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