See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238046192

CONSUMERS' WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR AQUACULTURE FISH

PRODUCTS VS. WILD-CAUGHT SEAFOOD – A CASE STUDY IN

HAWAII

Article  in  Aquaculture Economics & Management · April 2012

DOI: 10.1080/13657305.2012.678554

CITATIONS

59READS

1,057

4 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Environmental Tourism View project

China and US Rural Consumers Online Household Shopping Behavior View project

Kelly A. Davidson

University of Delaware

10 PUBLICATIONS   78 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Minling Pan

NOAA Fisheries

34 PUBLICATIONS   412 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Wuyang Hu

The Ohio State University

139 PUBLICATIONS   2,060 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Minling Pan on 21 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

AQUACULTURE ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT

Special Issue on

Economic Relations between Marine Aquaculture andWild Capture Fisheries

Guest Editors:

Minling PanPacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries,

Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

PingSun LeungDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Management,

University of Hawaii at Manoa,Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

Aquaculture Economics & Management, 16:97, 2012Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1365-7305 print/1551-8663 onlineDOI: 10.1080/13657305.2012.678557

Aquaculture Economics & Management, 16:97, 2012Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1365-7305 print/1551-8663 onlineDOI: 10.1080/13657305.2012.678557

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

27 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

CONSUMERS’ WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR AQUACULTURE FISHPRODUCTS VS. WILD-CAUGHT SEAFOOD – A CASE STUDY INHAWAII

Kelly Davidson1, Minling Pan2, Wuyang Hu3, and Devie Poerwanto3

1Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (JIMAR), Pacific Islands FisheriesScience Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA2Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA3University of Kentucky Department of Agricultural Economics, Lexington, Kentucky, USA

& This study aims to investigate Hawaii consumers’ willingness to pay for fish product attributesincluding farmed vs. wild-caught. Hawaii presents an interesting case study as per capita seafoodconsumption is around three times the national average and 75% of seafood products are importedeither from the U.S. mainland or foreign sources. For this study, questionnaires were administeredboth in-person and online. Conjoint analysis of four different fish species (tuna, salmon, tilapiaand moi pacific threadfin), measured consumer willingness to pay for species-specific attributesincluding both hypothetical and actual attributes available on the market. The results indicateHawaii consumers are willing to pay more for wild-caught fish than farm raised and more for freshthan previously frozen fish with the degree of preference varying across species. This research can beused to better target markets and facilitate policy decisions pertaining to the fisheries, aquacultureand seafood industries.

Keywords aquaculture, choice experiment, consumer preference, seafood, willingnessto pay

INTRODUCTION

Unlike other sources of protein, seafood in many countries has tra-ditionally relied on supply from wild capture fisheries. Although otherindustries evolved into intensive livestock husbandry, fisheries remaineda hunter and gatherer system with stable harvests. With increasingdemand for fish and shellfish consumption and a growing population,

Kelly Davidson is currently affiliated with the University of Tennessee at Martin, Martin, Tennessee,USA.

Address correspondence to Kelly Davidson, University of Tennessee at Martin, AgriculturalBusiness, 267 Brehm Hall, Martin, TN 38238, USA. E-mail: kdavid13@utm.edu

Aquaculture Economics & Management, 16:136–154, 2012Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1365-7305 print/1551-8663 onlineDOI: 10.1080/13657305.2012.678554

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

the wild-capture fisheries were realized as limited resources and newproduction options were explored. As a result we see more and more oftoday’s seafood supplied from aquaculture, fish farms. Aquaculturecurrently produces 46% of the world food fish supply (FAO, 2010).

Wild-capture fishery production has stabilized but the expansion of theaquaculture industry has increased the total fish supply. Over the last decade,1998–2008, U.S. per capita seafood consumption followed the global trendand increased over 7% from 14.9 to 16.0 pounds per capita. Total U.S. percapita seafood consumption in 2009 was 15.8 pounds. Currently more than84% of U.S. seafood supply is imported from foreign sources, over half ofwhich is farm raised. Policies explore aquaculture as a means to complementfishery management plans in sustaining wild fishery levels while meeting thedemands for seafood. In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration (NOAA) released the NOAA Aquaculture Policy inJune, 2011 to encourage sustainable marine aquaculture development.

As aquaculture production changes the supply of seafood, consumersface new decisions when purchasing seafood. Our research aims to identifyattitudes and perceptions among U.S. seafood consumers and also takes amulti-species approach to quantify the willingness to pay (WTP) for pro-duct attributes. The conjoint analysis methodology allows us to includeattributes that are not yet available in real markets.

Although several studies have addressed consumer preferences for sea-food, particularly in the context of aquaculture, few have compared valuesfor product attributes across different species. Consumer perceptions andpublic attitudes toward aquaculture have often been evaluated at nationaland regional levels through consumer surveys (Gempesaw II et al., 1995;Hanson et al., 1995; Batzios et al., 2005; O’Dierno et al., 2006; Kumaret al., 2008; Whitmarsh & Palmieri, 2009). Furthermore, focus groupsand taste panels have investigated sensory properties for seafood prefer-ences (Drake et al., 2006; Johnston & Roheim, 2006). A number of statedpreference approaches have identified values for emerging markets and avariety of seafood product attributes (Halbrendt et al., 1991; Engle &Kouka, 1995; Johnston et al., 2001; Harrison et al., 2002; Wirth & Davis,2003; Jaffry et al., 2004; Steine et al., 2005; Alfnes et al., 2006; Quagrainie,2006; Wirth et al., 2007; Hill et al., 2008; Dasgupta et al., 2010).

This study of Hawaii consumers examines both consumer attitudes andthe willingness to pay for farm-raised and wild-caught fish. Results from pre-vious research offered reference for the survey design and methodology ofthis analysis. Our study expands on previous stated preference analyses bycomparing a variety of fish species for a mix of conventional and hypotheti-cal species-specific attributes. Knowing the consumer preferences towardvarious species and their attributes can shed the light on understandingaquaculture industry development and management.

Consumer Choice Between Aquaculture Fish and Wild-Caught Seafood in Hawaii 137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

Four species: salmon, tuna, tilapia, and moi (pacific threadfin), werechosen for this study with the desire to represent both familiar, popularproducts (tuna and salmon) and less familiar, emerging products in Hawaii(tilapia and moi). Salmon, tuna, and tilapia are ranked in the top tenspecies consumed list in the U.S. (NFI, 2010). Moi offers insight to a localmarket for a fish with traditional cultural value once wild-caught and nowfarmed. Moi fish is a local specialty in Hawaii, found in local coastal watersbut traditionally farmed in ancient Hawaiian fishponds and consumed bythe ali’i, Hawaiian royalty.

Because moi is farmed in offshore cage culture in Hawaii today ouranalysis investigates preferences toward ocean-based culture. Salmon alsooffers perspective for a traditionally wild-caught species where farmed sal-mon is increasingly found in the market. Tuna was selected for this studybecause of the high demand for fresh tuna in Hawaii. A recent proposalfor marine culture of bigeye tuna in Hawaii also generated interest in con-sumer preferences for farmed tuna. We examine marketing attributes suchas product form and feed type for tilapia, a more advanced species in theaquaculture sector. These four species present a comparison of traditionaland emerging markets in Hawaii.

The Island-State of Hawaii presents an interesting case study for seafoodpreferences as the state per capita seafood consumption rate is approxi-mately three times the national average. There is a demand for fresh, highquality seafood, especially high value markets for sushi and sashimi pro-ducts, and also for live products. Tourism and ethnic markets contributeto the demand (Hawaii Dept. of Agriculture, 2010). Hawaii’s commercialand recreational fisheries are themain contributor of the local fresh seafoodsupply. Local supply however cannot meet the high seafood demand; 75%of all seafood consumed in the State of Hawaii is imported from eitherthe U.S. mainland or foreign markets (Hawaii Dept. of Agriculture,2010). Little research has been done on Hawaii consumer demand for sea-food. The results from our survey of local consumer preferences, especiallyfor production source, generate recommendations for policy and industry.

Survey Design and Methodology

A two-part questionnaire was designed to gauge Hawaii seafood con-sumption and WTP for seafood attributes. The first section of the surveyidentifies the general public’s attitudes and perceptions toward aquacul-ture, seafood consumption habits, and general demographics. Basic sea-food consumption questions investigated reasons for consuming seafood,species purchased, attention to product labeling, awareness of aquaculturein the markets, environmental concerns, and perceptions toward fish stocks

138 K. Davidson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

and aquaculture. Some questions pertaining to aquaculture were designedto address perceptions about environmental issues, food safety, taste, andavailability.

Conjoint analysis methods have been used to measure the marketpotential for a variety of attributes in seafood preference studies. Price, pro-duct form, and labeling have been identified as important attributes thatdetermine utility values for seafood (Halbrendt et al., 1991, Wirth & Davis,2003, Jaffry et al., 2004, Johnston & Roehim, 2006, Quagrainie, 2006). Hill(2008) also investigated the labeling of country of origin to market catfish.Several of the studies used the contingent ranking approach where consu-mers were asked to rank a set of products based on their attributes. Thesecond section of our survey uses a conjoint analysis similar to studiesevaluating new markets for seafood labeling (Johnston et al., 2001, Jaffryet al., 2004) and effects of color on the WTP for farmed salmon (Steineet al., 2005; Alfnes et al., 2006).

To limit the time taken to complete the survey, four versions were cre-ated where each respondent was only asked to answer choice questions fortwo species, one randomly chosen from the familiar species (tuna or sal-mon) and one randomly selected from the unfamiliar species (tilapia ormoi). As a result, the number of consumer responses in the survey variesacross species. The four survey versions differed only by species in thechoice situation; the basic seafood consumption and demographics ques-tions remained the same for all surveys. The choice situations remainedthe same for each species across the survey versions.

Table 1 shows the attributes and their levels, including four price levels,for each of the four species. The price levels were based on observed retailprices. Tuna was based on sashimi grade prices, as noted in the survey. Con-tingent choice situations allow for hypothetical product attributes to beevaluated. The attribute ‘‘turtle safe’’ for tuna was a hypothetical featuredesigned to gauge the consumers’ environmental concern when purchas-ing fish products. ‘‘Turtle safe’’ was defined as ‘‘fish harvested by fisheriesunder stringent controls to avoid sea turtle bycatch.’’ For tilapia, the ‘‘natu-ral veggie-based feed’’ attribute is also a hypothetical feature motivated bythe trend of consumer preference for less fatty food. This attribute referredto production using natural vegetable-based feed rather than syntheticfeed, which also usually include parts of sea animals.

The consumer was presented with a total of 12 choice situations on eachsurvey. On each version, four of the choice cards were dedicated to the morefamiliar species (either tuna or salmon), and eight of the choice cardsaddressed a less familiar species (moi or tilapia). This design resulted fromthe number of attributes and attribute levels investigated for each speciesafter applying a fractional factorial design using SAS1 9.2. Each choice cardcontained two hypothetical product options described by their attributes

Consumer Choice Between Aquaculture Fish and Wild-Caught Seafood in Hawaii 139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

and one option for purchasing neither product. This type of design is toensure that the options offered in each choice situation are exhaustive (Lou-viere et al., 2000). The survey noted that the options were identical for allcharacteristics other than those described. Respondents were asked tochoose only one option in each situation, assume that the options in eachsituation were the only ones available, and to treat each situation separately.

Data Collection

Two survey methods, online and in-person, were used for data collec-tion in this study. Online data survey has the advantage to speed up the datacollection process. However, the online survey consumer pool is limited inHawaii hence the decision was to use a mixed method approach. Face-to-face surveys were collected at Times Supermarket (a local Hawaii chain)

TABLE 1 Alternative Attributes by Fish Species: Choice Cards Design

Attribute Level Attribute Level

Salmon Tuna

Production Method Farm-RaisedWild-Caught

Production Method Farm-RaisedWild-Caught

Product Form Fresh (never frozen)Previously frozen

Product Form Fresh (never frozen)Previously frozen

Origin U.S. DomesticForeign Import

Turtle Safe YesNo

Price=lba 4.996.998.9910.99

Price=lba,b 8.9914.4919.9925.49

Tilapia Moi

Locally Producedin Hawaii

YesNo

Locally Producedin Hawaii

YesNo

Product Form Fresh (never frozen)Previously frozenLive

Production Method Wild-CaughtOcean-basedFarm-raisedLand-basedFarm-raised

Natural Veggie-based Feed YesNo

Price=lba 4.996.998.9910.99

Price=lba 1.993.995.997.99

aBased on observed retail prices.bTuna prices reflect sashimi grade tuna.

140 K. Davidson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

locations and farmers’ markets around the island of Oahu, Hawaii to cap-ture the range of demographics in the State. At the markets, surveyors setup a table with a banner to attract voluntary participants. The data collec-tion phase occurred from June through August 2010.

A total of 610 survey responses (425 in-person and 185 online) were col-lected. One hundred 83 online and 383 in-person responses were useablefor a total of 566 observations. Eighty-two observations included in-personsurveys collected at Farmers’ Markets, and 301 in-person observations werecollected at Times Supermarkets. During the face-to-face surveys, severalnon-Hawaii residents were encountered due to high tourism in the area,and two online observations included also nonresidents. Because the studyfocused on the seafood preferences of Hawaii residents, those nonresidentswere not included in the analysis. Additionally, incomplete in-personsurveys with nonresponse in the conjoint questions were omitted. Theelectronic survey version mandated every question. Future research cancompare the relationship between survey modes; however, for this studywe assume consumer preference are consistent across survey mode.

RESULTS

Profile of Survey Respondents

Demographics of the survey respondents are presented in Table 2 with acomparison between the survey and state statistics according to the HawaiiDepartment of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT,2010). Our survey achieved a good representation of the State’s populationin terms of age groups, income levels, education, and ethnicity. However thesurvey sample is slightly skewed towards an older, more educated, higherincome group. For comparison purposes, our 4.42% of respondents claim-ing ‘‘Hawaiian’’ heritage were grouped with ‘‘Asian=Pacific Islander.’’

Given current U.S. economic conditions it is worth noting that 6% of ourrespondents were unemployed, looking for work. In June, 2010 according tothe U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010), the unemployment rate forHawaii was 6.9%; our survey sample closely reflects the current state of thelabor market in this respect. The high response among retired workers iscorrelated with the high percentage of respondents in older age categories.We do not believe the structure of our data collection targeted older respon-dents, since our survey schedule included evenings and weekends whenyounger respondents were available. Time constraints probably influencedrespondents’ decisions to volunteer for the survey; retired individuals with-out small children were in less of a rush than young or middle-aged adults.

Demographic data from respondents have been used as explanatoryvariables in previous seafood market research (Gempesaw II et al., 1995,

Consumer Choice Between Aquaculture Fish and Wild-Caught Seafood in Hawaii 141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

Hanson et al., 1995, Engle & Kouka, 1995, Johnston et al., 2001, Harrisonet al., 2002, Jaffry et al., 2004, Drake et al., 2006, Johnston & Roheim, 2006;Quagrainie, 2006; Quagrainie & Engle, 2006). The effect of consumer socio-economic factors on seafood preferences are not directly analyzed in thisstudy, the effect which can typically be analyzed by creating interacted termsbetween consumer characteristic variables and product attribute variables.Without these interacted terms, our results can be interpreted as capturingthe average impact of the socioeconomic factors in our sample (Train 2009).

Seafood Consumption Habits

Three hundred and fifty-four respondents, or 65%, eat seafood at homeweekly. The mean household size was three persons and, on average, the

TABLE 2 Comparison of Survey Respondent and Hawaii Resident Demographics

Ages DBEDT (2009) Survey (2010)

18 to 24 years 10% 6%25 to 29 years 8% 8%30 to 39 years 14% 13%40 to 49 years 13% 21%50 to 59 years 13% 28%60 to 69 years 10% 16%70 to 79 years 6% 6%80 and over 5% <1%

Income DBEDT (2000) Survey (2010)

Less than $25K 23% 14%$25K–$49,999 27% 17%$50K–$74,999 21% 17%$75K–$99,999 13% 22%$100K–$149,999 11% 13%More than $150K 6% 7%

Education

Some college and less 74% 51%Bachelor’s=Advanced 26% 49%

Ethnicity

Asian=Native Hawaiian=Pacific Islanders 51% 52%Caucasian 24% 34%Native American, Native Alaskan, Aboriginal Peoples 0.2% 2%Latino or Hispanic 7% 4%African–American 2% 1%Other 1% 5%

Hawaii State Databook 2009 http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/databook/2009-individual.

142 K. Davidson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

approximate household expenditures on seafood eaten at home was $28.28per week, 20.5% of their mean weekly grocery expenditures of $138.16.Table 3 presents participants’ seafood consumption trends where 98% ofthe survey respondents eat seafood and 95% of respondents purchase sea-food for home consumption.

National Marine Fisheries Service data trends show total U.S. seafoodconsumption to be increasing over recent years. Our survey conforms tothis trend. When asked ‘‘overall, do you believe your next year’s total sea-food consumption (both at home and away from home) will . . . ’’ 63.4%of individuals reported it would stay the same, 21.6% predict a slightincrease in consumption, and 7.6% said it would increase significantly. Thisincludes non-seafood-consumers, 13 respondents, who were still encour-aged to fill out the survey to capture their attitudes and perceptionstowards aquaculture. Respondents’ projection of future seafood consump-tion suggests a marginal increase in consumption to continue the currentnational trend.

The National Fisheries Institute calculates and reports the ‘‘U.S. TopTen Species Consumed’’ list annually. Participants were asked to identifywhich of the top 10 species (based on the 2008 list) they had purchasedfor home consumption within the last 60 days. Fresh tuna was includedas an 11th species on the questionnaire given its importance in Hawaii mar-kets. Table 4 gives a comparison of the survey results to the national list.Survey responses align with the top three consumed species in the UnitedStates. It is not surprising in Hawaii markets that fresh tuna ranked a closefourth in the top species purchased. Tilapia consumption in Hawaii was sig-nificantly lower than the U.S. top species reflecting its unfamiliarity inHawaii and negative cultural connotation as a ‘‘rubbish fish’’ in the area.

To further investigate increasing seafood consumption trends, consu-mers were asked ‘‘What is the most important reason you consume sea-food?’’ The questionnaire presented multiple choice answers shown inTable 5. Alternatively, respondents could select ‘‘other’’ and specify theirreason for consuming seafood.

Taste was the most important reason participants consume seafood, fol-lowed by dietary preferences – believing seafood is healthier than othermeats. Although the survey indicated ‘‘please select only one response,’’

TABLE 3 At Home and Away From Home Seafood Consumption among Participants

Seafood Consumption Number of Respondents Percent

At home only 35 6%At restaurants only 15 3%At home and restaurants 503 89%Not at all 13 2%

Consumer Choice Between Aquaculture Fish and Wild-Caught Seafood in Hawaii 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

52 participants among the in-person surveys selected multiple reasons; onaverage those participants selected three responses, taste being the mostpopular choice. Our responses for this question are on par with O’Diernoet al. (2006) where respondents stated that they consume seafood for tasteand health.

Johnston and Roheim (2006) concluded that species when ranked,were always preferred by taste, regardless of ecolabeling and GempesawII et al. (1995) found perceptions of taste to be important in purchasingdecisions for fish and shellfish. Several respondents who selected morethan one answer also chose cultural tradition as an important reason. Somepopular ‘‘other’’ reasons for consuming seafood included variety in diet ordietary restrictions, overall enjoyment of seafood, and fishing as a livelihood.

Nationally, U.S. per capita seafood consumption of fresh and frozenproducts in 2009 was 6.2 pounds per capita for fish and 5.6 pounds percapita for seafood, 75% of total per capita consumption. Canned fisheryproducts accounted for 3.7 pounds per capita in 2009, and cured fish 0.3pounds per capita (NOAA NMFS Office of Science and Technology, 2010).

TABLE 4 Species Purchased for Home Consumption in Hawaii Compared to U.S. Top Ten SpeciesConsumed in 2008

U.S. Top TenSpecies Consumed 2008

Species Purchased for HomeConsumption in the Past 60 Days

Number ofParticipants Percent

1. Shrimp Shrimp 380 67%2. Canned Tuna Canned Tuna 356 63%3. Salmon Salmon 342 60%4. Pollock Fresh Tuna 324 57%5. Tilapia Crab 180 32%6. Catfish Scallops 129 23%7. Crab Clams 98 17%8. Cod Cod 61 11%9. Clams Tilapia 47 8%

10. Scallops Pollock 26 5%Catfish 23 4%None of the Above 29 5%

TABLE 5 Most Important Reason Participants Consume Seafood

Reason Consume Number of Participants Percent

Taste 228 44%Seafood is healthier meat 190 37%Seafood has fewer calories 25 5%Easy to prepare 2 0%Cultural tradition 31 6%Other 21 4%Unsure 17 3%

144 K. Davidson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

Hawaii is typically known for its large fresh seafood market. We asked part-icipants, ‘‘Which type of seafood product do you buy most often for con-sumption at home?’’ Table 6 shows the types of seafood purchased. Freshseafood is by far the most popular type of seafood purchased, with 63%of respondents selecting ‘‘fresh’’. Previously frozen, thawed fish was pur-chased most often by 15% of respondents. Although Table 4 notes cannedtuna as the second most frequently purchased seafood species amongrespondents in the past 60 days, only 8% said they purchase canned pro-ducts most often. Fifty-two participants selected more than one responsefor this question, on average choosing three product types. Among res-pondents making multiple selections, fresh fish was still the most popularproduct type.

Seafood Labeling

Product labeling is becoming more important to consumers, as evidentby mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) implemented in the2008 Farm Bill. COOL regulation mandates retailers to provide consumerswith information on the source of food products, including wild andfarm-raised fish and shellfish. The rule for fish and shellfish labelingbecame effective in 2005 (USDA, 2010). Two questions were included inthe survey to gauge consumer awareness of geographic and product sourcelabeling in the markets. Forty-five percent of respondents have noticedgeographic labeling of seafood in the supermarkets.

A higher number of respondents reported attention to farm-raised=wild-caught labeling of seafood; 63% of respondents noticed labels specify-ing whether seafood is farm-raised or wild-caught. Overall, consumers baseseafood purchasing decisions on the labeled information. When asked torate on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much=entirely) the extent towhich geographic origin and=or product source labeling influences theirdecisions, 60.8% ranked label influence as four and five on the scale.

TABLE 6 Type of Product Purchased Most Often for Home Consumption byParticipants

Product Type Number of Participants Percent

Fresh 323 63%Previously frozen, thawed 77 15%Boxed frozen 43 8%Canned 40 8%Dried=smoked 2 0%None of the above 17 3%Unsure=don’t know 11 2%Other 1 0%

Consumer Choice Between Aquaculture Fish and Wild-Caught Seafood in Hawaii 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

Aquaculture vs. Wild-Caught Seafood Preferences

In a telephone survey of U.S. consumers O’Dierno et al. (2006) foundconsumers prefer wild-caught to farm raised seafood. Drake et al. (2006)however found a greater number of North Carolina consumers prefer salt-water farm-raised seafood. The conjoint choice questions in our surveymeasured preferences and WTP for farm-raised vs. wild-caught fish pro-ducts, but additionally participants were directly asked ‘‘for seafood, whichof the following types do you most prefer?’’ for wild-caught, marine aqua-culture, or land-based aquaculture. In response to this question we found361 participants in Hawaii prefer wild-caught seafood, 45 prefer marineaquaculture, and 137 participants were unsure. Participants were thenasked to select from a list of choices the main reason for their productionmethod preference. Table 7 identifies a cross tabulation of the reasons con-sumers stated preference for each production method.

Wild-caught seafood is favored primarily for taste preferences amongHawaii consumers. A similar response was noted in the O’Dierno et al.(2006) study. Concern about the use of natural resources, however, is a dri-ver for some respondents in our study who prefer wild-caught fish and themain reason for respondents who prefer marine aquaculture production.Of the 17 respondents who prefer land-based aquaculture, six favor itbecause of taste preferences and five participants are concerned aboutenvironmental pollution from other production methods. Twenty-eight sur-vey participants were omitted from the cross tabulation of this questionbecause they selected multiple responses. Those who selected more thanone response chose three reasons on average with taste, and concernsabout natural resource use and environmental pollution being commonfactors determining their preference for fish production.

For each of the four species evaluated in the conjoint analysis portionof this study (salmon, tuna, tilapia and moi), consumers were asked toidentify which product type in terms of farm-raised or wild-caught product

TABLE 7 Cross-Tabulation of Preferred Fish Production Method and Reason Why

Reason Preferred

ProductionMethod

Concernabout Env.Pollution

Concern aboutNatural

Resource Use TasteFoodSafety Price Habit Other Unsure Total

Wild-Caught 36 55 131 42 6 47 20 5 342Marine Aquaculture 8 14 6 3 5 2 4 0 42Land Aquaculture 5 2 6 2 2 0 0 0 17Unsure 2 3 11 5 9 3 12 92 137

Total 51 74 154 52 22 52 36 97 538

146 K. Davidson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

they have purchased or consumed. Table 8 outlines the questionnaireresponses. A large number of participants have purchased or consumedboth farm-raised and wild-caught salmon. Three hundred and twenty-fourparticipants have purchased only wild-caught fresh tuna. Moi fish was tar-geted for this research because it is a less familiar species in seafood mar-kets; the statistics confirm the unfamiliarity, as 53% of respondents havenever purchased or consumed moi. Negative consumer attitudes towardtilapia in Hawaii are very evident throughout this study. In this particularquestion for example, 358 participants said they have not purchased orconsumed any tilapia.

Overall, the questionnaire data suggest wild-caught fish is preferred toaquaculture products, based on taste and environmental concerns. Surveyresponses confirm that fresh fish, particularly tuna, is a major market pro-duct in Hawaii. Product labeling is important and influential to consumers.The next section presents the results from the conjoint analysis, includingconsumers’ WTP for fish product attributes.

Conjoint Analysis Results

For the conjoint analysis, conditional logit models were used to esti-mate the impact of the attribute variables on the decision to purchasethe product in each choice situation. The different species compared dif-ferent attributes, so each species was evaluated as its own model in this con-joint analysis. The sample size for each model differs because species wererandomly distributed to respondents to evaluate. Furthermore, each choicesituation was treated as a unique, individual choice independent of theother choices. The online questionnaire mandated every question; how-ever, there were some non-response answers for choice situations amongthe in-person surveys. Missing observations for those situations where anindividual did not make a choice are automatically skipped by the NLOGIT4.0 software.

The price attribute for each model reflects the four price levels, basedon actual observed retail prices, discussed in the survey design and

TABLE 8 Consumption=Purchases of Fish by Production Method and Species

Species

Product Type Salmon Fresh Tuna Canned Tuna Tilapia Moi

Wild-Caught 153 31% 324 66% 103 30% 21 4% 112 24%Farm-Raised 28 6% 13 3% 30 9% 73 15% 41 9%Both 265 54% 105 21% 102 30% 48 10% 69 15%Neither 42 9% 48 10% 110 32% 358 72% 252 53%

Consumer Choice Between Aquaculture Fish and Wild-Caught Seafood in Hawaii 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

implementation section of this paper (see Table 1). Table 9 shows thedescriptive statistics for the price variables used for each species in the con-joint choices. The mean for the tuna price attribute is much higher thanthat for other species, as one would expect since the analysis is specificto sashimi grade (high grade) tuna.

Table 10 presents the estimation results and statistical significance of vari-ables. Also noted in Table 10 are the sample sizes (N), the goodness-of-fit

TABLE 9 Descriptive Statistics for Choice Experiment Price Variables

Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max

Salmon Price 8.99 4.47 2.99 14.99Tuna Price 17.24 6.15 8.99 25.49Tilapia Price 5.24 2.22 1.99 7.99Moi Price 8.24 2.45 4.99 10.99

TABLE 10 Conditional Logit Model Estimation Results

Variable Description Coefficient Std. Error

SalmonBUYNO Choice to buy neither in a choice set �1.951��� 0.162SALWC Wild-caught product 0.612��� 0.112SALPFR Previously frozen product �0.598��� 0.110SALIMP Foreign imported product �0.561��� 0.096SALPRICE Price �0.122��� 0.136N¼ 297 adj. pseudo-R2¼ 0.044 LR¼ 108.690

TunaBUYNO Choice to buy neither in a choice set �1.369��� 0.201TUWC Wild-caught product 0.591��� 0.120TUPFR Previously frozen product �0.719��� 0.100TUTS Turtle safe certification 0.291��� 0.116TUPRICE Price �0.054��� 0.010N¼ 285 adj. pseudo-R2¼ 0. 031 LR¼ 77.878

TilapiaBUYNO Choice to buy neither in a choice set �0.254�� 0.109TILOC Locally produced in Hawaii 0.337��� 0.072TINAT Produced using natural vegetable-based feed 0.022 0.072TILIVE Product in live form �0.451��� 0.083TIPFR Previously frozen product �0.899��� 0.098TIPRICE Price �0.147��� 0.153N¼ 283 adj. pseudo-R2¼ 0.045 LR¼ 208.746

MoiBUYNO Choice to buy neither in a choice set �1.524��� 0.152MOILOC Locally produced in Hawaii 0.611��� 0.059MOIWC Wild-caught product 0.395��� 0.070MOILAND Land-based farm-raised �0.557��� 0.103MOIPRICE Price �0.189��� 0.016N¼ 291 adj. pseudo-R2¼ 0.042 LR¼ 199.854

�� and ��� represent statistical significance at the 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

148 K. Davidson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

(adjusted pseudo-R2 statistics), as well as the overall parameter significant testscores (the likelihood ratio statistics) for each model. The goodness-of-fit issimilar across the four estimations and the attribute variables are jointlyhighly significant. The only nonstatistically significant variable is TINAT, anattribute representing farm-raised tilapia produced using natural,vegetable-based feed as opposed to synthetic feeds.

Although in a non-linear environment such as the conditional logitmodel, the magnitude of the coefficients themselves cannot be readilyinterpreted, evaluating the coefficient signs and statistical significancemay help draw comparisons across the four species models. The wild-caught vs. farm-raised variables (SALWC, TUWC, MOIWC) have positivecoefficients for all species; consumers are more likely to choose the fishproduct if it is wild-caught. Price, following intuition, has a negative rela-tionship; consumers are less likely to purchase higher priced fish productsof any species.

The BUYNO variable is a constant term representing the option in thechoice set to buy neither product alternative for a species. The variable isstatistically significant and has a negative coefficient across all species mod-els. The negative relationship can be interpreted as a decrease in consumerutility if consumers do not choose this species in a choice situation due tothe lack of appeal for the product alternatives.

Salmon, tuna and tilapia share an attribute for previously frozen pro-ducts, variables SALPFR, TUPFR and TIPFR. The respective coefficientsare negative and statistically significant for each model suggesting consu-mers are less likely to purchase fish products that were previously frozen.

Marginal Values

Marginal values based on estimated parameters reflect the WTP forproduct attributes. According to Train (2009), the estimate can be calcula-ted as the negative ratio of the coefficient of an attribute variable (battribute)to the price coefficient (bprice); the formula is as follows:

Marginal Value ¼ �battribute=bprice

The calculated marginal values for each fish species’ set of attributes arepresented in Table 11. Each marginal value represents consumer WTP forthat particular attribute under that specific fish species, while holding allelse constant.

The values clearly show consumers are willing to pay more for wild-caught fish products than farm-raised fish products. As an example, con-sider two nearly identical salmon steaks that differ only in that one iswild-caught and the other is not. Given our result, consumers on average

Consumer Choice Between Aquaculture Fish and Wild-Caught Seafood in Hawaii 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

would be willing to pay $5.02=lb more for the wild-caught salmon steak.Similarly, consumers are willing to pay $10.94=lb more for wild-caught tuna,and $2.09=lb more for wild-caught moi fish. The higher absolute WTP forwild-caught tuna compared to salmon or moi is reflective of the higheraverage unit price of tuna (see Table 9). Using percentage of premiumabove the average price as a comparison tool, consumer WTP forwild-caught salmon is $5.02=$8.99¼ 55.8%, while the same WTP for tunaand moi are 63.5% and 25.4%, respectively. The familiarity with farm-raisedmoi, cultured offshore in Hawaii, likely accounts for this difference.

For previously frozen or foreign imported salmon, Hawaii consumersare willing to pay $4.90=lb (54.5%) and $4.60=lb (51.1%) less, respectively,holding other factors unchanged. Based on these results, consumers preferdomestically wild-caught fresh salmon in Hawaii.

Consumers are willing to pay $10.94=lb more for wild-caught tuna, andare willing to pay $13.31=lb (77.2%) less for previously frozen tuna pro-ducts. A premium of $5.39 (31.3%) is acceptable to consumers who advo-cate the ‘‘turtle safe’’ hypothetical attribute certifying the tuna was caughtunder stringent controls to avoid sea turtle bycatch.

TABLE 11 Marginal Values for Species-Specific Attributes Calculated from Conditional LogitParameters

Variable Description Marginal Value Percent of Average Price

SalmonBUYNO Choice to buy neither in a choice set �15.99���

SALWC Wild-caught product 5.02��� 55.8%SALPFR Previously frozen product �4.90��� �54.5%SALIMP Foreign imported product �4.60��� �51.1%

TunaBUYNO Choice to buy neither in a choice set �25.35���

TUWC Wild-caught product 10.94��� 63.5%TUPFR Previously frozen product �13.31��� �77.2%TUTS Turtle safe certification 5.39��� 31.3%

TilapiaBUYNO Choice to buy neither in a choice set �1.73��

TILOC Locally produced in Hawaii 2.29��� 43.7%TINAT Produced using natural vegetable-based feed 0.15 2.9%TILIVE Product in live form �3.07��� �58.6%TIPFR Previously frozen product �6.12��� �117%

MoiBUYNO Choice to buy neither in a choice set �8.06���

MOILOC Locally produced in Hawaii 3.23��� 39.2%MOIWC Wild-caught product 2.09��� 25.4%MOILAND Land-based farm-raised �2.95��� �35.8%

�� and ��� represent statistical significance at the 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

150 K. Davidson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

The utility for natural vegetable-based feed in tilapia production wasnot statistically significant. Despite negative perceptions of tilapia fish inHawaii, consumers are willing to pay an additional $2.29=lb (43.7%) forlocally produced tilapia. Because consumers strongly prefer fresh vs. frozentilapia, they are willing to pay $6.12=lb (117%) to obtain fresh rather thanfrozen tilapia. When also compared to fresh tilapia fillet, live tilapia fish isunattractive with $3.07=lb (58.6%) less in value.

Wild-caught or marine cultured moi fish are preferred to land-basedaquaculture. Consumers will pay $2.95=lb (35.8%) less for land-basedfarmed fish compared to ocean-based farmed fish. A premium of $3.23=lb (39.2%) would be paid by consumers for locally grown moi thanimported moi, holding production method constant.

Although different research estimation methodology may generate dif-ferent values of WTP per the design of the experiment, we believe ourresults are consistent with previous literature in terms of the directionand magnitude of WTP estimates. The conditional logit estimation by Jaffryet al. (2004) generated similar parameters for product form and source.Other analyses (Johnston et al., 2001; Dasgupta et al., 2010) concludedprice premiums of similar magnitude for product attributes. Becausewild-caught tuna is a high value, high quality product, it is not surprisingthat the WTP for wild-caught tuna is much higher than the other speciesin our study.

Tuna is caught locally and sold fresh in fish markets on the island; thisalso explains the low WTP for previously frozen tuna compared to salmonor tilapia. It is also expected that locally grown moi would be of a higherpremium than locally caught tilapia, since moi fish holds a positive con-notation in the region, whereas tilapia has a negative stigma. Moi fishwas traditionally consumed by Hawaiian ali’i, or royalty. Tilapia is oftendescribed as a ‘‘rubbish fish,’’ as it thrives wild in the brackish water canals.These results suggest there is a premium for environmentally conscious,wild-caught, fresh fish in Hawaii.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study are consistent with global and national seafoodconsumption trends; Hawaii consumers are marginally increasing their sea-food consumption based on tastes and health interests. Respondents citedtaste as the most important reason for consuming seafood and also themost important reason for preferring wild-caught seafood production overboth land-based and marine-based aquaculture production.

Participants stated a preference for wild-caught seafood in the consump-tion habits section of the survey, and their preferences were also reflected

Consumer Choice Between Aquaculture Fish and Wild-Caught Seafood in Hawaii 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

in the conjoint analysis. The conjoint analysis identifies a price premiumfor wild-caught fish where the degree of preference for wild-caught overfarm-raised fish varies by species. Comparing in terms of percent of averageprice, consumers are willing to pay more for wild-caught tuna than wild-caught salmon and less for moi than either tuna or salmon. Salmon andmoi are both already farmed species, while farm-raised tuna in Hawaii mar-kets is still on the horizon.

This comparison suggests the magnitude of price premiums maydecrease as consumers becomemore familiar with the aquacultured species.Salmon can serve as a benchmark species to evaluate the evolution of prefer-ences as it is more seasoned in the aquaculture technology which has led tothe recovery of depleted stocks. Our survey finds a premium for thewild-caught salmon product and an even higher premium percent-wise fortuna, a species that is not yet developed in cultivation practices. In Hawaii,industry promotion has increased awareness of moi culture and we see alower relative price premium for wild-caught moi than salmon or tuna.

The case study of Hawaii confirms the unique markets for fresh fish,particularly fresh tuna in the State. Sixty-three percent of participants saidthey purchase fresh seafood most often for home consumption; only 15%reported purchasing previously frozen, thawed seafood most often. Com-paring the National Fisheries Institute’s ‘‘U.S. Top Ten Species Consumed’’list to species recently consumed in Hawaii, fresh tuna ranks above seven ofthe top species consumed nationally. In the conjoint analysis, consumerswere willing to pay almost $5.00 (or 56% based on average market priceof salmon steaks) less for previously frozen salmon but $13.00 (or 77%based on average market price of sashimi grade tuna) less for previouslyfrozen tuna. These results suggest there is a strong preference for fresh,wild-caught tuna in Hawaii.

Findings from consumer market studies can strengthen the relation-ships between the seafood market and fisheries and aquaculture manage-ment. Labeling offers transparency for market incentives to drive policyobjectives. Given the discovery of premiums for product attributes, ourstudy recommends standardized labeling and enforcement particularly interms of product source and freshness. The premium for wild-caught fishproducts suggests consumers put an irreplaceable value on the limitedresources of wild fish stocks. Market incentives driven by the consumer willreflect the importance of responsible fisheries and aquaculture manage-ment aiming to maintain sustainable wild stocks. In addition to policythe results suggest opportunities for industry promotion and developmentamong fishermen and fish farmers alike. Product attributes can be devel-oped into niche marketing strategies.

A caveat of this study includes the potential for hypothetical bias in theconjoint analysis which relies on stated preferences rather than actual

152 K. Davidson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

purchases observed in real market data. Also, the design of choiceexperiments varies by study, including the range of prices used to cover thepotential WTP. Further research from this study may include an investigationof varying preferences among consumers based on their different character-istics. Also, an examination of survey methodologies can be performed sincemixed modes were used for this study. More flexible choice models may alsobe applied to reveal consumer heterogeneity. Finally, the seafood marketresearch can be expanded to other species and other geographic locations.

REFERENCES

Alfnes, F, Guttormsen, A.G., Steine, G., & Kolstad, K. (2006) Consumers’ willingness to pay for the colorof salmon: A choice experiment with real economic incentives. American Journal of AgriculturalEconomics, 88(4), 1050–1061.

Batzios, C.H., Moutopoulos, D.K., Arampatzis, G., & Siardos, G. (2005) Understanding consumer’s atti-tude on fish quality and marketing aspects in the Greek market. Agricultural Economics Review, 6(1),18–30.

Dasgupta, S., Eaton, J., & Caporelli, A. (2010) Consumer perceptions of freshwater prawns: Results froma Kentucky farmers’ market. Journal of Shellfish Research, 29(1), 19–23.

Drake, S.L., Drake, M.A., Daniels, H.V., & Yates, M.D. (2006) Sensory Properties of Wild and Aquacul-tured Southern Flounder. Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, 218–227.

Engle, C.R. & Kouka, J.P. (1995) Potential consumer acceptance of canned bighead carp: A structuralmodel analysis. Marine Resource Economics, 10(1), 101–116.

FAO Fisheries & Aquaculture Department. (2010) The State of World Fisheries and Aquauculture 2010.Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e00.htm

Gempesaw II, C.M., Bacon, R., Wessells, C.R., & Manalo, A. (1995) Consumer perceptions of aquacul-ture products. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(5), 1306–1312.

Halbrendt, C.K., Wirth, F.F., & Vaughn, G.F. (1991) Conjoint analysis of the mid-atlantic food-fish mar-ket for farm-raised hybrid striped bass. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, July 1991, 23,155–164.

Hanson, G.D., Herrmann, R.O., & Dunn, J.W. (1995) Determinants of seafood purchase behavior: con-sumers, restaurants, and grocery stores. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(5), 1301–1305.

Harrison, R., Stringer, W.T., & Prinyawiwatkul, W. (2002) An analysis of consumer preferences forvalue-added seafood products derived from crawfish. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review,31(2), 157–170.

Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture Development Program. (2010) Retrieved from http://hawaii.gov/hdoa/adp

Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism (DBEDT). (2010) The State ofHawaii Data Book 2009. Retrieved from http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/databook

Hill, J.I., Nelson, R.G., Woods-Williams, K.L., Weese, S.J., & Whitis, G.N. (2008) Conjoint Analysis ofBreaded Catfish Nuggets: Consumer Preferences for Price, Product Color, Cooking Method,and Country of Origin. (Selected paper presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Associ-ation Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, February 2–6, 2008).

Jaffry, S., Pickering, H., Ghulam, Y., Whitmarsh, D., & Wattage, P. (2004) Consumer choices for qualityand sustainability labeled seafood products in the UK. Food Policy, 29, 215–228.

Johnston, R.J. & Roheim, C.A. (2006) A battle of taste and environmental convictions for ecolabeledseafood: A contingent ranking experiment. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 31(2),283–300.

Johnston, R.J., Wessels, C.R., Donath, H., & Asche, F. (2001) Measuring consumer preferences for eco-labeled seafood: An international comparison. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 26(1),20–39.

Consumer Choice Between Aquaculture Fish and Wild-Caught Seafood in Hawaii 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

Kumar, G., Quagrainie, K., & Engle, C. (2008) Factors that influence frequency of catfish by U.S.households in selected cities. Aquaculture Economics and Management, 12(4), 252–267.

Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., & Swait, J.D. (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

National Fisheries Institute. (2008) Top Ten U.S. Seafood Consumption by Species. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aboutseafood.com/about/about-seafood/top-10-consumed-seafoods

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). (2009) Hawaii Aquaculture. U.S. Department of Agricul-ture NASS, Hawaii Field Office, Honolulu, HI.

NOAA Aquaculture Program. (2010) NOAA Marine Aquaculture Policy, Sliver Springs, MD. Retrievedfrom http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculature/library/library-home.html.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) NOAA Fisheries Office of Science & Technology. (2010)Fisheries of the United States–2009, Sliver Springs, MD. Retrieved from http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus09/index.html

O’Dierno, L., Govindasamy, R., Puduri, V., Myers, J.J., & Islam, S. (2006) Consumer Perceptions andPreferences for Organic Aquatic Products: Results from the Telephone Survey. New Jersey Agricul-tural Experiment Station, Rutgers University Department of Agricultural, Food and ResourceEconomics: 1–58.

Quagrainie, K. (2006) IQF catfish retail pack: A study of consumers’ willingness to pay. International Foodand Agribusiness Management Review, 9(2), 75–87.

Steine, G., Alfnes, F., & Rora, M.B. (2005) The effect of color on consumer WTP for farmed salmon.Marine Resource Economics, 20, 211–219.

Train, K. (2009) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010) Local Area Unemployment Statistics: Unemployment Rates for

States. http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htmU.S. Department of Agriculture. (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service. (2010) Country of Origin

Labeling. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/coolWhitmarsh, D. & Palmieri, M.G. (2009) Social acceptability of marine aquaculture: The use of

survey-based methods for eliciting public and stakeholder preferences. Marine Policy, 33, 452–457.Wirth, F.F. & Davis, K.J. (2003) Shrimp Purchasing Behavior and Preferences of Seafood Dealers. Paper

presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Mobile, Alabama,February 1–5, 2003.

Wirth, F.F., Love, L.A., & Palma, M.A. (2007) Purchasing shrimp for at-home consumption: the relativeimportance of credence versus physical product features. Aquaculture Economics and Management,11(1), 17–37.

154 K. Davidson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

awai

i at M

anoa

] at

03:

31 1

4 Ju

ne 2

012

View publication statsView publication stats