Food Security

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 471–484 | Cite as

Can insects increase food security in developing countries? An analysis of Kenyan consumer preferences and demand for cricket flour buns

  • Mohammed H. Alemu
  • Søren B. Olsen
  • Suzanne E. Vedel
  • John N. Kinyuru
  • Kennedy O. Pambo
Original Paper


Achieving food security in an environmentally sustainable manner is one of the biggest challenges of our time. Using insects as food can serve this purpose because they are nutritionally valuable and environmentally friendly. Embracing insects as food requires information on potential consumer demand as this would determine the success of product development. In this study, we present one of the first thorough assessments of consumer demand for an insect-based food. We assessed the demand in terms of Kenyan consumer preferences and willingness to pay for buns containing varying amounts of cricket flour. We also assessed demand by predicting the market share in a presumed market scenario. The study used an incentivized discrete choice experiment integrated with sensory evaluations. This was intended to reduce any hypothetical bias and to allow participants to acquire experience by tasting the buns. We found significant and positive preferences for the cricket-flour-based buns. The bun products with medium amounts (5%) of cricket flour were preferred to no or high amounts (10%) of cricket flour. Market share predictions showed that cricket-flour-based buns were likely to obtain greater market shares than standard buns. Results also suggested that a market for breads made with cricket flour is likely in Kenya since the demand is present. This signals that insect-based food products may serve as a viable and demand-driven way to increase food security in Kenya in the future.


Food security Insects Incentivized discrete choice experiment Kenya Sensory evaluation Willingness to pay 



Funding for this research was provided by the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, through the GREEiNSECT (13-06KU) project. We are grateful to the management of the Department of Food Science and Technology at the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology for their permission to use the facilities of the Food Processing Workshop Unit for baking the buns for the field experiment. We thank the technical assistants of the laboratory for their assistance in baking and transporting the buns to the field. We also thank two anonymous reviewers and the deputy editor-in-chief of Food Security for their valuable comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Alemu, M. H., Olsen, S. B., Vedel, S. E., Pambo, K. O., & Owino, V. O. (2017). Combining product attributes with recommendation and shopping location attributes to assess consumer preferences for insect-based food products. Food Quality and Preference, 55, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alfnes, F., Guttormsen, A. G., Steine, G., & Kolstad, K. (2006). Consumers' willingness to pay for the color of Salmon: A choice experiment with real economic incentives. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(4), 1050–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arvola, A., LÄHteenmÄKi, L., & Tuorila, H. (1999). Predicting the intent to purchase unfamiliar and familiar cheeses: The effects of attitudes, expected liking and food Neophobia. Appetite, 32(1), 113–126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayieko, M. A., Ndong'a, M. F. O., & Tamale, A. (2010). Climate change and the abundance of edible insects in the Lake Victoria region. Journal of Cell and Animal Biology, 4(7), 112–118.Google Scholar
  5. Ayieko, M. A., Ogola, H. J., & Ayieko, I. A. (2016). Introducing rearing crickets (gryllids) at household levels: Adoption, processing and nutritional values. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 2(3), 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bierlaire, M. (2003). BIOGEME: A free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss transportation research conference, Ascona, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  7. Birol, E., Meenakshi, J. V., Oparinde, A., Perez, S., & Tomlins, K. (2015). Developing country consumers’ acceptance of biofortified foods: A synthesis. Food Security, 7(3), 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343–378.Google Scholar
  9. Carlsson, F., & Martinsson, P. (2001). Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments?: Application to the valuation of the environment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41(2), 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2007a). Consumer benefits of labels and bans on GM foods—Choice experiments with Swedish consumers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89(1), 152–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2007b). Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: Mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 34(3), 321–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chang, J. B., Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2009). How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(2), 518–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Choice Metrics (2012). Ngene 1.1.1 User Manual and Reference Guide, Australia.Google Scholar
  14. Chowdhury, S., Meenakshi, J. V., Tomlins, K. I., & Owori, C. (2011). Are consumers in developing countries willing to pay more for micronutrient-dense Biofortified foods? Evidence from a field experiment in Uganda. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(1), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Christensen, D. L., Orech, F. O., Mungai, M. N., Larsen, T., Friis, H., & Aagaard-Hansen, J. (2006). Entomophagy among the Luo of Kenya: A potential mineral source? International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 57(3–4), 198–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. De Groote, H., & Kimenju, S. C. (2008). Comparing consumer preferences for color and nutritional quality in maize: Application of a semi-double-bound logistic model on urban consumers in Kenya. Food Policy, 33, 362–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Groote, H., Kimenju, S. C., & Morawetz, U. B. (2011). Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: The case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya. Agricultural Economics, 42, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Groote, H., Gunaratna, N. S., Okuro, J. O., Wondimu, A., Chege, C. K., & Tomlins, K. (2014). Consumer acceptance of quality protein maize (QPM) in East Africa. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 94(15), 3201–3212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. de Magistris, T., & Gracia, A. (2014). Do consumers care about organic and distance labels? An empirical analysis in Spain. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38, 660–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Delgado, C., Rosegrant, M., Steinfeld, H., Ehui, S., & Courbois, C. (1999). Livestock to 2020: the next food revolution. Accessed 18 Sept 2015.
  21. Dorward, A. (2012). The short- and medium- term impacts of rises in staple food prices. Food Security, 4(4), 633–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. FAO (2006). World agricutlture: toweards 2030/2050 - Interim report. Accessed 18 Sept 2015.
  23. FAO (2009). The state of food and agriculture: Livestock in the balance. Accessed 01 January 2015.
  24. FAO. (2013a). Edible Insects: future prospects for food and feed security. Accessed 09 Mar 2014.
  25. FAO. (2013b). The state of food insecurity in the world: The multiple dimension of food security. Accessed 03 Apr 2014.
  26. Finke, M. D. (2007). Estimate of chitin in raw whole insects. Zoo Biology, 26(2), 105–115.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Gracia, A. (2014). Consumers’ preferences for a local food product: A real choice experiment. Empirical Economics, 47(1), 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gracia, A., Loureiro, M. L., & Nayga, R. M. (2011). Are valuations from Nonhypothetical choice experiments different from those of experimental auctions? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(5), 1358–1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harrison, G. (2006). Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods. Environmental and Resource Economics, 34(1), 125–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hartmann, C., Shi, J., Giusto, A., & Siegrist, M. (2015). The psychology of eating insects: A cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China. Food Quality and Preference, 44(0), 148–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hertel, T. W. (2015). The challenges of sustainably feeding a growing planet. Food Security, 7(2), 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. IPCC (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Summary for policy makers. Accessed 25 September 2015.
  34. Ivanic, M., & Martin, W. (2008). Implications of higher global food prices for poverty in low-income countries. Agricututal. Economics, 39(supplement), 405–416.Google Scholar
  35. Kelemu, S., Niassy, S., Torto, B., Fiaboe, K., Affognon, H., Tonnang, H., et al. (2015). African edible insects for food and feed: Inventory, diversity, commonalities and contribution to food security. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 1(2), 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kinyuru, J. N., Kenji, G. M., & Njoroge, M. S. (2009). Process development, nutrition and sensory qualities of wheat buns enriched with edible termites (Macrotermes subhylanus) from Lake Victoria region, Kenya. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 9(8), 1739–1750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kinyuru, J. N., Konyole, S. O., Kenji, G. M., Onyango, C. A., Owino, V. O., Owuor, B. O., Estambale, B. B., Friis, H., & Roos, N. (2012). Identification of traditional foods with public health potential for complementary feeding in western Kenya. Journal of Food Research, 1(2), 148–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. KNBS. (2009). The 2009 Kenyan population and housing census. Accessed, (02 Feb 2015).
  39. KNFFA. (2011). The PSI/Kenya’s Food Fortification Social Marketing and Communication Project 2011–2014. Accessed 19 Jan 2014.
  40. Lappalainen, R., Kearney, J., & Gibney, M. (1998). A pan EU survey of consumer attitudes to food, nutrition and health: An overview. Food Quality and Preference, 9(6), 467–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Latou, E., Mexis, S. F., Badeka, A. V., & Kontominas, M. G. (2010). Shelf life extension of sliced wheat bread using either an ethanol emitter or an ethanol emitter combined with an oxygen absorber as alternatives to chemical preservatives. Journal of Cereal Science, 52(3), 457–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(2), 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Little, J., & Berrens, R. (2004). Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: Further investigation using meta-analysis. Economics Bulletin, 3(6), 1–13.Google Scholar
  44. Louviere, J. J., & Hensher, D. A. (1983). Using discrete choice models with experimental design data to forecast consumer demand for a unique cultural event. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(3), 348–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Louviere, J. J., & Woodworth, G. (1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(4), 350–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lusk, J. L., & Schroeder, T. C. (2004). Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(2), 467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McFadden, D. (1986). The choice theory approach to market research. Marketing Science, 5(4), 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Megido, R. C., Sablon, L., Geuens, M., Brostaux, Y., Alabi, T., Blecker, C., Drugmand, D., Haubruge, E., & Francis, F. (2014). Edible insects acceptance by Belgian consumers: Promising attitude for entomophagy development. Journal of Sensory Studies, 29(1), 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Meijer, E., & Rouwendal, J. (2006). Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 21(2), 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mørkbak, M. R., Olsen, S. B., & Campbell, D. (2014). Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments. Journal of Economic Psychology, 45, 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moser, R., & Raffaelli, R. (2012). Consumer preferences for sustainable production methods in apple purchasing behaviour: A non-hypothetical choice experiment. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(2), 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mueller, S., Osidacz, P., Francis, I. L., & Lockshin, L. (2010). Combining discrete choice and informed sensory testing in a two-stage process: Can it predict wine market share? Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 741–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Murphy, J., Allen, P. G., Stevens, T., & Weatherhead, D. (2005). A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 30(3), 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Neven, D., Reardon, T., Chege, J., & Wang, H. (2006). Supermarkets and consumers in Africa. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, 18(1–2), 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Olsen, S. (2009). Choosing between internet and mail survey modes for choice experiment surveys considering non-market goods. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44(4), 591–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Oonincx, D. G. A. B., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2012). Environmental impact of the production of mealworms as a protein source for humans – A life cycle assessment. PloS One, 7(12), e51145.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Oonincx, D. G. A. B., Itterbeeck, J. v., Heetkamp, M. J. W., van den Brand, H., Loon, J. J. A. v., & Huis, A. v. (2010). An exploration on greenhouse gas and ammonia production by insect species suitable for animal or human consumption. PloS One, 5(12), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ramos-Elorduy, J. (1997). Insects: A sustainable source of food? Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 36(2–4), 247–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Raschke, V., & Cheema, B. (2008). Colonisation, the new world order, and the eradication of traditional food habits in East Africa: Historical perspective on the nutrition transition. Public Health Nutrition, 11(7), 662–674.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Scarpa, R., Ferrini, S., & Willis, K. (2005). Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments. In: Scarpa, R. & Alberini, A. (eds.) Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, pp 247–273. Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  62. Scarpa, R., Willis, K. G., & Acutt, M. (2007). Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(4), 449–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Scarpa, R., Thiene, M., & Marangon, F. (2008). Using flexible taste distributions to value collective reputation for environmentally friendly production methods. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56(2), 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smith, J. P., Daifas, D. P., El-Khoury, W., Koukoutsis, J., & El-Khoury, A. (2004). Shelf life and safety concerns of bakery products—A review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 44(1), 19–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock's long shadow. Italy: FAO Rome.Google Scholar
  66. Stevens, R., & Winter-Nelson, A. (2008). Consumer acceptance of provitamin A-biofortified maize in Maputo, Mozambique. Food Policy, 33(4), 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tan, H. S. G., Fischer, A. R. H., Tinchan, P., Stieger, M., Steenbekkers, L. P. A., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2015). Insects as food: Exploring cultural exposure and individual experience as determinants of acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 42(0), 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thunström, L., & Nordström, J. (2015). Determinants of food demand and the experienced taste effect of healthy labels – An experiment on potato chips and bread. Journal of Socio-Economics, 56, 13–20.Google Scholar
  69. Tomlins, K., Manful, J., Gayin, J., Kudjawu, B., & Tamakloe, I. (2007). Study of sensory evaluation, consumer acceptability, affordability and market price of rice. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 87(8), 1564–1575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Train, K. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Train, K., & Sonnier, G. (2005). Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated Partworths. In R. Scarpa & A. Alberini (Eds.), Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics (pp. 117–134). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. UN (2015). World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables. Accessed 18 Sept 2015.
  73. van Huis, A. (2003). Insects as food in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 23(03), 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. van Huis, A. (2013). Potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security. Annual Review of Entomology, 58(1), 563–583.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H. C. M., & Luning, P. (2005). Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: A critical review of methods and techniques. Food Quality and Preference, 16(3), 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vossler, C. A., & Watson, S. B. (2013). Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 86, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vossler, C. A., Doyon, M., & Rondeau, D. (2012). Truth in consequentiality: Theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4(4), 145–171.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and International Society for Plant Pathology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammed H. Alemu
    • 1
  • Søren B. Olsen
    • 1
  • Suzanne E. Vedel
    • 1
  • John N. Kinyuru
    • 2
  • Kennedy O. Pambo
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Food and Resource EconomicsUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Food Science and TechnologyJomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and TechnologyNairobiKenya
  3. 3.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsJomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and TechnologyNairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations