AN EXAMINATION ON THE OPINIONS OF GASTRONOMY AND CULINARY ARTS DEPARTMENT STUDENTS TOWARDS THREE-DIMENSIONAL FOOD PRINTERS

Öz

ABSTRACT This research aims to determine the perceptions of the Gastronomy and Culinary Arts students towards 3D (Three-Dimensional) food printers in new food technologies. 20 students were included in the study for this purpose with a culinary experience at Antalya AKEV University. The interview technique is used, which is one of the qualitative research methods in this study. Students' perceptions of 3D food printers were evaluated under three main-headings: perceived risk, perceived benefit, and perceived cost, with the data obtained by the interview technique. It has been determined that students are willing to use them in the restaurant if their perceived benefit for 3D food printers is higher than their perceived risk. Besides, it has been determined that purchasing a 3D food printer will create an additional cost element in terms of perceived cost but will reduce the cost of raw materials.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• 3D Food Printer
• Food Technology
• Perceived Risk
• Perceived Benefits
• Perceived Costs

AN EXAMINATION ON THE OPINIONS OF GASTRONOMY AND CULINARY ARTS DEPARTMENT STUDENTS TOWARDS THREE-DIMENSIONAL FOOD PRINTERS

Öz

This research aims to determine the Department of Gastronomy and Culinary Arts students’ perceptions
towards 3D (Three-Dimensional) food printers in new food technologies. 20 students were included in
the study with a culinary experience at Antalya AKEV University. Semi-structured interview technique,
which is one of the qualitative research methods, was used in the study. The interview protocol was
prepared beforehand by the researcher. The researcher was also allowed to redirect the flow of the
interview with different sub-questions whenever needed. Students' perceptions of 3D food printers were
evaluated under the main headings of perceived risk, perceived benefit, and perceived cost by examining
the data obtained from the interview. The findings indicated that students are willing to use 3D food
printers in a restaurant if their perceived benefit for them is higher than their risk. Besides, it is also
determined that purchasing a 3D food printer will create an additional cost but have a tendency to reduce
the cost of raw materials. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Additive manufacturing
• WAAM
• Robotic arc welding
• Multi-material
• microstructure characterization
• Vickers hardness

Kaynakça

1. 1. Albayrak, A., “Müşterilerin restoran seçimlerini etkileyen faktörler: İstanbul örneği”. Anatolia: Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt 25, Sayı 2, Sayfa 190-201, 2014. https://doi.org/10.17123/atad.vol25iss255949
2. 2. Alpaslan, K., “Yöresel yemeklerde moleküler gastronomi kullanımı”. [Unpublished master thesis] Kastamonu Üniversitesi, Kastamonu, 2019.
3. 3. Akbulut, Y., “Verilerin analizi”. In Kurt A. A., editor, Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri, Pages 139-162, Anadolu University Publishing. Eskişehir, 2013.
4. 4. Akoğlu, A., Çavuş, O., ve Bayhan, İ., “Michelin yıldızlı restoran şeflerinin moleküler gastronomi algı ve eğilimleri: San Sebastian, İspanya örneği”. Journal of Tourism and Gastronomy Studies, Cilt 5, Sayı 1, Sayfa 43-59, 2017. DOI: 10.21325/jotags.2017.58
5. 5. Aktaş, A. ve Özdemir, B., “Otel İşletmelerinde Mutfak Yönetimi”, Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2012.
6. 6. Azizağaoğlu, A., and Altunışık, R., “Postmodernizm, sembolik tüketim ve marka”, Tüketici ve Tüketim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt 4, Sayı 2, Sayfa 33-50, 2012.
7. 7. Basaran, Ü., ve Aksoy, R., “Algılanan fayda ve fedakarlık bilesenlerinin algılanan müsteri degeri üzerindeki etkisi”. Ege Akademik Bakış, Cilt 15, Sayı 3, Sayfa 379-399, 2015.
8. 8. Bruhn, C. M., “Consumer acceptance of food innovations”, Journal of Innovation Management Policy and Practice, Vol. 10, Issue 1, Pages 91-95, 2008. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.453.10.1.91

9. 9. Bruhn, C. M., “Enhancing consumer acceptance of new processing technologies”, Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, Vol. 8, Issue 4, Pages 555-558, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2007.04.006
10. 10. Brunner, T. A., Delley, M., and Denkel, C., “Consumers’ attitudes and change of attitude toward 3D-printed food. Food Quality and Preference”, Vol. 68, Pages 389-396, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.12.010
11. 11. Cardello, A. V., Schutz, H. G., and Lesher, L. L., “Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerging technologies: A conjoint analytic study”, Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, Vol. 8, Issue 1, Pages 73-83, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2006.07.002
12. 12. Cattaneo, C., Lavelli, V., Proserpio, C., Laureati, M., and Pagliarini, E., “Consumers’ attitude towards food by‐products: the influence of food technology neophobia, education and information”, International Journal of Food Science & Technology, Vol. 54, Issue 3, Pages 679-687, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13978
13. 13. Chaudhry, Q., Scotter, M., Blackburn, J., Ross, B., Boxall, A., Castle, L., Aitken, R. and Watkins, R., “Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food sector”, Food Additives and Contaminants, Vol. 25, Issue 3, Pages 241-258, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1080/02652030701744538
14. 14. Cox, D. N., and Evans, G., “Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers’ fears of novel food technologies: The food technology neophobia scale”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 19, Issue 8, Pages 704-710, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.04.005
15. 15. Cox, D. N., Evans, G., and Lease, H. J., “The influence of information and beliefs about technology on the acceptance of novel food technologies: A conjoint study of farmed prawn concepts”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 18, Issue 5, Pages 813-823, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.01.011
16. 16. Çifçi, İ., ve Demirkol, Ş., “Moleküler gastronomide yeni mutfak akımı: Nbn mutfak”, Safran Kültür ve Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt 2, Sayı 2, Sayfa 150-162, 2019.
17. 17. Dal, Ö. G. V., ve Eroğlu, A. H., “Farklı kişilik özelliklerine sahip bireylerin risk algılarının tüketici davranışı açısından incelenmesi: Üniversite öğrencileri üzerine bir araştırma”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 20, Sayı 2, Sayfa 361-385, 2015.
18. 18. D'Angelo, G., Hansen, H. N., and Hart, A. J., “Molecular gastronomy meets 3d printing: Layered construction via reverse spherification”, 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing, Vol. 3, Issue 3, Pages 152-159, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2016.0024
19. 19. Dijksterhuis, G., “New product failure: Five potential sources discussed”, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol. 50, Pages 243-248, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.01.016
20. 20. Egolf, A., Hartmann, C., and Siegrist, M., “When evolution works against the future: disgust's contributions to the acceptance of new food technologies”, Risk Analysis. Vol. 39, Issue 7, Pages 1546-1559, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13279
21. 21. Ghazal, A. F., Zhang, M., and Liu, Z., “Spontaneous color change of 3d printed healthy food product over time after printing as a novel application for 4d food printing”, Food and Bioprocess Technology, Vol. 12, Issue 10, Pages 1627-1645, 2019. DOI: 10.1007/s11947-019-02327-6
22. 22. Godoi, F. C., Bhandari, B. R., Prakash, S., and Zhang, M., “An Introduction to the Principles of 3D Food Printing”, In F. C. Godoi, B. R. Bhandari, S. Prakash, & M. Zhang et al editors, Fundamentals of 3D Food Printing and Applications, Pages 1-18, Academic Press, Cambridge, 2019.
23. 23. Godoi, F. C., Prakash, S., and Bhandari, B. R., “3d printing technologies applied for food design: Status and prospects”, Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 179, Pages 44-54, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.01.025
24. 24. Jacoby, J. & Kaplan, L.B., “The Components of Perceived Risk”, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Vol. 10, Pages 382-393, 1972.
25. 25. Kamrath, C., Wesana, J., Bröring, S., and De Steur, H., “What do we know about chain actors’ evaluation of new food technologies? A systematic review of consumer and farmer studies”, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, Vol. 18, Issue 3, 798-816, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12442
26. 26. Kozak, M., “Bilimsel araştırma: tasarım, yazım ve yayım teknikleri”. Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2017.
27. 27. Lin, C., “3D food printing: a taste of the future”, Journal of Food Science Education, Vol. 14, Issue 3, Pages 86-87, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4329.12061
28. 28. Lipton, J. I., “Printable food: the technology and its application in human health”, Current Opinion in Biotechnology, Vol. 44, Pages 198-201, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2016.11.015
29. 29. Loebnitz, N., and Bröring, S., “Consumer acceptance of new food technologies for different product categories: The relative importance of experience versus credence attributes”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27, Issue 4, Pages 307-317, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2015.1022923
30. 30. Lu, L., and Chi, C. G. Q., “Examining diners’ decision-making of local food purchase: The role of menu stimuli and involvement”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 69, Pages 113-123, 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.10.012
31. 31. Lupton, D., “Download to delicious: Promissory themes and sociotechnical imaginaries in coverage of 3D printed food in online news sources”, Futures, Vol. 93, Pages 44-53, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.08.001
32. 32. Lupton, D., and Turner, B., “I can’t get past the fact that it is printed: consumer attitudes to 3D printed food”, Food, Culture & Society, Vol. 21, Issue 3, Pages 402-418, 2018a. https://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2018.1451044
33. 33. Lupton, D., & Turner, B., “Food of the Future? Consumer Responses to the Idea of 3D-Printed Meat and Insect-Based Foods”, Food and Foodways, Vol. 26, Issue 4, Pages 269-289, 2018b. https://doi.org/10.1080/07409710.2018.1531213
34. 34. Lupton, D., and Turner, B., “Both Fascinating and Disturbing: Consumer Responses to 3D Food Printing and Implications for Food Activism”, In Eli, K., Dolan, C. and Ulijaszek, S. et al editors, Digital Food Activism, Pages 151-167, Routledge, London, 2016.
35. 35. Lusk, J. L., Roosen, J., and Bieberstein, A., “Consumer acceptance of new food technologies: Causes and roots of controversies”, Annual Review of Resource Economics, Vol. 6, Issue 1, Pages 381-405, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012735
36. 36. Manstan, T., and McSweeney, M. B., “Consumers' attitudes towards and acceptance of 3D printed foods in comparison to conventional food products”, International Journal of Food Science & Technology, Vol. 55, Issue 1, Pages 323-331, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.14292
37. 37. McCluskey, J. J., Kalaitzandonakes, N., and Swinnen, J., “Media coverage, public perceptions, and consumer behaviour: insights from new food technologies”, Annual Review of Resource Economics, Vol. 8, Pages 467-486, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012630
38. 38. Millen, C. I., “The development of colour 3D food printing system” [Unpublished master thesis] Massey University, Palmerston, 2012.
39. 39. Mizrahi, M., Golan, A., Mizrahi, A. B., Gruber, R., Lachnise, A. Z., & Zoran, A., “Digital gastronomy: Methods & recipes for hybrid cooking”. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Pages 541-552, Tokyo, 2016. DOI:10.1145/2984511.2984528
40. 40. Pallottino, F., Hakola, L., Costa, C., Antonucci, F., Figorilli, S., Seisto, A., and Menesatti, P., “Printing on food or food printing: a review”, Food and Bioprocess Technology, Vol. 9, Issue 5, Pages 725-733, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s11947-016-1692-3
41. 41. Park, J., Snell, W., Ha, S. and Chung, T. L., “Consumers' post-adoption of m-services: interest in future m-services based on consumer evaluations of current m-services”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 12, Issue 3, Pages 165-175, 2011.
42. 42. Peterson, S. L., Dodd, K. M., Kim, K., and Roth, S. L., “Food cost perceptions and food purchasing practices of uninsured, low-income, rural adults”, Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, Vol. 5, Issue 1, Pages 41-55, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320240903578073
43. 43. Rollin, F., Kennedy, J., and Wills, J., “Consumers and new food technologies”, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol. 22, Issue 2-3, Pages 99-111, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2010.09.001
44. 44. Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., and Wood, K., “Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines”, Appetite, Vol. 43, Issue 2, 147-154, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.03.005
45. 45. Shaw, E., and Mac Con Iomaire, M., “A comparative analysis of the attitudes of rural and urban consumers towards cultured meat”, British Food Journal, Vol. 121, Issue 8, Pages 1782-1800, 2019. DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-07-2018-0433
46. 46. Seçuk, B. ve Pekerşen, Y., “Bursa ili beş yıldızlı şehir otellerinde çalışan aşçıların moleküler gastronomi konusundaki görüşlerinin belirlenmesi”, Journal of Turkish Tourism Research, Cilt. 4, Sayı 1, Sayfa 181-201, 2020. DOI: 10.26677/TR1010.2020.307
47. 47. Siegrist, M., “Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products”, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol. 19, Issue 11, Pages 603-608, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2008.01.017
48. 48. Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H., and Earle, T. C., “Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence”, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 8, Issue 2, Pages 145-156, 2005. DOI: 10.1080/1366987032000105315
49. 49. Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., and Kastenholz, H., “Acceptance of nanotechnology foods: a conjoint study examining consumers' willingness to buy”, British Food Journal, Vol. 111, Issue 7, Pages 660-668, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910972350
50. 50. Sun, J., Peng, Z., Zhou, W., Fuh, J. Y., Hong, G. S., and Chiu, A., “A review on 3D printing for customized food fabrication”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 1, Pages 308-319, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.09.057
51. 51. Şahin, S. Z., ve Tosun, C., “Turistlerin yeni gastronomi ürünlerine yönelik tutumları”, Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, Cilt 19, Sayı 74, Sayfa 564-586, 2020. DOI: 10.17755/esosder.534625
52. 52. Uygun, M., ve Akın, E., “Markaların işlevsel, sembolik ve deneyimsel yararlarına ilişkin tüketici değerlendirmelerinin incelenmesi”, Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, Cilt 12, Sayı 2, Sayfa 107-122, 2012.
53. 53. Turner, B., and Lupton, D., “Both fascinating and disturbing’: Consumer responses to 3D food printing and implications for food activism”, In K. Eli, C. Dolan & S. Ulijaszek et al editors, Digital Food Activism, Pages 169-185, Routledge, London, 2016.
54. 54. Yay, Ö., ve Çalışkan, O., “Planlı davranış teorisi bağlamında çevreci otel restoranında yemek yeme niyeti”, Seyahat ve Otel İşletmeciliği Dergisi, Cilt 13, Sayı 2, Sayfa 103-122, 2016.
55. 55. Yıldırım, Y., “Tüketicilerin sembolik tüketim eğilimlerinin öğrenilmesi: Akçakoca örneği”, Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt 7, Sayı 6, Sayfa 257-267, 2019.
56. 56. Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H., “Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri”, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara 2006.
57. 57. Yılmaz, A., Uyanık, B., ve Yaman, M., “Küreselleşen Gıda Sembolizmi”, The Journal, Cilt 12, Sayı 68, Sayfa 1298-1308, 2019.