Table 1.
Descriptive statistics
| Projection | 1st Round (N = 37) | 2nd Round (N = 30) | Difference | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| x 0.25 | x 0.5 | x 0.75 | IQR | x 0.25 | x 0.5 | x 0.75 | IQR | x 0.25 | x 0.5 | x 0.75 | IQR | ||
| Cluster 1: Technology | |||||||||||||
| 1 | Lower production costs | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | −1 |
| 2 | Mass production: Bioreactors | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | Mass production: 3D print technology | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | −1 |
| 4 | Mass production: different methods | 3 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | −1 | 0 | 0 | +1 |
| 5 | Production without fetal calf serum | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | Enrichments with vitamins etc. | 4 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | −1 | 0 | 0 | +1 |
| 7a | Government subsidies | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 |
| 7b | Cooperations | – | – | – | – | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | – | – | – | – |
| 8 | Production at home possible | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | +1 | +1 |
| 9 | Structured, cultured meat possible | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cluster 2: Environment | |||||||||||||
| 10 | Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions | 0 | 5 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 1.5 | 10 | 10 | 0 | −3.5 | −10 | −10 |
| 11 | Reduction of agricultural spaces | 1 | 5 | 20 | 19 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 10 | −1 | 0 | −10 | −9 |
| 12 | Reduction of livestock | 0 | 5 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 10 | 0 | −2 | −10 | −10 |
| 13 | Increase of energy consumption | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | −3 | −3 |
| 14 | Reduction of water consumption | 0 | 5 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 0 | −4 | −10 | −10 |
| 15 | Environmental advantages/ disadvantages proved | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | Other risk with negative effects | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2.5 | 4 | 2 | 0 | −0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Cluster 3: Market and competition | |||||||||||||
| 17 | Niche product | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | −1 |
| 18 | Higher market share than other meat substitutes | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | −1 |
| 19 | Intensified competition among producers | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | Sales to meat processing industry/manufacturer | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | Production by conventional meat producers | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cluster 4: Consumers | |||||||||||||
| 22 | Price advantage over conventional meat | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | Price-independent factors | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | −2 |
| 24 | Acceptance due to safety standards | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | Perception as healthy product | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | −1 | 0 | 0 | +1 |
| 26 | Acceptance due to transparency | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3.5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | −0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | Acceptance due to animal welfare | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | −1 | 0 | 0 | +1 |
| 28 | Acceptance due to environmental factors | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | Equivalent in appearance | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | Equivalent in taste | 3 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | −1 | +1 | 0 | +1 |
| 31 | Equivalent in meat texture & structure | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| N—sample size | x0.25—lower quartile | x0.5—median | x0.75—upper quartile | IQR—interquartile range | |||||||||