sign in sign up
<<
Home , Wild fisheries

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

FARMING A SUSTAINABLE : EXPLORING CONSUMER SUPPORT OF

AQUAPONICS AND PREFERENCE FOR AQUAPONIC

A Thesis in

Wildlife and 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 Thesis Co-Advisor

Melissa M. Kreye Assistant Professor of Forest Resource Management

Bradley J. Cardinale Department Head, Science and Management

iii ABSTRACT

Worldwide demand for , coupled with the relatively static trend in wild production, has put 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 are a promising group of 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 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 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 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 ...... 10 Promise of “The ” ...... 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 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: 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 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 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 , unsustainable resource use, and (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 , 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 that bear sustainable attributes

(McClenachan et al., 2016; 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 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: 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. & 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 (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 , 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 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 fishery…and probably all the great 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 on fisheries resources and marine .

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, destruction, , 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 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).

Figure 2-1: Global trends in the state of the world’s fisheries from 1974-2017. Source: FAO (2020).

Innovations in technology and policy can be introduced to alleviate stock scarcities

(Asche and Smith, 2018). However, such innovations can be controversial and 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 in the , many marine species’ distributions have shifted poleward to more favorable or into deeper, cooler

12 (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 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 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), -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 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.

Figure 2-2: World capture fisheries and aquaculture production. Source: FAO (2020).

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, , 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

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 aquaculture in leading production countries including Norway, , and (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, , 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 , , cod, Alaska , 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 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 over time.

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 Year-on-year Primarily capita progress 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 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 0.52 +0% Wild 10 Clams 0.32 +3.23% Wild

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).

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 , 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 . 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 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 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

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).

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, , 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

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 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 (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 and 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 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 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 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 , 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 (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 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 and organic matter out of the system, rather than an overall reduction in effluent discharge (Piedrahita, 2003). In addition to this waste , 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 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).

Figure 2-4: Illustrative representation of the cycle that occurs in an aquaponics system. Source: Smart Garden Guide (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

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.

Figure 2-5: Nitrogen cycle in an aquaponics system. Source: Tyson et al. (2011).

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

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 and , 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 (, 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. 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 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 , 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 (Miličić et al., 2017) have expressed generally positive attitudes towards aquaponics. Additionally, a marketing study in , 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. , 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 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. , 142, 113-119.

Brooker, M. (2015, October 28). Seafood Consumer Insights [Conference Presentation]. Global Aquaculture Alliance 2015 GOAL Conference. , 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 . 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). 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 -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 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 & 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 . 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 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 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

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

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

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 – • Research ideas were discussed with thesis January 2020 committee and a research plan was constructed • Survey instrument was developed February – March • Appropriate documents and protocols were 2020 completed and submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for review and approval • Survey pretesting was conducted • Documents provided to IRB were approved and IRB determined the research project to be exempt April – early June from formal review 2020 • Findings and comments from survey pretesting were reviewed and appropriate changes were made to the survey instrument June 26th, 2020 • Data collection began • Data collection was completed and data was July 23rd, 2020 exported into an SPSS database • Data was cleaned and analyzed, and findings were August – October compiled into thesis format 2020 • Thesis draft was submitted to the Graduate School for format review November 2020 – • Thesis writing February 2021 • Thesis defense and final thesis submission to the March 2021 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 ,” 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 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

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.

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%).

101

Table 4-2: Respondents’ self-reported fish consumption frequencies for fish in general and wild- caught versus farm-raised fish.

Infrequent Frequent Totala Missing Datab Consumers Consumers 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.

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.

102

Figure 4-1: The relative importance that Florida consumers place on various fish attributes when choosing a fish to purchase and consume (N = 567).

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

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).

Figure 4-2: Consumer perception of aquaculture benefits (N = 656).

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).

104

Figure 4-3: Consumer perception of aquaculture concerns (N = 656).

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.

105

Figure 4-4: Consumer perception of farm-raised fish relative to wild-caught fish (N = 656).

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

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).

Table 4-3: Knowledge of fish origin by percent of correct responses (N = 656). Correct Items (%) Aquaculture will supply most of the demand for fish in the coming 54.6 decades 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 41.8 other countries Over half of the fish we consume is farm-raised 40.1 Asia is the largest contributor to world aquaculture at about 90 percent 36.3 of global production U.S. aquaculture represents less than 1% of the global aquaculture 25.5 industry 29.6% Objective Knowledge of Fish OriginA Informed

AAggregated total percent of correct answers on all scale items.

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

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

Figure 4-5: Florida consumers’ perceptions of the benefits of aquaponics (N = 656).

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

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). Squared Std. Beta Semi-Partial Variable Semi-Partial Coefficients Correlations Correlations 1. Age (65 and over) 0.157*** 0.150 0.023 2. Income ($75,000 to -0.081** -0.079 0.006 $99,999) 3. Education (High -0.102** -0.100 0.010 school or less) 4. Freshwater Fish 0.098** 0.095 0.009 Consumption (Frequent) 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 0.094* 0.070 0.005 Certification/Labeling 9. Local Sourcing 0.147*** 0.119 0.014 10. Perception of 0.294*** 0.249 0.062 Aquaculture 11. Knowledge of 0.222*** 0.197 0.039 Aquaculture

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.

Figure 4-6: Florida consumers’ intentions to consume aquaponic products in the future (N = 656).

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.

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

Table 4-5: Regression results for the relationship between consumer factors and their intent to consume aquaponic products (N = 430). Squared Std. Beta Semi-Partial Variable Semi-Partial Coefficients Correlations Correlations 1. Age (45-64) -0.098** -0.097 0.009 2. Freshwater Fish 0.090** 0.089 0.008 Consumption (Frequent) 3. Sustainable 0.091** 0.081 0.007 Certification/Labeling 4. Local Sourcing 0.192*** 0.168 0.028 5. Perception of 0.207*** 0.185 0.034 Aquaculture 6. Knowledge of 0.259*** 0.232 0.054 Aquaculture

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.

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

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

(Fernández-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 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.

Fernández-Polanco, J., L. Luna & J. L. Fernández. (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 , 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 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 (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).

Table 5-2: Self-reported fish consumption frequencies and likelihood to consume aquaponic-reared tilapia (N = 656). Infrequent Frequent Totala Missing Datab Consumers Consumers 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 Favorable Total Missing Data Consumers Consumers 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”.

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

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.

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”

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

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.

Table 5-4: Knowledge tilapia by percent of correct responses (N = 656). Correct Items (%) Tilapia aquaculture in the United States is strictly regulated to 44.1 ensure food safety and environmental health When raised in land-based tank systems, tilapia is a sustainable fish 43.3 Tilapia aquaculture in the United States is more environmentally 43.3 friendly than most tilapia aquaculture in Asia Tilapia can be raised with less environmental impact than many 36.9 other fish species Tilapia can thrive on a primarily plant-based diet 35.5 Tilapia are hardy and disease-resistant compared to other fish 33.8 32.8% Objective Knowledge of TilapiaA Informed

AAggregated total percent of correct answers on all scale items.

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.

151

Figure 5-1: Percentage of respondents who are classified as misinformed, mixed informed, correctly informed, and uninformed about farm-raised tilapia (N = 656).

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).

152

Figure 5-2: Consumer perceptions of farm-raised tilapia traits based on their objective knowledge of tilapia (N = 656).

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

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

Table 5-5: Personal and fish consumption characteristics of the different consumer segments based on the results of chi-square tests (%). Infrequent Frequent Unfavorable Favorable Tilapia Tilapia to AP- to AP- Consumers Consumers p tilapia tilapia p N = 307 N = 337 N = 259 N = 397 47.7% 52.3% 39.5% 60.5% 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.

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,

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).

Table 5-6: Fish preferences and consumer values of the consumer segments based on the results of ANOVA tests (Mean (SD)). Infrequent Frequent Favorable Unfavorable Tilapia Tilapia to AP- to AP-tilapia Consumers Consumers p tilapia p N = 259 N = 307 N = 337 N = 397 39.5% 47.7% 52.3% 60.5% 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.

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

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 Frequent Favorable Unfavorable Tilapia Tilapia to AP- to AP-tilapia Consumers Consumers p tilapia p N = 259 N = 307 N = 337 N = 397 39.5% 47.7% 52.3% 60.5% 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 2.11 (1.75) 2.75 (1.89) < .001 1.85 (1.69) 2.80 (1.85) < .001 OriginB Objective Knowledge of 3.45 (2.55) 4.45 (2.34) < .001 3.14 (2.47) 4.49 (2.36) < .001 Sustainable AquacultureC Objective Knowledge of 1.78 (1.90) 2.97 (2.11) < .001 1.49 (1.79) 2.94 (2.09) < .001 TilapiaB

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, , 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

# of Items # of Coefficient  in Items in Coefficient  Actual Construct Name Source Original Original Actual Scale Scale Scale Scale Importance of Adapted from Sustainable and Ethical 5 3 Honkanen and .86 .86 Sourcing of Fish Olsen, 2009 Importance of Local All items created -- 5 -- .85 Sourcing new for this study Adapted from Hall and Amberg, 2013; Perceptions of 6 5 One item adapted .78 .84 Aquaculture Benefits from Britwum et al., 2018 Adapted from Hall and Amberg, 2013; Perceptions of 7 5 One item adapted .81 .75 Aquaculture Concerns from Honkanen and Olsen, 2009 Adapted from Hall and Amberg, 2013; Perceptions of Farmed 5 6 One item adapted .76 .83 Fish from Britwum et al., 2018 Two items adapted from Pieniak et al., Objective Knowledge of 6 6 2013; Four items Not Reported .75 Fish Origin created for this study Perceived Knowledge All items created -- 3 -- .81 of Sustainable Fish* new for this study Objective Knowledge of All items created -- 7 -- .88 Sustainable Aquaculture new for this study All items created Perceptions of Tilapia -- 6 -- .91 new for this study Objective Knowledge of All items created -- 6 -- .82 Tilapia new for this study Adapted from Perceptions of 10 10 Alexander et al., Not Reported .92 Aquaponics Benefits 2016 Intent to Consume Adapted from 7 4 Not Reported .81 Aquaponics Products Miličić et al., 2017

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 Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Important Important Important Important Important

How important to you are the following aspects of the fish you eat?

Item Name Item Description

The fish has been caught or farmed in an IMPSUS1 environmentally-friendly way The fish is not threatened by overfishing and loss of IMPSUS2 species on the verge of extinction The fish has been caught or farmed with its welfare in IMPSUS3 mind

Construct: Importance of Local Sourcing

Likert Scale: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Important Important Important Important 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?

…purchase local products to reduce your IMPLOCAL4 environmental footprint? …buy foods that support your region’s cultural IMPLOCAL5 traditions?

206 Construct: Perceptions of Aquaculture Benefits

Likert Scale: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree nor Disagree 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

Aquaculture provides a healthy food source to feed our growing PAQBEN2 population Aquaculture is a good way to relieve pressure on wild fish PAQBEN3 populations Farm-raised fish can be produced more efficiently than wild- PAQBEN4 caught fish The aquaculture industry supports U.S. communities PAQBEN5 economically by providing a source of local jobs

Construct: Perceptions of Aquaculture Concerns

Likert Scale: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree nor Disagree Agree

In your opinion, how strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements of concerns about aquaculture?

Item Name Item Description Aquaculture has the same problems as some types of land- PAQCON1 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 Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree nor Disagree 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? …are exposed to more pests and diseases than wild-caught fish? RPFARMEXP (Reverse Coded) …are raised in a cleaner, healthier environment than wild-caught PFARMENV fish?

Construct: Objective Knowledge of Fish Origin

Likert Scale: 1 2 3 4 5 -77 Strongly Neither Agree Strongly I Don’t Disagree Agree Disagree nor Disagree Agree 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 Over 80 percent of the fish consumed in the U.S. is imported from KNFISHORIG3 other countries Aquaculture will supply most of the demand for fish in the coming KNFISHORIG4 decades U.S. aquaculture represents less than 1% of the global aquaculture KNFISHORIG5 industry Asia is the largest contributor to world aquaculture at about 90 KNFISHORIG6 percent of global production

208 Construct: Perceived Knowledge of Sustainable Fish*

Likert Scale: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree nor Disagree Agree

How strongly do you agree with the following statements?

Item Name Item Description I feel confident in my ability to identify fish that are sustainably- PKNSUSFISH1 certified PKNSUSFISH2 I understand what it means when a fish is certified as sustainable I am well-informed about what makes fisheries and aquaculture PKNSUSFISH3 operations sustainable

Construct: Objective Knowledge of Sustainable Aquaculture

Likert Scale: 1 2 3 4 5 -77 Strongly Neither Agree Strongly I Don’t Disagree Agree Disagree nor Disagree Agree 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 Environmentally PTILAPIA4 friendly PTILAPIA4 Clean PTILAPIA6 Affordable

Construct: Objective Knowledge of Tilapia

Likert Scale: 1 2 3 4 5 -77 Strongly Neither Agree Strongly I Don’t Disagree Agree Disagree nor Disagree Agree 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 Tilapia can be raised with less environmental impact than KNTILAPIASUS1 many other fish species Tilapia do not grow well in the confinement of densely RKNTILAPIASUS2* populated tanks KNTILAPIASUS3 Tilapia are hardy and disease-resistant compared to other fish KNTILAPIASUS4 Tilapia can thrive on a primarily plant-based diet When raised in land-based tank systems, tilapia is a KNTILAPIASUS5 sustainable fish

How strongly do you agree that tilapia aquaculture in the United States…

Item Name Item Description …is more environmentally friendly than most tilapia KNUSTILAPIA1 aquaculture in Asia? RKNUSTILAPIA2* …commonly uses antibiotics and other drugs and chemicals? …is strictly regulated to ensure food safety and environmental KNUSTILAPIA3 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 Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree nor Disagree 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 Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree nor Disagree 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 I will look for aquaponic-grown produce in the APINTENT2 future When deciding between conventionally-farmed APINTENT3 fish and aquaponically-farmed fish, I would choose aquaponics fish I would choose aquaponics products even if they APINTENT4 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 Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree nor Disagree 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 Of your total fish consumption, how often do you WSALTCONS choose wild-caught marine/saltwater fish (e.g., tuna, , snapper, , etc.)? Of your total fish consumption, how often do you WFRESHCONS choose wild-caught freshwater fish (e.g., catfish, bass, , , 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 Of your total fish consumption, how often do you FARMCONS 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 Slightly Moderately Very Extremely important important important important 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 Geographic origin (where the fish is IMPGEOORIG 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 Neither Extremely Somewhat Somewhat Extremely likely nor unlikely unlikely likely likely unlikely

Item Name Item Description If given the opportunity, how likely would it INTAPTILAPIA 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/Ethnicity: 1 = “White”, 2 = “Black or African American”, 3 = RACE “American Indian or Alaska Native”, 4 = “Asian”, 5 = “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander”, 6 = “Hispanic or Latino”, 7 = “Other” 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 = INCOME “$75,000 to $99,999”, 6 = “$100,000 to $149,999”, 7 = “$150,000 to $199,999”, 8 = “Greater than $200,000” Highest level of education: 1 = “Some high school”, 2 = “High school degree or equivalent (e.g., GED)”, 3 = “Some college, no degree”, 4 = EDUCATION “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 Has the COVID-19 outbreak affected your COVID response to any of the questions in this survey? Please let us know any comments you COMMENT have about the topics presented in this survey.

214 Variables Created for Data Analysis

Coefficient α (if Variable Name Variable Description applicable) Recoded Demographic Variables Age grouped into three categories: 1= “18-44”, 2 = “45-64”, 3 = rec_AGE -- “65 and over” Race grouped into 4 categories: 1 = “White”, 2 = “Black or rec_RACE -- African American”, 3 = “Hispanic or Latino”, 4 = “Other” 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 rec_INCOME -- to $74,999”, 5 = “$75,000 to $99,999”, 6 = “Greater than $100,000” Education grouped into 4 categories: 1 = “High school degree or rec_EDUCATION less”, 2 = “Some college (no degree)”, 3 = “Associate or -- bachelor’s degree”, 4 = “Postgraduate degree” Recoded Consumption Frequencies and Intention BUYFISH response “never” (1) and “rarely” (2) grouped into 1 FishPurchFreq = “Infrequent”, and response “sometimes” (3) and “often” (4) -- grouped into 2 = “Frequent” WSALTCONS response “never” (1) and “rarely” (2) grouped WSALTConsFreq into 1 = “Infrequent”, and response “occasionally” (3), “often” -- (4), and “always” (5) grouped into 2 = “Frequent” WFRESHCONS response “never” (1) and “rarely” (2) grouped WFRESHConsFreq into 1 = “Infrequent”, and response “occasionally” (3), “often” -- (4), and “always” (5) grouped into 2 = “Frequent” FARMCONS response “never” (1) and “rarely” (2) grouped FARMConsFreq into 1 = “Infrequent”, and response “occasionally” (3), “often” -- (4), and “always” (5) grouped into 2 = “Frequent” TILAPIACONS response “never” (1) and “rarely” (2) grouped TilapiaConsFreq into 1 = “Infrequent”, and response “sometimes” (3) and “often” -- (4) grouped into 2 = “Frequent” INTAPTILAPIA response “extremely unlikely” (1), “somewhat unlikely” (2), & “neither likely nor unlikely” (3) grouped into 0 INTAPTILAPIAgroups -- = “Unfavorable”, and response “somewhat likely” (4) and “extremely likely” grouped into 1 = “Favorable” Construct Composite Variables Importance of sustainable sourcing composite: Mean of all CV_IMPSUS .86 items CV_IMPLOCAL Importance of local sourcing composite: Mean of all items .85 Perceptions of aquaculture benefits composite: Mean of all CV_PAQBEN .84 items Perceptions of aquaculture concerns composite: Mean of all CV_PAQCON .75 items CV_PFARM Perceptions of farmed fish composite: Mean of all items .83 CV_PTILAPIA Perceptions of tilapia composite: Mean of all items .91 Perceived knowledge of sustainable aquaculture composite: CV_PKNSUSAQ .81 Mean of all items

215

Perceptions of aquaponics benefits composite: Mean of all items CV_PAPBEN .81 removing item 4 Perceptions of aquaculture composite: Mean of all perception of PAQmean aquaculture statements (aquaculture benefits, aquaculture .72 concerns, and farmed fish) Knowledge of aquaculture composite: Sum of correct responses KNAQsum to all fish origin and sustainable aquaculture knowledge .82 statements Recoded Knowledge Variables KNFISHORIG1 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_KNFISHORIG1 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” KNFISHORIG2 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_KNFISHORIG2 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” KNFISHORIG3 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_KNFISHORIG3 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” KNFISHORIG4 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_KNFISHORIG4 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” KNFISHORIG5 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_KNFISHORIG5 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” KNFISHORIG6 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_KNFISHORIG6 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” Total number of correct responses on the knowledge of fish KNFishOrig_numcorrect -- origin items (out of 6 total) KNFishOrig_numcorrect grouped based on number of correct KNFishOrig_numcorrectC responses on fish origin knowledge scale: 0 = “Uninformed” (0- -- AT 3 correct responses) and 1 = “Informed” (4-6 correct responses) Sum of responses to each knowledge of fish origin statement KNFishOrigScore* (scores range from 6 to 30, with 6 being the lowest possible .75 score and 30 being the highest) KNFishOrigScore categorized based on total score: 6-14 = 1 = KNFishOrigScoreCAT* “Misinformed”, 15-21 = 2 = “Mixed Informed”, 22-30 = 3 = .75 Correctly Informed OKNSUSAQ1 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_OKNSUSAQ1 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” OKNSUSAQ2 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_OKNSUSAQ2 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct”

216

OKNSUSAQ3 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_OKNSUSAQ3 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” OKNSUSAQ4 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_OKNSUSAQ4 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” ROKNSUSAQ5 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly agree” (1), “agree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” (3) rec1_ROKNSUSAQ5* -- categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “disagree” (4) and “strongly disagree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” OKNSUSAQ6 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_OKNSUSAQ6 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” OKNSUSAQ7 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_OKNSUSAQ7 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” ROKNSUSAQ8 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly agree” (1), “agree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” (3) rec1_ROKNSUSAQ8* -- categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “disagree” (4) and “strongly disagree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” OKNSUSAQ9 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_OKNSUSAQ9 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” ROKNSUSAQ10 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly agree” (1), “agree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” (3) rec1_ROKNSUSAQ10* -- categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “disagree” (4) and “strongly disagree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” Total number of correct responses on the knowledge of KNSusAQ_numcorrect* -- sustainable aquaculture items (out of 10 total) KNSusAQ_numcorrect grouped based on number of correct KNSusAQ_numcorrectCA responses on fish origin knowledge scale: 0 = “Uninformed” (0- -- T* 5 correct responses) and 1 = “Informed” (6-10 correct responses) Total number of correct responses on the knowledge of KNSusAQ_numcorrect_no sustainable aquaculture items (out of 7 total, with reverse coded R items not included) KNFishOrig_numcorrect_noR grouped based on number of KNSusAQ_numcorrectCA correct responses on fish origin knowledge scale: 0 =

T_noR “Uninformed” (0-3 correct responses) and 1 = “Informed” (4-7 correct responses) Sum of responses to each knowledge of sustainable aquaculture KNSusAQScore* statement (scores range from 10 to 50, with 10 being the lowest .74 possible score and 50 being the highest) KNSusAQScore categorized based on total score: 10-23 = 1 = KNSusAQScoreCat* “Misinformed”, 24-36 = 2 = “Mixed Informed”, 37-50 = 3 = .74 Correctly Informed Sum of responses to each knowledge of sustainable aquaculture KNSusAQScore_noR* .88 statement not including the reverse coded items (scores range

217

from 7 to 35, with 7 being the lowest possible score and 35 being the highest) KNSusAQScore categorized based on total score: 7-16 = 1 = KNSusAQScoreCat_noR* “Misinformed”, 17-25 = 2 = “Mixed Informed”, 26-35 = 3 = .88 Correctly Informed KNTILAPIASUS1 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_KNTILAPIASUS1 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” RKNTILAPIASUS2 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly agree” (1), “agree” (2) and “neither agree nor rec1_RKNTILAPIASUS2* disagree” (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of -- “disagree” (4) and “strongly disagree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” KNTILAPIASUS3 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_KNTILAPIASUS3 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” KNTILAPIASUS4 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_KNTILAPIASUS4 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” KNTILAPIASUS5 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_KNTILAPIASUS5 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” KNUSTILAPIA1 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_KNUSTILAPIA1 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” RKNUSTILAPIA2 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly agree” (1), “agree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” (3) rec1_RKNUSTILAPIA2* -- categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “disagree” (4) and “strongly disagree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” KNUSTILAPIA3 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” rec1_KNUSTILAPIA3 -- (3) categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” RKNUSTILAPIA4 response of “I don’t know” (-77), “strongly agree” (1), “agree” (2) and “neither agree nor disagree” (3) rec1_RKNUSTILAPIA4* -- categorized as 0 = “Incorrect”, and response of “disagree” (4) and “strongly disagree” (5) categorized as 1 = “Correct” Total number of correct responses on the knowledge of tilapia KNTilapia_numcorrect -- items (out of 6 total, with reverse coded items not included) KNTilapia_numcorrect grouped based on number of correct KNTilapia_numcorrectCA responses on tilapia knowledge scale: 0 = “Uninformed” (0-3 -- T correct responses) and 1 = “Informed” (4-6 correct responses) Sum of responses to each knowledge of tilapia statement (scores KNTilapiaScore range from 6 to 30, with 6 being the lowest possible score and .82 30 being the highest) KNTilapiaScore categorized based on total score: 6-14 = 1 = KNTilapiaScoreCat “Misinformed”, 15-21 = 2 = “Mixed Informed”, 22-30 = 3 = .82 Correctly Informed

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 / %) 18-24 25-44 45-64 65 or older Age 53 / 8.1 198 / 30.2 223 / 34.0 182 / 27.7 65 or 18-44 45-64 Recoded Age older 251 / 38.3 223 / 34.0 182 / 27.7 Male Female Gender 331 / 50.5 324 / 49.5 Native American Black or Hawaiian Indian or Hispanic White African Asian or Other Other Alaska or Latino Race/Ethnicity American Pacific Native Islander 354 / 54.0 97 / 14.8 7 / 1.1 20 / 3.0 2 / 0.3 171 / 26.1 5 / 0.8 Black or Hispanic White African Other Recoded or Latino Race/Ethnicity American 354 / 54.0 97 / 14.8 171 / 26.1 34 / 5.2 $100,000 Greater Less than $20,000 to $35,000 to $50,000 to $75,000 to $150,000 to Annual to than $20,000 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $199,999 Household $149,999 $200,000 Income 81 / 12.3 125 / 19.1 109 / 16.6 141 / 21.5 88 / 13.4 83 / 12.7 16 / 2.4 13 / 2.0 Greater Recoded Less than $20,000 to $35,000 to $50,000 to $75,000 to than Annual $20,000 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 Household $100,000 Income 81 / 12.3 125 / 19.1 109 / 16.6 141 / 21.5 88 / 13.4 112 / 17.1 High Some Some Associates or school Bachelor’s Graduate Professional high college, no technical Education degree or degree degree degree school degree degree Level equivalent 17 / 2.6 114 / 17.4 161 / 24.5 87 / 13.3 185 / 28.2 73 / 11.1 19 / 2.9 High Associate Some school or Postgraduate Recoded college, no degree or bachelor’s degree Education degree less degree Level 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

Infrequent Frequent Recoded 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 / %) Missing: Missing: Never Rarely Occasionally Often Always unsure n/a 15 / 2.3 42 / 6.4 146 / 22.3 175 / 26.7 89 / 13.6 12 / 1.8 177 / 27.0 Missing: Missing: Infrequent Frequent Recoded unsure 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 / %) Missing: Missing: Never Rarely Occasionally Often Always unsure n/a 52 / 7.9 119 / 18.1 162 / 24.7 99 / 15.1 35 / 5.3 12 / 1.8 177 / 27.0 Missing: Missing: Infrequent Frequent Recoded unsure 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 / %) Missing: Missing: Never Rarely Occasionally Often Always unsure n/a 53 / 8.1 74 / 11.3 142 / 21.6 128 / 19.5 42 / 6.4 11 / 1.7 206 / 31.4 Missing: Missing: Infrequent Frequent Recoded unsure 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 / %) Neither Strongly Strongly Missing: Item Disagree agree nor Agree Mean disagree agree n/a disagree I do not like the taste of 52 / 7.9 41 / 6.3 27 / 4.1 37 / 5.6 49 / 7.5 450 / 68.6 2.95 fish

I do not know how to 45 / 6.9 43 / 6.6 32 / 4.9 52 / 7.9 34 / 5.2 450 / 68.6 2.94 cook fish Someone in my household catches the 126 / 19.2 32 / 4.9 19 / 2.9 18 / 2.7 11 / 1.7 450 / 68.6 1.82 fish I eat

Someone in my 138 / 21.0 35 / 5.3 12 / 1.8 7 / 1.1 14 / 2.1 450 / 68.6 1.66 household is allergic

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 / %)

Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Missing: Item Mean important important important important important n/a

Freshness 3 / 0.5 20 / 3.0 51 / 7.8 134 / 20.4 359 / 54.7 89 / 13.6 4.46

Quality/food safety 9 / 1.4 31 / 4.7 66 / 10.1 189 / 28.8 272 / 41.5 89 / 13.6 4.21 labeling

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 46 / 7.0 59 / 9.0 153 / 23.3 176 / 26.8 133 / 20.3 89 / 13.6 3.51 labeling Production origin (wild or 56 / 8.5 64 / 9.8 154 / 23.5 152 / 23.2 141 / 21.5 89 / 13.6 3.46 farmed) Geographic origin (where 79 / 12.0 85 / 13.0 162 / 24.7 120 / 18.3 121 / 18.4 89 / 13.6 3.21 the fish is from)

223

How important to you are the following aspects of the fish you eat? (N / %)

Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Missing: Item Mean important important important important important n/a The fish is not threatened by overfishing and loss of 22 / 3.4 44 / 6.7 126 / 19.2 189 / 28.8 186 / 28.4 89 / 13.6 3.83 species on the verge of extinction The fish has been caught or farmed in an 33 / 5.0 61 / 9.3 164 / 25.0 159 / 24.2 150 / 22.9 89 / 13.6 3.59 environmentally-friendly way The fish has been caught or farmed with its welfare 39 / 5.9 61 / 9.3 153 / 23.3 170 / 25.9 144 / 22.0 89 / 13.6 3.56 in mind

In your opinion, how important is it to… (N / %)

Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Item Mean important important important important important

…support local farmers 19 / 2.9 34 / 5.2 107 / 16.3 243 / 37.0 253 / 38.6 4.03 and/or fishermen?

…support the local/United 15 / 2.3 43 / 6.6 123 / 18.8 227 / 34.6 248 / 37.8 3.99 States economy? …purchase local products to reduce your 34 / 5.2 64 / 9.8 163 / 24.8 213 / 32.5 182 / 27.7 3.68 environmental footprint? …purchase and consume 31 / 4.7 64 / 9.8 177 / 27.0 234 / 35.7 150 / 22.9 3.62 locally produced foods? …buy foods that support your region’s cultural 71 / 10.8 73 / 11.1 185 / 28.2 197 / 30.0 130 / 19.8 3.37 traditions?

224

In your opinion, how strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about aquaculture benefits? (N / %) Neither Strongly Strongly Item Disagree agree nor Agree Mean disagree agree disagree The aquaculture industry supports U.S. communities 15 / 2.3 17 / 2.6 151 / 23.0 320 / 48.8 153 / 23.3 3.88 economically by providing a source of local jobs Aquaculture is a good way to relieve pressure on wild 15 / 2.3 25 / 3.8 148 / 22.6 307 / 46.8 161 / 24.5 3.88 fish populations Aquaculture provides a healthy food source to 15 / 2.3 38 / 5.8 132 / 20.1 323 / 49.2 148 / 22.6 3.84 feed our growing population Aquaculture provides a consistent, affordable 13 / 2.0 18 / 2.7 170 / 25.9 331 / 50.5 124 / 18.9 3.82 product Farm-raised fish can be produced more efficiently 16 / 2.4 44 / 6.7 213 / 32.5 245 / 37.3 138 / 21.0 3.68 than wild-caught fish

In your opinion, how strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about aquaculture concerns? (N / %) Neither Strongly Strongly Item Disagree agree nor Agree Mean disagree agree disagree Crowded conditions on fish farms are bad for the 21 / 3.2 52 / 7.9 215 / 32.8 238 / 36.3 130 / 19.8 3.62 fish Aquaculture has the same problems as some types of 16 / 2.4 55 / 8.4 265 / 40.4 252 / 38.4 68 / 10.4 3.46 land-based agriculture Aquaculture is an 49 / 7.5 139 / 21.2 245 / 37.3 166 / 25.3 57 / 8.7 3.07 unnatural process Fish farming creates 44 / 6.7 142 / 21.6 311 / 47.4 114 / 17.4 45 / 6.9 2.96 excessive pollution Aquaculture negatively impacts wild fish 64 / 9.8 192 / 29.3 271 / 41.3 92 / 14.0 37 / 5.6 2.77 populations

225

In your opinion, how strongly do you agree that farm-raised fish… (N / %) Neither Strongly Strongly Item Disagree agree nor Agree Mean disagree agree disagree …have less contamination 55 / 8.4 88 / 13.4 236 / 36.0 208 / 31.7 69 / 10.5 3.23 than wild-caught fish? …are raised in a cleaner, healthier environment 45 / 6.9 121 / 18.4 246 / 37.5 184 / 28.0 60 / 9.1 3.14 than wild-caught fish? …are safer to eat than 61 / 9.3 107 / 16.3 251 / 38.3 180 / 27.4 57 / 8.7 3.10 wild-caught fish? …are exposed to more pests and diseases than 52 / 7.9 156 / 23.8 287 / 43.8 122 / 18.6 39 / 5.9 3.09 wild-caught fish? …are higher in quality 61 / 9.3 162 / 24.7 268 / 40.9 124 / 18.9 41 / 6.3 2.88 than wild-caught fish? …are more flavorful than 52 / 7.9 172 / 26.2 299 / 45.6 94 / 14.3 39 / 5.9 2.84 wild-caught fish?

How strongly do you agree with the following statements? (N / %) Neither Strongly Strongly Item Disagree agree nor Agree Mean disagree agree disagree I understand what it means when a fish is 40 / 6.1 103 / 15.7 182 / 27.7 284 / 43.3 47 / 7.2 3.30 certified as sustainable I feel confident in my ability to identify fish that 58 / 8.8 170 / 25.9 231 / 35.2 159 / 24.2 38 / 5.8 2.92 are sustainably-certified I am well-informed about what makes fisheries and 61 / 9.3 183 / 27.9 225 / 34.3 146 / 22.3 41 / 6.3 2.88 aquaculture operations sustainable

226

How strongly do you agree with the following statements about global aquaculture production and the U.S. fish supply? (N / %) Neither Missing: Strongly Strongly Item Disagree agree nor Agree I don’t Mean disagree agree disagree know Aquaculture will supply most of the demand for 10 / 1.5 25 / 3.8 136 / 20.7 270 / 41.2 88 / 13.4 127 / 19.4 3.76 fish in the coming decades Aquaculture is the fastest growing producer of food 7 / 1.1 24 / 3.7 132 / 20.1 214 / 32.6 77 / 11.7 202 / 30.8 3.73 in the world Asia is the largest contributor to world aquaculture at about 90 4 / 0.6 20 / 3.0 154 / 23.5 172 / 26.2 66 / 10.1 240 / 36.6 3.66 percent of global production Over 80 percent of the fish consumed in the U.S. is 8 / 1.2 43 / 6.6 127 / 19.4 189 / 28.8 85 / 13.0 204 / 31.1 3.66 imported from other countries Over half of the fish we 10 / 1.5 37 / 5.6 127 / 19.4 194 / 29.6 69 / 10.5 219 / 33.4 3.63 consume is farm-raised U.S. aquaculture represents less than 1% of 7 / 1.1 48 / 7.3 149 / 22.7 115 / 17.5 52 / 7.9 285 / 43.4 3.42 the global aquaculture industry

Item (Recoded) Uninformed Informed

Aquaculture will supply most of the demand for 298 / 45.4 358 / 54.6 fish in the coming decades Aquaculture is the fastest growing producer of food 365 / 55.6 291 / 44.4 in the world Asia is the largest contributor to world aquaculture at about 90 418 / 63.7 238 / 36.3 percent of global production Over 80 percent of the fish consumed in the U.S. is 382 / 58.2 274 / 41.8 imported from other countries Over half of the fish we 393 / 59.9 263 / 40.1 consume is farm-raised U.S. aquaculture represents less than 1% of 489 / 74.5 167 / 25.5 the global aquaculture industry

227

How strongly do you agree with the following criteria in defining environmentally sustainable aquaculture? (N / %) Neither Missing: Strongly Strongly Item Disagree agree nor Agree I don’t Mean disagree agree disagree know

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 13 / 2.0 40 / 6.1 123 / 18.8 253 / 38.6 148 / 22.6 79 / 12.0 3.84 surrounding habitats Minimizes impact on wild 11 / 1.7 37 / 5.6 131 / 20.0 259 / 39.5 132 / 20.1 86 / 13.1 3.81 fish populations Manages waste 12 / 1.8 40 / 6.1 149 / 22.7 235 / 35.8 133 / 20.3 87 / 13.3 3.77 effectively

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 6 / 0.9 34 / 5.2 181 / 27.6 224 / 34.1 101 / 15.4 110 / 16.8 3.70 escapes

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 255 / 38.9 401 / 61.1 surrounding habitats Minimizes impact on wild 265 / 40.4 391 / 59.6 fish populations Manages waste 288 / 43.9 368 / 56.1 effectively

Conserves land and water 271 / 41.3 385 / 58.7

Reduces risk of fish 331 / 50.5 325 / 49.5 escapes

Minimizes pollution 334 / 50.9 322 / 49.1

228

How often do you eat tilapia? (N / %) Missing: Never Rarely Sometimes Often Unsure 142 / 21.6 165 / 25.2 227 / 34.6 110 / 16.8 12 / 1.8 Missing: Infrequent Frequent Recoded Unsure 307 / 46.8 337 / 51.4 12 / 1.8

In your opinion, please rate farmed tilapia on the following traits: (N / %)

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Item Mean stars stars stars stars stars stars stars stars stars stars

20 / 20 / 13 / 23 / 29 / 97 / 72 / 123 / 72 / 187 / Affordable 3.75 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 4.4 14.8 11.0 18.8 11.0 28.5

50 / 30 / 20 / 32 / 47 / 81 / 72 / 125 / 54 / 145 / Safe to eat 3.40 7.6 4.6 3.0 4.9 7.2 12.3 11.0 19.1 8.2 22.1

36 / 27 / 13 / 30 / 63 / 113 / 92 / 116 / 47 / 119 / Nutritious 3.37 5.5 4.1 2.0 4.6 9.6 17.2 14.0 17.7 7.2 18/1

40 / 45 / 22 / 28 / 51 / 100 / 76 / 123 / 40 / 131 / Clean 3.32 6.1 6.9 3.4 4.3 7.8 15.2 11.6 18.8 6.1 20.0

Environmentally 40 / 30 / 23 / 28 / 59 / 112 / 98 / 116 / 41 / 109 / 3.29 friendly 6.1 4.6 3.5 4.3 9.0 17.1 14.9 17.7 6.3 16.6

43 / 39 / 31 / 42 / 50 / 94 / 76 / 120 / 38 / 123 / Flavorful 3.25 6.6 5.9 4.7 6.4 7.6 14.3 11.6 18.3 5.8 18.8

229

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about tilapia? (N / %) Neither Missing: Strongly Strongly Item Disagree agree nor Agree I don’t Mean disagree agree disagree know When raised in land-based tank systems, tilapia is a 8 / 1.2 26 / 4.0 111 / 16.9 204 / 31.1 80 / 12.2 227 / 34.6 3.75 sustainable fish Tilapia can thrive on a 7 / 1.1 13 / 2.0 133 / 20.3 154 / 23.5 79 / 12.0 270 / 41.2 3.74 primarily plant-based diet Tilapia aquaculture in the U.S. is more environmentally friendly 15 / 2.3 20 / 3.0 132 / 20.1 193 / 29.4 91 / 13.9 205 / 31.3 3.72 than most tilapia aquaculture in Asia Tilapia aquaculture in the U.S. is strictly regulated to 9 / 1.4 37 / 5.6 140 / 21.3 194 / 29.6 95 / 14.5 181 / 27.6 3.69 ensure food safety and environmental health Tilapia can be raised with less environmental impact 13 / 2.0 27 / 4.1 133 / 20.3 180 / 27.4 62 / 9.5 241 / 36.7 3.60 than many other fish species Tilapia are hardy and disease-resistant compared 19 / 2.9 28 / 4.3 141 / 21.5 168 / 25.6 54 / 8.2 246 / 37.5 3.51 to other fish

Item (Recoded) Uninformed Informed

When raised in land-based tank systems, tilapia is a 372 / 56.7 284 / 43.3 sustainable fish Tilapia can thrive on a 423 / 64.5 233 / 35.5 primarily plant-based diet Tilapia aquaculture in the U.S. is more environmentally friendly 372 / 56.7 284 / 43.3 than most tilapia aquaculture in Asia Tilapia aquaculture in the U.S. is strictly regulated to 367 / 55.9 289 / 44.1 ensure food safety and environmental health Tilapia can be raised with less environmental impact 414 / 63.1 242 / 36.9 than many other fish species Tilapia are hardy and disease-resistant compared 434 / 66.2 222 / 33.8 to other fish

230

How strongly do you agree that aquaponics has the potential to… (N / %) Neither Strongly Strongly Item Disagree agree nor Agree Mean disagree agree disagree Increase local food 3 / 0.5 17 / 2.6 101 / 15.4 398 / 60.7 137 / 20.9 3.99 production

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 10 / 1.5 24 / 3.7 138 / 21.0 331 / 50.5 153 / 23.3 3.90 impact Improve overall 6 / 0.9 22 / 3.4 134 / 20.4 377 / 57.5 117 / 17.8 3.88 aquaculture sustainability Improve waste 11 / 1.7 24 / 3.7 150 / 22.9 327 / 49.8 144 / 22.0 3.87 management

Increase industry 4 / 0.6 21 / 3.2 189 / 28.8 318 / 48.5 124 / 18.9 3.82 competitiveness Grow products with high 9 / 1.4 37 / 5.6 160 / 24.4 312 / 47.6 138 / 21.0 3.81 nutritional quality Enhance food safety and 11 / 1.7 31 / 4.7 179 / 27.3 303 / 46.2 132 / 20.1 3.78 cleanliness

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 / %) Neither Strongly Strongly Item Disagree agree nor Agree Mean disagree agree disagree When deciding between conventionally -farmed fish and aquaponically- 28 / 4.3 45 / 6.9 239 / 36.4 254 / 38.7 90 / 13.7 3.51 farmed fish, I would choose aquaponics fish I will look for aquaponic 45 / 6.9 48 / 7.3 189 / 28.8 291 / 44.4 83 / 12.7 3.49 grown fish in the future I will look for aquaponic grown produce in the 31 / 4.7 56 / 8.5 219 / 33.4 272 / 41.5 78 / 11.9 3.47 future I would choose aquaponics products even 48 / 7.3 119 / 18.1 272 / 41.5 164 / 25.0 53 / 8.1 3.08 if they cost more

If given the opportunity, how likely would it be for you to choose to consume tilapia grown in an aquaponics system? (N / %) Extremely Somewhat Neither likely Somewhat Extremely unlikely unlikely nor unlikely likely likely 90 / 13.7 56 / 8.5 113 / 17.2 263 / 40.1 134 / 20.4

Unfavorable Favorable Recoded 259 / 39.5 397 / 60.5