Kenyan Consumers’ Experience of Using Edible Insects as Food and Their Preferences for Selected Insect-Based Food Products

  • Mohammed Hussen Alemu
  • Søren Bøye Olsen


In this chapter we present information in relation to consumption, purchase experience, consumption frequency and peoples’ perceptions of how others see edible insects as food in Kenya. Two edible insects, namely termites (Macrotermes subhyalinus) and mealworms (Tenebrio molitor) were considered to study Kenyan consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for termite-based food products (TBFPs) and their reactions to using mealworms as food. In the research, whole and processed insects were considered in order to examine consumers’ WTP for TBFPs in different products formats and contexts. The data originates from a choice experiment survey conducted between December 2014 and January 2015 involving a sample of Kenyan consumers. To ensure a high degree of representativeness of the sample, five counties including Siaya, Kisumu, Nairobi, Kakamega and Machakos were chosen due to their diversity with regard to insect consumption traditions, regions (rural or urban), and socio-demographic factors (age, education and gender). In total, 611 consumers who were either household heads or spouses were randomly sampled in the survey areas and interviewed using face-to-face interviews.


Edible Insects Kenyan Consumer Insect-based Food Termites Tenebrio 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to acknowledge the generous financial support from the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), Ministry of Foreign affairs of Denmark through the GREEiNSECT project ( We thank the editors for their constructive comments.


  1. Alemu MH, Olsen SB, Vedel SE, Pambo KO, Owino VO (2017a) Combining product attributes with recommendation and shopping location attributes to assess consumer preferences for insect-based food products. Food Qual Prefer 55:45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alemu MH, Olsen SB, Vedel SE, Kinyuru J, Pambo KO (2017b) Can insects increase food security in developing countries? An analysis of Kenyan consumer preferences and demand for cricket flour buns. Food Sec 9:471–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayieko MA, Ogola HJ, Ayieko IA (2016) Introducing rearing crickets (gryllids) at household levels: adoption, processing and nutritional values. J Insects Food Feed 2(3):203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boxall, P, Adamowicz, W (2002) Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach. Environ Resour Econ 23:421–446Google Scholar
  5. DeFoliart GR (1999) INSECTS AS FOOD: why the western attitude is important. Annu Rev Entomol 44(1):21–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Deroy O, Reade B, Spence C (2015) The insectivore’s dilemma, and how to take the west out of it. Food Qual Prefer 44:44–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Halloran A, Muenke C, Vantomme P, Huis A v (2014) Insects in the human food chain: global status and opportunities. Food Chain 4(2):103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Halloran A, Roos N, Flore R, Hanboonsong Y (2016) The development of the edible cricket industry in Thailand. J Insects Food Feed 2(2):91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hartmann C, Siegrist M (2016) Becoming an insectivore: results of an experiment. Food Qual Prefer 51:118–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hartmann C, Shi J, Giusto A, Siegrist M (2015) The psychology of eating insects: a cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China. Food Qual Prefer 44(0):148–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoeffler S (2003) Measuring preferences for really new products. J Marketing Res 40(4):406–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huis A v (2013) Potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security. Annu Rev Entomol 58(1):563–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelemu S, Niassy S, Torto B, Fiaboe K, Affognon H, Tonnang H, Maniania NK, Ekesi S (2015) African edible insects for food and feed: inventory, diversity, commonalities and contribution to food security. J Insects Food Feed 1(2):103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Looy H, Wood JR (2015) Imagination, hospitality, and affection: the unique legacy of food insects? Anim Front 5:8–13Google Scholar
  15. Looy H, Dunkel F, Wood J (2014) How then shall we eat? Insect-eating attitudes and sustainable foodways. Agric Hum Values 31(1):131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McFadden, DL, Train, KE (1996) Consumers’ Evaluation of New Products: Learning from Self and Others. J Political Econ 104:683–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Salazar HA, Oerlemans L, van Stroe-Biezen S (2013) Social influence on sustainable consumption: evidence from a behavioural experiment. Int J Consum Stud 37(2):172–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tan HSG, Fischer ARH, Tinchan P, Stieger M, Steenbekkers LPA, van Trijp HCM (2015) Insects as food: exploring cultural exposure and individual experience as determinants of acceptance. Food Qual Prefer 42(0):78–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vantomme P (2015) Way forward to bring insects in the human food chain. J Insects Food Feed 1(2):121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Verbeke W (2015) Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a western society. Food Qual Prefer 39(0):147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Verneau F, La Barbera F, Kolle S, Amato M, Del Giudice T, Grunert K (2016) The effect of communication and implicit associations on consuming insects: an experiment in Denmark and Italy. Appetite 106:30–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Wood W, Hayes T (2012) Social Influence on consumer decisions: motives, modes, and consequences. J Consum Psychol 22(3):324–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yen AL (2015) Insects as food and feed in the Asia Pacific region: current perspectives and future directions. J Insects Food Feed 1(1):33–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammed Hussen Alemu
    • 1
  • Søren Bøye Olsen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource EconomicsFrederiksberg CDenmark

Personalised recommendations