Journal of ASEAN Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1 (2023), pp.25−44
ISSN 2338-1361 print / ISSN 2338-1353 electronic
Received: 3rd July 2021/ Revised: 14th May 2022/ Accepted: 10th January 2023
“Local Food” Consumption: Does Locality Matter?
Agustina Multi Purnomo1, Gumilar Rusliwa Somantri2, Ricardi S. Adnan3
1Faculty of Social, Political, and Computer Science, Universitas Djuanda, Bogor, Indonesia
2,3Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Depok, Universitas Indonesia
agustina.m@unida.ac.id; gumilar.r09@ui.ac.id; ricardi.s@ui.ac.id
How to Cite: Purnomo, A. M., Somantri, G. R., & Adnan, R. S. “Local Food” consumption: Does
locality matter? Journal of ASEAN Studies, 11(1), 25−44. https:/doi.org/10.21512/jas.v11i1.7537
Abstract
The research examined the possibility of food being socialized as local food to
replace local food’s role in food tourism. Food was one of the major attractions
during a vacancy in ASEAN. The study of food in tourism rarely considered local
food diversity in urban areas. The research addressed the other type of local food
that is typical city food. In this case, there is no connection between the food and
culture, traditions, history, or place, but the food is socialized as being indigenous.
The local food consumption model was used to test whether the factors that affect
tourists' local food consumption apply equally to foods socialized as local food.
The research compared domestic tourist local food consumption factors in two
food categories. 640 domestic tourists in a developed culinary tourism city in the
Jakarta Metropolitan Area participated in this online survey. The comparative test
of tourist characteristics found gender, the purpose of visit, age, and status of visit
tourist characteristics associated with the food choice. The physical environment,
exiting experience, and authentic experience were the motivational factors that
differed between two food categories. It is possible that socialized foods will
replace local food. The food locality did not always a matter. The results provide
an overview of the position of local food in urban tourism. This has been
considered the main attraction of food tourism in ASEAN countries.
Keywords: local food, food tourism, consumption, urban, Indonesia
Introduction
Food was one of the major attractions for international tourists (Himanshu, 2015) and
positively impacted tourism demands in ASEAN (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2021). A taste of the
diversity and authenticity of the culture in Asia and ASEAN was experienced through food
IN
P
RE
SS
mailto:agustina.m@unida.ac.id
mailto:gumilar.r09@ui.ac.id
mailto:ricardi.s@ui.ac.id
26 “Local Food” Consumption:
(Lee et al., 2020; Naruetharadhol & Gebsombut, 2020; Park, Kim, & Yeoman, 2019). The cuisine
was featured in ASEAN’s cultural education, awareness, and literacy initiatives (Kheng-Lian,
2014). The food was known as local food due to its heterogeneity and cultural authenticity.
Local food was an essential attraction in the food tourism study. Tourists felt
authenticity, a sense of place, cultural experiences, and satisfaction through local food
experiences (Björk & Kauppinen-Räisänen, 2019; Hsu & Scott, 2020; Rousta & Jamshidi, 2020;
Tsai, 2016; Uehara & Assarut, 2020; Youn & Kim, 2017). However, the research gave less
attention to the diversity in local food. There was diversity in local food definitions (Avieli,
2013). Due to the urban context, various food producers compete for customers by selling each
other food, known as “typical food of the city” (Purnomo, 2022). The foods did not meet the
local food definition as in previous studies. These foods have no culture or tradition tied to
the area, and was relatively recent and can be found in other cities. However, they were
particularly popular in the city as its typical food. The research called attention to the other
“local food”, which has been socialized as local food. It differed from previous studies (Avieli,
2013), which did not examine food consumption. Food consumption while traveling denoted
the tourist gaze and determined what foods tourists consider local food (adapted from
Korstanje & Seraphin, 2017; Urry, 1995). Tourists’ consumption of local food while traveling
determines which foods are considered authentic.
The research examines the possibility of food being socialized as local food to replace
local food’s role in food tourism. Taking into consideration the importance of locality in the
food that is socialized as local food, the research advances the conceptualization of local food.
Previous studies discussed local food attractions in food tourism as the locality of place,
culture, tradition, and history (Chang, Kivela, and Mak, 2010; Choe & Kim, 2019; Zhang, Chen,
and Hu, 2019). However, those studies largely neglect the possibility that tourists feel locality
from the other "local food." This article proposes two types of locality in food, stemming from
the history and tradition of place and socialization. The modification of the local food
consumption model (Kim, Eves, & Scarles, 2009) was used to test whether the factors that
affect tourists’ local food consumption apply equally to food socialized as local food. The same
impact indicates that food can be combined with local food in order to replace local food. The
results provide an overview of the position of local food in tourism, which has been
considered the main attraction of food tourism in ASEAN countries. The research result
contributes to the definition of local food by including food that is socialized as local food in
the tourist perspective. The research challenges a single view of locality in urban food tourism
that has dynamic inventions.
Literature Review
Local Food and Food Socialized as Local Food
Previous studies examined local food from three perspectives. First, local food was a
specific geographical location (Hsu & Scott, 2020; Knollenberg et al., 2021; Rousta & Jamshidi,
IN
P
RE
SS
Journal of ASEAN Studies 27
2020; Zhang, Chen, & Hu, 2019). Second, local food reflected cultural characteristics of a place.
Local food indicated a place’s identity (Chang, Kivela, & Mak, 2010; Chuang, 2009), native
culture (Zhang, Chen, & Hu, 2019), unique, original, traditional, special (Avieli, 2013; Choe &
Kim, 2019), indigenous herbs and food history from a particular place (Sims, 2009; Youn &
Kim, 2017). Third, local food refers to people or producers of food from certain places
(Scheyvens & Laeis, 2019; Slocum, 2016; Stoffelen & Vanneste, 2016). Local food in food
tourism represents the culture, tradition, and history of a place.
Like the other ASEAN countries, Indonesia has a diverse food culture in each region.
Every region in Indonesia has food that was linked to the region if it was sold anywhere in
Indonesia. It was known as Java’s food, Sundanese Food, Sumatra’s food, Bogor food, or
Balinese food. Indonesia also has food that did not indicate one particular region but denoted
Indonesian food. For example, Indonesia’s government introduced fried rice as one of The 30
Indonesian Traditional Culinary Icons. Fried rice was also known as the Indonesian Gastro
Brand (Irwansyah & Triputra, 2016). Fried rice was a food found in almost all regions in
Indonesia. It did not indicate a specific region. Both foods were local foods according to the
definition of local food. How was the local food when the research took place in a particular
city or region? The research proposes that the local food in a particular locality must fulfill the
three local food indicators.
The study of urban food tourism in ASEAN should examine the famous foods
introduced as the cuisine of the city. For example, Bandung Makuta cake was not a Bandung
cultural food but considered Bandung’s souvenir food (Chan, Tresna, & Suradipura, 2017).
Famous Thai food poses a challenge to rice-based Thai ethnic cuisine in urban tourism (Berno,
Dentice, & Wisansing, 2019), and Vietnamese food is considered Vietnamese even when it has
been adapted from Chinese food (Avieli, 2013). Food indicated a specific city but did not meet
the three local food indicators recommended as socialized as local food.
The study focuses on two categories of food that tourists perceive as local food. Local
food refers to culture, tradition, history, and food’s attachment to its place and maker. Local
food was part of the unique culture of a particular region or city. Typical city food socialized
as local food had no cultural, historical, or place attachment, but was considered typical city
food. Food that is socialized is mostly known as souvenir food, national food, or other foods.
Consumers may not distinguish between local and socialized food. Tourists may
consider any food they consume as local food, following their information about the food
(Avieli, 2013; Lin, Pearson, & Cai, 2011; Sims, 2009). Food as a cultural characteristic may be
replaced by the invention of regional communities, food providers, and tourists (Avieli, 2013;
Cohen, 1988). The invention and socialization process opens up the possibility that tourists
might consider the food to be local food.
The tourist played a role in determining what food was considered local food through
food consumption. Food consumption in tourism was divided into four perspectives: tourists’
food consumption behavior or pattern; tourists’ special interests in various foods and related
activities in destinations; food as a tourist product, and tourists’ special interests in various
foods (Mak, Lumber, & Eves, 2012). The research is closer to the first perspective. The first
IN
P
RE
SS
28 “Local Food” Consumption:
perspective discussed food consumption as a tourist’s food choice at tourist destination. It
also discussed the factors that influence food consumption, and the perceived functional and
symbolic nature of food choices. The tourists’ food choices denoted the perceived functional
and symbolic food choices that influence food consumption. The claim implies that socialized
foods can replace local foods when local food consumption factors produce the same level of
effect as socialized foods.
Previous studies explaining the tourist’s perspective of food consumption behavior
were conducted on international tourists. International tourists identify authentic Indonesian
foods from food authenticity, variety, and uniqueness (Wijaya et al., 2017) or heritage, serving,
food environment, variety, availability, sensory, and ingredients (Hendijani, 2016; Roozbeh,
Ng, & Boo, 2013; Wijaya, 2019). Indonesian local food for international tourists was associated
with flavor (rice-based, spicy, tasty, and sweet), herbs, spices, sauce, and halal as a significant
characteristic (Wijaya et al., 2016). Therefore, both local food and food socialized as local food
can be considered as local food by international tourists. Meanwhile, domestic tourists can
recognize local food better than international tourists (Chen & Huang, 2018, 2019; Kim, Park,
& Lamb, 2019). A study on domestic tourists illustrates the diversity of culinary tourism in
Asia (Park, Kim, & Yeoman, 2019).
Research Framework
The research uses a model of local food consumption (Kim, Eves, & Scarles, 2009) that
conforms to the first perspective of food consumption. This model has been tested empirically
(Kim, Eves, & Scarles, 2013; Kim & Eves, 2012). According to this model, food consumption is
determined by food choices. A model was proposed to test the influence of demographic,
physiological, and motivational factors on local food consumption and the relationship
between these factors. Their model did not address the possibility of a diversity of local food
in a place. The research used this framework to examine two forms of food choice (local food
and socialized as local food).
Physiological factors were not tested because these factors were primarily studied in
local food consumption by international tourists (Hashemi et al., 2021; Jeaheng & Han, 2020;
Osmana & Nazarib, 2020). Domestic tourists have a similar food culture. Thus, physiological
factors as an impediment to local food would not occur (Cohen & Avieli, 2004). Furthermore,
the research did not examine the relationship between factors in order to examine the different
impacts of the two factors on food choices.
The demographic factors are age, gender, education level, occupation, and income level.
Additionally, two variables are similar to previous research, namely income rate (Choe &
Kim, 2019; Kim, Park, & Lamb, 2019; Knollenberg et al., 2021; Rousta & Jamshidi, 2020), and
occupation (Björk & Kauppinen-Räisänen, 2019; Choe & Kim, 2019; Rousta & Jamshidi, 2020).
IN
P
RE
SS
Journal of ASEAN Studies 29
Figure 1 Local Food Consumption Model (Kim, Eves, & Scarles, 2009)
Tourist characteristics that influence consumption include more than demographic
factors. Travel objectives are added to differentiate tourists who come specifically for culinary
tours and tourists who come for other reasons (Andersson, Mossberg, & Therkelsen, 2017;
Chen & Huang, 2019). The length of the visit is also examined, which finds that tourists can
explore a variety of foods during longer visit times (Avieli, 2013; Choe & Kim, 2019; Tse &
Crotts, 2005). The visit status is added to determine the difference between tourists who came
for the first time, many times, or had stayed at the study location (Tse & Crotts, 2005; Wijaya
et al., 2017). The tourist characteristic factors were a combination of demographic and
socioeconomic factors.
H1: Tourist characteristics have an association with food choices.
Motivational factors include exciting experiences, escape from routines, health
concerns, learning knowledge, authentic experience, togetherness, prestige, sensory appeal,
and the physical environment (Kim, Eves, & Scarles, 2009). Previous studies have examined
the same motivational factors (Choe & Kim, 2019; Hendijani, 2016; Kim, Park & Lamb, 2019;
Rousta & Jamshidi, 2020; Uehara & Assarut, 2020; Wijaya et al., 2016, 2017; Zhang, Chen &
Hu, 2019).
Learning knowledge and togetherness were not tested in this research. The togetherness
variable was not asked about its origin in a Greek study that included time together at
mealtimes. This tradition was not found at the study site (Purnomo, 2022). Learning
knowledge was also not asked. The preliminary research found there was no visitors’ interest
in the process of making, the origin of food, and the socio-cultural context of food as an
IN
P
RE
SS
30 “Local Food” Consumption:
indicator of learning knowledge. The research suggests that local and socialized food choices
are motivated differently.
H2: Motivational factors affect food choices differently.
Figure 2 Research Framework
Source: adapted from Kim, Eves, & Scarles (2009)
Research Method
Bogor is chosen as the research site because it has a variety of local foods well known in
Indonesia (Purnomo, 2016). Furthermore, one local Bogor food is included in the list of The 30
Indonesian Traditional Culinary Icons. Bogor had the highest regional income from culinary
tourism (BPS-Statistics of Bogor, Bekasi, Depok & Tangerang Municipality, 2020), and
culinary was a significant tourism marker compared to other cities in the Jakarta metropolitan
area (Purnomo, 2021).
The research uses mixed methods, where the main data collection technique is a survey.
The survey population is determined based on the population of domestic tourists to Bogor
City in 2018, 7.965.987 (BPS-Statistics of Bogor Municipality, 2019). The questionnaire is
distributed online in March 2019 through social media. The samples are selected by a filter
question, "have you visited Bogor City?" Of the 1414 questionnaires filled, only 640 are eligible
for data processing. Respondents from Bogor City and Regency are excluded because they
refer to the definition of tourists as people who come from "outside their environment"
(UNWTO, 2020) or, in this research, tourists who come from other cities. The 640 samples are
more than 385 people, meeting the confidence level (α) 95% (Adam, 2020).
The qualitative data is used to explore the food categories in the preparation stage. The
categorization of food is done by interviews with five Bogor cultural participants. According
IN
P
RE
SS
Journal of ASEAN Studies 31
to the interviews, twelve kinds of food have historically been known as Bogor local food. The
foods are Bogor style sticky rice, Bogor style soup, Bogor laksa, doclang, Bogor style beer,
Bogor noodle soup, cungkring, nutmeg ice, ngohiang, nutmeg sweets, golosor noodle, and
Bogor pickle. Next step is interviews with food traders or producers. Interview with food
producers found that one type of food is not available for sale (Bogor style sticky rice). One
type is non-halal food (ngohiang), three types of food are manufactured by the traditional
factory (nutmeg sweets, golosor noodle, and Bogor pickle), and seven types of food are sold
by street food vendors (Bogor style soup, Bogor laksa, doclang, Bogor style beer, Bogor noodle
soup, nutmeg ice, and cungkring). All food has been produced or sold for more than 50 years
by the same producer or the second or third generation. Food that is not produced is excluded
because tourists may not find it in the market. In addition, non-halal food is excluded to
reduce the risk of halal issues. Therefore, the ten foods are defined as local food.
The next step is structured interviews with 100 Bogor City residents. They are asked two
questions: 1) Do you agree that these ten foods are included in Bogor specialties? 2) Mention
other foods that you consider as typical Bogor food. The ten local foods were chosen by 80-
100% of respondents. The second question reveals the respondents’ top ten favorite foods. The
ten types of food are confirmed through observation, social media searching, and interviews
with the food producers. The six types of foods were famous Bogor souvenir foods (Air
Mancur sweet pancake, unyil bread, taro layer cake, pia apple pie, grilled macaroni, and
klappetart huiz), two types were a famous restaurant (Lodaya durian soup and Mang Endang
oxtail soup), and two types were sold by well-known Indonesian artists (Bogor princess
cake/Syahrini and Bogor rain cake/Shireen Sungkar). The same type of food can easily be
purchased anywhere in Indonesia. Food is sold in restaurants with modern environment,
except for Mang Endang oxtail soup. Five Bogor cultural participants denied that these foods
had any connection with the food history and culture of Bogor. These ten foods are therefore
considered to be locally socialized foods.
The questionnaire regarding tourist characteristics is prepared based on Indonesian
statistics’ age, education, occupation, and income groupings. Indicators of the purpose and
length of the visit are compiled based on a preliminary study in 2014 (Table 1). Respondents
fill in the motivational factors for the type of food that has been previously selected. The local
food is identified as Bogor’s traditional food and socialized as famous food. Those questions
are the most straightforward questions understood by respondents.
Responses to motivational variables are measured using a Likert scale ranging from 1-5
points for the scale (1=strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree).
It is recommended to use the midpoint of 1-5 points to measure the ordinal scale of statements
that allows respondents to choose freely according to their opinion (Chyung et al., 2017).
Questionnaire is designed for online use and easy completion. Respondents cannot fill out the
questionnaires more than once on one device. The process of filling out the questionnaire is
shown in Figure 3.
IN
P
RE
SS
32 “Local Food” Consumption:
Figure 3 The Questionnaire Filling Flow
The validity test of 61 respondents is conducted using the Pearson Bivariate correlation
techniques. The validity test results denote two indicators that measure the prestige variable
that are omitted because they are considered invalid. The instrument reliability test uses the
Alpha Cronbach formula because the research instrument is a multilevel scale. The reliability
test results show an alpha value of 0,804. Therefore, it is concluded that the questionnaire has
reasonably high reliability.
Since tourist characteristics and type of food choice variables are categorical variables
with nominal or ordinal measurement scales, the association between the two categorical
variables’ level and type of food choice is measured by the Chi-Square test. The null
hypothesis was rejected when the significance level was smaller than the specified error rate.
An independent t-test is used to test the hypothesis since all the motivational factors are
numerical variables and the type of food choice is a categorical variable. The null hypothesis
should be rejected if the significance level is smaller than the specified error rate. Logistic
regression is carried out to determine factors that influence food choice.
Analysis
Tourist Characteristics and Food Choices
ASEAN member states have obligations under treaties to which they are party and to
agreements to which ASEAN is a party. In the latter case, individual member states accede to
the agreements following the completion of their internal approval processes. The agreements
IN
P
RE
SS
Journal of ASEAN Studies 33
usually have a threshold number of accessions before the agreement can enter into force. The
other potential state parties can accede to the agreement at any time after it enters into force
and is then bound to the terms of the agreement.
Table 1 Tourist Characteristics and Food Choices
Tourist Characteristics Food Choices Total
Socialized as local food Local food Amount Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 156 162 318 49,69
Female 185 137 322 50,31
Age
17 - 25 years 69 50 117 18,59
26 - 35 years 95 72 167 26,09
36 - 45 years 139 131 270 42,19
46 - 55 years 37 39 76 11,88
Upper 55 years 1 7 8 1,25
Education
Junior High School 1 1 2 0,31
High school 56 55 111 17,34
Undergraduate 199 162 361 56,41
Graduate and Post Graduate 85 81 166 25,94
The income per month
(in a million IDR)
Less than 2,5 22 18 59 9,22
2,6 - 5 96 82 178 27,81
5 - 7,5 73 63 136 21,25
7,5 - 10 38 36 74 11,56
10 - 12,5 32 27 40 6,25
More than 12,5 80 73 153 23,91
Occupation
School 254 230 48 7,50
Domestic worker 28 20 49 7,66
Working 23 26 484 75,63
Others 36 23 59 9,22
Purposes of visit
Culinary tourist 61 27 88 13,75
Others 48 36 139 21,72
Weekend holiday 72 67 15 2,34
Long holiday 12 3 116 18,13
Visiting family 47 69 38 5,94
Visiting friend 21 17 137 21,41
Business purpose 71 66 23 3,59
Transit 9 14 84 13,13
Length of visit
Less than one day 3 10 278 43,44
2 - 4 days 199 160 206 32,19
More than four days 139 129 156 24,38
Statuses of visit
First time 3 10 13 2,03
More than one time 199 160 359 56,09
Once lived in Bogor 139 129 268 41,88
Source: Obtained from primary data by questionnaire, 2019
IN
P
RE
SS
34 “Local Food” Consumption:
A Pearson Chi-Square test is carried out on the association between tourist
characteristics and food choice. Table 2 indicates that tourist characteristics such as gender
and purpose of visit significantly affect the choice of local foods over socialized local foods.
This is at the 0,05 level of significance. Age and status of visit significantly differed at a 0,1
level of significance. Therefore, tourist characteristics such as gender, the purpose of visit, age,
and visit status are associated with food choice.
Table 1 indicates that females are more inclined to select foods socialized as local foods
than local foods. Tourists who come for culinary reasons are more likely to choose foods
socialized as local foods. Visitors who visit just for transit are more inclined to try local foods.
Younger tourists are more likely to choose foods socialized as local foods than older tourists.
Therefore, the H1 criteria are accepted regarding gender, the purpose of the visit, age of the
visitor, and status of the visitor.
Table 2 The Influence of Tourist Characteristic Factors on Food Choices
Characteristics Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Age 8,270a 4 0,082
Gender 4,532a 1 0,033
Education 1,146a 3 0,766
Occupation 2,827a 3 0,419
Income 0,279a 5 0,998
Length of visit 0,112a 2 0,946
Purposes of visit 23,639a 7 0,001
Statuses of visit 5,647a 2 0,059
Source: obtained from primary data by questionnaire, 2019
The Difference of Motivational Factors on Food Choices
Motivational factors are measured on a Likert scale. Based on Table 3, exciting
experience, escape from routine, and authentic experience had a higher mean value than other
motivational factors. The three factors are the most influential in tourists’ decisions about
food. However, the mean value cannot yet show the differences in the choices of the two food
categories.
An independent t-test for equality of means is carried out to test whether each
motivational factor could have a different impact on food choice. Table 4 denotes a difference
in motivational factors such as authentic experience, prestige, sensory appeal, and physical
environment between purchasing local food and food socialized as local food. This difference
is significant at a 0,05 level. Therefore, escape from routine was significant at a 0,1 significant
level. Table 4 indicates the differences in the influence of motivational factors on food choices.
IN
P
RE
SS
Journal of ASEAN Studies 35
However, the results have been unable to demonstrate the degree of influence of one factor in
comparison to other factors.
Table 3 Average of Motivational Factors by Food Choice
Group Statistics
Motivational Factors Food Choice N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Exciting experience A 299 4,172 0,6236 0,0361
B 341 4,122 0,5770 0,0312
Escape from routine A 299 4,207 0,5954 0,0344
B 341 4,125 0,5422 0,0294
Authentic
experience
A 299 4,180 0,6730 0,0390
B 341 3,740 0,7850 0,0420
Prestige A 299 3,982 0,6300 0,0364
B 341 3,787 0,6230 0,0337
Sensory appeal A 299 3,767 0,5900 0,0341
B 341 3,642 0,5270 0,0285
Physical
environment
A 299 3,840 0,6490 0,0380
B 341 3,990 0,5500 0,0300
Health concern A 299 3,572 0,6600 0,0382
B 341 3,558 0,6160 0,0334
A = Local food
B = Food socialized as local food
Source: obtained from primary data by questionnaire, 2019
Table 4 Independent t-Test for Equality of Means on Food Choice
Motivational Factors t-test for Equality of Means
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Exciting experience 0,0505 0,0475 1,065 638 0,287
Escape from routine 0,0827 0,0450 1,839 638 0,066
Authentic experience 0,4420 0,0580 7,596 638 0,000
Prestige 0,1942 0,0496 3,916 638 0,000
Sensory Appeal 0,1252 0,0442 2,836 638 0,005
Physical Environment -0,1480 0,0470 -3,129 638 0,002
Health Concern 0,0137 0,0505 0,272 638 0,785
Source: obtained from primary data by questionnaire, 2019
Table 5 indicates a significant correlation among the motivational factors, but there is
no high correlation. The results indicated that there is no multicollinearity among the factors.
Therefore, logistic regression is carried out without handling multicollinearity violations.
IN
P
RE
SS
36 “Local Food” Consumption:
Table 5 Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient among Motivational Factors
Correlations
Exciting
Experience
Escape from
Routine
Authentic
Experience Prestige
Sensory
Appeal
Physical
Environment
Health
Concern
Exciting
Experience
1 0,603** 0,473** 0,428** 0,385** 0,244** 0,198**
Escape from
Routine
0,603** 1 0,465** 0,546** 0,511** 0,311** 0,259**
Authentic
Experience
0,473** 0,465** 1 0,540** 0,492** 0,205** 0,270**
Prestige 0,428** 0,546** 0,540** 1 0,790** 0,297** 0,288**
Sensory Appeal 0,385** 0,511** 0,492** 0,790** 1 0,418** 0,443**
Physical
Environment
0,244** 0,311** 0,205** 0,297** 0,418** 1 0,550**
Health Concern 0,198** 0,259** 0,270** 0,288** 0,443** 0,550** 1
**Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level (2-tailed).
Source: obtained from primary data by questionnaire, 2019
Table 6 indicates that motivational factors such as exciting experience, authentic
experience, and the physical environment affect food choice. When motivated by exciting
experiences or the physical environment, tourists are inclined to select socialized food over
local food. An increased one-point average of exciting experience increases the likelihood of
preferring socialized food over local food by 1.556 times. A one-point increase in the physical
environment increases the likelihood of choosing socialized food over local food by 2.448
times. When motivated by authentic experience, tourists are inclined to prefer local food over
socialized food. A one-point increase in authentic experience, 0,310 times more likely to
choose socialized food than local food or 3.226 times more likely to choose local over
socialized food. In terms of exciting experiences, physical environments, and authentic
experiences H2 is accepted.
Table 6 Logistic Regression to Determine Effect of Motivation Factor to Food Choice
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step 1a Exciting experience 0,442 0,199 4,938 1 0,026 1,556
Esccape from routine 0,055 0,214 0,066 1 0,797 1,057
Authentic experience -1,173 0,178 43,357 1 0,000 0,310
Prestige -0,180 0,249 0,525 1 0,469 0,835
Sensory appeal -0,114 0,280 0,167 1 0,682 0,892
Physical environment 0,895 0,195 20,994 1 0,000 2,448
Health concern -0,090 0,175 0,265 1 0,607 0,914
Constant 0,681 0,804 0,717 1 0,397 1,976
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: ExcitingExperience, EscapefromRoutine, AuthenticExperience,
Prestige, SensoryAppeal, PhysicalEnvironment, HealthConcern.
Source: obtained from primary data by questionnaire, 2019
IN
P
RE
SS
Journal of ASEAN Studies 37
Discussion
Researchers found that socialized foods have begun to replace local foods as the
mainstays of food tourism. Most respondents chose foods socialized as local foods (53,28%).
This finding complements previous studies of tourists' preference for food other than local
food (Chang, Kivela, & Mak, 2010; Lee, Scott, & Packer, 2014).
The tourist characteristic factors associated with food choices include gender, the
purpose of visit, age, and visit status. Females were more likely to choose foods socialized as
local foods than local foods, different from previous studies (Chen & Huang, 2018). Tourists
who came for the culinary experience are more inclined to select foods that are considered
local than local food. It was a new sight to previous studies that found the exceptional
attention to food tourists will more likely to choose local foods (Andersson, Mossberg, &
Therkelsen, 2017; Chen & Huang, 2019). In addition, tourists who have visited more than once
or have lived in the city prefer food socialized as local food. It contradicts the previous studies
that found that local food choice in ASEAN is influenced by familiarity with local food (Lee
et al., 2020; Mohiuddin & Al Azad, 2019; Park, Kim & Yeoman, 2019). Tourists who are
familiar with the city usually choose food socialized as local food. The chance to explore food
variety during visit times did not encourage tourists to choose local food as in previous studies
(Choe & Kim, 2019; Tse & Crotts, 2005; Wijaya et al., 2017).
Motivating factors that have an impact on food choice include exciting experience,
physical environment, and authentic experience. Tourists with more exciting experiences and
physical environment are more likely to choose socialized food. The exciting experience
variable was measured by the questions "The food that is different from where I come from
makes me excited to try," and "Enjoying food that is known as a specialty in the place where
the food comes from makes me excited." The same question is asked in previous studies to
find that it significantly influence local food consumption (Choe & Kim, 2019; Kim, Eves, &
Scarles, 2013).
The physical environment variable is measured by the questions “The dining area
arrangement is interesting” and “I had a memorable experience where I bought the food.”
The physical environment variable is not used in testing the local food consumption model
(Kim, Eves, & Scarles, 2013; Kim & Eves, 2012) and is not used in previous studies (Choe &
Kim, 2019; Hendijani, 2016; Kim, Park & Lamb, 2019; Rousta & Jamshidi, 2020; Uehara &
Assarut, 2020; Wijaya et al., 2016, 2017; Zhang, Chen, & Hu, 2019). The local food consumption
model is proposed to measure the physical environment variable to analyze how local food
give tourists a different experience from their familiar environment (Kim, Eves, & Scarles,
2009). The respondent’s preference is for a modern restaurant environment. Modern
restaurants sell food that has been socialized as local food. Historical street food vendors and
traditional factories sell local foods. The finding differs from the previous ASEAN study
revealing that the regional restaurant dining environment significantly influences locality
experience (Kim & Lee, 2022; Tan, Goh, & Lim, 2022; Zhu et al., 2022).
IN
P
RE
SS
38 “Local Food” Consumption:
Local food choices are significantly influenced by authentic experiences rather than
foods socialized as local foods. The influence of authentic variables on local food choices was
consistent with previous studies (Chang, Kivela, & Mak, 2010; Kim, Eves, & Scarles, 2013; Kim
& Eves, 2012; Sims, 2009). The authenticity variable is measured by the questions “The taste
of the food is unique/original from Bogor” and “The food makes me feel like I am in Bogor
City.” The finding indicates that authenticity as the primary food tourism attraction is in the
local food realm (Youn & Kim, 2017; Zhang, Chen, & Hu, 2019).
Variables in the local food consumption model represent factors that influence tourists’
consumption of local foods. The authentic experience contributes significantly to the authentic
cuisine choice. However, tourists with more exciting experiences or the physical environment
as a motivational factor were more likely to choose socialized food. Moreover, the choice of
tourists who came for culinary purposes, females, and younger tourists challenged the
sustainability of the local food industry.
Conclusion
Food plays a crucial role in tourism in ASEAN. It is found that local food gives visitors
an authentic taste of the heterogeneity and authenticity of culture in Asia and ASEAN. Food
is the intangible cultural heritage in ASEAN. However, the results indicate that the sense of
ASEAN’s heterogeneity and authenticity could be replaced by food socialized as local food.
The research findings indicate that local food socialization has replaced local food in
exciting experiences and physical environments. The urban context produces a food and
dining scene that gives motivational experiences equal to local food consumption. Unlike
Thailand or Vietnam, the famous food does not take on regional characteristics. The tourists
consider the foods socialized as local food is newer than local food. In addition, tourists
familiar with the city tend to choose foods that are perceived as local. It is different from the
previous studies that find that local food choice in ASEAN is influenced by familiarity with
local food. The tourist attracted by the modern restaurant environment. As a result, the
traditionality of local food seller environments is challenged, which is different from the
previous studies in ASEAN.
The research proposes that food locality only sometimes matters. Local foods are being
challenged by foods that do not relate to the region’s history and culture. The feeling of locality
can be replaced by the invention of foods that are socialized as local food. The impact is on
tourists who came for their culinary experience, females, and younger tourists. The group
consumes a considerable amount of local food in the previous study.
The research has made substantive contributions to the literature on food tourism in the
urban context. The research challenges a single view of locality in defining local food with
dynamic food inventions. Its limitation was in determining which types of foods were
surveyed. The process of developing foods socialized as local foods cannot be elaborated by
this method. The process was essential to understand how a novel type of food became an
IN
P
RE
SS
Journal of ASEAN Studies 39
intangible cultural form. This limitation was because the study was focused on the tourist's
consumption. The other limitation was that the study used a single case. Further research in
a city with a similar character in ASEAN is recommended. This will enable us to develop a
generalizable understanding of the role of socialized foods in ASEAN's urban food tourism.
Acknowledgement
Many thank editors and reviewers for their comments and suggestions that improved
and clarified the article. This research was funded by the Directorate of Research and
Community Service Universitas Indonesia in Indexed International Publication Grants for the
Final Project of Universitas Indonesia Students (PITTA) grant.
About The Authors
Agustina Multi Purnomo is an active lecturer in the Department of Communication
Science at Universitas Djuanda, Bogor. She has graduated from a Ph.D program in Sociology
at University of Indonesia and serves as a reviewer on several international journals indexed
by Scopus as well. She has published several articles in the fields of sociology of tourism and
urban studies, indicating that she is interested in these fields. Recent publications are
Urbanization and Tourism Development in Bogor City (2021), Attraction of Culinary Tourism
Destinations to Promote Sustainability Development During the Pandemic (2022), Sociology
of Food Tourism Research Opportunities: A Bibliometric Analysis (2022), Social Factors and
Social Media Usage Activities on Customer Path 5A Continuity Due to E-Marketing
Communication (2023).
References
Adam, A. M. (2020). Sample size determination in survey research. Journal of Scientific Research
& Reports, 26(5), 90-97. https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2020/v26i530263
Andersson, T. D., Mossberg, L., & Therkelsen, A. (2017). Food and tourism synergies:
Perspectives on consumption, production and destination development. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 17(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.
2016.1275290
Avieli, N. (2013). What is ‘local food?’ Dynamic culinary heritage in the World Heritage Site
of Hoi An, Vietnam. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 8(2–3), 120–132. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1743873X.2013.767812
Berno, T., Dentice, G., & Wisansing, J. J. (2019). Kin kao laew reu young (‘have you eaten rice
yet’)?: A new perspective on food and tourism in Thailand. In Food Tourism in Asia (pp.
17–30). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3624-9_2
IN
P
RE
SS
https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2020/v26i530263
https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2016.1275290
https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2016.1275290
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2013.767812
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2013.767812
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3624-9_2
40 “Local Food” Consumption:
Björk, P., & Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. (2019). Destination foodscape: A stage for travelers' food
experience. Tourism Management, 71, 466–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.
2018.11.005
BPS-Statistics of Bekasi Municipality. (2020). Bekasi City in number. Bekasi: BPS-Statistics of
Bekasi Municipality.
BPS-Statistics of Bogor Municipality. (2019). Bogor City in number. Bogor: BPS-Statistics of Bogor
Municipality.
BPS-Statistics of Bogor Municipality. (2020). Bogor City in number. Bogor: BPS-Statistics of
Bogor Municipality.
BPS-Statistics of Depok Municipality. (2020). Depok City in number. Depok: BPS-Statistics of
Depok Municipality.
BPS-Statistics of Tangerang Municipality. (2020). Tangerang City in number. Tangerang: BPS-
Statistics of Tangerang Municipality.
Chan, A., Tresna, P. W., & Suryadipura, D. (2017). Experiential value of Bandung food
tourism. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 6(1), 184.
Chang, R. C. Y., Kivela, J., & Mak, A. H. N. (2010). Food preferences of Chinese tourists. Annals
of Tourism Research, 37(4), 989–1011.
Chen, Q., & Huang, R. (2018). Local food in China: A viable destination attraction. British Food
Journal, 120(1), 146-157. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2017-0135
Chen, Q., & Huang, R. (2019). Understanding the role of local food in sustaining Chinese
destinations. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(5), 544–560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13683500.2018.1444020
Choe, J. Y. J., & Kim, S. S. (2019). Development and validation of a multidimensional tourist’s
local food consumption value (TLFCV) scale. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 77, 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.07.004
Chuang, H.-T. (2009). The rise of culinary tourism and its transformation of food cultures: The
National Cuisine of Taiwan. The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, 27(2), 84–108.
Chyung, S. Y., Roberts, K., Swanson, I., & Hankinson, A. (2017). Evidence‐based survey
design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert scale. Performance Improvement, 56(10), 15–
23. https://doi.org/10.22439/cjas.v27i2.2542
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
15(3), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(88)90028-X
Cohen, E., & Avieli, N. (2004). Food in tourism: Attraction and impediment. Annals of Tourism
Research, 31(4), 755–778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.02.003
Hashemi, S., Mohammed, H. J., Kiumarsi, S., Kee, D. M. H., & Anarestani, B. B. (2021).
Destinations food image and food neophobia on behavioral intentions: culinary tourist
behavior in Malaysia. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 35(1), 66-
87. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2021.1943101
IN
P
RE
SS
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.11.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.11.005
https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2017-0135
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1444020
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1444020
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.07.004
https://doi.org/10.22439/cjas.v27i2.2542
https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(88)90028-X
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.02.003
https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2021.1943101
Journal of ASEAN Studies 41
Hendijani, R. B. (2016). Effect of food experience on tourist satisfaction: The case of Indonesia.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research. 10(3), 272-282.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-04-2015-0030
Himanshu, J. (2015). Evaluation of official tourism websites of South East Asian Nations
(ASEAN) using the balanced score-card approach. International Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Systems, 8(2), 64–73.
Hsu, F. C., & Scott, N. (2020). Food experience, place attachment, destination image and the
role of food-related personality traits. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
44(3), 79–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.05.010
Irwansyah, I., & Triputra, P. (2016). Indonesia gastronomy brand: Netnography on virtual
culinary community. The Social Sciences, 11(19), 4585–4588. https://dx.doi.org/
10.36478/sscience.2016.4585.4588
Jeaheng, Y., & Han, H. (2020). Thai street food in the fast growing global food tourism
industry: preference and behaviors of food tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 45, 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.11.001
Kheng-Lian, K. (2014). ASEAN Cultural Heritage-Forging an Identity for Realisation of an
ASEAN Community in 2015? Environmental Policy and Law, 44(1/2), 237-247.
Kim, M. & Lee, G. (2022). The effect of servicescape on place attachment and experience
evaluation: the importance of exoticism and authenticity in an ethnic restaurant.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34(7), 2664-2683.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2021-0929
Kim, S., Park, E., & Lamb, D. (2019). Extraordinary or ordinary? Food tourism motivations of
Japanese domestic noodle tourists. Tourism Management Perspectives, 29, 176–186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.01.001
Kim, Y. G., & Eves, A. (2012). Construction and validation of a scale to measure tourist
motivation to consume local food. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1458–1467.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.01.015
Kim, Y. G., Eves, A., & Scarles, C. (2009). Building a model of local food consumption on trips
and holidays: A grounded theory approach. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28(3), 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.11.005
Kim, Y. G., Eves, A., & Scarles, C. (2013). Empirical verification of a conceptual model of local
food consumption at a tourist destination. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 33, 484–489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.06.005
Knollenberg, W., Duffy, L. N., Kline, C., & Kim, G. (2021). Creating competitive advantage for
food tourism destinations through food and beverage experiences. Tourism Planning
& Development, 18(4), 379–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2020.1798687
Korstanje, M., & Seraphin, H. (2017). Revisiting the sociology of consumption in tourism. In
S. Kumar Dixit (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Consumer Behaviour in Hospitality and
Tourism (pp. 2–16). Abingdon: Routledge
IN
P
RE
SS
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-04-2015-0030
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.05.010
https://dx.doi.org/10.36478/sscience.2016.4585.4588
https://dx.doi.org/10.36478/sscience.2016.4585.4588
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.11.001
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2021-0929
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.01.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.01.015
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.11.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.06.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2020.1798687
42 “Local Food” Consumption:
Lee, C.-L., Lee, S.-H., Seo, G.-G., & Hong, J.-H. (2020). The effect of plating, ingredients, and
cooking processes on the acceptance and authenticity of ethnic rice dishes. Foods, 9(8),
976. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9080976
Lee, K.-H., Scott, N., & Packer, J. (2014). Where does food fit in tourism? Tourism Recreation
Research, 39(2), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2014.11081770
Lin, Y.-C., Pearson, T. E., & Cai, L. A. (2011). Food as a form of destination identity: A tourism
destination brand perspective. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 11(1), 30–48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/thr.2010.22
Mak, A. H. N., Lumbers, M., & Eves, A. (2012). Globalisation and food consumption in
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.
2011.05.010
Mohiuddin, M., & Al Azad, M. (2019). Ethnic food products in International trade: ASEAN
agro-food products’ marketing strategy in Canadian market. In N. Faghih (Eds.),
Globalization and Development (pp. 359–380). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-11766-5_14
Naruetharadhol, P., & Gebsombut, N. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of food tourism studies
in Southeast Asia. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/
23311975.2020.1733829
Nguyen, L. P., & Nguyen, H. T. (2021). Factors impacting tourism demand: An analysis of 10
ASEAN countries. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 8(1), 385–393.
https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no1.385
Osmana, S., & Nazarib, N. (2020). Reviewing food as a tourism product. International Journal
of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 10(8).
Park, E., Kim, S., & Yeoman, I. (2019). Eating in Asia: Understanding food tourism and its
perspectives in Asia. In E. Park, S. Kim, & I. Yeoman (Eds.), Food tourism in Asia (pp.
3–13). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3624-9_1
Purnomo, A. (2016). The roles of food industries as a part of food tourism development for
woman empowerment in Bogor. Asia Tourism Forum 2016-the 12th Biennial Conference
of Hospitality and Tourism Industry in Asia, 375–380.
Purnomo, A. M. (2022). Produksi ruang wisata kuliner di Kota Bogor: Antara produksi, konsumsi
dan lokalitas. [Doctoral disertation Department of Sociology, Social and Politic Sains
Faculty of Universitas Indonesia].
Purnomo, A. M. (2021). Urbanization and tourism development in Bogor city. Society, 9(1),
393–409. https://doi.org/10.33019/society.v9i1.338
Roozbeh, B. H., Ng, S. I., & Boo, H. C. (2013). Effect of food experience on overall satisfaction:
comparison between first-time and repeat visitors to Malaysia. International Food
Research Journal, 20(1), 141-146.
IN
P
RE
SS
https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9080976
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2014.11081770
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/thr.2010.22
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.05.010
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.05.010
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11766-5_14
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11766-5_14
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1733829
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1733829
https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no1.385
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3624-9_1
https://doi.org/10.33019/society.v9i1.338
Journal of ASEAN Studies 43
Rousta, A., & Jamshidi, D. (2020). Food tourism value: Investigating the factors that influence
tourists to revisit. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 26(1), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1356766719858649
Scheyvens, R., & Laeis, G. (2019). Linkages between tourist resorts, local food production and
the sustainable development goals. Tourism Geographies, 23(4), 787-809. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2019.1674369
Sims, R. (2009). Food, place and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism
experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09669580802359293
Slocum, S. L. (2016). Understanding tourism support for a craft beer trail: The case of Loudoun
County, Virginia. Tourism Planning & Development, 13(3), 292–309. https://doi.org/
10.1080/21568316.2015.1104381
Stoffelen, A., & Vanneste, D. (2016). Institutional (dis) integration and regional development
implications of whisky tourism in Speyside, Scotland. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 16(1), 42–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2015.
1062416
Tan, K. H., Goh, Y. N., & Lim, C. N. (2022). Linking customer positive emotions and revisit
intention in the ethnic restaurant: A Stimulus Integrative Model. Journal of Quality
Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 1-30.
Tsai, C. (2016). Memorable tourist experiences and place attachment when consuming local
food. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(6), 536–548. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jtr.2070
Tse, P., & Crotts, J. C. (2005). Antecedents of novelty seeking: international visitors’ propensity
to experiment across Hong Kong’s culinary traditions. Tourism Management, 26(6),
965–968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.07.002
Uehara, W., & Assarut, N. (2020). Foreign food consumption as an extraordinary experience:
A comparative study on the perceived value of Japanese and Thai consumers. Tourism:
An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 68(2), 120–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.37741/
t.68.2.1
UNWTO. (2020). Tourism term. https://www.unwto.org/glossary-tourism-terms
Urry, J. (1995). Consuming Places Routledge. London & New York.
Wijaya, S. (2019). Indonesian food culture mapping: a starter contribution to promote
Indonesian culinary tourism. Journal of Ethnic Foods, 6(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s42779-019-0009-3
Wijaya, S., King, B., Morrison, A., & Nguyen, T.-H. (2017). Destination encounters with local
food: The experience of international visitors in Indonesia. Tourism Culture &
Communication, 17(2), 79–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/109830417X14966810027526
Wijaya, S., Morrison, A., Nguyen, T.-H., & King, B. (2016). Exploration of Culinary Tourism in
Indonesia: What Do the International Visitors Expect? Petra Christian University.
IN
P
RE
SS
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766719858649
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766719858649
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2019.1674369
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2019.1674369
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802359293
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802359293
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2015.1104381
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2015.1104381
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2015.1062416
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2015.1062416
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2070
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2070
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.07.002
http://dx.doi.org/10.37741/t.68.2.1
http://dx.doi.org/10.37741/t.68.2.1
https://www.unwto.org/glossary-tourism-terms
https://doi.org/10.1186/s42779-019-0009-3
https://doi.org/10.1186/s42779-019-0009-3
http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/109830417X14966810027526
44 “Local Food” Consumption:
Youn, H., & Kim, J.-H. (2017). Effects of ingredients, names and stories about food origins on
perceived authenticity and purchase intentions. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 63, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.01.002
Zhang, T., Chen, J., & Hu, B. (2019). Authenticity, quality, and loyalty: Local food and
sustainable tourism experience. Sustainability, 11(12), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11123437
Zhu, D., Wang, J., Wang, P., & Xu, H. (2022). How to frame destination foodscapes? A
perspective of mixed food experience. Foods, 11(12), 1706. https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods11121706
IN
P
RE
SS
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.01.002
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123437
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123437
https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11121706
https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11121706