IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jcommo/v2y2023i4p19-354d1253166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Appetite or Distaste for Cell-Based Seafood? An Examination of Japanese Consumer Attitudes

Author

Listed:
  • Pauline Dorothea Braun

    (Centre for Animal Welfare, Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Winchester, Sparkford Road, Winchester SO22 4NR, UK)

  • Andrew Knight

    (Centre for Animal Welfare, Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Winchester, Sparkford Road, Winchester SO22 4NR, UK
    School of Environment and Science, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Rd, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia)

Abstract

Conventional seafood production contributes to some of the most alarming global problems we face at present, such as the destabilization of aquatic ecosystems, human health risks, and serious concerns for the welfare of trillions of aquatic animals each year. The increasing global appetite for seafood necessitates the development of alternative production methods that meet consumer demand, while circumventing the aforementioned problems. Among such alternatives, cell-based seafood is a promising approach. For its production, cells are taken from live aquatic animals and are cultivated in growth media, thus making the rearing, catching, and slaughtering of a great number of animals redundant. In recent years, this alternative production method has transitioned from aspiration to reality, and several cell-based seafood start-ups are preparing to launch their products. Market success, however, has been reckoned to largely depend on consumer attitudes. So far, there has been little research exploring this within Asia, and none in Japan, which has one of the highest seafood consumption footprints per capita globally. The present study explores cell-based seafood-related knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions of Japanese consumers (n = 110) via a questionnaire-based, quantitative analysis. Although findings suggest low awareness of the concept of cell-based seafood, attitudes and intentions were positive overall, with about 70% of participants expressing an interest in tasting, and 60% expressing a general willingness to buy cell-based seafood. Younger age was significantly associated with more positive attitudes, while prior knowledge of cell-based seafood was strongly linked to willingness to pay a premium for cell-based products. While highlighting the need for information campaigns to educate Japanese consumers about cell-based seafood, this study’s findings suggest the Japanese market to be moderately ready for the launch of such products.

Suggested Citation

  • Pauline Dorothea Braun & Andrew Knight, 2023. "Appetite or Distaste for Cell-Based Seafood? An Examination of Japanese Consumer Attitudes," Commodities, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-26, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jcommo:v:2:y:2023:i:4:p:19-354:d:1253166
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2813-2432/2/4/19/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2813-2432/2/4/19/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    2. Andrew Watterson & David Little & James A. Young & Kathleen Boyd & Ekram Azim & Francis Murray, 2008. "Towards Integration of Environmental and Health Impact Assessments for Wild Capture Fishing and Farmed Fish with Particular Reference to Public Health and Occupational Health Dimensions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Ramo Barrena & Teresa García & Mercedes Sánchez, 2017. "The effect of emotions on purchase behaviour towards novel foods. An application of Means–End chain methodology," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(2), pages 173-190, April.
    4. Nathalie C M Rolland & C Rob Markus & Mark J Post, 2020. "The effect of information content on acceptance of cultured meat in a tasting context," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    2. Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2020. "Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 416-430.
    3. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    4. Pengfei Liu & Lingling Hou & Dongqing Li & Shi Min & Yueying Mu, 2021. "Determinants of Livestock Insurance Demand: Experimental Evidence from Chinese Herders," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 430-451, June.
    5. Zhu, Zhanguo & Zhang, Tong & Hu, Wuyang, 2023. "The accumulation and substitution effects of multi-nation certified organic and protected eco-origin food labels in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Bi, Hui & Ye, Zhirui & Hu, Liyang & Zhu, He, 2021. "Why they don't choose bus service? Understanding special online car-hailing behavior near bus stops," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 280-297.
    8. Caracciolo, Francesco & Cavallo, Carla & Giudice, Teresa Del & Panico, Teresa & Vecchio, Riccardo & Cicia, Gianni, 2011. "Consumers (Dis)Preference for Bitterness in Extra Virgin Olive Oil: A Field Experiment," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 11(01), January.
    9. Krčál, Ondřej & Peer, Stefanie & Staněk, Rostislav & Karlínová, Bára, 2019. "Real consequences matter: Why hypothetical biases in the valuation of time persist even in controlled lab experiments," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    10. Panchalingam, Thadchaigeni & Howard, Gregory & Allen Klaiber, H. & Roe, Brian E., 2023. "Food choice behavior of adolescents under parent-child interaction in the context of US school lunch programs," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    11. Krčál, Ondřej & Peer, Stefanie & Staněk, Rostislav, 2021. "Can time-inconsistent preferences explain hypothetical biases?," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    12. Gruner, Sven & Lehberger, Mira & Hirschauer, Norbert & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2022. "How (un)informative are experiments with students for other social groups? A study of agricultural students and farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(03), January.
    13. Amoah, Anthony & Ferrini, Silvia & Schaafsma, Marije, 2019. "Electricity outages in Ghana: Are contingent valuation estimates valid?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    14. Longzhong Shi & Xuan Chen & Bo Chen, 2023. "Covid‐19‐tested food labels," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(2), pages 203-230, June.
    15. repec:ags:aaea22:335800 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2023. "Eliciting Non-hypothetical Willingness-to-pay for Novel Products: An Application to Cultured Meat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 673-706, August.
    17. Wei, Xuan & Khachatryan, Hayk, 2023. "How consequential is policy consequentiality? Evidence from online discrete choice experiment with ornamental plants," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    18. Asioli, Daniele & Fuentes-Pila, Joaquìn & Alarcón, Silverio & Han, Jia & Liu, Jingjing & Hocquette, Jean-Francois & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of cultured beef Burger: A Multi-Country investigation using choice experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    19. Cristiano Franceschinis & Ulf Liebe & Mara Thiene & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Damien Field & Alex McBratney, 2022. "The effect of social and personal norms on stated preferences for multiple soil functions: evidence from Australia and Italy," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 335-362, April.
    20. Jiang, Qi & Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2024. "Instructional Choice Set to Reduce Hypothetical Bias and Choice Randomness in Discrete Choice Experiments," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343917, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    21. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Franck Ndefo & Thomas Poder, 2020. "Payment and provision consequentiality in voluntary contribution mechanism: separate or joint effects?," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 11-36, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jcommo:v:2:y:2023:i:4:p:19-354:d:1253166. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.