Understanding and Formulating Strategies to Enhance Consumer Acceptance of Edible Insects in Established and Non-Established Contexts

Understanding and Formulating Strategies to Enhance Consumer Acceptance of Edible Insects in Established and Non-Established Contexts | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Understanding and Formulating Strategies to Enhance Consumer Acceptance of Edible Insects in Established and Non-Established Contexts Masagus Haidir Tamimi, Keira Abeer Asmaralaya, Priskilla Valenzia Ratnasari Halim, and 5 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8519084/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Indonesia has strong potential to advance sustainable protein alternatives through edible insects, yet consumer acceptance remains limited due to cultural unfamiliarity and psychological aversion. This study aimed to examine consumer acceptance of edible insects by comparing an established consumption region (Gunungkidul Regency) with a non-established region (Semarang City) in Indonesia. A quantitative survey was conducted with 451 respondents using a structured questionnaire covering socio-demographic characteristics, food neophobia, consumption experience, motivations, and barriers. The results showed neutral levels of food neophobia in both regions, with higher reluctance observed among consumers in Semarang than in Gunungkidul. Previous consumption was substantially higher in Gunungkidul, indicating the role of cultural normalization. Curiosity and perceived nutritional benefits were the main motivations for consumption, while psychological aversion and sensory concerns were the primary barriers. Statistical analysis revealed that age was the only socio-demographic factor significantly influencing willingness to consume edible insects, with younger respondents demonstrating greater openness, while education and income showed no significant effects. These findings suggest that generational attitudes and cultural exposure play a more critical role in shaping acceptance than socioeconomic status. The study highlights the need for context-specific strategies, including technological processing to reduce disgust and allergen concerns in established regions, and perceptual reframing, early exposure, and product familiarization in non-established regions. Promoting edible insects as affordable and nutrient-dense protein sources may enhance acceptance and support Indonesia’s food security and climate resilience. CHAID analysis Consumer acceptance Edible insects Food neophobia Sustainable protein. Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Indonesia has considerable potential to position itself as a global leader in sustainable protein alternatives, particularly through edible insects (EI). Entomophagy, the practice of consuming insects, has been part of traditional diets in several regions of Indonesia (Kuntadi et al ., 2018; Sabri et al ., 2023). Yet, a central question persists: why have insects not become a mainstream component of the Indonesian diet, and what underlying factors shape consumer acceptance? This study seeks to address the issue not only from the perspective of EI as a product but, more importantly, from the consumer’s standpoint. EI include a variety of species consumed as food, such as grasshoppers, crickets, termites, and bee larvae, with more than 100 edible species identified in Indonesia (Kuntadi et al ., 2018). The tropical climate supports a natural abundance of EI, while their short life cycles, low space and maintenance requirements, and high adaptability make them an affordable and viable source of alternative protein. This is particularly relevant considering the link between inadequate animal protein intake and child malnutrition, which contributes to Indonesia’s stunting rate of 21.6%, exceeding the WHO threshold of 20% (Haryani et al ., 2023) Compared with conventional livestock, EI provide superior nutritional and environmental benefits. They contain two to three times more protein than other animal-derived sources, with higher levels of essential amino acids and leucine than beef (Cunha et al ., 2023). Their feed conversion efficiency is also significantly greater, two to five times higher than that of traditional livestock, allowing for resource optimization and reduced land and water use (Sokame et al ., 2024). With low CO₂e emissions (1.0 kg CO₂e per kg of protein), EI contribute to climate change mitigation and carbon footprint reduction, aligning with Sustainable Development Goal 13: Climate Action (Huis et al. , 2013; USDA, 2020). Despite these advantages, public acceptance of EI in Indonesia remains low compared to countries such as Mexico, China, and Japan, where research and commercialization of insect-based foods are more advanced (Sabri et al ., 2023; Syartiwidya et al ., 2025). Neophobia, a reluctance to try unfamiliar foods, represents a major barrier to EI acceptance (Tian and Chen, 2025). A deeper understanding of consumer behavior and the determination of acceptance is therefore essential to identify societal preferences and barriers. This study employs a quantitative survey focusing on two regions with contrasting levels of EI consumption: Semarang City, representing a non-established context where EI consumption is minimal, and Gunungkidul Regency, representing an established context where EI form part of daily diets and livelihoods (Kuntadi et al ., 2018). By comparing these regions, the research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of consumer preferences, motivations, and socio-demographic influences on EI acceptance within Indonesia. The central research questions of this study focus on two main aspects. First, the investigation seeks to identify the preferences and key factors that influence consumer acceptance of EI in both established and non-established regions, namely Semarang City and Gunungkidul Regency. Second, the study examines how socio-demographic variables interact with consumption patterns, Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) scores, and other multivariate factors to shape consumer acceptance of EI. By applying a survey-based approach and CHAID analysis, this study will contribute new insights into the drivers and barriers of EI acceptance in Indonesia, with emphasis on socio-demographic and psychological dimensions of consumer behavior. This contrast is clearly reflected in regions with long-standing EI traditions—such as Gunungkidul Regency—compared with urban, non-established areas like Semarang City, where exposure to EI is minimal. These divergent contexts suggest that a single, uniform approach to promoting EI may be ineffective. Instead, consumer acceptance likely requires tailored strategies that acknowledge existing cultural norms, sensory expectations, and levels of product familiarity. By examining consumer perceptions in both settings, this study aims to provide a clearer understanding of how cultural context shapes acceptance and to guide the development of region-specific strategies that can support the broader integration of EI into Indonesia’s food system. Methods Study Aim and Design The study aimed to examine consumer acceptance of EI by comparing established and non-established consumption contexts in Indonesia. A quantitative survey design was employed, focusing on two regions with different levels of EI consumption: Gunungkidul Regency (established consumption) and Semarang City (non-established consumption). Since the study involved human participants, ethical clearance was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Diponegoro (Approval No: 132/EA/KEPK-FKM/2025). Focus Group Discussion (FGD) As a preliminary stage, a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) was conducted to refine and validate the research questions. The FGD involved 8 (eight) participants representing diverse gender and educational backgrounds. Insights from this stage were used to structure the questionnaire and ensure that the survey items reflected relevant consumer perspectives (Nassar-McMillan and Borders, 2002). Questionnaire Development and Pilot Testing Following the FGD, a structured questionnaire was developed to capture consumer attitudes and behaviors related to EI. The questionnaire consisted of five main sections (Table 1 ). The first section collected socio-demographic information from respondents, including place of residence, where only two options were provided—Gunungkidul or Semarang—in line with the research objective. We decided to include only participants who have been residing in the region for a minimum of three years. For education, the sample distribution was aligned with the most recent census data from the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) to ensure adequate representation (BPS, 2025). Additional socio-demographic variables collected including age, gender, and household income. The second section measured food neophobia using the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS). FNS is a psychometric tool designed to evaluate an individual’s tendency to avoid or reject unfamiliar foods. The scale comprises 10 items, each rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7) (Zhao et al ., 2020). To ensure the instrument’s accuracy and consistency, validity was tested using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (Eq. 1) and reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (Eq. 2). \(\:=1-\frac{6\varvec{\varSigma\:}\varvec{b}\varvec{ᵢ}²}{\varvec{n}(\varvec{n}²\:-\:1)}\) (1) \(\:\alpha\:=\left(\frac{k}{k-1}\right)\left(\frac{1\:-\:\varSigma\:\sigma\:ᵢ²}{\sigma\:ₓ²}\right)\) (2) Where : rₛ : Spearman rank correlation coefficient b i ² : The squared difference between one ranking and another n : The number of observations (respondents Where : α : Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (reliability coefficient) k : The number of valid questions Σσ i ² : The total variance of the valid question items σₓ² : The variance of the total score The third section examined respondents’ prior consumption experience with EI, providing a baseline distinction between those who had and had not engaged with EI. Building on this, the fourth section assessed respondents’ Willingness to Purchase Alternative Protein Products. This section employed close-ended question to evaluate whether respondents would be willing to purchase high-protein animal-based products offered at a lower price, serving as an indicator of their purchase intention toward alternative protein sources in comparison to EI. The fifth section integrated the assessment of Consumption Motivations and Barriers together with perceptions and attitudes toward EI as future foods. Using Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) questions, this section explored the underlying factors shaping consumer behavior. For non-consumers, the questions identified key barriers such as psychological aversion, limited availability, and cultural perceptions. For consumers, the focus shifted to motivations including nutritional value, affordability, environmental benefits, and cultural traditions. In addition, this section examined perceived benefits, conditions for acceptance, interest levels, and challenges related to EI, with responses evaluated based on the frequency of mentions (Kasza et al ., 2016). Overall, this questionnaire structure was designed to capture both behavioral and psychological dimensions of consumer acceptance, while enabling a comprehensive analysis of how socio-demographic factors influence perceptions and willingness to adopt EI as a future food source. Table 1 The structure of the questionnaire, describing its five sections and their specific objectives in capturing consumer acceptance of EI. Section Code Question Type Respondent identity A1 Region Closed-ended A2 Education Open-ended A3 Age Closed-ended A4 Gender Closed-ended A5 Household income Open-ended Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) B1 Psychometric instrument developed to assess an individual’s tendency to avoid or reject novel foods Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) Prior consumption experience with EI C1 Have you ever consumed insects as a source of food? Closed-ended Willingness to Purchase Alternative Protein Products D1 If a high-protein animal-based food product were available at a lower price, would you be willing to purchase it? Closed-ended Motivations and barriers E1 What are the reasons you have consumed insect-based food products? Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) E2 Why have you never consumed insect-based food products? Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) E3 If there were an opportunity, would you be willing to consume edible insects? Closed-ended Sampling and data collection procedure This study targeted individuals residing in Gunungkidul Regency (established region) and Semarang City (non-established region) who met the eligibility criterion of having lived in the respective area for at least three years. Participants were selected using a purposive sampling technique, a non-probability method in which respondents are deliberately chosen based on inclusion criteria relevant to the research objectives. Eligibility was determined by regional residency status, with additional considerations for socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, education, and household income. For education, proportional representation was aligned with the most recent national census data provided by the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics to ensure representativeness, categorized into Other education (primary, secondary, etc.) and Higher education (BPS, 2025; Tamimi et al ., 2025). Data were collected using a structured questionnaire distributed online to participants in both regions. This controlled distribution method minimized self-selection bias, which is often encountered in open-access surveys (Andrade, 2020) and ensured that all participants met the study’s eligibility requirements. Furthermore, the approach successfully captured socio-demographic diversity consistent with the study’s objectives, as presented in Tables 2 and 3 . Table 2 Representative socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (% of respondents, N = 451) Socio-demographic Categories Sample Population Semarang Other education (primary, secondary, etc) 64.13 64.27 Higher education 35.87 35.73 Gunungkidul Other education (primary, secondary, etc) 76.78 76.23 Higher education 23.22 23.77 Note: Ratio in the population according to the latest census (BPS, 2025) Table 3 Further socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (N = 451) Socio-demographic categories N % Gender Semarang Women 201 61.09 Men 128 38.91 Total 329 100.00 Gunungkidul Women 58 47.54 Men 64 52.46 Total 122 100.00 Age (years old) Semarang ≤ 29 224 68.09 30–45 49 14.89 ≥ 46 56 17.02 Total 329 100.00 Gunungkidul ≤ 29 74 60.66 30–45 18 14.75 ≥ 46 30 24.59 Total 122 100.00 Level of income (million rupiah/ month) Semarang 4 76 23.10 Total 329 100.00 Gunungkidul 4 20 16.39 Total 122 100.00 Statistical analysis All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). First, the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) was tested for validity using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient and for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. After validation, the total FNS score for each respondent was calculated by summing the scores across all ten items. Items 1, 4, 6, 9, and 10 were reversed, as these statements reflected food neophilia rather than food neophobia. Based on the classification proposed by de Andrade Previato and Behrens (2015), respondents were grouped into three categories: food neophilic (≤ 16.4), neutral (16.5–38.5), and food neophobic (≥ 38.6). Mean FNS scores were then compared between the two regions (de Andrade Previato and Behrens, 2015). Second, responses from the Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) questions concerning motivations, barriers, and perceptions of EI were analyzed using descriptive statistics, reported as the number of mentions for each attribute. Third, for respondents who had never consumed EI, their willingness to try EI in the future was compared with their willingness to purchase alternative protein products. This comparison was conducted using Chi-square tests to assess associations, followed by Z-tests for proportions to detect significant differences between groups (“willingness to purchase alternative protein” vs. “willingness to consume edible insects”). These analyses were restricted to the demographic subgroup of respondents who reported no prior experience with EI consumption. Finally to explore how socio-demographic factors such as education, age group, gender, and income influence the acceptance of EI, the CHAID (Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection) method was employed to identify groups with higher openness toward consumption. This statistical approach is suitable for population segmentation based on demographic characteristics. A Bonferroni-adjusted chi-square test with a significance threshold of p = 0.05 was applied to determine the most significant multinomial divisions (Chung et al ., 2004; Legohérel et al ., 2015). Results and Discussion Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) test The validity of the questionnaire, particularly the food neophobia scale, was assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation across 10 variables. A variable was considered valid if its calculated rs value exceeded the rs table value at a 5% significance level. With n = 60 and df = 58, the rs table value was 0.254. Reliability was examined using Cronbach’s alpha, where values of 0.7 or 0.6 are regarded as acceptable (van Griethuijsen et al ., 2015). The results summarized in Tables 4 and 5 indicate that all questionnaire items fulfilled the required standards for both validity and reliability. Table 4 Rs calculated values for each test variable of the food neophobia scale (FNS) No. Statement Rs Value 1 I am constantly willing to try new foods. 0.622* 2 I don’t trust new foods. 0.397* 3 If I don’t know what is in a food, I won’t try it. 0.493* 4 I like foods from different countries 0.569* 5 Ethnic food looks too weird to eat 0.462* 6 At dinner parties, I will try a new food 0.607* 7 I am afraid to eat things I have never had before 0.687* 8 I am very particular about the foods I will eat 0.345* 9 I will eat almost anything 0.387* 10 I like to try new ethnic restaurant 0.553* * The results showed that all calculated r s values were greater than the r s table value (0.254), indicating that the items were valid Table 5 Reliability test results using Cronbach’s alpha of the food neophobia scale (FNS) List of Items Reliability Standard Cronbach’s Alpha 10 0.600–0.790 0.681 The Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) is a widely used psychological tool designed to quantify an individual’s reluctance to try unfamiliar foods (Białek-Dratwa et al ., 2024). The instrument consists of 10 statements evaluated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7) to position consumers from neophilic to highly neophobic. The distribution of FNS scores in both Semarang City and Gunungkidul Regency reveals a largely comparable overall pattern, with the majority of respondents in each region situated within the 30–40 score range. This clustering indicates a generally moderate level of food neophobia in both populations. Despite the similarity in overall distribution, notable differences emerge when examining regional mean scores. Respondents in Gunungkidul scored an average of 33.99 , whereas those in Semarang recorded a higher mean score of 36.58 . According to the categorization proposed by Previato and Behrens (2015), both values fall within the neutral neophobia range (16.5–38.5), suggesting that neither group exhibits extreme avoidance nor strong openness toward novel foods. However, the higher mean score in Semarang indicates a comparatively stronger reluctance to try unfamiliar food items. This finding aligns with the contextual distinction between the two regions: Gunungkidul represents an area where edible insect consumption is already culturally established, while Semarang reflects a non-established EI market. Familiarity and cultural exposure are well-known factors that reduce perceived risk and increase willingness to try novel foods, which may explain why Gunungkidul respondents appear less neophobic. Furthermore, the elevated neophobia observed in Semarang may be interpreted considering its classification as a metropolitan city, as described by Buchori and Sugiri (2016). In this context, the more pronounced reluctance toward unfamiliar foods reflects broader behavioural tendencies commonly associated with metropolitan populations, who are typically exposed to modern, standardized, and highly regulated food systems. Such exposure may inadvertently reinforce preferences for familiar and conventional food products, while simultaneously increasing avoidance of unconventional or traditional food sources, including EI. This behavioral pattern is also stated by Mancini et al . (2022), who highlight that consumers in urbanized settings tend to show stronger hesitation toward unfamiliar and new protein alternatives, such as EI. Taken together, these findings suggest that while both populations demonstrate moderate food neophobia overall, Semarang residents are comparatively more avoidant and less receptive to novel food ingredients such as EI, reinforcing the need for differentiated communication and intervention strategies across regions. Prior experience, motivation, and barrier of EI’s consumption Table 6 reveals a clear contrast in prior experience with EI consumption between Semarang and Gunungkidul. In Semarang, only 24.92% of respondents reported having eaten insects, while 63.53% stated they had never tried them, and 11.55% were uncertain. Conversely, in Gunungkidul, 70.49% of respondents had consumed insects, with only 27.05% indicating no prior experience and 2.46% unsure. These figures illustrate a strong regional disparity, where EI consumption is deeply integrated into local dietary culture of rural Gunungkidul, an established EI region, aligned with the finding of Kuntadi et al . (2018), whereas in urban Semarang, EI remain largely unfamiliar and less accepted (Manditsera et al ., 2018). This difference highlights the influence of cultural exposure and environmental familiarity in shaping attitudes toward EI consumption (Huis et al. , 2013), suggesting that social normalization and local availability play key roles in determining consumer openness toward alternative protein sources. Table 6 Prior consumption experience with EI Have you ever consumed insects as a source of food? Semarang Gunungkidul Yes (%) 24.92% 70.49% No (%) 63.53% 27.05% I'm not sure (%) 11.55% 2.46% Total 100.00% 100.00% Table 7 presents the main motivations among respondents who have previously consumed EI in Semarang and Gunungkidul. In Semarang, curiosity and the desire for new experiences emerged as the dominant motivation (52.46%). This pattern indicates that consumption in Semarang is primarily exploratory, suggesting limited habitual exposure and a higher novelty-driven interest than cultural familiarity. Curiosity serves as a powerful behavioral motivator capable of overcoming negative emotions and encouraging individuals to seek novel experiences (Stone et al. , 2021). It may act as an initial trigger for the willingness to try EI, particularly in Semarang, where the practice of insect consumption is not commonly established. However, curiosity and seeking new experinces proportion is notably lower in Gunungkidul (35.29%), indicating that insect consumption in this region is no longer perceived primarily as a novelty-driven activity. Instead, it has become more embedded in routine dietary practices and is reinforced by cultural norms and long-standing exposure. Nutritional and dietary value was the second-strongest motivator in Semarang (18.85%), and a comparable but slightly lower proportion was observed in Gunungkidul (20.17%). This similarity indicates that nutritional considerations are generally acknowledged in both regions, although they play a more secondary role compared to other factors. A clearer divergence appears in motivations linked to availability. In Semarang, abundant local availability accounted for only 9.02%, whereas in Gunungkidul, availability was reported by 29.41% of respondents, making it one of the region’s strongest motivators. This difference aligns with the ecological and cultural context of Gunungkidul, where EI are naturally abundant and have long been integrated into local diets. The strong influence of environmental availability in Gunungkidul reinforces its status as an established entomophagy region, where consumption is not merely experimental but supported by accessibility and tradition (Palupi et al ., 2024). Table 7 Main motivations among respondents who have consumed EI in Semarang and Gunungkidul What are the reasons you have consumed insect-based food products? Semarang (24.92% population) Gunungkidul (70.49% population) N % N % Accidental consumption 4 3.28 4 3.36 Curiosity and seeking new experiences 64 52.46 42 35.29 Nutritional and dietary value 23 18.85 24 20.17 Relatively affordable price 9 7.38 2 1.68 Current food trend 7 5.74 6 5.04 Support for sustainability 4 3.28 6 5.04 Abundant availability in the local environment 11 9.02 35 29.41 Total (number of mentions) 122 100.00 119 100.00 Based on Table 8 , non-consumers of EI reported several reasons for their reluctance to try insect-based foods, which were largely psychological and perceptual in nature. Prior studies note that emotional aversion and sensory expectations often serve as the strongest barriers to novel foods, where EI are not part of the common diet (Florença et al ., 2022) In Semarang, this pattern reflected in the dominance barriers of fear or disgust (18.79%), organoleptic aspects such as taste, aroma, and appearance (17.24%), and availability of other food alternatives (16.93%). Meanwhile, in Gunungkidul, the leading barriers were fear or disgust (21.59%), lack of knowledge about potential side effects, such as allergy (21.59%), and availability of other food alternatives (18.18%). Importantly, these percentages represent a much smaller group of respondents: non-consumers in Gunungkidul accounted for only 27.05% of all respondents, compared with 63.53% in Semarang. This indicates that although fewer people in Gunungkidul avoid EI, those who do tend to hold more deep-seated and personally significant concerns, whether stemming from intense disgust reactions or genuine fears related to safety and allergic responses. It reflects that even in more familiar contexts, hesitation persists due to uncertainty and limited awareness of product safety. Similar patterns, where perceived risk and insufficient information hinder acceptance even in familiar contexts, have been noted by Ribeiro et al . (2021). Overall, psychological discomfort and limited knowledge appear to outweigh cultural or religious considerations in influencing acceptance, as presented in Table 8 . For future development efforts in the established entomophagy region, these findings highlight the need to specifically address the residual barriers of disgust and perceived risk. One feasible approach is applying food processing technologies that incorporate insects into familiar processed products, such as cookies or bread, thereby reducing the visibility of insects and potentially minimizing negative sensory expectations. Table 8 Main barriers among respondents who have never consumed EI in Semarang and Gunungkidul Why have you never consumed insect-based food products? Semarang (63.53% population) Gunungkidul (27.05% population) N % N % Uncertainty regarding product hygiene 78 12.11 6 6.82 Religious considerations (e.g., halal status) 68 10.56 8 9.09 Organoleptic aspects (taste, aroma, shape, color, texture, appearance) 111 17.24 14 15.91 Availability of other food alternatives 109 16.93 16 18.18 Fear or disgust 121 18.79 19 21.59 Lack of knowledge about potential side effects after consumption (e.g., allergies) 89 13.82 19 21.59 Lack of environmental influence and limited product popularity 34 5.28 4 4.55 No specific reason (simply no opportunity to try) 34 5.28 2 2.27 Total (number of mentions) 644 100.00% 88 100.00% Edible Insects as a Sustainable Protein Source and Consumer Acceptance Dynamics Protein deficiency remains a significant nutritional concern in Indonesia and contributes to a stunting rate that exceeds the 20% threshold set by the World Health Organization. The survey results indicate that Indonesia experienced a decline in the stunting rate to 21.6% in 2022; however, this figure still does not meet the required threshold. This issue stems from the limited accessibility and affordability of high-quality protein sources among many households (Chandra, 2023). Conventional livestock production, although widely practiced, faces constraints related to environmental degradation, inefficient resource use, and high production costs (Tabassum-Abbasi et al. , 2016). In contrast, EI provide a sustainable alternative with superior nutritional composition, containing up to three times more protein than conventional meats, a complete profile of essential amino acids, and minimal requirements for land and water (Aguilar-Toalá et al. , 2023). Their production also results in considerably lower greenhouse gas emissions, establishing EI as both a nutritionally rich and environmentally efficient protein source that could enhance national food security (Lumanlan et al. , 2022). Table 9 Relationship between willingness to try EI and attitudes toward lower price animal-based product If there were an opportunity, would you be willing to consume edible insects? If a high-protein animal-based food product were available at a lower price, would you be willing to purchase it? Yes (%) Not Sure (%) No (%) Yes (%) 30.16 a 8.70 a 14.29 a,b Not Sure (%) 31.22 b 52.17 b 0.00 b No (%) 38.62 b 39.13 b 85.71 a Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Different superscript letters within the same row/column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). Despite these advantages, public acceptance remains a central challenge. Based on the survey results presented in Table 9 , respondents who expressed willingness to consume EI also showed a stronger tendency to purchase high-protein animal-based foods when offered at lower prices (30.16%). This pattern indicates that affordability functions as a practical entry point for increasing acceptance of insect-based products. Prior studies similarly note that cost considerations are a strong driver of protein-source selection in many consumer groups, especially when nutritional value is comparable (Junges et al ., 2021). In the broader context of developing countries, EI remain widely collected from natural habitats or agricultural landscapes, making them inherently accessible with minimal financial input (Klobukowski et al ., 2025). This characteristic not only supports household consumption but can also contribute to supplementary income. When positioned as nutrient-dense, affordable, and locally accessible, rather than as unfamiliar or exotic foods, EI are more likely to transition into routine dietary choices—a trend noted in previous discussions on food system diversification (Arb and Pasini, 2024). Therefore, the findings of this study highlight that EI should be viewed not only as an innovative protein alternative but also as a practical strategy to strengthen protein intake and nutritional resilience, particularly in the developing country and for households that prioritize cost-efficiency in food purchasing decisions. Findings from the CHAID analysis (Fig. 1 ) further support this interpretation by revealing that age was the only socio-demographic variable with a significant association with willingness to try EI (p = 0.037). Younger respondents aged 18–29 years demonstrated greater openness to consumption (29.4%) compared to those older than 29 years (17.7%), while reluctance was more prevalent among older participants (49.4% unwilling). Other socio-demographic characteristics such as education, income, and gender showed no significant influence. This pattern suggests that acceptance of EI is primarily shaped by generational differences (Tzompa-Sosa et al. , 2023). Younger individuals are more receptive, adaptive, and exploratory toward novel food technologies, especially when they are exposed through education or prior tasting experience (Alabdulmohsen and Al-Otaibi, 2025). Comparing to younger individuals, older individuals display stronger hesitation but may express conditional acceptance in exceptional contexts such as survival situations (Castro-Alija et al. , 2024). Older individuals tend to have well-established eating habits, which makes major changes to their dietary patterns less likely (Skotnicka et al. , 2023). Developing Contextual Strategies to Improve Entomophagy Adoption in Established and Non-established Entomophagy Regions Building upon these findings, the pathways for strengthening entomophagy adoption should be tailored to the characteristics of each region. In established entomophagy regions, such as Gunungkidul regency, where only a small proportion of respondents remain non-consumers, reluctance tends to stem from deep-rooted psychological discomfort and concerns regarding (1) fear or disgust and (2) possible side effects, such as allergic reactions. Because of this, implementation strategies should prioritize interventions that directly address these risks. One promising approach is the application of processing technologies that reduce allergenic potential, such as enzymatic hydrolysis or fermentation, which have been shown to degrade major insect allergen proteins and thereby increase consumer confidence. These technological approaches can be combined with the incorporation of insect flour or protein extracts into familiar processed foods (e.g., cookies, breads, noodles, chips), which simultaneously minimizes visual cues that trigger fear and disgust. Complementary risk communication and community-level education on hygiene and safe preparation practices are also essential to counter remaining anxieties. In contrast, in non-established entomophagy urban regions, like Semarang city, where rejection is more strongly associated with (1) fear or disgust and (2) organoleptic aspects, novelty, unfamiliarity, strategies must focus on early-stage introduction and perceptual reframing through public tasting events, product trials, and transparent communication regarding nutritional and environmental benefits. Beyond these perceptual barriers, technological and processing aspects also play an important role in shaping acceptance, even in non-established regions. Adopting processing methods that improve product texture, flavor, and aroma, such as fine-milling insect flour, controlled roasting, or fermentation, can reduce sensory deviations that often trigger rejection among first-time consumers. This emphasis on organoleptic refinement is particularly relevant because the lack of cultural background and limited exposure to entomophagy makes urban consumers more sensitive to taste, smell, and appearance, requiring stronger marketing, branding, and product positioning to build familiarity, especially to the younger age (18–29 years old). Approaches such as visually appealing packaging, influencer collaborations, social-media storytelling, “limited-edition” product drops, or integrating insect-based ingredients into popular youth snacks (e.g., cookies, brownies, chips, protein bars) can help normalize the category and reduce psychological distance. Taken together, these region-specific strategies provide a practical foundation for advancing broader societal acceptance of EI as a sustainable protein source. Conclusions This study indicates that consumer acceptance of edible insects (EI) in Indonesia is primarily influenced by cultural exposure, psychological perception, and generational factors, rather than by socio-economic characteristics such as education, income, or gender. Higher acceptance in Gunungkidul regency reflects the role of familiarity and cultural normalization, while greater resistance in Semarang city is associated with food neophobia and psychological aversion. Younger consumers show the highest openness, highlighting their importance in future adoption trends. Although EI offer substantial nutritional and environmental advantages, widespread acceptance depends on targeted, region-specific strategies. In established entomophagy regions, efforts should focus on reducing residual disgust and safety concerns through allergen-reducing processing technologies and integrating EI into familiar food products, supported by risk communication and education. In non-established urban regions, strategies should prioritize improving sensory appeal, minimizing visual aversion, and promoting EI through attractive product positioning and marketing aimed at younger consumers. Positioning EI as affordable and nutritious protein sources, rather than as novel foods, is essential for fostering long-term acceptance and supporting Indonesia’s sustainable food security goals. Declarations We confirm that this manuscript fully complies with all required declaration sections as outlined by the journal. The details for each declaration are as follows: • Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate Ethical clearance was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Diponegoro (Approval No.: 132/EA/KEPK-FKM/2025). Prior to completing the questionnaire, participants were asked to read and voluntarily agree to an informed consent statement, ensuring that their participation was free from coercion and intended solely for academic purposes. • Consent for Publication This manuscript does not contain identifiable personal data, images, or videos of individual participants. • Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no financial or non-financial competing interests related to this work. Funding The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Universitas Diponegoro through the Riset Publikasi Internasional (RPI) program under Contract Number 222–464/UN7.D2/PP/IV/2025, which made this research possible. Author Contribution MHT conceptualized the study, developed the methodology, and coordinated data collection, and validated the findings. KAA assisted in literature review and supported the initial drafting of the introduction. PVRH contributed to data collection, participant coordination, and documentation during fieldwork. IDR performed data entry, initial data cleaning, and assisted with organizing the dataset. RAA contributed to preparing tables and figures and assisted in drafting the results section. KMW supported the revision process, checked formatting, and helped ensure compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. SMY prepared the questionnaire and carried out the final review and editing of the manuscript draft. YPT supervised the overall implementation of the research and contributed to reviewing and refining the final manuscript. Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the Laboratory of the Faculty of Animal and Agricultural Sciences for providing facilities, technical assistance, and continuous support throughout the research process. The authors also sincerely thank Universitas Diponegoro for the financial support that enabled the implementation and publication of this study. Data Availability The data supporting the findings of this study are included within the article. No additional datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. References Aguilar-Toalá JE, Vidal-Limón AM, Liceaga AM. Advancing food security with farmed edible insects: economic, social, and environmental aspects. Insects. 2025; doi:10.3390/insects16010067. Alabdulmohsen SR, Al-Otaibi HH. Exploring novel foods: consumer willingness and acceptance of edible insects as a sustainable alternative protein source in Saudi Arabia. Foods. 2025; doi:10.3390/foods14152590. Andrade C. The limitations of online surveys. Indian journal of psychological medicine. 2020; doi:10.1177/0253717620957496. Arp CG, Pasini G. Exploring edible insects: From sustainable nutrition to pasta and noodle applications—a critical review. Foods. 2024; doi:10.3390/foods13223587. Białek-Dratwa A, Staśkiewicz-Bartecka W, Kiciak A, Wardyniec A, Grajek M, Aktaç Ş, Çelik ZM, Sabuncular G, İslamoğlu AH, Kowalski O. Food Neophobia and avoidant/restrictive food intake among adults and related factors. Nutrients. 2024; doi:10.3390/nu16172952. BPS. Percentage of population aged 25 years and over with senior high school education or higher by sex (%) [Internet]. Statistics Indonesia (Badan Pusat Statistik); 2025 [cited 2025 Oct 14]. Available from: https://www.bps.go.id/id/statistics-table/2/MjE5OSMy/persentasependuduk-usia-25-tahun-keatas-dengan-pendidikan-sma-ke-atas-menurut-jeniskelamin--persen-. Buchori I, Sugiri A. An empirical examination of sustainable metropolitan development in Semarang City, Indonesia. Australian Planner. 2016; doi:10.1080/07293682.2016.1151905. Castro-Alija MJ, Zolfaghari G, Fernandez CG, Álvarez C, Ramón-Carreira LC, Jiménez JM, Albertos I. Elderly resistance vs. youthful acceptance: a study on insect consumption across age groups. Foods. 2024; doi:10.3390/foods13162641. Chandra DN. Fueling growth and preventing stunting: the role of animal protein in achieving optimal nutrition-Indonesia's National Nutrition Day 2023 Theme. World Nutrition Journal. 2023; doi:10.25220/wnj.v06.i2.0001. Chung KY, Oh SY, Kim SS, Han SY. Three representative market segmentation methodologies for hotel guest room customers. Tourism Management. 2004; doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00115-8. Cunha N, Andrade V, Ruivo P, Pinto P. Effects of insect consumption on human health: a systematic review of human studies. Nutrients. 2023; doi:10.3390/nu15143076. Florença, SG, Guine RP, Goncalves FJ, Barroca MJ, Ferreira M, Costa CA, Correia PM, Cardoso AP, Campos S, Anjos O, Cunha LM. The motivations for consumption of edible insects: a systematic review. Foods. 2022; doi:10.3390/foods11223643. Haryani VM, Putriana D, Hidayati RW. Animal-based protein intake is associated with stunting in children in primary health care of Minggir. Amerta Nutrition. 2023; doi:10.20473/amnt.v7i2SP.2023.139-146. Huis AV, Itterbeeck JV, Klunder H, Mertens E, Halloran A, Muir G, Vantomme P. Edible insects – future prospects for food and feed security [Internet]. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); 2013 [cited 2025 Oct 10]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e.pdf. Junges JR, do Canto NR, de Barcellos MD. Not as bad as I thought: consumers' positive attitudes toward innovative insect-based foods. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2021; doi:10.3389/fnut.2021.631934. Kasza G, Izsó T, Szakos D, Nugraha WS, Tamimi MH, Süth M. Insects as food – changes in consumers’ acceptance of entomophagy in Hungary between 2016 and 2021. Appetite. 2023; doi:10.1016/j.appet.2023.106770. Klobukowski F, Smiechowska M, Skotnicka M. Edible insects from the perspective of sustainability—a review of the hazards and benefits. Foods. 2025; doi:10.3390/foods14081382. Kuntadi K, Adelina Y, Maharani KE. Nutritional compositions of six edible insects in Java. Indonesian Journal Forestry Research. 2018; doi:10.20886/ijfr.2018.5.1.55-66. Legohérel P, Hsu CHC, Daucé B. Variety-seeking: Using the CHAID segmentation approach in analyzing the international traveler market. Tourism Management. 2015; doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.07.011. Lumanlan J, Williams M, Jayasena V. Edible insects: Environmentally friendly sustainable future food source. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2022; doi:10.1111/ijfs.16006. Mancini S, Sogari G, Diaz SE, Menozzi D, Paci G, Moruzzo R. Exploring the future of edible insects in Europe. Foods. 2022; doi:10.3390/foods11030455. Manditsera FA, Lakemond CMM, Fogliano V, Zvidzai CJ, Luning PA. Consumption patterns of edible insects in rural and urban areas of Zimbabwe: taste, nutritional value and availability are key elements for keeping the insect eating habit. Food Security. 2018; doi:10.1007/s12571-018-0801-8. Nassar-McMillan SC, Borders LD. Use of focus groups in survey item development. The Qualitative Report. 2002; doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2002.1987. Palupi E, Anwar F, Tanziha L, Gunawan M, Khomsan A. The contribution of forgotten foods for supporting food security in Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta–Indonesia. Journal of Nutrition and Food Security. 2024; doi:10.18502/jnfs.v9i3.16163. Previato HDRA, Behrens JH. Translation and validation of the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) to the Brazilian Portuguese. Nutricion Hospitalaria. 2015;doi:10.3305/nh.2015.32.2.910. Ribeiro JC, Sousa-Pinto B, Fonseca J, Fonseca SC, Cunha LM. Edible insects and food safety: allergy. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed. 2021; doi:10.3920/JIFF2020.0065. Sabri NSA, Kamardan MIF, Wong SX, Azman NF, Akhir FNM, Othman N, et al. Future aspects of insects’ ingestion in Malaysia and Indonesia for human well-being and religion regulation. Future Foods. 2023; doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2023.100267. 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; doi:10.3390/nu15245047. Sokame BM, Runyu JC, Tonnang HEZ. Integrating edible insects into circular agriculture for sustainable production. Sustainaible Production and Consumption. 2024; doi:10.1016/j.spc.2024.10.015. Stone H, Fitzgibbon L, Millan E, Murayama K. Curious to eat insects? Curiosity as a key predictor of willingness to try novel food. Appetite. 2021; doi:10.1016/j.appet.2021.105790. Syartiwidya I, Iwansyah AC, Fikri AM, Harianti R, Yunita R, Saghita EP. A global perspective and acceptability of edible insects as novel food in Western and Asian countries: a systematic literature review. Food Production, Processing and Nutrition. 2025; doi:10.1186/s43014-024-00301-0. Tabassum-Abbasi, Abbasi T, Abbasi S. Reducing the global environmental impact of livestock production: the minilivestock option. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016; doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.094. Tamimi MH, Pratama Y, Arpah M. Evaluation of food quality attributes influencing Generation Z’s consumer preferences for packaged beverages. Food Economy. 2025; doi:10.3280/ecag2025oa19457. Tian H, Chen J. Association of food neophobia and food disgust with the willingness, benefits, and risks of insect food consumption among Chinese university students. Frontiers in Nutritions. 2025; doi:10.3389/fnut.2025.1613932. Tzompa-Sosa DA, Moruzzo R, Mancini S, Schouteten JJ, Liu A, Li J, Sogari G. Consumers’ acceptance toward whole and processed mealworms: a cross-country study in Belgium, China, Italy, Mexico, and the US. PLoS ONE. 2023; doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279530. USDA. National nutrient database for standard reference [Internet]. US Department of Agriculture (USDA); 2020 [cited 2025 Oct 01]. Available from: https://www.usda.gov. Van Griethuijsen RALF, van Eijck MW, Haste H, den Brok PJ, Skinner NC, Mansour N, Savran Gencer A, BouJaoude S. Global patterns in students’ views of science and interest in science. Research in Science Education. 2015; doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6. Zhao J, Gao Z, Li Y, Wang Y, Zhang X, Zou L. The food neophobia scale (FNS): exploration and confirmation of factor structure in a healthy Chinese sample. Food Quality and Preference. 2020; doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103791. Abbreviations BPS Badan Pusat Statistik (Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics) CATA Check-All-That-Apply CHAID Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detection df Degrees of Freedom EI Edible Insects FGD Focused Group Discussion FNS Food Neophobia Scale Rs Rank Score Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8519084","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":580962179,"identity":"3ec657be-8890-4531-a025-d840db76f348","order_by":0,"name":"Masagus Haidir Tamimi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Diponegoro University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Masagus","middleName":"Haidir","lastName":"Tamimi","suffix":""},{"id":580962180,"identity":"19b61bfa-7a30-463f-9d48-02844d449cd2","order_by":1,"name":"Keira Abeer Asmaralaya","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Diponegoro University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Keira","middleName":"Abeer","lastName":"Asmaralaya","suffix":""},{"id":580962181,"identity":"dc0425e1-765a-4b41-a777-c33fb2fdffab","order_by":2,"name":"Priskilla Valenzia Ratnasari Halim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Diponegoro University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Priskilla","middleName":"Valenzia Ratnasari","lastName":"Halim","suffix":""},{"id":580962182,"identity":"1d463470-c39c-4be4-bf91-f43eac29dd81","order_by":3,"name":"Raihan Arif Maulana","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Diponegoro University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Raihan","middleName":"Arif","lastName":"Maulana","suffix":""},{"id":580962183,"identity":"ed565308-1e4b-473f-9a9b-0d2fb89ecba7","order_by":4,"name":"Kinanthi Marta Wardani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Diponegoro University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kinanthi","middleName":"Marta","lastName":"Wardani","suffix":""},{"id":580962184,"identity":"d5acc629-8a4e-41cc-a7c4-1a56e44f3fcb","order_by":5,"name":"Istiqomah Dwi Ramadhani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Diponegoro University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Istiqomah","middleName":"Dwi","lastName":"Ramadhani","suffix":""},{"id":580962185,"identity":"99a38d92-a5e6-4ae8-93a3-3fcf05187c11","order_by":6,"name":"Sri Mulyani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Diponegoro University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sri","middleName":"","lastName":"Mulyani","suffix":""},{"id":580962186,"identity":"07f7e7d7-3b0a-420e-bb0b-a63f198135cc","order_by":7,"name":"Yoga Pratama","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Diponegoro University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yoga","middleName":"","lastName":"Pratama","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-05 08:53:51","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8519084/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8519084/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":101312855,"identity":"dcda1c32-384a-4a43-95a2-7b0b425fc64c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-28 11:15:25","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":64430,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePercentage of distribution of Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) Scores in Semarang City (N=329) and Gunungkidul Regency (N=122).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8519084/v1/71ff9e2108dad35f92f9fb26.png"},{"id":101312854,"identity":"1c32bfbe-394d-4ad8-9170-4a83b22a8cb7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-28 11:15:25","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":49913,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCHAID analysis results based on socio-demographic variables.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8519084/v1/5a5c8c29c20a8b12f5d6fe21.jpg"},{"id":101312889,"identity":"a9ff8205-34b1-4b96-9772-2b36a9ece0dc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-28 11:15:31","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1500641,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8519084/v1/0eebaac6-ad79-4b37-a70f-9e99cb636751.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Understanding and Formulating Strategies to Enhance Consumer Acceptance of Edible Insects in Established and Non-Established Contexts","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIndonesia has considerable potential to position itself as a global leader in sustainable protein alternatives, particularly through edible insects (EI). Entomophagy, the practice of consuming insects, has been part of traditional diets in several regions of Indonesia (Kuntadi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2018; Sabri \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2023). Yet, a central question persists: why have insects not become a mainstream component of the Indonesian diet, and what underlying factors shape consumer acceptance? This study seeks to address the issue not only from the perspective of EI as a product but, more importantly, from the consumer\u0026rsquo;s standpoint.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEI include a variety of species consumed as food, such as grasshoppers, crickets, termites, and bee larvae, with more than 100 edible species identified in Indonesia (Kuntadi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2018). The tropical climate supports a natural abundance of EI, while their short life cycles, low space and maintenance requirements, and high adaptability make them an affordable and viable source of alternative protein. This is particularly relevant considering the link between inadequate animal protein intake and child malnutrition, which contributes to Indonesia\u0026rsquo;s stunting rate of 21.6%, exceeding the WHO threshold of 20% (Haryani \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2023)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompared with conventional livestock, EI provide superior nutritional and environmental benefits. They contain two to three times more protein than other animal-derived sources, with higher levels of essential amino acids and leucine than beef (Cunha \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2023). Their feed conversion efficiency is also significantly greater, two to five times higher than that of traditional livestock, allowing for resource optimization and reduced land and water use (Sokame \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2024). With low CO₂e emissions (1.0 kg CO₂e per kg of protein), EI contribute to climate change mitigation and carbon footprint reduction, aligning with Sustainable Development Goal 13: Climate Action (Huis \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2013; USDA, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these advantages, public acceptance of EI in Indonesia remains low compared to countries such as Mexico, China, and Japan, where research and commercialization of insect-based foods are more advanced (Sabri \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2023; Syartiwidya \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2025). Neophobia, a reluctance to try unfamiliar foods, represents a major barrier to EI acceptance (Tian and Chen, 2025). A deeper understanding of consumer behavior and the determination of acceptance is therefore essential to identify societal preferences and barriers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employs a quantitative survey focusing on two regions with contrasting levels of EI consumption: Semarang City, representing a non-established context where EI consumption is minimal, and Gunungkidul Regency, representing an established context where EI form part of daily diets and livelihoods (Kuntadi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2018). By comparing these regions, the research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of consumer preferences, motivations, and socio-demographic influences on EI acceptance within Indonesia. The central research questions of this study focus on two main aspects. First, the investigation seeks to identify the preferences and key factors that influence consumer acceptance of EI in both established and non-established regions, namely Semarang City and Gunungkidul Regency. Second, the study examines how socio-demographic variables interact with consumption patterns, Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) scores, and other multivariate factors to shape consumer acceptance of EI. By applying a survey-based approach and CHAID analysis, this study will contribute new insights into the drivers and barriers of EI acceptance in Indonesia, with emphasis on socio-demographic and psychological dimensions of consumer behavior.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis contrast is clearly reflected in regions with long-standing EI traditions\u0026mdash;such as Gunungkidul Regency\u0026mdash;compared with urban, non-established areas like Semarang City, where exposure to EI is minimal. These divergent contexts suggest that a single, uniform approach to promoting EI may be ineffective. Instead, consumer acceptance likely requires tailored strategies that acknowledge existing cultural norms, sensory expectations, and levels of product familiarity. By examining consumer perceptions in both settings, this study aims to provide a clearer understanding of how cultural context shapes acceptance and to guide the development of region-specific strategies that can support the broader integration of EI into Indonesia\u0026rsquo;s food system.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy Aim and Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study aimed to examine consumer acceptance of EI by comparing established and non-established consumption contexts in Indonesia. A quantitative survey design was employed, focusing on two regions with different levels of EI consumption: Gunungkidul Regency (established consumption) and Semarang City (non-established consumption). Since the study involved human participants, ethical clearance was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Diponegoro (Approval No: 132/EA/KEPK-FKM/2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFocus Group Discussion (FGD)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a preliminary stage, a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) was conducted to refine and validate the research questions. The FGD involved 8 (eight) participants representing diverse gender and educational backgrounds. Insights from this stage were used to structure the questionnaire and ensure that the survey items reflected relevant consumer perspectives (Nassar-McMillan and Borders, 2002).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eQuestionnaire Development and Pilot Testing\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the FGD, a structured questionnaire was developed to capture consumer attitudes and behaviors related to EI. The questionnaire consisted of five main sections (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The first section collected socio-demographic information from respondents, including place of residence, where only two options were provided\u0026mdash;Gunungkidul or Semarang\u0026mdash;in line with the research objective. We decided to include only participants who have been residing in the region for a minimum of three years. For education, the sample distribution was aligned with the most recent census data from the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) to ensure adequate representation (BPS, 2025). Additional socio-demographic variables collected including age, gender, and household income.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second section measured food neophobia using the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS). FNS is a psychometric tool designed to evaluate an individual\u0026rsquo;s tendency to avoid or reject unfamiliar foods. The scale comprises 10 items, each rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from \u0026ldquo;strongly disagree\u0026rdquo; (1) to \u0026ldquo;strongly agree\u0026rdquo; (7) (Zhao \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2020). To ensure the instrument\u0026rsquo;s accuracy and consistency, validity was tested using Spearman\u0026rsquo;s rank correlation coefficient (Eq.\u0026nbsp;1) and reliability was assessed using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha (Eq.\u0026nbsp;2).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:=1-\\frac{6\\varvec{\\varSigma\\:}\\varvec{b}\\varvec{ᵢ}\u0026sup2;}{\\varvec{n}(\\varvec{n}\u0026sup2;\\:-\\:1)}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:\\alpha\\:=\\left(\\frac{k}{k-1}\\right)\\left(\\frac{1\\:-\\:\\varSigma\\:\\sigma\\:ᵢ\u0026sup2;}{\\sigma\\:ₓ\u0026sup2;}\\right)\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWhere\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003erₛ\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eSpearman rank correlation coefficient\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eb\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2;\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eThe squared difference between one ranking and another\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003en\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eThe number of observations (respondents\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWhere\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eα\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha coefficient (reliability coefficient)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ek\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eThe number of valid questions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eΣσ\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2;\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eThe total variance of the valid question items\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eσₓ\u0026sup2;\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eThe variance of the total score\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe third section examined respondents\u0026rsquo; prior consumption experience with EI, providing a baseline distinction between those who had and had not engaged with EI. Building on this, the fourth section assessed respondents\u0026rsquo; Willingness to Purchase Alternative Protein Products. This section employed close-ended question to evaluate whether respondents would be willing to purchase high-protein animal-based products offered at a lower price, serving as an indicator of their purchase intention toward alternative protein sources in comparison to EI.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe fifth section integrated the assessment of Consumption Motivations and Barriers together with perceptions and attitudes toward EI as future foods. Using Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) questions, this section explored the underlying factors shaping consumer behavior. For non-consumers, the questions identified key barriers such as psychological aversion, limited availability, and cultural perceptions. For consumers, the focus shifted to motivations including nutritional value, affordability, environmental benefits, and cultural traditions. In addition, this section examined perceived benefits, conditions for acceptance, interest levels, and challenges related to EI, with responses evaluated based on the frequency of mentions (Kasza \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2016).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, this questionnaire structure was designed to capture both behavioral and psychological dimensions of consumer acceptance, while enabling a comprehensive analysis of how socio-demographic factors influence perceptions and willingness to adopt EI as a future food source.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe structure of the questionnaire, describing its five sections and their specific objectives in capturing consumer acceptance of EI.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuestion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eType\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespondent identity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClosed-ended\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpen-ended\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClosed-ended\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClosed-ended\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHousehold income\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpen-ended\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFood Neophobia Scale (FNS)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePsychometric instrument developed to assess an individual\u0026rsquo;s tendency to avoid or reject novel foods\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLikert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior consumption experience with EI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHave you ever consumed insects as a source of food?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClosed-ended\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWillingness to Purchase Alternative Protein Products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf a high-protein animal-based food product were available at a lower price, would you be willing to purchase it?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClosed-ended\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotivations and barriers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eE1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat are the reasons you have consumed insect-based food products?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCheck-All-That-Apply (CATA)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eE2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhy have you never consumed insect-based food products?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCheck-All-That-Apply (CATA)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eE3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf there were an opportunity, would you be willing to consume edible insects?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClosed-ended\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSampling and data collection procedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study targeted individuals residing in Gunungkidul Regency (established region) and Semarang City (non-established region) who met the eligibility criterion of having lived in the respective area for at least three years. Participants were selected using a purposive sampling technique, a non-probability method in which respondents are deliberately chosen based on inclusion criteria relevant to the research objectives. Eligibility was determined by regional residency status, with additional considerations for socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, education, and household income. For education, proportional representation was aligned with the most recent national census data provided by the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics to ensure representativeness, categorized into Other education (primary, secondary, etc.) and Higher education (BPS, 2025; Tamimi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected using a structured questionnaire distributed online to participants in both regions. This controlled distribution method minimized self-selection bias, which is often encountered in open-access surveys (Andrade, 2020) and ensured that all participants met the study\u0026rsquo;s eligibility requirements. Furthermore, the approach successfully captured socio-demographic diversity consistent with the study\u0026rsquo;s objectives, as presented in Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRepresentative socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (% of respondents, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;451)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocio-demographic Categories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSample\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePopulation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSemarang\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther education (primary, secondary, etc)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigher education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGunungkidul\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther education (primary, secondary, etc)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigher education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eNote: Ratio in the population according to the latest census (BPS, 2025)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;451)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocio-demographic categories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSemarang\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e201\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e61.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e128\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e329\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.00\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGunungkidul\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e122\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.00\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge (years old)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSemarang\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e224\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e68.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u0026ndash;45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e329\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.00\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGunungkidul\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u0026ndash;45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e122\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.00\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevel of income (million rupiah/ month)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSemarang\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e115\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u0026ndash;4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e138\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e329\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.00\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGunungkidul\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u0026ndash;4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e122\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.00\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). First, the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) was tested for validity using Spearman\u0026rsquo;s rank correlation coefficient and for reliability using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha. After validation, the total FNS score for each respondent was calculated by summing the scores across all ten items. Items 1, 4, 6, 9, and 10 were reversed, as these statements reflected food neophilia rather than food neophobia. Based on the classification proposed by de Andrade Previato and Behrens (2015), respondents were grouped into three categories: food neophilic (\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;16.4), neutral (16.5\u0026ndash;38.5), and food neophobic (\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;38.6). Mean FNS scores were then compared between the two regions (de Andrade Previato and Behrens, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, responses from the Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) questions concerning motivations, barriers, and perceptions of EI were analyzed using descriptive statistics, reported as the number of mentions for each attribute.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, for respondents who had never consumed EI, their willingness to try EI in the future was compared with their willingness to purchase alternative protein products. This comparison was conducted using Chi-square tests to assess associations, followed by Z-tests for proportions to detect significant differences between groups (\u0026ldquo;willingness to purchase alternative protein\u0026rdquo; vs. \u0026ldquo;willingness to consume edible insects\u0026rdquo;). These analyses were restricted to the demographic subgroup of respondents who reported no prior experience with EI consumption.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally to explore how socio-demographic factors such as education, age group, gender, and income influence the acceptance of EI, the CHAID (Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection) method was employed to identify groups with higher openness toward consumption. This statistical approach is suitable for population segmentation based on demographic characteristics. A Bonferroni-adjusted chi-square test with a significance threshold of p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05 was applied to determine the most significant multinomial divisions (Chung \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2004; Legoh\u0026eacute;rel \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFood Neophobia Scale (FNS) test\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe validity of the questionnaire, particularly the food neophobia scale, was assessed using Spearman\u0026rsquo;s rank correlation across 10 variables. A variable was considered valid if its calculated rs value exceeded the rs table value at a 5% significance level. With n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;60 and df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;58, the rs table value was 0.254. Reliability was examined using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha, where values of 0.7 or 0.6 are regarded as acceptable (van Griethuijsen \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2015). The results summarized in Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e indicate that all questionnaire items fulfilled the required standards for both validity and reliability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRs calculated values for each test variable of the food neophobia scale (FNS)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRs Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI am constantly willing to try new foods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.622*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI don\u0026rsquo;t trust new foods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.397*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf I don\u0026rsquo;t know what is in a food, I won\u0026rsquo;t try it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.493*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI like foods from different countries\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.569*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEthnic food looks too weird to eat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.462*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt dinner parties, I will try a new food\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.607*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI am afraid to eat things I have never had before\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.687*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI am very particular about the foods I will eat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.345*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI will eat almost anything\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.387*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI like to try new ethnic restaurant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.553*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e* The results showed that all calculated r\u003csub\u003es\u003c/sub\u003e values were greater than the r\u003csub\u003es\u003c/sub\u003e table value (0.254), indicating that the items were valid\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability test results using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha of the food neophobia scale (FNS)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eList of Items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability Standard\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.600\u0026ndash;0.790\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.681\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) is a widely used psychological tool designed to quantify an individual\u0026rsquo;s reluctance to try unfamiliar foods (Białek-Dratwa \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2024). The instrument consists of 10 statements evaluated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from \u0026ldquo;strongly disagree\u0026rdquo; (1) to \u0026ldquo;strongly agree\u0026rdquo; (7) to position consumers from neophilic to highly neophobic. The distribution of FNS scores in both Semarang City and Gunungkidul Regency reveals a largely comparable overall pattern, with the majority of respondents in each region situated within the 30\u0026ndash;40 score range. This clustering indicates a generally moderate level of food neophobia in both populations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the similarity in overall distribution, notable differences emerge when examining regional mean scores. Respondents in Gunungkidul scored an average of \u003cb\u003e33.99\u003c/b\u003e, whereas those in Semarang recorded a higher mean score of \u003cb\u003e36.58\u003c/b\u003e. According to the categorization proposed by Previato and Behrens (2015), both values fall within the neutral neophobia range (16.5\u0026ndash;38.5), suggesting that neither group exhibits extreme avoidance nor strong openness toward novel foods. However, the higher mean score in Semarang indicates a comparatively stronger reluctance to try unfamiliar food items. This finding aligns with the contextual distinction between the two regions: Gunungkidul represents an area where edible insect consumption is already culturally established, while Semarang reflects a non-established EI market. Familiarity and cultural exposure are well-known factors that reduce perceived risk and increase willingness to try novel foods, which may explain why Gunungkidul respondents appear less neophobic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the elevated neophobia observed in Semarang may be interpreted considering its classification as a metropolitan city, as described by Buchori and Sugiri (2016). In this context, the more pronounced reluctance toward unfamiliar foods reflects broader behavioural tendencies commonly associated with metropolitan populations, who are typically exposed to modern, standardized, and highly regulated food systems. Such exposure may inadvertently reinforce preferences for familiar and conventional food products, while simultaneously increasing avoidance of unconventional or traditional food sources, including EI. This behavioral pattern is also stated by Mancini \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. (2022), who highlight that consumers in urbanized settings tend to show stronger hesitation toward unfamiliar and new protein alternatives, such as EI. Taken together, these findings suggest that while both populations demonstrate moderate food neophobia overall, Semarang residents are comparatively more avoidant and less receptive to novel food ingredients such as EI, reinforcing the need for differentiated communication and intervention strategies across regions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePrior experience, motivation, and barrier of EI\u0026rsquo;s consumption\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e reveals a clear contrast in prior experience with EI consumption between Semarang and Gunungkidul. In Semarang, only 24.92% of respondents reported having eaten insects, while 63.53% stated they had never tried them, and 11.55% were uncertain. Conversely, in Gunungkidul, 70.49% of respondents had consumed insects, with only 27.05% indicating no prior experience and 2.46% unsure. These figures illustrate a strong regional disparity, where EI consumption is deeply integrated into local dietary culture of rural Gunungkidul, an established EI region, aligned with the finding of Kuntadi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. (2018), whereas in urban Semarang, EI remain largely unfamiliar and less accepted (Manditsera \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2018). This difference highlights the influence of cultural exposure and environmental familiarity in shaping attitudes toward EI consumption (Huis \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2013), suggesting that social normalization and local availability play key roles in determining consumer openness toward alternative protein sources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior consumption experience with EI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHave you ever consumed insects as a source of food?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSemarang\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGunungkidul\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.92%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70.49%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63.53%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.05%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI'm not sure (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.55%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.46%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e presents the main motivations among respondents who have previously consumed EI in Semarang and Gunungkidul. In Semarang, curiosity and the desire for new experiences emerged as the dominant motivation (52.46%). This pattern indicates that consumption in Semarang is primarily exploratory, suggesting limited habitual exposure and a higher novelty-driven interest than cultural familiarity. Curiosity serves as a powerful behavioral motivator capable of overcoming negative emotions and encouraging individuals to seek novel experiences (Stone \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2021). It may act as an initial trigger for the willingness to try EI, particularly in Semarang, where the practice of insect consumption is not commonly established. However, curiosity and seeking new experinces proportion is notably lower in Gunungkidul (35.29%), indicating that insect consumption in this region is no longer perceived primarily as a novelty-driven activity. Instead, it has become more embedded in routine dietary practices and is reinforced by cultural norms and long-standing exposure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNutritional and dietary value was the second-strongest motivator in Semarang (18.85%), and a comparable but slightly lower proportion was observed in Gunungkidul (20.17%). This similarity indicates that nutritional considerations are generally acknowledged in both regions, although they play a more secondary role compared to other factors. A clearer divergence appears in motivations linked to availability. In Semarang, abundant local availability accounted for only 9.02%, whereas in Gunungkidul, availability was reported by 29.41% of respondents, making it one of the region\u0026rsquo;s strongest motivators. This difference aligns with the ecological and cultural context of Gunungkidul, where EI are naturally abundant and have long been integrated into local diets. The strong influence of environmental availability in Gunungkidul reinforces its status as an established entomophagy region, where consumption is not merely experimental but supported by accessibility and tradition (Palupi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMain motivations among respondents who have consumed EI in Semarang and Gunungkidul\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat are the reasons you have consumed insect-based food products?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSemarang\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(24.92% population)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGunungkidul\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(70.49% population)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccidental consumption\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCuriosity and seeking new experiences\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNutritional and dietary value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelatively affordable price\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent food trend\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport for sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbundant availability in the local environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal (number of mentions)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e122\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.00\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e119\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.00\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, non-consumers of EI reported several reasons for their reluctance to try insect-based foods, which were largely psychological and perceptual in nature. Prior studies note that emotional aversion and sensory expectations often serve as the strongest barriers to novel foods, where EI are not part of the common diet (Floren\u0026ccedil;a \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022) In Semarang, this pattern reflected in the dominance barriers of fear or disgust (18.79%), organoleptic aspects such as taste, aroma, and appearance (17.24%), and availability of other food alternatives (16.93%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeanwhile, in Gunungkidul, the leading barriers were fear or disgust (21.59%), lack of knowledge about potential side effects, such as allergy (21.59%), and availability of other food alternatives (18.18%). Importantly, these percentages represent a much smaller group of respondents: non-consumers in Gunungkidul accounted for only 27.05% of all respondents, compared with 63.53% in Semarang. This indicates that although fewer people in Gunungkidul avoid EI, those who do tend to hold more deep-seated and personally significant concerns, whether stemming from intense disgust reactions or genuine fears related to safety and allergic responses. It reflects that even in more familiar contexts, hesitation persists due to uncertainty and limited awareness of product safety. Similar patterns, where perceived risk and insufficient information hinder acceptance even in familiar contexts, have been noted by Ribeiro \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. (2021). Overall, psychological discomfort and limited knowledge appear to outweigh cultural or religious considerations in influencing acceptance, as presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor future development efforts in the established entomophagy region, these findings highlight the need to specifically address the residual barriers of disgust and perceived risk. One feasible approach is applying food processing technologies that incorporate insects into familiar processed products, such as cookies or bread, thereby reducing the visibility of insects and potentially minimizing negative sensory expectations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab8\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 8\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMain barriers among respondents who have never consumed EI in Semarang and Gunungkidul\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhy have you never consumed insect-based food products?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSemarang\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(63.53% population)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGunungkidul\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(27.05% population)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUncertainty regarding product hygiene\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReligious considerations (e.g., halal status)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganoleptic aspects (taste, aroma, shape, color, texture, appearance)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e111\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvailability of other food alternatives\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e109\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFear or disgust\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e121\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of knowledge about potential side effects after consumption (e.g., allergies)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of environmental influence and limited product popularity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo specific reason (simply no opportunity to try)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal (number of mentions)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e644\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.00%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e88\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.00%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEdible Insects as a Sustainable Protein Source and Consumer Acceptance Dynamics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eProtein deficiency remains a significant nutritional concern in Indonesia and contributes to a stunting rate that exceeds the 20% threshold set by the World Health Organization. The survey results indicate that Indonesia experienced a decline in the stunting rate to 21.6% in 2022; however, this figure still does not meet the required threshold. This issue stems from the limited accessibility and affordability of high-quality protein sources among many households (Chandra, 2023). Conventional livestock production, although widely practiced, faces constraints related to environmental degradation, inefficient resource use, and high production costs (Tabassum-Abbasi \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2016). In contrast, EI provide a sustainable alternative with superior nutritional composition, containing up to three times more protein than conventional meats, a complete profile of essential amino acids, and minimal requirements for land and water (Aguilar-Toal\u0026aacute; \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2023). Their production also results in considerably lower greenhouse gas emissions, establishing EI as both a nutritionally rich and environmentally efficient protein source that could enhance national food security (Lumanlan \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab9\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 9\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelationship between willingness to try EI and attitudes toward lower price animal-based product\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf there were an opportunity, would you be willing to consume edible insects?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf a high-protein animal-based food product were available at a lower price, would you be willing to purchase it?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot Sure (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.16\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.70\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.29\u003csup\u003ea,b\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot Sure (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31.22\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52.17\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38.62\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39.13\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e85.71\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.00%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.00%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.00%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifferent superscript letters within the same row/column indicate significant differences (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these advantages, public acceptance remains a central challenge. Based on the survey results presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab9\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, respondents who expressed willingness to consume EI also showed a stronger tendency to purchase high-protein animal-based foods when offered at lower prices (30.16%). This pattern indicates that affordability functions as a practical entry point for increasing acceptance of insect-based products. Prior studies similarly note that cost considerations are a strong driver of protein-source selection in many consumer groups, especially when nutritional value is comparable (Junges \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the broader context of developing countries, EI remain widely collected from natural habitats or agricultural landscapes, making them inherently accessible with minimal financial input (Klobukowski \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2025). This characteristic not only supports household consumption but can also contribute to supplementary income. When positioned as nutrient-dense, affordable, and locally accessible, rather than as unfamiliar or exotic foods, EI are more likely to transition into routine dietary choices\u0026mdash;a trend noted in previous discussions on food system diversification (Arb and Pasini, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, the findings of this study highlight that EI should be viewed not only as an innovative protein alternative but also as a practical strategy to strengthen protein intake and nutritional resilience, particularly in the developing country and for households that prioritize cost-efficiency in food purchasing decisions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings from the CHAID analysis (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) further support this interpretation by revealing that age was the only socio-demographic variable with a significant association with willingness to try EI (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.037). Younger respondents aged 18\u0026ndash;29 years demonstrated greater openness to consumption (29.4%) compared to those older than 29 years (17.7%), while reluctance was more prevalent among older participants (49.4% unwilling). Other socio-demographic characteristics such as education, income, and gender showed no significant influence. This pattern suggests that acceptance of EI is primarily shaped by generational differences (Tzompa-Sosa \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2023). Younger individuals are more receptive, adaptive, and exploratory toward novel food technologies, especially when they are exposed through education or prior tasting experience (Alabdulmohsen and Al-Otaibi, 2025). Comparing to younger individuals, older individuals display stronger hesitation but may express conditional acceptance in exceptional contexts such as survival situations (Castro-Alija \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2024). Older individuals tend to have well-established eating habits, which makes major changes to their dietary patterns less likely (Skotnicka \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDeveloping Contextual Strategies to Improve Entomophagy Adoption in Established and Non-established Entomophagy Regions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding upon these findings, the pathways for strengthening entomophagy adoption should be tailored to the characteristics of each region. In established entomophagy regions, such as Gunungkidul regency, where only a small proportion of respondents remain non-consumers, reluctance tends to stem from deep-rooted psychological discomfort and concerns regarding (1) fear or disgust and (2) possible side effects, such as allergic reactions. Because of this, implementation strategies should prioritize interventions that directly address these risks. One promising approach is the application of processing technologies that reduce allergenic potential, such as enzymatic hydrolysis or fermentation, which have been shown to degrade major insect allergen proteins and thereby increase consumer confidence. These technological approaches can be combined with the incorporation of insect flour or protein extracts into familiar processed foods (e.g., cookies, breads, noodles, chips), which simultaneously minimizes visual cues that trigger fear and disgust. Complementary risk communication and community-level education on hygiene and safe preparation practices are also essential to counter remaining anxieties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, in non-established entomophagy urban regions, like Semarang city, where rejection is more strongly associated with (1) fear or disgust and (2) organoleptic aspects, novelty, unfamiliarity, strategies must focus on early-stage introduction and perceptual reframing through public tasting events, product trials, and transparent communication regarding nutritional and environmental benefits. Beyond these perceptual barriers, technological and processing aspects also play an important role in shaping acceptance, even in non-established regions. Adopting processing methods that improve product texture, flavor, and aroma, such as fine-milling insect flour, controlled roasting, or fermentation, can reduce sensory deviations that often trigger rejection among first-time consumers. This emphasis on organoleptic refinement is particularly relevant because the lack of cultural background and limited exposure to entomophagy makes urban consumers more sensitive to taste, smell, and appearance, requiring stronger marketing, branding, and product positioning to build familiarity, especially to the younger age (18\u0026ndash;29 years old). Approaches such as visually appealing packaging, influencer collaborations, social-media storytelling, \u0026ldquo;limited-edition\u0026rdquo; product drops, or integrating insect-based ingredients into popular youth snacks (e.g., cookies, brownies, chips, protein bars) can help normalize the category and reduce psychological distance. Taken together, these region-specific strategies provide a practical foundation for advancing broader societal acceptance of EI as a sustainable protein source.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study indicates that consumer acceptance of edible insects (EI) in Indonesia is primarily influenced by cultural exposure, psychological perception, and generational factors, rather than by socio-economic characteristics such as education, income, or gender. Higher acceptance in Gunungkidul regency reflects the role of familiarity and cultural normalization, while greater resistance in Semarang city is associated with food neophobia and psychological aversion. Younger consumers show the highest openness, highlighting their importance in future adoption trends. Although EI offer substantial nutritional and environmental advantages, widespread acceptance depends on targeted, region-specific strategies. In established entomophagy regions, efforts should focus on reducing residual disgust and safety concerns through allergen-reducing processing technologies and integrating EI into familiar food products, supported by risk communication and education. In non-established urban regions, strategies should prioritize improving sensory appeal, minimizing visual aversion, and promoting EI through attractive product positioning and marketing aimed at younger consumers. Positioning EI as affordable and nutritious protein sources, rather than as novel foods, is essential for fostering long-term acceptance and supporting Indonesia\u0026rsquo;s sustainable food security goals.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe confirm that this manuscript fully complies with all required declaration sections as outlined by the journal. The details for each declaration are as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e• Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEthical clearance was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Diponegoro (Approval No.: 132/EA/KEPK-FKM/2025). Prior to completing the questionnaire, participants were asked to read and voluntarily agree to an informed consent statement, ensuring that their participation was free from coercion and intended solely for academic purposes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e • Consent for Publication\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e This manuscript does not contain identifiable personal data, images, or videos of individual participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e• Competing Interests\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no financial or non-financial competing interests related to this work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Universitas Diponegoro through the \u003cem\u003eRiset Publikasi Internasional\u003c/em\u003e (RPI) program under Contract Number 222–464/UN7.D2/PP/IV/2025, which made this research possible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMHT conceptualized the study, developed the methodology, and coordinated data collection, and validated the findings. KAA assisted in literature review and supported the initial drafting of the introduction. PVRH contributed to data collection, participant coordination, and documentation during fieldwork. IDR performed data entry, initial data cleaning, and assisted with organizing the dataset. RAA contributed to preparing tables and figures and assisted in drafting the results section. KMW supported the revision process, checked formatting, and helped ensure compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. SMY prepared the questionnaire and carried out the final review and editing of the manuscript draft. YPT supervised the overall implementation of the research and contributed to reviewing and refining the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors gratefully acknowledge the Laboratory of the Faculty of Animal and Agricultural Sciences for providing facilities, technical assistance, and continuous support throughout the research process. The authors also sincerely thank Universitas Diponegoro for the financial support that enabled the implementation and publication of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data supporting the findings of this study are included within the article. No additional datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAguilar-Toal\u0026aacute; JE, Vidal-Lim\u0026oacute;n AM, Liceaga AM. Advancing food security with farmed edible insects: economic, social, and environmental aspects. Insects. 2025; doi:10.3390/insects16010067.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlabdulmohsen SR, Al-Otaibi HH. Exploring novel foods: consumer willingness and acceptance of edible insects as a sustainable alternative protein source in Saudi Arabia. Foods. 2025; doi:10.3390/foods14152590.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndrade C. The limitations of online surveys. Indian journal of psychological medicine. 2020; doi:10.1177/0253717620957496.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArp CG, Pasini G. Exploring edible insects: From sustainable nutrition to pasta and noodle applications\u0026mdash;a critical review. Foods. 2024; doi:10.3390/foods13223587.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBiałek-Dratwa A, Staśkiewicz-Bartecka W, Kiciak A, Wardyniec A, Grajek M, Akta\u0026ccedil; Ş, \u0026Ccedil;elik ZM, Sabuncular G, İslamoğlu AH, Kowalski O. Food Neophobia and avoidant/restrictive food intake among adults and related factors. Nutrients. 2024; doi:10.3390/nu16172952.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBPS. Percentage of population aged 25 years and over with senior high school education or higher by sex (%) [Internet]. Statistics Indonesia (Badan Pusat Statistik); 2025 [cited 2025 Oct 14]. Available from: https://www.bps.go.id/id/statistics-table/2/MjE5OSMy/persentasependuduk-usia-25-tahun-keatas-dengan-pendidikan-sma-ke-atas-menurut-jeniskelamin--persen-.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBuchori I, Sugiri A. An empirical examination of sustainable metropolitan development in Semarang City, Indonesia. Australian Planner. 2016; doi:10.1080/07293682.2016.1151905.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCastro-Alija MJ, Zolfaghari G, Fernandez CG, \u0026Aacute;lvarez C, Ram\u0026oacute;n-Carreira LC, Jim\u0026eacute;nez JM, Albertos I. Elderly resistance vs. youthful acceptance: a study on insect consumption across age groups. Foods. 2024; doi:10.3390/foods13162641.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChandra DN. Fueling growth and preventing stunting: the role of animal protein in achieving optimal nutrition-Indonesia's National Nutrition Day 2023 Theme. World Nutrition Journal. 2023; doi:10.25220/wnj.v06.i2.0001.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChung KY, Oh SY, Kim SS, Han SY. Three representative market segmentation methodologies for hotel guest room customers. Tourism Management. 2004; doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00115-8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCunha N, Andrade V, Ruivo P, Pinto P. Effects of insect consumption on human health: a systematic review of human studies. Nutrients. 2023; doi:10.3390/nu15143076.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFloren\u0026ccedil;a, SG, Guine RP, Goncalves FJ, Barroca MJ, Ferreira M, Costa CA, Correia PM, Cardoso AP, Campos S, Anjos O, Cunha LM. The motivations for consumption of edible insects: a systematic review. Foods. 2022; doi:10.3390/foods11223643.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaryani VM, Putriana D, Hidayati RW. Animal-based protein intake is associated with stunting in children in primary health care of Minggir. Amerta Nutrition. 2023; doi:10.20473/amnt.v7i2SP.2023.139-146.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuis AV, Itterbeeck JV, Klunder H, Mertens E, Halloran A, Muir G, Vantomme P. Edible insects \u0026ndash; future prospects for food and feed security [Internet]. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); 2013 [cited 2025 Oct 10]. Available from:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ehttp://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e.pdf.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJunges JR, do Canto NR, de Barcellos MD. Not as bad as I thought: consumers' positive attitudes toward innovative insect-based foods. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2021; doi:10.3389/fnut.2021.631934.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKasza G, Izs\u0026oacute; T, Szakos D, Nugraha WS, Tamimi MH, S\u0026uuml;th M. Insects as food \u0026ndash; changes in consumers\u0026rsquo; acceptance of entomophagy in Hungary between 2016 and 2021. Appetite. 2023; doi:10.1016/j.appet.2023.106770.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlobukowski F, Smiechowska M, Skotnicka M. Edible insects from the perspective of sustainability\u0026mdash;a review of the hazards and benefits. Foods. 2025; doi:10.3390/foods14081382.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKuntadi K, Adelina Y, Maharani KE. Nutritional compositions of six edible insects in Java. Indonesian Journal Forestry Research. 2018; doi:10.20886/ijfr.2018.5.1.55-66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLegoh\u0026eacute;rel P, Hsu CHC, Dauc\u0026eacute; B. Variety-seeking: Using the CHAID segmentation approach in analyzing the international traveler market. Tourism Management. 2015; doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.07.011.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLumanlan J, Williams M, Jayasena V. Edible insects: Environmentally friendly sustainable future food source. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2022; doi:10.1111/ijfs.16006.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMancini S, Sogari G, Diaz SE, Menozzi D, Paci G, Moruzzo R. Exploring the future of edible insects in Europe. Foods. 2022; doi:10.3390/foods11030455.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eManditsera FA, Lakemond CMM, Fogliano V, Zvidzai CJ, Luning PA. Consumption patterns of edible insects in rural and urban areas of Zimbabwe: taste, nutritional value and availability are key elements for keeping the insect eating habit. Food Security. 2018; doi:10.1007/s12571-018-0801-8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNassar-McMillan SC, Borders LD. Use of focus groups in survey item development. The Qualitative Report. 2002; doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2002.1987.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePalupi E, Anwar F, Tanziha L, Gunawan M, Khomsan A. The contribution of forgotten foods for supporting food security in Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta\u0026ndash;Indonesia. Journal of Nutrition and Food Security. 2024; doi:10.18502/jnfs.v9i3.16163.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePreviato HDRA, Behrens JH. Translation and validation of the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) to the Brazilian Portuguese. Nutricion Hospitalaria. 2015;doi:10.3305/nh.2015.32.2.910.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRibeiro JC, Sousa-Pinto B, Fonseca J, Fonseca SC, Cunha LM. Edible insects and food safety: allergy. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed. 2021; doi:10.3920/JIFF2020.0065.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSabri NSA, Kamardan MIF, Wong SX, Azman NF, Akhir FNM, Othman N, et al. Future aspects of insects\u0026rsquo; ingestion in Malaysia and Indonesia for human well-being and religion regulation. Future Foods. 2023; doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2023.100267.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSkotnicka 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; doi:10.3390/nu15245047.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSokame BM, Runyu JC, Tonnang HEZ. Integrating edible insects into circular agriculture for sustainable production. Sustainaible Production and Consumption. 2024; doi:10.1016/j.spc.2024.10.015.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStone H, Fitzgibbon L, Millan E, Murayama K. Curious to eat insects? Curiosity as a key predictor of willingness to try novel food. Appetite. 2021; doi:10.1016/j.appet.2021.105790.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSyartiwidya I, Iwansyah AC, Fikri AM, Harianti R, Yunita R, Saghita EP. A global perspective and acceptability of edible insects as novel food in Western and Asian countries: a systematic literature review. Food Production, Processing and Nutrition. 2025; doi:10.1186/s43014-024-00301-0.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTabassum-Abbasi, Abbasi T, Abbasi S. Reducing the global environmental impact of livestock production: the minilivestock option. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016; doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.094.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTamimi MH, Pratama Y, Arpah M. Evaluation of food quality attributes influencing Generation Z\u0026rsquo;s consumer preferences for packaged beverages. Food Economy. 2025; doi:10.3280/ecag2025oa19457.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTian H, Chen J. Association of food neophobia and food disgust with the willingness, benefits, and risks of insect food consumption among Chinese university students. Frontiers in Nutritions. 2025; doi:10.3389/fnut.2025.1613932.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTzompa-Sosa DA, Moruzzo R, Mancini S, Schouteten JJ, Liu A, Li J, Sogari G. Consumers\u0026rsquo; acceptance toward whole and processed mealworms: a cross-country study in Belgium, China, Italy, Mexico, and the US. PLoS ONE. 2023; doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279530.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUSDA. National nutrient database for standard reference [Internet]. US Department of Agriculture (USDA); 2020 [cited 2025 Oct 01]. Available from:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ehttps://www.usda.gov.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Griethuijsen RALF, van Eijck MW, Haste H, den Brok PJ, Skinner NC, Mansour N, Savran Gencer A, BouJaoude S. Global patterns in students\u0026rsquo; views of science and interest in science. Research in Science Education. 2015; doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao J, Gao Z, Li Y, Wang Y, Zhang X, Zou L. The food neophobia scale (FNS): exploration and confirmation of factor structure in a healthy Chinese sample. Food Quality and Preference. 2020; doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103791.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eBPS \u003cem\u003eBadan Pusat Statistik\u003c/em\u003e (Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCATA Check-All-That-Apply\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCHAID Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detection\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003edf Degrees of Freedom\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEI Edible Insects\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFGD Focused Group Discussion\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFNS Food Neophobia Scale\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRs Rank Score\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"CHAID analysis, Consumer acceptance, Edible insects, Food neophobia, Sustainable protein.","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8519084/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8519084/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIndonesia has strong potential to advance sustainable protein alternatives through edible insects, yet consumer acceptance remains limited due to cultural unfamiliarity and psychological aversion. This study aimed to examine consumer acceptance of edible insects by comparing an established consumption region (Gunungkidul Regency) with a non-established region (Semarang City) in Indonesia. A quantitative survey was conducted with 451 respondents using a structured questionnaire covering socio-demographic characteristics, food neophobia, consumption experience, motivations, and barriers. The results showed neutral levels of food neophobia in both regions, with higher reluctance observed among consumers in Semarang than in Gunungkidul. Previous consumption was substantially higher in Gunungkidul, indicating the role of cultural normalization. Curiosity and perceived nutritional benefits were the main motivations for consumption, while psychological aversion and sensory concerns were the primary barriers. Statistical analysis revealed that age was the only socio-demographic factor significantly influencing willingness to consume edible insects, with younger respondents demonstrating greater openness, while education and income showed no significant effects. These findings suggest that generational attitudes and cultural exposure play a more critical role in shaping acceptance than socioeconomic status. The study highlights the need for context-specific strategies, including technological processing to reduce disgust and allergen concerns in established regions, and perceptual reframing, early exposure, and product familiarization in non-established regions. Promoting edible insects as affordable and nutrient-dense protein sources may enhance acceptance and support Indonesia\u0026rsquo;s food security and climate resilience.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Understanding and Formulating Strategies to Enhance Consumer Acceptance of Edible Insects in Established and Non-Established Contexts","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-28 11:15:01","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8519084/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b8127b18-601d-4ead-8245-162eaf0d102e","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 28th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-28T11:15:01+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-28 11:15:01","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8519084","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8519084","identity":"rs-8519084","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}