 0.57 | 0.59 | 0.53 | 0.50 | 0.52 | ||
Chi2 | 341.74 | 414.63 | 404.11 | 346.79 | 378.43 | 317.97 | 256.47 | 290.87 | 226.74 | 219.99 | 235.44 | ||
df | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
p | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 |
Products | 1 * | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Respondents’ intentions to purchase novel foods containing edible insects | Negative | No | 55.29 | 58.93 | 58.02 | 53.52 | 56.91 | 55.23 | 48.83 | 50.09 | 45.69 | 44.02 | 44.39 |
No op. ** | 36.67 | 36.14 | 36.21 | 38.89 | 37.27 | 38.07 | 40.77 | 40.65 | 44.15 | 44.02 | 44.39 | ||
Yes | 8.04 | 4.93 | 5.77 | 7.59 | 5.82 | 6.70 | 10.40 | 9.26 | 10.16 | 11.96 | 11.22 | ||
Ambivalent | No | 23.97 | 20.90 | 21.01 | 21.37 | 20.59 | 21.38 | 20.00 | 19.15 | 20.15 | 19.26 | 18.71 | |
No op. | 61.98 | 64.93 | 63.04 | 60.31 | 61.76 | 57.93 | 57.78 | 58.87 | 50.00 | 49.63 | 49.64 | ||
Yes | 14.05 | 14.17 | 15.95 | 18.32 | 17.65 | 20.69 | 22.22 | 21.98 | 29.85 | 31.11 | 31.65 | ||
Positive | No | 5.33 | 3.95 | 5.21 | 3.94 | 5.08 | 5.70 | 4.57 | 3.98 | 2.41 | 2.90 | 3.52 | |
No op. | 46.08 | 44.38 | 44.79 | 43.01 | 44.13 | 44.30 | 40.18 | 39.38 | 33.13 | 31.88 | 30.28 | ||
Yes | 48.59 | 51.67 | 50.00 | 53.05 | 50.79 | 50.00 | 55.25 | 56.64 | 64.46 | 65.22 | 66.20 | ||
Statistics | Median | No | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
No op. | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | ||
Yes | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | ||
R *** | 0.62 | 0.68 | 0.67 | 0.63 | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.57 | 0.59 | 0.58 | 0.53 | 0.54 | ||
Chi2 | 335.28 | 434.87 | 387.09 | 345.46 | 379.38 | 334.10 | 261.53 | 295.94 | 266.12 | 218.37 | 232.16 | ||
df | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
p | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 |
Variable | Category | Coef. | Std. Err. | Wald Test | 95% Confidence | p-Value | OR | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Free expression 1 | −2.399 | 0.134 | 322.655 | −2.661 | −2.137 | 0.000 | 0.091 | |
Free expression 2 | 1.520 | 0.129 | 139.854 | 1.268 | 1.772 | 0.000 | 4.573 | |
Health concern scale | Positive | −0.022 | 0.111 | 0.038 | −0.239 | 0.195 | 0.845 | 0.979 |
Health concern scale | Ambivalent | −0.031 | 0.101 | 0.094 | −0.228 | 0.166 | 0.759 | 0.970 |
Environmental care scale | Positive | 0.155 | 0.126 | 1.532 | −0.091 | 0.402 | 0.216 | 1.168 |
Environmental care scale | Ambivalent | −0.104 | 0.103 | 1.031 | −0.305 | 0.097 | 0.310 | 0.901 |
Intentions | Positive | 1.682 | 0.153 | 121.529 | 1.383 | 1.981 | 0.000 | 5.378 |
Intentions | Ambivalent | 0.053 | 0.103 | 0.267 | −0.149 | 0.255 | 0.605 | 1.055 |
Attitudes | positive | 1.467 | 0.160 | 84.553 | 1.154 | 1.780 | 0.000 | 4.336 |
Attitudes | ambivalent | 0.259 | 0.108 | 5.782 | 0.048 | 0.470 | 0.016 | 1.296 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Platta, A.; Mikulec, A.; Radzymińska, M.; Kowalski, S.; Skotnicka, M. Willingness to Consume and Purchase Food with Edible Insects among Generation Z in Poland. Foods 2024, 13, 2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13142202
Platta A, Mikulec A, Radzymińska M, Kowalski S, Skotnicka M. Willingness to Consume and Purchase Food with Edible Insects among Generation Z in Poland. Foods. 2024; 13(14):2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13142202
Chicago/Turabian StylePlatta, Anna, Anna Mikulec, Monika Radzymińska, Stanisław Kowalski, and Magdalena Skotnicka. 2024. "Willingness to Consume and Purchase Food with Edible Insects among Generation Z in Poland" Foods 13, no. 14: 2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13142202
APA StylePlatta, A., Mikulec, A., Radzymińska, M., Kowalski, S., & Skotnicka, M. (2024). Willingness to Consume and Purchase Food with Edible Insects among Generation Z in Poland. Foods, 13(14), 2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13142202