farming a sustainable fish: exploring consumer …
TRANSCRIPT
The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
FARMING A SUSTAINABLE FISH: EXPLORING CONSUMER SUPPORT OF
AQUAPONICS AND PREFERENCE FOR AQUAPONIC TILAPIA
A Thesis in
Wildlife and Fisheries Science
by
Brianna C. Bonshock
© 2021 Brianna C. Bonshock
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Science
May 2021
ii
The thesis of Brianna C. Bonshock was reviewed and approved by the following:
Judd H. Michael
Professor of Agricultural and Biological Engineering
Thesis Co-Advisor
C. Paola Ferreri
Associate Professor of Fisheries Management
Thesis Co-Advisor
Melissa M. Kreye
Assistant Professor of Forest Resource Management
Bradley J. Cardinale
Department Head, Ecosystem Science and Management
iii
ABSTRACT
Worldwide demand for seafood, coupled with the relatively static trend in wild fishery
production, has put aquaculture in the spotlight as a key to bridging the seafood supply-demand
gap. A focus on sustainable aquaculture development will be essential as the industry continues to
expand to meet this demand. Tilapia species are a promising group of fishes for the sustainable
expansion of aquaculture; these are exceptionally successful cultured fish that are suitably reared
with minimal environmental impact in land-based recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) as a
component of aquaponic operations. With aquaculture’s projected acceleration and
intensification, an understanding of consumer support will be imperative to its expansion; more
specifically, consumer awareness and acceptability of aquaponics and aquaponic-reared tilapia
will be imperative for the commercial advancement and economic viability of this industry in the
United States. However, research is lacking on U.S. consumer perceptions and awareness of
aquaculture in general, and of this sustainable form of aquaculture in particular, which is needed
to understand the potential market opportunities for the developing U.S. aquaculture and
aquaponics industries. This study adds to a limited number of studies examining U.S. consumers’
preferences for fish and perceptions and knowledge of aquaculture, with specific focus on
perspectives of aquaponics as a sustainable aquaculture system and tilapia as a sustainable
aquaculture species. The first objective of this study was to explore Floridians’ preferences for
fish and their subjective perceptions and objective knowledge of aquaculture in general before
then assessing how these factors might impact consumer support of aquaponics production. The
second objective was to evaluate consumer perception and awareness of tilapia as a sustainable
aquaculture species, with a particular focus on the link between consumers’ perceptions and
knowledge and their likelihood to consume tilapia. Furthermore, an aim of this study was to
identify and characterize Floridians who were frequent tilapia consumers and those who were
iv
favorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia based on their individual demographics, fish consumption
behavior, perceptions and knowledge. These objectives were examined utilizing survey data
collected from a representative sample of Florida consumers. Findings suggest Floridians tend to
have ambivalent to somewhat positive perceptions of the aquaculture industry and farmed fish,
but that fish origin (wild-caught versus farm-raised) and the extent of the global aquaculture
industry is not well understood by consumers. After receiving a brief description of aquaponics,
consumers revealed moderately favorable perceptions of the benefits of aquaponics production
and an intent to purchase aquaponic products in the future. An individual’s level of objective
knowledge and their subjective perceptions of aquaculture were significantly related to their
support of aquaponics. Those who value local food production also seemed to be likely to
consume aquaponic products. Further, there was an overall lack of understanding about tilapia as
a sustainable aquaculture species, and this knowledge level was significantly correlated with
tilapia perceptions and the decision to purchase and consume tilapia. Frequent tilapia consumers
and respondents who were favorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia were found to have significantly
positive perceptions and a greater knowledge of tilapia compared to consumers who are opposed
to tilapia consumption. This study also provides insights regarding a market segment in Florida
that would be favorable to tilapia reared sustainably in aquaponic systems. Notably, this study
revealed that there is a considerable knowledge gap among consumers regarding the source of
their fish, and this disconnect appears to have an impact on their overall support of the sustainable
aquaculture industry. This disengagement will be important to address with consumer education
and marketing if the U.S. aquaculture and aquaponics industries are to expand along with the
global seafood industry.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... x
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 6 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................ 7
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 9
Current Trends and Challenges of Global Fish Production ............................................. 9 Growing Demand for Fish ....................................................................................... 9 Diminishing Wild Fisheries ..................................................................................... 10 Promise of “The Blue Revolution” .......................................................................... 12
Towards Sustainable Domestic Aquaculture ................................................................... 18 Where We Need To Go: An Increase in Domestic Aquaculture ............................. 18 The Benefits of Localized Fish Production ............................................................. 19 A Shift Toward Sustainable Aquaculture Production .............................................. 20
A Sustainable Aquaculture System: Aquaponic-Reared Tilapia ..................................... 28 Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) ............................................................. 29 Aquaponics .............................................................................................................. 30 Tilapia: A Sustainable Fish for the Future ............................................................... 33
The Consumer’s Role in Aquaculture ............................................................................. 37 Consumer Trends and Fish Preferences ................................................................... 37 Consumer Perceptions and Knowledge of Aquaculture .......................................... 43 Consumer Acceptance of Sustainable Aquaculture Production .............................. 46
Literature Cited ................................................................................................................ 48
Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................. 62
Survey Instrumentation .................................................................................................... 62 Sample Design ................................................................................................................. 63 Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 65
Administration of Survey and Data Quality Validation .......................................... 65 Research Timeline ................................................................................................... 67
Measures .......................................................................................................................... 69 Independent Variables and Consumer Segmenting Variables ................................. 69 Dependent Variables ................................................................................................ 80 Consumer Segmentation Variables .......................................................................... 81 Socio-demographic Characteristics ......................................................................... 82
vi
Overview of Statistical Analyses ..................................................................................... 83 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................ 84
Chapter 4 EXPLORING FLORIDIANS’ SUPPORT OF AQUAPONICS: THE
EFFECTS OF VALUES, PERCEPTIONS AND KNOWLEDGE ................................. 87
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... 87 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 89 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 91
Aquaponics: A Sustainable Method of Aquaculture ............................................... 91 The Consumer’s Role in Aquaponics Development ................................................ 92
MATERIALS AND METHODS..................................................................................... 94 Research Approach and Sampling ........................................................................... 94 Questionnaire and Scales ......................................................................................... 95 Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................... 98
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 99 Respondent Summary .............................................................................................. 99 Floridian Fish Consumption Behavior and Preferences .......................................... 100 Perceptions of Aquaculture and Farmed Fish .......................................................... 102 Knowledge of Aquaculture ...................................................................................... 105 Consumer Support of Aquaponics ........................................................................... 107
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 112 Florida Fish Consumption Behavior and Preferences ............................................. 112 Consumer Subjective Perceptions and Objective Knowledge of Aquaculture ........ 114 Consumer Support of Aquaponics ........................................................................... 116 Implications.............................................................................................................. 120 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 123
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 124 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................... 125
Chapter 5 A MARKET FOR A SUSTAINABLE FISH: CONSUMER AWARENESS
AND ACCEPTANCE OF AQUAPONIC-REARED TILAPIA ..................................... 130
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... 130 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 132 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 134
An Ideal Sustainable Aquaculture System ............................................................... 134 Aquaculture Awareness: The Link Between Perceptions and Knowledge ............. 136
MATERIAL AND METHODS ....................................................................................... 137 Study Design and Sampling ..................................................................................... 137 Survey Content and Measurement ........................................................................... 138 Statistical Analyses .................................................................................................. 144
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 146 Personal and Fish Consumption Characteristics ...................................................... 146 Consumer Subjective Perceptions and Objective Knowledge ................................. 148 Characterization and Summary of Tilapia Consumers ............................................ 152
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 159 General Description of Floridian Fish Consumption Behavior ............................... 159
vii
Consumer Awareness of Sustainable Aquaculture Advances ................................. 160 Insights Regarding a Favorable Tilapia Consumer Base in Florida ........................ 163 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 167
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 168 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................... 169
Chapter 6 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 174
Key Findings and Recommendations .............................................................................. 174 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 176 Looking to the Future ...................................................................................................... 179 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................ 180
Appendix A Survey Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 181
Appendix B Data Dictionary .................................................................................................. 203
Appendix C Survey Item Frequencies .................................................................................... 219
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Global trends in the state of the world’s fisheries from 1974-2017. Source:
FAO (2020). ..................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2-2: World capture fisheries and aquaculture production. Source: FAO (2020). ....... 13
Figure 2-3: Feed conversion ratios for selected aquatic and terrestrial farmed animal
species. Dots represent means and bars indicate range. Lower values signify higher
efficiency. Source: Fry et al. (2018). ............................................................................... 23
Figure 2-4: Illustrative representation of the cycle that occurs in an aquaponics system.
Source: Smart Garden Guide (2019). .............................................................................. 30
Figure 2-5: Nitrogen cycle in an aquaponics system. Source: Tyson et al. (2011). ............... 31
Figure 4-1: The relative importance that Florida consumers place on various fish
attributes when choosing a fish to purchase and consume (N = 567).............................. 102
Figure 4-2: Consumer perception of aquaculture benefits (N = 656). .................................... 103
Figure 4-3: Consumer perception of aquaculture concerns (N = 656). .................................. 104
Figure 4-4: Consumer perception of farm-raised fish relative to wild-caught fish (N =
656). ................................................................................................................................. 105
Figure 4-5: Florida consumers’ perceptions of the benefits of aquaponics (N = 656). ........... 108
Figure 4-6: Florida consumers’ intentions to consume aquaponic products in the future (N
= 656). .............................................................................................................................. 110
Figure 5-1: Percentage of respondents who are classified as misinformed, mixed
informed, correctly informed, and uninformed about farm-raised tilapia (N = 656). ..... 151
Figure 5-2: Consumer perceptions of farm-raised tilapia traits based on their objective
knowledge of tilapia (N = 656). ....................................................................................... 152
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Top 10 consumed seafood species in the United States in 2018. Source:
National Fisheries Institute (2018a); Shamshak et al. (2019). ......................................... 17
Table 3-1: Demographic characteristics of survey respondents (N = 656) compared to
2018 Florida Census data. ................................................................................................ 65
Table 3-2: Timeline of research events. .................................................................................. 68
Table 4-1: Demographic characteristics of survey respondents (N = 656) from a quota
sampling procedure based on 2018 Florida Census data. ................................................ 100
Table 4-2: Respondents’ self-reported fish consumption frequencies for fish in general
and wild-caught versus farm-raised fish. ......................................................................... 101
Table 4-3: Knowledge of fish origin by percent of correct responses (N = 656). .................. 106
Table 4-4: Regression results for the relationship between consumer factors and their
perception of aquaponics benefits (N = 430). .................................................................. 109
Table 4-5: Regression results for the relationship between consumer factors and their
intent to consume aquaponic products (N = 430). ........................................................... 112
Table 5-1: Detailed socio-demographic characteristics of survey respondents (N = 656)
from a quota sampling procedure based on 2018 Florida Census data............................ 146
Table 5-2: Self-reported fish consumption frequencies and likelihood to consume
aquaponic-reared tilapia (N = 656). ................................................................................. 147
Table 5-3: Mean values for respondents’ fish preferences and values regarding product
sourcing. ........................................................................................................................... 148
Table 5-4: Knowledge tilapia by percent of correct responses (N = 656). ............................. 150
Table 5-5: Personal and fish consumption characteristics of the different consumer
segments based on the results of chi-square tests (%). .................................................... 154
Table 5-6: Fish preferences and consumer values of the consumer segments based on the
results of ANOVA tests (Mean (SD)).............................................................................. 155
Table 5-7: Perceptions and knowledge of aquaculture and tilapia amongst consumer
segments based on the results of ANOVA tests (Mean (SD)). ........................................ 156
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As I wrap up my journey at Penn State, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for
everyone who has helped me get to this point.
First, to my parents, I am deeply and forever indebted to you. You have provided me with
a multitude of invaluable life lessons that have shaped me into the person I am today. I am where
I am today because of you; I would have never made it through my years of schooling without
your unconditional love and support. Thank you for always encouraging me to keep my faith and
continue to do my best, for the emotional support when times were tough, for helping me to put
life into perspective, and for the much needed “brain-breaks” along the way.
To my fiancé, Mike, I am eternally grateful for your endless love, understanding, and
patience (…well, most of the time!). Thank you for your words of praise and encouragement, for
the tough love, and for all the laughs when I needed them most. Thank you for keeping me fed
with a tidy house over my head in times when I was most stressed, and for sparing me much of
my time and sanity with your technological and formatting expertise. Most of all, thank you for
navigating all of life’s ups and downs with me, and for remaining a constant in my life in the
most uncertain of times. Now… let’s have a wedding!
To my advisor, Dr. Judd Michael, thank you for recognizing my potential and for
providing me with this incredible opportunity. Thank you for the freedom to explore a topic that
I’ve become passionate about, for all of your guidance and pieces of advice along the way, and
for your countless efforts to try to get me to just keep it simple and chill out. I couldn’t have made
it through the twists and turns without you.
To my co-advisor, Dr. C. Paola Ferreri, and committee member, Dr. Melissa Kreye,
thank you for helping me to piece together this project and for all of your support and guidance in
the process. Through many uplifting and productive conversations, you have both provided me
xi
with valuable perspectives that have motivated me academically, professionally and personally. It
has been a pleasure to work with you.
Finally, to the late Dr. Victoria Braithwaite, thank you for being an incredible mentor and
source of inspiration to me as an aspiring scientist. You have taught me so much, and I will be
forever grateful to have had the opportunity to work under your advisement in the early
development of this project. Thank you for challenging me to see things from a broad and novel
perspective. Your remarkable wisdom and fearlessness has guided me through many days of
uncertainty, and you have inspired me to always remain curious about the world around me. This
achievement would not have been possible without you.
Funding for this project was provided by the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences
Department of Ecosystem Science and Management.
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The world population is projected to continue growing exponentially; in the next 30
years, the population is expected to increase by another 2 billion persons putting the total
population around 9.7 billion in 2050 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, 2019). Global demand for increased food production is soaring as societies are
challenged with the task of feeding the ever-expanding population. As food production
intensifies, so do the environmental impacts that are fundamentally driven by our food systems,
including a rapid loss of biodiversity, unsustainable resource use, and climate change (Froehlich
et al., 2018; Godfray et al., 2010). It is essential to look towards sustainable alternative food
production systems to reduce pressure on the planet while addressing the issue of global food
security. Fish are a critically important source of sustainable protein; however capture fisheries
alone are not enough to support global demand (Béné et al., 2015; FAO, 2020). Expanding the
production and consumption of sustainably farmed fish will be crucial to our future food system
(Godfray et al., 2010; Willett et al., 2019).
To meet demand for fish in a time of declining capture fisheries, the aquaculture industry
has had to exhibit impressive growth; aquaculture is now the fastest growing form of food
production in the world (FAO, 2020). Although aquaculture has the potential to feed millions of
people and has been praised as a solution to the stress put on wild fish stocks, the advancement of
certain types of intensive aquaculture production has generated several negative environmental
externalities over the past few decades (Naylor et al., 2000; Primavera, 2006). However,
aquaculture is a dynamic sector characterized by technological innovation and remarkable
diversity, and many of the resource constraints and environmental issues associated with
2
aquaculture are now being addressed through the implementation of improved culture systems
(Klinger and Naylor, 2012).
Rethinking aquaculture production with an integrated mindset will be needed to confront
the challenges associated with it (Klinger and Naylor, 2012). One particularly promising
opportunity for the sustainable expansion of aquaculture is aquaponics. Aquaponics is an
innovative form of land-based, controlled-environment aquaculture that integrates fish production
in a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) with the cultivation of hydroponic plants in a system
that conserves and recycles resources, minimizes waste and environmental impacts, and can be
located in close proximity to markets. A diverse array of fish species can be cultured in aquaponic
systems, but tilapia are the most common food fish reared in aquaponics in the United States.
Independently, tilapia exhibit multiple characteristics that distinguish it as an efficient and ideal
fish for aquaculture. Together, the combination of tilapia aquaculture in an aquaponic system
exemplifies a sustainable form of food production; aquaponic tilapia is an ideal fish for meeting
market demand for fish in a sustainable manner.
Despite the tremendous growth of aquaculture in recent years, the United States’
contribution to the global aquaculture industry is insignificant at this time. With aquaculture as
the only feasible option for meeting increasing demand for seafood, U.S. seafood consumption is
largely based on imports (Shamshak et al., 2019). An increasingly large percentage of the seafood
available in the U.S. is traveling extensive distances before reaching consumers as the nation is
currently amongst the top importers of fish worldwide with a seafood trade deficit that is nearing
$17 billion (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2020).
Although the United States has not kept pace with the rest of the world in aquaculture
development, prospects exist for an expanded sustainable aquaculture industry. Policymakers and
industry proponents are advocating for an amplification of domestic aquaculture operations to
become competitive within the global seafood industry, to create American jobs and contribute to
3
the economy, and to put safe and healthy seafood on American tables (Federal Register, 2020).
There are a number of sustainable advances occurring within the U.S. aquaculture industry,
including the emergence of commercial-scale aquaponics, which has the potential to be a major
component of the U.S. aquaculture sector and to sustainably meet diverse markets for fish.
Interest in aquaponics production from researchers, investors, industry, and the public has
increased dramatically in recent years (Palm et al., 2018), and the commercial aquaponics
industry is in a stage of early development with an increase in the number of commercial
aquaponic businesses (Greenfeld et al., 2019). As of 2018, there were reportedly 82 commercial
scale aquaponic operations in the U.S. (USDA, 2018). Aquaponics production is on the brink of
commercialization and attracting investment; still, its commercial success has yet to be realized
(Greenfeld et al., 2019; Love et al., 2015; Palm et al., 2018). As the production technology of
aquaponics is innovative and the industry relatively new, the economic feasibility of large-scale
commercial aquaponic systems in the U.S. is still uncertain (Engle, 2015; Love et al., 2015).
Increasing domestic sustainable aquaculture production through aquaponics in particular
would help to address the unsustainable trend that is the nation’s dependence on imported
seafood. With growing consumer demand in the United States for fresh, local, and sustainably
produced fish, the lack of domestic aquaculture production represents a missed opportunity to
supply the nation with sustainable protein while boosting economic development (Lester et al.,
2018). Capitalizing on current consumer trends and marketing fish as a high-quality product
produced under a reputable set of environmental and food safety standards and best practices
would be an effective way for domestic aquaculture producers to expand their businesses while
also being responsive to consumer concerns (Shaw et al., 2019).
For the aquaponics industry to become a significant part of global food production and
deliver its environmental benefits, it must return a profit (Greenfeld et al., 2019). At this point, in
order for an aquaponics operation to be profitable, it is imperative that a niche market willing to
4
pay a premium price be identified (Engle, 2015). As Greenfeld et al. (2019) emphasizes, a greater
focus on the understudied aspect of consumer perception of aquaponic products, including the
willingness to pay more for its added value, could be a “game changer” for the commercial
aquaponics industry.
Research has shown that certain consumers are willing to pay more to support sustainable
food production practices and purchase fish products that bear sustainable attributes
(McClenachan et al., 2016; Zander et al., 2018). This suggests that aquaponic-grown tilapia as a
sustainable aquaculture product could be potentially appealing to niche markets that find value in
attributes of local and sustainable food production. Identifying a favorable market base for
aquaponics in general and aquaponic tilapia more specifically would permit producers to develop
marketing strategies to better target the most receptive consumers and capitalize on evolving
consumer trends (Engle, 2015; Greenfeld et al., 2019). However, if consumers are to pay a
premium for the added value associated with aquaponic products, they must first be aware of the
advantages of aquaponic production (Greenfeld et al., 2019).
At this point, a general understanding of U.S. consumers’ perceptions and knowledge of
aquaculture and farm-raised fish is limited; it is uncertain whether U.S. consumer opinions of
aquaculture are keeping pace with the scientific, sustainable advances that are occurring within
the industry. Consumer awareness and social acceptability is a critical component of aquaculture
sustainability and will be necessary to the future success of sustainable aquaculture development
in the United States (Barrington et al., 2010). Positive receptiveness and market demand from
consumers toward sustainably-produced aquaculture products, such as aquaponic-grown tilapia,
will be essential to the viability and large-scale commercial advancement of this sustainable
seafood production industry. Nevertheless, little is known about the U.S. public’s perspective of
sustainable aquaculture production systems including aquaponics. There is also a research gap
5
around consumer opinion of and preference for farm-raised tilapia; it is unknown whether the
beliefs consumers hold about tilapia have an impact on purchasing and consumption behavior.
In order for American seafood consumption to be truly sustainable, the United States
aquaculture industry must expand and future consumption will need to shift to more domestic
aquaculture products, such as aquaponic tilapia. Consumers will have a significant role in this
shift to more sustainable seafood production; the future commercial-scale development of the
aquaponics industry will depend on market acceptance and willingness to consume aquaponic
products. To date, only a few studies have addressed societal and consumer acceptance of
aquaponics, and research is especially limited in the United States. It is therefore imperative to
analyze where consumers currently stand in terms of their awareness of, perceptions towards, and
preferences for sustainable aquaculture products from aquaponic production systems. An
investigation into the market potential for fish products from aquaponic operations will help to
support the growth of this sustainable aquaculture industry in the U.S. Furthermore, it is essential
to understand consumer perceptions and knowledge of tilapia as an ideal fish for aquaculture
production if this product is to fulfill its potential as a sustainable protein for future generations.
The purpose of this research was to add to the limited number of studies examining U.S.
consumers’ preferences for fish and perceptions and knowledge of aquaculture, with particular
focus on perspectives of aquaponics as a sustainable aquaculture system and tilapia as a
sustainable aquaculture species. First, Floridians’ fish preferences and their perceptions and
knowledge of aquaculture, as well as how these factors affect their opinion of aquaponics
production, were explored in order to expand understanding of consumer support for U.S.
aquaponics production. Additionally, this research investigated the potential of expanding
sustainable tilapia production by examining consumers’ subjective perceptions and objective
knowledge about farm-raised tilapia, and how levels of these parameters align with their choice
6
to consume tilapia or not. This study also identified and offered insights regarding a potential
market segment in Florida that is favorable to tilapia produced sustainably in aquaponic systems.
Data was collected using an extensive online consumer survey targeting a representative
sample of Florida residents. Floridians were chosen as the population of interest for this study as
there is a currently a push for expanding aquaculture production in the state and because Florida
is home to the most aquaponic farms of any state (USDA, 2018). The findings of this study could
help inform the Florida aquaponics industry about consumer demand in the state and allow
producers to better target their communication and marketing strategies, thereby enhancing the
opportunity for industry growth in the future.
Research Questions
1. What are Florida consumers’ personal preferences for fish and their perceptions and
knowledge of aquaculture in general? (Chapter 4)
2. More specifically, how do consumers perceive aquaponics as a method of fish
production: what do they perceive the potential benefits to be, and do they show an
intent to consume aquaponic products in the future? (Chapter 4)
3. Which consumer characteristics have the most impact on consumer support of
aquaponics? (Chapter 4)
4. How do Florida consumers perceive farm-raised tilapia, and do they recognize it as a
sustainable and ideal fish for aquaculture? (Chapter 5)
5. Is there a link between consumer perceptions, knowledge, and tilapia consumption?
(Chapter 5)
6. What factors characterize and distinguish frequent tilapia consumers and those
favorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia from consumers who are opposed to tilapia?
(Chapter 5)
7
Literature Cited
Barrington, K., Ridler, N., Chopin, T., Robinson, S., & Robinson, B. (2010). Social aspects of the
sustainability of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Aquaculture International, 18(2),
201-211.
Béné, C., Barange, M., Subasinghe, R., Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Merino, G., Hemre, G. I., &
Williams, M. (2015). Feeding 9 billion by 2050–Putting fish back on the menu. Food
Security, 7(2), 261-274.
Engle, C.R. (2015). Economics of Aquaponics. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center
(SRAC) Publication No. 5006.
FAO. (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action.
Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en
Federal Register. (2020). Executive Order 13921. Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness
and Economic Growth. Federal Register, 85, 28471. Washington, DC, USA.
Froehlich, H. E., Runge, C. A., Gentry, R. R., Gaines, S. D., & Halpern, B. S. (2018).
Comparative terrestrial feed and land use of an aquaculture-dominant world. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(20), 5295-5300.
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J.,
Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M., & Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: the challenge of
feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967), 812-818.
Greenfeld, A., Becker, N., McIlwain, J., Fotedar, R., & Bornman, J. F. (2019). Economically
viable aquaponics? Identifying the gap between potential and current uncertainties.
Reviews in Aquaculture, 11(3), 848-862.
Klinger, D., & Naylor, R. (2012). Searching for solutions in aquaculture: charting a sustainable
course. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 247-276.
Lester, S. E., Gentry, R. R., Kappel, C. V., White, C., & Gaines, S. D. (2018). Opinion: Offshore
aquaculture in the United States: Untapped potential in need of smart policy. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(28), 7162-7165.
Love, D. C., Fry, J. P., Li, X., Hill, E. S., Genello, L., Semmens, K., & Thompson, R. E. (2015).
Commercial aquaponics production and profitability: Findings from an international
survey. Aquaculture, 435, 67-74.
McClenachan, L., Dissanayake, S. T., & Chen, X. (2016). Fair trade fish: consumer support for
broader seafood sustainability. Fish and Fisheries, 17(3), 825-838.
8
National Marine Fisheries Service. (2020). Fisheries of the United States, 2018. U.S. Department
of Commerce NOAA Current Fishery Statistics No. 2018. Available at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/commercial-fishing/fisheries-united-states-2018
Naylor, R. L., Goldburg, R. J., Primavera, J. H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M. C., Clay, J., Folke,
C., Lubchenco, J., Mooney, H., & Troell, M. (2000). Effect of aquaculture on world fish
supplies. Nature, 405(6790), 1017-1024.
Palm, H. W., Knaus, U., Appelbaum, S., Goddek, S., Strauch, S. M., Vermeulen, T., ... & Kotzen,
B. (2018). Towards commercial aquaponics: a review of systems, designs, scales and
nomenclature. Aquaculture International, 26(3), 813-842.
Primavera, J. H. (2006). Overcoming the impacts of aquaculture on the coastal zone. Ocean &
Coastal Management, 49(9-10), 531-545.
Shamshak, G. L., Anderson, J. L., Asche, F., Garlock, T., & Love, D. C. (2019). US seafood
consumption. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 50(4), 715-727.
Shaw, B., Runge, K., Yang, S., Witzling, L., Hartleb, C., & Peroff, D. (2019). Consumer
Attitudes Toward Wisconsin Farm-Raised Fish: Public Opinion and Marketing
Recommendations. University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Extension.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2019). World
Population Prospects 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/423).
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). (2019). 2018 Census of Aquaculture.
Washington, D.C.: USDA, National Agricultural Statistical Services.
Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., ... & Murray,
C.J. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets
from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447-492.
Zander, K., Risius, A., Feucht, Y., Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2018). Sustainable aquaculture
products: implications of consumer awareness and of consumer preferences for
promising market communication in Germany. Journal of Aquatic Food Product
Technology, 27(1), 5-20.
9
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Current Trends and Challenges of Global Fish Production
Growing Demand for Fish
Global demand for seafood is escalating along with the growing population and rising per
capita income in many economies. People are consuming more fish in their diets now than ever
before. Global food fish consumption increased at an average rate of 3.1 percent from 1961 to
2017, a rate that is nearly twice that of the annual world population growth (1.6 percent) for the
same time period, and higher than that of all other animal protein foods (2.1 percent) (FAO,
2020). In 2017, fish consumption accounted for 17 percent of the global population’s intake of
animal protein (FAO, 2020).
Fish have traditionally been, and remain, a vital source of protein in many countries and
communities around the world. In 2017, fish provided more than 3.3 billion people with between
20 and 50 percent of their average per capita intake of animal proteins, especially in developing
countries (FAO, 2020). In North America, fish have long been recognized as part of a healthy
diet, and more recently fish consumption has been encouraged as a sustainable alternative to
terrestrial animal proteins (Froehlich et al., 2018; Rose, 2020). Urbanization and expansion of the
world’s growing middle-class has fueled fish consumption (FAO, 2020).
The United States is the world’s second largest consumer of seafood, and per capita
consumption of fish is projected to increase in the coming years. The major driving force behind
the growing share of fish production that is expected to be utilized for human consumption will
be due to a combination of population growth, rising incomes and urbanization. As the middle-
class population in the U.S. continues to climb, so does demand for fish, as more consumers are
10
shifting their diets away from meat and toward seafood and other more healthy and sustainable
protein options (Froehlich et al., 2018; Rose, 2020).
Diminishing Wild Fisheries
World fisheries were once believed to be an abundant, inexhaustible resource that was
invulnerable to harm from human activities. In 1883 at the International Fisheries Exhibition in
London, biologist Thomas Huxley made a now infamous statement in his inaugural address: “I
believe then, that the cod fishery…and probably all the great sea fisheries, are inexhaustible; that
is to say, that nothing we do seriously affects the number of the fish. And any attempt to regulate
these fisheries seems consequently…to be useless,” (Huxley, 1883). Since then, however,
scientists have learned much about the impact of humans on fisheries resources and marine
ecosystems.
Until 1970, virtually all growth in seafood production was due to increased landings of
wild-caught fish, a trend that continued at a slower pace through the late 1980s (FAO, 2020;
Shamshak et al., 2019). It was around this time that a worldwide decline of marine fisheries
stocks became evident. The fraction of fish populations that are within biologically sustainable
levels had decreased from 90 percent in 1974 to 65.8 percent in 2017 (FAO, 2020). In contrast,
the percentage of fish stocks that were fished at biologically unsustainable levels increased from
10 percent in 1974 to 34.2 percent in 2017, with the sharpest increase in unsustainable fish stocks
occurring between the late 1970s and the 1980s (FAO, 2020; Figure 2-1).
Despite early beliefs that people had no effect on fisheries, it is now recognized that a
combination of anthropogenic activities have led to the decline in wild fish numbers; harvesting
pressure, habitat destruction, pollution, and profound environmental fluctuations due to climate
change are some of the most noted effects (Hilborn et al., 2003; White et al., 2004). Harvesting
pressure and the wide-ranging, negative impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems have
11
traditionally been the focus of much of fisheries management initiatives as harvesting pressure
has a direct impact on stock abundance and because it is one human activity that can be easily
regulated (Hilborn et al., 2003).
Innovations in technology and policy can be introduced to alleviate stock scarcities
(Asche and Smith, 2018). However, such innovations can be controversial and lead to unintended
consequences. For instance, by implementing a policy to protect wild fishery resources, fishers
may become incentivized to “race to the fish”, which would defeat the purpose of the policy in
the first place (Ashe and Smith, 2018). Innovative harvest technologies, such as increased vessel
horsepower, fish finding equipment, and new forms of fishing gear, were crafted in response to
concerns about scarcity. Ultimately, rather than addressing the scarcity issue, this process of
technological innovation exacerbated the problem as improvements made it economically viable
to reduce fish stocks to even lower levels (Asche and Smith, 2018).
Climate change has also put an added pressure on commercial marine fisheries in recent
years (Hilborn et al., 2003). In response to warming temperatures in the oceans, many marine
species’ distributions have shifted poleward to more favorable habitats or into deeper, cooler
Figure 2-1: Global trends in the state of the world’s fisheries from
1974-2017. Source: FAO (2020).
12
waters (Morley et al., 2018; Poloczanska et al., 2013). Morley et al. (2018) used long-term
ecological survey data to model preferred thermal habitats for each of 686 North American
continental shelf species in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. When studied under scenarios of
low or high future greenhouse gas emissions, a northward trend along the coastline was made
evident in approximately two-thirds of the species studied, although there was some variation
among regions and species (Morley et al., 2018). Further results found that marine species from
the U.S. and Canadian west coast including the Gulf of Alaska had the highest projected
magnitude shifts in distribution, and many species shifted more than 1000 km under the high
greenhouse gas emissions scenario (Morley et al., 2018). In a study by Free et al. (2019),
temperature-dependent population models were used to determine the vulnerability of populations
to warming. Interestingly, these authors found an interaction between fish stock exploitation
history and temperature change (Free et al., 2019); populations that had experienced intense and
prolonged overfishing were more likely to be negatively influenced by warming, especially when
they had also experienced rapid warming (>0.2°C per decade). This highlights that overfishing
and climate change are interrelated challenges of fisheries management that must be addressed
jointly (Brander, 2007).
Promise of “The Blue Revolution”
Where We Stand Currently: Trends in Global Aquaculture
Landings from capture fisheries eventually stagnated in the 1990s, prompting rapid
aquaculture development to meet the growing demand for fish and other seafood (Figure 2-2).
Since this time, nearly all growth in global seafood production has been from aquaculture, and
aquaculture will continue to be the driving force behind global fish production (FAO, 2020;
13
Shamshak et al., 2019). According to FAO (2020), the share of farmed species in global fishery
production is projected to increase from 46 percent in 2018 to 53 percent in 2030.
Currently over 91 percent of global aquaculture production occurs in Asian countries
(FAO, 2020; Tacon, 2020). Of this total aquaculture production, finfish represent the largest
proportion by species group as compared to aquatic plants, molluscs, crustaceans, amphibians and
reptiles, and other miscellaneous invertebrates (Tacon, 2020).
U.S. Aquaculture’s Contribution and Barriers to Entry
Despite the tremendous growth of the global aquaculture industry to fill the seafood
supply-demand gap, and half of the world’s seafood supply coming from aquaculture (Cai and
Zhou, 2019), the United States has not yet contributed significantly to the “blue revolution”
(Shamshak et al., 2019). In 2017, the U.S. was ranked 17th worldwide for fish and shellfish
aquaculture production (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2020; Tacon, 2020). The average
annual rate of growth of U.S. aquaculture production was -0.22% in the period of 2000 to 2017,
compared to the average annual growth rate of 5.3% for worldwide aquaculture production over
Figure 2-2: World capture fisheries and aquaculture production. Source:
FAO (2020).
14
the same period (FAO, 2020; Tacon, 2020). Further, the U.S. contributes less than one percent of
the world’s total aquaculture production (FAO, 2020), and in terms of U.S. domestic seafood
production, aquaculture’s share is a mere 8% (Shamshak et al., 2019).
These numbers show that the United States has not kept pace with the rest of the world in
aquaculture development. Factors that have hindered the advancement of U.S. aquaculture
include a strict and complex regulatory framework and the lack of a streamlined policy
framework for aquaculture permitting (Engle and Stone, 2013; Lester et al., 2018), as well as
environmental concerns that lead to opposition from various stakeholder groups including
consumers (Brooker, 2015; Chu et al., 2010).
There are undeniable opportunities that exist for domestic aquaculture development, but
regulatory and policy failures have led to a highly fragmented policy agenda that involves several
agencies and jurisdictions (Lester et al., 2018). The complexity of the regulatory and permitting
environment, and the high costs associated with it, causes uncertainty and hesitation that often
deters potential producers from submitting permit applications and moving forward with their
aquaculture ventures (Duff et al., 2003; Engle and Stone, 2013; Knapp and Rubino, 2016; Lester
et al., 2018).
Aquaculture development is controversial in the United States. As Lester et al. (2018)
explain, much of the regulatory constraint that exists is motivated by good intentions as
stakeholders, including consumers, express reasonable concerns regarding the potential impact
that aquaculture development would have on the marine environment and its existing users.
However, there is evidence that suggests regulations can in fact address issues of environmental
sustainability when they are properly implemented; such is the case with salmon aquaculture in
leading production countries including Norway, Chile, and Canada (Osmundsen et al., 2017).
However, to enable sustainable growth of an aquaculture industry, it is necessary to have the right
mix of governance with regulations at the center; if regulations are too heavy, the industry will
15
never develop fully, as is the case in the U.S. (Osmundsen et al., 2017). While environmental
concerns expressed by consumers are often the drivers behind regulations, the currently complex
regulatory red tape around aquaculture in the U.S. is too restrictive to expand the sustainable
aquaculture industry and source more seafood domestically.
U.S. Seafood Consumption: Dependence on Imported Seafood
Wild-fishery production is stable and it is unlikely that landings will increase in a
sustainable manner in the coming years; therefore, aquaculture represents the only feasible option
for meeting consumer demand for seafood. As the United States’ contribution to global
aquaculture is insignificant, the nation must rely heavily on seafood imports to meet demand
(Shamshak et al., 2019); the U.S. is currently the leading importer of seafood across the globe
(FAO, 2020). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimated a $16.8
billion seafood trade deficit for the United States in 2018 (National Marine Fisheries Service,
2020). NOAA also suggests approximately 80 percent of seafood in the U.S. market is imported
(NOAA, n.d.).
The lack of a streamlined roadmap for the permitting and leasing process around
aquaculture development has led many American aquaculture entrepreneurs, companies, and
investors to look for opportunities outside of the country, frequently to places with weaker
environmental and food safety standards compared to the United States (Lester et al., 2018).
Some foreign countries with less well-developed regulatory structures have witnessed rapid,
unregulated growth in aquaculture development, resulting in issues that have endangered
environmental sustainability and the safety of cultivated products (Engle and Stone, 2013).
Further, few developing countries have comprehensive sets of aquaculture standards related to
environmental management, food safety, and fish health (Engle and Stone, 2013; Hishamunda et
al., 2012).
16
Food safety issues have been documented regarding Chinese and Vietnamese
aquaculture, due to reasons such as environmental concerns on or near the farm and the overuse
of antibiotics and other chemicals (Engle and Stone, 2013; Liu, 2010; Thanh and Chuong, 2010).
A study by Love et al. (2011) analyzed veterinary drug violation data from seafood inspections in
2000 to 2009 in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and Canada; most violations were
detected in common aquaculture species with Asian seafood products showing the most frequent
violations in terms of drug residues in seafood. Of all countries, Vietnam had the greatest number
of veterinarian drug violations (Love et al., 2011). Despite continued reports of quality concerns
associated with foreign aquaculture, and heightened consumer concern over the product safety,
the United States continues to import an immense amount of seafood products from these
countries and others around the world (Engle and Stone, 2013).
Interestingly, given the controversy and concerns of stakeholders around aquaculture
development in the U.S. and food safety of imported aquaculture products, some of the most
commonly consumed seafood in the U.S. today are primarily farm-raised (Table 2-1). These
consumption dynamics are made more interesting when compared with trends over time. In 1990,
U.S. seafood consumption was primarily based on landings of wild fish, with canned tuna,
shrimp, cod, Alaska pollock, and salmon rounding out the top five species (at this time, shrimp
and salmon were still primarily wild sourced; Shamshak et al., 2019). During this time, the top
five species consumed made up approximately 62% of total seafood consumption.
Consumption data from 2018 shows a shift in species consumed towards aquaculture
species. Today, shrimp and salmon, the two most consumed seafood products in the U.S., are
primarily farmed in response to a decline in wild-capture landings (Shamshak et al., 2019).
Tilapia, pangasius and catfish round out the primarily farmed species of the leading species
consumed. Furthermore, the top five species’ share of total seafood consumption had increased
over this nearly 30 year period to approximately 70%, which, as Shamshak et al. (2019)
17
articulates, reflects a consolidation in the variety of seafood species U.S. consumers are eating
over time.
These consumption trends and the contention around aquaculture in the United States
suggests that U.S. consumers are largely unaware of the source of their seafood or may be
consuming farm-raised seafood with an “out of sight, out of mind” mindset. Irrespective of the
root of seafood choices, the U.S. must rely heavily on other countries to satisfy its seafood
appetite because the nation contributes less than one percent of the world’s aquaculture
production (FAO, 2020). U.S. consumers are essentially exporting the environmental externalities
of seafood production to foreign countries instead of supporting more sustainable domestic
aquaculture development in the U.S. Aquaculture production in the United States occurs under a
more stringent set of standards than that of many of the countries we currently import our seafood
from. However, when compared to the regulatory environments in the countries that export
aquaculture products to the U.S., the disparities in regulatory standards have created a
comparative disadvantage for U.S. aquaculture producers that is evident in the lagging domestic
aquaculture industry (Engle and Stone, 2013).
Table 2-1: Top 10 consumed seafood species in the United States in 2018. Source: National
Fisheries Institute (2018a); Shamshak et al. (2019).
Species Pounds per
capita
Year-on-year
progress
Primarily
Farmed or Wild?
1 Shrimp 4.60 +4.55% Farmed
2 Salmon 2.55 +5.81% Farmed
3 Canned Tuna 2.10 +0% Wild
4 Tilapia 1.11 +2.78% Farmed
5 Alaska Pollock 0.77 -1.30% Wild
6 Pangasius 0.63 -11.3% Farmed
7 Cod 0.62 -6.06% Wild
8 Catfish 0.56 +5.66% Farmed
9 Crab 0.52 +0% Wild
10 Clams 0.32 +3.23% Wild
18
Nonetheless, a potential silver lining of the exhaustive regulatory framework around
aquaculture in the U.S. is the assurance to consumers that American seafood is produced with
high environmental and food safety standards. It is thought that environmental regulations can
improve the marketability of products (Hurley and Noel, 2006). In line with this notion, results
from a study by Chu et al. (2010) revealed that a potential way for aquaculture advocates to
improve perceptions and promote support of aquaculture amongst various stakeholders is to
demonstrate the rigor and effectiveness of aquaculture regulations in the U.S. The stricter
stakeholders believe aquaculture regulations to be, the more likely they are to believe that they
are strong enough to ensure aquaculture is carried out in an appropriate and responsible manner,
and the more likely they are to support aquaculture expansion (Chu et al., 2010).
Towards Sustainable Domestic Aquaculture
Where We Need To Go: An Increase in Domestic Aquaculture
Most of the future growth in seafood supply globally will come from aquaculture. If the
United States does not increase its domestic production of seafood, the divergence between what
we consume and what we contribute to the global seafood market will continue to widen
(Froehlich, 2019). This has an impact not only on the ability for Americans to be environmentally
sustainable seafood consumers, but also in respect to the nation’s ability to help shape the
standards and economies that contribute to the future of the seafood sector (Froehlich, 2019). In
order for U.S. seafood consumption to be truly sustainable, the U.S. aquaculture industry must
expand, and consumer choices will need to shift to more domestic aquaculture products.
There has been a recent increase in policy influence in the United States with
policymakers pushing for domestic aquaculture expansion and seafood self-sufficiency. In May
2020, a Presidential Executive Order titled “Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and
19
Economic Growth” was signed and put in to action. This Executive Order calls for the
competitive advancement of the U.S. seafood industry, with a focus on strengthening the nation’s
domestic aquaculture production to “ensure food security” and “provide environmentally safe and
sustainable seafood” for the American people (Federal Register, 2020). The Executive Order’s
discussion of aquaculture emphasizes the need to expand marine aquaculture in offshore
environments. Particularly, the Executive Order warrants the streamlining of the regulatory and
permitting environment surrounding offshore aquaculture and the establishment of “Aquaculture
Opportunity Areas” within federal or state waters.
Some industry proponents are hopeful of the current prioritization of aquaculture on a
federal level. Particularly promising is the potential abatement of the regulatory roadblocks that
have constrained offshore aquaculture development (Kramer, 2020). However, other individuals
and organizations are critical of the Executive Order as it seemingly favors offshore development
and discounts other diverse forms of sustainable aquaculture, such as inland ponds, recirculating
aquaculture systems (RAS), and aquaponics (Blakemore and Greuel Cook, 2020). Nevertheless,
increased attention to sustainable aquaculture production from policymakers is promising for the
U.S. aquaculture industry as a whole.
The Benefits of Localized Fish Production
There is increasing evidence that the United States could change the trend of its trailing
aquaculture industry and expand production considerably in a sustainable manner (Carter and
Goldstein, 2019; Froehlich et al., 2019; Lester et al., 2018). By advancing the sustainable
aquaculture industry in the U.S., the nation can reduce its overreliance on imported seafood and
shrink the surging seafood trade deficit. Increasing domestic aquaculture production could also
improve food security in the U.S., guaranteeing a safe and sustainable supply of protein during a
crucial time in world population growth. When the distance between where fish is produced and
20
where it is consumed is widespread, the product’s carbon footprint is greatly increased (Farmery
et al., 2015). Therefore, an additional advantage of domestic aquaculture production in terms of
reducing imported products is a minimized environmental footprint that is known to be associated
with international trade. Further, as previously mentioned, the robust regulatory environment in
the U.S. also ensures that farm-raised seafood is produced in a safe and environmentally friendly
manner, with best practices that hold ecological and human health as a priority (Engle and Stone,
2013). Finally, expanded domestic seafood production in the United States could promote
significant economic growth and job creation (Carter and Goldstein, 2019; Lester et al., 2018).
A Shift Toward Sustainable Aquaculture Production
Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture & Efforts to Minimize Them
Despite the potential of aquaculture to support global food security and provide a boost to
economies worldwide, if not managed properly, certain unsustainable aquaculture practices can
produce negative environmental consequences. Much like with agriculture, industrialized
aquaculture requires the intensive use of resources and can generate significant impacts on the
surrounding environment (White et al., 2004). The environmental costs associated with
aquaculture depends on a number of factors including scale, method, and species cultivated;
certain aquaculture systems are more environmentally damaging than others (Klinger and Naylor,
2012; Naylor and Burke, 2005; White et al., 2004).
A number of environmental and human health concerns have developed with the rapid
expansion of aquaculture production worldwide, many of which can be attributed to the
increasing intensive nature of aquaculture developments. Potential issues associated with
unsustainable aquaculture practices include effluent and pollutant discharges into the surrounding
environment from fish waste and excess feeds (Verdegem, 2013), the escape of farmed fish and
21
the ecological impacts associated with it (Jensen et al., 2010; Naylor et al., 2005), and the use of
chemical treatments to combat fish susceptibility to disease and parasites that result from high
stocking density and sanitary shortcomings (Cabello, 2006; Murray and Peeler, 2005).
Additionally, farming carnivorous fish species, or “tigers of the sea”, requires an abundant
amount of marine feed ingredients that can be ecologically detrimental to wild fish stocks (Naylor
and Burke, 2005; Naylor et al., 2000).
As aquaculture continues to grow in scale and intensity, so does industry’s recognition of
the need for sustainable best management practices, as experts realize future development must,
over the long term, maximize benefits and profits for producers, while simultaneously minimizing
impacts on the environment and end-users (FAO, 2020; Folke and Kautsky, 1992; Frankic and
Hershner, 2003; Verbeke et al., 2007b). In the U.S., aside from the effectiveness of the well-
developed regulatory environment around aquaculture production, third-party certification
schemes and product eco-labeling are another means of ensuring the seafood being produced and
consumed is sustainable and safe for human consumption.
Certification and labeling programs such as the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC)
and Global Aquaculture Alliance’s Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) have developed standards
for sustainable and responsible aquaculture to address the key environmental impacts associated
with fish farming. These standards set requirements for aquaculture practices which encourage
producers and other seafood entities to become more environmentally, economically, and socially
sustainable. In turn, producers can distinguish their products on the market; aquaculture products
that are produced following certified sustainable criteria can then bear an eco-label that promotes
the product as sustainable. Certification programs are being implemented by producers worldwide
as a way to educate consumers, improve acceptance of sustainably produced seafood, and
encourage a change in seafood purchasing behavior (Jacquet and Pauly, 2007).
22
The Efficiency of Aquaculture Production
Demand for animal proteins is rising simultaneously with the growing world population
and related pressures that include limited natural resources and negative environmental
externalities (Fry et al., 2018). Aquaculture, when managed properly, can produce valuable
proteins with greater efficiency and a much lower environmental footprint than traditional
terrestrial livestock operations. For this reason, aquaculture is commonly viewed as having a
major role in improving global food security (Fry et al., 2018). Compared to livestock production,
aquaculture systems, on average, make more efficient use of resources as system inputs (Carter
and Goldstein, 2019; Froehlich et al., 2018).
The efficiency in which animals convert feed to body weight is an important indication of
the amount of resources they require for optimal growth. A commonly used measurement for
animal production efficiency is the feed conversion ratio (FCR), which is the rate in which
animals convert feed into the desired output for human consumption (e.g., meat, milk, etc.). Feed
conversion efficiency varies by species and production method (Figure 2-3). Typical FCRs for
aquatic animals are lower (i.e., more efficient) than that of large terrestrial animals, in part
because they require less energy to move about their environment, oppose gravity, and regulate
their body temperature (Fry et al., 2018; Torrissen et al., 2011). While the average FCR of most
farmed fish and shrimp falls between 1.0 and 2.5, the average FCR of beef cattle (6.0-10.0) and
pigs (2.7-5.0) is higher (e.g., less efficient), while chicken have a similar FCR to aquaculture
species (1.7-2.0; Fry et al., 2018; Tacon, 2020; Tacon and Metian, 2008).
23
The term “sustainable intensification” has been introduced to portray the increase in
efficiency of food production through increases in yield relative to resource inputs (e.g., space,
water, feed, and energy) and outputs (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, effluents, and effects on
biodiversity (Ellis et al., 2016). Sustainable intensification is the process of producing more food
from the same area of land while reducing environmental impacts; according to Godfray et al.
(2010), this concept will be key in feeding the growing human population. Although intensive
aquaculture production may generate environmental costs if not carefully managed, there are
opportunities for expanding intensive production sustainably so that a high amount of animal
protein is produced in an efficient manner without significantly impacting the surrounding
environment. While technical advances in production and better disease management could
increase output, future improvements toward sustainable intensification should also involve
concentrating on better species selection, larger-scale production (i.e., economies of scale),
integrating aquaculture and terrestrial food production, and more strategic siting (Godfray et al.,
2010).
It is generally recognized that there is no food production system that is environmentally
benign; the foods we eat and how we produce it has a tremendous impact on the planet. Food
Figure 2-3: Feed conversion ratios for selected aquatic and terrestrial
farmed animal species. Dots represent means and bars indicate range.
Lower values signify higher efficiency. Source: Fry et al. (2018).
24
production, especially that of terrestrial livestock farming, has contributed to numerous
environmental impacts including: land use and degradation (Froehlich et al., 2018), significant
freshwater use (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2012), pollution (Bouwman et al., 2013), and
greenhouse gas emissions (Herrero et al., 2013). An immense challenge facing humanity is to
continue to provide a growing world population with healthy diets in a sustainable manner
(Willett et al., 2019). In addition to plant-based foods, fish has been encouraged as an
environmentally friendly alternative to meat consumption and an efficient source of protein to
ensure food security (Béné et al., 2015; Froehlich et al., 2018; Willett et al., 2019). The rapid
advancement of advancement of aquaculture in recent decades and a shift to consuming fish
rather than terrestrial animal protein has been welcomed as an approach to mitigate the potential
negative effects of our modern food system on the environment. The concept of sustainable
intensification emphasizes that attention should be given to increasing production in conjunction
with increased efficiency of natural resource use and safeguards toward the environment (Ellis et
al., 2016). Designing aquaculture systems to reduce negative externalities on the environment is
an critical step toward expanding intensive aquaculture as a sustainable source of protein.
Farming Suitable Species
Growth in aquaculture production has been referred to as a “mixed blessing” for the
sustainability of ocean fisheries (Naylor et al., 2000). Although feed conversion is more efficient
for aquaculture species compared to terrestrial livestock species, not all farmed seafood is equally
efficient of resources. Dietary requirements and essential feed inputs vary widely among fish
species, and some types of aquaculture are potentially damaging to wild fish stocks; specifically,
farming carnivorous fishes has a detrimental impact on ocean ecosystems because of their fish
meal and fish oil dietary requirements (Naylor et al., 2000; Naylor and Burke, 2005; Tacon and
Metian, 2008).
25
While herbivorous, omnivorous, and carnivorous finfish all require a similar amount of
dietary protein per unit weight, herbivorous and omnivorous freshwater fish are able to utilize
plant-based proteins better than carnivorous fish (Naylor et al., 2000). They also require minimal
quantities of marine ingredients to supply essential amino acids, whereas carnivorous finfish
species require fish meal and oil in their diets to varying degrees (Naylor and Burke, 2005).
The relative feed efficiency of different aquaculture species is a complex, understudied
aspect of aquaculture production (Naylor et al., 2000). The diversity of aquaculture production
systems seems to lead to an underlying paradox: depending on the type of aquaculture activity,
aquaculture is either a promising solution or contributing factor to the collapse fisheries stocks
worldwide (Naylor et al., 2000). Wild fisheries are being increasingly classified as overfished and
unsustainable (FAO, 2020), therefore the expanding aquaculture industry cannot continue to rely
on finite stocks of wild fish to feed commercially valuable cultured fish (Naylor et al., 2000). As
Naylor et al. (2000) asserts, not only does the use of wild fish to feed farmed fish species put
direct pressure on the fisheries resources themselves, it is also disastrous for the marine
ecosystem such fisheries are part of.
In order to turn the trend and ensure aquaculture is a net producer of fish, instead of a net
reducer, emphasis should be placed on farming low trophic level species that do not require
substantial amounts of fish meal or fish oil in their diets (Klinger and Naylor, 2012; Little et al.,
2008; White et al., 2004). In 2006, Tacon and Metian (2008) noted that the top herbivorous and
omnivorous net fish producing species were carp, milkfish, tilapia, and catfish, as well as
freshwater crustaceans. Alternative dietary protein sources for such fish include fishery,
aquaculture and terrestrial animal by-products, plant proteins and oils, aquatic plants, single cell
proteins, grain legumes, cereal by-products, and insect meals (Barroso et al., 2014; El-Sayed,
1999; Jones et al., 2020; Klinger and Naylor, 2021). Alternative feed solutions as substitutes for
26
fishmeal and fish oil are expected to continue to increase to enable sustainable aquaculture
production with limited dependence on wild fish in the future (Bandara, 2018).
Aside from selecting species based on the efficiency and sustainability of their feeding
habits, aquaculture species selection should also include a consideration of the biological and
environmental requirements of a species and how a species might respond to aquaculture
conditions. In planning an aquaculture operation, attention should be given to the avoidance of
maladaptive consequences of prolonged, repeated and long-term stress of aquaculture species that
is created by the aquaculture environment; this should be a central welfare goal in aquaculture
(Ashley, 2007). One possible strategy to ensuring fish welfare is maintained in an aquaculture
system is to select the right species for the method of aquaculture being utilized; some species,
strains, and individuals may react better to intensive husbandry systems than others (Huntingford
and Kadri, 2009). Species that are less susceptible to stress by environmental fluctuations, high
stocking densities, and handling and transport may be more suitable species to farm than other
more easily stressed fishes. Furthermore, if a fish’s ability to express normal, natural behaviors is
greatly restricted by aquaculture activities, it may not be the best choice of species. For instance,
feeding naturally carnivorous fish such as salmonids alternative plant-based feeds is not ideal for
its welfare as this may create digestive problems and diseases (Olesen et al., 2010). An additional
consideration is the confinement of species with natural tendencies to swim extensive distances; a
common example of this is with migratory species such as Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar; Ashley,
2007; Studer, 2018).
Some species may not be as suitable to cope with certain aquaculture environments as
others, therefore their farming should be discouraged and more suitable species should be
selected in its place (Saraiva et al., 2019). Saraiva et al. (2019) provide an overview of
FishEthoBase, a recently established open-access database which provides information on the
welfare of common fish species that are currently farmed worldwide. In their synopsis, the
27
authors describe criteria used to assess fish welfare in the database and highlight only two species
that have been found to show adequate potential to be reared in good welfare – Nile tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus) and African catfish (Clarias gariepinus). According to the authors, the
biology of these species makes them the most appropriate to cope with captive conditions while
the other species studied were not as suitable due to the incapacity of rearing systems to meet the
welfare needs of the species at some point of its life cycle, or due to the biology of the species not
being suitable for farming (Saraiva et al., 2019).
Closing the Loop
The environmental impact of farmed seafood is partially determined by the method of
aquaculture that is used. Transitioning towards safer, more environmentally sustainable seafood
production will require a shift to more closed-loop aquaculture methods in order to address some
of the environment concerns that are often associated with open-water aquaculture. Open-water
aquaculture methods (i.e., net pens and cages) can be generate high environmental risk if proper
planning, design, and management is not implemented. Industrial farming in open-water net pens
and cages is concerning since they allow for free exchange between the farm and surrounding
environment. Homziak, Buchanan and Lewis (1992) discuss five major areas of potential
environmental concern associated with net pen aquaculture in coastal waters: water quality
alterations and their consequences, sedimentation and benthic effects, chemical usage, disease
transmission, and escaped fish and their impacts. Open systems can also be highly polluting to
surrounding or receiving waters though the biological and chemical effluents that are discharged
directly into the environment from the aquaculture operation (Little et al., 2008; White et al.,
2004). Some of these environmental impacts may be minimized by moving offshore where the
environment is less sensitive and sites with adequate water exchange and waste assimilation
capacity are identified (Homziak et al., 1992; Lester et al., 2018).
28
A better way to reduce the environmental impacts of the aquaculture industry is by
changing the method in which fish are cultured towards more land-based closed-containment
systems; recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) and aquaponics are two such systems (Klinger
and Naylor, 2012). In such systems, exchange between farms and the surrounding environment is
controlled to a much greater extent, allowing for intensive production with low environmental
impact. These systems are designed to recycle water and mechanical and biological filtration
mechanisms remove suspended and dissolved wastes; there is no need for continual discharge of
effluents into the environment (Little et al., 2008). Barriers between the farm and outside
environment also provide a biosecurity measure that prevents fish from escaping; this eliminates
the risk of disease transmission to the surrounding environment and competition between farmed
and wild fish populations (Klinger and Naylor, 2012). Further, RAS and aquaponics are often
done indoors or in greenhouses in a controlled environment, meaning the system can be
maintained for optimal rearing conditions and environment controls adjusted according to the
species being reared. All things considered, land-based recirculating aquaculture systems and
aquaponics offer a unique combination of environmental benefits that make the systems a
promising method for more sustainable fish production.
A Sustainable Aquaculture System: Aquaponic-Reared Tilapia
According to Klinger and Naylor (2012), a reconsideration of the systems in which fish
are cultured and the species that are selected for such systems can reduce the negative
environmental externalities and resource limitations associated with the growing aquaculture
sector. Selecting an appropriate production system and species combination are crucial to
yielding a sustainable product. Tilapia raised in recirculating aquaculture systems as part of
aquaponics operations are one such product.
29
Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS)
Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) are closed-loop facilities that produce fish
intensively while reducing resource dependency through the retainment, treatment and recycling
of water. RAS technology has been developed as a means of raising a large quantity of fish in a
relatively small volume of water that is re-used after undergoing treatment (Martins et al., 2010).
In addition to being much more water efficient relative to other aquaculture systems, the closed-
loop nature of RAS minimizes the impacts that aquaculture has on surrounding environments.
The advantages of RAS as an aquaculture method include: reduced water consumption, with 90-
99% of the water recycled (Badiola et al., 2012; Verdegem et al., 2006), improved waste
management and nutrient recycling (Piedrahita, 2003), enhanced environmental control that
ensures better management of water quality and biosecurity parameters (Martins et al., 2010;
Summerfelt and Vinci, 2008), and versatility in system location, with the ability to be located in
close proximity to end consumers (Masser et al., 1999).
While RAS does involve water treatment and the removal of solid wastes, this ultimately
results in the transfer of concentrated nutrients and organic matter out of the system, rather than
an overall reduction in effluent discharge (Piedrahita, 2003). In addition to this waste stream, if
left unchecked, dissolved gas wastes will build up in the system and require a partial exchange of
system water, which decreases the system’s water efficiency advantage (Lennard, 2009). These
waste management shortcomings underscore some of the limitations of RAS that can be
improved through the use of aquaponics, a form of recirculating aquaculture where accumulated
fish waste nutrients are recycled and utilized by plants as a fertilizer for growth (Klinger and
Naylor, 2012; Lennard, 2009).
30
Aquaponics
Aquaponics is a sustainable food production method that integrates two separate farming
technologies – fish production in a recirculating aquaculture system and hydroponic plant
production (Lennard, 2009). In aquaponics, fish produce nutrient-rich effluent that the plants can
utilize as fertilizer for growth; that is, as water flows through an aquaponics system, the waste
products of one biological system (RAS) serve as nutrients for a second biological system
(hydroponics) in a process that is facilitated by microbial activity (Figure 2-4; Rinehart, 2019).
The nitrification process is the biochemical engine that drives the aquaponics system as
water flows from the fish tanks to biological filters, then to plants and back again (Goodman,
2011). By-products from the fish component must be converted by a biofilter of nitrifying
bacteria into soluble nutrients that the plants can utilize (Tyson et al., 2011; Figure 2-5). The
biological filter consists of Nitrosomonas bacteria that convert ammonia (NH3) to nitrite (NO2-) in
the presence of oxygen, followed by the conversion of nitrite to nitrate (NO3-) by Nitrospira and
Nitrobacter bacteria (Wongkiew et al., 2017). Nitrate is nontoxic to fish species at most
concentrations that are commonly found in RAS systems, even at concentrations of up to 150-300
Figure 2-4: Illustrative representation of the cycle that occurs in an
aquaponics system. Source: Smart Garden Guide (2019).
31
mg N/L (Wongkiew et al., 2017). In the hydroponic component, plants take up the nitrate as
fertilizer in a process that purifies the water that is then circulated and returned back to the fish
tanks as clean water in which the fish thrive.
The synergistic relationship amongst fish, microbes, and plants creates a closed-loop
system that mimics the ecology of nature (Patillo, 2017). These interactions greatly reduce waste
and increase efficiency, thereby enhancing food production sustainability (Lennard, 2009; Patillo,
2017; Rinehart, 2019). Nutrient removal through aquaponics not only improves water quality for
the fish but also decreases overall water consumption by limiting the amount that is released from
the system through effluent (Patillo, 2017).
Aquaponics production demonstrates all of the advantages of RAS while addressing the
discharge of a waste stream of water, which is one of the biggest environmental impacts
associated with RAS (Lennard, 2009). The development of aquaponics production is also
responding to diverse socio-ecological challenges including water scarcity, overfishing, and
extensive supply chains (Goddek et al., 2015). Some of the benefits of aquaponics production
include minimal land use, year-round production in controlled environments, and the production
Figure 2-5: Nitrogen cycle in an aquaponics system. Source: Tyson
et al. (2011).
32
of multiple income-producing crops at once (Lennard, 2009; Patillo, 2017). The reduction in
water and land utilization and production in an enclosed environment allows aquaponics to be a
viable food production solution for both arid regions and developing nations (Greenfeld et al.,
2019; McMurtry et al., 1997). Additionally, aquaponic systems can be situated in urban areas that
are in close proximity to end users, which shortens the supply chain and decreases the
transportation costs and carbon footprint that are often associated with food production and the
U.S. seafood supply in particular (Palm et al., 2018; Savidov, 2004).
Despite the potential that aquaponics carries for addressing the environmental concerns
associated with other forms of aquaculture and food production, there are still some challenges
and questions around commercial aquaponic development. One of the main challenges
encountered in commercial aquaponic ventures is in regard to its economic feasibility. There is a
high initial investment required with large-scale farms (Engle, 2015; Turnsek et al., 2020), and
maintenance and operating costs can be expensive, particularly for energy that is needed to move
water throughout the system and to control environmental temperatures (Little et al., 2008). Some
prospective solutions for the aquaponic sector to become commercially viable include: scaling up
production to be competitive with conventional aquaculture and agriculture (Turnsek et al.,
2020); developing innovative business models that involve an additional revenue source through
sales of non-food products from aquaponics farms, such as supplies and materials, tourism,
consulting, or education (Love et al., 2015); identifying niche markets that are willing to pay a
premium price for the added value of aquaponic produce and developing effective marketing
schemes to target these consumers (Engle, 2015; Greenfeld et al., 2019); and strategically
locating aquaponic systems in areas where operations can reduce risk and compete with other
available produce (Engle, 2015; Love et al., 2015). Furthermore, it is imperative to note that
aquaponics production is a complex, technologically-advanced endeavor that requires extensive
knowledge to be managed successfully; therefore, prospective growers should plan for a steep
33
learning curve (Engle, 2015; Savidov, 2004). Nonetheless, modern aquaponic systems have
potential to be highly successful, but require comprehensive knowledge on the producer’s end
and careful attention to business planning and marketing (Rinehart, 2019).
Aquaponic operations can yield a wide variety of fish and plant species. Plants with low
to medium nutritional requirements like leafy greens and herbs are well adapted to aquaponics
systems. However, it is not uncommon for aquaponic producers to grow fruiting plants (tomatoes,
cucumbers, strawberries, etc.) as well as ornamental outdoor plants and houseplants. There are
several warm-water and cold-water fish adapted to tank culture, but tilapia are by far the most
common food fish grown in aquaponic systems in North America. In a survey of commercial-
scale aquaponic producers, the majority of whom were U.S. citizens, Love et al. (2015) found that
69 percent of producers were growing tilapia. Tilapia are suitable fish for aquaponics because
they grow well in recirculating aquaculture tanks and are tolerant of fluctuating environmental
conditions such as pH, temperature, oxygen, and dissolved solids (Goodman, 2011; Rinehart,
2019).
Tilapia: A Sustainable Fish for the Future
Modern tilapia aquaculture first began in the 1960s and 1970s, although large scale
production and international trade of tilapia did not take off until the early 1990s. In 1995, total
global landings of tilapia from capture fisheries and aquaculture was 1.16 million ton, up from
515,000 ton in 1984 (Fitzsimmons, 2000). Since then, tilapia have gained widespread popularity
to become a staple protein source across the globe. Tilapia is now the second-most farm-raised
finfish worldwide, with Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) contributing approximately 8 percent
of total finfish aquaculture (Cai et al., 2019; FAO, 2020), and it is the third-most consumed
finfish in the United States after salmon and canned tuna (National Fisheries Institute, 2018a).
34
The United States is currently the leading export market for tilapia and U.S. tilapia
markets are predominately dominated by imports; approximately 95 percent of the tilapia
consumed in the United States is imported (Zajdband, 2012). The U.S. imports most of its frozen
tilapia fillets from China and Indonesia, while fresh tilapia fillets are imported from Central and
South American countries, such as Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Honduras (Engle et al., 2016).
Tilapia are also farmed in the U.S., though currently on a much smaller scale relative to other
countries. At this time, the 5 percent of tilapia that is produced in the U.S. is mainly sold live at
ethnic markets, or at farmers’ markets, specialty grocers and restaurants; most of this tilapia is
produced in closed recirculating aquaculture systems (Fitzsimmons, 2000).
Tilapia is a remarkably successful farmed fish for two main reasons. First, tilapia has
desirable qualities as a food fish that has made it popular amongst consumers; it is a lean source
of protein with white flesh, mild flavor, flakey texture and culinary versatility, which makes it an
appealing choice even for consumers who do not regularly consume fish (Suresh and Bhujel,
2012; Yue et al., 2016). Secondly, tilapia are easily cultivated in a captive environment (Suresh
and Bhujel, 2012). Tilapia can be cultured intensively in a wide variety of aquaculture systems
(Watanabe et al., 2002). They are hardy, adaptable fish that can tolerate crowding and
fluctuations in water quality and other environmental parameters. Additionally, as omnivores,
tilapia can thrive on and are efficient converters of plant-based feeds, meaning they are highly
suitable for low cost and low impact aquaculture (Young et al., 2006); low cost production also
helps to make tilapia a relatively affordable fish for consumers. Tilapia are fast-growing, quick to
reproduce, and breed freely in captivity (Suresh and Bhujel, 2012; Watanabe et al., 2002). Due to
these characteristics, tilapia have been coined as the “aquatic chicken” (Pullin, 1984).
Like all types of food production, tilapia aquaculture can be done soundly or
irresponsibly. Intensive tilapia farms can be damaging to local ecosystems and surrounding
communities if not regulated and managed responsibly. Tilapia are grown in a wide variety of
35
production systems. In the Central and South American countries that export tilapia to the U.S.,
tilapia are most commonly commercially farmed in freshwater ponds (Watanabe et al., 2002).
Seafood Watch, a sustainable seafood advisory program, recommends consumers avoid tilapia
farmed in ponds in China due to concerns about effluents, habitat damage, potential escapes and
threats to native populations, disease, and chemical use (Seafood Watch, 2018).
In the United States, tilapia aquaculture is strictly regulated to ensure environmental and
human health and safety. Most domestic production of tilapia occurs in recirculating aquaculture
systems (RAS) or aquaponics. These land-based, closed-environment aquaculture methods
address a number of concerns of other production methods; they provide a higher degree of
environmental control and biosecurity, conserve habitat, and greatly reduce the amount of water
discharged from the site (Hochman et al., 2018; Watanabe et al., 2002). Such controlled
environment aquaculture also allows producers to grow tilapia year-round in locations that are in
close proximity to local markets and therefore allows consumers to purchase locally-produced
tilapia rather than imported product. The environmental advantages of RAS and aquaponics give
tilapia farmed in indoor recirculating tanks with wastewater treatment a “best choice” rating from
Seafood Watch (Zajdband, 2012).
Tilapia are much more resource-efficient than many other farmed fish as they do not
require an abundant amount of fishmeal and fish oil in their diets. Tilapias are low-trophic level
omnivorous fishes that can get most if not all of the nutrients they require from plant-based feed
ingredients, like soybean protein, and still perform optimally (Little et al., 2008; Suresh and
Bhujel, 2012). Conversely, farming carnivorous fish can have a fairly significant impact on wild
fish populations and marine ecosystems due to their dietary requirement for fish meal and fish oil
(Naylor et al., 2000). In addition to tilapia’s flexible diet, the fish also require far less feed than
terrestrial animals. Tank-cultured tilapia are known to have very efficient feed conversion ratios
(FCR); an FCR between 1.4:1 and 1.8:1 is common and considered to be one of the best in animal
36
agriculture (DeLong et al., 2009). By farming fish that efficiently convert plant-based feeds into
high quality-protein, tilapia farmers are able to run their operations economically, while keeping
costs down for the end consumer.
An omnivorous feeding behavior is just one aspect of the life history and biology of
tilapias that make them an ideal fish for sustainable aquaculture development (Thomas and
Michael, 1999). Tilapia have been selectively bred over time to improve their production
performance by targeting specific traits. Notably, tilapia exhibit a rapid growth rate and can reach
market size in as little as six to nine months (Little et al., 2008; Popma and Masser, 1999).
Further, tilapia are thought to be more resilient to disease and abrasions that are known to
adversely affect many other cultured fish, such as salmon (DeLong et al., 2009). This means there
is very little need to treat tilapia with antibiotics or other drugs and chemicals. Moreover, tilapia
grow well at high densities in the confinement of tanks as long as water quality is sufficiently
maintained (DeLong et al., 2009). Their natural shoaling behavior make farming tilapia at a high
density both practical and arguably ethical (Little et al., 2008). Considering these characteristics,
tilapia are likely to experience good welfare in tank culture conditions and are therefore a suitable
fish for RAS and aquaponic operations.
Despite the prominence of tilapia in the U.S. seafood market, and the positive aspects of
tilapia as a sustainable aquaculture product, sensational media coverage and false messaging in
recent years is thought to have generated an unfavorable image of tilapia and has situated tilapia
in an undesirable light with consumers (Fitzsimmons, 2017; Kearns, 2018). In 2008, a misleading
claim made by Weaver et al. (2008) that “tilapia is worse than bacon” was circulated in the
popular press and on social media, discouraging the public from purchasing the fish. Further,
reports that Chinese tilapia producers were feeding farmed tilapia feces from livestock production
has led to additional negative misconceptions about tilapia amongst consumers (Leschin-Hoar,
2016). This less than favorable image in which tilapia has been portrayed in tabloid media may
37
have a negative effect on consumer perceptions around tilapia and their likelihood to consume
farmed tilapia (Fitzsimmons, 2017). In Hawaii, tilapia are reported to have taken on the negative
connotation of a “rubbish fish” with consumers (Davidson et al., 2012). However, the negative
press around tilapia does not depict the reality of safe and sustainable tilapia aquaculture
occurring in the United States.
Tilapia is a healthy and affordable protein that exemplifies a unique set of characteristics
that make it an efficient and suitable species for sustainable aquaculture development (Yue et al.,
2016). Tilapia is currently being raised successfully and sustainably within U.S. borders.
However, the country continues to import nearly all of its tilapia supply. In order to drive demand
and see sustainable growth of this valuable and advantageous protein source stateside, the
industry must discredit the negative associations around tilapia and distinguish and promote the
positive attributes of tilapia aquaculture in the United States. The environmentally friendly
attributes of tilapia may be attractive to a niche market of consumers who are interested in
purchasing eco-friendly, locally-grown fresh fish (Little et al., 2008).
The Consumer’s Role in Aquaculture
Consumer Trends and Fish Preferences
Aquaculture production has evolved at a time of increased ecological awareness and
environmental activism amongst consumers (Boyd and Schmittou, 1999; Young et al., 1999);
people have become increasingly accustomed to the fact that environmental management will be
an important aspect in future food production with the added pressure of a growing human
population. The aquaculture industry has been on the frontline of consumer criticism regarding
sustainability, and this scrutiny has been a motive for the industry to shift to more
environmentally responsible practices (Badiola et al., 2017; Young et al., 1999).
38
Food products need to meet consumer demand for the industry to be successful (Badiola
et al., 2017). In the United States, consumer demand for fresh, local, and sustainably produced
seafood is growing (Lester et al., 2018). The establishment of a market segment for domestic fish
from sustainable aquaculture production would suit the evolving trends and preferences for
sustainable, ethical, and local food production (Feucht and Zander, 2015). As Young et al. (1999)
express, future opportunities for advancement of the aquaculture industry are increasingly driven
by market perceptions of environmental attributes and the way aquaculture processes and
products are presented in regards to these attributes; consumer interest may be enhanced if
environmental attributes of an aquaculture product can be identified and communicated.
Sustainable and Ethical Consumption
“Green” consumerism, where consumers focus on environmental sustainability aspects of
their purchases, is becoming an increasingly important aspect of understanding markets
(Alexander et al., 2016; Young et al., 1999). Several studies have revealed that consumers are
interested in sustainability criteria when purchasing fish (Bronnmann and Asche, 2017; Hinkes
and Schulze-Ehlers, 2018; Honkanen and Olsen, 2009; Honkanen and Young, 2015; Risius et al.,
2017; Verbeke et al., 2007a). Furthermore, research has found some consumers are willing to pay
more for fish products that are produced in a sustainable manner and that bear ecolabels that
certify its environmentally friendly attributes (McClenachan et al., 2016; Ortega et al., 2014;
Roheim et al., 2011; van Osch et al., 2019; Zander et al., 2018). This consumer willingness to pay
a premium price for sustainable, eco-labeled seafood is of fundamental importance as it indicates
a return on the investment of implementing sustainable practices, thereby providing an incentive
for producers to undertake such practices (Roheim et al., 2011).
While consumer demand for sustainable seafood is evident, challenges around
sustainable seafood consumption remain. Local and global initiatives, including market-based
39
tools such as consumer awareness campaigns and seafood certification schemes, have been
employed to better educate consumers about the seafood that is available to them and to stimulate
demand for qualities related to sustainability (Gutierrez and Thornton, 2014; Jacquet et al., 2010;
Jodice and Norman, 2020). However, even for fish consumers who view sustainability as a
preferred attribute, consumers may experience difficulty at the point of purchase that hamper
environmentally sustainable seafood choices (Jodice and Norman, 2020). Unclear labeling,
consumer confusion, a lack of trust, and misconceptions and knowledge gaps regarding fish
production continue to diminish consumers’ ability to determine which seafood is sustainable
(Jacquet et al., 2010; Jodice and Norman, 2020; McClenachan et al., 2016; Risius et al., 2017;
Weitzman and Bailey, 2018).
Furthermore, despite consumers’ increasing interest and positive attitude towards
sustainability, some research has shown that attitudes are not strong predictors of behavioral
intention or marketplace behavior; this attitude-behavior gap acknowledges that behavioral
patterns are not always unambiguously consistent with interests, preferences, or attitudes
(Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). Verbeke et al. (2007b) suggests that this might be because other
purchasing decision criteria, such as taste, price, quality, and convenience, are driving consumer
behavior over sustainability considerations. Zander et al. (2018) corroborated this notion in their
analysis of German consumers’ preferences for sustainable aquaculture products; consumers
ranked fish attributes such as freshness, taste, and price at higher importance than sustainability.
Additionally, consumers might be unable to make informed purchasing decisions in accordance
with their preferences and attitudes because they do not fully comprehend the sustainable
characteristics of a product, or such characteristics are not properly communicated to them
(Verbeke et al., 2007b).
Similar to the trend of sustainable consumption, consumers are also becoming
increasingly concerned with ethical aspects of food and fish production. The concept of ethical
40
consumerism carries many connotations, but is ultimately rooted in being actively concerned and
influenced by environmental and societal considerations when choosing products and services
(Cowe and Williams, 2000). The ethical consumer is well-informed, both environmentally and
socially aware, and guided by principles and responsibility toward society (Cowe and Williams,
2000; Vitell et al., 2001). Additionally, ethical consumers are typically motivated by health and
food safety concerns; products that are recognized as ethical choices are also typically considered
as indicators of product attributes such as food safety, food quality, and healthiness (Harper and
Makatouni, 2002). Intensive aquaculture inevitably presents a number of challenges with regard
to ethical matters and animal welfare (Verbeke et al., 2007b).
Although these issues are gaining attention by the aquaculture industry, policymakers,
and consumers, they have only been studied in detail in the last few decades and are still limited
in scope (Ashley, 2007; Huntingford et al., 2006; Kupsala et al., 2013). Consumer concerns about
fish welfare seem to vary. Results of a study by Kupsala et al. (2013) suggest that welfare of
farmed fish is not of concern to citizens of Finland. Additionally, animal welfare issues related to
farmed fish do not seem to be important to consumers in Valencia or a barrier to aquaculture
development (Honkanen and Olsen, 2009). On the contrary, Solgaard and Yang (2011) found that
48 percent of the Danish consumers they surveyed were willing to pay up to 25 percent extra for
fish raised with good welfare. Moreover, Norwegian households were highly willing to pay an
increased tax to improve the welfare of farmed Atlantic salmon (Grimsrud et al., 2013) and seem
to prefer salmon that is certified by an animal welfare organization to otherwise identical salmon
from conventional salmon farms (Olesen et al., 2010). A study by Verbeke et al. (2007b) found
that Flemish consumers indicate sustainability and ethics with respect to fish as being important,
but that this claimed importance is not significantly correlated with total fish consumption
frequency nor with attitude toward eating fish. This may be explained by limited consumer
41
awareness of fish origin and related sustainability and ethical issues or ignorance to these issues
when making purchasing decisions (Verbeke et al., 2007b).
It should be noted that most of the studies related to consumer perception of farmed fish
welfare have occurred in European countries; research in the United States is deficient. At this
point it is uncertain how ethical considerations of fish welfare may shape U.S. consumer attitudes
towards aquaculture and their fish consumption behavior.
Local Sourcing
Interest in locally-produced foods is another emerging trend amongst consumers; the
local foods movement has been transferred to the fisheries and aquaculture sectors with the
promotion of local seafood (Campbell et al., 2014; Jodice and Norman, 2020). Several studies
show an increasingly prevalent interest in the “locavore” movement and local foods, as well as
demand and willingness to pay for locally-sourced fish (Meas and Hu, 2014; Murray et al., 2017;
Quagrainie et al., 2008; Roheim et al., 2012; Shaw et al., 2019; Witkin et al., 2015).
Findings from a national survey of U.S. consumers indicate that consumers are more
accepting of domestic aquaculture expansion than international development (Murray et al.,
2017). Wang et al. (2013) found that U.S. consumers are skeptical about the safety of seafood
imported from Indonesia, Ecuador, Thailand, China and Vietnam. Meas and Hu (2014)
discovered that Colorado and Florida consumers were willing to pay a sizeable premium for
locally-produced tilapia. Witkin et al. (2015) reported survey results from New England that
suggest locally-caught fish is strongly favored amongst consumers, particularly for those living
within 50 km of the coast of Maine. Another study in Maine investigated consumer understanding
of and responsiveness to a range of sustainability initiatives and found that consumers were more
attuned to the social than to the environmental benefits of purchasing local seafood, with benefits
to the economy identified most frequently (McClenachan et al., 2016). The small percentage of
42
respondents who identified environmental benefits to local seafood most commonly
acknowledged the reduction of the carbon footprint associated with the transport of foods over
long distances (McClenachan et al., 2016). Finally, Ortega et al. (2014) determined that U.S.
consumers were willing to pay more for domestic aquaculture products, placing more trust on
U.S. government verification in terms of product attributes for enhanced food safety and
environmental health as relative to Asian countries. Consumers outside of the United States also
place a high importance on domestic origin of fish products. In a choice experiment study in
Germany, domestic products were preferred over products from other geographic origins (Risius
et al., 2017), and in Italy, domestic origin had the strongest influence on fish purchasing decisions
for different characteristics of Mediterranean sea bass (Mauracher et al., 2013).
Even though the demand for local food products is strong and consumers seem to value
local seafood, Shaw et al. (2019) suggests that consumers are still unaware of the availability of
local, farm-raised fish. Improving the discernibility of locally-farmed fish might involve visually
improving country of origin labels to be informative, clear, and easy to find (Risius et al., 2017)
and emphasizing the benefits of locally farmed fish (Shaw et al., 2019).
Wild-Caught Fish
Several previous studies have indicated that consumers tend to favor wild-caught fish
over farm-raised fish (Claret et al., 2014; Claret et al., 2016; Meas and Hu, 2014; O’Dierno et al.,
2006; Roheim et al., 2012; Shaw et al., 2019). In a telephone survey of U.S. consumers, O’Dierno
et al. (2006) found that 47 percent of the consumers surveyed believed that wild-caught fish was
of better quality than farm-raised fish. Claret et al. (2014) also discovered that consumers were in
favor of wild-caught fish over farmed fish in terms of product quality. In Hawaii, consumers are
in favor of wild-caught seafood primarily due to taste preferences and environmental concerns
(Davidson et al., 2012). A similar finding was noted by Meas and Hu (2014) who found that
43
approximately 40 percent of their survey respondents in Colorado and Florida preferred wild-
caught seafood, with the majority citing taste as their main reason followed by food safety issues
and concerns of environmental pollution. A strong preference for wild-caught fish was also
indicated in a Rhode Island consumer study, an outcome the authors suggest stems from the
state’s coastal location with an abundance of locally-caught fish, as well as media campaigns
around environmental and health concerns associated with farmed fish (Roheim et al., 2012).
Despite a preference for wild-caught fish in the study by Roheim et al. (2012), nearly half
of the respondents agreed that fresh farmed fish tastes better than previously frozen wild fish. A
similar result in favor of the taste of farmed fish was uncovered in a sensory evaluation study
conducted by Claret et al. (2016); when consumers were informed about method of production
(i.e., wild capture or aquaculture), they preferred wild fish, but when such information was not
provided, consumers exhibited a greater liking for farmed fish. In this study, farmed fish was
similarly evaluated in both the informed and blind conditions, whereas the liking of wild fish was
significantly increased when information regarding fish origin was provided to consumers (Claret
et al., 2016). As the authors propose, this indicates that farmed fish do not necessarily have a
negative image amongst consumers, but that there is a generalized positive attitude towards wild-
caught fish (Claret et al., 2016). Further, results from a study by Bronnmann and Asche (2017)
indicate that consumer preference for wild fish is primarily related to the perceived lack of
environmental sustainability in aquaculture and not necessarily quality differences between wild
and farmed fish.
Consumer Perceptions and Knowledge of Aquaculture
Aquaculture is a controversial topic amongst the public, and adverse public perceptions
are thought to be one of the biggest challenges facing the industry. However, there are a limited
number of studies examining U.S. consumers’ awareness of aquaculture and how they perceive
44
aquaculture development and farmed seafood. A U.S. national consumer survey conducted in
2015 found that 47 percent of participants had a negative view of farm-raised seafood, mainly due
to concerns associated with product quality, food safety and the environment (Bacher, 2015;
Brooker, 2015). Hall and Amberg’s (2013) investigation into public attitudes towards aquaculture
in the Pacific northwest region revealed that beliefs about aquaculture problems and benefits were
nearly equally strong, but the large proportion of neutral scores recorded on many of the belief
items suggests relatively low familiarity with aquaculture. Comparably, in a study by Robertson
et al. (2002) in northern New England, respondents who were familiar with aquaculture held a
significantly more positive attitude toward its development than those who reported being
unfamiliar. Another U.S. consumer survey indicated that consumers viewed aquaculture as a
viable alternative to sourcing fish while mitigating the dangers of overfishing, but that concerns
remain around the adverse environmental impacts of aquaculture that are similar to terrestrial
agriculture (Britwum et al., 2018). Roheim et al. (2012) also found that consumers in Rhode
Island had negative views about impacts of aquaculture production practices, although a large
number of respondents indicated that they did not know or were unsure of answers to questions
that aimed to elicit belief about aquaculture practices.
There are numerous studies that have examined perceptions of aquaculture outside of the
United States. In Australia, people seem to recognize the socioeconomic benefits of the
aquaculture industry, but there are mixed opinions regarding the industry’s environmental
sustainability (Mazur and Curtis, 2008). Altintzoglou et al. (2010) established that European
consumers have a predominately positive image of fish from aquaculture, perceiving them as
safe, healthy, and sustainable. Results from a study in Belgium found that consumers’ decision
not to consume farmed fish was associated with a lower perceived quality of the product, rather
than grounded in the importance they attach to sustainability and ethical issues (Verbeke et al.,
2007b). Additionally, a consumer survey conducted in Belgium, Norway and Spain determined
45
that there is an abundance of uncertainty in consumers’ perception of farmed fish that the authors
suggest is largely due to a lack of awareness regarding the origin of fish, meaning perceptions of
aquaculture and farmed fish are based more on emotion than on rational considerations backed by
science (Vanhonacker et al., 2011; Verbeke et al., 2007a).
A lack of understanding about aquaculture appears to be at the root of public image
concerns and misunderstanding around farmed fish and aquaculture production. Very little
research has directly examined U.S. consumers’ knowledge of aquaculture production. However,
a study conducted by the University of Maine in 2017 found that, when asked to rate their current
knowledge level of aquaculture on a scale of 1 to 100, respondents showed an average perceived
knowledge level of 16.2, indicating a low awareness of the aquaculture industry (Murray et al.,
2017). This same study also found that there is some false knowledge of aquaculture practices
amongst U.S. consumers as suggested by their agreement with common aquaculture myths
(Murray et al., 2017). Interestingly, U.S. consumers, particularly those living in coastal states, felt
like they knew where their seafood comes from and that wild-caught seafood is more readily
available to them than farm-raised products (Murray et al., 2017). While an increasingly
significant percentage of fish consumed in the U.S. comes from aquaculture, American
consumers continue to believe that aquaculture cannot compete with wild-capture fisheries
(Hamlish, 2018). This suggests a profound disconnect between consumers and the source of their
fish.
The knowledge gap between consumers and the aquaculture industry likely has a
profound impact on consumers’ image of and demand for farmed fish. Unfamiliarity with
aquaculture can have an adverse impact on consumer opinion and acceptance of aquaculture
products, even if such conceptions are not scientifically-sound (Vanhonacker et al., 2011). Even
well-intentioned people who are in favor of sourcing seafood sustainably seem to have
perceptions of aquaculture that have not kept up with the industry’s scientific advances (Kramer,
46
2019), and it appears that very few consumers have a high awareness or comprehension of the
real sustainability of seafood products (Verbeke et al., 2007b). In a study by Zander et al. (2018),
the authors found that the small consumer segment that was interested with sustainability issues
associated with food production also lacked knowledge of fish farming and its practices.
If consumers are unaware about aquaculture practices, they will be less apt to purchase
farm-raised products or support aquaculture development in their region (Murray et al., 2017).
Nevertheless, continued growth of the sustainable aquaculture industry will be contingent on the
ability to effectively educate consumers on the benefits of aquaculture production to improve the
image of farmed fish and aquaculture (Altintzoglou et al., 2010; Hamlish, 2018). The domestic
aquaculture industry may develop more rapidly if perceptions of aquaculture and farm-raised fish
are improved through education around the objective realities of sustainable aquaculture in the
U.S. (Chu et al., 2010). Developing effective strategies to address the lack of public awareness
around aquaculture will help to strengthen the industry by improving consumer support of
aquaculture.
Consumer Acceptance of Sustainable Aquaculture Production
Understanding the public’s awareness and perceptions of aquaculture, and sustainable
forms of aquaculture such as aquaponics, is an important part of aquaculture management and
planning (Bacher, 2015; Chu et al., 2010). Aquaculture requires a social license approach in order
to increase stakeholder trust, avoid social conflict, and have a proper plan in place to address
controversies and public concerns that may arise (Schlag, 2010). In the aquaculture industry,
societal concerns and opposition have the potential to steer the industry’s path forward, and to
speed up or slow down its expansion (Bacher, 2015). Undoubtedly, social acceptability is a
critical component of aquaculture sustainability (Barrington et al., 2010), and the extent to which
47
consumers support aquaculture development will play an important role in determining the
industry’s future success (Chu et al., 2010).
Consumer studies can assist the industry in identifying factors that affect purchasing
behavior and offer insight into the best approach for promoting farmed fish consumption (Bacher,
2015). Despite the recent rise in aquaponics research (Greenfeld et al., 2019; Junge et al., 2017),
the majority of studies have covered the technical and biological aspects of aquaponics systems
(Palm et al., 2018; Tyson et al., 2011), as well as the economic feasibility of aquaponics
production (Goodman, 2011; Greenfeld et al., 2019; Love et al., 2015). To date, only a few
studies have addressed consumer perceptions and acceptance of aquaponic production in
particular, and the results are considerably mixed. Consumers in Malaysia (Tamin et al., 2015),
Romania (Zugravu et al., 2016), and Europe (Miličić et al., 2017) have expressed generally
positive attitudes towards aquaponics. Additionally, a marketing study in Alberta, Canada
revealed a generally positive consumer response to aquaponics, although food safety was a major
concern conveyed in the survey (Savidov, 2004). Studies that asked respondents about their
preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for aquaponically-produced products found that a
small majority of respondents would prefer to buy aquaponics products compared to
conventionally-farmed products (Greenfeld et al., 2020; Miličić et al., 2017). In both Australia
and Israel, only a minority of consumers stated they would buy aquaponic produce even after
being informed about the system and its benefits (Greenfeld et al., 2020). In the U.S., Short et al.
(2017) found Minnesota consumers to be generally neutral or favorable to aquaponics, but noted
that nearly two-thirds of respondents had not heard of aquaponics prior to the survey. After an
explanation of the aquaponics production process, these respondents tended to believe that
aquaponics can impact the environment in an environmentally-friendly way, but indicated that
they might be unwilling to purchase aquaponics products due to price and food safety concerns
(Short et al., 2017).
48
As the production technology of aquaponics is innovative and the industry relatively new,
the economic feasibility of large-scale commercial aquaponic systems in the U.S. is still uncertain
(Engle, 2015; Love et al., 2015). For the aquaponics industry to become a significant part of
global food production and deliver its environmental benefits, it must return a profit (Greenfeld et
al., 2019). Engle et al. (2015) notes that in order for an aquaponics operation to be profitable, it is
imperative that a niche market willing to pay a premium price be identified. However, consumer
knowledge is considered a precondition to establishing a favorable market segment and consumer
willingness to pay a premium price for the added value of a product (Zander et al., 2018).
Therefore, if consumers are to pay a premium for the added value associated with aquaponic
products, they must first be aware of the advantages of aquaponic production (Greenfeld et al.,
2019). This justifies the need for a greater examination of the understudied aspect of consumer
awareness and perceptions of aquaponics production.
Literature Cited
Alexander, K. A., Freeman, S., & Potts, T. (2016). Navigating uncertain waters: European public
perceptions of integrated multi trophic aquaculture (IMTA). Environmental Science &
Policy, 61, 230-237.
Altintzoglou, T., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., & Luten, J. (2010). The image of fish from
aquaculture among Europeans: impact of exposure to balanced information. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 19(2), 103-119.
Asche, F., & Smith, M. D. (2018). Induced innovation in fisheries and aquaculture. Food Policy, 76, 1-7.
Ashley, P. J. (2007). Fish welfare: current issues in aquaculture. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science, 104(3-4), 199-235.
Bacher, K. (2015). Perceptions and misconceptions of aquaculture: a global overview.
GLOBEFISH Research Programme, 120. FAO. Rome, Italy.
Badiola, M., Gartzia, I., Basurko, O. C., & Mendiola, D. (2017). Land‐based growth of Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar) and consumers’ acceptance. Aquaculture Research, 48(9),
4666-4683.
49
Badiola, M., Mendiola, D., & Bostock, J. (2012). Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS)
analysis: Main issues on management and future challenges. Aquacultural
Engineering, 51, 26-35.
Bandara, T. (2018). Alternative feed ingredients in aquaculture: Opportunities and
challenges. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 6(2), 3087-3094.
Barrington, K., Ridler, N., Chopin, T., Robinson, S., & Robinson, B. (2010). Social aspects of the
sustainability of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Aquaculture International, 18(2),
201-211.
Barroso, F. G., de Haro, C., Sánchez-Muros, M. J., Venegas, E., Martínez-Sánchez, A., & Pérez
Bañón, C. (2014). The potential of various insect species for use as food for
fish. Aquaculture, 422, 193-201.
Béné, C., Barange, M., Subasinghe, R., Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Merino, G., Hemre, G. I., &
Williams, M. (2015). Feeding 9 billion by 2050–Putting fish back on the menu. Food Security, 7(2), 261-274.
Blakemore, L., & Greuel Cook, R. (2020). Statement Regarding Executive Order 13921;
Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth. The Aquaponics
Association. https://aquaponicsassociation.org/news/aquaponics-association-statement-
on-aquaculture-executive-order
Bouwman, L., Goldewijk, K. K., Van Der Hoek, K. W., Beusen, A. H., Van Vuuren, D. P.,
Willems, J., ... & Stehfest, E. (2013). Exploring global changes in nitrogen and
phosphorus cycles in agriculture induced by livestock production over the 1900–2050
period. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(52), 20882-20887.
Boyd, C. E., & Schmittou, H. R. (1999). Achievement of sustainable aquaculture through
environmental management. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 3(1), 59-69.
Brander, K. M. (2007). Global fish production and climate change. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19709-19714.
Britwum, Kofi & Noblet, Caroline L. & Evans, Keith S. (2018). More Farms on The Water? U.S
Consumers’ Perceptions of Aquaculture Practices and Products. 2018 Annual Meeting,
August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273824, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
Bronnmann, J., & Asche, F. (2017). Sustainable seafood from aquaculture and wild fisheries:
Insights from a discrete choice experiment in Germany. Ecological Economics, 142,
113-119.
Brooker, M. (2015, October 28). Seafood Consumer Insights [Conference Presentation]. Global
Aquaculture Alliance 2015 GOAL Conference. Vancouver, BC.
Cabello, F. C. (2006). Heavy use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture: a growing problem
for human and animal health and for the environment. Environmental Microbiology, 8(7),
1137-1144.
50
Cai, J., Zhou, X., Yan, X., Lucente, D., & Lagana, C. (2019). Top 10 Species Groups in Global
Aquaculture 2017. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
Campbell, L. M., Boucquey, N., Stoll, J., Coppola, H., & Smith, M. D. (2014). From vegetable
box to seafood cooler: applying the community-supported agriculture model to
fisheries. Society & Natural Resources, 27(1), 88-106.
Carter, A., & Goldstein, M. (2019). American Aquaculture: An Overview of the Current Status,
Environmental Impacts, and Legislative Opportunities. Center for American Progress.
Washington, DC, USA.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2019/05/13/469730/american-
aquaculture/
Chu, J., Anderson, J. L., Asche, F., & Tudur, L. (2010). Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Aquaculture
and Implications for its Future: A Comparison of the USA and Norway. Marine Resource Economics, 25(1), 61-76.
Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Gartzia, I., Garcia-Quiroga, M., & Ginés, R. (2016). Does information
affect consumer liking of farmed and wild fish?. Aquaculture, 454, 157-162.
Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Ginés, R., Grau, A., Hernández, M. D., Aguirre, E., Peleteiro, J.B.,
Fernández-Pato, C., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C. (2014). Consumer beliefs regarding
farmed versus wild fish. Appetite, 79, 25-31.
Cowe, R., & Simon, W. (2000). Who are the ethical consumers? (pp. 2-21). Manchester:
Cooperative Bank.
Davidson, K., Pan, M., Hu, W., & Poerwanto, D. (2012). Consumers' willingness to pay for
aquaculture fish products vs. wild-caught seafood–a case study in Hawaii. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 16(2), 136-154.
DeLong, D. P., Losordo, T., & Rakocy, J. (2009). Tank culture of tilapia. SRAC Publication No.
282. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center.
Duff, J.A., T.S. Getchis, & P. Hoagland. (2003). A review of legal and policy constraints to
aquaculture in the US northeast. Aquaculture White Paper No. 5, NRAC Publication No.
03–005, Northeast Region Aquaculture Center, North Dartmouth, Massachusetts, USA.
Ellis, T., Turnbull, J. F., Knowles, T. G., Lines, J. A., & Auchterlonie, N. A. (2016). Trends
during development of Scottish salmon farming: An example of sustainable
intensification?. Aquaculture, 458, 82-99.
El-Sayed, A. F. M. (1999). Alternative dietary protein sources for farmed tilapia, Oreochromis
spp. Aquaculture, 179(1-4), 149-168.
Engle, C.R. (2015). Economics of Aquaponics. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center
(SRAC) Publication No. 5006.
51
Engle, C. R., & Stone, N. M. (2013). Competitiveness of US aquaculture within the current US
regulatory framework. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 17(3), 251-280.
Engle, C. R., Quagrainie, K. K., & Dey, M. M. (2016). Seafood and aquaculture marketing
handbook. John Wiley & Sons.
FAO. (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in Action.
Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en
Farmery, A. K., Gardner, C., Green, B. S., Jennings, S., & Watson, R. A. (2015). Domestic or
imported? An assessment of carbon footprints and sustainability of seafood consumed in
Australia. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 35-43.
Federal Register. (2020). Executive Order 13921. Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness
and Economic Growth. Federal Register, 85, 28471. Washington, DC, USA.
Feucht, Y., & Zander, K. (2015). Of earth ponds, flow-through and closed recirculation
systems—German consumers' understanding of sustainable aquaculture and its
communication. Aquaculture, 438, 151-158.
Fitzsimmons, K. (2000). Future trends of tilapia aquaculture in the Americas. In: Costa-Pierce,
B.A. & Rakocy, J.E. (Eds.), Tilapia Aquaculture in the Americas, 2, 252-264. The
World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States.
Fitzsimmons, K. (2017, February 22). Slowing sales of tilapia in the U.S.: why and what can be done to return to rapid growth [Conference Presentation]. Aquaculture America 2017.
San Antonio, Texas.
Folke, C., & Kautsky, N. (1992). Aquaculture with its environment: prospects for
sustainability. Ocean & Coastal Management, 17(1), 5-24.
Frankic, A., & Hershner, C. (2003). Sustainable aquaculture: developing the promise of
aquaculture. Aquaculture International, 11(6), 517-530.
Free, C. M., Thorson, J. T., Pinsky, M. L., Oken, K. L., Wiedenmann, J., & Jensen, O. P. (2019).
Impacts of historical warming on marine fisheries production. Science, 363(6430),
979-983.
Froehlich, H. E. (2019, May 27). It’s Time to Be Honest about Seafood. Observations, Scientific
American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/its-time-to-be-honest-about-
seafood/
Froehlich, H. E., Runge, C. A., Gentry, R. R., Gaines, S. D., & Halpern, B. S. (2018).
Comparative terrestrial feed and land use of an aquaculture-dominant world.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(20), 5295-5300.
52
Fry, J. P., Mailloux, N. A., Love, D. C., Milli, M. C., & Cao, L. (2018). Feed conversion
efficiency in aquaculture: do we measure it correctly?. Environmental Research
Letters, 13(2), 024017.
Goddek, S., Delaide, B., Mankasingh, U., Ragnarsdottir, K. V., Jijakli, H., & Thorarinsdottir, R.
(2015). Challenges of sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability, 7(4),
4199-4224.
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J.,
Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M., & Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: the challenge of
feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967), 812-818.
Goodman, E. R. (2011). Aquaponics: community and economic development (Master’s thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA). Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/67227
Greenfeld, A., Becker, N., Bornman, J. F., dos Santos, M. J., & Angel, D. (2020). Consumer
preferences for aquaponics: A comparative analysis of Australia and Israel. Journal of
Environmental Management, 257, 109979.
Greenfeld, A., Becker, N., McIlwain, J., Fotedar, R., & Bornman, J. F. (2019). Economically
viable aquaponics? Identifying the gap between potential and current
uncertainties. Reviews in Aquaculture, 11(3), 848-862.
Grimsrud, K. M., Nielsen, H. M., Navrud, S., & Olesen, I. (2013). Households' willingness-to-
pay for improved fish welfare in breeding programs for farmed Atlantic salmon.
Aquaculture, 372, 19-27.
Gutierrez, A., & Thornton, T. F. (2014). Can consumers understand sustainability through
seafood eco-labels? A US and UK case study. Sustainability, 6(11), 8195-8217.
Hall, T. E., & Amberg, S. M. (2013). Factors influencing consumption of farmed seafood
products in the Pacific northwest. Appetite, 66, 1-9.
Hamlish, N. (2018, September 7). Modern aquaculture deserves a better image. Global
Aquaculture Advocate, Global Aquaculture Alliance.
https://www.aquaculturealliance.org/blog/modern-aquaculture-deserves-better-public-
image/
Harper, G. C., & Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food production and
farm animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104, 287-299.
Herrero, M., Havlík, P., Valin, H., Notenbaert, A., Rufino, M. C., Thornton, P. K., ... &
Obersteiner, M. (2013). Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas
emissions from global livestock systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 110(52), 20888-20893.
53
Hilborn, R., Branch, T. A., Ernst, B., Magnusson, A., Minte-Vera, C. V., Scheuerell, M. D., &
Valero, J. L. (2003). State of the world’s fisheries. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, 28(1), 359-399.
Hinkes, C., & Schulze-Ehlers, B. (2018). Consumer attitudes and preferences towards pangasius
and tilapia: The role of sustainability certification and the country of origin. Appetite,
127,171-181.
Hishamunda, N., Ridler, N., Bueno, P., Satia, B., Juelmansan, B., Percy, D., Gooley, G., Brugere,
C., & Sen, S. (2012). Improving aquaculture governance: What is the status and
options? In Subasinghe, R.P., Arthur, J.S., Bantley, D.M., De Silva, S.S., Halwart,
M., Hishamunda, N., Mahan, C.V., & Sorgellos, P. (Eds.). Farming the Waters for People and Food (pp. 233 – 264). Proceedings of the Global Conference on Aquaculture
2010, Phuket, Thailand. September 22–25, 2010. FAO, Rome, and Network of
Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.
Hochman, G., Hochman, E., Naveh, N., & Zilberman, D. (2018). The synergy between
aquaculture and hydroponics technologies: The case of lettuce and
tilapia. Sustainability, 10(10), 3479.
Honkanen, P., & Olsen, S. O. (2009). Environmental and animal welfare issues in food choice:
The case of farmed fish. British Food Journal, 111(3), 293-309.
Honkanen, P., & Young, J. A. (2015). What determines British consumers’ motivation to buy
sustainable seafood?. British Food Journal, 117(4), 1289-1302.
Homziak, J., Buchanan, J., & Lewis, L. (1992). A Review of the Potential Environmental Effects
of Net Pen Aquaculture in the Northern Gulf of Mexico1. In Proc. Annu. Conf.
Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies (Vol. 46, pp. 440-452).
Huntingford, F. A., Adams, C., Braithwaite, V. A., Kadri, S., Pottinger, T. G., Sandøe, P., &
Turnbull, J. F. (2006). Current issues in fish welfare. Journal of Fish Biology, 68(2),
332-372.
Huntingford, F. A., & Kadri, S. (2009). Taking account of fish welfare: lessons from
aquaculture. Journal of Fish Biology, 75(10), 2862-2867.
Hurley, S.P. & Noel, J. (2006). An estimation of the regulatory cost on California agricultural
producers. Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, July,
2006, Long Beach, California, USA.
Huxley, T.H. (1883). Inaugural Address to the Fisheries Exhibition, London.
https://mathcs.clarku.edu/huxley/SM5/fish.html
Jacquet, J., Hocevar, J., Lai, S., Majluf, P., Pelletier, N., Pitcher, T., Sala, E., Sumaila, R., &
Pauly, D. (2010). Conserving wild fish in a sea of market-based efforts. Oryx, 44(1),
45-56.
54
Jacquet, J. L., & Pauly, D. (2007). The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of
collapsing fisheries. Marine Policy, 31(3), 308-313.
Jensen, Ø., Dempster, T., Thorstad, E. B., Uglem, I., & Fredheim, A. (2010). Escapes of fishes
from Norwegian sea-cage aquaculture: causes, consequences and prevention.
Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 1(1), 71-83.
Jodice, L. W., & Norman, W. C. (2020). Comparing importance and confidence for production
and source attributes of seafood among residents and tourists in South Carolina and
Florida coastal communities. Appetite, 146, 104510.
Jones, S. W., Karpol, A., Friedman, S., Maru, B. T., & Tracy, B. P. (2020). Recent advances in
single cell protein use as a feed ingredient in aquaculture. Current Opinion in
Biotechnology, 61, 189-197.
Junge, R., König, B., Villarroel, M., Komives, T., & Jijakli, M. H. (2017). Strategic points in
aquaponics. Water, 9(3),182.
Kearns, M. (2018, January 23). Debunking the bad news about tilapia. Seafood Source.
https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply-trade/debunking-the-bad-news-about-
tilapia
Klinger, D., & Naylor, R. (2012). Searching for solutions in aquaculture: charting a sustainable
course. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 247-276.
Knapp, G., & Rubino, M. C. (2016). The political economics of marine aquaculture in the United
States. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 24(3), 213-229.
Kramer, L. (2019, February 18). Can Americans’ perception of aquaculture change? Global Aquaculture Advocate, Global Aquaculture Alliance.
https://www.aquaculturealliance.org/advocate/can-americans-perception-of-aquaculture-
change/
Kramer, L. (2020, June 15). With executive order in hand, will USA get in the aquaculture
game? Global Aquaculture Advocate, Global Aquaculture Alliance.
https://www.aquaculturealliance.org/advocate/with-executive-order-in-hand-will-usa-get-
in-the-aquaculture-game/
Kupsala, S., Jokinen, P., & Vinnari, M. (2013). Who cares about farmed fish? Citizen perceptions
of the welfare and the mental abilities of fish. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics, 26(1), 119-135.
Lennard, W. (2009). Aquaponics: The integration of recirculating aquaculture and
hydroponics. World Aquaculture.
Lester, S. E., Gentry, R. R., Kappel, C. V., White, C., & Gaines, S. D. (2018). Opinion: Offshore
aquaculture in the United States: Untapped potential in need of smart policy. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(28), 7162-7165.
55
Little, D. C., Murray, F. J., Azim, E., Leschen, W., Boyd, K., Watterson, A., & Young, J. A.
(2008). Options for producing a warm-water fish in the UK: limits to “Green
Growth”?. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(5), 255-264.
Liu, C. (2010). The obstacles of outsourcing imported food safety to China. Cornell International
Law Journal, 43, 249-305.
Love, D. C., Fry, J. P., Li, X., Hill, E. S., Genello, L., Semmens, K., & Thompson, R. E. (2015).
Commercial aquaponics production and profitability: Findings from an international
survey. Aquaculture, 435, 67-74.
Love, D. C., Rodman, S., Neff, R. A., & Nachman, K. E. (2011). Veterinary drug residues in
seafood inspected by the European Union, United States, Canada, and Japan from 2000 to
2009. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(17), 7232-7240.
Martins, C. I. M., Eding, E. H., Verdegem, M. C., Heinsbroek, L. T., Schneider, O.,
Blancheton, J. P., Roque d’Orbcastel, E., & Verreth, J. A. J. (2010). New developments
in recirculating aquaculture systems in Europe: A perspective on environmental
sustainability. Aquacultural Engineering, 43(3), 83-93.
Masser, M. P., Rakocy, J., & Losordo, T. M. (1999). Recirculating aquaculture tank production
systems. Management of recirculating systems. SRAC Publication, 452. Southern
Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
Mauracher, C., Tempesta, T., & Vecchiato, D. (2013). Consumer preferences regarding the
introduction of new organic products. The case of the Mediterranean sea bass
(Dicentrarchus labrax) in Italy. Appetite, 63, 84-91.
Mazur, N. A., & Curtis, A. L. (2008). Understanding community perceptions of aquaculture:
lessons from Australia. Aquaculture International, 16(6), 601-621.
McClenachan, L., Dissanayake, S. T., & Chen, X. (2016). Fair trade fish: consumer support for
broader seafood sustainability. Fish and Fisheries, 17(3), 825-838.
McMurtry, M. R., Sanders, D. C., Cure, J. D., Hodson, R. G., Haning, B. C., & Amand, E. S.
(1997). Efficiency of water use of an integrated fish/vegetable co‐culture system. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 28(4), 420-428.
Meas, T., & Hu, W. (2014). Consumers’ willingness to pay for seafood attributes: A multi
species and multi-state comparison. Selected paper prepared for presentation at the
Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, February
1-4, 2014.
Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2012). A global assessment of the water footprint of farm
animal products. Ecosystems, 15(3), 401-415.
Miličić, V., Thorarinsdottir, R., Santos, M. D., & Hančič, M. T. (2017). Commercial aquaponics
approaching the European market: to consumers’ perceptions of aquaponics products in
Europe. Water, 9(2), 80.
56
Morley, J. W., Selden, R. L., Latour, R. J., Frölicher, T. L., Seagraves, R. J., & Pinsky, M. L.
(2018). Projecting shifts in thermal habitat for 686 species on the North American
continental shelf. PloS one, 13(5), e0196127.
Murray, M., Anthony, J. R., Noblet, C. L., & Rickard, L. (2017). 2017 National Aquaculture
Survey Results: Technical Report. The University of Maine, Sustainable Ecological Aquaculture Network (SEANET).
Murray, A. G., & Peeler, E. J. (2005). A framework for understanding the potential for emerging
diseases in aquaculture. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 67(2-3), 223-235.
National Fisheries Institute. (2018a). Top 10 List for Seafood Consumption.
https://www.aboutseafood.com/about/top-ten-list-for-seafood-consumption/.
National Fisheries Institute. (2018b). Tilapia Nutrition + 9 Things You Need to Know About
Tilapia. https://www.aboutseafood.com/tilapia-nutrition/.
National Marine Fisheries Service. (2020). Fisheries of the United States, 2018. U.S. Department
of Commerce NOAA Current Fishery Statistics No. 2018. Available at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/commercial-fishing/fisheries-united-states-2018
Naylor, R., and Burke, M. (2005). Aquaculture and ocean resources: raising tigers of the
sea. Annual Review Environmental Resources, 30, 185-218.
Naylor, R. L., Goldburg, R. J., Primavera, J. H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M. C., Clay, J., Folke,
C., Lubchenco, J., Mooney, H., & Troell, M. (2000). Effect of aquaculture on world fish
supplies. Nature, 405(6790), 1017-1024.
Naylor, R., Hindar, K., Fleming, I. A., Goldburg, R., Williams, S., Volpe, J., Whoriskey, F.,
Eagle, J., Kelso, D., & Mangel, M. (2005). Fugitive salmon: assessing the risks of escaped
fish from net-pen aquaculture. BioScience, 55(5), 427-437.
NOAA. (n.d.). Sustainable Seafood: The Global Picture. FishWatch U.S. Seafood Facts.
https://www.fishwatch.gov/sustainable-seafood/the-global-picture.
O’Dierno, L. J., Govindasamy, R., Puduri, V. S., Myers, J. J., & Islam, S. (2006). Consumer
perceptions and preferences for organic aquatic products: results from the telephone
survey. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers University Department of
Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics: 1–58.
Olesen, I., Alfnes, F., Røra, M. B., & Kolstad, K. (2010). Eliciting consumers' willingness to pay
for organic and welfare-labelled salmon in a non-hypothetical choice experiment.
Livestock Science, 127(2-3), 218-226.
Ortega, D. L., Wang, H. H., & Olynk Widmar, N. J. (2014). Aquaculture imports from Asia: an
analysis of US consumer demand for select food quality attributes. Agricultural
Economics, 45(5), 625-634.
57
Osmundsen, T. C., Almklov, P., & Tveterås, R. (2017). Fish farmers and regulators coping with
the wickedness of aquaculture. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 21(1), 163-183.
Palm, H. W., Knaus, U., Appelbaum, S., Goddek, S., Strauch, S. M., Vermeulen, T., ... & Kotzen,
B. (2018). Towards commercial aquaponics: a review of systems, designs, scales and
nomenclature. Aquaculture International, 26(3), 813-842.
Patillo, A. (2017). An Overview of Aquaponic Systems: Aquaculture Components. North Central
Regional Aquaculture Center, Technical Bulletin Series, 124, 1-18.
Piedrahita, R. H. (2003). Reducing the potential environmental impact of tank aquaculture
effluents through intensification and recirculation. Aquaculture, 226(1-4), 35-44.
Poloczanska, E. S., Brown, C. J., Sydeman, W. J., Kiessling, W., Schoeman, D. S., Moore, P. J.,
Brander, K., Bruno, J.F., Buckley, L.B., Burrows, M.T., Duarte, C.M., Halpern, B.S.,
Holding, J., Kappel, C.V., O’Connor, M.I., Pandolfi, J.M., Parmesan, C., Schwing, F.,
Thompson, S.A., & Richardson, A. J. (2013). Global imprint of climate change on marine
life. Nature Climate Change, 3(10), 919-925.
Popma, T., & Masser, M. (1999). Tilapia: Life History and Biology. SRAC Publication No.
283. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
Pullin, R. S. V. (1984). Tilapia – potentially an international food commodity. Infofish Marketing Digest, 3, 45-46.
Quagrainie, K., Hart, S., & Brown, P. (2008). Consumer acceptance of locally grown food: The
case of Indiana aquaculture products. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 12(1),
54-70.
Rinehart, Lee. (2019). Aquaponics – Multitrophic Systems for Sustainable Food Production.
ATTRA Sustainable Agriculture, National Center for Appropriate Technology, 1-22.
Risius, A., Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2017). Consumer preferences for sustainable aquaculture
products: Evidence from in-depth interviews, think aloud protocols and choice
experiments. Appetite, 113, 246-254.
Roheim, C. A., Asche, F., & Santos, J. I. (2011). The elusive price premium for ecolabelled
products: evidence from seafood in the UK market. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(3), 655-668.
Roheim, C. A., Sudhakaran, P. O., & Durham, C. A. (2012). Certification of shrimp and salmon
for best aquaculture practices: Assessing consumer preferences in Rhode
Island. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 16(3), 266-286.
Rose, L. (2020, April 6). A wider view: Consensus on seafood’s planetary and human health
benefits. Global Aquaculture Advocate, Global Aquaculture Alliance.
https://www.aquaculturealliance.org/advocate/a-wider-view-consensus-on-seafoods-
planetary-and-human-health-benefits/
58
Saraiva, J. L., Arechavala-Lopez, P., Castanheira, M. F., Volstorf, J., & Heinzpeter Studer, B.
(2019). A global assessment of welfare in farmed fishes: the FishEthoBase. Fishes, 4(30),
1-18.
Savidov, N. (2004). Evaluation and development of aquaponics production and product market
capabilities in Alberta. Crop Diversification Centre South, Alberta Agriculture, Food and
Rural Development.
Schlag, A. K. (2010). Aquaculture: an emerging issue for public concern. Journal of Risk Research, 13(7), 829-844.
Seafood Watch. (2018). Report: Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) in China ponds. Aquaculture
Standard Version A3.2 . Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch, 1-84.
Shamshak, G. L., Anderson, J. L., Asche, F., Garlock, T., & Love, D. C. (2019). US seafood
consumption. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 50(4), 715-727.
Shaw, B., Runge, K., Yang, S., Witzling, L., Hartleb, C., & Peroff, D. (2019). Consumer
Attitudes Toward Wisconsin Farm-Raised Fish: Public Opinion and Marketing
Recommendations. University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Extension.
Short, G., Yue, C., Anderson, N., Russell, C., & Phelps, N. (2017). Consumer perceptions of
aquaponic systems. HortTechnology, 27(3), 358-366.
Smart Garden Guide. (2019, September 26). What is aquaponics? All you need to know.
https://smartgardenguide.com/what-is-aquaponics-all-you-need-to-know/.
Solgaard, H. S., & Yang, Y. (2011). Consumers' perception of farmed fish and willingness to pay
for fish welfare. British Food Journal, 113(8), 997-1010.
Studer, B.H. (2018). Salmo salar Summary. In: FishEthosBase, ed. Fish Ethology and Welfare
Group. Electronic publication. Version 1.3. Fair-Fish International. Retrieved from
http://fishethobase.net/db/1/.
Summerfelt, S.T., & Vinci, B.J. (2008). Better management practices for recirculating systems.
In: Tucker, C.S., Hargreaves, J.A. (Eds.), Environmental Best Management
Practices for Aquaculture. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA, pp. 389–426.
Suresh, V., & Bhujel, R. C. (2012). Tilapias. Aquaculture: Farming Aquatic Animals and Plants,
(Ed. 2), 338-364.
Tacon, A. G. (2020). Trends in global aquaculture and aquafeed production: 2000–2017. Reviews
in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 28(1), 43-56.
Tacon, A. G., & Metian, M. (2008). Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in
industrially compounded aquafeeds: Trends and future prospects. Aquaculture, 285(1-4),
146-158.
59
Tamin, M., Harun, A., Estim, A., Saufie, S., & Obong, S. (2015). Consumer acceptance towards
aquaponic products. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 17(8),
49-64.
Thanh, L.H., & Chuong, P.H. (2010) .Vietnam’s aquaculture trade: Food safety and sanitation
issues. Case Study #10–12, Food policy for developing countries: The role of government
in the global food system. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Thomas, P., & Michael, M. (1999). Tilapia life history and biology. Publication 283. Southern
Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
Torrissen, O., Olsen, R. E., Toresen, R., Hemre, G. I., Tacon, A. G., Asche, F., Hardy, R.W., &
Lall, S. (2011). Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): the “super-chicken” of the sea?. Reviews
in Fisheries Science, 19(3), 257-278.
Turnsek, M., Joly, A., Thorarinsdottir, R., & Junge, R. (2020). Challenges of Commercial
Aquaponics in Europe: Beyond the Hype. Water, 12(1), 306.
Tyson, R. V., Treadwell, D. D., & Simonne, E. H. (2011). Opportunities and challenges to
sustainability in aquaponic systems. HortTechnology, 21(1), 6-13.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/423).
Vanhonacker, F., Altintzoglou, T., Luten, J., & Verbeke, W. (2011). Does fish origin matter to
European consumers? Insights from a consumer survey in Belgium, Norway and Spain.
British Food Journal, 113(4), 535–549.
van Osch, S., Hynes, S., Freeman, S., & O’Higgins, T. (2019). Estimating the public’s
preferences for sustainable aquaculture: A country comparison. Sustainability, 11(3),
569.
Verbeke, W., Sioen, I., Brunsø, K., De Henauw, S., & Van Camp, J. (2007a). Consumer
perception versus scientific evidence of farmed and wild fish: exploratory insights from
Belgium. Aquaculture International, 15(2), 121-136.
Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Sioen, I., Van Camp, J., & De Henauw, S. (2007b). Perceived
importance of sustainability and ethics related to fish: A consumer behavior
perspective. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36(7), 580-585.
Verbeke, W. A., & Viaene, J. (2000). Ethical challenges for livestock production: Meeting
consumer concerns about meat safety and animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 141-151.
Verdegem, M. C. (2013). Nutrient discharge from aquaculture operations in function of system
design and production environment. Reviews in Aquaculture, 5(3), 158-171.
Verdegem, M. C. J., Bosma, R. H., & Verreth, J. A. J. (2006). Reducing water use for animal
production through aquaculture. Water Resources Development, 22(1), 101-113.
60
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer
“attitude–behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics, 19(2), 169-194.
Vitell, S. J., Singhapakdi, A., & Thomas, J. (2001). Consumer ethics: an application and
empirical testing of the Hunt‐Vitell theory of ethics. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(2), 153-178.
Wang, H. H., Zhang, X., Ortega, D. L., & Widmar, N. J. O. (2013). Information on food safety,
consumer preference and behavior: The case of seafood in the US. Food Control, 33(1),
293-300.
Watanabe, W. O., Losordo, T. M., Fitzsimmons, K., & Hanley, F. (2002). Tilapia production
systems in the Americas: technological advances, trends, and challenges. Reviews in
Fisheries Science, 10(3-4), 465-498.
Weaver, K. L., Ivester, P., Chilton, J. A., Wilson, M. D., Pandey, P., & Chilton, F. H. (2008). The
content of favorable and unfavorable polyunsaturated fatty acids found in commonly
eaten fish. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 108(7), 1178-1185.
Weitzman, J., & Bailey, M. (2018). Perceptions of aquaculture ecolabels: A multi-stakeholder
approach in Nova Scotia, Canada. Marine Policy, 87, 12-22.
White, K., O’Neill, B.N., Tzankova, Z. (2004). At a crossroads: will aquaculture fulfill the
promise of the blue revolution? Report. SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse,
Washington, DC.
Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., ... & Murray,
C.J. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets
from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447-492.
Witkin, T., Dissanayake, S. T., & McClenachan, L. (2015). Opportunities and barriers for
fisheries diversification: Consumer choice in New England. Fisheries Research, 168,
56-62.
Wongkiew, S., Hu, Z., Chandran, K., Lee, J. W., & Khanal, S. K. (2017). Nitrogen
transformations in aquaponic systems: A review. Aquacultural Engineering, 76, 9-19.
Young, J. A., Brugere, C., & Muir, J. F. (1999). Green grow the fishes‐oh? Environmental
attributes in marketing aquaculture products. Aquaculture Economics &
Management, 3(1), 7-17.
Young, J.A., Grady, K., Little, D.C; Watterston, A., and Murray, F. (2006). Multidisciplinary
Perspectives on an Emergent Fish Product: the tank of British tilapia. In Proceedings of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade 2006 Conference.
University of Portsmouth, UK.
61
Yue, G. H., Lin, H. R., & Li, J. L. (2016). Tilapia is the fish for next-generation aquaculture.
International Journal of Marine Science and Ocean Technology, 3(1), 11-13.
Zajdband, A. (2012). Farmed Tilapia United States Closed recirculating systems. Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch, 1-43.
Zander, K., Risius, A., Feucht, Y., Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2018). Sustainable aquaculture
products: implications of consumer awareness and of consumer preferences for promising
market communication in Germany. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 27(1),
5-20.
Zugravu, A. D., Rahoveanu, M. M. T., Rahoveanu, A. T., Khalel, M. S., & Ibrahim, M. A. R.
(2016). The perception of aquapon- ics products in Romania. Proceeding of the
International Conference on “Risk in Contemporary Economy” XVIIth Edition, 2016,
Galati, Romania.
62
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter introduces the methodology that was used in this study, including sample
design, survey design and data collection, the measures used, and an overview of the data
cleaning and statistical procedures employed. The research instrument that was developed and
implemented for this study was an electronic questionnaire through which self-reported data were
collected from participants. An online panel of Florida citizens were surveyed about their fish
consumption preferences and behavior as well as their perceptions and knowledge about
aquaculture in general and tilapia more specifically. Data was collected with the assistance of
Qualtrics Research Services over a period of approximately four weeks (June-July 2020). Data
were analyzed using SPSS version 26.0. This chapter describes the measures used in this study,
and results of statistical analyses are presented and discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. Data presented
in this chapter reflect that of the entire respondent sample including all useable responses. The
methodologies presented in this chapter were used to study the research questions that were
presented on page 6.
Survey Instrumentation
The instrument used for data collection in this study was an online survey questionnaire
that was administered electronically via Qualtrics Research Services. There are both advantages
and disadvantages to conducting online survey research. A number of advantages to online
questionnaires include, but are not limited to, the ability to quickly contact and survey individuals
in distant locations, and the efficiency and convenience of automated data collection and data
entry, which saves time and effort on the researcher’s behalf (Wright, 2005). Despite the benefits
and ease associated with online consumer questionnaires, some disadvantages to online survey
63
research include: uncertainty over the validity of the data and any sampling issues that arise and
concerns around the design, implementation, and evaluation of the survey (Wright, 2005), and the
inability to reach parts of the population with limited or no internet access and those who are
computer illiterate (Fricker and Schonlau, 2002). Additionally, as with all self-reported data
collection, researchers conducting online surveys, even with third party services, cannot always
guarantee that participants respond accurately to questions, regarding their demographics, or that
their responses represent their true feelings about the content of the survey. However, for the
purpose of addressing the research goals of this study, and in order to investigate our sample of
interest in a timely manner, an online questionnaire was thought to be the most suitable approach
and is well accepted in the decision of marketing research (Ilieva et al., 2002).
The online survey instrument included 46 questions and required approximately 20
minutes on average to complete. For a full version of the survey instrument, see Appendix A.
Sample Design
Florida citizens over the age of 18 were chosen as the targeted population for this study
for several reasons. First, Florida is a coastal state that has historically held a strong fishing
culture and fish consumption tradition; therefore, Floridians are likely to have greater exposure
and formed opinions and preferences around fish than consumers in other regions. Secondly,
Florida is a top state in terms of aquaculture facilities and sales of aquaculture products; more
specifically, Florida is home to the largest number of tilapia farms of any state in the U.S., as well
the most recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) and aquaponic systems of any other state
(USDA, 2019). Evaluating Florida consumers’ knowledge and perceptions of this type of
aquaculture can provide insights to the industry in terms of where knowledge gaps exist and
where marketing efforts would be most successful. An additional motivation for targeting
Floridians for this research is due to the push for aquaculture that is currently happening within
64
the state. Waters off the coasts of Florida are currently being considered by the industry and
government agencies and officials for potential offshore aquaculture development. There are
currently two proposals for offshore aquaculture operations in federal waters off the Florida coast
in the Gulf of Mexico. The publicity that these proposed facilities have received may have
sparked a discourse about aquaculture and helped to form Floridians’ opinions of it, which could
be drawn out from this research study.
The Qualtrics web survey service was used to collect panel responses from 725
households based on a quota sampling procedure that was implemented for gender, age, and race
(95% CI and a 5% margin of error). The survey had a 68.6% completion rate, which indicates that
there were some people who quit the survey prior to completion which could introduce potential
response bias to the data. For opt-in web surveys, a completion rate is considered comparable to a
response rate in mail surveys (Callegaro and DiSogra, 2008). When compared to the most recent
U.S. Census for the Florida population, respondents were fairly representative of the general
population in regards to gender, age, and race (Table 3-1). There was no more than a 5%
difference among the survey sample and the population census.
65
Data Collection
Administration of Survey and Data Quality Validation
The online questionnaire used for data collection in this study was prepared by the
investigators, but was then administered by a third-party commercial survey and market research
platform Qualtrics. Approval by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was granted prior to survey
distribution. A team within Qualtrics’ Research Services department distributed the survey
electronically to an existing pool of potential participants that had previously agreed to be
solicited for survey recruitment. All participant recruitment and communications were conducted
Table 3-1: Demographic characteristics of survey respondents (N = 656) compared to 2018 Florida
Census data.
Survey Sample (%) Population Census (%)
Gender
Female 49.4 48.8
Male 50.6 51.2
Age
18-44 38.3 40.0
45-64 34.0 34.0
65 and over 27.7 26.0
Race/Ethnicity
White 54.0 53.3
Black or African American 14.8 15.3
Hispanic or Latino 26.1 26.1
Other 5.1 6.3
Annual Household Income
< $20,000 12.3
$20,000 to $34,999 19.1
$35,000 to $49,999 16.6
$50,000 to $74,999 21.5
$75,000 to $99,999 13.4
≥ $100,000 17.1
Education Level
High school degree or less 20.0
Some college (no degree) 24.5
Associate or bachelor’s degree 41.5
Postgraduate degree 14.0
66
by Qualtrics’ Research Services; the investigators had no contact with participants themselves
and all participant information (i.e., name, email address) was kept confidential. The Qualtrics
team targeted their recruitment efforts based on a demographics quota sampling procedure set in
collaboration with the researchers to request information from a sample that was representative of
the Florida population. Potential participants who were likely to qualify, based on their reported
demographic characteristics of gender, age, and race, were contacted electronically and invited to
participate in the survey through a link that would direct them to the study’s consent page and the
survey instrument. Any panelists who provided a response that did not meet the inclusion criteria
set by the researchers in accordance with Qualtrics, or that exceeded set quotas for a particular
demographic category, were immediately redirected out of the survey and their responses were
not recorded as a validated response.
To ensure data of high-quality, Qualtrics enabled two quality checks to screen out
respondents who were not providing their best effort towards completion of the questionnaire. At
the onset of the questionnaire, respondents were asked a commitment question that required they
commit to providing their best and most honest answers throughout the study: “Do you commit to
providing your thoughtful and best answers to the questions in this survey?” Respondents were
required to respond “I will provide my best answers” before they were permitted to proceed with
the survey. Additionally, a speed check feature was implemented in which respondents with a
survey duration of less than one-half of the median duration of the survey (median = 11 mins)
were flagged as an indicator of potentially poor-quality data. Respondents who attempted to take
the survey in less than 5.5 minutes were not eligible to complete the survey and their responses
were not recorded in the total validated project sample size.
Qualtrics filtered validated respondents (“Good Completes”) from those respondents who
were screened out of the survey due to failing a data quality check or because a participant’s
demographic characteristics matched quotas that had already been filled. After quality checks
67
were implemented and respondents were appropriately filtered, the total number of “Good
Completes” recorded for the project was N = 725.
Response data from these 725 participants were then quality checked by the researchers
to ensure accuracy of data prior to coding and analysis. Upon completion of data collection,
survey responses were exported automatically into both an Excel and SPSS spreadsheet. Data
cleaning was performed to ensure the final database consisted of precise and high-quality
responses. During this process, a straight-lining response indicator was created by computing the
variance of respondents’ answers to 4 key construct variables in the dataset. If respondents
consistently selected the same response across grouped items in a construct set, the variance for
the respondent was 0, and thus they were flagged for potential straight-lining behavior on that
construct; these cases were recoded as “1”. An overall straight-lining variable was then created by
summing together the recoded response variance from each respondent across the 4 selected
constructs. If respondents straight-lined across all four scales, their case was marked as a “4”; if 3
scales were straight-lined, the case became a “3”, etc. Those with a high score (3 or 4) on this
indicator variable were assumed to have straight-lined throughout the survey, which was thereby
indicative of poor quality data. These respondents were removed from the dataset prior to further
analyses. The data cleaning process also involved checking for other abnormalities including
inconsistent responses and missing data. In total, 69 respondents were removed during data
cleaning procedures, bringing the total usable sample to N = 656. Recoding of certain variables
for statistical purposes was also carried out prior to further analyses.
Research Timeline
Following the development of the survey instrument, a period of survey pretesting was
conducted to validate new measurement scales that were designed specifically for this research
and to uncover any problems with survey questions or items prior to data collection. The data was
68
then collected over a period of approximately four weeks from late June 2020 to late July 2020.
Once our targeted sample size was reached after this four-week period, the online questionnaire
was deactivated. Although online surveys generally allow samples to be acquired in a relatively
short amount of time compared to traditional sampling methods, we speculate that sampling took
longer than expected due to the quota requests that were set to obtain a sample representative of
the Florida population. The total number of responses achieved was 725. After removing
unsatisfactory responses that were flagged with additional quality check indicators set by the
researchers, the total usable sample consisted of 656 cases. A timeline related to the data
collection process and other research events is provided in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Timeline of research events.
October 2019 –
January 2020 • Research ideas were discussed with thesis
committee and a research plan was constructed
February – March
2020
• Survey instrument was developed
• Appropriate documents and protocols were
completed and submitted to the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) for review and approval
April – early June
2020
• Survey pretesting was conducted
• Documents provided to IRB were approved and
IRB determined the research project to be exempt
from formal review
• Findings and comments from survey pretesting
were reviewed and appropriate changes were made
to the survey instrument
June 26th, 2020 • Data collection began
July 23rd, 2020 • Data collection was completed and data was
exported into an SPSS database
August – October
2020
• Data was cleaned and analyzed, and findings were
compiled into thesis format
• Thesis draft was submitted to the Graduate School
for format review
November 2020 –
February 2021 • Thesis writing
March 2021 • Thesis defense and final thesis submission to the
Graduate School
69
Measures
The measures included in this study are summarized below. The foundation for these
measures is established in the literature and is reported. Scales that were adapted from previous
research are also reported here and in the Data Dictionary in Appendix B. Original scales created
for this study are also noted as such. Each measurement scale and its respective items are drawn
from the survey (see Appendix A) and also listed in the Data Dictionary in Appendix B and in
Appendix C, which catalogs the recorded frequencies of each survey item. In most cases,
individual items in each measure were averaged to create an overall mean value to represent a
construct. Before developing aggregated composite variables for each scale, individual item
variables were coded such that high values corresponded to high levels of the construct (i.e., a
high score on a perception scale item represents a stronger opinion towards that item). Construct
reliabilities are reported as Cronbach’s alpha values in Chapters 4 and 5 as well as in the Data
Dictionary in Appendix B. The Data Dictionary provides information concerning the key
constructs and items used in this study, as well as a description of the variables that were created
for data analyses.
Independent Variables and Consumer Segmenting Variables
Fish Consumption Frequencies and Fish Preferences
Overall Fish Consumption
Overall fish consumption was measured through a self-reported consumption frequency
question asking respondents at the onset of the survey: “How often do you purchase fish?”. The
response options for this multiple-choice question were as follows: often (e.g., every week or
two), sometimes (e.g., every few months), rarely (e.g., once a year), or never. If respondents
answer that they “rarely” (2) or “never” (1) purchase fish, they were then asked to indicate their
70
level of agreement with statements regarding their reasons for not regularly consuming fish (e.g.,
they dislike the tase of fish, they are allergic or have diet restrictions, etc.). If participants respond
that they “sometimes” (3) or “often” (4) purchase fish, they are then asked a set of questions
about the type of fish they most often consume (i.e., wild-caught marine/saltwater fish, wild-
caught freshwater fish, or farm-raised fish; see detailed response format below). Using responses
to a frequency Likert scale question format, participants were also categorized as frequent or
infrequent fish consumers. Respondents who purchased fish “often” or “sometimes” were
considered to be frequent fish consumers (coded as 2), and those who purchased fish “rarely” or
“never” were considered infrequent fish consumers (coded as 1).
Wild-caught Fish Consumption
Wild-caught fish consumption frequency was measured using two questions; the first was
in regard to consumption of wild fish from marine/saltwater environments, while the second
asked about freshwater fish consumption. As a proxy for the amount of wild-caught fish in an
individual’s diet, these questions asked the participant to report how often they consume both
wild-caught marine and freshwater fish out of their total fish consumption. These questions also
provided a short list of fish species that are popular types of fish in each group as examples for
the respondent to refer to. These consumption frequencies were measured with a five-point
Likert-type response format that ranged from never (1) to always (5). An additional opt-out
response option (“unsure”) was provided for those respondents who are unaware of the type of
fish they most commonly consume. For data analysis, the variables measuring wild-caught fish
consumption frequency were recoded into a categorical variable with two groups; respondents
who consumed wild-caught fish “always”, “often”, or “occasionally” were considered frequent
consumers (coded as 2) and those who responded “rarely” or “never” were considered infrequent
consumers (coded as 1). Dummy variables were then created for each of these categories for use
71
in the regression analyses in Chapter 4. A description of these variables can be found in the Data
Dictionary in Appendix B.
Farm-raised Fish Consumption
Farm-raised fish consumption frequency was measured in the same way as wild-caught
fish consumption. Participants were asked “Of your total fish consumption, how often do you
choose farm-raised fish (e.g., tilapia, Atlantic salmon, catfish, striped bass, etc.)?”. This measure
was assessed with a five-point Likert-type response format that ranged from never (1) to always
(5). A sixth response option of “unsure” was also provided. For data analysis, the variable
measuring farmed fish consumption frequency was recoded into a categorical variable with two
groups; for the purpose of this study, respondents who consumed farmed fish “always”, “often”,
or “occasionally” were considered frequent consumers (coded as 2) and those who responded
“rarely” or “never” were considered infrequent consumers (coded as 1). Dummy variables were
then created for each of these categories for use in the regression analyses in Chapter 4. A
description of these variables can be found in the Data Dictionary in Appendix B.
Fish Preferences
Consumers’ fish preferences were assessed using a five-point Likert type scale measuring
the importance consumers attach to particular factors when considering whether to purchase a
fish. Respondents were asked to reflect how important several factors are to them when they are
choosing a fish to purchase: freshness, nutritional value, price, familiarity, geographic origin
(where the fish is sourced), production origin (wild or farmed), sustainability labeling, and
quality/food safety labeling. Importance of the above attributes of a fish in choosing which fish to
purchase were measured on a five-point importance scale ranging from “not at all important” (1)
to “extremely important” (5). Previous studies have established these attributes as being
important to consumers’ fish purchasing behavior (Claret et al., 2012; Claret et al., 2016; Hall and
72
Amberg, 2013; Pieniak et al., 2013; Risius et al., 2017; Verbeke et al., 2007; Wessells et al.,
1999).
Consumer Values
Importance of Sustainable and Ethical Sourcing
Consumers have become increasingly aware of environmental and ethical issues
associated with products on the market in recent decades, and the impacts of aquaculture
practices to produce fish and other seafood are no exception (Young et al., 1999). The importance
consumers attach to environmental and ethical attributes of a good were briefly assessed in this
study. Specifically, the consumer value of sourcing fish sustainably and ethically was measured
with a scale adjusted from Honkanen and Olsen (2009), who adapted their measure of consumer
concern about fish welfare and environmental concern from Lindeman and Väänänen (2000).
The scale used in Honkanen and Olsen (2009) consisted of five items and was measured from 1 =
Not important to 7 = Very important; their reported Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86, indicating high
internal consistency in the scale items measuring consumer concern about the environment and
fish welfare. The adapted measurement scale used in this study condensed the five-item scale
from Honkanen and Olsen (2009) into only three items. Respondents were asked to indicate, on a
scale of 1 = Not at all important to 5 = Extremely important, how important to them the following
aspects are in the fish they eat: “The fish has been caught or farmed in an environmentally-
friendly way,” “The fish has not been threatened by overfishing and loss of species on the verge
of extinction,” and “The fish has been caught and farmed with its welfare in mind.” An overall
construct variable was created for importance of sustainable and ethical sourcing of fish; the
coefficient alpha of this three-item measure was α = 0.86 (N = 567).
73
Importance of Local Sourcing
In addition to environmental and sustainability values, participants were also asked about
the importance they attach to sourcing products locally. Participants responded to five items on a
five-point scale ranging from “Not at all important” (1) to “Extremely important” (5). Participants
were asked, in their opinion, how important it is to “purchase and consume locally-produced
foods,” “support the local/United States economy,” “support local farmers and/or fishermen,”
“purchase local products to reduce your environmental footprint,” and “buy foods that support
your region’s cultural traditions.” The five-item scale measuring importance of local sourcing
was created new for this study; the coefficient alpha was α = 0.85 (N = 656). This section of the
questionnaire regarding consumer value in sourcing locally-produced goods was motivated by
research examining the rising popularity of the local foods movement in the United States, and
informed by growing literature around evolving consumer preferences for local fish and other
foods (Hinkes and Schulze-Ehlers, 2018; Meas and Hu, 2014; Quagrainie et al., 2008; Witkin et
al., 2015).
Objective Knowledge Constructs
The knowledge constructs designed for this study allowed us to measure two things.
First, we were able to assess which respondents were farm-raised fish and aquaculture informed
(i.e., respondents who know the facts around aquaculture) and which respondents were
uninformed (i.e., lack awareness of aquaculture). Secondly, we were able to evaluate and
distinguish between participants who know the truth about farm-raised fish and aquaculture
topics, and those who are misinformed or have mixed information about the facts. Two separate
analyses were run for each of these investigations into consumer knowledge.
The first knowledge analysis separated informed respondents from uninformed
respondents using a recode process that focused on whether respondents were correctly informed
74
about knowledge statements. If the statement was true (i.e., not reverse-worded) and respondents
answered that they “agreed” (4) or “strongly agreed” (5) with it, they were considered to be
informed (coded as 1); if they responded with “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) or “neither
agree nor disagree” (3), they were considered uninformed (coded as 0). If items were reverse-
worded (i.e., “false”), a response of “strongly disagree” (1) and “disagree” (2) meant the
respondent was informed. Participants were also given the option to respond with “I don’t know”
if they were unfamiliar with the subject matter; this response was also coded in the uninformed
group (0). After recoding the responses, each individual’s level of knowledge (informed or
uninformed) was calculated by averaging the number of correct answers across all of the
knowledge statements in the scale; this gave us the total percent correctly answered for each
individual.
The second knowledge analysis permitted us to understand the level of misinformation
that is associated with aquaculture and farm-raised fish. For this analysis, a Cronbach’s alpha was
calculated for each knowledge scale to test whether the items were reliable for separating
respondents who knew true facts (i.e., were correctly informed) from respondents who are
misinformed or have mixed information about the topic. In other words, this analysis allowed us
to measure where respondents fall on a knowledge spectrum; misinformed individuals (i.e., those
who have misconceptions) are situated on the low end of the knowledge spectrum while those
who are correctly informed lie on the high end of the spectrum. In this analysis, a response of “I
don’t know” on the knowledge statements is indicative of having no knowledge and is reported
separately from the scores on the misinformed knowledge spectrum. In other words, the
misinformation knowledge analysis only included observations from respondents who did not
respond with “I don’t know” to any of the statements included in the knowledge scales, however
results were framed in the context of the total sample which included the proportion of
participants who responded “I don’t know” as a separate “uninformed” group. To begin to
75
classify respondents on the spectrum of misinformed to correctly informed, an individual’s
overall score was computed for each knowledge scale by summing the number coding associated
with each of their responses. The lowest and highest scores possible were based on how many
statements were included in the scale. As an example, a scale that included 6 statements with 5
total response options, the lowest possible score was 6 (if all responses were “1”) and the highest
possible score was 30 (if all responses were “5”). From here, three groups were designated as
misinformed (score between 6 and 14), mixed informed (score between 15 and 21), and correctly
informed (score between 22 and 30) respondents and subsequently classified respondents into
knowledge categories based on their total score on the scale. The range of scores for these groups
were formed through a basic grouping calculation; following the example above, the range of
scores were calculated and grouped based on the following calculation: (1*6) = 6 to (5*6) = 30,
(30-6)/3 groups = 8, meaning overall aggregated scores were categorized into groups of 8 on
average (6 to 14, 15 to 21, and 22 to 30).
Knowledge of Fish Origin
Data regarding consumers’ level of objective knowledge related to fish origin were
gathered using true factual statements in which respondents were asked to indicate, on a five-
point Likert-type scale, how strongly they agree or disagree with each item. The six statements
included in this scale were concerning global aquaculture production and the United States’ fish
supply. The statements created for this scale were based on public information published by
NOAA’s Fish Watch program (NOAA, n.d.) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO, 2020). Two of the statements used in our knowledge scale were adapted
from Pieniak et al. (2013), who measured fish and aquaculture knowledge using a “true”/”false”
scale: “Over half the fish we consume is farm-raised,” and “Over 80 percent of the fish consumed
in the U.S. is imported from other countries.” All items on this measure were true statements;
76
therefore, responses of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) were considered correct. An
aggregated scale of objective knowledge of fish origin was computed; the coefficient alpha for
this six-item measure was α = 0.75 (N = 298 with “IDK” respondents excluded).
Knowledge of Sustainable Aquaculture
Consumer knowledge of sustainable aquaculture was assessed through a measure that
consisted of ten items concerning aspects of environmentally sustainable aquaculture. Participants
were asked: “How strongly do you agree with the following criteria in defining environmentally
sustainable aquaculture?”. Similar to Zander and Feucht’s (2018) assessment of consumers’
perception and understanding of sustainability in aquaculture, this measure provided respondents
with a list of potentially sustainable qualities of aquaculture and asked them to specify how
strongly they agree or disagree that the criteria is a defining component of the sustainable
aquaculture concept. A five-point Likert-type scale response format was used, with possible
responses ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). Sample criteria include:
“Conserves land and water,” “Minimizes pollution,” and “Minimizes impact on wild fish
populations.” Three of the items included in the measure were reverse-worded: “Requires a lot of
energy,” “Uses a large amount of wild fish for feed,” and “Uses excessive amounts of chemicals.”
These items were included to gauge whether consumers are aware of some of the more peripheral
yet significant aspects of environmentally unsustainable aquaculture. However, these items were
ultimately removed from the measure as it seemed that participants did not recognize the reversed
wording; individuals’ responses on these three items were not dissimilar to items that were
worded in a straightforward manner. The Cronbach’s alpha for the remaining seven-item
knowledge of sustainable aquaculture measure was α = 0.88 (N = 449 with “IDK” respondents
excluded).
77
Knowledge of Tilapia
Knowledge of tilapia was evaluated using factual statements regarding both sustainable
aspects of tilapia aquaculture and tilapia production in the United States. Again, consumers were
asked to how strongly they agree or disagree with statements provided on a five-point agreement
scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). The measure used to assess
knowledge of tilapia was developed specifically for this study. All items were informed by the
literature around the life history and biology of tilapia as well as aspects that are customary of
tilapia aquaculture production in the United States. Nine items were originally created for this
measure, but the final scale was reduced to six statements: “Tilapia can be raised with less
environmental impact than many other fish species,” “Tilapia are hardy and disease resistant
compared to other fish,” “Tilapia can thrive on a primarily plant-based diet,” “When raised in
land-based tank systems, tilapia are a sustainable fish,” “Tilapia aquaculture in the United States
is more environmentally friendly than most tilapia aquaculture in Asia,” and “Tilapia aquaculture
in the United States is strictly regulated to ensure food safety and environmental health.” Three
additional items that were initially to be used in this scale were reverse-worded, however
consumers did not appear to distinguish these statements from the others, with similar responses
recorded for these statements compared to the items that were phrased straightforwardly.
Therefore, the reversed items were removed, which reduced the scale to a total of six items. The
coefficient alpha calculated for this six-item measure of knowledge of tilapia was α = 0.82 (N =
286 with “IDK” respondents excluded).
Subjective Perception Constructs
Perceptions of Aquaculture Benefits
Perceptions of aquaculture benefits were assessed using a modification of a scale used in
Hall and Amberg (2013), who studied Pacific northwest (U.S.) consumers’ beliefs and attitudes
78
specific to aquaculture. This original measure of beliefs about aquaculture benefits included six
items; however, only four were used for the purpose of this study based on complications
uncovered during survey pretesting. An example of the items include: “Aquaculture provides a
consistent, affordable product,” and “Aquaculture is a good way to relieve pressure on wild fish
populations.” An additional item used in our measure was adapted from Britwum et al. (2018),
who also used the items published in Hall and Amberg (2013) to measure perceptions of
aquaculture. This item was “The aquaculture industry supports U.S. communities economically
by providing a source of local jobs.” These items were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale
that ranged from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). The Cronbach’s alpha reported
by Hall and Amberg (2013) was 0.78. The Cronbach’s alpha for this five-item measure
perceptions of aquaculture benefits measure was 0.84 (N = 656).
Perceptions of Aquaculture Concerns
Perceptions of aquaculture concerns were also measured using an adjustment made to a
scale from Hall and Amberg (2013). Hall and Amberg’s (2013) measure of commonly-held
beliefs about aquaculture problems included seven items, but only four were chosen to be
incorporated into the perceptions of aquaculture concerns measure used in this study; the three
other statements were instead incorporated into the perceptions of farmed fish measure described
below. Sample items in this perceptions of aquaculture concerns scale include: “Aquaculture has
the same problems as some types of land-based agriculture,” and “Crowded conditions on fish
farms are bad for the fish.” An additional item was adapted from Honkanen and Olsen (2009) and
included in this measure: “Aquaculture negatively impacts wild fish populations.” These five
items were assessed on a five-point Likert-type response scale that ranged from “strongly
disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). The Cronbach’s alpha reported by Hall and Amberg (2013)
79
for their seven-item measure of beliefs about aquaculture problems was 0.81. The Cronbach’s
alpha for the five-item measure used in this study was 0.75 (N = 656).
Perceptions of Farmed Fish
Perceptions of farmed fish were measured by asking respondents to indicate how strongly
they agree with statements comparing farm-raised fish quality to that of wild-caught fish. The
respondents were asked: In your opinion, how strongly do you agree that farm-raised fish… “are
more flavorful than wild-caught fish,” “are higher in quality than wild-caught fish,” “are safer to
eat than wild-caught fish,” “have less contamination than wild-caught fish,” “are exposed to more
pests and diseases than wild-caught fish,” and “are raised in a cleaner, healthier environment than
wild-caught fish.” The item “are exposed to more pests and diseases than wild-caught fish” was
reverse worded and coded accordingly (i.e., “strongly agree” = 1 and “strongly disagree” = 5).
This measure consisted of five items that were adjusted from Hall and Amberg (2013), two of
which were used by the authors to measure opinions of the relative quality of farmed versus wild
seafood and three that were included in their measure of beliefs about aquaculture problems (i.e.,
the three items that were not included in this study’s measure of perceptions of aquaculture
concerns). The sixth item included in this scale was adapted from an item used in Britwum et al.’s
(2018) measure of perceptions of aquaculture products: “Farm-raised seafood is safer to eat than
wild-caught seafood.” The coefficient alpha for this study’s six-item measure of perceptions of
farmed fish was 0.83 (N = 656).
Perceptions of Tilapia
The measure used to assess consumer perceptions of tilapia was developed specifically
for this study. Consumers were asked to rate farm-raised tilapia on six attributes: nutritious,
flavorful, safe to eat, environmentally friendly, clean, and affordable. Respondents rated each
attribute using a star rating system with half-step increments; the lowest perception score possible
80
for any attribute was 0.5 stars, while the highest possible score was 5 stars. For this question,
respondents would hover their pointer over the whole or half star rating they wished to choose
and were only required to click once to record their rating. The scores on each attribute were then
averaged across individuals to create an aggregated construct variable representing overall
individual perception of tilapia. The attributes of interest were chosen based on literature around
determinants of consumers’ seafood choices (Claret et al., 2014), as well as commonly held
concerns and misconceptions about tilapia that have been raised in popular media and clickbait
articles regarding its cleanliness and food safety concerns. The coefficient alpha for this six-item
perceptions of tilapia measure was α = 0.91 (N = 656).
Dependent Variables
Perceptions of Aquaponic Benefits
As a measure of support of aquaponics production, respondents’ perceptions of
aquaponics benefits was assessed using a five-point Likert type agreement scale. All survey
participants were provided with a brief description of aquaponics prior to this question as we
assumed the concept of this innovative system would not be familiar amongst participants (see
the survey in Appendix A for the description of aquaponics shown to respondents). Following the
description, perceptions of aquaponics benefits was investigated with ten items; the coefficient
alpha for the aggregated measure was α = 0.92 (N = 656). Respondents were given a list of items
regarding potential benefits of aquaponics and were asked how strongly they agreed that
aquaponics has the potential to achieve each benefit. This list of benefits was adapted from
Alexander et al. (2016) who measured the European public’s perceptions of the benefits of
integrated multi-trophic aquaculture, another sustainable form of aquaculture that integrates the
farming of multiple aquatic species from different trophic levels. Similar to these researchers’
81
measures, the items used in this study were in regard to potential environmental and societal
benefits of aquaponics.
Intent to Consume Aquaponics Products
Modified from statements measuring consumer attitudes of aquaponics products in
Miličić et al. (2017), intent to consume aquaponics products was determined by asking
respondents to what extent they agree with statements concerning whether they would look for
and choose to purchase aquaponics products in the future. A five-point Likert type agreement
scale was used to measure this construct. The measure used by Miličić et al. (2017) consisted of
seven items, but only five were selected for this study’s purpose. Furthermore, one of these five
items was removed during data analysis. The statement “I like the idea, but doubt I would eat fish
or produce grown this way” was reverse-worded, but respondents did not seem to recognize the
difference in the phrasing of this statement compared to the other four items in the scale as
responses were similar across all items; the reversed item was therefore not included in further
data analyses. The Cronbach’s alpha for the remaining four-item measure of intent to consume
aquaponics products was α = 0.81 (N = 656).
Consumer Segmentation Variables
Tilapia Consumption Frequency
Respondents’ tilapia consumption frequency was measured using one survey question:
“How often do you eat tilapia?” The provided response options took the form of a five-point
Likert type frequency scale ranging from “never” (1) to “often” (5). As a reference point, a brief
description of the response options were also provided; for instance, “often (e.g., every week or
two)”. For analytical purposes, responses on this consumption frequency scale were converted
82
into categorical variables and then grouped into two tilapia consumption frequency categories:
frequent (response of “often” and “sometimes” coded as 2) and infrequent (response of “rarely”
and “never” coded as 1). This variable with two categories of tilapia consumption frequency were
then utilized as a grouping variable for the respondent profiling analyses that were performed to
identify and distinguish between characteristics of frequent and infrequent tilapia consumers.
Intent to Consume Aquaponic-Reared Tilapia
Respondents were probed for their intent to consume aquaponic-reared tilapia with one
survey item that read “If given the opportunity, how likely would it be for you to choose to
consume tilapia grown in an aquaponics systems?”. This measure was recorded on a Likert-type
scale ranging from “extremely unlikely” (1) to “extremely likely” (5). Respondents’ stated
likelihood to consume aquaponic tilapia was then converted to a categorical variable with two
categories to analyze the differences between consumer groups: unfavorable (response of
“extremely unlikely”, “somewhat unlikely”, or “neither likely nor unlikely” coded as 0) and
favorable (response of “somewhat likely” or “extremely likely” coded as 1). This grouping
functioned as the basis for the profiling analysis that was carried out to classify and distinguish
consumers who are favorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia from those who are unfavorable.
Socio-demographic Characteristics
Respondents were asked to provide information regarding their socio-demographic
characteristics, including gender, age, race, annual household income, and education level.
Differences in these personal characteristics were assessed to determine if demographic
characteristics have an influence on tilapia consumption frequency or intent to consume
aquaponic-reared tilapia. Demographic characteristics were also converted into dummy-coded
83
variables for use in regression analysis in Chapter 4. These dummy variables are defined in the
Data Dictionary in Appendix B.
Overview of Statistical Analyses
Data were analyzed using the statistical software package SPSS version 26.0. Univariate
statistics were used to explore and describe respondents’ fish consumption preferences and
behavior as well as their subjective perceptions and objective knowledge of aquaculture and
tilapia. Mean scores and standard deviations on five-point Likert type scales were calculated and
provided in table or bar chart format in Chapters 4 and 5. Frequency distributions were also
presented in tables or bar chart format in categories recoded for analytical purposes in both data
chapters. Construct reliabilities were tested for each construct of interest using Cronbach’s alpha
as a measure of internal reliability consistency. Bivariate analyses included correlations, cross-
tabulation with χ² statistics and one-way ANOVA comparison of mean scores. Correlations, χ²
statistics, and differences in mean scores were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05.
Standard multiple regression analyses with a backwards regression approach were also used to
determine significant relationships amongst variables in our study. Regression results were
considered statistically significant if p < 0.05.
Data analyses are presented in Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 includes descriptive statistics
that examined Florida consumers’ fish consumption behavior and preferences, as well as their
perceptions and knowledge of aquaculture production. Additionally, multiple regression analyses
were conducted to determine which consumer factors were significantly related to consumer
support of aquaponics production. Chapter 5 applied descriptive statistics to evaluate Floridians’
subjective perceptions and objective knowledge of sustainably-produced tilapia. Further, χ²
statistics and one-way ANOVA models were used to analyze the differences between frequent
84
and infrequent tilapia consumers and those consumers who are favorable or unfavorable to
aquaponic-reared tilapia.
Literature Cited
Alexander, K. A., Freeman, S., & Potts, T. (2016). Navigating uncertain waters: European public
perceptions of integrated multi trophic aquaculture (IMTA). Environmental Science & Policy, 61, 230-237.
Britwum, K., Noblet, C. L., & Evans, K. S. (2018). More Farms on The Water? US
Consumers’ Perceptions of Aquaculture Practices and Products. Selected Paper
prepared for presentation at the 2018 Agricultural & Applied Economics Association
Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., August 5-August 7
Callegaro, M., & DiSogra, C. (2008). Computing response metrics for online
panels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 1008-1032.
Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Aguirre, E., Rincón, L., Hernández, M. D., Martínez, I., ... & Rodríguez
Rodríguez, C. (2012). Consumer preferences for sea fish using conjoint analysis:
Exploratory study of the importance of country of origin, obtaining method, storage
conditions and purchasing price. Food Quality and Preference, 26(2), 259-266.
Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Gartzia, I., Garcia-Quiroga, M., & Ginés, R. (2016). Does information
affect consumer liking of farmed and wild fish?. Aquaculture, 454, 157-162.
Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Ginés, R., Grau, A., Hernández, M. D., Aguirre, E., ... & Rodríguez
Rodríguez, C. (2014). Consumer beliefs regarding farmed versus wild fish. Appetite, 79,
25-31.
FAO. (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action.
Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en
Fricker, R. D., & Schonlau, M. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of Internet research
surveys: Evidence from the literature. Field Methods, 14(4), 347-367.
Hall, T. E., & Amberg, S. M. (2013). Factors influencing consumption of farmed seafood
products in the Pacific northwest. Appetite, 66, 1-9.
Hinkes, C., & Schulze-Ehlers, B. (2018). Consumer attitudes and preferences towards pangasius
and tilapia: The role of sustainability certification and the country of
origin. Appetite, 127, 171-181.
Honkanen, P., & Olsen, S. O. (2009). Environmental and animal welfare issues in food choice:
The case of farmed fish. British Food Journal, 111(3), 293-309.
85
Ilieva, J., Baron, S., & Healey, N. M. (2002). Online Surveys in Marketing Research.
International Journal of Market Research, 44(3), 1–14.
Lindeman, M., & Väänänen, M. (2000). Measurement of ethical food choice motives.
Appetite, 34(1), 55-59.
Meas, T., & Hu, W. (2014). Consumers’ willingness to pay for seafood attributes: A multi
species and multi-state comparison. Selected paper prepared for presentation at the
Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, February
1-4, 2014.
Miličić, V., Thorarinsdottir, R., Santos, M. D., & Hančič, M. T. (2017). Commercial aquaponics
approaching the European market: to consumers’ perceptions of aquaponics products in
Europe. Water, 9(2), 80.
NOAA. (n.d.). Sustainable Seafood: The Global Picture. FishWatch U.S. Seafood Facts.
https://www.fishwatch.gov/sustainable-seafood/the-global-picture.
Pieniak, Z., Vanhonacker, F., & Verbeke, W. (2013). Consumer knowledge and use of
information about fish and aquaculture. Food Policy, 40, 25-30.
Quagrainie, K., Hart, S., & Brown, P. (2008). Consumer acceptance of locally grown food: The
case of Indiana aquaculture products. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 12(1),
54-70.
Risius, A., Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2017). Consumer preferences for sustainable aquaculture
products: Evidence from in-depth interviews, think aloud protocols and choice
experiments. Appetite, 113, 246-254.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). (2019). 2018 Census of Aquaculture.
Washington, D.C.: USDA, National Agricultural Statistical Services.
Verbeke, W., Vermeir, I., & Brunsø, K. (2007). Consumer evaluation of fish quality as basis for
fish market segmentation. Food Quality and Preference, 18(4), 651-661.
Wessells, C. R., Donath, H., & Johnston, R. J. (1999). US consumer preferences for ecolabeled
seafood: Results of a consumer survey. A report prepared by the University of Rhode
Island Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics for the Rhode
Island Sea Grant Program and the Rhode Island Agricultural Experimental Station.
Witkin, T., Dissanayake, S. T., & McClenachan, L. (2015). Opportunities and barriers for
fisheries diversification: Consumer choice in New England. Fisheries Research, 168,
56-62.
Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of
online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web
survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), JCMC1034.
86
Young, J. A., Brugere, C., & Muir, J. F. (1999). Green grow the fishes‐oh? Environmental
attributes in marketing aquaculture products. Aquaculture Economics &
Management, 3(1), 7-17.
Zander, K., & Feucht, Y. (2018). Consumers’ willingness to pay for sustainable seafood made in
Europe. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 30(3), 251-27.
87
Chapter 4
EXPLORING FLORIDIANS’ SUPPORT OF AQUAPONICS: THE
EFFECTS OF VALUES, PERCEPTIONS AND KNOWLEDGE
ABSTRACT
Despite the United States historically being a major fish consuming country, the U.S.
aquaculture industry has not kept pace with the rest of the world in aquaculture production. The
need to improve the competitiveness of the U.S. seafood industry has recently received increased
attention by policymakers. Directives for prioritizing and accelerating domestic aquaculture
development have been established, with the central focus on expanding marine aquaculture.
However, aquaponics, which integrates fish production and hydroponic farming, is an alternative
form of land-based, sustainable aquaculture that is emerging in the United States and should be
considered equally in U.S. aquaculture expansion. While there is potential for commercial-scale
aquaponics to contribute to the transformation of domestic seafood production, consumer support
will be critical in the establishment of an economically sustainable commercial aquaponics
industry. Currently, very little is known about consumer awareness and perceptions of
aquaculture and aquaponics in the United States. This study begins to address this research gap
through a survey of Florida consumers that explores fish consumption behavior and preferences,
as well as perceptions and knowledge of aquaculture, and how these aspects relate to consumer
support of aquaponics production. Results suggest that Floridians tend to have ambivalent yet
somewhat positive perceptions of the industry, but that aquaculture is not well understood by
consumers. Upon learning more about aquaponics through the survey, consumers revealed
moderately favorable perceptions of the benefits of aquaponics production and an intent to
purchase aquaponics products in the future. Importance of local sourcing was positively
88
correlated with consumer support of aquaponics. Furthermore, consumers’ objective knowledge
level and subjective perceptions of aquaculture were significantly related to their perceptions of
aquaponics benefits and their intent to consume aquaponics-grown products. These results imply
that increasing knowledge of aquaculture as a whole will play an important role in improving
perceptions of farm-raised fish and encouraging consumer support of aquaponics production in
the future. Additionally, the industry’s marketing efforts should center around the environmental
and societal benefits of aquaponics, such as its ability to produce food locally, and how these
align with consumer values in order to target a potential premium market. The consumer
knowledge gap around aquaculture and overall disengagement with the source of fish must be
addressed through consumer education and marketing if U.S. aquaculture, and the aquaponics
industry in particular, is to expand along with the global seafood industry.
89
INTRODUCTION
In response to the growing demand for fish worldwide and the simultaneous decline in
capture fisheries production, aquaculture has become the fastest growing food-producing sector
globally (FAO, 2020). Per capita fish consumption rose from 9.0 kg/year in 1961 to 20.3 kg/year
in 2017, an average rate of 1.5 percent per year; in this same time period, total meat consumption
grew at an average rate of 1.1 percent per year (FAO, 2020). Currently, approximately fifty
percent of global seafood is supplied by aquaculture, and the top species consumed by Americans
are primarily farm-raised (Shamshak et al., 2019). In spite of this, the United States contributes
less than one percent of the world’s total aquaculture production (FAO, 2020); this means that in
order to continue to supply Americans with the seafood they are demanding, the U.S. must rely
heavily on imported products.
While many other countries have increased their aquaculture production to meet seafood
demand, the United States has lagged behind. Irrespective of the growing consumer trends toward
sustainable and local consumption of fish that is occurring around the world (Honkanen and
Young, 2015; Risius et al., 2017; Witkin et al., 2015), there is a soaring trend of unsustainability
associated with U.S. seafood consumption as the nation continues to depend on an immense
amount of imported products to satisfy Americans’ appetite for seafood. The distance between
where fish is produced and where it is consumed is widening; as this distance increases, so do
U.S. seafood consumers’ environmental footprint (Farmery et al., 2015).
Domestic aquaculture development in the United States presents an opportunity to
address the unsustainable trends associated with the nation’s dependence on imported seafood.
There are numerous environmental, economic, and social advantages to increased domestic fish
production. In addition to reducing U.S. reliance on imported product, enabling the expansion of
the U.S. aquaculture industry would generate job growth, improve food security, and enhance the
environmental and food safety standards of the seafood Americans consume (Lester et al., 2018).
90
Although the comprehensive, stringent regulatory framework around aquaculture in the United
States can be restrictive for aquaculture producers (Engle and Stone, 2013; Lester et al., 2018;
Osmundsen et al., 2017), marketing products based on this context would ensure consumers of a
higher-quality product produced under a reputable set of environmental and food safety standards
and best practices. In contrast, there are instances of countries with less well-developed governing
structures and lax standards and regulations around environmental management, food safety, and
fish health, where aquaculture has experienced unregulated growth resulting in problems that
have compromised its environmental sustainability and the safety of the products that are
cultivated (Engle and Stone, 2013; Hishamunda et al., 2012); many of these foreign, often
developing countries currently export seafood products to the United States.
There has recently been an increase in policy influence in the United States that is
pushing for domestic aquaculture expansion and seafood self-sufficiency. In May 2020, a
Presidential Executive Order was signed that calls for the competitive advancement of the U.S.
seafood industry, with a focus on strengthening the nation’s domestic aquaculture production to
“ensure food security” and “provide environmentally safe and sustainable seafood” for the
American people (Federal Register, 2020). However, the Executive Order’s discussion of
aquaculture specifically emphasizes the need to expand marine aquaculture in offshore
environments and seems to overlook other forms of sustainable aquaculture. While offshore
aquaculture is one promising venture to produce high-quality seafood and revitalize the U.S.
seafood industry, all prospects for sustainable aquaculture development, both marine and
freshwater, must be considered with equal importance in order to substantially increase the
United States’ seafood competitiveness. To meet future demand for seafood, and to have a
significant positive impact on the country’s $17 billion seafood trade deficit, it will be critical for
the U.S. to capitalize on diverse innovations that are advancing sustainable aquaculture.
Aquaponics, a sustainable form of land-based controlled environment aquaculture, should be
91
considered equivalently with offshore aquaculture in future aquaculture policy in an effort to
support a domestic seafood industry and to meet diverse markets for fish.
In order for seafood consumption to be truly sustainable in the United States, the U.S.
aquaculture industry must expand sustainably, and future consumption will need to shift to more
domestic aquaculture products. Further examination of the market potential for products from
aquaponics will help to support the growth of this sustainable form of aquaculture in the United
States, where knowledge of a favorable consumer base is currently limited.
The goal of this study is to expand the industry’s understanding of consumer support of
aquaponics production. As of 2018, Florida had the greatest number of aquaponics operations of
any state. This study therefore focused on the Florida population as a step forward in
understanding the outlook for aquaponics nationwide. First, Florida consumers’ fish consumption
behavior, values, and preferences for fish were explored, followed by an assessment of their
subjective perception and objective knowledge of aquaculture production and farm-raised fish in
general. Consumer support of aquaponics was subsequently evaluated by investigating how these
factors affect consumer perceptions of aquaponic benefits and their intent to consume aquaponic
products in the future. The results of this study may help the industry to identify promising ways
to engage with a favorable market for aquaponic products in Florida and encourage future
expansion of the aquaponics industry.
BACKGROUND
Aquaponics: A Sustainable Method of Aquaculture
Aquaponics is a form of aquaculture and a system of food production that integrates fish
production in a closed recirculating aquaculture system with the cultivation of plants in nutrient-
rich water rather than soil (i.e., hydroponics). As water flows throughout an aquaponics system,
92
the waste products from the fish are converted by a biofilter of nitrifying bacteria into soluble
nutrients that the plants can absorb as fertilizer before the filtered water is returned to the fish
tanks (Nichols and Savidov, 2011).
The development of aquaponics is responding to some of the socio-ecological challenges
associated with conventional aquaculture and offshore aquaculture (Goddek et al., 2015), with
aquaponics production exhibiting many benefits compared to these systems. Aquaponic
operations can yield a variety of widely known fish and plant species. While offshore aquaculture
operations tend to focus on unfamiliar marine finfish species, commercial aquaponics facilities
are capable of producing large amounts of traditional aquaculture species that consumers are
more familiar with, such as salmon and tilapia. Additionally, the capacity to harvest multiple
crops with very little input aside from fish feed increases the ecological sustainability of
aquaponic systems. Furthermore, aquaponics is a water efficient food production system as the
plants added to the system have the biological capacity to utilize the nutrients available in the
aquaculture wastewater, thereby purifying the water to be reused in the fish component (Lennard,
2009). This technology also permits aquaponic operations to capture nearly all of the waste
produced by fish, whereas open-water systems have zero waste captured. Additionally, aquaponic
systems can be situated in urban areas that are in close proximity to markets, which shortens the
supply chain and decreases the carbon footprint often associated with food production and the
U.S. seafood supply in particular (Palm et al., 2018; Savidov, 2004).
The Consumer’s Role in Aquaponics Development
Despite the rising interest in the sustainable growth of aquaculture in the United States,
aquaculture is thought to be a controversial topic amongst the public (Chu et al., 2010). In efforts
to expand U.S. aquaculture, social acceptance is an important challenge to heed. The extent to
which consumers support aquaculture development will play an important role in determining the
93
industry’s future success. However, studies examining U.S. consumers’ awareness of aquaculture
and how they perceive aquaculture development and farmed seafood products are limited. A U.S.
national consumer survey conducted in 2015 found that 47 percent of participants had a negative
view of farm-raised seafood (Brooker, 2015). Additionally, previous research has shown that
consumers believe the quality of wild fish is better than that of farmed fish (Claret et al., 2014;
O’Dierno et al., 2006). Many argue that a lack of clear understanding of aquaculture is thought to
be at the root of public image concerns regarding aquaculture production. However, there is also
a research deficiency regarding U.S. consumers’ understanding of aquaculture. A study
conducted by the University of Maine in 2017 found that, when asked to rate their current
knowledge level of aquaculture on a scale of 1 to 100, respondents indicated an average perceived
knowledge level of 16.2, demonstrating a low awareness of the aquaculture industry amongst
U.S. citizens (Murray et al., 2017). This same study also found that there is some false knowledge
of aquaculture practices amongst participants as suggested by their level of agreement with
common aquaculture myths (Murray et al., 2017).
Aquaponic technology carries great potential to contribute to the goals set forth in the
push for domestic aquaculture production, as well as the ability to address concerns consumers
associate with aquaculture in general. Interest in aquaponics is rising rapidly and commercial
aquaponic operations are emerging across the United States. While the advantages of
commercial-scale aquaponics have been recognized over the past decade, the economic feasibility
is still uncertain (Engle et al., 2015; Greenfeld et al., 2019; Love et al., 2015). Engle (2015)
asserts that for an aquaponics farm to be profitable, it is imperative to identify a market that is
willing to pay a premium price for the products. Likewise, Greenfeld et al. (2019) claim that a
greater focus on the understudied aspect of consumer perceptions of aquaponics could be a
favorable turning point for the establishment of large-scale commercial aquaponics.
94
To date, only a handful of studies have addressed consumer perceptions and acceptance
of aquaponics production, and the results are considerably mixed. Consumers in Malaysia (Tamin
et al., 2015), Romania (Zugravu et al., 2016), and Europe (Miličić et al., 2017) have expressed
generally positive attitudes towards aquaponics. Additionally, a marketing study in Alberta,
Canada revealed a generally positive consumer response, although food safety was a major
concern conveyed in the survey (Savidov, 2004). Studies that asked respondents about their
preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for aquaponically-produced products found that,
despite positive attitudes, a small majority of respondents would prefer to buy aquaponics
products compared to conventionally-farmed products (Greenfeld et al., 2020; Miličić et al.,
2017). In both Australia and Israel, only a minority of consumers stated they would buy
aquaponic produce even after being informed about the system and its benefits (Greenfeld et al.,
2020). In the U.S., Short et al. (2017) found Minnesota consumers to be generally neutral or
favorable to aquaponics, but noted that nearly two-thirds of respondents had not heard of
aquaponics prior to the survey. After an explanation of the aquaponics production process, these
respondents tended to believe that aquaponics can impact the environment in an environmentally
friendly way, but indicated that they might be unwilling to purchase aquaponics products due to
price and food safety concerns (Short et al., 2017).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research Approach and Sampling
Survey data were collected through an online consumer questionnaire distributed using
an online panel of Floridians. Data were collected in June and July 2020, following pretesting of
the survey instrument in April and May 2020. Florida residents were chosen as the targeted
sample for this study for several reasons. First, Florida is a coastal state with a strong tradition of
95
fishing and fish consumption; therefore, it is thought that Floridians likely have established
preferences for and opinions around fish and fish production that are shaped by this culture.
Moreover, Florida is a leading state in terms of aquaculture production and sales of aquaculture
products in the United States, and the number of aquaponic farms in operation is greatest in this
state. Additionally, there is a growing interest in expanding production of finfish aquaculture in
Florida both on land in recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) and aquaponics, and in open
waters offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, a region that was recently selected as an Aquaculture
Opportunity Area by NOAA following the May 2020 Presidential Executive Order “Promoting
American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth”. The success of future aquaculture
development in Florida will hinge upon the public’s acceptance of such practices. Therefore, it is
imperative to determine Floridians’ awareness and perceptions of aquaculture, as well as their
preferences for fish from aquaculture operations.
The cross-sectional survey used in this study was administered by a third-party online
survey and market research platform, Qualtrics, that randomly selected and contacted participants
from a consumer panel of Floridians that was representative of the Florida population. All contact
and survey administration procedures were conducted by Qualtrics electronically. The total
number of questionnaires collected from the consumer panel collected was 725. After eliminating
69 questionnaires that were deemed insufficient due to survey duration and quality check
indicators set by the researchers, the final usable sample size was 656 respondents. Survey
distribution to participants was based on a quota sampling procedure used to mirror 2018 Florida
population census data for gender, age, and race.
Questionnaire and Scales
An extensive questionnaire was self-administered by the participants and included
sections relevant to fish consumption behavior and overall awareness to the source of the fish that
96
is available to consumers. A copy of the full survey can be found in Appendix A and a
description of each scale, including all items, can be found in Appendix B. Participants were first
asked to report their general fish consumption frequency by responding to the question “How
often do you purchase fish?” on a five-point Likert-type scale, with response options that ranged
from “often” (i.e., every week or two) to “never”. If respondents answered “sometimes” (3) or
“often” (4), they were then asked a set of questions about the type of fish they most often
consume to further describe their fish consumption behavior. These questions investigated
consumption frequencies of wild-caught marine/saltwater fish, wild-caught freshwater fish, and
farm-raised fish, which were measured on a frequency scale from never (1) to always (5) with an
additional “unsure” response option provided for those respondents who are unaware of the origin
of the fish they consume.
Respondents were then asked a series of questions concerning their preferences for fish
as well as their subjective perceptions and objective knowledge of aquaculture production and
farm-raised fish. First, preferences for fish were assessed using a five-point Likert type scale
measuring the importance consumers attach to particular fish product attributes, such as
freshness, price, and geographic origin when considering whether to purchase a fish. Using the
same type of importance scale, respondents were also asked about how important they feel it is to
source fish and other products sustainably, ethically and locally. Second, consumer perceptions
towards aquaculture benefits and concerns, as well as aquaculture products, were measured with
three separate multi-item questions using a five-point Likert-type agreement scale. Consumers
were asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with statements concerning common
aquaculture benefits and concerns. They were also probed about how they feel about farm-raised
fish in comparison to wild-caught fish on attributes such as flavor and the environment in which
the fish live. Next, to investigate objective knowledge about fish production and the current fish
supply, respondents were asked how strongly they agreed with factual statements about fish
97
origin (six items, α = 0.75; Table 4-4). Additionally, respondents were asked about the defining
criteria of sustainable aquaculture (seven items; α = 0.88) to examine respondents’ objective
knowledge of aquaculture sustainability. For this question, participants were provided with a list
of criteria and asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree that each item helps to define
environmentally sustainable aquaculture; example items include “conserves land and water” and
“minimizes impact on wild fish populations”. The two objective knowledge sets were
investigated with a five-point Likert type agreement scale that included an additional “I don’t
know” option for those respondents who were unfamiliar with the subject of the items.
Respondents’ support of aquaponics production was measured through their perceptions
of potential benefits of aquaponics and their intent to consume aquaponic products in the future,
which were measured using five-point Likert-type agreement scales. Survey participants were
provided with a brief and balanced description of aquaponics prior to these question sets as it was
anticipated the concept would not be familiar amongst all participants. Following the description,
perceptions of aquaponics benefits were investigated with ten items (α = 0.92; Figure 4-5) and
intent to consume aquaponic products was measured with four items (α = 0.81; Figure 4-6).
Following data collection, each individual’s scores on the perceptions of aquaculture
benefits, concerns, and farmed fish constructs were combined in an aggregated score representing
their overall mean perception of aquaculture (α = 0.72). Respondents’ overall knowledge of
aquaculture was also calculated by summing together their total number of correct responses on
the objective knowledge of fish origin and objective knowledge of sustainable aquaculture items
(α = 0.82). These aggregated subjective perception and objective knowledge measures were then
utilized as independent variables in the regression analyses described below.
98
Statistical Analysis
Questionnaires were quality-checked and edits were made to the final database prior to
coding and data analyses. Statistical analyses were performed using the statistical software SPSS
version 26.0. Descriptive statistics were used to explore consumers’ fish consumption behavior
and preferences, their subjective perceptions and objective knowledge surrounding aquaculture
themes, and their perceptions of aquaponics benefits and intent to consume aquaponic products.
The objective knowledge measures in this study were designed to assess which
respondents were aquaculture-informed and which were uninformed. The objective knowledge
level of each consumer was measured by the addition of correct answers on each true knowledge
statement (i.e., Likert-scale responses “agree” & “strongly agree”, coded as 1); all other responses
(i.e., Likert-scale responses “disagree”, “strongly disagree”, “neither agree nor disagree”, and “I
don’t know”) were coded as 0. This resulted in two different knowledge groups, informed and
uninformed, depending on the individual’s number of correct answers recorded.
Mean scores and standard deviations on five-point Likert type scales were calculated and
are reported in table or bar chart format, as are frequency distributions. Construct reliabilities
were tested for all perception and knowledge constructs using Cronbach’s alpha; all constructs
revealed a satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha higher than 0.70 indicating high internal consistency.
Standard multiple regression analyses were used to determine which consumer factors were best
associated with consumer support of domestic aquaponics production. In two separate regression
analyses, the relationships between consumer factors and support of aquaponics production were
tested, with perceptions of aquaponics benefits and intent to consume aquaponic products as the
two dependent variables. Using a backward regression procedure, all independent variables were
entered into the model to start and then the most non-significant variables were removed from the
analysis one at a time until only the significant independent variables remained in the model. The
independent variables entered into the initial model are as follows: 1) sociodemographic factors
99
(age, gender, race/ethnicity, income level, and education level), 2) fish preferences (wild-caught
marine and freshwater fish consumption frequencies, farmed fish consumption frequency, and the
importance of fish freshness, nutritional value, price, familiarity, geographic origin, production
origin, sustainability/certification labeling, and quality/food safety labeling), 3) importance of
sustainable and ethical sourcing and importance of local sourcing, 4) perceptions of aquaculture
and farmed fish, and 5) knowledge of aquaculture.
RESULTS
Respondent Summary
The socio-demographic composition of the sample is presented in Table 4-1. Of the total
number of survey respondents (N = 656), 50.5 percent were male and 49.5 percent were female.
The most represented age group was those who were 18-44 years old (38.3 percent), followed by
the 45-64 year age bracket (34.0 percent). The majority of respondents were white (54.0 percent),
but other race and ethnic groups surveyed were appropriately representative of the Florida
population. Respondents had varying annual household incomes ranging from less than $20,000
to greater than $100,000. Finally, 55.5 percent of respondents had a college degree. A summary
of the respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics in comparison to the Florida population is
provided in Table 4-1.
100
Floridian Fish Consumption Behavior and Preferences
A high proportion (68.6%, N = 450) of Florida consumers claim to be frequent fish
consumers (Table 4-2). Of these consumers, more frequently consumed wild-caught saltwater
fish (62.5%) versus farm-raised fish (47.6%).
Table 4-1: Demographic characteristics of survey respondents (N = 656) from a quota sampling
procedure based on 2018 Florida Census data.
Survey Sample (%) Population Census (%)
Gender
Female 49.5 48.8
Male 50.5 51.2
Age
18-44 38.3 40.0
45-64 34.0 34.0
65 and over 27.7 26.0
Race/Ethnicity
White 54.0 53.3
Black or African American 14.8 15.3
Hispanic or Latino 26.1 26.1
Other 5.1 6.3
Annual Household Income
< $20,000 12.3
$20,000 to $34,999 19.1
$35,000 to $49,999 16.6
$50,000 to $74,999 21.5
$75,000 to $99,999 13.4
≥ $100,000 17.1
Education Level
High school degree or less 20.0
Some college (no degree) 24.5
Associate or bachelor’s degree 41.5
Postgraduate degree 14.0
Note: Sampling quotas were not set for respondents’ annual household income or education level.
101
Respondents’ preferences for fish in terms of the importance they attach to several fish
attributes when choosing a fish to purchase were investigated with a frequency analysis. Results
are reported by mean value on each attribute for a sample size of 567 as the 89 respondents who
reported never purchasing fish were not asked about their fish preferences (Figure 4-1). The
results show that consumers most prefer to purchase fish that is fresh (M = 4.46, SD = 0.84) and
that bears a quality or food safety label (M = 4.21, SD = 0.96). Nutritional value, price, and
familiarity are also highly considered attributes in Florida consumers’ fish purchases.
Table 4-2: Respondents’ self-reported fish consumption frequencies for fish in general and wild-
caught versus farm-raised fish.
Infrequent
Consumers
Frequent
Consumers Totala Missing Datab
N % N % N % N %
Fish in General 206 31.4 450 68.6 656 100
Wild-Caught Saltwater 57 8.7 410 62.5 467 71.2 189 28.8
Wild-Caught Freshwater 171 26.1 296 45.1 467 71.2 189 28.8
Farm-Raised Fish 127 19.4 312 47.6 439 66.9 217 33.1
a To measure general fish consumption frequency, respondents were asked “How often do you purchase fish?”. Only
those respondents who report frequent total fish consumption were asked to report specific wild-caught and farm-raised
fish consumption frequencies. Respondents that do not purchase fish frequently but indicate that someone in their
household catches the fish they eat were asked about their wild-caught fish consumption only, not farm-raised. All
other infrequent fish consumers were entered as missing data. This explains the differences in sample sizes. b Missing data include cases who were not shown a particular question due to their response on a prior question (i.e.,
“not applicable” respondents) and respondents who indicated they were “unsure” about the particular type of fish they
consume. Both scenarios were entered as missing data and are not included in the valid sample percentages.
102
Additionally, respondents reported a moderately high importance regarding sustainable
and ethical aspects of fish sourcing and to sourcing products locally. Local sourcing received a
slightly higher mean score (M = 3.76, SD = 0.87) than that of sustainable and ethical sourcing (M
= 3.66, SD = 1.00). The sustainable and ethical sourcing item with the highest ranked importance
was “The fish is not threatened by overfishing and loss of species on the verge of extinction” (M
= 3.83, SD = 1.09). The item on the local sourcing scale that received the highest importance
ranking was “support local farmers and/or fishermen” (M = 4.03, SD = 1.01) followed by
“support the local/United States economy” (M = 3.99, SD = 1.02).
Perceptions of Aquaculture and Farmed Fish
Aquaculture Benefits and Concerns
Analyses of consumer perceptions of aquaculture benefits and concerns show that most
respondents had relatively positive perceptions of aquaculture overall. Respondents largely
agreed with the items concerning aquaculture benefits (Figure 4-2), with mean item values
ranging from 3.68 to 3.88. Over 70 percent of respondents felt that aquaculture provides a healthy
Figure 4-1: The relative importance that Florida consumers place on various
fish attributes when choosing a fish to purchase and consume (N = 567).
103
source of food to feed the growing population, and that aquaculture is a good way to relieve
pressure on wild fish populations while doing so. There is also a large agreement that the
aquaculture industry supports U.S. communities economically by providing a source of local
jobs. Consumers had moderately positive perceptions of aquaculture based on their combined
aggregate perception score regarding aquaculture benefits (M = 3.82, SD = 0.70).
Conversely, respondents were more neutral or in disagreement toward common
aquaculture concerns (Figure 4-3); mean item scores on this construct ranged from 2.77 to 3.62.
About 40 percent of respondents did not feel that aquaculture negatively impacts wild fish
populations, and nearly 30 percent did not believe aquaculture was unnatural or that it creates
excessive pollution. There was a large percentage of participants who responded neutrally to the
item “fish farming creates excessive pollution”. There was, however, low to moderate agreement
that crowded conditions on fish farms are bad for the fish being raised and that aquaculture
creates some of the same problems as land-based agriculture. Overall, consumers showed a
neutral perception towards common concerns around aquaculture production as a whole (M =
3.17, SD = 0.69).
Figure 4-2: Consumer perception of aquaculture benefits (N = 656).
104
Relative Quality of Farmed Fish
Participants’ responses on the items measuring their perception of farm-raised fish were
characterized by a large proportion of near-neutral answers centered around the mid-point of the
scale (Figure 4-4). The highest perception score in favor of farmed fish was found for levels of
contamination (“Farm raised fish have less contamination than wild-caught fish”), although this
mean score was only 3.23. In support of farm-raised fish, there was a slight disagreement that
farmed fish are exposed to more pests and diseases than wild-caught fish. However,
approximately one-third of respondents felt that farm-raised fish were not more flavorful (M =
2.84, SD = 0.97) or of higher quality (M = 2.88, SD = 1.02) than wild-caught fish.
Figure 4-3: Consumer perception of aquaculture concerns (N = 656).
105
Knowledge of Aquaculture
Fish Origin
In general, the level of knowledge about fish origin amongst respondents was fairly low
(Table 4-3). The most commonly held knowledge was that aquaculture will supply most of the
demand for fish in the coming decades (54.6 percent correct answers). However, respondents did
not seem to know about where aquaculture is occurring in the world; most of the respondents
failed to provide a correct response to the statements “U.S. aquaculture represents less than 1% of
the global aquaculture industry” (25.5 percent correct answers) and “Asia is the largest
contributor to world aquaculture at about 90 percent of global production” (36.3 percent correct
answers). The aggregated total percent of correct responses revealed that 29.6 percent of
respondents are informed about fish origin while 70.4 percent are uninformed.
Knowledge of fish origin was compared across different demographic groups using the
average number of correct responses (with 6 being the highest possible score). The overall mean
Figure 4-4: Consumer perception of farm-raised fish relative to wild-caught fish (N = 656).
106
number of correct responses across all participants was 2.43 with a standard deviation of 1.85.
Knowledge of fish origin was significantly different for different age levels, F(2, 653) = 5.138, p
= .006. There were more correct answers reported on average from the 18-44 year old age group
(M =2.72, SD = 1.88) compared to the 45-64 year old age group (M = 2.24, SD = 1.87) and the 65
and over age group (M = 2.25, SD = 1.73), both which are statistically significant results (p = .013
and p = .026, respectively).
Sustainable Aquaculture
Respondents were somewhat more informed about the concept and defining criteria of
environmentally sustainable aquaculture than they were about fish origin and the global
aquaculture industry itself. The overall mean percent of correct responses across all items on the
knowledge of sustainable aquaculture construct was 59.8%. Approximately 60 percent of
respondents agreed, and thus were correct in their response, that sustainable aquaculture
conserves land and water, protects water quality, minimizes impact on surrounding habitats, and
minimizes impact on wild fish populations; slightly less realize that sustainable aquaculture
minimizes pollution (49.1% correct) and reduces risk of fish escape (49.5% correct). The average
Table 4-3: Knowledge of fish origin by percent of correct responses (N = 656).
Items Correct
(%)
Aquaculture will supply most of the demand for fish in the coming
decades 54.6
Aquaculture is the fastest-growing producer of food in the world 44.4
Over 80 percent of the fish consumed in the U.S. is imported from
other countries 41.8
Over half of the fish we consume is farm-raised 40.1
Asia is the largest contributor to world aquaculture at about 90 percent
of global production 36.3
U.S. aquaculture represents less than 1% of the global aquaculture
industry 25.5
Objective Knowledge of Fish OriginA 29.6%
Informed
AAggregated total percent of correct answers on all scale items.
107
number of correct responses across the sample was 3.96 (out of a possible 7) with a standard
deviation of 2.49. No statistically significant differences in knowledge of sustainable aquaculture
were found across different demographic groups.
Consumer Support of Aquaponics
Perceptions of Aquaponics Benefits
After the concept of aquaponics was briefly explained to respondents, they were
immediately asked about their opinion of potential aquaponics benefits (Figure 4-5). The majority
of respondents tended to agree that aquaponics has many potential benefits, with an aggregated
average perception score of 3.87 out of 5 (SD = 0.63) across all participants. Over 80% of
respondents thought that aquaponics is capable of increasing local food production. Additionally,
approximately three-quarters of the sample agreed that aquaponics has the potential to improve
overall aquaculture sustainability, conserve land and water, improve local economies, and reduce
environmental impact. Respondents were slightly less certain that aquaponics has the potential to
grow products with high nutritional quality, raise fish humanely, and enhance food safety and
cleanliness with approximately 7% of participants disagreeing with the statements and more than
25% not having an opinion (i.e., response of “neither agree nor disagree”).
108
The first regression model explored the associations between consumer factors and their
perception of aquaponics benefits. Overall, consumer factors significantly explained one-third of
the variance in perceived benefits of aquaponics, F(11, 418) = 20.488, p < .001, adj. R2 = .333
(Table 4-4). Among the sociodemographic factors, age, income and education were found to be
significantly correlated (p < .05) with perception of aquaponics benefits. People who were 65 and
older were more likely to recognize the benefits of aquaponics than those of younger age groups.
Respondents with an annual household income of $75,000 to $99,999 were less likely to see the
benefits of aquaponics compared to those falling into other income categories, as were those with
an education level of high school or less. Being a frequent consumer of freshwater fish made one
more positively inclined toward the potential benefits of aquaponics. Importance of fish
production origin was found to significantly effect consumers’ perception of aquaponics and
uniquely explained 1.6% of the variance in perceived benefits of aquaponics; the more important
fish production origin (wild vs. farmed fish) was to a consumer, the less likely they were to see
the potential benefits of aquaponics.
Furthermore, importance of local sourcing, perceptions of aquaculture, and knowledge of
aquaculture all significantly explained perceptions of aquaponics, with positive beta coefficients
Figure 4-5: Florida consumers’ perceptions of the benefits of aquaponics (N = 656).
109
indicating that when each of these factors increased, perceived benefits of aquaponics also
increased. In terms of effect size, these three variables individually explained more of the
variance in consumers’ perceptions of aquaponics benefits compared to other variables included
in the model, aside from importance of fish production origin. Consumer perception of
aquaculture individually accounted for 6.2% of the variance in perceived benefits of aquaponics.
Knowledge of aquaculture and importance of local product sourcing uniquely explained an
additional 3.9% and 1.4% variation, respectively. Additionally, the importance consumers attach
to freshness, familiarity, and sustainability labeling in their fish purchasing choices were found to
be positively related to perceived benefits of aquaponics, although at a 10% significance level.
Table 4-4: Regression results for the relationship between consumer factors and their perception
of aquaponics benefits (N = 430).
Variable Std. Beta
Coefficients
Semi-Partial
Correlations
Squared
Semi-Partial
Correlations
1. Age (65 and over) 0.157*** 0.150 0.023
2. Income ($75,000 to
$99,999)
-0.081** -0.079 0.006
3. Education (High
school or less)
-0.102** -0.100 0.010
4. Freshwater Fish
Consumption (Frequent)
0.098** 0.095 0.009
5. Freshness 0.080* 0.071 0.005
6. Familiarity 0.083* 0.074 0.005
7. Production Origin -0.163*** -0.128 0.016
8. Sustainable
Certification/Labeling
0.094* 0.070 0.005
9. Local Sourcing 0.147*** 0.119 0.014
10. Perception of
Aquaculture
0.294*** 0.249 0.062
11. Knowledge of
Aquaculture
0.222*** 0.197 0.039
Constant 1.202
R .592***
R-Square .350***
Adjusted R-Square .333***
F 20.488
df 429
p-value <.001
N 430 Notes: Significance codes (p-values) are <0.01***, <0.05** and <.10*. Sample size differs
from the total survey N due to listwise deletion of cases with missing values. The regression
analysis was only run on cases with a complete set of data for the specified variables.
110
Intent to Consume Aquaponic Products
After learning about aquaponics and acknowledging perceived benefits of the practice,
respondents were asked about their intentions to consume aquaponic products in the future
(Figure 4-6). In response to the first two statements, the majority of respondents agreed that they
would look for aquaponic-grown fish and produce in the future. Moreover, more than half
indicated that they would choose aquaponically-farmed fish over conventionally-farmed fish.
However, respondents were not persuaded to choose aquaponic products if they cost more; nearly
42% of respondents expressed a neutral opinion and over 25% disagreed with this statement.
As another measure of consumer support for aquaponics production, a second regression
analysis was performed to investigate the relationships between consumer factors and intent to
consume aquaponic products. Again, all independent variables were initially entered into the
model and the most non-significant variables were removed from the analysis in a backwards
manner one at a time until only the significant independent variables remained in the model. The
final model significantly explained Floridians’ intent to consume aquaponic products, F(6, 423) =
29.405, p < .001, adj. R2 = .284 (Table 4-5), indicating that the overall model explained
approximately 28% of the variance in intent to consume aquaponic products.
Figure 4-6: Florida consumers’ intentions to consume aquaponic products in the future (N = 656).
111
Holding all other variables constant, the only sociodemographic factor that was
statistically significant was age, with consumers who are 45 to 64 years old showing a lower
intent to consume aquaponic products than those who are 18 to 44 or 65 and older. Being a
frequent freshwater fish consumer also made one more likely to show intention to consume
aquaponic products in the future in comparison to infrequent freshwater fish consumers. The
importance consumers attach to sustainable certification and labeling on fish products also
explained significant variance in intent to consume aquaponic products, with those who showed a
higher importance also exhibiting higher intentions.
Similar to the results of the first regression analysis examining consumer perception of
aquaponics benefits, importance of local sourcing, perception of aquaculture, and knowledge of
aquaculture were the consumer factors that significantly explained the most variance in intent to
consume aquaponic products. Standardized beta coefficients for these three variables indicated
that consumers who value local sourcing and have a greater perception and knowledge of
aquaculture had higher intentions to consume aquaponic products. The largest effect size was for
knowledge of aquaculture, which individually explained 5.4% variation, followed by perceptions
of aquaculture and importance of local sourcing, which uniquely explained 3.4% and 2.8%
variation in intent, respectively.
112
DISCUSSION
Florida Fish Consumption Behavior and Preferences
This study found that there are substantially more frequent fish consumers (68.6%, N =
450) in Florida than infrequent fish consumers (31.4%, N = 206). The results also show there is a
greater amount of wild-caught saltwater fish consumed amongst Floridians than both wild-caught
freshwater fish and farm-raised fish, which suggests a preference for wild-caught marine fish
amongst Florida consumers. This is not a particularly surprising outcome given that Florida is a
coastal state with a historically strong fishing culture that has brought fresh-caught fish to markets
across the state for decades. It should be noted that since more than half of the fish supplied for
human consumption today is of farmed origin (Cai and Zhou, 2019), the percentage of fish
Table 4-5: Regression results for the relationship between consumer factors and their intent to
consume aquaponic products (N = 430).
Variable Std. Beta
Coefficients
Semi-Partial
Correlations
Squared
Semi-Partial
Correlations
1. Age (45-64) -0.098** -0.097 0.009
2. Freshwater Fish
Consumption (Frequent)
0.090** 0.089 0.008
3. Sustainable
Certification/Labeling
0.091** 0.081 0.007
4. Local Sourcing 0.192*** 0.168 0.028
5. Perception of
Aquaculture
0.207*** 0.185 0.034
6. Knowledge of
Aquaculture
0.259*** 0.232 0.054
Constant 0.845
R .543***
R-Square .294***
Adjusted R-Square .284***
F 29.405
df 429
p-value <.001
N 430 Significance codes (p-values) are <0.01*** and <0.05**. Sample size differs from the total
survey N due to listwise deletion of cases with missing values. The regression analysis was
only run on cases which have a complete set of data for the specified variables.
113
consumers who frequently consume farmed fish is likely greater than the reported 47.6 percent.
This inconsistency may indicate a limited awareness amongst consumers regarding whether the
fish they consume is of farmed or wild origin. Alternatively, the low reported consumption of
farmed fish could imply that the Florida population is not typical in fish consumption behavior
compared to the rest of the country, with a greater emphasis on wild fish over farmed fish.
Respondents conveyed a strong preference for freshness and quality/food safety labeling
when making fish purchasing decisions, which is in line with previous research concerning
consumers’ liking of farmed and wild fish (Claret et al., 2014). Participants also reported a
moderately high perceived importance of sustainable and ethical aspects of fish sourcing, as well
as the importance of sourcing products locally. This corresponds with findings of a survey
implemented in coastal Maine that found consumers were willing to pay for ecological
sustainability and local origin associated with seafood (McClenachan et al., 2016). Witkin et al.
(2015) also found that New England fish consumers strongly favored local fish caught in the Gulf
of Maine to fish labeled as caught in the U.S. more broadly. With the growing demand in the U.S.
for fresh, local, and sustainably- and ethically-produced fish, the current lack of domestic
aquaculture production represents a missed opportunity to capitalize on rising consumers trends
(Lester et al., 2018; Shaw et al., 2019). Advancing responsible U.S. aquaculture would increase
the volume of seafood products being produced in close proximity to intended markets and enable
producers to promote their products to mindful consumers who are interested in the “fresh” and
“local” credence attributes of fish. Further, aquaponic systems are an efficient and sustainable
form of aquaculture that can be located essentially anywhere, including in urban spaces, which
would allow fish production to occur close to end-users.
114
Consumer Subjective Perceptions and Objective Knowledge of Aquaculture
Floridians’ subjective perceptions about the benefits of aquaculture were mostly positive,
while perceptions regarding common aquaculture concerns were neutral in comparison.
Respondents felt strongly about aquaculture’s ability to enhance wild fish populations; there was
a substantial agreement that aquaculture is a good way to relieve pressure on wild fish stocks, and
disagreement that aquaculture negatively impacts wild fish populations. Respondents also
considered aquaculture as an activity with potential to boost food security and support U.S.
communities economically through the creation of jobs. However, there was some concern
amongst consumers regarding the crowded conditions on fish farms, as well as beliefs that
aquaculture shares problems comparable to land-based agriculture. Similar results regarding U.S.
consumer beliefs about aquaculture were also documented by Hall and Amberg (2013); Pacific
northwest respondents generally agreed that there are benefits to aquaculture, especially in regard
to wild fish populations and food security, but that problems with aquaculture production remain.
The statement “Crowded conditions on fish farms are bad for the fish” received a relatively high
agreement score both in this study and the study conducted by Hall and Amberg (2013).
Consequently, the aquaculture industry may want to consider how they can either improve their
standards concerning animal holding and general welfare overall or develop better
communications around these production details.
Furthermore, this sample of Florida consumers expressed neutral to slightly negative
opinions about farmed fish relative to wild-caught fish. Approximately one-third of respondents
disagreed that farm-raised fish is more flavorful or of higher quality compared to wild-caught
fish. However, the majority of responses were largely centered around the mid-point of the scale.
There could be several explanations for the high proportion of neutrality concerning farmed fish
attributes. First, respondents may not be concerned about the fish attributes provided in the item
set in general, and thus this lack of relevance could prompt them to answer neutrally; in other
115
words, they are impartial about the fish attributes listed regardless of product origin (i.e., farm-
raised or wild-caught). Conversely, the neutrality may be indicative of consumers’ general
unfamiliarity with the source of the fish they purchase or their inability to distinguish between
farm-raised and wild-caught fish. This could ultimately result in respondents having difficulty or
confusion with how to respond to this survey question regarding farmed fish qualities. This link
between neutral responses and limited awareness of fish origin amongst consumers was discussed
previously by Vanhonacker et al. (2011) whose study of European consumers generated a similar
finding where uncertainty in consumer perception of farmed fish was thought to be a result of a
lack of knowledge about fish origin. A few other studies have also suggested that scores near the
mid-point of the scale may be indicative of low familiarity with aquaculture (Hall and Amberg,
2013; Honkanen and Olsen, 2009). Furthermore, in a consumer study of eight Spanish regions,
Claret et al. (2014) observed significant differences in the perception of farmed fish depending on
consumers’ objective knowledge about fish.
Results of the objective knowledge analyses in this study confirm the notion that Florida
consumers are largely unfamiliar with fish origin and aquaculture production overall.
Respondents seemed to realize that aquaculture is a rapidly growing food production industry that
will be central to meeting the demand for fish in the coming decades. However, the majority of
participants did not know about where the bulk of aquaculture is occurring geographically in the
world today, or where the United States stands in terms of contribution to the global aquaculture
industry. Additionally, a large portion of the sample was unaware of the extent of farm-raised fish
in the current fish supply. A low level of knowledge regarding fish and fish origin has been
reported in previous research as well (Feucht and Zander, 2015; Pieniak et al., 2013; Robertson et
al., 2002). This suggests that the information gap amongst the public regarding where fish are
sourced will be a major hurdle for the U.S. aquaculture industry in encouraging consumers to
support domestic aquaculture and aquaponics production.
116
Interestingly, respondents seemed to be somewhat more knowledgeable about the
concept of sustainable aquaculture than they were about fish origin and production overall. On
average, nearly 60 percent of the sample correctly responded to knowledge items concerning
some of the defining criteria of environmentally sustainable aquaculture. These results suggest
that despite their uncertainty regarding fish origin and the extent of the aquaculture industry in
general, consumers have accurate expectations of what sustainable fish production should
involve. This is aligns with other research that has proposed consumers who are uneducated about
aquaculture may infer their understanding, to a large extent, from their knowledge of terrestrial
farming practices (Feucht and Zander, 2015; Zander et al., 2018). If consumers are aware of what
makes terrestrial farming environmentally friendly, this knowledge may be transferred to
aquaculture as well. However, consumers may also transfer their concerns about terrestrial
agriculture to aquaculture production, which may be misrepresentative of aquaculture practices.
Consumer Support of Aquaponics
After the concept of aquaponics was explained, Floridians were found to be generally
cognizant of the potential environmental and societal benefits of the practice. In particular,
respondents strongly agreed that aquaponics has the potential to increase local food production
and improve local economies, and the ability to reduce environmental impact and conserve land
and water. Similar to findings from a study of consumers’ perceptions of integrated multitrophic
aquaculture (IMTA), which is another form of integrated seafood production (Alexander et al.,
2016), a large majority of respondents in the current study indicated that aquaponics has the
potential to improve overall aquaculture sustainability. In spite of many respondents
acknowledging the environmental benefits of aquaponics, there was slightly less agreement that
aquaponic systems enhance food safety and cleanliness and raise fish humanely. These
consumers might be somewhat wary of the waste-utilizing nature of aquaponics due to the
117
importance they attach to quality and food safety labeling when making fish purchasing
decisions. This presumption that food safety and fish welfare are compromised in aquaponics
systems should be corrected through improved education around industry practices.
Irrespective of potential concerns around aquaponics production, many respondents
appeared likely to consume aquaponic products. More than half of the participants stated that they
would look for aquaponic-grown fish in the future and that they would choose aquaponically-
farmed fish over conventionally-farmed fish. However, not as many respondents indicated they
would choose aquaponic products if they cost more. This implies that despite the added value that
is associated with aquaponic products, price is a relatively important consideration for Floridians.
This result is consistent with Short et al. (2017) who identified price as a motive for Minnesota
consumers who were unwilling to purchase aquaponic products and Greenfeld et al. (2020) who
concluded that product price was negatively correlated with willingness to consume aquaponic
produce. Consumer reluctance to pay a premium price for the added value of aquaponic products
would likely hinder the economic sustainability of the commercial expansion of the industry; this
is an area of research in need of more attention.
Results of the regression analyses show that demographic variables were overall not
significantly associated with consumers’ support of aquaponics production. Level of income and
education were weakly related to respondents’ perceived benefits of aquaponics, and age was
weakly associated both with perceived benefits of aquaponics and with intent to consume
aquaponic products. However, these demographic variables alone explained very little of the
variance in perceptions of aquaponics benefits and intent to consume aquaponic products relative
to other variables in the model, indicating that these demographic variables were not significantly
associated with consumer support of aquaponics production. However, age was found to uniquely
explain 2.3% of the variance in perceived benefits of aquaponics. Older-aged consumers (i.e., age
65 and over) appeared to show a more positive perception of aquaponics benefits compared to
118
younger consumers. This result is somewhat surprising given previous research which has shown
older individuals to be more reluctant toward innovative, non-traditional seafood production
(Fernandez-Polanco et al., 2008) and young and middle-aged consumers to be those most likely
to consume aquaponic products (Greenfeld et al., 2020; Miličić et al., 2017). However, it may
also be suggestive that the older residents of Florida (e.g., people who have retired to the state)
are perhaps more educated and considerate of alternative food production systems than would be
expected.
The importance respondents attach to production origin (i.e., whether a fish is wild or
farmed) was found to be significantly, but negatively, correlated with their perceptions of
aquaponics benefits; that is, respondents who reported a high importance of production origin in
their fish choices exhibited a more negative perception of aquaponics benefits. This is a logical
result as consumers who have concerns about the farming of fish in general might be inclined to
transfer this emotion to aquaponics, resulting in them being less likely to see the benefits of
aquaponics as an aquaculture practice. Importance of product origin explained 1.6% of the
variance in perception of aquaponics benefits, however it was not found to significantly explain
respondents’ intent to consume aquaponics products. This inconsistency in respondents
expressing an intention to buy aquaponics products despite not feeling positive about the benefits
of aquaponics might be a consequence of variables not directly measured in this study, for
instance feeling social pressure from peers (i.e., social norms) to consider buying products that
are sustainable or locally-sourced or experiencing personal desire to try out novel products
(Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). Results of a study of consumer acceptance of aquaponic products
in Malaysia (Tamin et al., 2015) found that subjective norms did in fact have a significant impact
on intention to purchase aquaponic products.
There was also a positive relationship found between the importance consumers attach to
local product sourcing and their support of aquaponics production. The importance respondents’
119
attributed to local sourcing uniquely explained 1.4% of the variation in perception of aquaponics
benefits and 2.8% of the variation in intent to consume aquaponic products. One of the most
prominent advantages of aquaponics production is that operations can be located essentially
anywhere, allowing food to be produced close to consumers while minimizing food transport
miles and enhancing local economies (Palm et al., 2018). In this study, local food sourcing was
found to be a relatively important attribute to the surveyed respondents (M = 3.76, SD = 0.87),
and consumers widely and accurately identified local food production is an added value of
aquaponics. The value Floridians seem to place on sourcing food products locally and their
recognition of aquaponics as a potential method of meeting such needs emphasizes an
opportunity for advancing aquaponics development in the state. Locally-sourced seafood is a
rapidly growing trend amongst U.S. fish consumers (Meas and Hu, 2014; Shaw et al., 2019;
Witkin et al., 2015), therefore focusing on this aspect of aquaponics production, and the benefits
associated with it, will be key in the development of a positive aquaponics product image
(Savidov, 2004). Building communications and marketing efforts on this added-value is a
promising avenue for reaching the locally-focused consumer segment.
More notable from this study, and as expected, both consumers’ subjective perceptions
and objective knowledge of aquaculture were significantly positively correlated with consumer
support of aquaponics. Perceptions of aquaculture showed a relatively strong relationship to
consumer perceptions of aquaponics benefits, with 6.2% of the variance accounted for
independently of all other variables, while the next largest effect size was for knowledge of
aquaculture, which explained 3.9% of the variance. For intent to consume aquaponic products,
the largest effect size was for knowledge of aquaculture, which individually explained 5.4%
variation, followed by perceptions of aquaculture which uniquely explained 3.4% variation.
Together, while controlling for all other independent variables, perceptions and knowledge of
aquaculture accounted for 10.1% of the variance in perception of aquaponics benefits and 8.8% of
120
the variance in intent to consume aquaponic products. These findings suggest that the more
consumers know and the greater their perceptions of aquaculture are, the more likely they are to
see the benefit of aquaponics and be willing to purchase and consume aquaponic-grown products.
As previously discussed, respondents in this study had a slightly favorable view of the
benefits of aquaculture, but their opinions of aquaculture concerns and farmed fish were relatively
neutral or negative. Uncertainty in consumers’ perception of farmed fish has been considered a
result of a lack of knowledge or awareness of fish origin by other authors (Vanhonacker et al.,
2011), an assumption that was further corroborated in this study. A mere 30 percent of
respondents in this study were considered to be knowledgeable about fish origin; even less were
aware of the United States’ small contribution to the global aquaculture industry. Perceptions and
knowledge of aquaculture are undeniably linked (Claret et al., 2014; Honkanen and Olsen, 2009;
Robertson et al., 2002; Vanhonacker et al., 2011; Verbeke et al., 2007) and these factors were
found to have the strongest relationship with consumer support of aquaponics in our study. This
implies that addressing the existing knowledge gap around aquaculture and fish origin in general
will be a critical step in improving consumers’ perceptions of aquaculture and farmed fish
overall, and to shape opinions of fish reared in sustainable aquaponic facilities in the U.S.
Implications
The apparent link between consumers’ perceptions and knowledge of aquaculture and
their support of aquaponics production suggests that the more consumers are aware of fish
production, the more likely they would be to consider purchasing sustainably-farmed fish.
Recognition of this link should promote the expansion of educational initiatives around
aquaculture and spark a more open discourse between the aquaculture and aquaponics industries
and the public. This can be accomplished by producers sharing information about their operations
121
at the point of sale (e.g., at a farmers’ market), through social media, and on-site through farm
tours, which can be powerful tools to familiarize and connect the public with their practices.
Extension education and outreach programming will also play an important role in
collecting and providing materials and resources with accurate information that will help to
amplify the discourse across a diverse array of networks. The design of effective information
strategies about farmed fish and its production origin might help to improve its image and
consumer acceptance (Claret et al., 2014). Based on the results of this study, extension specialists
and other educators in Florida should first target their efforts on improving awareness amongst
middle-aged consumers, as these people seemed to be less knowledgeable about fish and were
less likely to support aquaponics production compared to other age groups in this study.
Informative dialogue across all stakeholders will be critical in improving social license of
aquaponics as a sustainable form of aquaculture, which will be important in terms of U.S.
aquaculture policy and the sustainable expansion of the U.S. aquaculture industry more broadly.
In addition to improving education around fish and aquaculture in general, the industry
should consider ways to capitalize on the added-values associated with aquaponics production.
Increasing consumer knowledge of the added-value of products is considered to be a prerequisite
to establishing a premium market segment (Zander et al., 2018). This study provided some
insights into ways the aquaponics industry could design an effective information campaign
around aquaponics in order to advance awareness and successfully target a premium market base.
However, as the results of this study suggest, premium pricing for aquaponic products may be a
potential obstacle. Therefore, an objective for the industry should be to do a better job “selling”
the environmental and societal benefits of its practices in a way that aligns aquaponics production
with consumer values. This will allow the industry to better target a potential niche market that
would be willing to pay more for products bearing such attributes. The importance consumers
attach to local product sourcing was positively correlated with support of aquaponics. Further,
122
though associations were weak, there seemed to be a relationship between consumer preferences
for freshness and sustainable certification of fish and their support of aquaponics production. This
indicates that increasing messaging and product labeling around the “fresh”, “local”, and
“sustainable” credence attributes of aquaponics production could be a promising strategy for
generating a niche market for aquaponic products. The creation of a labeling scheme around the
positive attributes of aquaponic production would allow producers to differentiate their product
and increase their market value. Aquaponic producers should also consider a membership with
the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’ “Fresh From Florida” program to
utilize its branding logo in their product packaging, advertising, and promotional materials.
The industry should also consider ways to create an open dialogue around current
consumer concerns regarding aquaponics production. As gathered through this study as well as in
previous research, consumers seem to be hesitant about food safety considerations associated
with aquaponics production. Producers should therefore be aware of these consumer concerns and
of potential food safety risk factors on their farm, and should establish and maintain adherence to
best practices to ensure their products are safe for consumption. Producers should consider having
their farms audited by the USDA’s voluntary Good Agriculture Practices (GAP) program to
validate their products as food safety certified and in turn communicate this to consumers.
Future research may be conducted to further investigate the objectives covered in this
study in order to facilitate a cumulative body of knowledge around the consumer’s role in the
success of commercial aquaponics advancement. First, since consumers seemed to be generally
unfamiliar with the source of the fish they purchase, future research should be conducted to test
consumers’ ability to distinguish between wild versus farm-raised fish, local or U.S.-reared
versus imported fish, and sustainably-produced versus unsustainably-produced fish. Further,
because respondents in this study seemed hesitant to pay a premium price for the added value of
aquaponic products, further research should be conducted to investigate consumer willingness to
123
pay for aquaponic products; this would create economic incentive for investors and help to
improve overall profitability of aquaponics operations for producers.
Limitations
There are a number of limitations to this study that are worth pointing out. First, the data
collected were all self-reported using an online questionnaire. While this is advantageous for
marketing research in many aspects, this methodology has potential for bias. There is potential for
error in the use of an online questionnaire itself, in self-reported data, and in the subjective nature
of the measures used. An additional source of bias may be the literacy level of participants. There
was a wide variety of education levels represented with the sample, and some participants may
not have fully understood every part of the survey. For instance, respondents with a low
education level may not understand the ability for hydroponic plants to take up the fish waste
nutrients as fertilizer in an aquaponics system in a process that is facilitated by microbes.
Furthermore, the responses participants provided in regard to items such as their fish consumption
frequency and intent to consume aquaponics products may or may not be an accurate reflection of
their actual behavior or opinions; the social desirability effect may prompt respondents to answer
in a way that exaggerates their true characteristics. Moreover, certain survey statements are
worded somewhat broadly and may be open to subjective interpretation by respondents, and
therefore findings should be interpreted modestly. There are also likely factors that were not
directly measured or tested for in this study that may also help to explain consumers’ perceptions
and intentions. For the factors that were tested, caution should be used when making conclusions
about this study as the data was taken at only one point in time and therefore causality could not
be assessed. Finally, caution should be used when generalizing these findings beyond Florida, as
this study only targeted this population.
124
CONCLUSION
Large-scale commercial aquaponics has the potential to produce an abundant amount of
protein in a sustainable manner. While aquaponics development in Florida and the U.S. has
emerged on a hobby and small-scale commercial level, adoption of aquaponics on a larger scale
could help respond to the call for more domestically-sourced seafood, thereby helping to reduce
the nation’s seafood trade deficit and close a significant gap in U.S. food security. The future
development of the industry towards commercial-scale viability will partly depend on public
awareness and market acceptance (Greenfeld et al., 2019; Palm et al., 2018). For the aquaponics
industry to meet the economic challenges of large-scale commercial expansion, public approval is
needed and a potential premium market segment must be identified and targeted by the industry.
This study contributes to the understanding of consumer support of aquaponics
production in the United States. Through an analysis of Floridians’ fish preferences and their
perceptions and knowledge of aquaculture, these analyses offer insights regarding how such
consumer factors relate to perceptions of aquaponics and aquaponic product purchasing
intentions. The results of this study suggest that consumers are ultimately unfamiliar with
aquaculture and the origin of their fish supply. Furthermore, while Floridians seem to
acknowledge some benefit to aquaculture production, perceptions of farm-raised fish are rather
uncertain. In general, a large proportion of respondents see the benefits associated with
aquaponics and indicate intentions to look for and select aquaponics products in the future. There
are multiple key factors that significantly affect consumer support, including objective knowledge
and subjective perception of aquaculture.
Increasing knowledge of aquaculture is one possible approach to improve consumers’
perceptions of aquaculture and image of farmed fish (Altintzoglou et al., 2010). The
interconnectedness between perceptions and knowledge of aquaculture production, and the
subsequent relationship between these factors and consumer support of aquaponics, emphasizes
125
the need to address the aquaculture knowledge gap amongst consumers. The expansion of U.S.
aquaculture may be constrained considerably if this knowledge gap persists amongst consumers.
As Claret et al. (2014) concluded in a study of beliefs regarding farmed versus wild fish,
consumers with a higher level of objective knowledge about fish are more ready to agree with
scientific evidence regarding characteristics of farmed fish, and consequently more likely to make
better and reasoned fish choices. In order to encourage greater perceptions and acceptance of
farmed fish, and in turn improve the image of aquaponics production, more effective education
and communication strategies should be built around the current source of fish in the U.S. and the
benefits of advances in sustainable domestic aquaculture practices like aquaponics.
Cultivating public awareness of aquaculture production and the scientific advances that
are occurring within the industry is likely to facilitate broader consumer support of sustainable
aquaculture expansion in the United States. Furthermore, advancing public awareness of the
environmental and societal benefits of aquaponics in particular, and its potential role in increasing
the sustainable supply of local, U.S.-grown seafood to consumers, should be a priority of the
scientific community and industry alike in order to gain widespread acceptance in this sustainable
form of aquaculture and ensure its long-term environmental and economic sustainability.
LITERATURE CITED
Alexander, K. A., Freeman, S., & Potts, T. (2016). Navigating uncertain waters: European public
perceptions of integrated multi trophic aquaculture (IMTA). Environmental Science &
Policy, 61, 230-237.
Altintzoglou, T., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., & Luten, J. (2010). The image of fish from
aquaculture among Europeans: impact of exposure to balanced information. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 19(2), 103-119.
Brooker, M. (2015, October 28). Seafood Consumer Insights [Conference Presentation]. Global
Aquaculture Alliance 2015 GOAL Conference. Vancouver, BC.
Cai, J. & Zhou, X. (2019). Contribution of aquaculture to total fishery production: the 50-percent
mark. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter, 60: 43–45.
126
Chu, J., Anderson, J. L., Asche, F., & Tudur, L. (2010). Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Aquaculture
and Implications for its Future: A Comparison of the USA and Norway. Marine Resource
Economics, 25(1), 61-76.
Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Ginés, R., Grau, A., Hernández, M. D., Aguirre, E., ... & Rodríguez
Rodríguez, C. (2014). Consumer beliefs regarding farmed versus wild fish. Appetite, 79,
25-31.
Engle, C.R., 2015. Economics of Aquaponics. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center
(SRAC) Publication No. 5006.
Engle, C. R., & Stone, N. M. (2013). Competitiveness of US aquaculture within the current US
regulatory framework. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 17(3), 251-280.
Farmery, A. K., Gardner, C., Green, B. S., Jennings, S., & Watson, R. A. (2015). Domestic or
imported? An assessment of carbon footprints and sustainability of seafood consumed in
Australia. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 35-43.
FAO. (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action.
Rome.
Federal Register. (2020). Executive Order 13921. Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness
and Economic Growth. Federal Register, 85, 28471. Washington, DC, USA.
Fernandez-Polanco, J., L. Luna & J. L. Fernandez. (2008). Factors Affecting Consumer Attitudes
Towards Aquaculture, Proceedings of the XIV Biennial Conference International
Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade (IIFET) Conference, University of Nha
Trang, Vietnam.
Feucht, Y., & Zander, K. (2015). Of earth ponds, flow-through and closed recirculation
systems—German consumers' understanding of sustainable aquaculture and its
communication. Aquaculture, 438, 151-158.
Goddek, S., Delaide, B., Mankasingh, U., Ragnarsdottir, K. V., Jijakli, H., & Thorarinsdottir, R.
(2015). Challenges of sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability, 7(4), 4199-
4224.
Greenfeld, A., Becker, N., Bornman, J. F., dos Santos, M. J., & Angel, D. (2020). Consumer
preferences for aquaponics: A comparative analysis of Australia and Israel. Journal of
Environmental Management, 257, 109979.
Greenfeld, A., Becker, N., McIlwain, J., Fotedar, R., & Bornman, J. F. (2019). Economically
viable aquaponics? Identifying the gap between potential and current
uncertainties. Reviews in Aquaculture, 11(3), 848-862.
Hall, T. E., & Amberg, S. M. (2013). Factors influencing consumption of farmed seafood
products in the Pacific northwest. Appetite, 66, 1-9.
127
Hishamunda, N., Ridler, N., Bueno, P., Satia, B., Juelmansan, B., Percy, D., Gooley, G., Brugere,
C., & Sen, S. (2012). Improving aquaculture governance: What is the status and
options? In Subasinghe, R.P., Arthur, J.S., Bantley, D.M., De Silva, S.S., Halwart,
M., Hishamunda, N., Mahan, C.V., & Sorgellos, P. (Eds.). Farming the Waters for
People and Food (pp. 233 – 264). Proceedings of the Global Conference on Aquaculture
2010, Phuket, Thailand. September 22–25, 2010. FAO, Rome, and Network of
Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.
Honkanen, P., & Olsen, S. O. (2009). Environmental and animal welfare issues in food choice:
The case of farmed fish. British Food Journal, 111(3), 293-309.
Honkanen, P., & Young, J. A. (2015). What determines British consumers’ motivation to buy
sustainable seafood?. British Food Journal, 117(4), 1289-1302.
Lennard, W. (2009). Aquaponics: The integration of recirculating aquaculture and
hydroponics. World Aquaculture.
Lester, S. E., Gentry, R. R., Kappel, C. V., White, C., & Gaines, S. D. (2018). Opinion: Offshore
aquaculture in the United States: Untapped potential in need of smart policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(28), 7162-7165.
Love, D. C., Fry, J. P., Li, X., Hill, E. S., Genello, L., Semmens, K., & Thompson, R. E. (2015).
Commercial aquaponics production and profitability: Findings from an international
survey. Aquaculture, 435, 67-74.
Meas, T., & Hu, W. (2014). Consumers’ willingness to pay for seafood attributes: A multi
species and multi-state comparison. Selected paper prepared for presentation at the
Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, February
1-4, 2014.
McClenachan, L., Dissanayake, S. T., & Chen, X. (2016). Fair trade fish: consumer support for
broader seafood sustainability. Fish and Fisheries, 17(3), 825-838.
Miličić, V., Thorarinsdottir, R., Santos, M. D., & Hančič, M. T. (2017). Commercial aquaponics
approaching the European market: to consumers’ perceptions of aquaponics products in
Europe. Water, 9(2), 80.
Murray, M., Anthony, J. R., Noblet, C. L., & Rickard, L. (2017). 2017 National Aquaculture
Survey Results: Technical Report. The University of Maine, Sustainable Ecological
Aquaculture Network (SEANET).
Nichols, M. A., & Savidov, N. A. (2011, May). Aquaponics: a nutrient and water efficient
production system. In II International Symposium on Soilless Culture and Hydroponics
947 (pp. 129-132).
O’Dierno, L. J., Govindasamy, R., Puduri, V. S., Myers, J. J., & Islam, S. (2006). Consumer
perceptions and preferences for organic aquatic products: results from the telephone
survey (No. 1326-2016-103615).
128
Palm, H. W., Knaus, U., Appelbaum, S., Goddek, S., Strauch, S. M., Vermeulen, T., ... & Kotzen,
B. (2018). Towards commercial aquaponics: a review of systems, designs, scales and
nomenclature. Aquaculture International, 26(3), 813-842.
Pieniak, Z., Vanhonacker, F., & Verbeke, W. (2013). Consumer knowledge and use of
information about fish and aquaculture. Food Policy, 40, 25-30.
Risius, A., Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2017). Consumer preferences for sustainable aquaculture
products: Evidence from in-depth interviews, think aloud protocols and choice
experiments. Appetite, 113, 246-254.
Robertson, R.A., Carlsen, E.L., Bright, A. (2002). Effect of information on attitudes towards
offshore marine finfish aquaculture development in northern New England. Aquaculture
Economics and Management. 6, 117–126.
Savidov, N. (2004). Evaluation and development of aquaponics production and product market
capabilities in Alberta. Crop Diversification Centre South, Alberta Agriculture, Food and
Rural Development.
Shamshak, G. L., Anderson, J. L., Asche, F., Garlock, T., & Love, D. C. (2019). US seafood
consumption. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 50(4), 715-727.
Shaw, B., Runge, K., Yang, S., Witzling, L., Hartleb, C., & Peroff, D. (2019). Consumer
Attitudes Toward Wisconsin Farm-Raised Fish: Public Opinion and Marketing
Recommendations. University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Extension.
Short, G., Yue, C., Anderson, N., Russell, C., & Phelps, N. (2017). Consumer perceptions of
aquaponic systems. HortTechnology, 27(3), 358-366.
Tamin, M., Harun, A., Estim, A., Saufie, S., & Obong, S. (2015). Consumer acceptance towards
aquaponic products. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 17(8), 49-
64.
Vanhonacker, F., Altintzoglou, T., Luten, J., & Verbeke, W. (2011). Does fish origin matter to
European consumers? Insights from a consumer survey in Belgium, Norway and Spain.
British Food Journal, 113(4), 535–549.
Verbeke, W., Sioen, I., Brunsø, K., De Henauw, S., & Van Camp, J. (2007). Consumer
perception versus scientific evidence of farmed and wild fish: exploratory insights from
Belgium. Aquaculture International, 15(2), 121-136.
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer
“attitude–behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics, 19(2), 169-194.
Witkin, T., Dissanayake, S. T., & McClenachan, L. (2015). Opportunities and barriers for
fisheries diversification: Consumer choice in New England. Fisheries Research, 168,
56-62.
129
Zander, K., Risius, A., Feucht, Y., Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2018). Sustainable aquaculture
products: implications of consumer awareness and of consumer preferences for promising
market communication in Germany. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 27(1),
5-20.
Zugravu, A. D., Rahoveanu, M. M. T., Rahoveanu, A. T., Khalel, M. S., & Ibrahim, M. A. R.
(2016). The perception of aquapon- ics products in Romania. Proceeding of the
International Conference on “Risk in Contemporary Economy” XVIIth Edition, 2016,
Galati, Romania.
130
Chapter 5
A MARKET FOR A SUSTAINABLE FISH: CONSUMER AWARENESS
AND ACCEPTANCE OF AQUAPONIC-REARED TILAPIA
ABSTRACT
Tilapia bear numerous characteristics that make them highly suitable species for
sustainable aquaculture development. More specifically, tilapia are ideal fish for land-based
recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) and aquaponic systems, aquaculture technologies that
are emerging to help address some of the negative environmental externalities associated with the
increase in large-scale intensive aquaculture production. There is great potential for tilapia to
provide the growing world population with a sustainable protein that is produced with much less
environmental impact than other animal protein options. Despite this potential, and tilapia
currently being one of the most consumed fish in the United States, tilapia is thought to have an
unfavorable image amongst consumers, which could hinder future expansion of tilapia production
in sustainable land-based systems in the U.S. and beyond. Consumer acceptance will be central to
the advancement this aquaculture sector. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to
investigate consumers’ current subjective perceptions of tilapia and their objective understanding
of it as an ideal fish for sustainable aquaculture advances. These factors and how they relate to
current tilapia consumption frequency and consumer likelihood to choose aquaponic-reared
tilapia were evaluated utilizing survey data collected from 656 Floridians. Respondents were
distinguished as frequent or infrequent tilapia consumers based on various individual
characteristics, including their fish consumption behavior, preferences and values, and their
knowledge and perceptions of aquaculture production and tilapia as an aquaculture product.
131
Furthermore, consumer groups that are favorable and unfavorable to tilapia reared in aquaponic
systems were identified and characterized based on these same characteristics. Results revealed a
widespread lack of awareness about tilapia aquaculture amongst respondents. Level of knowledge
seemed to impact consumer perceptions of tilapia with those with a higher level of knowledge
exhibiting significantly more positive perceptions of the fish’s attributes. Objective knowledge
and subjective perception of tilapia also appear to be linked with the choice to consume tilapia.
Frequent tilapia consumers and respondents who were favorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia were
found to have significantly stronger perceptions and a greater knowledge of tilapia compared to
consumers who are opposed to tilapia consumption. This study begins to fill the research gap
around U.S. consumers’ awareness and acceptance of sustainable aquaculture systems and
species. Findings provide insights regarding a market segment in Florida that would be favorable
to tilapia reared sustainably in aquaponics systems. Potential barriers to tilapia consumption are
highlighted, as well as recommendations for further education and outreach efforts.
132
INTRODUCTION
Over time, much like with the capture fisheries sector, increasing appetite for seafood has
generated unsustainable trends and developments within the aquaculture industry in order to
bridge the seafood supply-demand gap. The growing dependence on aquaculture to meet demand
means that continued advancement of the industry will come from the expansion of intensified
production, which can carry a range of negative environmental externalities and resource
concerns, similar to the intensification of agriculture and livestock systems, if sustainable
solutions are not implemented. In order to meet the demand for fish into the future, the
aquaculture industry will need to expand intensive fish production in an efficient and sustainable
manner that involves rethinking culture systems and species choices (Klinger and Naylor, 2012).
Land-based controlled environment aquaculture, including recirculating aquaculture
systems (RAS) and aquaponics, have great potential to achieve a high production yield while
mitigating a number of environmental concerns associated with intensive aquaculture
development (Martins et al., 2010). Moreover, tilapia are resource-efficient fish that feed low on
the food chain, exhibit rapid growth, are able to thrive in and thus are commonly cultured in
intensive RAS and aquaponics systems (Watanabe et al., 2002). The ability of RAS technology to
effectively capture and repurpose resources and production wastes in a highly controlled
environment, together with the unique, eco-friendly characteristics of tilapia, make this
combination of culture method and species an ideal scenario for advancing sustainable
aquaculture production (Fitzsimmons, 2010; Zajdband, 2012).
Tilapia are reported to be one of top cultured and consumed fish in the country today; the
U.S. is the single largest export market for tilapia products, with nearly all tilapia products being
imported from Latin American and Asian countries (Fitzsimmons et al., 2011; Zajdband, 2012).
Despite the prominence of tilapia in the U.S. seafood market and its positive attributes as an
aquaculture product, false or misleading claims about tilapia that have been circulated in popular
133
media in recent years are thought to have generated an unfavorable image and has situated tilapia
in an undesirable light with consumers (Kearns, 2018). It is believed that tilapia’s bad reputation
in the last decade may have caused a decline in its popularity and could have motivated some
consumers to stop purchasing the fish altogether, though there has not been any definitive
research to confirm this (FAO, 2019; Leschin-Hoar, 2016). Comprehensive studies of consumer
perception of tilapia are also lacking.
At this point, it is uncertain whether consumer perceptions are keeping pace with the
scientific, sustainable advances that are currently occurring within the industry (Kramer, 2019).
Positive receptiveness and market demand from consumers toward sustainably-produced
aquaculture products, such as aquaponic-grown tilapia, will be critical to the viability and large-
scale commercial advancement of this industry. Positioning aquaponic tilapia as a locally-
sourced, sustainable fish could be potentially appealing to niche markets that find value in such
qualities, thereby permitting producers to capitalize on these evolving consumer trends (Engle,
2015; Greenfeld et al., 2019). However, communicating the positive aspects of sustainable
aquaculture systems to consumers presents a challenge for the industry as there is believed to be
an overwhelming lack of awareness about aquaculture and fish production overall (Brooker,
2015; Murray et al., 2017). Consumer awareness and acceptance will be important components of
sustainable aquaculture growth, yet very little is known about the public’s understanding and
perceptions of sustainable forms of aquaculture. Additionally, it is unknown whether differences
in perspective around tilapia are in fact impacting tilapia consumption.
The main objective of this study is to explore Florida consumers’ subjective perceptions
and objective knowledge with respect to farm-raised tilapia, and how levels of these parameters
align with their choice to consume tilapia or not. Furthermore, this analysis aims to identify a
market segment for aquaponic-reared tilapia in Florida by profiling respondents based on their
fish consumption behavior and preferences, perceptions and knowledge of aquaculture in general
134
and tilapia as an aquaculture product, and several individual socio-demographic variables. In
characterizing respondents, demographic and niche groups that are most favorable to tilapia
reared in aquaponic systems are identified. An improved understanding of how consumers
currently perceive tilapia, what they know about the reality of tilapia aquaculture, and the type of
consumer that is most favorable to tilapia as a sustainable aquaculture product will allow the
industry to better target their communication and marketing strategies and thereby enhance the
opportunity for growth in the future.
BACKGROUND
An Ideal Sustainable Aquaculture System
A change in the systems in which fish are cultured can reduce the negative environmental
impacts and resource limitations often associated with growth in the aquaculture sector (Klinger
and Naylor, 2012). Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) have been developed as a means of
raising a large quantity of fish in a relatively small volume of water that is re-used after
undergoing treatment (Martins et al., 2010). There are many advantages to fish production in
RAS including reduced water consumption and improved waste management (Badiola et al.,
2012; Piedrahita, 2003; Verdegem et al., 2006). However, the waste treatment associated with
RAS often results in the “relocation” of concentrated nutrients and organic matter rather than an
overall reduction in discharges (Piedrahita, 2003). In addition, if left unchecked, dissolved gas
wastes can build up in the system and require a partial exchange of water, decreasing the system’s
water efficiency advantage (Lennard, 2009). These disadvantages with regard to proper waste
management present two limitations of RAS that can be counteracted through aquaponics, where
wastes from fish reared in RAS tanks are utilized by hydroponic plants as a fertilizer for growth
(Lennard, 2009). Adding plants to a RAS design introduces a natural biofilter that mimics the
135
ecology of nature; wastes are treated through nutrient removal which improves the quality of the
water to be returned to the fish, while greatly minimizing the amount of effluent released from the
closed-loop system (Pattillo, 2017). Aquaponics production demonstrates all of the advantages of
RAS while addressing the environmental impact of wastewater discharge and generating two
income streams (fish and plants) from one input (fish feed; Lennard, 2009). As competition for
resources increase, integrated food production systems like aquaponics will become increasingly
attractive due to their resource efficient nature.
Aside from rethinking culture methods, another strategy for improving the sustainability
of aquaculture systems is by shifting production to species that are more appropriate for large-
scale production due to attributes that help to reduce resource and ecological constraints (Klinger
and Naylor, 2012). For instance, culturing lower-trophic level species can help to reduce the
industry’s reliance on the use of fishmeal and fish oil in feeds, which can have significant impacts
on marine ecology (Klinger and Naylor, 2012; Naylor and Burke, 2005). Unlike the carnivorous,
high-trophic level fishes that are popular amongst consumers, omnivorous fish, such as tilapia,
are advantageous for aquaculture from an economic and environmental standpoint as they are
low-trophic level feeders that do not require an abundant amount of marine ingredients in their
diet (Naylor et al., 2000; Watanabe et al., 2002). Additionally, tilapia have been selectively bred
for improved production efficiency by means of a faster growth rate (approximately 6-8 months)
and better feed utilization, which allows them to reach marketable size quicker than many other
commonly cultured species (Watanabe et al., 2002; Suresh and Bhujel, 2012). They are hardy and
adaptable fish that tolerate crowding and fluctuations in water quality well and are less
susceptible to disease compared to other fishes (Suresh and Bhujel, 2012). Based on these
characteristics, tilapia are attractive species for intensive tank culture in RAS and aquaponic
systems (DeLong et al., 2009).
136
Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) are one of the most popular species of fish reared in
aquaponic systems worldwide (Savidov, 2004). In conjunction, this aquaculture method and
species combination is a sustainable form of aquaculture production, and aquaponic tilapia is an
ideal fish for meeting market demand for fish in a sustainable manner. Further, the sustainable
and local production of tilapia in aquaponics could help respond to the growing desire amongst
consumers for fresh, local fish (Little et al., 2008; Meas and Hu, 2014; Shaw et al., 2019).
Aquaculture Awareness: The Link Between Perceptions and Knowledge
Intensive sustainable aquaculture systems are materializing as a way to provide seafood
for human consumption while overcoming the negative environmental impacts of exploitative
capture fishery practices and unsustainable aquaculture methods (Risius et al., 2017). Despite the
industry’s progress towards better aquaculture practices, public awareness and perceptions are
thought to be amongst the greatest challenges that the growing aquaculture industry must face,
especially in the United States (Kramer, 2019; Shaw et al., 2019). Furthermore, a lack of
consumer awareness about aquaculture in general presents a potential challenge to reaching a
target market for sustainably farmed fish.
A national consumer survey in 2015 found that 47 percent of U.S. participants had a
negative view of farm-raised seafood (Brooker, 2015), and lack of understanding is thought to be
at the root of these public image struggles. Most Americans, much like consumers across the
globe, are considered to be largely unfamiliar with the aquaculture industry. In another U.S.
consumer survey, when asked to rate their current knowledge level of aquaculture on a scale of 1
to 100, respondents indicated an average knowledge level at 16.2 (Murray et al., 2017).
Additionally, there appear to be some commonly held myths and misinformation around
aquaculture, which may result in misunderstanding and misperceptions of the industry (Murray et
al., 2017). The range of opinions about farm-raised seafood and aquaculture are often shaped by
137
the type and source of aquaculture information that is available to the consumer (Britwum et al.,
2018). Subjective perceptions around aquaculture can have a profound impact on the demand for
and consumption of farm-raised fish when they are based on limited or inaccurate information
(Hamlish, 2018).
A lack of factual knowledge amongst consumers regarding aquaculture and fish
production in general, in addition to inaccurate and misleading information surrounding the
industry, could lead to adverse perceptions and therefore represent a major barrier for the growth
of the sustainable aquaculture industry (Kramer, 2019). Public communications around
aquaculture and aquaculture products are often conflicting and not backed by science, which
further exacerbates the problem around aquaculture awareness (Vanhonacker et al., 2006).
Nevertheless, consumer perception and social acceptability of aquaculture and farm-raised
products will play a crucial role in the growth and success of sustainable aquaculture (Barrington
et al., 2010; Claret et al., 2016). This highlights the need for a more precise understanding of
consumer awareness and social acceptability of fish reared in sustainable aquaponic systems.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Study Design and Sampling
Survey data were collected through an online consumer questionnaire distributed to
Floridians during the time period of June-July 2020, following pretesting in April-May 2020. The
population of Florida was chosen for this study for multiple reasons. First, Florida is a state that
has historically held a strong fishing and fish consumption tradition. Secondly, Florida is a
leading state in terms of aquaculture facilities and sales of aquaculture products; more
specifically, as of 2018 Florida had the highest number of tilapia and aquaponic farms of any
state in the U.S. (USDA, 2019). The cross-sectional survey used in this study was administered
138
by a third-party online survey software company, Qualtrics, who randomly selected and contacted
participants from a representative consumer panel of Florida citizens. All contact and survey
administration procedures were conducted electronically. The total number of questionnaires
collected from the consumer panel was 725. After eliminating questionnaires that were deemed
insufficient due to duration cutoffs and quality check indicators set by the researchers, the final
sample size was 656 respondents. Survey distribution to participants was based on a quota
sampling procedure used to mirror the most recent Florida population census data for gender, age,
and race.
Survey Content and Measurement
An extensive questionnaire was developed and included numerous components relevant
to fish consumption; these themes were measured using single or multi-item questions and are
detailed in the following section. A copy of the full survey and a description of each scale,
including all items, can be found in the appendices. The majority of items were assessed using a
five-point Likert type response format unless otherwise stated. Items to be used as a construct
were averaged in order to provide an aggregate measure of each construct. All data were self-
administered by the participants.
This section begins by describing the measures used in segmenting groups of consumers
based first on their self-reported tilapia consumption frequency, as well as their intent to consume
aquaponics tilapia. Next, the variables used to profile the different market segments are discussed.
These profiling variables pertain to multiple themes: 1) fish consumption behavior, 2) fish
preferences and values, 3) subjective perceptions toward aquaculture and tilapia, 4) objective
knowledge of aquaculture and tilapia, and 5) socio-demographics.
139
Segmentation Variables
Tilapia Consumption Frequency
Participants were asked how often they consume tilapia on a scale from “never” (1) to
“often” (4) with an additional “unsure” option that was coded as a missing value. For analytical
purposes, this tilapia consumption frequency scale was recoded and grouped into two nominal
categories: frequent (response of “often” and “sometimes” coded as 1) and infrequent (response
of “rarely” and “never” coded as 0) consumers. This tilapia consumption frequency grouping
functioned as the basis for the profiling analysis that was carried out to classify and distinguish
frequent tilapia consumers from infrequent tilapia consumers.
Intent to Consume Aquaponics Tilapia
Respondents were probed for their intent to consume aquaponic-reared tilapia with one
survey item that read “If given the opportunity, how likely would it be for you to choose to
consume tilapia grown in an aquaponics systems?”, measured on a scale ranging from “extremely
unlikely” (1) to “extremely likely” (5). This stated likelihood was then converted to a categorical
variable with two categories to analyze the differences between consumer groups: unfavorable
(response of “extremely unlikely”, “somewhat unlikely”, or “neither likely nor unlikely” coded as
0) and favorable (response of “somewhat likely” or “extremely likely” coded as 1).
Segment Profiling Variables
Socio-demographic Characteristics
Respondents were asked to provide information regarding their gender, age, race, annual
household income, and education level. Differences in these personal characteristics were
assessed to determine if demographic characteristics have an influence on tilapia consumption
frequency or favorability to aquaponic-reared tilapia.
140
Fish Consumption Frequencies
Early in the survey, participants were asked to report their fish consumption frequencies.
First, respondents were asked “How often do you purchase fish?” as a proxy for general fish
consumption frequency; response options ranged from “often” (i.e., every week or two) to
“never”. If respondents answered “sometimes” (3) or “often” (4) to this question, they were then
asked a separate set of questions about the type of fish they most often consume – wild-caught or
farm-raised. These frequencies for type of fish consumed were measured on a scale from never
(1) to always (5) with an additional “unsure” option (coded as a missing value) for those
respondents who are unaware of the source of the fish they consume. The response scales for all
fish consumption frequencies were recoded into categorical variables of frequent and infrequent
consumption; respondents who purchased fish “often” or “sometimes” were considered to be
frequent fish consumers, and those who purchased fish “rarely” or “never” were considered
infrequent fish consumers. Likewise, respondents who consumed wild-caught and/or farm-raised
fish “always”, “often”, or “occasionally” were considered frequent consumers and those who
responded “rarely” or “never” were considered infrequent consumers.
Fish Preferences
Respondents’ fish preferences were assessed using a five-point Likert-type scale
measuring the importance consumers attach to several particular factors when considering
whether to purchase a fish. The factors included were: freshness, nutritional value, price,
familiarity, geographic origin (where the fish is sourced), production origin (wild or farmed),
sustainability labeling, and quality/food safety labeling. Preferences were measured on a five-
point importance scale ranging from “not at all important” (1) to “extremely important” (5).
Previous studies have highlighted the influence such attributes have on consumers’ fish
purchasing behavior (Claret et al., 2012; Claret et al., 2016; Verbeke et al., 2007c).
141
Consumer Values
Consumer values of sourcing fish and other foods sustainably, ethically, and locally were
measured using two sets of items that were informed by the evolving literature around the these
themes in respect to consumption of fish and other foods (Hinkes and Schulze-Ehlers, 2018;
Honkanen and Olsen, 2009; Roheim et al., 2012; Shaw et al., 2019; Verbeke et al., 2007b; Young
et al., 1999). Respondents reported the importance they attach to environmentally sustainable and
ethical sourcing of fish on a three-item measure adapted from Honkanen and Olsen (2009) (α =
0.86), and their perceived importance of sourcing products locally on a five-item measure that
was created new for this study (α = 0.85). The two sets of items evaluating consumer values were
measured on a five-point importance scale with response options ranging from “not at all
important” (1) to “extremely important” (5).
Perceptions of Aquaculture and Farmed Fish
Perceptions of aquaculture were assessed using two different constructs measuring
perceptions of aquaculture benefits and perceptions of aquaculture concerns, each with five items.
Both constructs were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1)
to “strongly agree” (5). Perceptions of aquaculture benefits were evaluated using scale items
created by Hall and Amberg (2013) who measured opinions of the environmental and economic
benefits of aquaculture. An additional item created by Britwum, Evans and Noblet (2018) was
included in this study’s scale measuring perceptions of aquaculture benefits in order to highlight
the benefit of job growth: “The aquaculture industry supports U.S. communities economically by
providing a source of local jobs.” The coefficient alpha reported by Hall and Amberg (2013) was
0.78. The coefficient for the five-item measure used in this study was α = 0.84.
Perceptions of aquaculture concerns were also assessed using items from Hall and
Amberg’s (2013) measure of opinions about environmental and health problems associated with
142
aquaculture. The original measure included seven items, however only four items were used for
the purpose of this study. An additional item (“Aquaculture negatively impacts wild fish
populations”) was added. The coefficient alpha reported by Hall and Amberg (2013) was 0.81.
The coefficient alpha for the five items used in this construct was 0.75.
Perceptions of farmed fish were measured using a modification of the measures crafted
by Hall and Amberg (2013) and Britwum et al. (2018). Respondents were asked to indicate how
they feel farm-raised fish compare to wild-caught fish on attributes such as flavor, quality, and
food safety. Again, responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly
disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). The coefficient alpha for this study’s six-item measure of
perceptions of farmed fish was α = 0.83.
Perceptions of Tilapia
Perceptions of tilapia were measured by asking respondents to rate farm-raised tilapia on
six product attributes: nutritious, flavorful, safe to eat, environmentally friendly, clean, and
affordable. Respondents rated each attribute using a continuous star rating system with half-step
increments; the lowest possible perception score to select was 0.5 stars, while the highest possible
score was 5 stars. The scores on each attribute were averaged across individuals to create an
aggregated construct variable representing overall perception of tilapia (α = 0.91). This six item
measure was developed new for the purpose of this study. Attributes of tilapia were chosen based
on the literature around consumer determinants of seafood choices (Claret et al., 2014; Pieniak et
al., 2013), as well as commonly held concerns and misconceptions about tilapia in popular media.
Knowledge of Fish Origin
Data concerning consumer knowledge related to fish origin were gathered on a five-point
Likert-type scale asking respondents how strongly they agree or disagree with factual statements
concerning global aquaculture production and the United States’ fish supply. The statements
143
created for this scale were based on public information published by NOAA (NOAA, n.d.) and
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2020). Additionally, two
statements were adapted from a measure developed by Pieniak et al. (2013), who assessed
knowledge about fish in European countries. All items on this measure were true; therefore, if
respondents answered that they agreed (4) or strongly agreed (5) with the statement, their
response was correct and they were considered to be informed about the statement (coded as 1). If
they responded with “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2), “neither agree nor disagree” (3) or “I
don’t know”, they were considered to be uninformed (coded as 0). An aggregated value of each
individual’s fish origin knowledge was then computed by adding the number of correct responses
out of the six total items. The coefficient alpha for this six-item measurement of consumer
knowledge of fish origin was α = 0.75.
Knowledge of Sustainable Aquaculture
Similar to Zander and Feucht’s (2018) assessment of consumer awareness of
sustainability in aquaculture, to study consumers’ objective knowledge of sustainable aquaculture
in this study, respondents were provided a list of sustainable aquaculture qualities and asked to
specify how strongly they agree or disagree that the criteria (e.g., “Conserves land and water”)
defines environmentally sustainable aquaculture. A five-point Likert-type scale response format
was used, with possible responses ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).
Responses were coded as informed (1) if respondents recorded “agree” (4) or “strongly agree” (5)
to the true statements (i.e., if they responded correctly), and uninformed (0) if any other response
was recorded. Respondents were given the option to select “I don’t know” if they were unfamiliar
with the subject of the item. The sum of each respondents’ correct answers were totaled and used
as a measure of their knowledge of sustainable aquaculture. The coefficient alpha for the seven-
item measure was α = 0.88
144
Knowledge of Tilapia
Knowledge of tilapia was measured on a five-point Likert-type scale that included factual
statements regarding sustainable aspects of tilapia and U.S. tilapia aquaculture. All items were
created new for use in this study but were informed by literature around the life history and
biology of tilapias (Popma and Masser, 1999) as well as common tilapia aquaculture practices
(Boyd, 2004; Suresh and Bhujel, 2012; Watanabe et al., 2002); the calculated coefficient alpha
was α = 0.82. Respondents were considered informed (1) if they responded with “agree” (4) or
“strongly agree” (5) to the true statements, and uninformed (0) otherwise. Respondents were
given the option to select “I don’t know” if they were unfamiliar with the subject of the item. The
aggregated total of each respondents’ correct answers were used as a measure of their knowledge
of tilapia in the consumer profiling analyses. Additionally, to understand the level of
misinformation around tilapia, each individual was assigned a score based on the value associated
with their responses to each item on the tilapia knowledge scale; the range of possible scores was
6 to 30. Those respondents with a score between 6 and 14 were classified as “misinformed”
(coded as 1), those between 15 and 21 were classified as “mixed informed” (coded as 2), and
those between 22 and 30 were classified as “correctly informed” (coded as 3). “Uninformed”
consumers were those who responded “I don’t know” to at least one of the statements.
Statistical Analyses
Response data were quality checked by both the survey research agency and the
researchers themselves to ensure accuracy of data prior to coding and analysis. Data were then
analyzed using the statistical software package SPSS version 26.0. Univariate statistics were used
to describe consumers’ fish consumption preferences and behavior and their perceptions and
knowledge of tilapia. Mean scores, standard deviations and frequency distributions are provided
in table or bar chart format. Construct reliabilities were tested using Cronbach’s alpha as a
145
measure of internal reliability consistency. Bivariate correlations were used to assess the
relationship between perceptions and knowledge of tilapia and the relationship between these
measures and tilapia consumption frequency and likelihood of consuming aquaponic-reared
tilapia. Bivariate analyses also included cross-tabulation with χ² statistics and one-way ANOVA
comparison of mean scores to detect statistically significant differences between favorable and
unfavorable tilapia consumer segments in terms of an individual’s socio-demographic and fish
consumption characteristics, including their preferences and values, as well as their perceptions
and knowledge of aquaculture in general and tilapia more specifically. Correlations and
differences in mean scores were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05.
Multiple tests were conducted in order to profile and distinguish the characteristics that
shape the consumer segments identified in this study. Chi-square tests of association were used to
test the relationships between categorical variables, particularly how fish consumption
frequencies and socio-demographic characteristics are associated with tilapia consumption
frequency (frequent and infrequent consumers) and acceptability of aquaponic-reared tilapia
(unfavorable and favorable consumers). Furthermore, analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures
were carried out on the continuous scaled variables of fish preferences, consumer values, and
perceptions and knowledge of aquaculture and tilapia for both infrequent and frequent tilapia
consumers and consumers who are unfavorable or favorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia.
Data were assessed for statistical assumptions prior to running one-way ANOVAs. There
were a few instances where data were not normally distributed for each consumer group, which
was made evident by a statistically significant Shapiro-Wilk test of normality. However, the one-
way ANOVA is considered to be fairly robust to deviations from normality, especially if sample
sizes are large and nearly equal (Sawilowsky & Blair, 1992). Additionally, the assumption of
homogeneity of variances was tested using Levene’s test of equality of variances. In instances
where this assumption was violated, as assessed by a significant Levene’s test (p < .05), the
146
Welch ANOVA is used to compare mean scores and Welch’s F-statistic is reported. All group
means that were statistically significantly different (p < .05) are reported in Table 5-6.
RESULTS
Personal and Fish Consumption Characteristics
The socio-demographic composition of the sample of Floridians included in this study
closely reflects that of the Florida population (Table 5-1). There was no more than a 5%
difference among the survey sample and the population census.
Table 5-1: Detailed socio-demographic characteristics of survey respondents (N = 656) from a quota
sampling procedure based on 2018 Florida Census data.
Survey Sample (%) Population Census (%)
Gender
Female 49.5 48.8
Male 50.5 51.2
Age
18-44 38.3 40.0
45-64 34.0 34.0
65 and over 27.7 26.0
Race/Ethnicity
White 54.0 53.3
Black or African American 14.8 15.3
Hispanic or Latino 26.1 26.1
Other 5.1 6.3
Annual Household Income
< $20,000 12.3
$20,000 to $34,999 19.1
$35,000 to $49,999 16.6
$50,000 to $74,999 21.5
$75,000 to $99,999 13.4
≥ $100,000 17.1
Education Level
High school degree or less 20.0
Some college (no degree) 24.5
Associate or bachelor’s degree 41.5
Postgraduate degree 14.0
Note: Sampling quotas were not set for respondents’ annual household income or education level.
147
Table 5-2 reports the participants’ fish consumption frequencies for fish in general, wild-
caught and farm-raised fish, and tilapia specifically. Results show there are substantially more
frequent fish consumers (N = 450) in Florida than infrequent fish consumers (N = 206). The
results also suggest there is a greater amount of wild-caught saltwater fish consumed amongst
Floridians than both wild-caught freshwater fish and farm-raised fish. Frequent consumption of
wild-caught freshwater fish (N = 296) is much lower than that of wild-caught saltwater fish (N =
410). Additionally, there was an approximately equal split between infrequent (N = 307) and
frequent (N = 337) tilapia consumers for this sample of Floridians, and more consumers favorable
to aquaponic-reared tilapia (N = 397) than unfavorable (N = 259).
Descriptive statistics related to respondents’ preferences for fish attributes and values
regarding how fish and other food products are sourced are reported in Table 5-3. Fish freshness
Table 5-2: Self-reported fish consumption frequencies and likelihood to consume aquaponic-reared
tilapia (N = 656).
Infrequent
Consumers
Frequent
Consumers Totala Missing Datab
N % N % N % N %
Fish in General 206 31.4 450 68.6 656 100
Wild-Caught Saltwater 57 8.7 410 62.5 467 71.2 189 28.8
Wild-Caught Freshwater 171 26.1 296 45.1 467 71.2 189 28.8
Farm-Raised Fish 127 19.4 312 47.6 439 66.9 217 33.1
Tilapia c 307 46.8 337 51.4 644 98.2 12 1.8
Unfavorable
Consumers
Favorable
Consumers Total Missing Data
N % N % N % N %
Aquaponic Tilapia 259 39.5 397 60.5 656 100
a Only those respondents who report frequent fish purchases were asked to report specific wild-caught and farm-
raised fish consumption frequencies. Respondents that do not purchase fish frequently, but indicate that someone in
their household catches the fish they eat, were asked about their wild-caught fish consumption only, not farm-raised.
Infrequent fish consumers were entered as missing data. This explains the differences in sample sizes. b Missing data include cases who were not shown a particular question due to their response on a prior question (i.e.,
“not applicable” respondents) and respondents who indicated they were “unsure” about the particular type of fish they
consume. Both scenarios were entered as missing data and are not included in the valid percentages for the sample. c All respondents reported their tilapia consumption frequency regardless of how they responded to the other fish
consumption frequency questions. Missing data are cases who responded “unsure”.
148
and quality/food safety labeling were the most important considerations of this sample when
purchasing fish. Sustainable, ethical and local sourcing were found to be moderately important.
Consumer Subjective Perceptions and Objective Knowledge
Perceptions and Knowledge of Aquaculture
The participants’ responses to items regarding potential benefits of aquaculture showed
that their perceptions are rather positive, with an average response of 3.82 across the construct.
Respondents most strongly agreed that aquaculture is a good way to relieve pressure on wild fish
populations and that the aquaculture industry supports U.S. communities economically by
providing a source of local jobs (in both cases, M = 3.88). Conversely, respondents were
somewhat indifferent in their perceptions of commonly held concerns around aquaculture (overall
construct M = 3.17, SD = 0.69). On average, respondents did not feel that aquaculture negatively
impacts wild fish populations (M = 2.77, SD = 1.00). However, there was some concern that
crowded conditions on fish farms are bad for the fish (M = 3.62, SD = 0.99) and that aquaculture
has some of the same problems as some types of land-based agriculture (M = 3.46, SD = 0.88).
Floridians’ also tend to have neutral to negative opinions with respect to the comparative
quality of farm-raised fish to wild-caught fish (construct M = 3.02, SD = 0.75). The highest
Table 5-3: Mean values for respondents’ fish preferences and values regarding product sourcing.
Survey Item Mean SD
Freshness 4.46 0.84
Quality/food safety labeling 4.21 0.96
Nutritional value 3.93 0.96
Price 3.84 0.96
Familiarity 3.75 0.96
Local product sourcing 3.73 0.87
Sustainable & ethical fish sourcing 3.66 1.00
Sustainability labeling 3.51 1.19
Production origin 3.46 1.25
Geographic origin 3.21 1.32 Note: Respondents were asked to indicate how important each of these aspects were on a five-point Likert-
type scale ranging from “Not at all important” to “Extremely important”
149
perception score in favor of farmed fish (though still centered around the mid-point of the five-
point scale) was found for levels of contamination (M = 3.23, SD = 1.08); that is, respondents
considered farm-raised fish to have less contamination than wild-caught fish. In general,
participants seemed to agree that wild-caught fish are more flavorful (M = 2.84, SD = 0.97) and
of higher-quality (M = 2.88, SD = 1.02) than farm-raised fish.
In regard to objective knowledge of fish origin, there was an overall low percentage of
correct answers reported on the knowledge statements. The aggregated total percent of correct
responses on the knowledge of fish origin construct revealed that only approximately 30 percent
of respondents were adequately informed about fish origin. While a slight majority of participants
(54.6%) understand that aquaculture will supply most of the demand for fish in the coming
decades, only about a quarter of participants realize that the U.S. aquaculture industry currently
represents less than 1 percent of aquaculture globally, and only 36.3 percent of respondents
acknowledge that Asia is the largest contributor to world aquaculture. Respondents proved to be
slightly more knowledgeable regarding environmentally sustainable aquaculture, with
approximately 60 percent correctly identifying criteria that define the concept.
Perceptions and Knowledge of Tilapia
A low percentage of correct answers were found on knowledge statements about tilapia,
demonstrating that respondents were largely uninformed about the unique characteristics that
make tilapia a sustainable fish for aquaculture and about tilapia aquaculture production in the
U.S. (Table 5-4). On average, respondents generated 2.37 correct responses out of a possible 6.
The mean tilapia knowledge score of males (M = 2.54, SD = 2.12) was significantly higher than
for females (M = 2.19, SD = 2.07), p = .03. Knowledge of tilapia was also significantly different
for different age levels, F(2, 653) = 3.462, p = .032. There were more correct answers reported on
average from the 18-44 year old age group (M =2.57, SD = 2.15) than the 45-64 year old age
150
group (M = 2.08, SD = 2.06), a statistically significant result (p = .03). More specifically, of those
respondents who fell in the 45-64 age group, males were significantly more knowledgeable about
tilapia (M = 2.39, SD = 2.10) than females (M = 1.51, SD = 1.89), p = .003. There was also a
statistically significant difference in mean tilapia knowledge amongst females of different age
groups (p = .004); females who fell in the 18-44 age group had a mean tilapia knowledge score of
2.42 (SD = 2.11) compared to females age 45-64 (M = 1.51 SD = 1.89). Furthermore, females 65
and older had a mean tilapia knowledge score of 2.40 (SD = 2.01), a significant difference
compared to 45-64 year old females.
Furthermore, the results of the tilapia knowledge analyses suggests the large majority of
respondents (56.4%) were uninformed about tilapia sustainability and tilapia aquaculture in the
United States (Figure 5-1). A very small fraction of the total sample were found to be
misinformed about tilapia facts (1.4%), but there were some consumers with mixed information
(19.1%) around tilapia.
Table 5-4: Knowledge tilapia by percent of correct responses (N = 656).
Items Correct
(%)
Tilapia aquaculture in the United States is strictly regulated to
ensure food safety and environmental health 44.1
When raised in land-based tank systems, tilapia is a sustainable fish 43.3
Tilapia aquaculture in the United States is more environmentally
friendly than most tilapia aquaculture in Asia 43.3
Tilapia can be raised with less environmental impact than many
other fish species 36.9
Tilapia can thrive on a primarily plant-based diet 35.5
Tilapia are hardy and disease-resistant compared to other fish 33.8
Objective Knowledge of TilapiaA 32.8%
Informed
AAggregated total percent of correct answers on all scale items.
151
When asked to rate farm-raised tilapia on various product attributes, respondents showed
a generally neutral to positive perception of the fish overall with average perception scores that
ranged from M = 3.12 to M = 3.75 and an overall aggregated score of M = 3.40 (construct M =
3.40, SD = 1.09). Respondents’ mean perception of tilapia was analyzed based on their level of
objective knowledge about tilapia aquaculture to determine if perceptions varied based on
knowledge level (Figure 5-2). Results showed a significant mean difference in perception of each
tilapia attribute between consumers who are uninformed and those who are informed about tilapia
(p < .001). Respondents who were knowledgeable of tilapia rated each tilapia attribute higher
than those consumers who lacked knowledge. Mean perception scores for uninformed consumers
were rather neutral compared to the informed consumer group, who recorded moderately positive
ratings of tilapia attributes. The largest difference in mean perceptions between the groups was
for the “clean” attribute, with uninformed consumers rating the attribute low (M = 3.00, SD =
1.41) compared to informed consumers (M = 3.95, SD = 0.98). The affordability of tilapia was the
product attribute that received the highest rating for both groups (uninformed M = 3.54, SD =
1.25; informed M = 4.19, SD = 0.94).
Figure 5-1: Percentage of respondents who are classified as misinformed, mixed informed,
correctly informed, and uninformed about farm-raised tilapia (N = 656).
152
Link Between Perceptions, Knowledge, and Consumption
The relationships between subjective perceptions and objective knowledge of tilapia, and
tilapia consumption frequency and likelihood to consume aquaponic-reared tilapia were tested
with bivariate correlations. Perceptions and knowledge of tilapia were positively correlated (r =
.40, p < .001). Unsurprisingly, those who have a stronger perception of tilapia tend to consume
tilapia more frequently (r = .58, p < .001). Additionally, those with a higher level of knowledge
about tilapia are more likely to be frequent consumers of the fish (r = .31, p < .001). Regarding
likelihood to consume aquaponic-reared tilapia, both perception and knowledge of tilapia are
positively and significantly (p < .001) related to favorability (r = .59 and r = .37, respectively).
Characterization and Summary of Tilapia Consumers
Grouping consumers based on their tilapia consumption frequency resulted in 47.7% (N
= 307) of respondents claiming to consume tilapia infrequently, while 52.3% (N = 337) claimed
to consume tilapia frequently. Approximately one percent (N = 12) of the total sample responded
that they were “unsure” how often they consume tilapia; these cases were recorded as missing
Figure 5-2: Consumer perceptions of farm-raised tilapia traits based on their objective
knowledge of tilapia (N = 656).
153
values and were not included in analyses. Consumers were also grouped based on their stated
likelihood to consume tilapia reared in aquaponics; 39.5% (N = 259) were categorized as
unfavorable and 60.5% (N = 397) were categorized as favorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia.
These subsamples were used as the basis for the consumer profiling analyses.
The consumer segments were profiled with variables measuring respondents’ fish
consumption behavior and preferences, perceptions and knowledge of aquaculture in general and
of tilapia as an aquaculture product, and several individual socio-demographic variables. Results
of the chi-square cross-tabulation concerning each segments’ socio-demographic and fish
consumption profile are presented in Table 5-5. There was a statistically significant association
found between age and tilapia consumption frequency (χ2(2) = 18.21, p < .001) and aquaponic-
tilapia favorability (χ2(2) = 12.64, p = .002). Gender (χ2(1) = 7.45, p = .006) and race and
ethnicity (χ2(3) = 26.64, p < .001) were found to be significantly associated with tilapia
consumption frequency, but not aquaponics-tilapia favorability. No distinctive characterization
emerged in any group in terms of consumer income or education. There was a significant
association between tilapia consumption frequency and favorability to aquaponic-reared tilapia
and both overall fish consumption and farmed fish consumption (p < .001).
154
Analysis of variance procedures were carried out on individual fish preference items and
aggregated scores of the importance consumers attach to sustainable, ethical, and local sourcing
of fish and other goods in order to determine whether differences exist amongst consumer
segments (Table 5-6). Fish freshness was the only fish attribute that was found to have a
significant mean difference between infrequent and frequent tilapia consumers, Welch’s F(1,
Table 5-5: Personal and fish consumption characteristics of the different consumer segments based on the
results of chi-square tests (%).
Infrequent
Tilapia
Consumers
N = 307
47.7%
Frequent
Tilapia
Consumers
N = 337
52.3%
p
Unfavorable
to AP-
tilapia
N = 259
39.5%
Favorable
to AP-
tilapia
N = 397
60.5%
p
Age < .001 .002
18-44 31.3 44.5 32.8 41.8
45-64 41.7 26.7 42.1 28.7
65 and over 27.0 28.8 25.1 29.5
Gender .006 .735
Male 55.9 45.1 51.4 50.0
Female 44.1 54.9 48.6 50.0
Race & Ethnicity < .001 .693
White 63.8 44.2 56.4 52.4
Black 9.8 19.3 13.1 15.9
Hispanic or Latino 21.8 30.6 25.1 26.7
Other 4.6 5.9 5.4 5.0
Income .327 .564
Less than $20,000 13.7 10.7 12.0 12.6
$20,000 to $34,999 16.6 20.5 18.5 19.4
$35,000 to $49,999 15.0 17.8 18.1 15.6
$50,000 to $74,999 21.8 22.0 18.9 23.2
$75,000 to $99,999 13.0 14.2 12.7 13.9
Greater than $100,000 19.9 14.8 19.7 15.4
Education .457 .496
High school degree or less 18.6 19.9 18.1 21.2
Some college (no degree) 23.8 24.9 23.6 25.2
Associate or bachelor’s degree 41.0 43.0 42.1 41.1
Postgraduate degree 16.6 12.2 16.2 12.6
Overall Fish Consumption < .001 < .001
Infrequent 50.2 13.1 41.3 24.9
Frequent 49.8 86.9 58.7 75.1
Farmed Fish Consumption < .001 < .001
Infrequent 41.6 21.7 40.1 23.3
Frequent
58.4 78.3 59.9 76.7
Notes: Significant differences are indicated in bold. Consumer group sample sizes differ on the farmed fish consumption
variable as only those respondents who indicated that they purchase fish “sometimes” or “often” were shown the question
regarding their farmed fish consumption frequency. AP = aquaponics.
155
544.50) = 7.595, p = .006. There was not a significant distinguishable difference in importance of
fish freshness amongst consumers favorable and unfavorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia. With
respect to the importance consumers attach to sustainable, ethical and local sourcing, there were
no statistically significant group differences between frequent and infrequent tilapia consumers.
However, consumers favorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia valued local sourcing significantly
more than those unfavorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia, Welch’s F(1, 461.38) = 8.677, p = .003.
There is not a significant difference in importance of sustainable and ethical sourcing between
consumer groups that are favorable or unfavorable to aquaponics tilapia (p = .072).
One-way ANOVAs were also conducted to determine whether there are mean differences
between the segments based on their subjective perceptions and objective knowledge of
aquaculture in general and tilapia more specifically (Table 5-7). Significant differences in
perceptions of aquaculture benefits and concerns were not found between respondents who do or
do not consume tilapia frequently. However, perceptions of aquaculture benefits (p < .001) and
Table 5-6: Fish preferences and consumer values of the consumer segments based on the results of ANOVA
tests (Mean (SD)).
Infrequent
Tilapia
Consumers
N = 307
47.7%
Frequent
Tilapia
Consumers
N = 337
52.3%
p
Unfavorable
to AP-tilapia
N = 259
39.5%
Favorable
to AP-
tilapia
N = 397
60.5%
p
Fish PreferencesA
Freshness 4.57 (0.75) 4.38 (0.89) .006 4.47 (0.82) 4.45 (0.85) .752
Nutritional value 3.93 (0.99) 3.93 (0.93) .993 3.86 (0.99) 3.96 (0.94) .204
Price 3.85 (0.96) 3.84 (0.95) .857 3.93 (0.99) 3.80 (0.94) .127
Familiarity 3.80 (0.96) 3.71 (0.95) .298 3.78 (0.99) 3.73 (0.94) .602
Geographic origin 3.26 (1.36) 3.20 (1.28) .609 3.22 (1.31) 3.21 (1.32) .912
Production origin 3.56 (1.29) 3.42 (1.21) .175 3.56 (1.29) 3.40 (1.23) .152
Sustainability labeling 3.54 (1.22) 3.50 (1.18) .666 3.50 (1.19) 3.52 (1.19) .818
Quality/food safety labeling
4.29 (0.98) 4.15 (0.94) .108 4.15 (1.09) 4.24 (0.88) .359
Consumer ValuesA
Sustainable & Ethical Sourcing 3.68 (1.05) 3.66 (0.98) .793 3.56 (1.05) 3.72 (0.98) .072
Local Sourcing 3.75 (0.95) 3.73 (0.78) .770 3.61 (0.98) 3.82 (0.78) .003
Notes: Significant differences are indicated in bold. Consumer group sample sizes differ on the fish preference variables as
only those respondents who indicated that they purchase fish “sometimes” or “often” were shown the question regarding
their preferences for fish. AP = aquaponics. A Five-point importance scale.
156
concerns (p = .002) did differ significantly with consumer favorability toward aquaponic-reared
tilapia. Infrequent tilapia consumers reported a significantly weaker mean perception of farmed
fish than frequent tilapia consumers, F(1,642) = 10.94, p = .001, as did consumers unfavorable to
aquaponic-reared tilapia compared to those who are favorable, F(1, 654) = 38.78, p < .001. As
one would expect, consumers who frequently eat tilapia and those who are favorable to
aquaponic-reared tilapia reported a significantly stronger perception of tilapia attributes compared
to those who do not frequently consume tilapia and those unfavorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia
(p < .001). Finally, frequent tilapia consumers and consumers favorable to aquaponic tilapia were
found to be significantly more knowledgeable about fish origin, sustainable aquaculture, and
tilapia than infrequent and unfavorable consumer groups (p < .001).
Table 5-7: Perceptions and knowledge of aquaculture and tilapia amongst consumer segments based on the
results of ANOVA tests (Mean (SD)).
Infrequent
Tilapia
Consumers
N = 307
47.7%
Frequent
Tilapia
Consumers
N = 337
52.3%
p
Unfavorable
to AP-tilapia
N = 259
39.5%
Favorable
to AP-
tilapia
N = 397
60.5%
p
Perceptions of AquacultureA
Benefits 3.78 (0.70) 3.86 (0.68) .172 3.62 (0.69) 3.95 (0.67) < .001
Concerns
3.20 (0.68) 3.16 (0.70) .436 3.28 (0.71) 3.10 (0.67) .002
Perceptions of Farmed FishA
2.91 (0.75) 3.11 (0.75) .001 2.80 (0.77) 3.16 (0.70) < .001
Perceptions of TilapiaA
Nutritious 2.85 (1.34) 3.86 (0.97) < .001 2.73 (1.35) 3.80 (0.99) < .001
Flavorful 2.56 (1.39) 3.88 (1.02) < .001 2.52 (1.42) 3.72 (1.10) < .001
Safe to eat 2.82 (1.49) 3.92 (1.06) < .001 2.73 (1.51) 3.83 (1.11) < .001
Environmentally friendly 2.82 (1.40) 3.73 (1.00) < .001 2.70 (1.38) 3.68 (1.04) < .001
Clean 2.76 (1.44) 3.82 (1.07) < .001 2.69 (1.44) 3.72 (1.13) < .001
Affordable 3.38 (1.33) 4.12 (0.93) < .001 3.25 (1.35) 4.08 (0.96) < .001
Overall 2.86 (1.14) 3.89 (0.80) < .001 2.77 (1.16) 3.81 (0.82) < .001
Objective Knowledge of Fish
OriginB 2.11 (1.75) 2.75 (1.89) < .001 1.85 (1.69) 2.80 (1.85) < .001
Objective Knowledge of
Sustainable AquacultureC 3.45 (2.55) 4.45 (2.34) < .001 3.14 (2.47) 4.49 (2.36) < .001
Objective Knowledge of
TilapiaB 1.78 (1.90) 2.97 (2.11) < .001 1.49 (1.79) 2.94 (2.09) < .001
Notes: Significant differences are indicated in bold. AP = aquaponics. A Five-point scale. B Average number of correct responses out of 6. C Average number of correct responses out of 7.
157
Infrequent Tilapia Consumers
Respondents classified as infrequent tilapia consumers (47.7% of the total sample) were
mostly middle-aged, male, and White. This group contains an even distribution between
infrequent and frequent fish consumers, but more frequent than infrequent farmed fish consumers.
Infrequent tilapia consumers expressed a strong preference for fish freshness by reporting a
significantly greater importance of freshness when purchasing fish than the group that claimed to
consume tilapia frequently. This group also perceived farm-raised fish slightly more negatively in
terms of its relative quality to wild-caught fish as compared to the group that consumed tilapia
more frequently. Perceptions of tilapia are significantly more adverse with this group, especially
in terms of flavor. The consumers who eat tilapia less frequently also have a significantly lower
level of objective knowledge about fish origin, sustainable aquaculture, and tilapia.
Frequent Tilapia Consumers
The group of respondents that were characterized as frequent tilapia consumers (52.3% of
the total sample) was mainly composed of consumers who were younger, female, and White,
although 30.6% were Hispanic or Latino and 19.3% were Black. A large majority (86.9%) of
frequent tilapia consumers were frequent fish consumers in general, and 78.3% reported being
frequent farmed fish consumers. Frequent tilapia consumers did not report freshness to be quite as
important of a factor in their fish purchases as infrequent tilapia consumers. Their perceptions of
farmed fish were marginally yet significantly greater than infrequent tilapia consumers’, although
perceptions were still rather neutral overall. On average, respondents who eat tilapia frequently
exhibit a positive perception of tilapia compared to those who do not frequently consume tilapia.
The most notable differences in mean tilapia perception scores between the two consumer groups
were in regard to flavor, food safety, and cleanliness. Objective knowledge of fish origin,
158
sustainable aquaculture, and tilapia are significantly higher for this group than infrequent
consumers, despite low knowledge scores for fish origin and tilapia overall.
Consumers Unfavorable to Aquaponic Tilapia
The group of respondents that were classified as unfavorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia
(39.5% of the total sample) consisted mostly of middle-aged consumers. The group comprised an
equal share of women and men with the majority being White, but these demographic
distributions were not significantly different than the favorable consumer group. Frequent fish
consumers constitute 58.7% of the group that is unfavorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia.
Similarly, farmed fish consumers represent 59.9% of this group. This group does not value local
sourcing of fish and other products quite as much as the group that is favorable to aquaponic-
reared tilapia. These respondents also show moderate perceptions of aquaculture benefits and are
somewhat more concerned about aquaculture impacts. Additionally, their perceptions of farmed
fish are generally unfavorable. Compared to the consumer group that is favorable to aquaponic
tilapia, this group exhibits negative perceptions of tilapia as an aquaculture species, most notably
in regard to attributes of flavor and safety. This segment of consumers is also less knowledgeable
about fish origin, sustainable aquaculture, and tilapia compared to the favorable group. On
average, these consumers responded accurately to only 1.85 knowledge statements about fish
origin and 1.49 statements about tilapia out of 6 statements total.
Consumers Favorable to Aquaponic Tilapia
Respondents who reported being favorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia (60.5% of the total
sample) were mostly younger consumers (41.8%), but there were also a fair amount of middle-
aged and older consumers in this group (28.7% and 29.5% respectively). Their gender and ethnic
background was not found to be significantly different than the unfavorable consumer group,
159
however the group consisted mostly of individuals who were White, and an exact 50/50 split
between women and men was recorded. The majority of this group were frequent fish consumers
(75.1%) and 76.7% reported frequent consumption of farmed fish in particular. These consumers
felt local sourcing to be relatively important in comparison to those who are unfavorable to
aquaponic tilapia. Furthermore, respondents in this group found aquaculture to be beneficial and
were not as worried about common aquaculture concerns as the unfavorable group. Although
neutral overall, their perceptions of farmed fish were slightly better as well. This group had
moderately positive perceptions of tilapia, especially with respect to its affordability, as well as its
safety and nutritional quality. Relative to the unfavorable consumer segment, consumers
favorable to aquaponic tilapia had a higher level of knowledge about fish origin, sustainable
aquaculture and tilapia. However, these respondents still replied incorrectly to over half of the
fish origin and tilapia knowledge statements.
DISCUSSION
General Description of Floridian Fish Consumption Behavior
The self-reported fish consumption frequency of this sample indicated that the majority
(68.6%) of Floridians purchase fish sometimes (e.g., every few months) or often (e.g., every week
or two). A recent survey of a representative sample of U.S. consumers found that about half of all
U.S. citizens are regular seafood consumers (i.e., eat fish or other seafood at least once a month),
while only 21% meet the USDA’s recommendation of consuming seafood two times a week or
more (Stein and Markenson, 2019). This indicates that Floridians’ fish and seafood consumption
is somewhat higher on average than other U.S. states. Most frequent fish consumers in this study
reported choosing wild-caught marine fish more often than wild-caught freshwater fish and farm-
raised fish. Wild marine fish appears be the most popular option amongst Floridians; however,
160
because the top five seafood species consumed in the U.S. today are primarily farm-raised, and
these species’ share of total fish consumption has increased to 70.2% of total fish consumption in
the U.S. (Shamshak et al., 2019), it is likely that participants’ consumption of farm-raised fish is
greater than what they have reported.
Comparable to the results of the Food Marketing Institute’s national survey, which
assessed the factors that have the most impact on seafood purchases (Stein and Markenson,
2019), this study showed that fish consumers value freshness and quality/food safety labeling
above other attributes. Price was also found to be moderately important relative to other factors, a
result that is similar to a previous study of consumer preferences for fish (Claret et al., 2012).
Consumer Awareness of Sustainable Aquaculture Advances
Aquaculture Awareness
Respondents to this survey implied that they had generally indifferent or somewhat
positive perceptions with regard to aquaculture. Consumers seemed most keen on the ability of
aquaculture to alleviate pressure on wild fish populations and to provide an economic boost to
local communities. However, they were concerned that aquaculture may involve problems similar
to terrestrial agriculture and that crowded conditions on the farm have an adverse impact on fish.
Hall and Amberg’s (2013) study of Pacific northwest consumers revealed similar results;
respondents generally agreed that there are benefits to aquaculture, especially concerning wild
fish populations, but that problems remain. As in other studies, respondents viewed farmed fish as
being less flavorful and of lower overall quality than farmed fish (Hall and Amberg, 2013;
Verbeke et al., 2007a). Additionally, as in the study by Verbeke et al. (2007a), more respondents
agreed than disagreed that farmed fish have less contaminants and are safer to eat than wild-
caught fish, although the mean response to these perception items were still fairly neutral.
161
Results of the aquaculture knowledge analyses indicate that consumer knowledge around
the subject is quite limited. Only approximately 30 percent of the respondents were deemed
knowledgeable about fish origin, with a low percentage of correct answers recorded on each
knowledge statement; this suggests that people are disconnected from the country of origin and
dynamic supply chain that is behind to the fish they purchase. Interestingly, people did prove to
be somewhat more knowledgeable about environmentally sustainable aquaculture, with
approximately 60 percent correctly identifying criteria that define the concept.
Awareness of Tilapia as an Ideal Fish for Sustainable Aquaculture
Findings from the tilapia knowledge analyses indicate a widespread lack of knowledge
around tilapia. This study shows that Florida consumers, particularly middle-aged women, are
generally unaware about the characters that make tilapia an ideal aquaculture species and about
sustainable tilapia aquaculture practices in the United States. These findings mirror those of
previous research that has highlighted an extensive lack of consumer knowledge around
aquaculture and aquaculture products (Feucht and Zander, 2015; Pieniak et al., 2013;
Vanhonacker et al., 2011; Zander and Feucht, 2018; Zander et al., 2018). It is important to point
out that a large majority of respondents were fully lacking an understanding of tilapia (i.e., more
than 50% were uninformed) and not necessarily misinformed about tilapia, as was originally
anticipated due to the negative media stories, false and misleading messaging, and the
misconceptions tilapia has been at the center of in recent years (Fitzsimmons, 2017; Kearns,
2018). While there were a number of respondents who exhibited having mixed information about
tilapia (19%), the proportion of misinformed consumers identified in this study was relatively
negligible at approximately 1% (N = 9) of the sample.
The basis for this study was partially built upon the speculation that tilapia suffers an
image problem amongst consumers due to misinformation publicized in popular media.
162
Consumer perceptions of tilapia were analyzed in this study to begin to examine this notion.
When respondents were asked to rate farm-raised tilapia on several fish product attributes,
responses indicated that Floridians tend to have a neutral to moderately positive perception of
tilapia as an aquaculture species. The most positive perception of tilapia was in respect to its
affordability. To understand the connection between objective knowledge and subjective
perception, perceptions of tilapia were investigated further by examining responses from
consumers with varying levels of knowledge about tilapia. Perceptions of tilapia were found to
increase significantly from the group with a low level of knowledge to the more informed group.
While the uninformed consumers showed generally neutral scores in regard to tilapia attributes
including nutritional quality, environmental friendliness, and cleanliness, the informed consumers
reported these as moderately positive traits of tilapia. This indicates that an overall lack of
understanding of tilapia amongst consumers is impacting consumer perceptions of the fish.
Consistent with this finding, this study also uncovered a positive and significant
correlation between perceptions of tilapia and knowledge of tilapia. Furthermore, positive and
significant correlations were found between perceptions and knowledge of tilapia and tilapia
consumption frequency, as well as the likelihood of consumers choosing to consume aquaponic-
reared tilapia. These moderately positive associations emphasize the need to advance consumer
knowledge of tilapia to improve perceptions, which conceivably will translate to a progressive
increase in consumption of tilapia and interest in tilapia from aquaponics systems. Based on these
results, developing education initiatives and designing outreach and extension projects around
tilapia and aquaculture more generally appear to be effective ways for the industry to promote a
favorable image of tilapia and persuade consumers to make more sustainable fish choices.
In general, this study indicated that current public perceptions and knowledge of tilapia
are not in line with the realities of tilapia aquaculture production in the United States. The
regulatory environment around the U.S. aquaculture industry is especially strict in terms of
163
environmental and human health standards, meaning that many species of fish, including tilapia,
are produced under close attention within state lines. However, the low percentage of correct
responses to the knowledge statements containing factual information about tilapia production in
the U.S. implies that consumers do not recognize the unique characteristics of tilapia that make it
an ideal fish for sustainable aquaculture development. Additionally, uninformed consumers’
neutral rating around specific attributes of tilapia, including environmental and food safety
aspects, suggest that a disconnect exists between how consumers currently view tilapia
aquaculture and the realities of sustainable production in the United States. Bearing in mind the
existence of false, fabricated and outdated information about tilapia, it is promising that only a
few consumers in this study were classified as misinformed, although there is a notable number of
consumers who were found to have mixed information or were entirely uninformed about tilapia.
Attention to the awareness gap, especially amongst middle-aged females, and targeted education
about sustainable tilapia aquaculture that focuses on accurate, science-based information will be
essential to improve consumers’ opinion and consumption of tilapia.
Insights Regarding a Favorable Tilapia Consumer Base in Florida
The second purpose of the present study was to reveal and describe differences between
consumers that may help to explain whether or not they choose to consume tilapia and if they
would be likely to consume aquaponic tilapia. Respondents were first grouped into two categories
based on their self-reported frequency of tilapia consumption, which resulted in a group of
infrequent tilapia consumers and a group of frequent tilapia consumers. A second classification
identified consumers who were unfavorable or favorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia determined
by their stated likelihood to consume tilapia grown in an aquaponics system. These groups were
then summarized with variables measuring consumers’ individual socio-demographic
164
characteristics and fish consumption behavior, preferences and values, and perceptions and
knowledge around aquaculture and tilapia.
Personal demographic variables and overall fish consumption frequencies are of
particular interest in the identification of potential market segments for novel products, such as
aquaponics-produced tilapia. By identifying demographic groups that are most favorable to this
product, the industry could gain a better understanding of where to target their marketing efforts
if such production is to increase in Florida and elsewhere. Furthermore, consumers’ established
preferences for fish and their values concerning food production can drive their acceptance and
support of innovative food production technologies and novel products (Siegrist and Hartmann,
2020). These aspects can also be used in identifying niche markets. Further, the likelihood of a
consumer’s choice to purchase a product is thought to be directly linked to their perceptions of
the product, which are in turn connected to their level of objective knowledge (Aertsens et al.,
2011). Therefore it was imperative to understand where consumers stand in terms of their
perceptions and knowledge of aquaculture and tilapia.
Unfavorable Tilapia Consumers
When asked about their considerations when purchasing fish, infrequent tilapia
consumers exhibited a strong preference for fish freshness in comparison to frequent tilapia
consumers. The consideration of freshness when buying food has also been found as a defining
characteristic of a cluster of consumers that Greenfeld et al. (2020) found to be uninterested in
aquaponics (i.e., those who are not willing to consume aquaponic products). Importance of
freshness seems to be a realistic characteristic of a group of consumers who are opposed to
purchasing farm-raised tilapia. Most of the tilapia available to U.S. consumers today is imported
from Asian and Latin American countries, much of which is supplied as frozen fillets. Likewise,
although fresh tilapia fillets are considered a staple at the seafood counter, product labeling
165
informs consumers of the country of origin; when such product is traveling expansive distances
through the supply chain to the end-user from its’ country of origin, this labeling may be
indicative of reduced freshness to the consumer. Consumers who prefer fresh fish may be
unsatisfied with fish that is farmed and imported from foreign countries. The importance these
consumers attach to fresh fish may therefore help to explain their comparatively negative
perceptions about farmed fish and tilapia as an aquaculture product.
Furthermore, consumers opposed to tilapia were distinctly uninformed about aquaculture
and tilapia. To cultivate an increased liking of tilapia as a sustainable aquaculture product and
improve perceptions of farmed fish overall, efforts should be taken to target education initiatives
toward this unfavorable consumer segment. When grown in a controlled environment, such as a
greenhouse or warehouse, aquaponics can provide fresh fish and produce to local communities
year-round (Savidov, 2004); focusing education around this added-value of aquaponics is a
potentially productive way to increase consumer awareness and meet this consumer group’s
preference for fresh fish. Respondents who reported infrequent tilapia consumption or low
likelihood to consume aquaponic tilapia were predominantly middle-aged consumers. This
demographic would be a suitable audience for concentrated extension and outreach regarding the
science-based realities of sustainable tilapia production in aquaponic systems.
Potential Market for Sustainable Tilapia in Florida
While just over half of the respondents in this study reported being frequent tilapia
consumers, approximately 60 percent were identified as favorable to aquaponic-reared tilapia. An
overwhelming majority of respondents in these groups regularly consumed fish in general and
farmed fish in particular, a considerably greater proportion than the consumer segment that was
opposed tilapia. Unsurprisingly, these respondents also show positive perceptions of aquaculture
and farm-raised fish. This suggests that those who are already more accustomed to farmed fish
166
will be among those most likely to purchase fish from innovative aquaculture systems. Findings
also indicate consumers who are favorable to aquaponic tilapia appear to find local sourcing more
important than consumers in other segments. This consumer value presents a niche market that
aquaponics production has the capability to fill. Aquaponics is a form of aquaculture and food
production that functions particularly well in urban environments; there have been aquaponics
operations successfully installed on rooftops as a part of green roof infrastructure in many major
cities across the globe (Palm et al., 2018). This versatility allows aquaponics operations to be
situated in high-density areas in close proximity to end-users where local food production is
valued and being supported.
Labeling aquaponic products as possessing added value, directing local marketing
messages toward the “locavore” niche market, and expanding sales at community farmers’
markets and specialty retail stores are potentially promising strategies for reaching a favorable
market and thereby growing the industry. Consumers who realize the added value associated with
aquaponics may be willing to pay more to support such practices; however, if they are to pay a
premium for aquaponic products, they must first be aware of the advantages (Greenfeld et al.,
2019). Taking this into consideration, it is worth noting that despite these respondents’
significantly higher knowledge scores as compared to the unfavorable segment, consumers who
frequently eat tilapia and those favorable to aquaponic tilapia also scored fairly low on knowledge
statements regarding fish origin and tilapia. On average, these respondents answered correctly to
only approximately half of the factual statements around fish origin and tilapia. These findings
suggest that better transparency and information distribution around aquaponic product benefits
and the advancements of this evolving industry will be imperative to its future success.
167
Limitations
There are a number of limitations to this study that should be noted. First, the data
collected were all self-reported using an online questionnaire. While this is advantageous for
research in many aspects, this methodology has potential for bias. There is potential for error in
the use of an online questionnaire itself, in self-reported data, and in the subjective nature of the
measures used. The responses participants provided in regard to items such as their fish
consumption frequency may or may not be an accurate reflection of their actual behavior; the
social desirability effect may prompt respondents to answer in a way that exaggerates their true
characteristics. An additional source of bias may be the literacy level of participants. There was a
wide variety of education levels represented within the sample, and some participants may not
have fully understood every part of the survey. Furthermore, this study assessed consumers’
acceptance of a novel product that is not yet widely available on the market. Therefore, the results
reveal theoretical likelihood to consume aquaponic tilapia in the future, as opposed to actual
purchasing intentions. Finally, caution should be used when generalizing these findings beyond
the Florida population, as this study only targeted Floridians.
Future research is needed to further investigate the objectives covered in this study and
facilitate a cumulative body of knowledge around the consumer’s role in the success of
sustainable aquaculture advancements. The industry would benefit from additional information
regarding consumer awareness of tilapia and aquaponics nationwide and potential consumer
markets across the U.S. that would be willing to pay a premium price for aquaponic-reared fish.
Another useful area of research would involve an evaluation of where U.S. consumers currently
get their information about fish and aquaculture practices. Such sources of information can not
only impact how consumer opinions are formed, but also point to potential outlets the industry
should focus on in future education and marketing initiatives.
168
CONCLUSION
The objectives of this study were to address the research gap regarding consumers’
subjective perceptions and objective understanding of tilapia aquaculture production, and in
evaluating this perspective, begin to describe a consumer segment in Florida that is considered
favorable to tilapia reared sustainably in aquaponic systems. This study has also provided insights
into niche consumer groups that would be most receptive to targeted marketing and information
based on individual demographics and consumer values.
Most notably, this research has shown that consumers have a lack of awareness of fish
origin and of tilapia as an aquaculture product, which is likely impacting their generally neutral
perception and limited consumption of tilapia. In general, consumer perception of tilapia was
improved amongst those with a greater objective knowledge of tilapia. Furthermore, significantly
positive correlations were found between consumer perceptions and knowledge of tilapia and
their tilapia consumption frequency. Likewise, acceptance of and likelihood to consume tilapia
reared sustainably in aquaponic systems seems to be partly based on objective knowledge of
tilapia aquaculture; consumers in the group favorable to aquaponic tilapia exhibited higher levels
of knowledge compared to unfavorable consumers.
In spite of those consumers who were favorable to tilapia having significantly stronger
perceptions and greater knowledge of tilapia compared to those who are opposed to tilapia, mean
scores on these constructs are still rather low. The lack of awareness around tilapia and
aquaculture more broadly emphasizes a challenging barrier to the promotion of more sustainable
fish consumption. There are currently multiple disconnects that exist between consumers and the
fish that is available to them. Significant progress must be made to begin to bridge these gaps and
successfully turn the trend in fish consumption towards more sustainably-farmed options. Efforts
should be made to better align consumer perceptions and understanding with the advancements
that are occurring within the sustainable aquaculture industry, including aquaponics. Based on the
169
findings of this study, it will be crucial to extend consistent, scientifically-accurate and carefully-
targeted information in order to see a positive shift toward consumer acceptance of sustainably-
farmed tilapia and for the commercial aquaponics industry to achieve its potential.
LITERATURE CITED
Aertsens, J., Mondelaers, K., Verbeke, W., Buysse, J., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2011). The
influence of subjective and objective knowledge on attitude, motivations and
consumption of organic food. British Food Journal, 113(11), 1353–1378.
Badiola, M., Mendiola, D., & Bostock, J. (2012). Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS)
analysis: Main issues on management and future challenges. Aquacultural
Engineering, 51, 26-35.
Barrington, K., Ridler, N., Chopin, T., Robinson, S., & Robinson, B. (2010). Social aspects of the
sustainability of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Aquaculture International, 18(2),
201-211.
Boyd, C. E. (2004). Farm-level issues in aquaculture certification: Tilapia. Report
commissioned by WWF-US, 1-29.
Britwum, Kofi & Noblet, Caroline L. & Evans, Keith S. (2018). More Farms on The Water? U.S
Consumers’ Perceptions of Aquaculture Practices and Products. 2018 Annual Meeting,
August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273824, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
Brooker, M. (2015, October 28). Seafood Consumer Insights [Conference Presentation]. Global
Aquaculture Alliance 2015 GOAL Conference. Vancouver, BC.
Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Aguirre, E., Rincón, L., Hernández, M. D., Martínez, I., ... & Rodríguez
Rodríguez, C. (2012). Consumer preferences for sea fish using conjoint analysis:
Exploratory study of the importance of country of origin, obtaining method, storage
conditions and purchasing price. Food Quality and Preference, 26(2), 259-266.
Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Gartzia, I., Garcia-Quiroga, M., & Ginés, R. (2016). Does information
affect consumer liking of farmed and wild fish?. Aquaculture, 454, 157-162.
Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Ginés, R., Grau, A., Hernández, M. D., Aguirre, E., Peleteiro, J.B.,
Fernández-Pato, C., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C. (2014). Consumer beliefs regarding
farmed versus wild fish. Appetite, 79, 25-31.
DeLong, D. P., Losordo, T., & Rakocy, J. (2009). Tank culture of tilapia. SRAC Publication No.
282. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. Stoneville, MS.
Engle, C.R. (2015). Economics of Aquaponics. SRAC Publication No. 5006. Southern Regional
Aquaculture Center. Stoneville, MS.
170
FAO. (2019, April 11). Lower tilapia sales to the United States of America expected for 2019.
GLOBEFISH. http://www.fao.org/in-action/globefish/market-reports/resource-
detail/en/c/1189929/
FAO. (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action.
Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en
Feucht, Y., & Zander, K. (2015). Of earth ponds, flow-through and closed recirculation
systems—German consumers' understanding of sustainable aquaculture and its
communication. Aquaculture, 438, 151-158.
Fitzsimmons, K. (2010). Potential to Increase Global Tilapia Production [Conference
Presentation]. The Global Outlook for Aquaculture Leadership 2010, Kuala Lumpur.
http://www.gaalliance.org/update/GOAL10/Fitzsimmons.pdf
Fitzsimmons, K. (2017, February 22). Slowing sales of tilapia in the U.S.: why and what can be done to return to rapid growth [Conference Presentation]. Aquaculture America 2017.
San Antonio, Texas.
Fitzsimmons, K., Martinez-Garcia, R., & Gonzalez-Alanis, P. (2011). Why tilapia is becoming
the most important food fish on the planet. Better Science, Better Fish, Better Life, 8.
Greenfeld, A., Becker, N., Bornman, J. F., dos Santos, M. J., & Angel, D. (2020). Consumer
preferences for aquaponics: A comparative analysis of Australia and Israel. Journal of
Environmental Management, 257, 109979.
Greenfeld, A., Becker, N., McIlwain, J., Fotedar, R., & Bornman, J. F. (2019). Economically
viable aquaponics? Identifying the gap between potential and current
uncertainties. Reviews in Aquaculture, 11(3), 848-862.
Hall, T. E., & Amberg, S. M. (2013). Factors influencing consumption of farmed seafood
products in the Pacific northwest. Appetite, 66, 1-9.
Hamlish, N. (2018, September 7). Modern aquaculture deserves a better image. Global
Aquaculture Advocate, Global Aquaculture Alliance.
https://www.aquaculturealliance.org/blog/modern-aquaculture-deserves-better-public-
image/
Hinkes, C., & Schulze-Ehlers, B. (2018). Consumer attitudes and preferences towards pangasius
and tilapia: The role of sustainability certification and the country of
origin. Appetite, 127, 171-181.
Honkanen, P., & Olsen, S. O. (2009). Environmental and animal welfare issues in food
choice. British Food Journal, 117(4), 1289-1302.
Kearns, M. (2018, January 23). Debunking the bad news about tilapia. Seafood Source.
https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply-trade/debunking-the-bad-news-about-
tilapia
171
Klinger, D., & Naylor, R. (2012). Searching for solutions in aquaculture: charting a sustainable
course. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 247-276.
Kramer, L. (2019, February 18). Can Americans’ perception of aquaculture change? Global Aquaculture Advocate, Global Aquaculture Alliance.
https://www.aquaculturealliance.org/advocate/can-americans-perception-of-aquaculture-
change/
Lennard, W. (2009). Aquaponics: The Integration of Recirculating Aquaculture and Hydroponics.
World Aquaculture 40(1), 23-25.
Leschin-Hoar, C. (2016, December 19). What will it take to make tilapia great again? Global Aquaculture Advocate, Global Aquaculture Alliance.
https://www.aquaculturealliance.org/advocate/what-will-it-take-to-make-tilapia-great-
again/
Little, D. C., Murray, F. J., Azim, E., Leschen, W., Boyd, K., Watterson, A., & Young, J. A.
(2008). Options for producing a warm-water fish in the UK: limits to “Green
Growth”?. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(5), 255-264.
Martins, C. I. M., Eding, E. H., Verdegem, M. C., Heinsbroek, L. T., Schneider, O., Blancheton,
J. P., d’Orbcastel, E.R., & Verreth, J. A. J. (2010). New developments in recirculating
aquaculture systems in Europe: A perspective on environmental
sustainability. Aquacultural Engineering, 43(3), 83-93.
Meas, T., & Hu, W. (2014). Consumers’ willingness to pay for seafood attributes: A multi
species and multi-state comparison. Selected paper prepared for presentation at the
Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, February
1-4, 2014.
Murray, M., Anthony, J. R., Noblet, C. L., & Rickard, L. (2017). 2017 National Aquaculture
Survey Results: Technical Report. The University of Maine, Sustainable Ecological
Aquaculture Network (SEANET).
Naylor, R., & Burke, M. (2005). Aquaculture and ocean resources: raising tigers of the
sea. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30.
Naylor, R. L., Goldburg, R. J., Primavera, J. H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M. C., Clay, J., Folke,
C., Lubchenco, J., Mooney, H., & Troell, M. (2000). Effect of aquaculture on world fish
supplies. Nature, 405(6790), 1017-1024.
NOAA. (n.d.). Sustainable Seafood: The Global Picture. FishWatch U.S. Seafood Facts.
https://www.fishwatch.gov/sustainable-seafood/the-global-picture.
Palm, H. W., Knaus, U., Appelbaum, S., Goddek, S., Strauch, S. M., Vermeulen, T., ... & Kotzen,
B. (2018). Towards commercial aquaponics: a review of systems, designs, scales and
nomenclature. Aquaculture International, 26(3), 813-842.
172
Pattillo, D.A. (2017). An overview of aquaponic systems: Aquaculture components. North
Central Reg. Aquaculture Ctr. Tech. Bul. 124.
Piedrahita, R. H. (2003). Reducing the potential environmental impact of tank aquaculture
effluents through intensification and recirculation. Aquaculture, 226(1-4), 35-44.
Pieniak, Z., Vanhonacker, F., & Verbeke, W. (2013). Consumer knowledge and use of
information about fish and aquaculture. Food Policy, 40, 25-30.
Popma, T., & Masser, M. (1999). Tilapia: Life History and Biology. SRAC Publication No.
283. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. Stoneville, MS.
Risius, A., Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2017). Consumer preferences for sustainable aquaculture
products: Evidence from in-depth interviews, think aloud protocols and choice
experiments. Appetite, 113, 246-254.
Roheim, C. A., Sudhakaran, P. O., & Durham, C. A. (2012). Certification of shrimp and salmon
for best aquaculture practices: Assessing consumer preferences in Rhode
Island. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 16(3), 266-286.
Savidov, N. (2004). Evaluation and development of aquaponics production and product market
capabilities in Alberta. Crop Diversification Centre South, Alberta Agriculture, Food and
Rural Development.
Sawilowsky, S. S., & Blair, R. C. (1992). A more realistic look at the robustness and type II error
properties of the t test to departures from population normality. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 352.
Shamshak, G. L., Anderson, J. L., Asche, F., Garlock, T., & Love, D. C. (2019). US seafood
consumption. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 50(4), 715-727.
Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2020). Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nature
Food, 1(6), 343-350.
Shaw, B., Runge, K., Yang, S., Witzling, L., Hartleb, C., & Peroff, D. (2019). Consumer
Attitudes Toward Wisconsin Farm-Raised Fish: Public Opinion and Marketing
Recommendations. University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Extension.
Stein, R., & Markenson, S. (2019). The Power of Seafood 2019: An in-depth look at Seafood
through the Shoppers’ Eyes [PowerPoint slides]. FMI. https://www.fmi.org/docs/default
source/webinars/pdf-the-power-of-seafood-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=52794a6e_0
Suresh, V., & Bhujel, R. C. (2012). Tilapias. Aquaculture: Farming Aquatic Animals and Plants,
(Ed. 2), 338-364.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). (2019). 2018 Census of Aquaculture.
Washington, D.C.: USDA, National Agricultural Statistical Services.
173
Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., & Sioen, I. (2006). Consumer perception about ethical and
sustainability issues of fish. Ethics and the politics of food. Wageningen Academic
Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 464-469.
Vanhonacker, F., Altintzoglou, T., Luten, J., & Verbeke, W. (2011). Does fish origin matter to
European consumers? Insights from a consumer survey in Belgium, Norway and Spain.
British Food Journal, 113(4), 535–549.
Verbeke, W., Sioen, I., Brunsø, K., De Henauw, S., & Van Camp, J. (2007a). Consumer
perception versus scientific evidence of farmed and wild fish: exploratory insights from
Belgium. Aquaculture International, 15(2), 121-136.
Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Sioen, I., Van Camp, J., & De Henauw, S. (2007b). Perceived
importance of sustainability and ethics related to fish: A consumer behavior
perspective. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36(7), 580-585.
Verbeke, W., Vermeir, I., & Brunsø, K. (2007c). Consumer evaluation of fish quality as basis for
fish market segmentation. Food Quality and Preference, 18(4), 651-661.
Verdegem, M. C. J., Bosma, R. H., & Verreth, J. A. J. (2006). Reducing water use for animal
production through aquaculture. Water Resources Development, 22(1), 101-113.
Watanabe, W. O., Losordo, T. M., Fitzsimmons, K., & Hanley, F. (2002). Tilapia production
systems in the Americas: technological advances, trends, and challenges. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 10(3-4), 465-498.
Young, J. A., Brugere, C., & Muir, J. F. (1999). Green grow the fishes‐oh? Environmental
attributes in marketing aquaculture products. Aquaculture Economics &
Management, 3(1), 7-17.
Zajdband, A. (2012). Farmed Tilapia United States Closed recirculating systems (pp. 1-43, Rep.).
Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch.
Zander, K., & Feucht, Y. (2018). Consumers’ willingness to pay for sustainable seafood made in
Europe. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 30(3), 251-275.
Zander, K., Risius, A., Feucht, Y., Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2018). Sustainable aquaculture
products: implications of consumer awareness and of consumer preferences for promising
market communication in Germany. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 27(1),
5-20.
174
Chapter 6
CONCLUSION
Intensive fish production will be critical to meeting the world’s ever-increasing need for
protein. To minimize environmental pressures associated with aquaculture, it will be essential for
the aquaculture industry to develop efficient and sustainable methods for producing increasingly
larger quantities of fish for human consumption; aquaponics is one such form of sustainable
aquaculture. In order for the commercial aquaponics industry to advance in the United States, the
concept needs to be acceptable in the mind of the consumer and they must be willing to purchase
the end products, including the fish that are reared in these systems. This study has added to the
literature around the understudied aspects of U.S. consumer perceptions and acceptance of
aquaponics production and willingness consume aquaponic products. The findings of this study
are fairly promising for the commercial aquaponics industry in Florida as they highlight a
potentially favorable group of consumers who are willing to accept aquaponics as a form of food
production. Further, the results of this study provide evidence that suggests an improved
marketing plan and an increase in education will be crucial for the commercial aquaponics
industry to advance in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner. However,
certain limitations of this study should be carefully considered when making inferences on the
basis of these results and further research is needed to substantiate these findings on a broader
scale.
Key Findings and Recommendations
Chapter 4 revealed that Floridians value sourcing food products locally. This preference,
in addition to consumers’ recognition of aquaponics as a potential method of growing products
that meet this preference, emphasizes an opportunity for advancing commercial aquaponics in the
175
state of Florida by using “local production” as a selling point. Furthermore, Chapter 5 identified a
group of consumers that is favorable to aquaponic reared tilapia. This consumer segment can be
characterized as young, frequent consumers of farmed fish who find local sourcing to be highly
important. These results suggest that for current aquaponics producers to be successful in their
marketing efforts, product labeling and other messaging around their practices should be centered
around the “local” credence attribute that is associated with aquaponics production, and then
targeted towards younger, frequent fish consumers; this is likely to be a promising strategy for
motivating and targeting a niche market for aquaponic products.
In Chapter 4, the combined effect size of perceptions and knowledge of aquaculture
relative to other variables considered in the regression analyses suggests that the more consumers
know and the stronger their perceptions of aquaculture are, the more likely they are to support
aquaponics production. Additionally, in Chapter 5, respondents’ level of knowledge about tilapia
seemed to have an impact on their perceptions of the fish, with consumers who exhibited a higher
level of knowledge showing a significantly stronger perception of tilapia attributes. Objective
knowledge and subjective perception of tilapia also appeared to be positively related to the choice
to consume tilapia and consumer acceptance of aquaponic-reared tilapia. These results stress the
link between consumer perceptions, knowledge, and consumption behavior. However, the results
of both chapters show that consumers are generally uninformed about and disconnected from the
fish they consume. Chapter 4 revealed consumers were largely uninformed about fish origin and
Chapter 5 showed consumers know very little about tilapia as a sustainable aquaculture species.
These results are important indicators of a need for extensive education around fish production
and sustainable aquaculture in particular.
In order for U.S. fish production and consumption to become more sustainable, people
must become more knowledgeable about the origin of the fish they are consuming, and how their
choices can help to drive sustainable and innovative aquaculture advancements, such as
176
aquaponics. The knowledge gaps made evident in this study will be a challenging barrier to the
promotion of more sustainable fish consumption. Results of Chapter 4 showed there was a
statistically significant difference in the level of objective knowledge about fish origin amongst
age groups, with younger people demonstrating a higher knowledge. Additionally, in Chapter 5,
men and younger consumers were significantly more knowledgeable about tilapia than women
and older consumers. However, on average, the consumers in all demographic groups responded
correctly to less than half of the knowledge statements regarding fish origin and tilapia
aquaculture, suggesting a widespread, very limited level of knowledge. This suggests that
irrespective of the statistically significant differences that were found amongst demographic
groups, there is a need for extensive education across all demographics. This will take a great deal
of effort from many industry stakeholders. As a starting point, I would recommend extension and
other educators target their efforts toward those consumers who appeared unlikely to support
aquaponics production in this study: those who are middle aged, have a low education level, and
do not regularly consume farmed fish. Seeing that consumer knowledge and perceptions are
linked, improving both will be imperative to the future success of the aquaponics industry.
Limitations
There are many potential limitations to this study. First, the data were all self-reported
and collected using an online questionnaire that was administered by Qualtrics, a third-party
company who distributes surveys electronically to consumer panels who are in turn compensated
for participation. Although Qualtrics’ goal is to ensure the data it collects is of the highest quality
possible, this process of data collection has inevitable disadvantages that may lead to biased data.
Because of this, numerous cases of poor quality data (e.g., due to low survey duration and/or
straight-lining behavior on key constructs) had to be removed from the database prior to data
analyses. Additionally, multiple reverse-worded items that were originally included in the survey
177
had to be removed prior to data analyses due to respondents not distinguishing these items from
others in their responses. Moreover, this online questionnaire method allows for data to be
collected at only one point in time; therefore, causality could not be assessed in our study, and
results should not be interpreted as causal relationships. Self-reported data must also be
interpreted with caution due to biases such as the social desirability effect and subjective
assessments made by participants in the recording of their responses as these responses may not
accurately reflect their behavior or opinions. In addition to these biases, the survey had a
completion rate of 68.6%, which indicates that there were some people who quit the survey prior
to completion, which could introduce additional response bias to the data.
The vague and subjective nature of some of the survey items in this study should be noted
as another potential limitation to this research. This limitation is largely based on “judgment call”
decisions that were made early on in survey development and in data cleaning, but are
nonetheless important to bear in mind. As an example, certain survey items used words such as
“minimize”, “a lot”, and “more”, which are broadly phrased and are therefore open for subjective
interpretation by the respondents. Additionally, some of the response options offered to the
respondents could be subjectively assessed; for instance, the response option of “occasionally” in
the questions measuring fish consumption frequencies may be interpreted differently amongst
respondents. This limitation is compounded further in cases where a participant’s response to
such a question was used to classify them into a group for certain data analyses. As an example,
“occasional” farmed fish consumers were considered “frequent” farmed fish consumers in some
data analyses, but there could easily be a counterargument to include these respondents in the
“infrequent” group, since “occasional” is a subjective response option. There are several ways
that data could have been examined to see if different groupings would alter the results of this
study; further analyses are needed to test for this, therefore results should be interpreted modestly.
178
In social science research, the behavior of human subjects depends on a complex set of
variables that is often difficult to measure or control for; this may result in lower R2 values than in
“hard” sciences, such as biology (Frey, 2018). However, this inability to test for all of the
personal factors at play in participants’ choices and decisions is also an important limitation to
discuss. While the significant R2 values revealed in the regression models in this study were not
unusual results for social science research, there are undoubtedly additional factors at play that
would help to explain consumer support of aquaponics. Examples of such factors that were not
directly accounted for in this study include: 1) consumer habits (e.g., for particular fish species,
for fresh or frozen fish, where consumers habitually purchase fish, etc.), 2) involvement with
organizations or food production hobbies and/or careers (e.g., environmental groups,
farming/gardening, commercial fishing, etc.), and 3) the perceived availability of aquaponic
products. While consumer habit is particularly difficult to study, questions could have been
included in the survey to gauge additional consumer preferences for fish and where people most
commonly purchase the fish they eat. Further, questions could have been built into the survey to
evaluate respondents’ personal involvement with organizations or food production practices in
order to assess what effect this has on support of aquaponics production. For instance, aquaponics
as a modern way of growing fish might seem threatening to certain stakeholders, such as
commercial fishermen. Lastly, aquaponics is an innovative food production system that yields
novel products that are not yet available in the common spaces consumers currently purchase
food, particularly in large retail box-store settings. Therefore, respondents may have a low
perceived availability associated with aquaponic products, which might also have an effect on
overall support of aquaponics production. While it is impossible to account for everything that
might be influencing consumer choice, inclusion of these untested variables could have
potentially explained more of the variance in consumer support of aquaponics.
179
Looking to the Future
Global demand for increased food production is soaring as societies are challenged with
the task of feeding the ever-expanding population. Environmental, social and economic
challenges associated with these trends are driving the adoption of new and improved solutions
for sustainable food production and consumption that exceeds traditional paradigms; aquaponics
production is one promising approach to address many challenges associated with intensive
conventional food production (Junge et al., 2017). While there is great rationale and potential for
aquaponics to play a significant role in sustainable food production in the future, there is still
much to be learned about its commercial viability and success. Widespread social license and
consumer acceptance of aquaponics will be crucial in validating the advancement of production
on a commercial-scale. Aquaponics is a process innovation, and not necessarily a product
innovation – in other words, the products yielded from aquaponics are competing on the market
with conventional products (König et al., 2018). While this research has identified a potential
niche market for aquaponic products and recommended ways to effectively target these
consumers, in order for aquaponics to be a truly competitive sustainable alternative to
conventional food and fish production in the future, this innovative process will need to be
accepted by society on a much greater scale.
Further research is needed to substantiate the findings of this study. Future studies should
be implemented to develop a stronger and more extensive understanding of consumer support of
aquaponics. In these studies, researchers should focus on other geographical regions in the United
States, attempt to identify barriers that are holding consumers back from accepting aquaponics,
and make an effort to analyze additional consumer factors that were not assessed in this study but
might affect consumer support of aquaponics. Additional research should also focus on consumer
understanding of fish origin, as an awareness of and the ability to differentiate between fish in the
marketplace (e.g., farmed versus wild, local/U.S. versus imported, sustainable versus
180
unsustainable, etc.) will be critical to encouraging consumers to substitute aquaponic fish for the
fish they would normally purchase. Finally, there is a growing need for research into U.S.
consumers’ willingness to pay for the added-values associated with aquaponic-reared fish. Even
though the concept of aquaponics was perceived favorably by consumers in this study, price
appeared to be a potential barrier for some. Understanding whether there is a market that is
willing to pay a premium price for sustainable and locally-sourced aquaponic fish such as tilapia
seems like a logical next step in helping the industry enhance its economic viability and
commercial success.
Literature Cited
Frey, B. (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and
evaluation (Vols. 1-4). Thousand Oaks,, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Junge, R., König, B., Villarroel, M., Komives, T., & Jijakli, M. H. (2017). Strategic points in
aquaponics. Water, 9(3), 182.
König, B., Janker, J., Reinhardt, T., Villarroel, M., & Junge, R. (2018). Analysis of aquaponics as
an emerging technological innovation system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 180,
232-243.
181
Appendix A
Survey Questionnaire
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
Appendix B
Data Dictionary
204
Variable Information
Construct Name
# of Items
in
Original
Scale
# of
Items in
Actual
Scale
Source Coefficient
Original
Scale
Coefficient Actual
Scale
Importance of
Sustainable and Ethical
Sourcing of Fish
5 3
Adapted from
Honkanen and
Olsen, 2009
.86 .86
Importance of Local
Sourcing -- 5
All items created
new for this study -- .85
Perceptions of
Aquaculture Benefits 6 5
Adapted from Hall
and Amberg, 2013;
One item adapted
from Britwum et
al., 2018
.78 .84
Perceptions of
Aquaculture Concerns 7 5
Adapted from Hall
and Amberg, 2013;
One item adapted
from Honkanen
and Olsen, 2009
.81 .75
Perceptions of Farmed
Fish 5 6
Adapted from Hall
and Amberg, 2013;
One item adapted
from Britwum et
al., 2018
.76 .83
Objective Knowledge of
Fish Origin 6 6
Two items adapted
from Pieniak et al.,
2013; Four items created for this
study
Not Reported .75
Perceived Knowledge
of Sustainable Fish* -- 3
All items created
new for this study -- .81
Objective Knowledge of
Sustainable Aquaculture -- 7
All items created
new for this study -- .88
Perceptions of Tilapia -- 6 All items created
new for this study -- .91
Objective Knowledge of
Tilapia -- 6
All items created
new for this study -- .82
Perceptions of
Aquaponics Benefits 10 10
Adapted from
Alexander et al.,
2016
Not Reported .92
Intent to Consume
Aquaponics Products 7 4
Adapted from
Miličić et al., 2017 Not Reported .81
Note: Constructs and variables marked with an asterisk (*) in this appendix were not used in the data analyses for this thesis
205
Construct: Importance of Sustainable and Ethical Sourcing of Fish Note: this set of items was not presented to those who stated they never purchase fish
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all
Important
Slightly
Important
Moderately
Important
Very
Important
Extremely
Important
How important to you are the following aspects of the fish you eat?
Item Name Item Description
IMPSUS1 The fish has been caught or farmed in an
environmentally-friendly way
IMPSUS2 The fish is not threatened by overfishing and loss of
species on the verge of extinction
IMPSUS3 The fish has been caught or farmed with its welfare in
mind
Construct: Importance of Local Sourcing
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all
Important
Slightly
Important
Moderately
Important
Very
Important
Extremely
Important
In your opinion, how important is it to…
Item Name Item Description
IMPLOCAL1 …purchase and consume locally produced foods?
IMPLOCAL2 …support the local/United States economy?
IMPLOCAL3 …support local farmers and/or fishermen?
IMPLOCAL4 …purchase local products to reduce your
environmental footprint?
IMPLOCAL5 …buy foods that support your region’s cultural
traditions?
206
Construct: Perceptions of Aquaculture Benefits
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
In your opinion, how strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements
about aquaculture benefits?
Item Name Item Description
PAQBEN1 Aquaculture provides a consistent, affordable product
PAQBEN2 Aquaculture provides a healthy food source to feed our growing
population
PAQBEN3 Aquaculture is a good way to relieve pressure on wild fish
populations
PAQBEN4 Farm-raised fish can be produced more efficiently than wild-
caught fish
PAQBEN5 The aquaculture industry supports U.S. communities
economically by providing a source of local jobs
Construct: Perceptions of Aquaculture Concerns
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
In your opinion, how strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements of
concerns about aquaculture?
Item Name Item Description
PAQCON1 Aquaculture has the same problems as some types of land-
based agriculture
PAQCON2 Fish farming creates excessive pollution
PAQCON3 Aquaculture negatively impacts wild fish populations
PAQCON4 Aquaculture is an unnatural process
PAQCON5 Crowded conditions on fish farms are bad for the fish
207
Construct: Perceptions of Farmed Fish
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
In your opinion, how strongly do you agree that farm-raised fish…
Item Name Item Description
PFARMFLAV …are more flavorful than wild-caught fish?
PFARMQUAL …are higher in quality than wild-caught fish?
PFARMSAFE …are safer to eat than wild-caught fish?
PFARMCONT …have less contamination than wild-caught fish?
RPFARMEXP …are exposed to more pests and diseases than wild-caught fish?
(Reverse Coded)
PFARMENV …are raised in a cleaner, healthier environment than wild-caught
fish?
Construct: Objective Knowledge of Fish Origin
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5 -77
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
I Don’t
Know
(Missing Data: I don’t know = -77)
How strongly do you agree with the following statements about global aquaculture
production and the U.S. fish supply? If you are unfamiliar with the subject, please select
“I don’t know”.
Item Name Item Description
KNFISHORIG1 Over half of the fish we consume is farm-raised
KNFISHORIG2 Aquaculture is the fastest-growing producer of food in the world
KNFISHORIG3 Over 80 percent of the fish consumed in the U.S. is imported from
other countries
KNFISHORIG4 Aquaculture will supply most of the demand for fish in the coming
decades
KNFISHORIG5 U.S. aquaculture represents less than 1% of the global aquaculture
industry
KNFISHORIG6 Asia is the largest contributor to world aquaculture at about 90
percent of global production
208
Construct: Perceived Knowledge of Sustainable Fish*
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
How strongly do you agree with the following statements?
Item Name Item Description
PKNSUSFISH1 I feel confident in my ability to identify fish that are sustainably-
certified
PKNSUSFISH2 I understand what it means when a fish is certified as sustainable
PKNSUSFISH3 I am well-informed about what makes fisheries and aquaculture
operations sustainable
Construct: Objective Knowledge of Sustainable Aquaculture
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5 -77
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
I Don’t
Know
(Missing Data: I don’t know = -77)
How strongly do you agree with the following criteria in defining environmentally
sustainable aquaculture?
Item Name Item Description
OKNSUSAQ1 Conserves land and water
OKNSUSAQ2 Manages waste effectively
OKNSUSAQ3 Protects water quality
OKNSUSAQ4 Minimizes impact on surrounding habitats
ROKNSUSAQ5* Requires a lot of energy
OKNSUSAQ6 Minimizes pollution
OKNSUSAQ7 Reduces rick of fish escapes
ROKNSUSAQ8* Uses a large amount of wild fish for feed
OKNSUSAQ9 Minimizes impact on wild fish populations
ROKNSUSAQ10* Uses excessive amounts of chemicals
209
Construct: Perceptions of Tilapia
Rating Scale:
1 2 3 4 5
In your opinion, please rate farmed tilapia on the following traits:
Item Name Item Description
PTILAPIA1 Nutritious
PTILAPIA2 Flavorful
PTILAPIA3 Safe to eat
PTILAPIA4 Environmentally
friendly
PTILAPIA4 Clean
PTILAPIA6 Affordable
Construct: Objective Knowledge of Tilapia
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5 -77
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
I Don’t
Know
(Missing Data: I don’t know = -77)
How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about tilapia? If
you are unfamiliar with the subject, please select “I don’t know”.
Item Name Item Description
KNTILAPIASUS1 Tilapia can be raised with less environmental impact than
many other fish species
RKNTILAPIASUS2* Tilapia do not grow well in the confinement of densely
populated tanks
KNTILAPIASUS3 Tilapia are hardy and disease-resistant compared to other fish
KNTILAPIASUS4 Tilapia can thrive on a primarily plant-based diet
KNTILAPIASUS5 When raised in land-based tank systems, tilapia is a
sustainable fish
How strongly do you agree that tilapia aquaculture in the United States…
Item Name Item Description
KNUSTILAPIA1 …is more environmentally friendly than most tilapia
aquaculture in Asia?
RKNUSTILAPIA2* …commonly uses antibiotics and other drugs and chemicals?
KNUSTILAPIA3 …is strictly regulated to ensure food safety and environmental
health?
RKNUSTILAPIA4* ..supplies most of the tilapia consumed in the U.S. today?
210
Construct: Perceptions of Aquaponics Benefits
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
How strongly do you agree that aquaponics has the potential to…
Item Name Item Description
PAPBEN1 Improve overall aquaculture sustainability
PAPBEN2 Increase local food production
PAPBEN3 Conserve land and water
PAPBEN4 Increase industry competitiveness
PAPBEN5 Grow products with high nutritional quality
PAPBEN6 Improve waste management
PAPBEN7 Improve local economies
PAPBEN8 Reduce environmental impact
PAPBEN9 Enhance food safety and cleanliness
PAPBEN10 Raise fish humanely
Construct: Intent to Consume Aquaponics Products
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
What is your opinion about aquaponics? Please indicate to what extent you agree with
the following statements.
Item Name Item Description
APINTENT1 I will look for aquaponic-grown fish in the future
APINTENT2 I will look for aquaponic-grown produce in the
future
APINTENT3
When deciding between conventionally-farmed
fish and aquaponically-farmed fish, I would choose
aquaponics fish
APINTENT4 I would choose aquaponics products even if they
cost more
211
Overall Fish Consumption Frequency
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
Item Name Item Description
BUYFISH How often do you purchase fish?
Reasons for Infrequent Fish Consumption
Note: this set of items was only presented to those who stated they rarely or never purchase fish
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
(Missing Data: n/a = -99)
Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements regarding why you
do not regularly purchase fish.
Item Name Item Description
INFREQVEG I am a vegetarian/vegan
INFREQTASTE I do not like the taste of fish
INFREQCOOK I do not know how to cook fish
INFREQCATCH Someone in my household catches the fish I eat
INFREQALLERG Someone in my household is allergic
Wild-caught Fish Consumption Frequency Note: these items were only presented to those who stated they sometimes or often purchase fish,
or those who responded that someone in their household catches the fish they eat
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5 -88
Never Rarely Occasionally Often Always Unsure
(Missing Data: Unsure = -88 and n/a = -99)
Item Name Item Description
WSALTCONS
Of your total fish consumption, how often do you
choose wild-caught marine/saltwater fish (e.g.,
tuna, grouper, snapper, flounder, etc.)?
WFRESHCONS
Of your total fish consumption, how often do you
choose wild-caught freshwater fish (e.g., catfish,
bass, trout, panfish, etc.)?
212
Farm-raised Fish Consumption Frequency Note: this set of items was only presented to those who stated they sometimes or often purchase
fish
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5 -88
Never Rarely Occasionally Often Always Unsure
(Missing Data: Unsure = -88 and n/a = -99)
Item Name Item Description
FARMCONS
Of your total fish consumption, how often do you
choose farm-raised fish (e.g., tilapia, Atlantic
salmon, catfish, striped bass, etc.)?
Fish Preferences Note: this set of items was not presented to those who stated they never purchase fish
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all
important
Slightly
important
Moderately
important
Very
important
Extremely
important
Think about your main considerations and preferences when purchasing fish. In your
opinion, how important are the following factors in your choice of fish?
Item Name Item Description
IMPFRESH Freshness
IMPNUTRVAL Nutritional value
IMPPRICE Price
IMPFAMILIAR Familiarity
IMPGEOORIG Geographic origin (where the fish is
from)
IMPPRODORIG Production origin (wild or farmed)
IMPSUS Sustainability/certification labeling
IMPSAFE Quality/food safety labeling
Tilapia Consumption Frequency
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 -88
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Unsure
(Missing Data: Unsure = -88)
Item Name Item Description
TILAPIACONS How often do you eat tilapia?
213
Intent To Consume Aquaponic-Reared Tilapia
Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely
unlikely
Somewhat
unlikely
Neither
likely nor
unlikely
Somewhat
likely
Extremely
likely
Item Name Item Description
INTAPTILAPIA
If given the opportunity, how likely would it
be for you to choose to consume tilapia
grown in an aquaponics systems?
Demographic Characteristics
Item Name Item Description
AGE Age: 1 = “18-24”, 2 = “25-44”, 3 = “45-64”, 4 = “65 and over”
GENDER Gender: 1 = “Male”, 2 = “Female”, 3 = “Prefer not to answer”
RACE
Race/Ethnicity: 1 = “White”, 2 = “Black or African American”, 3 =
“American Indian or Alaska Native”, 4 = “Asian”, 5 = “Native Hawaiian
or Other Pacific Islander”, 6 = “Hispanic or Latino”, 7 = “Other”
INCOME
Gross annual income: 1 = “Less than $20,000”, 2 = “$20,000 to
$34,999”, 3 = “$35,000 to $49,999”, 4 = “$50,000 to $74,999”, 5 =
“$75,000 to $99,999”, 6 = “$100,000 to $149,999”, 7 = “$150,000 to
$199,999”, 8 = “Greater than $200,000”
EDUCATION
Highest level of education: 1 = “Some high school”, 2 = “High school
degree or equivalent (e.g., GED)”, 3 = “Some college, no degree”, 4 =
“Associates or technical degree”, 5 = “Bachelor’s degree”, 6 = “Graduate
degree (e.g., Master’s, PhD)”, 7 = “Professional degree (e.g., M.D.,
J.D.)”
Open-Ended Questions
Item Name Item Description
COVID
Has the COVID-19 outbreak affected your
response to any of the questions in this
survey?
COMMENT
Please let us know any comments you
have about the topics presented in this
survey.
214
Variables Created for Data Analysis
Variable Name Variable Description Coefficient α (if
applicable)
Recoded Demographic Variables
rec_AGE Age grouped into three categories: 1= “18-44”, 2 = “45-64”, 3 =
“65 and over” --
rec_RACE Race grouped into 4 categories: 1 = “White”, 2 = “Black or
African American”, 3 = “Hispanic or Latino”, 4 = “Other” --
rec_INCOME
Income grouped into 6 categories: 1 = “Less than $20,000”, 2 =
“$20,000 to $34,999”, 3 = “$35,000 to $49,999”, 4 = “$50,000
to $74,999”, 5 = “$75,000 to $99,999”, 6 = “Greater than
$100,000”
--
rec_EDUCATION
Education grouped into 4 categories: 1 = “High school degree or
less”, 2 = “Some college (no degree)”, 3 = “Associate or
bachelor’s degree”, 4 = “Postgraduate degree”
--
Recoded Consumption Frequencies and Intention
FishPurchFreq
BUYFISH response “never” (1) and “rarely” (2) grouped into 1
= “Infrequent”, and response “sometimes” (3) and “often” (4)
grouped into 2 = “Frequent”
--
WSALTConsFreq
WSALTCONS response “never” (1) and “rarely” (2) grouped
into 1 = “Infrequent”, and response “occasionally” (3), “often”
(4), and “always” (5) grouped into 2 = “Frequent”
--
WFRESHConsFreq
WFRESHCONS response “never” (1) and “rarely” (2) grouped
into 1 = “Infrequent”, and response “occasionally” (3), “often”
(4), and “always” (5) grouped into 2 = “Frequent”
--
FARMConsFreq
FARMCONS response “never” (1) and “rarely” (2) grouped
into 1 = “Infrequent”, and response “occasionally” (3), “often”
(4), and “always” (5) grouped into 2 = “Frequent”
--
TilapiaConsFreq
TILAPIACONS response “never” (1) and “rarely” (2) grouped
into 1 = “Infrequent”, and response “sometimes” (3) and “often”
(4) grouped into 2 = “Frequent”
--
INTAPTILAPIAgroups
INTAPTILAPIA response “extremely unlikely” (1), “somewhat
unlikely” (2), & “neither likely nor unlikely” (3) grouped into 0
= “Unfavorable”, and response “somewhat likely” (4) and
“extremely likely” grouped into 1 = “Favorable”
--
Construct Composite Variables
CV_IMPSUS Importance of sustainable sourcing composite: Mean of all
items .86
CV_IMPLOCAL Importance of local sourcing composite: Mean of all items .85
CV_PAQBEN Perceptions of aquaculture benefits composite: Mean of all
items .84
CV_PAQCON Perceptions of aquaculture concerns composite: Mean of all
items .75
CV_PFARM Perceptions of farmed fish composite: Mean of all items .83
CV_PTILAPIA Perceptions of tilapia composite: Mean of all items .91
CV_PKNSUSAQ Perceived knowledge of sustainable aquaculture composite:
Mean of all items .81
215
CV_PAPBEN Perceptions of aquaponics benefits composite: Mean of all items
removing item 4 .81
PAQmean
Perceptions of aquaculture composite: Mean of all perception of
aquaculture statements (aquaculture benefits, aquaculture
concerns, and farmed fish)
.72
KNAQsum
Knowledge of aquaculture composite: Sum of correct responses
to all fish origin and sustainable aquaculture knowledge
statements
.82
Recoded Knowledge Variables
rec1_KNFISHORIG1
KNFISHORIG1 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_KNFISHORIG2
KNFISHORIG2 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_KNFISHORIG3
KNFISHORIG3 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_KNFISHORIG4
KNFISHORIG4 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_KNFISHORIG5
KNFISHORIG5 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_KNFISHORIG6
KNFISHORIG6 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
KNFishOrig_numcorrect Total number of correct responses on the knowledge of fish
origin items (out of 6 total) --
KNFishOrig_numcorrectC
AT
KNFishOrig_numcorrect grouped based on number of correct
responses on fish origin knowledge scale: 0 = “Uninformed” (0-
3 correct responses) and 1 = “Informed” (4-6 correct responses)
--
KNFishOrigScore*
Sum of responses to each knowledge of fish origin statement
(scores range from 6 to 30, with 6 being the lowest possible
score and 30 being the highest)
.75
KNFishOrigScoreCAT*
KNFishOrigScore categorized based on total score: 6-14 = 1 =
“Misinformed”, 15-21 = 2 = “Mixed Informed”, 22-30 = 3 =
Correctly Informed
.75
rec1_OKNSUSAQ1
OKNSUSAQ1 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_OKNSUSAQ2
OKNSUSAQ2 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
216
rec1_OKNSUSAQ3
OKNSUSAQ3 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_OKNSUSAQ4
OKNSUSAQ4 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_ROKNSUSAQ5*
ROKNSUSAQ5 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
agree” (1), “agree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” (3)
categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “disagree” (4)
and “strongly disagree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_OKNSUSAQ6
OKNSUSAQ6 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_OKNSUSAQ7
OKNSUSAQ7 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_ROKNSUSAQ8*
ROKNSUSAQ8 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
agree” (1), “agree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” (3)
categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “disagree” (4)
and “strongly disagree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_OKNSUSAQ9
OKNSUSAQ9 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_ROKNSUSAQ10*
ROKNSUSAQ10 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
agree” (1), “agree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” (3)
categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “disagree” (4)
and “strongly disagree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
KNSusAQ_numcorrect* Total number of correct responses on the knowledge of
sustainable aquaculture items (out of 10 total) --
KNSusAQ_numcorrectCA
T*
KNSusAQ_numcorrect grouped based on number of correct
responses on fish origin knowledge scale: 0 = “Uninformed” (0-
5 correct responses) and 1 = “Informed” (6-10 correct
responses)
--
KNSusAQ_numcorrect_no
R
Total number of correct responses on the knowledge of
sustainable aquaculture items (out of 7 total, with reverse coded
items not included)
KNSusAQ_numcorrectCA
T_noR
KNFishOrig_numcorrect_noR grouped based on number of
correct responses on fish origin knowledge scale: 0 =
“Uninformed” (0-3 correct responses) and 1 = “Informed” (4-7
correct responses)
KNSusAQScore*
Sum of responses to each knowledge of sustainable aquaculture
statement (scores range from 10 to 50, with 10 being the lowest
possible score and 50 being the highest)
.74
KNSusAQScoreCat*
KNSusAQScore categorized based on total score: 10-23 = 1 =
“Misinformed”, 24-36 = 2 = “Mixed Informed”, 37-50 = 3 =
Correctly Informed
.74
KNSusAQScore_noR* Sum of responses to each knowledge of sustainable aquaculture
statement not including the reverse coded items (scores range .88
217
from 7 to 35, with 7 being the lowest possible score and 35
being the highest)
KNSusAQScoreCat_noR*
KNSusAQScore categorized based on total score: 7-16 = 1 =
“Misinformed”, 17-25 = 2 = “Mixed Informed”, 26-35 = 3 =
Correctly Informed
.88
rec1_KNTILAPIASUS1
KNTILAPIASUS1 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_RKNTILAPIASUS2*
RKNTILAPIASUS2 response of “I don’t know” (-77),
“strongly agree” (1), “agree” (2) and “neither agree nor
disagree” (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of
“disagree” (4) and “strongly disagree” (5) categorized as 1 =
“Correct”
--
rec1_KNTILAPIASUS3
KNTILAPIASUS3 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_KNTILAPIASUS4
KNTILAPIASUS4 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_KNTILAPIASUS5
KNTILAPIASUS5 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_KNUSTILAPIA1
KNUSTILAPIA1 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_RKNUSTILAPIA2*
RKNUSTILAPIA2 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
agree” (1), “agree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” (3)
categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “disagree” (4)
and “strongly disagree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_KNUSTILAPIA3
KNUSTILAPIA3 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree”
(3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4)
and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
rec1_RKNUSTILAPIA4*
RKNUSTILAPIA4 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly
agree” (1), “agree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” (3)
categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “disagree” (4)
and “strongly disagree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”
--
KNTilapia_numcorrect Total number of correct responses on the knowledge of tilapia
items (out of 6 total, with reverse coded items not included) --
KNTilapia_numcorrectCA
T
KNTilapia_numcorrect grouped based on number of correct
responses on tilapia knowledge scale: 0 = “Uninformed” (0-3
correct responses) and 1 = “Informed” (4-6 correct responses)
--
KNTilapiaScore
Sum of responses to each knowledge of tilapia statement (scores
range from 6 to 30, with 6 being the lowest possible score and
30 being the highest)
.82
KNTilapiaScoreCat
KNTilapiaScore categorized based on total score: 6-14 = 1 =
“Misinformed”, 15-21 = 2 = “Mixed Informed”, 22-30 = 3 =
Correctly Informed
.82
218
Dummy Variables
Note: cases that represent each category of the independent variable is dummy coded “1”; all other cases that do
not represent this category are represented with a “0”
age_1 rec_AGE = 18-44 --
age_2 rec_AGE = 45-64 --
age_3 rec_AGE = 65 and over --
race_1 rec_RACE = White --
race_2 rec_RACE = Black or African American --
race_3 rec_RACE = Hispanic or Latino --
race_4 rec_RACE = Other --
income_1 rec_INCOME = Less than $20,000 --
income_2 rec_INCOME = $20,000 to $34,999 --
income_3 rec_INCOME = $35,000 to $49,999 --
income_4 rec_INCOME = $50,000 to $74,999 --
income_5 rec_INCOME = $75,000 to $99,999 --
income_6 rec_INCOME = Greater than $100,000 --
edu_1 rec_EDUCATION = High school degree or less --
edu_2 rec_EDUCATION = Some college (no degree) --
edu_3 rec_EDUCATION = Associate or bachelor’s degree --
edu_4 rec_EDUCATION = Postgraduate degree --
wsfc_1 WSaltConsFreq = Infrequent --
wsfc_2 WSaltConsFreq = Frequent --
wffc_1 WFreshConsFreq = Infrequent --
wffc_2 WFreshConsFreq = Frequent --
ffc_1 FarmConsFreq = Infrequent --
ffc_2 FarmConsFreq = Frequent --
219
Appendix C
Survey Item Frequencies
220
Demographic Variables (N / %)
Age 18-24 25-44 45-64 65 or older
53 / 8.1 198 / 30.2 223 / 34.0 182 / 27.7
Recoded Age 18-44 45-64
65 or
older
251 / 38.3 223 / 34.0 182 / 27.7
Gender Male Female
331 / 50.5 324 / 49.5
Race/Ethnicity White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian
or Other
Pacific
Islander
Hispanic
or Latino Other
354 / 54.0 97 / 14.8 7 / 1.1 20 / 3.0 2 / 0.3 171 / 26.1 5 / 0.8
Recoded
Race/Ethnicity
White
Black or
African
American
Hispanic
or Latino Other
354 / 54.0 97 / 14.8 171 / 26.1 34 / 5.2
Annual
Household
Income
Less than
$20,000
$20,000 to
$34,999
$35,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000
to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,999
Greater
than
$200,000
81 / 12.3 125 / 19.1 109 / 16.6 141 / 21.5 88 / 13.4 83 / 12.7 16 / 2.4 13 / 2.0
Recoded
Annual
Household
Income
Less than
$20,000
$20,000 to
$34,999
$35,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
Greater
than
$100,000
81 / 12.3 125 / 19.1 109 / 16.6 141 / 21.5 88 / 13.4 112 / 17.1
Education
Level
Some
high
school
High
school
degree or
equivalent
Some
college, no
degree
Associates or
technical
degree
Bachelor’s
degree
Graduate
degree
Professional
degree
17 / 2.6 114 / 17.4 161 / 24.5 87 / 13.3 185 / 28.2 73 / 11.1 19 / 2.9
Recoded
Education
Level
High
school
degree or
less
Some
college, no
degree
Associate
or
bachelor’s
degree
Postgraduate
degree
131 / 20.0 161 / 24.5 272 / 41.5 92 / 14.0
221
How often do you purchase fish?
(N / %)
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
89 / 13.6 117 / 17.8 203 / 30.9 247 / 37.7
Recoded Infrequent Frequent
206 / 31.4 450 / 68.6
Of your total fish consumption, how often do you choose wild-caught marine/saltwater
fish (e.g., tuna, grouper, snapper, flounder, etc.)?
(N / %)
Never Rarely Occasionally Often Always
Missing:
unsure
Missing:
n/a
15 / 2.3 42 / 6.4 146 / 22.3 175 / 26.7 89 / 13.6 12 / 1.8 177 / 27.0
Recoded Infrequent Frequent
Missing:
unsure
Missing:
n/a
57 / 8.7 410 / 62.5 12 / 1.8 177 / 27.0
Of your total fish consumption, how often do you choose wild-caught freshwater fish
(e.g., catfish, bass, trout, panfish, etc.)?
(N / %)
Never Rarely Occasionally Often Always
Missing:
unsure
Missing:
n/a
52 / 7.9 119 / 18.1 162 / 24.7 99 / 15.1 35 / 5.3 12 / 1.8 177 / 27.0
Recoded Infrequent Frequent
Missing:
unsure
Missing:
n/a
171 / 26.1 296 / 45.1 12 / 1.8 177 / 27.0
Of your total fish consumption, how often do you choose farm-raised fish (e.g., tilapia,
Atlantic salmon, catfish, striped bass, etc.)?
(N / %)
Never Rarely Occasionally Often Always
Missing:
unsure
Missing:
n/a
53 / 8.1 74 / 11.3 142 / 21.6 128 / 19.5 42 / 6.4 11 / 1.7 206 / 31.4
Recoded Infrequent Frequent
Missing:
unsure
Missing:
n/a
127 / 19.4 312 / 47.6 11 / 1.7 206 / 31.4
222
Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements regarding
why you do not regularly purchase fish: (N / %)
Item Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
Missing:
n/a Mean
I do not like the taste of
fish 52 / 7.9 41 / 6.3 27 / 4.1 37 / 5.6 49 / 7.5 450 / 68.6 2.95
I do not know how to
cook fish 45 / 6.9 43 / 6.6 32 / 4.9 52 / 7.9 34 / 5.2 450 / 68.6 2.94
Someone in my
household catches the
fish I eat
126 / 19.2 32 / 4.9 19 / 2.9 18 / 2.7 11 / 1.7 450 / 68.6 1.82
Someone in my
household is allergic 138 / 21.0 35 / 5.3 12 / 1.8 7 / 1.1 14 / 2.1 450 / 68.6 1.66
I am a vegetarian / vegan 142 / 21.6 35 / 5.3 11 / 1.7 5 / 0.8 13 / 2.0 450 / 68.6 1.60
Think about your main considerations and preferences when purchasing fish. In
your opinion, how important are the following factors in your choice of fish? (N / %)
Item Not at all
important
Slightly
important
Moderately
important
Very
important
Extremely
important
Missing:
n/a Mean
Freshness 3 / 0.5 20 / 3.0 51 / 7.8 134 / 20.4 359 / 54.7 89 / 13.6 4.46
Quality/food safety
labeling 9 / 1.4 31 / 4.7 66 / 10.1 189 / 28.8 272 / 41.5 89 / 13.6 4.21
Nutritional Value 10 / 1.5 35 / 5.3 115 / 17.5 233 / 35.5 174 / 26.5 89 / 13.6 3.93
Price 10 / 1.5 37 / 5.6 139 / 21.2 226 / 34.5 155 / 23.6 89 / 13.6 3.84
Familiarity 12 / 1.8 40 / 6.1 158 / 24.1 226 / 34.5 131 / 20.0 89 / 13.6 3.75
Sustainability/certification
labeling 46 / 7.0 59 / 9.0 153 / 23.3 176 / 26.8 133 / 20.3 89 / 13.6 3.51
Production origin (wild or
farmed) 56 / 8.5 64 / 9.8 154 / 23.5 152 / 23.2 141 / 21.5 89 / 13.6 3.46
Geographic origin (where
the fish is from) 79 / 12.0 85 / 13.0 162 / 24.7 120 / 18.3 121 / 18.4 89 / 13.6 3.21
223
How important to you are the following aspects of the fish you eat? (N / %)
Item Not at all
important
Slightly
important
Moderately
important
Very
important
Extremely
important
Missing:
n/a Mean
The fish is not threatened
by overfishing and loss of
species on the verge of
extinction
22 / 3.4 44 / 6.7 126 / 19.2 189 / 28.8 186 / 28.4 89 / 13.6 3.83
The fish has been caught
or farmed in an
environmentally-friendly
way
33 / 5.0 61 / 9.3 164 / 25.0 159 / 24.2 150 / 22.9 89 / 13.6 3.59
The fish has been caught
or farmed with its welfare
in mind
39 / 5.9 61 / 9.3 153 / 23.3 170 / 25.9 144 / 22.0 89 / 13.6 3.56
In your opinion, how important is it to… (N / %)
Item Not at all
important
Slightly
important
Moderately
important
Very
important
Extremely
important Mean
…support local farmers
and/or fishermen? 19 / 2.9 34 / 5.2 107 / 16.3 243 / 37.0 253 / 38.6 4.03
…support the local/United
States economy? 15 / 2.3 43 / 6.6 123 / 18.8 227 / 34.6 248 / 37.8 3.99
…purchase local products
to reduce your
environmental footprint?
34 / 5.2 64 / 9.8 163 / 24.8 213 / 32.5 182 / 27.7 3.68
…purchase and consume
locally produced foods? 31 / 4.7 64 / 9.8 177 / 27.0 234 / 35.7 150 / 22.9 3.62
…buy foods that support
your region’s cultural
traditions?
71 / 10.8 73 / 11.1 185 / 28.2 197 / 30.0 130 / 19.8 3.37
224
In your opinion, how strongly do you agree or disagree with the
following statements about aquaculture benefits? (N / %)
Item Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree Mean
The aquaculture industry
supports U.S.
communities
economically by providing
a source of local jobs
15 / 2.3 17 / 2.6 151 / 23.0 320 / 48.8 153 / 23.3 3.88
Aquaculture is a good way
to relieve pressure on wild
fish populations
15 / 2.3 25 / 3.8 148 / 22.6 307 / 46.8 161 / 24.5 3.88
Aquaculture provides a
healthy food source to
feed our growing
population
15 / 2.3 38 / 5.8 132 / 20.1 323 / 49.2 148 / 22.6 3.84
Aquaculture provides a
consistent, affordable
product
13 / 2.0 18 / 2.7 170 / 25.9 331 / 50.5 124 / 18.9 3.82
Farm-raised fish can be
produced more efficiently
than wild-caught fish
16 / 2.4 44 / 6.7 213 / 32.5 245 / 37.3 138 / 21.0 3.68
In your opinion, how strongly do you agree or disagree with the
following statements about aquaculture concerns? (N / %)
Item Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree Mean
Crowded conditions on
fish farms are bad for the
fish
21 / 3.2 52 / 7.9 215 / 32.8 238 / 36.3 130 / 19.8 3.62
Aquaculture has the same
problems as some types of
land-based agriculture
16 / 2.4 55 / 8.4 265 / 40.4 252 / 38.4 68 / 10.4 3.46
Aquaculture is an
unnatural process 49 / 7.5 139 / 21.2 245 / 37.3 166 / 25.3 57 / 8.7 3.07
Fish farming creates
excessive pollution 44 / 6.7 142 / 21.6 311 / 47.4 114 / 17.4 45 / 6.9 2.96
Aquaculture negatively
impacts wild fish
populations
64 / 9.8 192 / 29.3 271 / 41.3 92 / 14.0 37 / 5.6 2.77
225
In your opinion, how strongly do you agree that farm-raised fish… (N / %)
Item Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree Mean
…have less contamination
than wild-caught fish? 55 / 8.4 88 / 13.4 236 / 36.0 208 / 31.7 69 / 10.5 3.23
…are raised in a cleaner,
healthier environment
than wild-caught fish?
45 / 6.9 121 / 18.4 246 / 37.5 184 / 28.0 60 / 9.1 3.14
…are safer to eat than
wild-caught fish? 61 / 9.3 107 / 16.3 251 / 38.3 180 / 27.4 57 / 8.7 3.10
…are exposed to more
pests and diseases than
wild-caught fish?
52 / 7.9 156 / 23.8 287 / 43.8 122 / 18.6 39 / 5.9 3.09
…are higher in quality
than wild-caught fish? 61 / 9.3 162 / 24.7 268 / 40.9 124 / 18.9 41 / 6.3 2.88
…are more flavorful than
wild-caught fish? 52 / 7.9 172 / 26.2 299 / 45.6 94 / 14.3 39 / 5.9 2.84
How strongly do you agree with the following statements? (N / %)
Item Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree Mean
I understand what it
means when a fish is
certified as sustainable
40 / 6.1 103 / 15.7 182 / 27.7 284 / 43.3 47 / 7.2 3.30
I feel confident in my
ability to identify fish that
are sustainably-certified
58 / 8.8 170 / 25.9 231 / 35.2 159 / 24.2 38 / 5.8 2.92
I am well-informed about
what makes fisheries and
aquaculture operations
sustainable
61 / 9.3 183 / 27.9 225 / 34.3 146 / 22.3 41 / 6.3 2.88
226
How strongly do you agree with the following statements about global aquaculture
production and the U.S. fish supply? (N / %)
Item Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
Missing:
I don’t
know
Mean
Aquaculture will supply
most of the demand for
fish in the coming decades
10 / 1.5 25 / 3.8 136 / 20.7 270 / 41.2 88 / 13.4 127 / 19.4 3.76
Aquaculture is the fastest
growing producer of food
in the world
7 / 1.1 24 / 3.7 132 / 20.1 214 / 32.6 77 / 11.7 202 / 30.8 3.73
Asia is the largest
contributor to world
aquaculture at about 90
percent of global
production
4 / 0.6 20 / 3.0 154 / 23.5 172 / 26.2 66 / 10.1 240 / 36.6 3.66
Over 80 percent of the fish
consumed in the U.S. is
imported from other
countries
8 / 1.2 43 / 6.6 127 / 19.4 189 / 28.8 85 / 13.0 204 / 31.1 3.66
Over half of the fish we
consume is farm-raised 10 / 1.5 37 / 5.6 127 / 19.4 194 / 29.6 69 / 10.5 219 / 33.4 3.63
U.S. aquaculture
represents less than 1% of
the global aquaculture
industry
7 / 1.1 48 / 7.3 149 / 22.7 115 / 17.5 52 / 7.9 285 / 43.4 3.42
Item (Recoded) Uninformed Informed
Aquaculture will supply
most of the demand for
fish in the coming decades
298 / 45.4 358 / 54.6
Aquaculture is the fastest
growing producer of food
in the world
365 / 55.6 291 / 44.4
Asia is the largest
contributor to world
aquaculture at about 90
percent of global
production
418 / 63.7 238 / 36.3
Over 80 percent of the fish
consumed in the U.S. is
imported from other
countries
382 / 58.2 274 / 41.8
Over half of the fish we
consume is farm-raised 393 / 59.9 263 / 40.1
U.S. aquaculture
represents less than 1% of
the global aquaculture
industry
489 / 74.5 167 / 25.5
227
How strongly do you agree with the following criteria in defining environmentally
sustainable aquaculture? (N / %)
Item Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
Missing:
I don’t
know
Mean
Protects water quality 11 / 1.7 30 / 4.6 142 / 21.6 244 / 37.2 160 / 24.4 69 / 10.5 3.87
Minimizes impact on
surrounding habitats 13 / 2.0 40 / 6.1 123 / 18.8 253 / 38.6 148 / 22.6 79 / 12.0 3.84
Minimizes impact on wild
fish populations 11 / 1.7 37 / 5.6 131 / 20.0 259 / 39.5 132 / 20.1 86 / 13.1 3.81
Manages waste
effectively 12 / 1.8 40 / 6.1 149 / 22.7 235 / 35.8 133 / 20.3 87 / 13.3 3.77
Conserves land and water 11 / 1.7 44 / 6.7 139 / 21.2 268 / 40.9 117 / 17.8 77 / 11.7 3.75
Reduces risk of fish
escapes 6 / 0.9 34 / 5.2 181 / 27.6 224 / 34.1 101 / 15.4 110 / 16.8 3.70
Minimizes pollution 10 / 1.5 60 / 9.1 170 / 25.9 199 / 30.3 123 / 18.8 94 / 14.3 3.65
Item (Recoded) Uninformed Informed
Protects water quality 252 / 38.4 404 / 61.6
Minimizes impact on
surrounding habitats 255 / 38.9 401 / 61.1
Minimizes impact on wild
fish populations 265 / 40.4 391 / 59.6
Manages waste
effectively 288 / 43.9 368 / 56.1
Conserves land and water 271 / 41.3 385 / 58.7
Reduces risk of fish
escapes 331 / 50.5 325 / 49.5
Minimizes pollution 334 / 50.9 322 / 49.1
228
How often do you eat tilapia?
(N / %)
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
Missing:
Unsure
142 / 21.6 165 / 25.2 227 / 34.6 110 / 16.8 12 / 1.8
Recoded Infrequent Frequent
Missing:
Unsure
307 / 46.8 337 / 51.4 12 / 1.8
In your opinion, please rate farmed tilapia on the following traits: (N / %)
Item 0.5
stars
1.0
stars
1.5
stars
2.0
stars
2.5
stars
3.0
stars
3.5
stars
4.0
stars
4.5
stars
5.0
stars Mean
Affordable 20 /
3.0
20 /
3.0
13 /
2.0
23 /
3.5
29 /
4.4
97 /
14.8
72 /
11.0
123 /
18.8
72 /
11.0
187 /
28.5 3.75
Safe to eat 50 /
7.6
30 /
4.6
20 /
3.0
32 /
4.9
47 /
7.2
81 /
12.3
72 /
11.0
125 /
19.1
54 /
8.2
145 /
22.1 3.40
Nutritious 36 /
5.5
27 /
4.1
13 /
2.0
30 /
4.6
63 /
9.6
113 /
17.2
92 /
14.0
116 /
17.7
47 /
7.2
119 /
18/1 3.37
Clean 40 /
6.1
45 /
6.9
22 /
3.4
28 /
4.3
51 /
7.8
100 /
15.2
76 /
11.6
123 /
18.8
40 /
6.1
131 /
20.0 3.32
Environmentally
friendly
40 /
6.1
30 /
4.6
23 /
3.5
28 /
4.3
59 /
9.0
112 /
17.1
98 /
14.9
116 /
17.7
41 /
6.3
109 /
16.6 3.29
Flavorful 43 /
6.6
39 /
5.9
31 /
4.7
42 /
6.4
50 /
7.6
94 /
14.3
76 /
11.6
120 /
18.3
38 /
5.8
123 /
18.8 3.25
229
How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about tilapia? (N / %)
Item Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
Missing:
I don’t
know
Mean
When raised in land-based
tank systems, tilapia is a
sustainable fish
8 / 1.2 26 / 4.0 111 / 16.9 204 / 31.1 80 / 12.2 227 / 34.6 3.75
Tilapia can thrive on a
primarily plant-based diet 7 / 1.1 13 / 2.0 133 / 20.3 154 / 23.5 79 / 12.0 270 / 41.2 3.74
Tilapia aquaculture in the
U.S. is more
environmentally friendly
than most tilapia
aquaculture in Asia
15 / 2.3 20 / 3.0 132 / 20.1 193 / 29.4 91 / 13.9 205 / 31.3 3.72
Tilapia aquaculture in the
U.S. is strictly regulated to
ensure food safety and
environmental health
9 / 1.4 37 / 5.6 140 / 21.3 194 / 29.6 95 / 14.5 181 / 27.6 3.69
Tilapia can be raised with
less environmental impact
than many other fish
species
13 / 2.0 27 / 4.1 133 / 20.3 180 / 27.4 62 / 9.5 241 / 36.7 3.60
Tilapia are hardy and
disease-resistant compared
to other fish
19 / 2.9 28 / 4.3 141 / 21.5 168 / 25.6 54 / 8.2 246 / 37.5 3.51
Item (Recoded) Uninformed Informed
When raised in land-based
tank systems, tilapia is a
sustainable fish
372 / 56.7 284 / 43.3
Tilapia can thrive on a
primarily plant-based diet 423 / 64.5 233 / 35.5
Tilapia aquaculture in the
U.S. is more
environmentally friendly
than most tilapia
aquaculture in Asia
372 / 56.7 284 / 43.3
Tilapia aquaculture in the
U.S. is strictly regulated to
ensure food safety and
environmental health
367 / 55.9 289 / 44.1
Tilapia can be raised with
less environmental impact
than many other fish
species
414 / 63.1 242 / 36.9
Tilapia are hardy and
disease-resistant compared
to other fish
434 / 66.2 222 / 33.8
230
How strongly do you agree that aquaponics has the potential to… (N / %)
Item Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree Mean
Increase local food
production 3 / 0.5 17 / 2.6 101 / 15.4 398 / 60.7 137 / 20.9 3.99
Conserve land and water 4 / 0.6 18 / 2.7 136 / 20.7 342 / 52.1 156 / 23.8 3.96
Improve local economies 8 / 1.2 18 / 2.7 145 / 22.1 329 / 50.2 156 / 23.8 3.93
Reduce environmental
impact 10 / 1.5 24 / 3.7 138 / 21.0 331 / 50.5 153 / 23.3 3.90
Improve overall
aquaculture sustainability 6 / 0.9 22 / 3.4 134 / 20.4 377 / 57.5 117 / 17.8 3.88
Improve waste
management 11 / 1.7 24 / 3.7 150 / 22.9 327 / 49.8 144 / 22.0 3.87
Increase industry
competitiveness 4 / 0.6 21 / 3.2 189 / 28.8 318 / 48.5 124 / 18.9 3.82
Grow products with high
nutritional quality 9 / 1.4 37 / 5.6 160 / 24.4 312 / 47.6 138 / 21.0 3.81
Enhance food safety and
cleanliness 11 / 1.7 31 / 4.7 179 / 27.3 303 / 46.2 132 / 20.1 3.78
Raise fish humanely 15 / 2.3 34 / 5.2 182 / 27.7 294 / 44.8 131 / 20.0 3.75
231
What is your opinion about aquaponics? Please indicate to what extent
you agree with the following statements. (N / %)
Item Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree Mean
When deciding between
conventionally -farmed
fish and aquaponically-
farmed fish, I would
choose aquaponics fish
28 / 4.3 45 / 6.9 239 / 36.4 254 / 38.7 90 / 13.7 3.51
I will look for aquaponic
grown fish in the future 45 / 6.9 48 / 7.3 189 / 28.8 291 / 44.4 83 / 12.7 3.49
I will look for aquaponic
grown produce in the
future
31 / 4.7 56 / 8.5 219 / 33.4 272 / 41.5 78 / 11.9 3.47
I would choose
aquaponics products even
if they cost more
48 / 7.3 119 / 18.1 272 / 41.5 164 / 25.0 53 / 8.1 3.08
If given the opportunity, how likely would it be for you to choose to
consume tilapia grown in an aquaponics system?
(N / %) Extremely
unlikely
Somewhat
unlikely
Neither likely
nor unlikely
Somewhat
likely
Extremely
likely
90 / 13.7 56 / 8.5 113 / 17.2 263 / 40.1 134 / 20.4
Recoded Unfavorable Favorable
259 / 39.5 397 / 60.5