| Scenario 1 (s1) Internal and external influence |
Scenario 1 tests the effect of increase in internal and external influence, compared to the base run. In the first case (s1.1), only the value of the variable “strength of the word-of-mouth” increases for 10% from the year 2015. In the second case (s1.2) both “strength of the word-of-mouth” and “fraction of potential tasters from promotional activities” are increased (10% and 100% respectively) from the year 2015 (when insect-based burgers became available on the Dutch market). |
(s1.1) “strength of the word-of-mouth” = 0.151 + STEP (0.151*1.1, 2015) (1/Year) |
|
(s1.2) “fraction of potential tasters from promotional activities” = 0.0036 + STEP (0.0036*2, 2015) (1/Year); “strength of the word-of-mouth” = 0.151 + STEP (0.151*1.1, 2015) (1/Year) |
| Scenario 2 (s2) Sensory quality improved |
Scenario 2 tests the effect of gradual (s2.1) and immediate (s2.2) increase in sensory quality of insect-based burgers, compared to the base run. In the first case (s2.1), the value of the “average sensory quality of insect-based burger” variable increases linearly from the year 2017 until 2048. In the second case (s2.2), it increases immediately. |
“average sensory quality of insect-based burger” = (s2.1) linear growth from 0.54 (Dmnl) in year 2017 to 0.8 (Dmnl) in year 2048 |
|
(s2.2) 0.8 (Dmnl) from the year 2017 |
| Scenario 3 (s3) Likelihood to adopt increased |
In scenario 3, the effect of changed “likelihood to adopt insect-based food” variable on adoption rate is tested. Instead of only comparing it to the base run, we employed what has been learned in previous scenario. We increased the variable “likelihood to adopt insect-based food” (s3.1) and compared it to the base run, and to the model run when both likelihood to adopt and sensory quality are increased (s3.2) |
(s3.1) “likelihood to adopt” = WITH LOOKUP (barrier towards adopting, ([(0,0)—(1,1)], (0,1), (0.55,0.19), (1,0)) (Dmnl) |
|
(s3.2) variables changed according to S3.1 and S2.2 |
