{rfName}
Co

Indexed in

License and use

Icono OpenAccess

Citations

27

Altmetrics

Article has an altmetric score of 6

Analysis of institutional authors

Fuentes-Pila JAuthorAlarcón SAuthor

Share

November 21, 2022
Publications
>
Article
Sí

Consumers’ valuation of cultured beef Burger: A Multi-Country investigation using choice experiments

Publicated to:Food Policy. 112 - 2022-01-01 112(), DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102376

Authors: Asioli D; Fuentes-Pila J; Alarcón S; Han J; Liu J; Hocquette JF; Nayga RM

Affiliations

Texas A&M University - Author
Texas A&M Univ, Dept Agr Econ, College Stn, TX USA - Author
Univ Clermont Auvergne, VetAgro Sup, INRAE, St Genes Champanelle, France - Author
Univ Politecn Madrid, Dept Agr Econ Stat & Business Management, Madrid, Spain - Author
Univ Reading, Dept Agrifood Econ & Mkt, Reading, Berks, England - Author
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid - Author
Université Clermont Auvergne - Author
University of Reading - Author
See more

Abstract

This study investigates, for the first time, British, Spanish, and French consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for cultured beef burger. Using a choice experiment (CE) involving beef burgers, our results show that Spanish and French consumers reject cultured beef burgers, while British consumers exhibit a more positive valuation for this new product. Furthermore, we found that younger consumers and those with a lower degree of neophobia towards new food technologies tend to be more accepting of cultured beef. Results also suggest that there is heterogeneity in consumers’ valuation across different consumer groups. In each of the three countries, a segment of consumers willing to pay a premium price for cultured beef burger was identified: the United Kingdom has the largest segment of consumers (47%) willing to pay a premium price of 5.10 £/kg for cultured beef, followed by Spain (38% and 3.35 €/kg) and then France (30% and 2.68 €/kg). Our findings provide insights into the psychology of consumers’ level of acceptance and attitudes, which can be useful in communicating the nature of the cultured meat to the public. They also have important implications for food practitioners and policy makers.

Keywords

acceptanceattitudechallengesconsumers? attitudesconsumers? willingness to paycross-country comparisoncultured beefdesignmeatmodelresponsestechnologyChoice experimentConsumers’ attitudesConsumers’ willingness to payCross-country comparisonCultured beefSustainable food systems

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

The work has been published in the journal Food Policy due to its progression and the good impact it has achieved in recent years, according to the agency WoS (JCR), it has become a reference in its field. In the year of publication of the work, 2022, it was in position 2/22, thus managing to position itself as a Q1 (Primer Cuartil), in the category Agricultural Economics & Policy. Notably, the journal is positioned above the 90th percentile.

From a relative perspective, and based on the normalized impact indicator calculated from World Citations from Scopus Elsevier, it yields a value for the Field-Weighted Citation Impact from the Scopus agency: 1.49, which indicates that, compared to works in the same discipline and in the same year of publication, it ranks as a work cited above average. (source consulted: ESI Nov 14, 2024)

This information is reinforced by other indicators of the same type, which, although dynamic over time and dependent on the set of average global citations at the time of their calculation, consistently position the work at some point among the top 50% most cited in its field:

  • Field Citation Ratio (FCR) from Dimensions: 13.03 (source consulted: Dimensions Jul 2025)

Specifically, and according to different indexing agencies, this work has accumulated citations as of 2025-07-27, the following number of citations:

  • WoS: 5
  • Scopus: 18

Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2025-07-27:

  • The use, from an academic perspective evidenced by the Altmetric agency indicator referring to aggregations made by the personal bibliographic manager Mendeley, gives us a total of: 84.
  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 116 (PlumX).

With a more dissemination-oriented intent and targeting more general audiences, we can observe other more global scores such as:

  • The Total Score from Altmetric: 5.95.
  • The number of mentions on the social network X (formerly Twitter): 10 (Altmetric).

It is essential to present evidence supporting full alignment with institutional principles and guidelines on Open Science and the Conservation and Dissemination of Intellectual Heritage. A clear example of this is:

  • The work has been submitted to a journal whose editorial policy allows open Open Access publication.

Leadership analysis of institutional authors

This work has been carried out with international collaboration, specifically with researchers from: France; Gran Bretanya; United Kingdom; United States of America.