THE VALUE OF FISHERIES FOR TOURISM AND THE LOCAL COASTAL COMMUNITY
Samantha Jane Paredes BBus (Econ) with Distinction/ LLB Master of Business (Research)
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
School of Economics and Finance QUT Business School
Queensland University of Technology
2020
Keywords
Choice Modelling; Coastal; Consumer surplus; Contingent Behaviour Travel Cost Model; Discourse Analysis; Local; Local Fisheries; Resident; Multinomial Logit Model; Mixed Multinomial Logit Model; Tourists; Travel Cost; Willingness to Pay.
The value of fisheries for tourism and the local coastal community i Abstract
The overarching objective of this thesis is to identify the additional economic benefits that are generated by the fishing industry with respect to tourism and provision of local seafood, estimate their size and how their values might be maximised. To fulfil this objective, four main studies were undertaken. The first two studies examine the value of fisheries and seafood with respect to tourism. First, an analysis of discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism in Queensland was undertaken. The three main themes which emerged from the data were: ‘Emphasising the local’, ‘Seafood as a symbol of luxury’ and ‘Linking fisheries and seafood to heritage’. In terms of promoting tourism, the results suggest that greater emphasis is placed on promoting local seafood than the fishing industry itself. The second study of the thesis examines the economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism for Mooloolaba, Queensland. Using a contingent behaviour travel cost model, the study finds that the benefits of visiting Mooloolaba would be significantly lower, on average, if there was no seafood or fishing industry in the area. Whilst both the fishing industry and seafood were important to the tourist’s overall coastal experience, the value attributed to seafood was larger than the value attributed to the fishing industry.
The third and fourth studies of the thesis examine the purchasing habits and preferences of Queensland consumers for local fish. In the third study, a profile of Queensland seafood consumers is given. This includes reasons for eating or not eating seafood, frequency of consumption, preferences for local fish and an examination of what consumers believe a local fish is. The fourth study of the thesis uses a choice experiment to determine the preferences of Queensland residents for locally caught fish. The study finds that the attributes of origin, sustainability and freshness attract a price premium. With respect to the origin attribute, the local label was preferred more so than the Queensland or broader Australian label.
The thesis also provides recommendations for how the additional benefits provided by fisheries and seafood can be maximised.
ii The value of fisheries for tourism and the local coastal community Table of Contents
Keywords ...... i Abstract ...... ii Table of Contents ...... iii List of Figures ...... vii List of Tables ...... ix List of Abbreviations...... x Statement of Original Authorship ...... xi Acknowledgements...... xii PART I: INTRODUCTION ...... I CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1.1 Background...... 3 1.1.1 Economic benefits of fisheries management ...... 3 1.1.2 Fisheries management in Australia...... 5 1.1.3 Tourism benefits of fisheries ...... 6 1.2 Research hypothesis...... 8 1.3 Objective and Research Questions...... 8 1.4 Contribution to knowledge...... 9 1.5 Thesis structure ...... 10 CHAPTER 2: THE IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL FOOD TO TOURISM AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES: A REVIEW ...... 12 2.1 Local food...... 12 2.1.1 The definition of local food ...... 12 2.1.2 Factors influencing consumption for local food ...... 15 2.1.3 Factors which deter consumption of local food...... 16 2.1.4 Local seafood studies...... 17 2.2 Food tourism ...... 19 2.2.1 Attraction of food tourism ...... 19 2.2.2 Challenges of food tourism...... 21 2.2.3 Tourism and local fisheries...... 22 2.3 Queensland food tourism ...... 23 2.4 Conclusions...... 25 PART II: THE TOURISM BENEFITS OF LOCAL FISHERIES AND SEAFOOD...... 27 CHAPTER 3: DISCOURSES OF FISHERIES AND SEAFOOD IN PLACE-BASED TOURISM ...... 29 3.1 Introduction...... 29 3.2 Discourse Analysis Approach...... 32 3.2.1 Discourse analysis ...... 32 3.2.2 Sampling and method ...... 35 3.3 Findings ...... 37 3.3.1 Theme 1: Emphasising the local...... 38 3.3.2 Theme 2: Seafood as a symbol of luxury...... 44
The value of fisheries for tourism and the local coastal community iii 3.3.3 Theme 3: Linking fisheries and seafood to heritage...... 46 3.4 Discussion and conclusions ...... 48 CHAPTER 4: THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF FISHERIES AND SEAFOOD TO COASTAL TOURISM ...... 53 4.1 The case study: Mooloolaba, Queensland, Australia ...... 54 4.2 Methodology: Travel Cost Method...... 55 4.3 The survey ...... 61 4.4 Qualitative results and demographic characteristics of the sample...... 62 4.4.1 Survey locations ...... 62 4.4.2 Descriptive statistics...... 63 4.4.3 Familiarity with Mooloolaba and fishing industry ...... 67 4.4.4 Plans for the trip (day of the survey) ...... 67 4.4.5 Questions about the trip...... 68 4.4.6 Distance from Mooloolaba in km and time ...... 70 4.4.7 Importance of the fishing industry and local seafood...... 70 4.4.8 Contingent behaviour questions ...... 73 4.4.9 Interest in local seafood experiences ...... 76 4.5 Setting up the travel cost models ...... 77 4.5.1 Calculation of travel cost...... 78 4.5.2 Rescaling of importance of seeing the fleet/markets and eating local seafood...... 79 4.5.3 Test for opportunity cost of time ...... 81 4.5.4 Variables used for travel cost models...... 83 4.6 Results of Travel Cost Models...... 86 4.6.1 Initial travel cost models...... 86 4.6.2 Approach 1: Examining the importance of fishing industry/ fish markets/ /seafood to the decision to visit ...... 89 4.6.3 Approach 2: Contingent behaviour travel cost model ...... 95 4.7 Discussion and Conclusions ...... 102 PART III: THE PURCHASING HABITS AND PREFERENCES OF QUEENSLAND CONSUMERS FOR LOCAL FISH ...... 107 CHAPTER 5: UNDERSTANDING THE DEMANDS FOR LOCAL SEAFOOD...... 109 5.1 Introduction...... 109 5.2 Overview of Australian seafood consumption...... 110 5.3 Australian Country of Origin labelling requirements and Seafood...... 111 5.4 Drivers and barriers to seafood consumption...... 113 5.4.1.1 Drivers of seafood consumption...... 113 5.4.1.2 Barriers to seafood consumption ...... 116 5.5 Aims...... 118 5.6 Survey methods ...... 119 5.7 Sample Demographics ...... 122 5.8 Summary...... 128 CHAPTER 6: CONSUMER PREFERENCES AND PURCHASING HABITS FOR LOCAL FISH ...... 131 6.1 Introduction...... 131 6.2 Seafood Consumption...... 132 6.3 Uncooked fish consumption (fillets or whole)...... 134 6.4 Cooked fish consumption ...... 135
iv The value of fisheries for tourism and the local coastal community 6.5 Preferences for local fish...... 136 6.6 Discussion and conclusion...... 141 CHAPTER 7: THE WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR LOCAL FISH ...... 145 7.1 Introduction...... 145 7.2 Methodology: Choice Experiment ...... 145 7.3 Research Design...... 149 7.4 The Barramundi choice experiment...... 150 7.4.1 The models ...... 155 7.4.2 Calculation of willingness to pay...... 158 7.4.3 Choice experiment results...... 159 7.4.4 Testing respondent characteristics ...... 162 7.4.5 Choice experiment follow up questions...... 167 7.5 Discussion and conclusion...... 170 PART IV: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 175 CHAPTER 8: ENHANCING THE BENEFITS PROVIDED BY FISHERIES AND SEAFOOD ...... 176 8.1 Introduction...... 176 8.2 Fisheries and Seafood tourism ...... 176 8.2.1 Direct fisher/farmer involvement with tourism ...... 177 8.2.2 Fisheries/ seafood heritage and culture as part of coastal tourism ...... 178 8.2.3 The role of related seafood industry: seafood markets ...... 181 8.3 Seafood Labelling ...... 182 8.3.1 Local seafood labelling...... 183 8.3.2 Sustainability seafood labelling ...... 184 8.3.3 Freshness labelling...... 186 8.4 Experiences from Local food Movement – Community Supported Fisheries ...... 186 8.4.1 Agricultural local food supply systems...... 187 8.4.2 Community supported fisheries (CSF) ...... 188 8.5 Conclusion ...... 191 CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION ...... 194 9.1 Introduction...... 194 9.2 Hypothesis, Objective and research questions ...... 194 9.3 Key Results...... 195 9.3.1 Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism...... 195 9.3.2 The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism...... 196 9.3.3 The buying habits and purchasing preferences of consumers for local fish ...... 197 9.3.4 The willingness to pay for locally caught fish ...... 199 9.4 Maximising economic values associated with the fishing industry and seafood ...... 200 9.5 Contribution to knowledge...... 201 9.6 Limitations and further research ...... 202 9.7 Final conclusion...... 204 REFERENCES...... 205 APPENDICES ...... 232 Appendix A Discourse Analysis study bibliography ...... 232 Appendix B Coding framework for discourse analysis...... 238 Appendix C Travel Cost Survey ...... 239 Appendix D Travel Cost Models including Mooloolaba residents ...... 247 Appendix E Choice model – sample goodness of fit test and additional models...... 259
The value of fisheries for tourism and the local coastal community v Appendix F Considerations for CSF in Queensland ...... 263
vi The value of fisheries for tourism and the local coastal community List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Research overview...... 9 Figure 3-1 Outline of themes in study...... 38 Figure 4-1 Group composition and residence of respondents at each survey location...... 63 Figure 4-2. Residential status of participants (n=153) ...... 64 Figure 4-3 Annual household income before tax in last 12 months ...... 65 Figure 4-4. Length of trip for first time visitors ...... 69 Figure 4-5 Length of stay for repeat visitors ...... 69 Figure 4-6 Importance of the boats/fish markets for those aware of fishing industry ...... 71 Figure 4-7 Importance of the boats/fish markets for those NOW aware of fishing industry ...... 71 Figure 4-8 Importance of local fish/seafood - aware of fishing industry ...... 72 Figure 4-9 Importance of local fish/ seafood - NOW aware of fishing industry...... 72 Figure 4-10 Future trips if no fishing industry - those aware of industry...... 74 Figure 4-11 Future trips if no local seafood available - for those aware of industry...... 74 Figure 4-12 Future trips now aware of fishing industry...... 75 Figure 4-13 Future trips now aware of local seafood...... 76 Figure 4-14 Demand curve for trips to Mooloolaba...... 79 Figure 4-15 Importance of seeing fleet/ fish markets and importance of eating seafood...... 81 Figure 4-16. Distribution of consumer surplus for entire sample (excluding Mooloolaba residents and outliers)...... 94 Figure 4-17. Distribution of consumer surplus for sub-sample whom had prior knowledge of the fishing industry before their trip (excluding Mooloolaba residents and outliers)...... 94 Figure 4-18. Scatter plot of response to no fishing industry and importance of seeing the fishing fleet/fish markets to the decision to visit AND scatter plot of response to no seafood and importance of seafood to the decision to visit...... 98 Figure 5-1. Survey design ...... 120 Figure 5-2. Participants of study – Queensland Residents ...... 123 Figure 5-3. Gender distribution...... 123 Figure 5-4. Age class...... 124 Figure 5-5. Occupation of sample ...... 125 Figure 5-6. Income distribution of the sample ...... 126 Figure 5-7. Regional distribution of the sample...... 126 Figure 5-8. Distance from the coastline (km)...... 127 Figure 5-9. Highest level of education of the sample...... 128 Figure 6-1. Fish/Seafood consumption in the last 12 months ...... 132 Figure 6-2. Reason for eating fish / seafood...... 133 Figure 6-3. Reason for not eating seafood...... 133
The value of fisheries for tourism and the local coastal community vii Figure 6-4. Frequency of fish consumption over the last 12 months ...... 134 Figure 6-5. Definition of local fish ...... 137 Figure 6-6 Definition of local fish by residential location of respondent ...... 137 Figure 6-7. Importance of buying locally caught/ farmed (fresh) fish ...... 138 Figure 6-8. Reason for buying locally caught/ farmed (fresh) fish ...... 139 Figure 6-9. Reason for eating locally caught / farmed (cooked) fish when eating out...... 139 Figure 6-10. Likelihood of purchasing locally caught/farmed fish at restaurant, cafe or fish and chip shop ...... 140 Figure 7-1. Sample choice scenario ...... 153 Figure 7-2 Distribution of WTP...... 162 Figure 7-3. Importance of attributes...... 169 Figure 7-4. Inquired about attributes...... 169
viii The value of fisheries for tourism and the local coastal community List of Tables
Table 3-1 Types of questions considered for discourse analysis...... 35 Table 4-1 Gender composition of sample ...... 63 Table 4-2. Employment status of respondents ...... 66 Table 4-3. Highest level of education achieved ...... 66 Table 4-4. Connections to fishing industry, related industry, activity or environmental organisation member...... 67 Table 4-5 Plans for the day surveyed ...... 68 Table 4-6 Proportion of overall satisfaction attributed to relevant activity ...... 73 Table 4-7 Regression to test opportunity cost of time...... 82 Table 4-8 Variable descriptions ...... 83 Table 4-9 Model 1: Initial travel cost model (Poisson) and Negative binomial model ...... 88 Table 4-10 Over dispersion test for Poisson regression ...... 88 Table 4-11. Negative binomial models – importance of fleet/fish market ...... 90 Table 4-12. Negative binomial model – importance of seafood ...... 92 Table 4-13. Tobit model checking response to no fishing industry (nofish1) ...... 96 Table 4-14. Tobit model checking response to no seafood (noeat) ...... 97 Table 4-15 Approach 2 Contingent behaviour travel cost model – no fishing industry or seafood ...... 99 Table 4-16 Probit model testing testing characteristics of respondents who stated 'no change' to trips if no fishing industry present...... 101 Table 4-17 Probit model testing testing characteristics of respondents who stated 'no change' to trips if no seafood present ...... 102 Table 5-1. Sample’s association with fishing...... 128 Table 6-1 Frequency of buying uncooked fish (i.e. fillets or whole) ...... 135 Table 6-2. Frequency of eating out/ eating fish out of home...... 136 Table 6-3. Average consumption of fish meals...... 141 Table 7-1. Attributes of choice experiment...... 151 Table 7-2. Interpretation of sample choice scenario...... 154 Table 7-3 Variables and coding ...... 156 Table 7-4. WTP Interpretation and calculation ...... 159 Table 7-5. Results of Hausman Test ...... 160 Table 7-6 MNL and Mixed MNL Choice Models ...... 161 Table 7-7 Mixed MNL model – sample who buys fresh (uncooked) whole fish or fillets...... 164 Table 7-8 Mixed MNL models – Brisbane/surrounding cities and rest of Queensland ...... 166 Table 7-9 Mixed MNL model removing confused respondents...... 168 Table 7-10 Reason for choosing default option ...... 170
The value of fisheries for tourism and the local coastal community ix List of Abbreviations
Community Supported Agriculture CSA Community Supported Fishery CSF Consumer surplus CS Ecologically sustainable development ESD Individual travel cost method ITCM Multinomial Logit MNL Theory of reasoned action TRA Theory of planned behaviour TPB Willingness to pay WTP Zonal travel cost method ZTCM
x The value of fisheries for tourism and the local coastal community Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: QUT Verified Signature
Date: 31 August 2020
The value of fisheries for tourism and the local coastal community xi Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisory team for their guidance and support throughout my PhD candidature: Adjunct Professor Sean Pascoe, Associate Professor Louisa Coglan and Associate Professor Carol Richards. To Sean – thank you for introducing me to the world of research during my work experience unit and for seeing the potential in me to become a researcher. I thank you for your guidance and patience throughout my PhD journey. To Louisa – thank you for always challenging me to do better, passing on your words of wisdom and for all the awesome chats over coffee which brightened my day. To Carol – thank you for your kind words and support, giving me opportunities to expand my knowledge in social science and helping me find new ways to approach research problems. You have all been a great source of inspiration for me to become a better researcher.
This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship and a Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) Top-Up Scholarship funded under FRDC Project No 2008-306 Building economic capability to improve the management of marine resources in Australia. Financial assistance was also received from the QUT Business School Higher Degree Research (HDR) Research Project Support Scheme. Special thanks to Associate Professor Louisa Coglan for providing further financial support. Many thanks to CSIRO and the School of Economics and Finance, QUT for in-kind support.
I am thankful to Sarah Jennings, Gary Mortimer, Benno Torgler and Clevo Wilson for providing feedback on my thesis.
Thank you to the day trippers and holiday makers of Mooloolaba for participating in the travel cost survey. A big thank you to my research assistants Justin, Javier, Ammarr and Ryan who assisted with data collection. This was an experience I will never forget, and I am grateful that you were there to help me through it.
xii The value of fisheries for tourism and the local coastal community I am grateful to my friends at the School of Economics and Finance for always being there in good times and more challenging times throughout the PhD journey. Special thanks to: Aimee, Amar, Ammarr, Azhar, Ben, Gabriella, Georgia, Imke, Justin, Martin, Naomi, Peggy, Poli, Quang, Ryan, Steve, Stewart, Sylvain and Suzanne. I would also like to thank friends at CSIRO (Trevor, Gabriella, Sharon, Jim, and Ana) for supporting me through this journey. I would also like to thank the salonerswho have been a joy to work with and have been a strong source of support throughout the PhD.
I thank God for all the blessings I have received, and I thank my family and friends for their endless love and support throughout this process. A special thanks to my parents for always giving me the best in life and for giving me the opportunity to continue my education. I would not have been able to complete this PhD without you both.
The value of fisheries for tourism and the local coastal community xiii
PART I: INTRODUCTION
The value of fisheries for tourism and the local coastal community i
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 BACKGROUND
Traditionally, the main objective of fisheries management globally has been to maximise yields and in some cases, employment (Hilborn, 2007). However, while these objectives are still relevant in the management of today’s fisheries, it is seen that these objectives alone cannot maintain the longevity of the fishery. More recently, the move to ecologically sustainable development (ESD) based management in many fisheries jurisdictions has led to inclusion of broader economic and social considerations in fisheries management (Asche et al., 2018; Goti-Aralucea et al., 2018). In particular, with most fisheries activities located in non-urban coastal communities, fisheries policy makers are cognisant of the regional importance of the industry to the community, both from an economic and social perspective. Further, there is growing recognition that fisheries provide indirect benefits to local communities, particularly through tourism activities, although the significance of these interrelationships are poorly understood.
In this chapter, the traditional bioeconomic model of fisheries is first outlined to illustrate the economic benefits that are usually derived from a commercial fishery managed to maximise economic yield. Fisheries management in Australia and the impact of consideration of other beneficiaries on these traditional definitions of maximum economic yield are then briefly considered to demonstrate the need for a better understanding of these benefits. The potential for tourism benefits of fisheries is then introduced. The final sections of this chapter provide the key hypotheses of the thesis and thesis structure.
1.1.1 Economic benefits of fisheries management In an open access fishery, fish stock is regarded as a common pooled resource for which fishers compete to obtain. As property rights are not exclusive, if fishers act according to their own self-interest (i.e. maximise individual profit), the stock could be overexploited to the point of depletion or extinction. This situation is referred to as the ‘Tragedy of the commons’ (Hardin, 1968). In order to avoid the tragedy of the commons, fisheries must be carefully managed to ensure the stock remains at a
Introduction 3 sustainable level whilst ensuring benefits for fishers (profits) and society (resource rent). The balance that must be achieved when managing fisheries is most commonly illustrated through the use of the traditional bioeconomic model1 based on concepts outlined by Gordon (1954) and Schaefer (1954).
In the long run, an open access fishery will expand fishing effort until the open access equilibrium point is reached (Gordon, 1954). That is, the fishery will stop fishing at the point at which total revenue is equal to total cost. However, it has been determined that continuing fishing effort to this point may not only be detrimental to the health of the fishery but will result in zero economic profit. To ensure the health of the stock, fishing effort should be less than that which produces maximum sustainable yield (MSY) or the level at which the growth rate of the stock is at a maximum (Pearce & Turner, 1990). Whilst fishing to the point of MSY may result in larger production values, targeting this level of yield may not be optimal in terms of generating profit. To maximise economic profit, while maintaining sustainable yield, the fishery should limit fishing effort to the level of maximum economic yield. MEY occurs at a point which is lower than MSY. Fisheries management in Australia currently aligns its management objectives to obtaining MEY (Newton, Wood, Galeano, Vieira, & Perry, 2007).
It is generally acknowledged that fisheries do provide benefits beyond direct benefits to the fishing industry. These additional benefits are generally measured with respect to the economic contribution of the flow on effects from the fishery. This includes employment income generation and economic profit in industries which rely on the fishing industry (e.g. seafood related industries and businesses which build fishing boats/trawlers and gear). These benefits are most commonly measured through input-output based models. Given the extent of the economic contribution provided by fisheries (both direct and indirect), it is important to consider this when managing fisheries (Pascoe et al., 2016).
Although MEY is generally accepted as a key fisheries economic objective, there is debate surrounding what factors should be considered in the estimation of MEY. For
1 See for example Figure 1. Standard equilibrium model of MEY in fisheries. From: “Estimating Proxy Economic Target Reference Points in Data-Poor Single-Species Fisheries.” By S. Pascoe, O. Thebaud, & S. Vieira. (2014) Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 6(1), p. 248, doi:10.1080/19425120.2014.966215
4 Chapter 1: Introduction example, maximising economic profits to fishers results in a lower level of fishing effort and catch than at MSY, with subsequent loss of economic value in both upstream (e.g. local suppliers to the industry) and downstream (processors, retailer etc.) industries. Further, lower catches may result in higher prices to consumers, resulting in a transfer of consumer surplus to producer surplus and potentially a lower level of overall economic surplus (Pascoe, Hutton, & Hoshino, 2018). Christensen (2010) argues that if the aim of fisheries management is to maximise net economic returns to the community then MEY should be equated to MSY. From this, consideration of broader economic benefits associated with fishing may also be important if fisheries management is to maximise net economic returns.
1.1.2 Fisheries management in Australia In Australia, economic objectives are prevalent in both Commonwealth and State fisheries management (Dichmont et al., 2010). As per Australia’s federal legislation regarding the management of fisheries; a key objective, among other things, is “maximising the net economic returns to the Australian community from the management of Australian fisheries” (Fisheries Management Act 1991) (Cth) s 3(1)(c). Following from this, the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy identifies maximising (sustainable) net economic returns to the community as the dominant objective of fisheries management (Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, 2018). This has been generally interpreted as maximising the economic rents in the fisheries (Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, 2018).
The vision of the Queensland Sustainable Fisheries Strategy 2017-2027 is to manage fishing in such a manner that there is low risk to aquatic resources whilst optimising benefits to the community. To implement this vision, the strategy outlines the intention to set catch limits which work towards targeting maximum economic yield by 2027 (Fisheries Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, 2017). Given this, various studies have been implemented to assist with estimating maximising net economic returns from fisheries (Pascoe, Hutton, Hoshino, et al., 2018; Squires & Vestergaard, 2016).
In Australia, there is also an increasing interest in estimating the broader economic and social contribution of fisheries, particularly through flow-on effects in the regional economies. For example, Pascoe et al. (2016) model the flow-on economic
Introduction 5 value of Queensland inshore commercial fisheries. These fisheries were found to generate benefits beyond the traditional value of production. The industry also contributed to the local community through purchasing fishing inputs locally, while also providing employment. Additionally, income generated was also spent within the local community.
Voyer, Barclay, McIlgorm, and Mazur (2016) examined the social and economic contribution of the professional fishing industry on New South Wales (NSW) communities. They found significant economic flow on effects are derived from the fishing industry through examination of local businesses with a dependency on the industry (e.g. this includes but is not limited to fishers and the service sector). With respect to social values, it is seen that among other things, professional fishers contribute to the health and wellbeing of local communities, though provision of community services such as search and rescue operations at sea, and socio-economic diversity by providing employment for a range of people and the development of coastal communities in NSW. The fishing industry provide further benefits to local communities over and above those that are generated through local economic activity.
Although the above studies have identified the contribution of fisheries to their respective communities, what has not been quantified is the economic value (willingness to pay) of local seafood to consumers or the economic value (willingness to pay) of seeing the local fishing fleet to day trippers and holiday makers as part of the overall holiday experience. Furthermore, although Voyer et al. (2016) did examine the wellbeing contribution of the fishery to rural, regional and fishing communities, what was not examined was how the fishery (and its product – local seafood) had been used by tourism departments and tourism operators to enhance tourism prospects.
1.1.3 Tourism benefits of fisheries Whilst the production value of the fisheries has been established, what has not been considered are other benefits that fisheries may provide. Evidence from the agriculture sector indicates that there is benefits to local consumers from eating locally produced food. That is, consumers have been found to prefer locally produced food and are willing to pay more for it (Feldmann & Hamm, 2015). Furthermore, research suggests that tourists are attracted to the local food of their holiday destination given it is representative of the region and adds to the authenticity of their experience (Sims, 2009). Food tourism has become an increasingly important component of tourism
6 Chapter 1: Introduction strategies across the globe. Many destinations have engaged in strategies which provide tourists with culinary experiences that go beyond merely tasting local food (Long, 2004). This can include but is not limited to food production tours, food festivals or speciality food events which showcase the culinary and cultural aspects of the region (Hall & Sharples, 2003). The engagement of food producers in food tourism is thus integral to the success of the food tourism strategy.
There is evidence to suggest that fisheries can also produce tourism benefits. For example, several destinations in Europe have implemented pescatourism – a form of tourism which is different from that of fisheries tourism or recreational fishing. Pescatourism is similar to the concept of agritourism, in which tourists are given the opportunity to experience commercial fishing activities with the objective of learning about the industry (Piasecki et al., 2016). Moreover the fishing industry in other countries have also taken more direct roles within the food tourism sector through involvement in festivals, food trails and special events (Claesson, Robertson, & Hall- Arber, 2005; Jodice, Ramshaw, Sirima, & Goris, 2018). In addition to providing fish and seafood to consumers, it is seen that fisheries can also provide non-extractive benefits for coastal towns. That is, tourists enjoy seeing the boats and fish markets (Malorgio, Mulazzani, Di Terlizzi, Zuccaro, & Petruzzella, 2013). However, these benefits provided by the fishing industry have not yet been examined in an Australian context. The key aim of this thesis is to explore some of these additional benefits (i.e. positive externalities) generated by commercial fishing in the local communities. In particular, as will be detailed in subsequent sections, this thesis will examine the benefits to local consumers of locally caught fish and the benefits the fishing industry bring to local tourism.
Introduction 7 1.2 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
The contribution of the fishing industry to the economy is generally measured by its production value. However, existing literature suggests that the fishing industry’s role in food production and tourism may be evolving (Deale, Norman, & Jodice, 2008; Khakzad, 2018; Lacher, Oh, Jodice, & Norman, 2013).
This thesis examines the hypothesis that:
The fishing industry provides benefits to local communities beyond that captured by usual industry economic analysis. In particular, the fishing industry provides positive externalities to local communities through facilitating the provision of ecosystem services such as
x attracting tourists (cultural services – recreation, historical, heritage, landscape aesthetics) and; x provision of locally produced seafood (provisioning services – material or energy outputs such as food).
1.3 OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The overarching objective of this thesis is to identify the additional economic benefits (i.e. positive externalities) that are generated by the fishing industry with respect to tourism and provision of local seafood, estimate their size and how their values might be maximised. To fulfil this objective, the following research questions were addressed.
1. In what ways are fisheries and seafood linked to placed-based tourism in Queensland, Australia? 2. What value does having a fishing fleet and eating local seafood add to the overall coastal holiday destination experience of tourists? 3. What are the buying habits and purchasing preferences of local residents for local fish? 4. What value do local consumers attach to the ‘local’ aspect of fish, as opposed to other attributes and why?
8 Chapter 1: Introduction 5. How can the fishing and tourism industries utilise the findings from the above studies to maximise the values associated with the local fisheries and seafood?
Each research question was used to examine either the cultural or provisioning services (or in the case of the discourse analysis study, both) which are facilitated by the fishing industry (see Figure 1-1).
Figure 1-1 Research overview
Each of these research questions is addressed in the following chapters as outlined in section 1.5 of this chapter.
1.4 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE
Using an interdisciplinary approach (economics and social science), this thesis makes two main contributions to knowledge:
1. establishes that the fishing industry directly contributes to tourism benefits and provides a measure for the magnitude of these benefits
2. establishes that there is a benefit to local consumers from locally caught fish and also provides a measure for the magnitude of these benefits
Introduction 9 Primary and secondary data and analysis are used to address the key gaps in the research literature. Specific contributions to knowledge include:
x a discourse analysis which provides insights into how fisheries and seafood are used in place-based tourism in Queensland. That is, the results of the study offer a greater understanding of how fisheries and seafood have been used to promote tourism in coastal areas of Queensland;
x primary data collection in Mooloolaba, Queensland, to estimate travel cost models which determine the economic value of the existence of the fishing fleet and eating locally caught seafood as part of the overall coastal holiday experience. The survey and models can be adapted to examine similar tourism benefits in other regions;
x an examination of the preferences, perceptions and buying habits of Queensland consumers for locally caught fish and provides a greater understanding of what consumers classify as a locally caught fish. The results of this study enhance knowledge of the consumer profile of seafood consumers in Queensland.
x an estimation of the willingness to pay of Queensland seafood consumers for the ‘local’ attribute of fish and other key seafood attributes (sustainability and freshness). This provides evidence for the role of food labelling to maximise economic value.
Additionally, this thesis also examines how the benefits (to both tourism and local consumers) can be maximised by the fishing and tourism industries.
1.5 THESIS STRUCTURE
This thesis is composed of four main parts. Part I of the thesis provides the introduction of thesis. In this section the background to the thesis, research hypothesis, objectives, aims and thesis structure is outlined. A review of previous studies on the importance of local food to tourism and local communities is also presented.
Part II examines the tourism benefits of local fisheries and seafood. This consists of two components:
(i) there is an a priori belief by tourism agencies that fisheries do attract tourists to coastal regions. This is assessed using discourse analysis, a
10 Chapter 1: Introduction method commonly used in social science to study language in the everyday sense and make connections to sociocultural contexts. This allows for a greater understanding of how fisheries and seafood are utilised in the context of promoting tourism.
(ii) estimating the magnitude of these benefits. This is undertaken through a contingent behaviour travel cost model approach.
Part III examines the benefits of local seafood to local consumers through:
(i) an analysis of seafood consumption patterns of local consumers, including what they consider as “local” seafood and why they may prefer to eat local seafood.
(ii) estimating the benefits of local seafood consumption quantitatively using a discrete choice experiment.
Part IV provides the discussion and conclusions of the thesis. Utilising examples from around Australia and elsewhere, a discussion is presented on how the benefits provided by existence of a fishing industry and provision of locally caught seafood can be maximised through fisheries and seafood tourism, seafood labelling and the potential for community supported fisheries. The final section of the thesis provides the key results of each study and final conclusions of the thesis.
Introduction 11 Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review
As established in Chapter 1, fisheries contribute additional benefits to society. A potentially significant but under researched area is the role of commercial fisheries to food tourism and local communities through the provision of locally caught seafood.
In agriculture, the role of food industries in food tourism extends beyond merely providing food. The experience of food tourism involves not only tasting the food of the region, but also interacting with local food producers in settings which offer unique food experiences (Gheorghe & Bulin, 2014). To provide a greater understanding of what opportunities exist for the commercial fishing industry in the realm of food tourism, a review of local food and the current experiences of food tourism is warranted.
In the first part of the chapter, an outline of local food is given, inclusive of factors which have been found to influence and deter the consumption of local food. This is followed by an examination of local seafood studies to date. Section two of this chapter provides an outline of food tourism and an overview of factors which have been found to attract and deter food tourism, followed by an examination of tourism and local fisheries. The third section of the chapter outlines the current food tourism landscape of Queensland. The last section of the chapter outlines the gaps in the literature and motivation behind the four main studies of the thesis.
2.1 LOCAL FOOD
2.1.1 The definition of local food Consumers who follow the ‘local food’ philosophy have now been classified as ‘locavores’. The term ‘locavore’ is defined as “A person whose diet consists only or principally of locally grown or produced food” (Oxford University Press, 2020b). However, to date, no one definition exists for ‘local food’, however several definitions of local food have been proposed (Lang, Stanton, & Qu, 2014; Lim & Hu, 2016). For example, one study, conducted in Michigan, found that approximately half of their
Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review 12 survey sample identified local produce as food which was grown within Michigan (i.e. grown within the state of residence) (Conner, Colasanti, Ross, & Smalley, 2010). Another study found that food could be considered local provided the good was produced and sold within 20-50 miles of the consumers residence (Chambers, Lobb, Butler, Harvey, & Bruce Traill, 2007). Some studies have indicated that ‘local food’ should be sourced no more than 100 miles (or approximately 160km) away from the consumer (Smith & MacKinnon, 2007). Similarly, Adams and Adams (2011) found that for the majority of their respondents, local produce (fruits and vegetables) was classified as local if it came from a 30-100 mile radius of the place it was purchased from. Only a small percentage (3%) of the sample adopted a stricter range of 10 miles from place of purchase, while an even smaller percentage accepted a wider definition of “anywhere in the southeast region” (1%) or “anywhere within the United States” (1%) (Adams & Adams, 2011, p.83). Similarly, using beef a as a case study, a Canadian study found consumers were willing to accept food as ‘local’, provided it was sourced within a radius of 160km (approximately 100 miles) (Lim & Hu, 2016). While most studies have linked the definition of ‘local’ food to the distance the food has travelled, Trivette (2015) argues that the relationships between local food entities (or retailers who buy from local producers) should also be considered when defining local food. For example, it is proposed that the ‘localness’ of a food operator can be measured by the number of connections they have to local food producers (Trivette, 2015). Adams and Adams (2011) also found that 70% of respondents in their study classified food to be ‘local’ provided the farms producing the food were locally owned. The term ‘local food’ is differentiated from ‘locality food’ (Chambers et al., 2007). As discussed above, the former generally represents food which is grown or produced within a certain region and is sold in close proximity to its production location. The latter refers to food which generally forms part of the area’s regional speciality or cuisine (e.g. Bakewell tarts (UK)) (Chambers et al., 2007; Pratt, 2007). While both types of food are made from ingredients which are sourced from that particular region, ‘locality food’ is differentiated from local food, given that it can be sold outside of its production location (Chambers et al., 2007). Both types of food are attractive to both residents and the area’s tourism, as this can add substantial value to the local economy.
Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review 13 Consumer interest in locality food and the opportunity for producers to extract a larger consumer surplus via product differentiation, has also prompted the use of regional labelling or geographic indication of where the food was harvested and produced. A notable example is that of French wine. Between 1908 – 1911, a system called the Appelations d’Origine (Appellations of Origin) established regional boundaries between four key wine producing areas in France, such that wine could be distinguished from each region of Banyuls, Bordeaux, Champagne and Clairette de Die (Swinnen, Meloni, & Haeck, 2018). The ability to bear the name of the region on the wine label was based on the concept of terroir. According to Cross, Plantinga, and Stavins (2011, p.152), when referring to wine, ‘terroir’ refers to “…the special characteristics of a place that impart unique qualities to the wine produced.” Hence, the use of the appellation of origin label not only signifies to the consumer the origin of the product, but also encompasses the quality of the product because of the region it is from. As a result of this, the name ‘Champagne’ which was once associated with white sparkling wine, could no longer be used unless the wine was produced in Champagne. Wines which bear the name of ‘Champagne’ are subject to stringent accreditation processes to ensure that the name and reputation are upheld to the highest standard (Comité Champagne, 2020a, 2020b). Today, this form of regional protection for food labelling or geographical indication is recognised under international law2 (World Intellectual Property Organization, n.d.) and is enforced by parties to the treaty. More specifically, geographical indication can be protected through the use of two or more of the following mechanisms: special regimes of protection (sui generis systems); through the use of collective or certification marks and also through methods which utilise business practices (World Intellectual Property Organization, n.d.). This form of geographical indication now extends to other products with the practice now being carried out throughout the globe. Furthermore, the use of geographical indication in association with food products has also been adopted in other countries such as Darjeeling tea, Scotch whisky and tequila (World Intellectual Property Organisation,
2 See for example: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property; Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods; Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration; Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks; Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks; The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement).
14 Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review 2017). Geographical indications have also been used for food products within Australia such as: Bundaberg rum, Australian wine, King Island cheese and Bega cheese (Business Queensland, 2016b). This form of certification serves as an institutional signal of the reputation of the industry to produce high quality goods (Boffa & Castriota, 2019). That is, consumers use the geographical indication as a proxy for information about the quality of the product (Castriota & Delmastro, 2015).
2.1.2 Factors influencing consumption for local food With respect to the value of local food, research suggests that most consumers are willing to pay a higher price or ‘premium’ for locally produced food (Carpio & Isengildina-Massa, 2009; Darby, Batte, Ernst, & Roe, 2008; Gracia, 2014; Grebitus, Lusk, & Nayga Jr, 2013; Toler, Briggeman, Jayson, & Adams, 2009). This premium has been found to be particularly high for shoppers at farmers markets, where consumers were found to pay an average of 76% more for local produce (Adams & Adams, 2011). Various studies have attempted to identify the consumer motivation for purchasing local food. In the field of psychology, this has been linked to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). The TPB was originally developed from the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). The TRA proposes that a person’s behaviour (i.e. actual undertaking of an action) is influenced by the person’s intention to undertake that action. An individual’s intention is in turn influenced by the individual’s attitudes and social norms (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The TPB expands on the TRA by introducing a third factor that influences a person’s intention to complete an action: ‘perceived behavioural control’. The third element refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of executing the action or behaviour in question (Ajzen, 1991). The TPB and extensions of the TPB model have been used to explain why consumers purchase locally grown or produced food. For example, J. M. Campbell and Fairhurst (2014) found that attitude (positive feelings towards purchasing local food), social norms (influence of family and friends) and perceived behavioural control (ease of buying locally produced food), were all related to the intention to purchase local food. An extended study of the TPB model conducted by Shin, Hancer, and Song (2016) found that the TPB model should also consider the effect of ‘self congruity’. Self congruity is the idea that a person will purchase goods that are a reflection of their
Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review 15 own self-image (Sirgy, 1986). The study found that a person’s attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control in relation to purchasing local food was influenced by self congruity. Self congruity was also found to have a direct influence on the purchase of local food (Shin et al., 2016). Other reasons have also been identified which explain the purchase of local produce. Firstly, a key reason is the consumer’s desire to support their local farmer (Chambers et al., 2007; Conner et al., 2010). In fact, Toler et al. (2009) found that consumers were willing to pay more for local produce provided this would ensure that the farmer would receive the benefits of the sale and would not be disadvantaged in the transaction. A related concept is ‘consumer ethnocentrism’, whereby consumers show support for their country by only buying products which are produced within their home nation. Arguably consumers who follow this ideal would also be more likely to purchase locally produced food (Bianchi & Mortimer, 2015; Chambers et al., 2007). Secondly, consumers have been found to rate local produce higher than imports, as local food is perceived as being of higher quality. This perceived superiority is attributed to the idea that locally produced food would have travelled less and therefore remains fresh, healthy and safe to eat (Pucciarelli & Faith, 2014). Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that food which has lower food miles results in an increased willingness to pay (Grebitus et al., 2013). Thirdly, consumers have shown an interest in local food as it is perceived to be environmentally friendly, as well as sustainable (Bougherara, Grolleau, & Mzoughi, 2009; Dodds et al., 2014). That is, consumers believe that the consumption of locally grown food can reduce their carbon footprint (because it has travelled less miles) and is sustainable given that consumers eat what is seasonal. However, Farmery, Gardner, Green, Jennings, and Watson (2015) found that the carbon footprint of imported seafood products may be similar and/or smaller to that of domestic seafood products. Lastly, there is also the complementary relationship between leisure and food. That is, individuals like attending local farmers markets, community supported agriculture arrangements and other farm based tourism given that it can be perceived as a leisurely activity and consumers enjoy the social atmosphere (Amsden & McEntee, 2011; Hinrichs, 2000; Pucciarelli & Faith, 2014).
2.1.3 Factors which deter consumption of local food In contrast to the above, it has been found that while consumers are generally supportive of buying local, they may not always purchase local food (Grauel, 2014).
16 Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review Firstly, local produce can be relatively more expensive than imported food, and therefore not an affordable option (Grauel, 2014). For example, research suggests that local farmers markets are generally frequented by patrons with higher incomes (Campigotto, 2010). The lack of choice in local food systems has also been cited as a primary deterrent for purchasing of local food. It is generally acknowledged that local food suppliers can only provide a specialised type or limited amount of food. To satisfy other food needs, consumers are generally left with no choice but to purchase products at conventional grocery stores or supermarkets which may not always be locally produced (Dodds et al., 2014; Penney & Prior, 2014). Another major barrier for the purchase of locally produced food is the inconvenience of sourcing and buying the local produce. In general, local produce can be most readily found through direct points of sale, such as farmers markets. However, the majority of farmers markets are only operational on certain days, within a limited timeframe. As attempting to purchase local food on a regular basis would be inconvenient for consumers, it has been found that consumers prefer to shop at larger grocery stores or supermarkets which offer the convenience of the ‘one stop shop’ (M. K. Blake, Mellor, & Crane, 2010; Chambers et al., 2007; Penney & Prior, 2014). Hence for such consumers there is a high opportunity cost for sourcing local products from specialist stores or markets.
2.1.4 Local seafood studies
The majority of seafood studies have mostly focused on seafood in general (Carlucci et al., 2015; Olsen, 2004). These studies have also attempted to identify the motivation (or deterrent) for purchasing seafood products, as well as the willingness to pay. While research has analysed consumer preferences for country of origin (Claret et al., 2012; H. H. Wang, Zhang, Ortega, & Olynk Widmar, 2013), there has been less examination of the willingness to pay for locally caught seafood. The lack of research of local seafood may be attributed to the difficulty of defining ‘local seafood’. That is, while produce (e.g. vegetables) are grown and consumed within a certain local boundary, the same cannot be said for wild caught fish (Coombs & LaBelle, 2014).
Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review 17 As the literature with respect to local seafood continues to grow, there is some contention as to whether consumers would be willing to pay more for local seafood. There is evidence that consumers are indeed willing to pay more for seafood which has been labelled as locally produced (Fonner & Sylvia, 2015; Ropicki, Larkin, & Adams, 2010). Furthermore, Cowley and Coulon (2014) found that while consumers in Denmark and the UK would be willing to pay a premium for locally caught seafood, these consumers would be willing to pay even more for sustainable seafood. However, in contrast, research examining the willingness to pay of consumers in Indiana reported that they would not always be prepared to pay higher prices for aquaculture products raised in their home state (Quagrainie, Hart, & Brown, 2008).
Research has also been undertaken with respect to preferences for seafood in the Australian context. One study found that consumers did prefer Australian barramundi as opposed to barramundi imported from Thailand and Vietnam (Danenberg & Remaud, 2010). Similarly, Australian prawns are also preferred to prawns imported from Thailand and Vietnam (Danenberg & Remaud, 2010). However, while this suggests that consumers prefer seafood which is sourced in Australia, the preference for seafood at a regional level remains unclear. That is, while there is evidence to suggest that Australian oysters are preferred to New Zealand oysters, there was an indifference between preferences for oysters sourced on a national (Australia), state (NSW) or regional level (Corrie Island, NSW) (Danenberg & Mueller, 2011). However, while Danenberg and Mueller (2011) found that the specific regional level label was preferred the least in comparison to the state or national level by consumers, this could be attributed to the fact that the region used was not well known to respondents. Another Australian study also found that consumers have a desire to purchase fresh, locally caught seafood for the purposes of supporting their local producer (Birch, Lawley, & Hamblin, 2012).
Some socio-demographic characteristics have also been identified as influencing the consumer’s preference and willingness to pay for locally caught seafood. These include, but are not limited to: education, place of residence (e.g. urban or coastal resident) and age. With respect to education, there is evidence to suggest that consumers with lower education were willing to pay more for locally caught seafood than those with higher education (Cowley & Coulon, 2014; H. H. Wang et al., 2013). In contrast, it has been suggested that highly educated consumers are indifferent
18 Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review to labels (H. H. Wang et al., 2013). Consumers who live closer to the coastline and older consumers were also found to have a stronger preference for locally caught seafood (Lambert, Klieb, & Weber, 2008).
2.2 FOOD TOURISM
The segment of tourism which is devoted to sampling local food and engaging in food related activities in the holiday region is referred to as food tourism. More specifically, food tourism has been described by Hall and Sharples (2003, p.10) to involve “…visitation to primary and secondary food producers, food festivals, restaurants and specific locations for which food tasting and/or experiencing the attributes of specialist food production region are the primary motivating factor for travel”. The concept of ‘eating paddock to plate’ and getting to know the holiday region through its food, is widely promoted in food tourism (Amsden & McEntee, 2011; Fusté-Forné, 2018). Food tourism not only encourages the tourist to eat locally in their holiday destination, but also see and experience how the food was produced and/or made within a region. Importance is therefore placed on the food industry itself, as well as the food produced (Garibaldi & Pozzi, 2018). To cater for this, various local food tourism activities (e.g. culinary or gastronomic dining experiences, food tours, food trails, food festivals, cooking schools etc) have been developed to provide tourists with direct access to locally sourced food (Hall & Sharples, 2003). Food tourism has become an important part of the tourism industry as it not only assists in creating the destination image, but can also become a significant source of revenue for the local economy (Ab Karim & Chi, 2010; Yeoman, 2016).
2.2.1 Attraction of food tourism Tourists have been widely studied for their attraction to the local food of their holiday destination. At the extreme end of the spectrum, an enthusiastic food tourist may participate in a food pilgrimage, whereby the main objective of the trip is to experience authentic local cuisine (Long, 2006). There are also tourists who participate in local food experiences on a more recreational basis (Long, 2006) and tourists who value food experiences, but only as part of a broader range of activities (Björk & Kauppinen-Räisänen, 2014). While it is acknowledged that not all tourists
Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review 19 will plan their holiday destination around food experiences, less enthusiastic food tourists are still exposed to local food while on holiday and may try authentic local food out of curiosity (Cohen & Avieli, 2004; Long, 2006). Björk and Kauppinen- Räisänen (2016) classify tourists into three distinct groups based on their food related behaviour: experiences, enjoyers and survivors. The key underlying motive for the majority of tourists consuming local food described above is the creation of the authentic local food experience. Tourists seek to understand their holiday destination by consuming food grown within the region or produced from regional ingredients (Björk & Kauppinen-Räisänen, 2014; Sims, 2009). As local food is generally representative of the region or country in which it is grown, consumers are given a sense of place within the area by eating authentic local food, thereby adding to their cultural experience (Lindholm, 2008). There is evidence to suggest that tourists are willing to pay more in order to try traditional food as part of their holiday experience. For example, tourists in Cordoba, Spain and Ljubljana, Slovenia were found to be willing to pay from 10 – 40% more for ‘traditional’ food or drink than other food options (Sanchez-Cañizares & Castillo-Canalejo, 2015).
Others have found that tourists engage in local food consumption due to the novelty of consuming something different or new (Cohen & Avieli, 2004). There is also evidence to suggest that some tourists prefer to consume local food as they feel a moral and ethical obligation to support the local producers of their holiday destination (Yeoman, Brass, & McMahon-Beattie, 2007). Like residents, tourists also receive a sense of joy from visiting places which allow for an opportunity to engage with the producer or maker of the local food product (Yeoman et al., 2007). Some studies have also found that the holiday experience is enhanced if the food being consumed is linked to the cultural heritage of the place being visited. (Jiménez-Beltrán, López-Guzmán, & González Santa Cruz, 2016; Robinson & Getz, 2014; Yeoman et al., 2007). While cultural heritage has generally been recognised through registration of particular sites as national or world heritage sites, it has been determined that heritage extends beyond tangible sites or objects. As per the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) developed a list to recognise Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. From this, two lists were developed: (1) Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity
20 Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review and (2) List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding. Included on this list is particular food related activities which have cultural significance to the area listed. For example, the list includes, but is not limited to: the Art of Neapolitan ‘Pizzaiuolo’ (Italy); the Gastronomic meal of the French (France); the Mediterranean diet (Cyprus, Croatia, Spain, Greece, Italy, Morocco and Portugal); Washoku, traditional dietary culture of the Japanese, notably for the celebration of New Year (Japan); Tradition of kimchi-making (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) and Beer culture in Belgium (Belgium) (UNESCO, n.d.). Other tourists may be interested in visiting a region due to the status of chefs or restaurants in the region. Tourists may visit particular destinations in order to try local cuisine or specialities on the recommendations of well-known celebrity chefs. For example, some visitors to Padstow, England may have been influenced to visit and try local cuisine due to the television program of celebrity chef Rick Stein (Busby, Huang, & Jarman, 2013). Furthermore, some tourists may be interested in consuming local cuisine through fine dining. Certain restaurants may have earnt a reputation as a luxury restaurant through their superior service and ability to source and prepare premium/luxury local ingredients. The status of the restaurant’s chef(s) (e.g. celebrity status or culinary award winning) and/or ranking of the food establishment (e.g. Michelin stars) may also encourage visitation from tourists (Meneguel, Mundet, & Aulet, 2019). However, this form of luxury food tourism may only be attractive to tourists who perceive luxury restaurants in a positive light and place importance on the hedonic and symbolic value of dining at luxury restaurants (A. Chen & Peng, 2018). Moreover, given the expense that must be incurred to experience this form of food tourism, luxury restaurants may be only be favoured by middle to high income travellers (Lee & Hwang, 2011).
2.2.2 Challenges of food tourism A number of factors have been identified which can hinder the consumption of local food by tourists. One potential problem is the fear that local food may not be safe to eat. If the area where the food is produced or prepared is perceived as unhygienic, tourists will be deterred from consuming local food (Cohen & Avieli, 2004), though, arguably this perception is true of any food outlet. Cultural and language barriers may also impede the consumption of local food. For example, some tourists may not be accustomed to eating as the locals do and may be intimidated by local eating habits
Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review 21 (e.g. eating with hands). Furthermore, tourists may not understand the language of the menu or may have difficulty in communicating with the staff at the restaurant in which they have chosen to dine (Ab Karim & Chi, 2010; Cohen & Avieli, 2004). A related issue is the unfamiliarity with the authentic or original preparation of a dish. That is, to account for foreign palates, certain restaurants in the tourist’s home country may create different variations of dishes, though these may be sold under the same name of the original dish. Consequently, the dish experienced in the tourist’s home country may be significantly different from how the food is originally prepared in the country of origin (Cohen & Avieli, 2004). Knowledge and familiarity with a certain type of cuisine may also play a role in the attractiveness of local food to tourists. For example, Sanchez-Cañizares and Castillo-Canalejo (2015) found 68.6% of tourists were willing to try the local cuisine of Cordoba, Spain, while only 40% of tourists were prepared to try the local food in Ljubljana, Slovenia. This result may be attributed to greater familiarity and/or interest in the Spanish cuisine.
Despite these potential issues, culinary tourism has still become an increasingly important source of revenue for the tourism industry. Tourism Australia (n.d.-a) has found that “food, wine and local cuisine” is the third biggest factor which influences a tourist’s choice in holiday destination. Farmers markets, food festivals and culinary tours are currently at the forefront of culinary tourism attractions. With respect to seafood, there are several seafood festivals that have been planned in destinations all over Australia throughout the year (Tourism Australia, 2018).
2.2.3 Tourism and local fisheries
The research literature in relation to the impact of commercial fisheries and historical aspects of the fishing industry upon the success of Australian tourism is scarce, with concentration mainly on the impacts of recreational fishing activity (Pascoe, Doshi, Dell, Tonks, & Kenyon, 2014; Prayaga, Rolfe, & Stoeckl, 2010).
Voyer et al. (2016) examined both the social and economic values of wild- catch fisheries in New South Wales. They found that a high proportion of residents from New South Wales (89%) expected to eat local seafood when holidaying along the coast. Similarly, 76% of respondents regarded eating local seafood as an important aspect of their holiday experience at the coast. Indirect interaction with the fishing
22 Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review industry via watching fishers at work was also found to be important for coastal holiday makers given that 64% of the sample indicated an interest in this activity. Consequently, this study indicates that the New South Wales fishing industry contributes a large social value, as well as economic values towards regional tourism.
2.3 QUEENSLAND FOOD TOURISM
The state of Queensland is located in the north eastern part of Australia and borders the Coral Sea. As the second largest state in the country next to Western Australia, the state of Queensland expands a total area of 1,727,000 square kilometres and has a mainland coastline length of 6973 kilometres (Geoscience Australia, n.d.; Queensland Government, 2019). The Queensland population is estimated at 4,703,193 people as of 2016, with the majority of the population residing within the south east closer to the capital city of Brisbane and along the coastline (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018a, 2018c). Coupled with the fact that Queensland is known as the Sunshine State of Australia (obtaining an average of eight to nine hours of sun per day), coastal locations are a popular choice for tourists when visiting Queensland (Queensland Government, 2019; Tourism and Events Queensland, n.d.-e). A key attraction of Queensland as a tourist destination includes heritage listed natural icons (e.g. Great Barrier Reef, the Wet Tropics and Fraser Island etc (Queensland Government, 2019)) and iconic surf beaches (including but not limited to Surfers Paradise and Snapper Rocks (Tourism and Events Queensland, n.d.-e)).
Queensland is also utilising its food production industries to reposition itself in the realm of tourism as a culinary destination (Tourism and Events Queensland, 2019). Access to premium ingredients is a pre-requisite to increasing Queensland’s reputation as becoming a major contender in the world of culinary tourism (Tourism and Events Queensland, n.d.-a). A strong agricultural industry exists within Queensland and is composed of both plant and animal industries. Queensland is well known for its production of fruit, vegetables and nuts, and also has an established livestock industry inclusive of dairy, beef, poultry, sheep, pig production and kangaroos (The State of Queensland, 2016, 2018). There are also many coastal towns in Queensland with strong ties to commercial fisheries (Business Queensland, 2016a). Although Queensland’s fishing industry is still largely composed of wild caught fisheries, the State also has a growing aquaculture industry (Queensland Government Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, 2016).
Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review 23 In terms of culinary landscape, Queensland has embraced the strategy of showcasing the best of its local food in order to encourage tourism. The tourism sector in Queensland has actively put forward some of Queensland’s best produce by staging several local food festivals and events within specific regions. For example:
x the ‘Regional Flavours’ food and wine festival is held annually at Brisbane’s South Bank parklands and highlights fresh produce from 80 Queensland producers. The festival also includes cooking demonstrations of celebrity chefs and industry experts (Regional Flavours, n.d.).
x the Scenic Rim’s Eat Local Week, created by the Scenic Rim Regional Council, Tourism & Events Queensland and other major industry partners (Scenic Rim Regional Council, 2019). The Scenic Rim is one of Queensland’s richest food producing regions and prides itself in producing fresh local produce and gourmet products. Locals and tourists are encouraged to enjoy the various events during the week which celebrates local produce such as the Winter Harvest Festival and other food festivals, farm gate events where visitors can meet producers and other culinary experiences. As of 2019, the Scenic Rim’s Eat Local Week has reached its ninth year of festivities and has become an important drawcard for the region’s tourism (Scenic Rim Regional Council, 2019).
With respect to seafood, several festivals are dedicated entirely to celebrating locally caught seafood (e.g. Hervey Bay Seafood Festival, Tin Can Bay Seafood Festival and Wynnum Seafood Festival (Fisheries Research & Development Corporation, 2017b; Wynnum Seafood Festival, 2016a)), while other festivals have included seafood as part of festivals celebrating a range of local food (e.g. Caxton St Seafood and Wine Festival, Noosa Food and Wine Festival and the Tastes of Moreton Bay event (Tourism and Events Queensland, n.d.-b; Visit Moreton Bay Region, 2017)).
A relatively new edition to the Queensland food scene was the introduction of food trails in 2018. South East Queensland has developed its own Food Trails website which allows tourists to put together their own food trail based on their selected interests (South East Queensland Food Trails, 2019). This includes, restaurants, cafes, bars, markets, farms, cooking schools, festivals and other unique food experiences. The created itinerary allows tourists to visit certain locations at their own leisure.
24 Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review Whilst tourists can put together their own itinerary, guided tours are also available. The website also has featured food trails which centre upon a specific theme or ingredient of a selected region (South East Queensland Food Trails, 2019). Of the featured food trails, only one trail was found that was specifically designed around seafood (i.e. Seafood Lovers Trail for the Moreton Bay region) (South East Queensland Food Trails & Moreton Bay Regional Council, 2019). However, in 2018, a one day seafood trail was held in Queensland’s capital of Brisbane. The event, called ‘Sea to the City: Brisbane’s Bug and Oyster Trail’, featured 14 restaurants with specially created menus featuring fresh seafood (Visit Brisbane, 2018c).
In May 2019, Tourism and Events Queensland launched a campaign called ‘Taste the State’ to encourage further tourism in Queensland. The campaign seeks to highlight the best of Queensland’s culinary offerings, with seafood shown as one of the key food adventures on offer. The campaign is fronted by celebrity chef Matt Sinclair, who through a series of short videos, guides viewers through culinary experiences in Queensland (Tourism and Events Queensland, 2019). Tourism and Events Queensland have also put together several articles which encourage tourists to visit well known Queensland restaurants and events (Tourism and Events Queensland, n.d.-a).
2.4 CONCLUSIONS
This review indicates that local food is not only important to its local community due to provision of local food, but can act as a substantial attraction to tourists while they are on holiday. Tourists look to immerse themselves in the culture and history of their holiday destination by finding local food experiences and trying local cuisine. While research has been undertaken to determine why individuals value local food and why tourists are drawn towards local cuisine, this exploration has rarely been undertaken in the context of what role seafood (and fisheries) plays in the overall coastal holiday experience or how much tourists are willing to pay for it. Though the value of the fishing industry can be quantified by the market value of its seafood production, it is evident that the fishing industry also provides social value to its community (Claesson et al., 2005; Ropars-Collet, Leplat, & Goffe, 2017; Voyer et al., 2016). However, little research has been completed with respect to the importance of the fishing industry to consumers (domestic consumers or tourists), particularly in the Queensland context. Moreover, as the Queensland food tourism landscape continues
Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review 25 to thrive, no studies have yet been undertaken in this space. A better understanding of how tourists and tourism operators value fisheries and seafood may result in opportunities to expand tourism activities and realise economics benefits to the industry. The next two studies attempt to fill these gaps by examining discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism (Chapter 3) and examining the economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism (Chapter 4). The review also indicates that local communities do value the provision of food which has been locally produced. While many studies have worked towards eliciting the motivation for buying locally produced food in general, little work has been done with respect to locally caught seafood. Similarly, though many studies have found the willingness to pay and motivation for purchasing seafood, these studies have had difficulty in defining locally caught seafood. Such studies have only identified preferences based on country of origin labelling (e.g. Product of Australia), but preferences in relation to local or regional levels remain poorly understood. Moreover, a consumer profile of Queensland consumers with respect to fish purchases and perceptions has not yet been undertaken. Given this, the third study (Chapter 6) of this thesis examines the purchasing habits and preferences of Queensland consumers for local fish, while the fourth study (Chapter 7) of the thesis examines the willingness to pay of Queensland consumers for local fish.
26 Chapter 2: The importance of local food to tourism and local communities: a review PART II: THE TOURISM BENEFITS OF LOCAL FISHERIES AND SEAFOOD
27
Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The role of food in the realm of tourism has changed from being a necessary and mundane activity (i.e. sustenance) to an important influence upon the choice of holiday destination and overall holiday experience (Björk & Kauppinen-Räisänen, 2017; Long, 2006). In Australia, food tourism has gained momentum with tourists indicating food and wine as one of the top five main reasons for visitation (Tourism Australia, n.d.-b). In response to this demand for food tourism, various food campaigns and events have been created. For example, at a national level there is the ‘Restaurant Australia’ campaign. In collaboration with celebrity chefs, as well as well-known food establishments in the industry, the campaign highlights the best food and wine experiences across Australia (Tourism Australia, n.d.-b). As aforementioned, Queensland has also created its own food tourism campaign called ‘Taste the State’ (Tourism and Events Queensland, n.d.-a). To complement these campaigns, special restaurant events, festivals and markets have been developed to further entice visitors to key sites (Tourism Australia, n.d.-b). Marketing material and organised events showcase the local produce of the region and in doing so link the place, food and broader cultural attributes with the aim of increasing its competitiveness as a tourism destination (Richards, 2002). Tourism is important for the local economy given it can generate income and employment for several industries (e.g. food, accommodation, and transport, recreational and cultural activities) (Yeoman, 2016).
While there have been some studies that have examined the links between commercial fisheries and tourism (Claesson et al., 2005; Croft et al., 2019; Ropars- Collet et al., 2017), the connection between the two industries in Australia and elsewhere remains poorly understood. Given the importance of tourism to the Australian economy, and the value of food to tourism, it is useful to understand the development of seafood-based culinary tourism in Queensland, Australia. This study examines the nexus between the two worlds of the commercial fishing and tourism industries in Queensland, Australia. To do this, a discourse analysis approach is
Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism 29 deployed to examine online tourism artefacts that market and promote seafood as an intrinsic aspect of coastal tourism.
Discourse analysis has been widely used in the field of tourism as it allows for an investigation of how a region is promoted and insights into how certain activities have been positioned to attract tourists (Qian, Wei, & Law, 2018). In the analysis of broader tourism strategies, food has been identified as a key part of this strategy. For example, Liasidou (2018) conducted a discourse analysis of tourism websites promoting cultural tourism and heritage in Cyprus. Traditional food and drink were identified as one of the 13 elements of culture that was used to entice tourists. The study found that more specialised websites would be required to promote the culture and tourism of Cyprus.
Similarly, a discourse analysis was conducted on tours of Chinatown organized by the Chicago Office of Tourism. The study identified past and present discourses surrounding Chicago’s Chinatown, thus providing useful insight into how Chicago’s Chinatown has become a tourist attraction and identifies other issues which need to be addressed (e.g. negative stereotypes) (Santos, Belhassen, & Caton, 2008). In another study, de Jong and Varley (2017) examine Scotland’s food tourism landscape and the representation of the deep fried Mars bar in various media sources. The study finds that middle class cultural symbols are given importance in the promotion of food tourism, however this done at the expense of food which is considered as part of the ‘working class’ diet. Hillel, Belhassen, and Shani (2013) conduct a discourse analysis of gastronomic discourses in relation to the Israeli Negev. The findings of the study indicate that the Negev’s opportunity to become a food tourism destination is inhibited by the social fragmentation of the area, as well as the absence of connection between local food, the area itself and its community.
The above studies illustrate that discourse analysis can be used to recognise how meanings and values are embedded in discourse and how they have been used to promote food as part of tourism. The results of this type of analysis are beneficial for the tourism industry as it can identify: how socio-cultural meanings are used to generate economic benefits, which resources are being underutilised and which areas of tourism require improvement.
Although the importance of food in the context of tourism has previously been examined, there has been little examination of how the seafood and the local fishing
30 Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism fleet have been utilised in the context of promoting tourism (Khakzad, 2018). As Queensland’s food tourism landscape continues to grow, it is important to understand how certain types of food, particularly iconic food such as seafood, have been portrayed by the tourism industry. This study is the first to undertake a discourse analysis of naturally occurring data in the realm of Queensland coastal tourism. More specifically, this study examines how language (text) is used to describe and/or promote local fisheries and seafood in the context of food and coastal tourism in Queensland.
Online artefacts are an important source of information as most tourists or visitors can find information about their given destination within a matter of minutes. Given this, the data used for this study include various websites and articles which can be accessed online by curious tourists wishing to find more about their holiday destination (inclusive of activities and food). Access to this information is important as tourists are offered a preview of their holiday destination without the need to consult a travel agent. The potential to influence the tourist’s decisions with this type of tourist information is significant, as these websites and articles are generally relied upon by the visitor to provide unique insights and recommendations with respect to the activities and food available within the region (Tjostheim, Tussyadiah, & Hoem, 2007).
The examination of online marketing was specifically chosen as opposed to printed material (generally available at a travel agency, hotel or on site at an information centre) given the increased use of the internet by consumers to plan and book their holiday (Productivity Commission, 2015; Tourism Research Australia, 2011). According to Tourism Research Australia (2011), internet searches were the most widely used source of travel information with approximately 62% of international travellers and 37% of domestic visitors using the internet to search for Australian travel information prior to arrival.
The analysis of online material also provides the widest sample of tourism material given some online articles overlapped with tourism television coverage at the time of the study (e.g. campaign by Tourism and Events Queensland (2019)). Furthermore, the online version of tourism coverage provides users with an expanded description of the television advertisement.
Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism 31 This study was created with the intention of answering the first research question of the thesis: In what ways are fisheries and seafood linked to placed-based tourism in Queensland, Australia? Hence, the aim of this study is to examine what role the commercial fishing industry plays in the context of promoting food tourism in coastal Queensland regions. This study also examines how seafood consumption is framed in relation to coastal tourism in Queensland. Using a discourse analysis approach, this study identifies key themes that emerge from an analysis of Queensland online media which promotes coastal Queensland tourism (e.g. websites, online articles and blogs) and relate to food tourism, commercial fisheries and seafood. The analysis examines what types of seafood experiences are available in Queensland and how seafood and fisheries have been used to market certain destinations and activities. The study is of value to the tourism, fishing and seafood industries as it shows in its entirety, a snap shot of seafood tourism marketing across a specific time frame and geographical locale.
This chapter starts with the methodological approach to the study. As the data for this study is online ‘seafood tourism’ artefacts, a discourse analysis approach is applied to evaluate the complex interplay between fisheries, seafood and tourism. Section three outlines the key results or themes identified during the analysis. The final section outlines the discussion and conclusions of the study.
3.2 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS APPROACH
3.2.1 Discourse analysis Discourse analysis has been defined in a variety of different ways. In defining discourse analysis, it is useful to first understand the meaning of ‘discourse’. In its most simple form, discourse can be defined as “Written or spoken communication or debate” (Oxford University Press, 2020a). While discourse does encompass text and verbal communication, it can also include non-verbal communication, as well as visual representations such as images and symbols (Shaw & Bailey, 2009). Discourse analysis can therefore be defined as “… the study of social life, understood through analysis of language in its widest sense (including face-to-face talk, non-verbal interaction, images, symbols and documents)” (Shaw & Bailey, 2009, p.413). As such, it is a useful tool for examining how fisheries and seafood have been represented in the context of promoting tourism.
32 Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism Given the various ways that discourse analysis can be defined, it is not surprising that many approaches exist for undertaking a discourse analysis. Hodges, Kuper, and Reeves (2008) identify three main approaches of discourse analysis. These are (1) formal linguistic discourse analysis, (2) critical discourse analysis and (3) empirical discourse analysis. Formal linguistic discourse analysis is undertaken by studying text or speech in a detailed manner, such that words and lines of speech are coded for semantic types, linguistic rules and structure or composition of words and sentences. (Hodges et al., 2008). Critical discourse analysis, with its foundations in the work of Foucault (1972), examines not only meaning but how power relationships are embedded in language. Finally, empirical discourse analysis involves an examination of language in action (Hodges et al., 2008; McHoul & Grace, 1993). This approach (used here) is helpful in identifying broad themes or genres within language and particularly how meanings are conveyed through text, talk and images. However, despite these differences in approaches, the ability to link language to sociocultural contexts remains an important underlying concept for discourse analysis (Hannam & Knox, 2005). As this study did not require a formal microanalysis of texts (linguistic analysis) nor an macroanalysis of power relationships in the tourism industry (critical discourse analysis); the empirical discourse analysis approach was chosen for this study. The empirical discourse approach allows for identifying the links and genres associated with the local fishing and seafood industry within the broader context of place-based tourism.
According to Schiffrin (1997) one important methodological decision in discourse analysis is the identification of the context that the discourse takes place. Proper insights into the meaning of a document cannot be obtained unless the analyst has some background knowledge with respect to the purpose of the document and circumstances in which it was created (Schiffrin, 1997). Nunan (1993) indicates that two different types of contexts exist. The first type is linguistic context, while the second is non-linguistic or experiential context. In the former type of context, the analyst should consider the surrounding language which has been used in the document. In the latter, one can consider the type of event that is taking place and its details (time, date, location, purpose etc), as well as the participants, relationships between each other and the background knowledge/assumption required to participate in the event (Nunan, 1993). Both types of contexts are considered in this study. With
Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism 33 respect to linguistic context, the language used to describe the fishing industry and seafood is considered in the context of promoting tourism. This study also considers the non-linguistic or experiential context by examining how the fishing industry is portrayed to interact with tourists (e.g. either directly through selling off the boat or indirectly through provision of seafood) and how activities involving seafood are linked to the coastal holiday experience.
Another important methodological decision used in discourse analysis is the identification of the unit of analysis. Schiffrin (1997) acknowledges that the unit of analysis requires careful consideration. Smaller units, when analysed as part of larger units can take on new structure and therefore meaning. Moreover, a relationship also exists between the context of the document and the unit of analysis, given that it is possible to view a context as a unit of study (Schiffrin, 1997). In this study, websites, articles and official tourism blogs which promote food tourism (in general or specific to seafood) in coastal Queensland are analysed.
As discourses are multifaceted, it can be useful to deconstruct certain elements of a text which help to make sense of the language being used. Johnstone (2018) composes a heuristic3 for discourse analysis which assists the analyst to think more broadly about discourse. The application of the heuristic is not rigid and need not be applied in any particular order. Rather, the process of examining these six aspects of how texts have been shaped and how discourse can shape the context, helps the analyst to make connections between the language used and its sociocultural construct.
The analysis conducted for this study was guided by the heuristic developed by Johnstone (2018). To consider the elements in the heuristic, certain questions were formulated in the context of this study. The types of questions that were considered in relation to the study can be seen in Table 3-1 below. As per Johnstone (2018), the heuristic was not rigidly applied, but was iteratively applied given that not all questions would be relevant for a particular text.
3 See Figure 1.1 How discourse is shaped by its context, and how discourse shapes its context. From: Discourse Analysis (3rd ed) page 8, by B. Johnstone, 2018, Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell.
34 Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism Table 3-1 Types of questions considered for discourse analysis Element of the heuristic4 Types of questions considered in relation to the study by Johnstone (2018) which shapes discourse and is shaped by discourse The world x How have fisheries and seafood been positioned in the world of tourism? x How does this align with current social constructions outside of tourism? x How have fisheries and seafood (or attributes of fisheries and seafood) been made relevant in the text and what has been silenced?
Purpose x What is the purpose of the tourism document? x What is the purpose of the activity in the tourism documents?
Linguistic structure x How are fisheries and seafood described with respect to promoting tourism? x How has the text been constructed to convey meanings about seafood and fisheries?
Participants x What relationships are depicted to exist between locals, tourists, fishers, seafood and the coastal area being examined?
Prior and future discourse x What prior knowledge or information regarding fisheries or seafood is the tourist expected to know to make sense of the tourist activity being described? x What prior information was used by creator of the tourism document to encourage tourism?
Media x What are the differences in language used between the different types of documents being analysed? x How does this affect the representation of fisheries and seafood?
3.2.2 Sampling and method This study draws upon the framework of Johnstone (2018) for analysing discourse to examine how the Queensland fishing industry and seafood consumption is enrolled into a broader tourism agenda. To find how fisheries and seafood have been portrayed in specific regions to tourists, this study analyses a purposive sample of
4 See Figure 1.1 How discourse is shaped by its context, and how discourse shapes its context. From: Discourse Analysis (3rd ed) page 8, by B. Johnstone, 2018, Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell.
Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism 35 official tourism documents/texts as published by government and industry, as well as newspaper articles regarding coastal tourism in Queensland. In other words, a nonprobability sample of online articles that specifically showcased Queensland tourism along Queensland coastlines was targeted for this study. Online articles included in the analysis were official tourism body and industry websites and blogs endorsed by either the tourism industry or body. As the study aims to examine how local fisheries and seafood are portrayed in the current era, only material within a 5- year range (2014 – 2019) were included in the analysis.
During the initial analysis of tourism material, it was found that the promotion of recreational fishing was a separate tourist activity to the promotion of seafood and the commercial fishing industry. It was decided that documents promoting recreational fishing would be excluded from the analysis. Similarly, the portrayal of the fishing industry in the context of charter fishing fell within the realm of recreational fishing, hence was also excluded from the analysis.
The sample includes industry material as this captures the supply side of this tourism experience and gives an insight as to how the fishery or tourism operator wish to display their fishery/product (seafood) and/or experience. Related tourism websites run by accommodation and flight operators were also included in the analysis as their media content is one of the first to be encountered by tourists during their trip. Government endorsed material is included in the analysis as this gives a good insight of how a government (whether this be local, state or federal), promotes a particular area that may have strong historical and cultural ties to the fishing industry. Online newspaper and tourism articles were also included in the analysis as this type of promotion is easily accessible by a wider audience. A total of 82 online articles were analysed for this study (see Appendix A).
To undertake the discourse analysis, a thematic analysis was conducted on the range of online articles that were collected (Clarke & Braun, 2017). In first instance, documents were collected on the basis that they involved key words such as ‘fish, seafood, the commercial fishing industry, tourism, coastal and/or Queensland’. Once documents were collected, an interpretative approach to coding was implemented drawing on the strategy devised by Adu (2019, p. 32). Under this approach, the researcher is to provide meaning to the empirical indicators found. In this study, each document was read with the intention of examining how the commercial fishing
36 Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism industry or seafood was described to the intended audience and the purpose for doing so. Themes were initially determined based on existing concepts as found in the literature review, as well as how often a particular theme occurred in the data. Initially, documents were coded with themes by printing articles and labelling each article with the themes that were found (see Appendix B for coding framework). As collection of documents grew, it was found that this method of coding became unmanageable. To simplify the tracking of themes, an Endnote library was created where references were grouped according to themes found within the documents. Documents were then re- read in order to revise the initial themes found, with the Endnote library revised accordingly. After revision, a total of three main themes were found. These themes were then ordered in accordance with how prominent these themes were (i.e. how often they were found in the collected documents). The larger theme of ‘Emphasising the local’ was further categorised into three sub-themes.
3.3 FINDINGS
From the analysis, three main themes were identified. These are: (1) Emphasising the local; (2) Seafood as a symbol of luxury and (3) Linking fisheries and seafood to heritage. These themes and sub-themes are outlined in Figure 3-1 below.
Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism 37
Auld (2019) demonstrates how the tourism industry make reference to seafood to familiarise tourists with the host region:
“The Sunshine Coast is synonymous with long, lazy days relaxing by beautiful beaches, but a visit isn’t complete without sampling the local seafood. With delectable offerings like fresh-off-the-trawler Mooloolaba prawns and local reef fish, plus coastal views that are as exquisite as the food, the Sunshine Coast has dining experiences to delight the fussiest foodies.” (Auld, 2019, paras 1 & 2)
Through these framings, emphasis is placed on the importance of sampling local seafood while at the coast. The activity of eating local seafood by the beach is constructed as being integral to the visitor’s coastal experience which is different to eating seafood at home. The novelty of eating seafood by the beach contributes to the idea of a holiday as a departure from everyday life (Cohen & Avieli, 2004). Like in the excerpt above, many texts refer to seafood as being ‘fresh-off-the-trawler’ or ‘caught’ in the region, indicating to the tourist that the seafood is in fact local, as a commercial fishery is active within the area. The listing of the wide range of local seafood available, combined with the recommendation of eating with coastal views gives the tourist a sense that the holiday area has a healthy marine environment and would thus be desirable to see (Fusté-Forné, 2018).
Tourism material commonly made reference to fish and chips as part of the quintessential coastal experience. This particular dish was promoted in such a manner that the trip to the beach would be incomplete without a serving of fish and chips (see for example Visit Brisbane (2018b)). Whilst generally described as a classic seaside meal to be enjoyed by both locals and tourists alike, the use of local product in the dish was also used to elevate the status and enjoyment of the dish (Hrastovec, 2019; Veenhuyzen, 2018). The dish was also linked to the region by emphasising that fish and chips is favourite dish enjoyed by Queensland residents (Visit Brisbane, 2018d), but also by locals throughout Australia (Veenhuyzen, 2014). While generally portrayed as an affordable coastal holiday meal option, some gourmet fish and chip options were also found. Arguably, this was a popular dish promoted in the tourism documents that were reviewed, with several articles (Curtain, 2019; Davidson et al., 2019; Hrastovec, 2019; Tucker-Evans, 2015; Veenhuyzen, 2014) entirely dedicated to finding the best fish and chips within particular regions.
Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism 39 Whilst seafood was used to build the identity of the area at a regional level (e.g. Moreton Bay (Visit Moreton Bay Region, 2017), Mooloolaba (Visit Sunshine Coast, 2016), The Whitsundays (Tourism Whitsundays, 2018), Cairns (Kuch, 2018) etc), a similar strategy is implemented at a State level. In many articles, bold statements are made to emphasise that seafood is representative of Queensland:
“Nothing says Queensland like sand crabs and sunshine.” (Mitchell, 2018, para 7)
“NEXT STOP: QUEENSLAND FOR JUST, YOU KNOW, QUEENSLAND. SUNSHINE, SEAFOOD AND SAILING” (Durack, 2017, heading 6)
Statements such as these make use of a rhetorical device in the form of a logical presupposition. That is, the authors of these articles assume that the tourist is already aware of the link between Queensland and seafood. However, if the tourist was not already aware of this, the use of this presupposition may encourage the tourist to further research the link between seafood and Queensland to fill this knowledge gap (Johnstone, 2018).
Many articles also characterise seafood and the establishments offering seafood in terms of its ‘abundance’ and ‘variety’ within the holiday destination. This characterisation of seafood and seafood establishments was found in articles which promoted tourism generally at State (Queensland) or regional levels. An example of this is seen in the excerpt below:
“The warm waters running along the top of the country and around to Queensland are home to the greatest diversity of marine species in the country. Balmain and Moreton Bay bugs, spanner and blue swimmer crabs abound in far north Queensland, while the Great Barrier Reef is a crustacean haven – some species haven’t been officially discovered yet.” (Rennick, 2018, para 5)
“We all know that seafood tastes best fresh, so what better place to enjoy it than just down the road from where it was caught? When dining on the Gold Coast, to Brisbane, to the Sunshine Coast and further north, you will be spoilt for choice of quality seafood. There are so many places and dishes that you could try that it really is hard to pick just one.” (Howard, 2018, paras 8 & 9)
Visitors are not only introduced to the wide variety of local seafood available, but such texts suggest that it is acceptable to indulge in the wide variety of seafood establishments available, perhaps to excess. The reason for the ability to provide large amounts of seafood to the range of seafood restaurants in Queensland was also promoted to the tourists in other tourism articles. For example:
40 Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism “When it comes to seafood, Queenslanders are a lucky bunch…with the coastline at our fingertips, it’s easy access to the very freshest and best of the oceans.” (The Great Day Out, 2018, para 1)
This conveys to the tourist that local Queensland seafood can be caught in such large amounts due to the geographical location of Queensland’s coastal border. Interestingly, whilst many tourism articles would encourage the consumption of seafood while at the holiday destination, the notion of having sustainable fisheries or the description of seafood as being ‘sustainable’ was not explicitly made when describing seafood at a Queensland or regional level. Rather, sustainability was inferred through the portrayal of the ongoing availability or abundance of seafood. However, sustainability was mentioned when describing the restaurants that offered seafood within the region. In terms of the timeframe, the authors of 2019 articles were more likely to describe certain restaurants as having sourced ‘sustainable’ seafood (Alexander, 2019, para 16). Where the term ‘sustainable’ was not used, it was implied through emphasising sustainable methods by which the seafood was caught (e.g. “Order the line-caught yellowfin tuna tataki…” (Grossetti, 2019, para 10)) or would emphasise the use of ‘rotating menus’ (Shea, 2019, para 7) thus incorporating sustainable food practices. This may be a reflection of the changing consumer attitudes towards sourcing sustainable seafood and an increase in the demand for sustainable tourism.
The boat/ farm to plate experience
The emphasis on ‘local’ was also framed with respect to the experience of buying locally caught seafood. That is, various articles emphasised the experience of sourcing seafood from ‘boat’ or ‘ocean’ to plate. For example: “For the real ocean to plate experience, hit the M1 bright and early, the prawn trawlers arrive into the Bribie Island Marina as the sun lifts above the horizon, selling directly from their boats.” (Lowes, 2016, para 4)
“After a swim, surf, fish or walk you can indulge in (cheap) fresh prawns bought right off the trawlers.” (Destination Gold Coast, 2018, para 5)
The boat or ocean to plate concept is parallel to the concept of ‘paddock to plate’ used for agriculturally produced food, which calls for consumers to consider the origin of their food by purchasing food directly from the producer. Under this concept, consumers are reconnected with producers through shorter food supply chains such as
Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism 41 farmers markets, community supported agriculture (CSA), direct farm purchases and other local operators (Feagan, 2007). This ability to reconnect is mutually beneficial, as producers gain greater control over their product and income, whilst consumers can validate the food’s origin, thus alleviating health and quality concerns about food (Albrecht & Smithers, 2018). The boat or ocean to plate experience is similar to that of the paddock to plate concept in that it also places emphasis on the traceability of seafood and reconnecting consumers with producers of food (fishers).
In this case, the boat to plate concept has been utilised in the context of promoting tourism by emphasising the experience of buying directly from the fisher and the benefits of participating in this activity. Here the intention is to assure the tourist that the seafood they are purchasing is of good quality and originates from the host region. Furthermore, tourists can gain insight into the region’s culture by purchasing either directly from the place of production (e.g. on the farm) or can buy the product directly from the producer (e.g. farmer selling at a farmer’s market) (Bessière, 1998).
In the context of Queensland coastal tourism, the ability to buy direct is generally made through purchasing seafood from the trawler. This activity is framed as a ‘local experience’ which starts a fun road trip (e.g. rewarded with a beautiful sunrise) or one which completes a perfect beach day. Such experiences were generally suggested on websites which encourage visitors to immerse themselves in experiences which mimic the lives of locals. This suggests that buying seafood direct off the boat is an activity which is undertaken by residents of the host region and is a desirable activity for recreating an authentic local experience during the stay. However, such experiences may not be frequently undertaken by locals due the high opportunity cost of sourcing local food directly (e.g. time spent searching or driving to trawlers or fish mongers).
The aquaculture industry was also represented in some online tourism articles but was more likely to be found when searching directly for seafood or ‘foodie’ activities. The mention of aquaculture farms in coastal tourism articles were also scarce (only a few places were found which encouraged visitation as part of a day trip). This may be because only a few aquaculture farms/centres were equipped to host tourists.
Another major selling point of buying direct (in either from the trawler or the farm) was the price of the seafood being sold. For example, in terms of purchasing off
42 Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism the trawler, local seafood was generally described as being ‘cheap’ (Destination Gold Coast, 2018) or of ‘good value’:
“I’m not even going out on a limb when I say the fishos selling straight from their trawlers along Sinbad St at Shorncliffe deliver some of the freshest, sweetest and best value prawns in Brisbane. Get down there early. Take cash. Buy in bulk. Win at life.” (Visit Brisbane, 2018a, para 9)
Generally, tourists may be deterred from purchasing cheaper seafood as this may be a signal as to the quality of the food being sold. However, as the experience of buying direct removes an intermediary agent in the supply chain, buyers can purchase seafood at much lower prices than when buying through an outlet. Consequently, this pricing strategy is not a reflection of the quality of the seafood, but rather an indication of a shorter supply chain.
In some cases, the ‘boat/farm to plate’ experience was not limited to buying directly from the fisher or farmer. Other experiences also exist which allow the tourist to engage in the ‘boat to plate’ experience. For example:
“…skip the ocean swell and dine on local reef fish, prawns, oysters and mud crab from the comfort of one of the many local restaurants.” (Tourism and Events Queensland, n.d.-c, para 5)
Texts such as this would encourage the boat to plate experience by directing the tourist to dine at the wide range of restaurants offering “…fresh, local catches…” (Kuch, 2018, para 1). Other experiences took the form of seafood festivals which encourage participants to enjoy the wide variety of seafood dishes featuring seafood caught within the region (Tourism Australia, 2018).
Overall the boat to plate or farm to plate experience is largely represented as a direct encounter between the tourist and the fisher/farmer, however this concept has also been extended to fresh seafood experiences (i.e. dining at establishments who have direct delivery of seafood from fishers). The boat to plate experience works on the basis that the tourist values ideas of food origin, freshness and in some cases obtaining better value for money. However, tourists whom are new to this philosophy are also accounted for by framing this activity as a significant part of a perfect beach day.
Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism 43 The conflation of freshness and local The last sub theme found within the narratives surrounding local seafood was the conflation of the concepts of ‘freshness’ and ‘local’. In many instances the terms ‘local’ and ‘fresh’ would be frequently paired together, such that one would be synonymous with the other. For example:
“Queensland’s South East is known for its fresh, local seafood caught off the pristine coast. Mix that with some of the country’s top chefs and it’s a seafood lover’s paradise in Brisbane.” (Hawke, 2019, para 1)
As previously stated, the freshness of local seafood was most notably used in the context of buying direct, emphasising that only a short period of time has elapsed from harvest to consumption. The notion of ‘straight from the trawler’ or ‘farm’ is used as an assurance that tourists will receive high quality seafood. This description implies that purchasing the seafood directly or within the local region (e.g. if eating locally caught seafood on the restaurant menu), would be superior in quality to frozen (perhaps imported) seafood products.
Apart from the timing of catch/harvest to consumption, the freshness of the seafood was also conveyed to the tourist through the surrounding environment the seafood was caught or farmed in. Such environments were described as being having ‘local fresh water rivers’ (Hot Air Balloon, 2018, para 1), ‘pristine coast’ (Hawke, 2019, para 1) or ‘tropical oasis’ (Down Under Tours, 2018, para 1). The natural purity and cleanliness of the environment in which the seafood was caught/harvested from also implies to the tourist that this contributes to the freshness of the seafood.
This observation was expected and in line with the social construction of local food being ‘good’ or ‘better’ for consumers because it is ‘fresh’ (Feldmann & Hamm, 2015; Shugart, 2014). Arguably this description of seafood would have also been informed by previous literature which finds that consumers value freshness when purchasing seafood (McManus, Hunt, Storey, McManus, & Hilhorst, 2014; Olsen, 2004). Similarly, the fourth study of this thesis also finds that freshness is highly valued by consumers when purchasing fish (see Chapter 7).
3.3.2 Theme 2: Seafood as a symbol of luxury The second most prominent theme which was observed in the promotion of coastal tourism was the use of seafood as a luxury good. Many articles generally
44 Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism tempted tourists with extravagant and exciting fusion dishes featuring local seafood. For example:
“Key stops to look out for on this piscine pilgrimage include everything from tiger prawns and bouillabaisse to a laksa-style Moreton Bay bug ramen. It’s perfectly extravagant.” (C. Blake, 2016, para 2)
While a laksa or ramen may now be considered a standard take out meal, these dishes have been elevated to a new luxurious level with the addition of a Moreton Bay bugs. This fusion of cuisine, combined with the addition of a highly prized Queensland crustacean is used to make the experience unique, and is thus intended to be alluring to the tourist due to the quality of the ingredients used. The strategy of elevating local food to the preferable choice by the elite has also been used in previous upscale food publications (Mapes, 2018).
Several articles also encouraged tourists to relax and indulge in specially prepared seafood dishes in luxury settings. For example:
“If peeling your own prawns doesn’t ap-peel (ha!) then perch your good self on the deck … and gorge on beautifully prepared seafood … and ogle multi-million dollar yachts and powerboats in the marina. Even better – be a boatie yourself with a learn-to-sail lesson. You’ll feel like a local in no time.” (Destination Gold Coast, 2018, para 6)
In this text and others, tourists are offered the experience of having the local seafood specially prepared for them. The particular emphasis on indulging in luxury food and removing steps in the food preparation process (e.g. peeling of prawns) can be classified as an attempt to make the visitor feel they are receiving the same treatment as the local elite of the area. Arguably texts such as this imply a social distance between the tourist and the local, such that the tourist is encouraged to temporarily engage in the activities of the local elite while on holiday (Thurot & Thurot, 1983). It was also seen that other luxurious activities such dining on a luxury cruise (Australian Explorer, 2018) or chartering a seaplane to a secluded island was often paired with the idea of eating fresh local seafood. For example:
“Rent a seaplane … arriving on one of Queensland's most picturesque islands where you can swim and explore or just relax and enjoy a deluxe picnic lunch including a gourmet platter of fresh seafood and chilled champagne.” (Falvey, 2018, para 13)
In this text and others, seafood is positioned as being a complementary to other luxurious food such as Champagne. The consumption of seafood has been socially constructed as being part of the luxurious activities as they allow the tourist to show signs of prestige, wealth and celebration. The intention of these texts may be to appeal
Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism 45 to the tourist’s desire to show a higher level of taste than their current social standing (Bourdieu, 2010). That is, the choice to consume certain types of food (in this case seafood) along with other luxurious activities shows the ‘good taste’ of the tourist which aligns to the taste of social elite. It is this form of escapism which is relied upon by the creators of these experiences to extract maximum willingness to pay from the tourist.
Apart from constructing seafood as a complementary good to luxurious activities, particular types of seafood such as prawns, crab, lobster and Moreton Bay bugs are mostly promoted on websites as being part of Queensland’s luxury seafood experience. This listing of these types of seafood is most prominent in the promotion of luxury seafood buffets or speciality seafood restaurants (C. Blake, 2016; Coward, 2017). Aside from ‘bugs’, such marketing may be strategic as these types of seafood may already be familiar and desirable to tourist. In particular, this approach may have been taken by fine dining restaurants and luxury seafood buffets in an attempt to attract overseas tourists who highly value luxury seafood as part of their trip. For example, consumers in China have an increasing demand for luxury seafood items such as lobster and perceive eating lobster a high-end experience but is also enjoyable (O. Wang, Somogyi, & Ablett, 2018). Similarly, luxury seafood is consumed at banquets in China for celebratory purposes in an attempt to showcase wealth and social status (Fabinyi, 2011). However, domestic tourists (and locals) may also value the luxury seafood buffet experience as an occasional treat.
3.3.3 Theme 3: Linking fisheries and seafood to heritage The last theme observed within Queensland coastal tourism documents was the linking of the town’s fishery and seafood to heritage. Previous studies have acknowledged that the history and presence of a fishing industry within an area can assist with attracting tourism (Khakzad, 2018; Lacher et al., 2013). With respect to Queensland coastal tourism articles, a township’s historical or cultural connection to the fishing industry was directly acknowledged as a tourism drawcard in the context of promoting seafood festivals. Some examples of this are seen below:
“The festival honours the Brisbane Bayside’s treasured heritage as a popular fishing and boating spot and the wide range of wild catch fish and fresh seafood the region supports.” (Wynnum Seafood Festival, 2016b, para 2)
46 Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism “Where the story of local seafood is told like nowhere else in the land. Taste the sea and be immersed in the provenance of every dish with the Wide Bay’s hero fish, prawns, scallops, bugs, cuttlefish and more being plucked from the net by salty weather-beaten hands of true professional fishermen.” (Hervey Bay Seafood Festival, 2018, para 3)
The festivals are framed not only as a way of celebrating local seafood, but also encourages support of local fishers from visitors. The locality of the seafood at the festival is authenticated by introducing festival goers to fishers who caught it. The novelty of hearing stories of the sea directly from the fisher also becomes a valued experience with the context of the seafood festival. Such festivals are important as the community is able to reconnect with its fishing industry roots, hence reaffirming the identity of the fishing town (Claesson et al., 2005).
The history of the fishing industry is also made known to tourists (and locals) through the promotion of specific activities. For example, in Karumba (a coastal town in the Gulf of Carpentaria with strong prawn fishing and barramundi industries), locals and visitors are encouraged to participate in the town’s self guided heritage walk ("History: Karumba - Yesterday - Today - Tomorrow," n.d.). Some of the key features of the walk include the ‘Commercial Fishing Industry’, the ‘Barra farm’ and ‘Prawn Factory’ ("History: Karumba - Yesterday - Today - Tomorrow," n.d.).
Of the articles analysed, few regions included permanent establishments which were entirely dedicated to educating the public about seafood and the seafood industry (e.g. Les Wilson Barramundi Discovery Centre) (Tourism and Events Queensland, n.d.-d). Such an experience may therefore be more attractive to seafood or fishing enthusiasts. Other ways of experiencing a town’s fishing/seafood history were found through coastal cruises or guided tours. In Mooloolaba, the seafood lunch tour not only showcases to tourists the current fishing industry, but also dedicates half of the tour to explaining the history of the region and the fishing fleet (Australian Explorer, 2018).
In some instances, watching the fishing boats is recommended as a tourist activity, hence indicating the presence of an active fishing industry within the area. For example:
“Looking for things to do in Mooloolaba? For the foodies you have the Parkyn Parade seafood precinct, or try catching lunch yourself ….or head down to the spit and watch the fishing boats come in with the fresh catch of the day.” (Visit Sunshine Coast, 2016, para 5)
However, whilst the activity of watching the fishing fleet may be constructed as a fun tourist activity in the context of completing a coastal vacation, this particular
Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism 47 activity may not be ranked as highly as other beach activities (see the second study of the thesis in Chapter 4).
Apart from seafood festivals and special activities, reference to fishing heritage within coastal destinations in Queensland do not seem as widely promoted as other well-known coastal destinations which include, but are not limited to Maine, USA (Claesson et al., 2005); Isla Cristina, Spain (Jiménez de Madariaga & García del Hoyo, 2019) and Ha Long Bay, Vietnam (Lloyd & Morgan, 2008). References to fishing heritage or history of the seafood industry were generally in connection to wild-caught commercial fisheries rather than the aquaculture industry. Historical references to the commercial fishing industry were brief and were used for the purposes of promoting annual seafood festivals or special events.
References to the current or active commercial fishing industry were generally made to indicate where seafood could be obtained fresh from the trawler. Arguably, the history of a fishing town was not classified as a main attraction on mainstream tourism websites, but rather learning about the industry was a bonus when participating in speciality activities such as festivals. While fishing industry websites are more likely to share their historical origins, such websites may not be visited by the tourist in first instance unless specifically looking to buy seafood.
3.4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study indicate that the representation of the Queensland fishing and seafood industries is largely positive. In general, Queensland (and its coastal regions) is represented as a coastal destination which has an abundance of fresh, local seafood. The ability to produce large amounts of seafood is a result of Queensland’s natural landscape and when enjoyed together (e.g. eating seafood by the beach), results in an authentic seafood experience. In many cases seafood was chosen as the representative food product of Queensland.
The emphasis on ‘local’ was also made clear to the tourist by promoting ‘boat to plate experiences’. This generally took the form of buying direct from the fisher/farmer, however was also linked to eating at restaurants sourcing local seafood and participating in local seafood restaurants. Buying direct may only be viable to the tourist if it has already been cooked and can be eaten on site, however domestic tourists with the ability to store seafood may find this more attractive. However, there may be
48 Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism an increasing market for tourists who wish to purchase fresh seafood from a fisher or seafood market. Given this it may be beneficial to profile the perceptions and consumption patterns of particular tourist groups.
The attributes of ‘local’ and ‘fresh’ were positioned as important attributes of seafood, often appearing together in texts. Seafood may have been positioned in this manner to attract both locals and visitors. For example, locals from that region or even interstate visitors may be enticed to purchase ‘local’ seafood for reasons of consumer ethnocentrism, whereas foreign visitors may be attracted to the idea of eating unique dishes featuring local ingredients from their holiday destination (Cohen & Avieli, 2004). This form of advertising also aligns to the social construction of local food such that consumers perceive local food to be better in quality because it is fresh (Feldmann & Hamm, 2015).
The observations of this study indicate that while the ‘local’ and ‘fresh’ aspects are used to describe seafood, mention of ‘sustainability’ was somewhat absent, particularly when describing seafood at a State or regional level. Whilst steps have been taken to improve the sustainability of Queensland’s fisheries (Fisheries Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, 2017), this was not clearly reflected in the articles that were examined. However, it was found that more recent articles which directed tourists towards finding the ‘best’ seafood experiences within each region also gave some indication as to which food establishments were sourcing sustainable seafood. This may be a reflection of the growing market for sustainable food tourism and the tourist’s appreciation for transparency in food production.
It is also seen that local seafood is positioned as a luxury good and is generally a complementary good for other luxurious activities of the elite. The experience of dining on local seafood on a private yacht, private island or 5-star hotel buffet with superior service is alluring as the tourist as it provides the tourist with a sense of exclusivity and a feeling of elitism which can elevate their social status (Bourdieu, 2010; Thurlow & Jaworski, 2012). For the middle class tourist, such an experience is also desirable even if it is temporary as it provides an escape from reality and a chance to experience the life of the upper classes (Thurot & Thurot, 1983). Arguably this form of advertising not only plays on the willingness to pay of consumers for the higher quality seafood product, but for the experience of being in a different social class.
Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism 49 From the articles analysed, there appears to be more emphasis on the range of seafood experiences than the fishing industry itself. Fishing heritage of the commercial wild catch fishing industry was most commonly acknowledged through fishing festivals, while reference to current fishing industry was made to guide direct purchases or for providing evidence that seafood was locally caught. However, as previous studies have indicated that tourists are attracted to cultural/heritage tourism in relation to fisheries (Durán, Farizo, & Vázquez, 2015), there may be an opportunity for the fishing industry to expand its role in the industry through showcasing more of Queensland’s fishing heritage (e.g. through pescatourism). Furthermore, Robinson and Getz (2014) find that Australian ‘foodies’ are willing to travel for food experiences which are combined with cultural activities. This suggests that seafood experiences could also be further developed to integrate fishing heritage. This is further explored in Chapter 8 of the thesis.
In this study, a discourse analysis of online tourism articles was examined, but only with respect to the written text. For this thesis, the decision to exclude images from the analysis was deliberate as the interest remained in how fisheries and seafood were described to the tourist in relation to the specific holiday destination. Furthermore, it was determined that to conduct a full analysis of images in these articles would necessitate a separate study. As the use of images in tourism promotional material is important, further research with respect to discourses portrayed through images in tourism material is encouraged.
Furthermore, a decision was made to conduct the analysis using only ‘online’ media. The decision was deliberate as it was determined that the online environment was easily accessible to all tourists and would be one of the first points of contact with the holiday destination before arrival. However, it is acknowledged that tourists may encounter print material which may encourage tourism (e.g. newspaper articles, magazine articles, travel guides or brochures at tourism information centres, airports or hotels etc). A further study could be conducted to determine if different discourses emerge with respect to the portrayal of fisheries or seafood in the context of printed promotional tourism material.
As noted earlier, interpretive approach drawing upon the qualitative conventions of thematic analysis was conducted (Adu, 2019). Given the mixed methods approach to the research, the discourse analysis study was not intended to create new theories,
50 Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism as in the case of grounded theory qualitative approaches, but rather to provide depth and meaning in relation to the fisheries/tourism nexus. This supplementation of a qualitative study in an economics-based thesis facilitates a more rounded approach to the phenomenon under question by providing rich, nuanced and in-depth insights into the importance of the industry both socially and culturally.
A major finding of this study was the importance placed on experiencing Queensland and its coastal regions through its food. That is, potential tourists were encouraged to sample the local seafood of the region as part of their overall coastal trip experience. Furthermore, it was found that the activity of eating seafood was promoted more than seeing the local fishing industry. However, it is unknown whether tourists place the same level of importance on both fisheries and seafood. That is, this study does not examine how tourists react to or feel about local seafood and/or the local fishing industry. As intrastate or Queensland residents may make up a large percentage of the tourists that visit and can become repeat visitors, it is important to understand the consumer preferences of this group. Furthermore, a large part of the appeal to tourists is that local seafood is valued by locals within the region. While this study identifies some of the main themes used in the promotion of the Queensland fishing/seafood industry, the success of the industry largely depends on the consumer’s willingness to pay for the product, whether this be for the seafood itself or seafood related experience. Consequently, in the next study of this thesis (Chapter 4) tourist values are captured by examining changes in consumer surplus on the basis of the existence of the local fishing industry and eating local seafood as part of the overall trip experience.
Chapter 3: Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism 51
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism
Coastal vacations have long been a popular choice for tourists, with many flocking to coast to enjoy the beach during warmer months. According to Finneran (2017, p.534) seaside holidays are attractive given that “A seaside holiday setting should evoke distinctive emotional cues formed by combinations of sun, sea, sand, food and architecture”. In terms of food, there is evidence to suggest that people do enjoy eating locally caught seafood and watching the fishing boats as this is considered as an important part of the overall coastal holiday experience (Voyer et al., 2016).
As seen in the previous study, locally caught seafood is portrayed as a large part of Queensland’s food tourism attractions. Coastal destinations offered tourists experiences of eating locally caught seafood by the water’s edge. To add to the atmosphere of the dining experience, tourists were also encouraged to buy directly from fishing boats or watch the fishing boats come in during their dining experience. The portrayal of the locally caught seafood dining experiences operate under the assumption that tourists place value on not only the locally caught seafood they consume, but also in seeing the infrastructure and activities in relation to production itself (i.e. seeing the boats, the dock, fishers’ unloading the day’s catch and equipment) (Khakzad & Griffith, 2016; Lacher et al., 2013).
This study was undertaken to gain a deeper understanding of what value day trippers and holiday makers place on the existence of the fishing industry and seafood experiences while at a well-known Queensland coastal destination. This study answers the second research question of the thesis: What value does having a fishing fleet and eating local seafood add to the overall coastal holiday destination experience of tourists? The hypothesis of this study is that day trippers and holiday makers derive value from seeing the fishing fleet and eating locally caught seafood while at Mooloolaba. Using the individual travel cost method, this study aims to examine whether the existence of the local fishing fleet and the ability to experience local seafood sourced from this fleet, adds value to the overall trip experience of day trippers and holiday makers in Mooloolaba (a coastal town located on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, Australia).
The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 53 4.1 THE CASE STUDY: MOOLOOLABA, QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA
The destination chosen for this case study was Mooloolaba. Mooloolaba is a town located on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. Approximately just over an hour away from Brisbane city, Mooloolaba can be easily visited by day trippers who want a fun day at the coast (Visit Sunshine Coast, 2016). Mooloolaba has also been frequented by holiday makers (including Queenslanders, interstate and overseas visitors) wishing to experience a relaxing coastal holiday (Sunshine Coast Regional Council, 2017).
There are two key areas which are frequented by visitors to Mooloolaba. Although both areas provide users with access to the beach, the areas differ with respect to the range of activities on offer to tourists. At the Mooloolaba Spit, visitors can enjoy a range of recreational and maritime activities such as whale and dolphin watching, chartered fishing tours, day cruises of Mooloolaba, and scuba diving (Visit Sunshine Coast, 2016). A key attraction at the Mooloolaba Spit is Sea Life, the main aquarium and marine park attraction at the Sunshine Coast (Merlin Entertainments, 2019). At the Mooloolaba esplanade, visitors can visit the beach and can also go shopping at various boutiques and souvenir shops (Visit Sunshine Coast, 2016). Visitors can also dine at one of the many restaurants located along the waterfront (Mooloolaba Tourism, 2018).
Apart from the range of activities listed above, Mooloolaba also has a strong commercial fishing industry. The Mooloolaba fishing industry has been active since the early 1900s (Sunshine Coast Regional Council, 2019), with the area home to one of the largest fishing fleets on the eastern Australian coast and its catch is sold across Australia and South East Asia (Wallace, 2018). Visitors at the Mooloolaba Spit can observe the fishing trawlers and can also sample their local harvest on the same day the fish/seafood was unloaded. A variety of seafood outlets and seafood restaurants are located at the Mooloolaba Spit. An acknowledgement of the town’s fishing heritage can also be seen at Fisherman’s park, located in the Mooloolaba Spit. At the front of the park stands a three metre bronze sculpture of a fisherman at a wheel of a ship, bracing himself against the storm. The sculpture was built in memorial of the fishermen who were lost at sea and was the first fisher memorial built in Australia in 2008 (Monument Australia, 2019a). A mural of fishers at work and paintings of marine creatures also adorn public amenities around Fishermen’s Park at the Mooloolaba Spit.
54 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism Given Mooloolaba’s status as a must-see coastal destination on the Sunshine Coast and its strong ties with its commercial fishing industry, Mooloolaba was the perfect choice for this case study.
4.2 METHODOLOGY: TRAVEL COST METHOD
To capture the value of the Mooloolaba fishing industry and the ‘local seafood experience’ held by visitors to Mooloolaba, this study used a revealed preference technique known as the ‘travel cost method’. It is classified as a ‘revealed preference’ technique as it measures how much consumers value the use of a good or service through the choices which they have already made (observed behaviour). The method typically estimates ‘use values’ as opposed to non-use values (bin Mohammad Afandi, Samdin, & bin Shuib, 2013). Under the travel cost method, the value of a site (generally a recreational site) is determined by how much an individual is willing to spend to use the site. The amount spent is equated to the individual’s value or benefit derived from the site. The demand curve and estimated consumer surplus of an average tourist for the site can be derived from the travel cost data collected (Goodstein, 2011). The travel cost model can be used to derive the demand for a single site or multiple sites (Parsons, 2003; Whitehead, Pattanayak, Van Houtven, & Gelso, 2008).
The travel cost method was originally developed by Hotelling (1949), who specified that a national park could be valued by examining the average number of trips to the park and average cost to visit the park. Various adaptations of this model have been developed since this time. However, the two main forms of the travel cost method include the Zonal Travel Cost Method (ZTCM) and the Individual Travel Cost Method (ITCM).
The ZTCM works on the basis of determining zones around the site in question. These zones are generally specified by concentric circles around the site. The number of trips taken to the site is then aggregated by the trips taken from each zone, during a particular period of time. To find the number of trips per capita, the number of trips are divided by the population of the particular zone (Clawson & Knetsch, 1966; Loomis & Walsh, 1997; Rolfe & Dyack, 2011). Recent models have since made use of access to postcodes and other geographic information to increase the precision of the allocated zones (bin Mohammad Afandi et al., 2013). For example, Prayaga, Rolfe, and Sinden (2006) defined the travel cost zones in their study through the use of the
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 55 statistical divisions as specified by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. However, given that the ZTCM makes use of aggregate data, there has been some question with respect to the accuracy of results. For example, the aggregation of individual characteristics from a particular zone may result in a loss of efficiency of results (Brown & Nawas, 1973). Given this, there has been increased use of the ITCM.
Like the ZTCM, the aim of the ITCM is to identify the number of trips taken to the site, however differs from the ZTCM as individual data, rather than aggregate data is used to calculate the number of trips. The advantage of ITCM method over the ZTCM is the ability of the ITCM to incorporate individual socio-demographic variables, as well as time costs (opportunity cost) of visiting the particular site (Gum & Martin, 1975; Parsons, 2003), thereby increasing the accuracy of results. Others have opted to combine the individual and zonal models to create a hybrid of the two methods (Loomis et al., 2009).
Holding all else constant, it is generally expected that an inverse relationship exists between the price of the trip and the quantity of trips demanded, such that the demand curve will slope downwards. That is, an increase in the price of the trip will result in a decrease in the quantity of trips demanded and vice versa (Clawson, 1959; Clawson & Knetsch, 1966; Knetsch, 1963). However, there are of course other various factors which may impact an individual’s demand for a trip.
With respect to the model specification of a general travel cost model, Parsons (2003, p.271), specifies that a single site model may be derived in the following manner:
ൌ݂ሺݐܿሻݎ
where r represents the number of trips taken by the individual during a specified period. The number of trips taken are therefore a function of the trip cost (tcr) associated with a particular site. Common travel cost expenditures include fuel, car costs, time, accommodation and other associated costs (Goodstein, 2011; Prayaga et al., 2010). However, as discussed below, there has been some debate with respect to what costs should be included in the model.
As previously mentioned, the value of travel time is also an important aspect of accounting for travel cost. The cost of travel time was originally accounted for using both revealed preference and stated preference data (Becker, 1965). Many studies have
56 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism utilised wage rates to account for the opportunity cost of travel time. For example, Ezzy, Scarborough, and Wallis (2012) equate the opportunity cost of travel time to the full employee wage rate. According to Cesario (1976) the value of travel time should be equated to 1/3 of a respondent’s wage rate, while Fezzi, Bateman, and Ferrini (2014) find a more reasonable estimate is ¾ of the wage rate. While these studies operate under the assumption that the opportunity cost of leisure is in fact work, others find the opportunity cost of travel time to be equal to zero (Pascoe, 2019; Rolfe & Prayaga, 2007). That is, the opportunity cost of travel time may be non-existent given that leisure time is separate to that of work hours and would have been deliberately dedicated to recreational activities. Moreover, the trip itself may have been valued by the respondent as part of their recreational activity (Rolfe & Gregg, 2012). McKean, Johnson, and Walsh (1995) state that failure to recognise differences between individuals who can easily substitute work and leisure and those who cannot, may lead to an inaccurate measure of opportunity cost and consumer surplus estimates. To account for this, some studies (e.g. McConnell and Strand (1981); McKean et al. (1995)) have endogenously estimated the opportunity cost of travel time. This enables a more appropriate consideration of travel time in the context of the case study being examined.
According to Parsons (2003, p.272), other variables which should be considered when determining the individual’s demand for taking the trip include the price of going to a substitute site (tcs), the individual’s income (y) and a vector of socio-demographic variables (z). The formal derivation of the demand for the trip and the linear equivalent of this equation are represented as follows:
ൌ݂ሺݐܿǡݐܿ௦ǡݕǡݖሻݎ
ൌߚ௧ೝݐܿ ߚ௧ೞݐܿ௦ǡߚ௬ݕߚ௭ݖݎ
Arguably, an increase in the number of substitute sites may lessen the desire of the individual to make the trip to the site in question. That is, the value of the site may decline if more substitute sites are available. Furthermore, a higher income may increase the ability of the individual to make the trip. The equations above are generally representative of a single site model. Should multiple sites be estimated, a random utility maximisation (RUM) model may be used to capture trade-offs between sites (Parsons, 2003).
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 57 Once the above model is estimated, the consumer surplus can be estimated as follows:
ͳ ܥܵ ൌ െ ߚ௧
It is also possible to estimate the marginal effect of a particular attribute in the model. This can be calculated as follows:
ߚ ݐ ൌ െ ݂݂݈ܿ݁݁ܽ݊݅݃ݎܽܯ ߚ௧
Where ߚ represents the coefficient of the attribute of interest (Haab & McConnell, 2002).
With respect to estimating the model with a single site, a count data travel cost model with Poisson distribution is generally used in first instance. A Poisson distribution is generally used in cases where the data is not over dispersed (i.e. where the mean is equal to the variance of the distribution). However, in practice, the data of travel cost models are generally over dispersed, such that the variance exceeds the mean. This issue is circumvented through implementation of alternative models such as the negative binomial model (Parsons, 2003).
As with other methodologies, the travel cost methodology also has some downfalls. Firstly, tourists may not necessarily plan their holiday around one activity. For example, while food tourism may be an important aspect of a tourist’s holiday, it may not be the determinate of their trip and is generally undertaken along with a range of various other activities. This can lead to difficulties in ascertaining exactly what proportion of the travel cost was associated with a specific activity (Tribe, 2005). As found by Voltaire, Lévi, Alban, and Boncoeur (2017), including the travel costs of multipurpose visitors would lead to inflated consumer surplus estimates. Conversely the total exclusion of multipurpose visitors leads to an under-estimation of consumer surplus (biased downwards) (Voltaire et al., 2017). However, careful consideration of the survey design may be one way of circumventing this issue. For example, by first determining the total value of Fraser Island, Fleming and Cook (2008) were then able to apportion part of the trip’s value to Lake McKenzie (a lake located on Fraser Island). This was done by examining what proportion of satisfaction was gained by visiting Lake McKenzie as part of the whole Fraser Island trip; and similarly examining how
58 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism much time was actually spent at Lake McKenzie as a proportion of total time on Fraser Island. Another way to minimize biased consumer surplus estimates caused by multi- purpose visits is to exclude visitors who only visited the site by chance (e.g. visiting the site was incidental to their main trip purpose). Rather, it may be better to calculate consumer surplus per visitor per trip by estimating an interval between single purpose visitors and domestic visitors (Voltaire et al., 2017).
The travel cost method also has difficulties with respect to measuring the expenses incurred by different individuals. For example, there may be considerable differences with respect to use and cost of equipment to undertake a particular activity. Furthermore, even if the individuals in the sample all undertake the same activity, there may be large differences with respect to the cost and experiences of accommodation (Randall, 1994). With respect to the latter, particular types of accommodation (e.g. five-star or first-class hotel), may offer different services and amenities such that staying at the hotel can become an experience in itself. Given this it becomes apparent that the trip to the site being valued and the individual’s accommodation choice should be treated as different goods (Prayaga et al., 2006). Others have taken a different approach by only accounting for the accommodation costs of visitors located in zones (or at a distance) which cannot be reasonably travelled within a day (Tourkolias, Skiada, Mirasgedis, & Diakoulaki, 2015). There are also problems associated with the determination of how many substitute sites should be included in the model (Randall, 1994).
Furthermore, as seen above, if time is to be included as part of the cost incurred by the individual, there is still some contention as to how it should be measured (Randall, 1994). While others have found that time should be carefully considered in the analysis of travel costs, others have found that it should not be included at all. For example, Prayaga et al. (2006), did not include travel time in their model as it was argued that the opportunity cost of time during the holiday period is non-existent.
Two main problems also exist with respect to travel cost models which utilise data that was collected on site. The first problem is referred to as ‘truncation’. That is, as non-users are not included in the sample, the sample becomes truncated (Englin & Shonkwiler, 1995). The second problem is referred as endogenous stratification. That is, there is the issue of sampling a greater proportion of more frequent visitors of the site as they are there more often and hence have greater probability of being sampled
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 59 (Englin & Shonkwiler, 1995). However, both issues of potential bias can be corrected for. Truncation can be corrected through using zero truncated count data models. For count data models using a Poisson distribution, endogenous stratification can be corrected for if the number of trips included in the model is reduced by one trip (Habb & McConnell, 2002). For negative binomial distribution, weights based on the number of trips can be used to correct for endogenous stratification (Shi & Huang, 2018).
Despite its shortcomings, the travel cost methodology remains a popular choice for valuing recreational areas. In terms of application, the travel cost methodology has been used to value well known sites such as the Great Barrier Reef (Farr, Stoeckl, & Beg, 2011), national parks (Benson, Watson, Taylor, Cook, & Hollenhorst, 2013), and marine parks (Mwebaze & MacLeod, 2013). The valuation of recreational use of beaches has also been popular in the travel cost literature (Blackwell, 2007; W. Chen et al., 2004; Zhang, Wang, Nunes, & Ma, 2015). The model has also been used to value recreational activities which are complementary to a particular site, such as recreational fishing (Li, 1999; Pascoe, Doshi, Dell, et al., 2014; Shrestha, Seidl, & Moraes, 2002) and diving (Pascoe, Doshi, Thébaud, et al., 2014).
While the travel cost methodology has been widely used in the context of valuing recreational uses associated with particular sites, it also been used in the context of valuing special events, as well as sites with historical or cultural relevance. For example, Prayaga et al. (2006) use the travel cost method to value the Gemfest in Central Queensland. The travel cost method has also been used to value the Poseidon temple (an important archaeological site) in Sounio, Greece (Tourkolias et al., 2015) and cultural heritage sites in Armenia (Alberini & Longo, 2006).
The travel cost model can also be combined with a stated preference method called contingent behaviour to capture the change in trip behaviour and consumer surplus associated with the site under certain conditions. Under this method, in addition to general travel cost questions, the participant is given hypothetical scenarios which affect the site in question (e.g. changes in the quality of the site). The participant is then required to indicate whether the number of trips to the site would change based on these hypothetical scenarios (Eiswerth, Englin, Fadali, & Shaw, 2000). For example, Grijalva, Berrens, Bohara, and Shaw (2002) conducted a study which examined change in rock climbing trips to Hueco Tanks (a popular mountain climbing site in Texas, US) given a change in policy which affected access to particular parts of
60 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism the site. This was followed by another survey which captured the visitor’s revealed preference or actual trips following the implementation of site restrictions. While a criticism of stated preference techniques is the risk of hypothetical bias (Whitehead, Haab, & Huang, 2000), Grijalva et al. (2002) found that the stated change in trip behaviour was not overstated when compared to actual trip behaviour following the implementation of site restrictions. The benefit of combining the travel cost method with stated preference data is that “Stated preference methods also allow benefit estimation beyond the range of historical quality variation in revealed behavior data” (Whitehead et al., 2000, p.341). This method has been used to estimate changes in trip behaviour caused by changes in quality of recreational sites (Englin & Cameron, 1996; Grossmann, 2011; Hanley, Bell, & Alvarez-Farizo, 2003; Rolfe & Dyack, 2011). It has also been used to value improvements to cultural heritage sites (Alberini & Longo, 2006).
4.3 THE SURVEY
The aim of the study was to examine whether the existence of the local fishing fleet and the ability to experience local seafood sourced from the fleet added value to the overall trip experience in Mooloolaba. The survey was a face-to-face paper survey conducted with day trippers and holiday makers in Mooloolaba (QUT ethics approval number: 1800000238). Day trippers included locals (i.e. residents of Mooloolaba), other Queensland residents, interstate visitors and international visitors. Holiday makers included Queensland residents from outside of Mooloolaba, as well as interstate and international visitors. Participants were approached to participate in the survey in public places in and around the Mooloolaba Spit (near the fishing fleet and seafood precinct) and Esplanade (close to the town centre). All participants were aged 18 years old or over. For groups, only one person completed the survey. The survey was conducted during school holidays and weekends throughout April 2018 – July 2018, as well as December 2018 – February 2019. This allowed for the survey to capture a good representation of day/trippers and holiday makers throughout the year, inclusive of major holidays. The survey was conducted by the PhD student and her research assistants. Respondents who completed the survey received a voucher for the Coffee Club worth $5.00 (AUD).
The survey had three main sections (see Appendix C). As only adults (18 years old and over) were required for the survey, the first question of the survey asked
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 61 respondents to confirm their age. The remainder of the first section of the survey asked respondents about their prior experience with and knowledge of Mooloolaba. In the second section of the survey, respondents were asked questions about their trip to Mooloolaba. These questions were used to determine how important the local fishing industry was to their trip. The path of questions taken for each respondent were slightly varied based on whether they were aware of Mooloolaba’s fishing industry or not. In the last section of the survey, respondents were asked some general socio-demographic questions and questions specifically related to their connections to the fishing industry. In line with the travel cost methodology, the socio-demographic questions were asked to check whether a representative sample had been obtained and to check whether particular individual attributes affect the visitor’s choices.
4.4 QUALITATIVE RESULTS AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE
Initially a target of 100 responses was set. During the initial analysis of the 100 responses, it was estimated that a further 50 responses would be required in order to decrease the standard error enough to obtain significant results. Hence a new target of 150 responses was set. A total of 153 survey responses were collected. An analysis of the descriptive statistics of the sample, as well as the travel cost models are presented below. Analysis was undertaken using R software (R Core Team, 2018).
4.4.1 Survey locations The surveys were conducted in public places in Mooloolaba. More specifically, surveys were undertaken in two locations – one near the fishing fleet and seafood precinct (the Mooloolaba Spit) and the other near the town centre (Esplanade) (see Figure 4-1). The majority of surveys were conducted at the Spit. In both locations (Esplanade and Spit), individuals or couples were more likely to surveyed than large groups of people. In terms of residence, visitors from Queensland (excluding residents of Mooloolaba) were surveyed more so than interstate or international visitors (see Figure 4-1).
62 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism
4.4.6 Distance from Mooloolaba in km and time In line with the literature, respondents were asked about the distance from their residence to the destination. Queensland respondents were asked to give an estimate with respect to the distance travelled to Mooloolaba from their place of residence. For visitors from outside of Queensland, the distance was determined from the last pit stop (if any) or their current holiday residence if staying locally. Respondents whom were unsure of their distance travelled used Google maps to provide an estimate of their distance travelled. Estimates with respect to distance were given in kilometres. The average distance travelled was approximately 94 km.
Similarly, respondents were also asked to indicate how long it took them (in hours or minutes) to arrive either at Mooloolaba or the Mooloolaba Spit. Respondents were asked to estimate their time based on the same distances from their home residence, last pit stop or current accommodation. Estimates of time were given in hours and minutes. For the purposes of data entry, the time estimate was converted to minutes. On average it took respondents 68 minutes to reach Mooloolaba.
4.4.7 Importance of the fishing industry and local seafood Participants whom indicated they were aware of Mooloolaba’s fishing industry before their trip were asked how important it was to see the local fishing boats and/or fish markets to their expected satisfaction with visiting Mooloolaba. Respondents were asked to indicate their answer on a 5 point scale, ((1) Not at all important to (5) Very important). Respondents whom indicated they were not aware of Mooloolaba’s seafood industry received the same questions as above, however the questions were prefixed with ‘Now that you are here, how important is it….’.
The response with respect to the importance of seeing the boats and/or fish markets was varied for both groups. Those who were already aware of the industry before their trip held a greater importance for seeing the fishing fleet and or fish markets (see Figure 4-6). Seeing the fishing fleet and or fish markets was generally less important to visitors who only became aware of the industry on the day of the survey (see Figure 4-7).
70 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism Importance of boats/ fish markets for those who were aware of the fishing industry (n = 112) 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Not at all Not very Somewhat Moderately Very important important (1) important (2) important (3) important (4) (5)
Figure 4-6 Importance of the boats/fish markets for those aware of fishing industry
Importance of the boats/ fish markets for those NOW aware of fishing industry (n = 41) 30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% Not at all important Not very important Somewhat Moderately Very important (5) (1) (2) important (3) important (4)
Figure 4-7 Importance of the boats/fish markets for those NOW aware of fishing industry
Respondents were also asked a similar question in relation to the importance of being able to purchase freshly caught fish/seafood from the local fishing fleet. Both groups (i.e. those who knew about the industry before their trip (see Figure 4-8) and those who did not know about the industry before their trip (see Figure 4-9)) indicated that being able to purchase freshly caught fish/seafood from the local fishing fleet was highly important.
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 71 Importance of local fish/seafood - those who knew of the fishing industry (n=112) 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Not at all Not very Somewhat Moderately Very important important (1) important (2) important (3) important (4) (5)
Figure 4-8 Importance of local fish/seafood - aware of fishing industry
Importance of local fish/ seafood for those NOW aware of the fishing industry (n=41) 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Not at all important Not very important Somewhat Moderately Very important (5) (1) (2) important (3) important (4)
Figure 4-9 Importance of local fish/ seafood - NOW aware of fishing industry
To provide a more accurate measure of the day tripper or holiday maker’s trip satisfaction with particular activities associated with the trip, respondents were asked to indicate what proportion of satisfaction was received from: (1) seeing the local fishing boats, (2) seeing the local fish outlets selling locally caught fish and (3) being able to purchase freshly caught fish/seafood from the local fishing fleet.
Respondents were asked to indicate their proportion of overall satisfaction which they attributed to each activity on a scale of 0% to 100%. Responses were then normalized based on the maximum value indicated out of the three activities. It is seen
72 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism respondents would decrease their future trips by some amount if there was no locally caught seafood available in the area (see Figure 4-11). These results indicate a substantial drop in visits to Mooloolaba if there were no local fishing industry or seafood available in the area.
Future visits to Mooloolaba if no fishing industry (knew about fishing industry before trip n = 112) 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% No change Decrease by Decrease by Decrease by Decrease by Would not 10% 20% 30% - 40% more than visit again (go 50% (e.g elsewhere) halve)
Figure 4-10 Future trips if no fishing industry - those aware of industry
Future trips to Mooloolaba if no local seafood (knew about fishing industry before trip n = 112) 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% No change Decrease by Decrease by Decrease by Decrease by Would not 10% 20% 30% - 40% more than visit again (go 50% (e.g elsewhere) halve)
Figure 4-11 Future trips if no local seafood available - for those aware of industry
74 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism Participants who indicated they did not know about Mooloolaba’s fishing industry before their trip were asked to indicate how their new found knowledge of the industry would affect their likelihood of future trips to the area. More specifically, these respondents were asked whether there would result in ‘no change’, a moderate increase (10%, 20%, 30-40% or 50% increase) or at the extreme end – double the number of trips to the area. In a similar manner, respondents were also asked how their new found knowledge of being able to eat locally caught seafood in Mooloolaba would affect the likelihood of future trips to the area.
In the first scenario, it is seen that 34% of the sample would not change the number of trips to Mooloolaba given their new knowledge of the industry, however the remaining 66% of the sample would increase the number of trips by some amount (see Figure 4-12). In the second scenario, it is seen that 27% of the sample would not change their number of trips to Mooloolaba given their new found knowledge of local seafood in the area, however the remaining 73% of the sample would increase the number of trips by some amount (see Figure 4-13). Whilst the responses are varied, there seemed to be more interest in changing trip behaviour (increase number of trips) based on new knowledge of being able to eat local seafood rather than see the fleet.
Future trips now aware of fishing industry (now aware of industry n=41) 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% No change Increase by Increase by Increase by Increase by Double the 10% 20% 30-40% 50% number of trips
Figure 4-12 Future trips now aware of fishing industry
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 75 Future trips now aware of local seafood (now aware of industry n = 41) 30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% No change Increase by Increase by Increase by Increase by Double the 10% 20% 30-40% 50% number of trips
Figure 4-13 Future trips now aware of local seafood
4.4.9 Interest in local seafood experiences As previously mentioned, local food experiences have increased in the realm of tourism with many wanting to see the local production of food. Such positive experiences of eating locally caught food may also increase the tourist’s future behaviour in relation to purchasing local food in other trips. To explore this further in the context of ‘boat to plate’ experiences, Queensland respondents were also asked the following questions:
x Do you think that seeing the local fishing fleet will make you more interested in eating locally caught fish? x Do you think that eating locally caught fish today, will mean that you more likely to purchase fish caught along the coast of Queensland?
After responding with either yes or no, respondents were also asked to elaborate on their answer in their own words. With respect to the first question, 76% of Queensland respondents indicated that seeing the fleet would make them more interested in eating locally caught fish. Most respondents indicated that seeing the boats confirmed the seafood was in fact locally caught and was therefore fresh. A secondary reason was that seeing the boats indicated that the business was local. A sense of trust in the local industry and willingness to support the local industry was also cited as a reason for wanting to see the fleet and eat their catch. Of the respondents
76 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism that indicated ‘no’ to this question, some respondents indicated they did not need to see the fleet to know it was fresh given they already knew of the industry. Others also stated ‘no’ because they were already in the habit of buying locally and hence would continue to do so regardless of whether they saw the fleet or not.
With respect to the second question, 91% of Queensland respondents indicated were more likely to purchase locally caught fish/ seafood in the future along the coast of Queensland (e.g. at home or while on holiday) given their experience in Mooloolaba. Answers to this question generally mirrored certain themes in the responses given for the previous question. That is, respondents cited freshness, taste and supporting the local industry as key reasons as to why they preferred to purchase locally caught seafood and would continue to do so in future purchases. Those who answered ‘no’ to this question either indicated they were already buying local seafood or did not purchase seafood due to catching it themselves. Other responses included a lack of interest in seafood in general. That is, given they did not eat fish that much to begin with, this experience would not change the frequency of their purchase.
4.5 SETTING UP THE TRAVEL COST MODELS
For this study, count data travel cost models were used to estimate consumer surplus associated with visiting Mooloolaba and the consumer surplus attributed to seeing the fishing fleet and eating locally caught seafood. More specifically, two main approaches were used. In the first approach, two models were estimated to determine the importance of seeing the fleet and/ or fish markets and the importance of eating freshly caught seafood to the decision to visit. In the second approach, a contingent behaviour travel cost approach was used in order to determine the change in consumer surplus associated with having no local fishing fleet and no locally caught seafood available in Mooloolaba. To ensure that the models captured the value of the fishing industry and seafood to visitors, Mooloolaba residents were removed from the sample.6 The generation of variables and decisions with respect to model specification are outlined below.
6 For completeness, models were also estimated including Mooloolaba residents in the sample (see Appendix D).
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 77 4.5.1 Calculation of travel cost To calculate the travel cost, the fuel cost per kilometre was first calculated using the following equation:
ܮݎݐ݂݂ݑ݈݁݁ݏൈ ܿ ݉݇ݎݑ݉ݐ݅݊݁ݏݑ݈݂݁ܿ݊݁݃ܽݎൌ ܽݒ݁ ݉݇ݎݐ݁ݏݑ݈݁ܿܨ
According to Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017) for the year ending 30 June 2016 “…the average rate of fuel consumption per passenger vehicle was 10.6 litres per 100 kilometres.” Based on this, the average rate of fuel consumption per kilometre was calculated to be 0.106L. According to RACQ (2018) the average price of unleaded petrol (ULP) in Brisbane in March 2018 was 137.6 cpl. The fuel cost per km was therefore calculated as:
ൌ ͲǤͳͲ ൈ ͳǤ͵ͺ ݉݇ݎݐ݁ݏݑ݈݁ܿܨ
The travel cost for each group was then found by multiplying the fuel cost per km by the distance from the respondent’s home or holiday residence (as stated by the respondent). This was then multiplied by 2 to account for round trip distance. The final equation used to calculate travel cost was therefore:
݉݇ݎݐ݁ݏ݊݀݁݊ݐ ൈ ݂ݑ݈݁ܿݏ݁ݎݐܾ݁݀ݕܽܿ݅݀݊݅ݏݎݐ ൌ ʹ ൈ ݈݇݅݉݁ݐ݁ݏݒ݈݁ܿܽݎܶ
Figure 4-14 displays the demand curve for the trips to Mooloolaba. Like the expected demand curve (see blue line), the generated demand curve is downward sloping, showing an inverse relationship between travel cost and number of trips. That is, as the travel cost increases, the quantity of trips made to Mooloolaba decreases, ceteris paribus.
78 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism industry before their trip were first separated from the answers of those who were not aware of the fishing industry before their trip, these answers were later combined and rescaled. As answers were initially given on a 1-5 scale, answers were rescaled such that scores were given on a 0-1 scale. The resulting variable was named “impfleet”. A similar treatment was used to create the variable “impeat”, representing the rescaled importance of being able to eat locally caught seafood.
To determine if there was a relationship between the importance of seeing the fleet and/or fish markets and the importance of eating locally caught seafood, a scatter plot of these scores was created (see Figure 4-157). As seen in Figure 4-15, a correlation between these variables exists. This was confirmed with a correlation coefficient of 0.6015, indicating a moderate positive correlation between these variables. Given the correlation between these variables, it was decided that two separate travel cost models would need to be estimated in order to capture the effect of each activity on the decision to visit Mooloolaba.
7 Note – A small proportion of random variation has been added to each observation in the Figure to separate them out using the jitter function in R.
80 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism Figure 4-15 Importance of seeing fleet/ fish markets and importance of eating seafood
4.5.3 Test for opportunity cost of time The opportunity cost of time was tested by using the approach outlined by McConnell and Strand (1981). This involved the estimation of a simple model which took the form of the following: ݐݏݐ ߚݐ݅݉݁ܿݏݒ݈݁ܿܽݎൌ ߚݐ ݏ݅ݎݐ݈ܽݐܶ where the time cost variable was calculated as how much a person could have earned during the time they were traveling to Mooloolaba or the Mooloolaba Spit:
݈݈ܾܽܽܵ݅ݐܯݎ݈݈ܾܽܽܯݐܽ݇݁݊ݐ݃݁ݐݐݏݐݑ݁݊݅݉ ݐ݁ܽݎݐ ൌ ൬ ൰ൈݓܽ݃݁ݏݐ݅݉݁ܿ ݏͲ݉݅݊ݐݑ݁
݅݊ܿ݉݁ʹ ݐ݁ ൌ ൬ ൰ൈ ͳͲͲͲܽݎݓܽ݃݁ ݓ݁݁݇ݎ݁ݏݎൈ ͵݄ݑ ݏͷʹݓ݁݁݇
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 81 The model was estimated over the sample which travelled less than 1000km and took less than 300 minutes in travel time. The results of the model can be seen in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7 Regression to test opportunity cost of time
Est S.E Sig Intercept 61.3752 9.7730 *** Travel cost -1.5465 0.5089 ** Time cost 0.0922 0.2063 Residual standard error 78.58 on 126 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared 0.1067 Adjusted R-squared 0.0926 F-statistic 7.528 on 2 and 126 DF, p-value: 0.0008 Opportunity cost -0.0596 0.1203 ***,**,*,+ = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
From the results of this model, it is possible to estimate the opportunity cost of travel time as follows:
ݐݏܿ݁݉݅ܶ ݒ݈݁ݐ݅݉݁ ൌܽݎݐ݂ݐݏݐݑ݊݅ݐݕܿݎܱ ݐݏݒ݈݁ܿܽݎܶ
As seen above, the travel cost variable was negative and significant at a 1% level, however the time cost variable was not significant. The resulting opportunity cost variable was also not significant. Given this, the opportunity cost of travel time was assumed to be zero in this case and was therefore excluded from the model.
82 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism
4.6 RESULTS OF TRAVEL COST MODELS
4.6.1 Initial travel cost models In order to find the most appropriate form for the model, an initial count data travel cost model was estimated. This took the form of a Poisson regression. The dependent variable used was the total number of trips reduced by one to correct for endogenous stratification (Haab & McConnell, 2002). Those who travelled 1000km or more were identified as outliers and were excluded from estimation. Mooloolaba residents were also removed from the sample. The results of the Poisson regression are seen in Table 4-9 below.
Apart from the dummy variable that indicates if the respondent is travelling with kids and the dummy variable which indicates a respondent did not want to disclose their educational status, the remaining variables of the Poisson regression were significant. In this model, the consumer surplus associated with a trip to Mooloolaba was estimated to be $15.27. As previously mentioned, the data of travel cost models are generally over dispersed. To check this, an over dispersion test was conducted (see Table 4-10). Although the results of the over dispersion test were not significant, it was decided that for completeness, the same model was to be estimated using a negative binomial specification. The negative binomial travel cost model was also estimated using the same sub-sample (i.e. only those who travelled less than 1000km and excluding Mooloolaba residents). For the negative binomial model, the dependent variable was the original trip number but weighted by 1/(trip number) to remove the effect of endogenous stratification (Shi & Huang, 2018).
The results of the negative binomial regression can be seen in Table 4-9. The theta coefficient for the negative binomial regression was significantly different to zero indicating that overdispersion does exist (despite the previous test) and hence the negative binomial specification was appropriate (Pascoe, 2019). Moreover, the Akaike information criterion (AIC) was much lower for the negative binomial than for the Poisson model, thus further indicating that the negative binomial specification was the more appropriate model. Given this, it was decided that the remaining models would be specified as negative binomial regressions.
The results of the negative binomial regression indicate that respondents with a connection to a related fishing industry (e.g. charter industry, seafood marketing,
86 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism catering etc) positively influenced trips to Mooloolaba (though this variable was only significant at a 10% level). With respect to residential dummy variables, both the international and interstate visitor dummy variables were negative and significant at 1% and 5% significance levels respectively. As expected, visitors who live further away from Mooloolaba would be less likely to visit.
The travel cost variable for the negative binomial model displayed the expected sign (negative) and was significant at a 10% level. The consumer surplus associated with a trip to Mooloolaba was calculated as $70.79 (significant at 10% level) (see Table 4-9). For comparison, Blackwell (2007, p.88) found that the consumer surplus for a trip to Mooloolaba varied for visitors ($107.75) and residents ($17.41) (values in 1999-2000 $AUD). When converted to 2018 values8, this equates to approximately $178.42 for visitors and $28.83 for residents. However, these values also included the cost of travel time in their estimation which would have increased them. Despite this, the present study’s estimate of consumer surplus does appear to be within the range of consumer surplus estimated by Blackwell (2007).
8 Adjusted from 1999 values to 2018 values using the Reserve Bank of Australia (2019) Inflation Calculator. Retrieved from: https://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal html
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 87 Table 4-9 Model 1: Initial travel cost model (Poisson) and Negative binomial model Model 1: Poisson Model 2: Negative Binomial Est S.E Sig Est S.E Sig Intercept 7.249 0.130 *** 1.990 0.970 * Travel cost -0.065 0.003 *** -0.014 0.008 + Age -0.025 0.002 *** 0.017 0.013 Female -0.280 0.042 *** -0.054 0.327 Income2 0.005 0.000 *** -0.001 0.003 Commercial fisher connections -0.672 0.094 *** -0.193 0.626 Related fishing industry connections 0.328 0.057 *** 1.090 0.585 + Recreational fisher 0.130 0.042 ** -0.047 0.372 Member of an environmental org 0.265 0.053 *** -0.090 0.472 Number of adults in travel party -0.842 0.042 *** -0.219 0.150 Travelling with kids -0.035 0.052 0.455 0.433 Year 12 -1.186 0.075 *** -0.178 0.691 Certificate III / IV -0.617 0.075 *** 0.149 0.734 Advanced Diploma and Diploma -1.216 0.063 *** 0.131 0.647 Bachelor Degree -2.118 0.091 *** -0.347 0.609 Grad Dip/ Grad Cert -1.423 0.089 *** 0.201 0.761 Postgraduate degree -2.133 0.095 *** -0.411 0.674 I would rather not say (education) -0.006 0.492 -0.146 2.585 Part time employee 0.231 0.068 *** 0.130 0.655 Casual employee -0.404 0.118 *** -1.410 0.878 Self Employed 0.211 0.067 ** 0.092 0.565 Student -1.819 0.341 *** -0.226 0.630 Homemaker -0.540 0.195 ** -0.414 1.015 Retired 1.098 0.089 *** -0.537 0.653 Unemployed -0.580 0.314 + -0.071 1.223 I would rather not say (occupation) 1.148 0.376 ** -0.509 0.833 International -4.373 0.345 *** -1.284 0.496 ** Interstate -2.310 0.124 *** -1.360 0.594 * Mooloolaba Spit 0.121 0.047 * -0.585 0.530 AIC 4453.593 266.96 Theta 2.227 0.631 *** 2 x log-likelihood -206.963 CS for trip $15.27 0.586 *** $70.79 42.103 + ***,**,*,+ = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
Table 4-10 Over dispersion test for Poisson regression Z score 1.0658
P – value 0.1433 dispersion 580.762
88 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 4.6.2 Approach 1: Examining the importance of fishing industry/ fish markets/ /seafood to the decision to visit After confirming that the appropriate model was the negative binomial regression, variables which were not significant were iteratively dropped out of the model. That is, final model structures were developed through step-wise removal of non-significant variables. As aforementioned, the variables representing the ‘importance of seeing the fishing industry/fish markets’ and the ‘importance of being able to eat locally caught seafood’ were found to be moderately correlated (see section 4.5.2 above). To avoid multicollinearity, it was decided that two models would be estimated to capture the effect of each activity on trip behaviour. As previously stated, those who travelled 1000km or more were considered outliers and were excluded from estimation. Mooloolaba residents were also excluded from the estimation.
Effect of importance of fishing industry/ fish markets
Model 3 was designed to examine the effect of the importance of seeing the fishing industry and fish markets on the decision to visit Mooloolaba (see Table 4-11). The dependent variable was again the unadjusted trip number but weighted by 1/(trip number) to remove the effect of endogenous stratification (Shi & Huang, 2018). In this model the variable ‘impfleet’ was added to represent the importance of seeing the fishing fleet and or fish market (see section 4.5.2. for the calculation of this variable). This variable was also interacted with the travel cost variable to create the ‘Importance of fishing fleet/fish markets*Travel Cost’ variable. The interaction variable ‘Importance of fishing fleet/fish markets*Travel Cost’ was found to be correlated with the travel cost variable. As these two variables were correlated, resulting in multicollinearity in the model, several alternative specifications were examined. The best (based on the AIC) was found to be that which excluded the original travel cost main effect. This has implications for the interpretation of the parameter on the interaction term but does not affect its use for calculating the willingness to pay (WTP). Other variables (as seen in Model 2) which were not significant were iteratively removed from the model.
This model was estimated twice (see Table 4-11). The model was first estimated using the entire sample, but removing those who had travelled 1000km or more and Mooloolaba residents (see Table 4-11 - Model 3(a)). The model was then estimated
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 89 over the sub-set of the sample who were aware of the fishing industry before their trip and also travelled less than 1000km (see Table 4-11 - Model 3(b)). This model also excluded Mooloolaba residents.
Table 4-11. Negative binomial models – importance of fleet/fish market Model 3(b): all respondents Model 3(a): all respondents (excluding Mooloolaba (excluding Mooloolaba residents) who travelled less than residents) who travelled less than 1000km and knew of the fishing 1000km industry before their trip Est S.E Sig Est S.E Sig Intercept 1.5084 0.4709 ** 1.7919 0.6762 ** Importance of fishing fleet/fish markets 1.1558 0.5224 * 0.9482 0.7619 Importance of fishing fleet/fish -0.0293 0.0134 * -0.0320 0.0212 markets*Travel Cost International -1.3551 0.4225 ** -1.4175 0.7433 + Interstate -1.2332 0.5162 * -1.5218 0.6069 * Mooloolaba Spit -0.8036 0.4599 + -0.5870 0.6498 Related fishing industry connections 0.6911 0.4419 0.7101 0.6135 Theta 1.823 0.486 *** 1.3970 0.4750 ** AIC 231.74 131.870 2 x log-likelihood -215.735 -115.870 CS for fishing fleet/ fish markets 39.41 16.994 * 29.66 20.732 ***,**,*,+ = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
For both model 3(a) and model 3(b) (see Table 4-11), theta was significantly different to zero, again confirming that the negative binomial specification was suitable. For both model 3(a) (the entire sample excluding Mooloolaba residents and those who travelled 1000km or more) and model 3(b) (those who were aware of the fishing industry before their trip), the international and interstate visitor variables were negative and significant. This again may be attributed to the fact that further distances travelled to Mooloolaba may decrease the number of trips made. Apart from these variables and the intercept coefficient, no other variables were found significant for model 3(b).
The results of Model 3(a) (i.e. for the entire sample excluding Mooloolaba residents and outliers) indicates a positive relationship between the importance of seeing the fishing fleet/fish markets and trips to Mooloolaba. That is, the more the respondent values being able to see the local fishing fleet or fish markets, the more the respondent will visit Mooloolaba. The coefficient for ‘Mooloolaba Spit’ representing
90 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism respondents who were surveyed at the Mooloolaba Spit was negative and significant at a 10% level. This indicates that those who were surveyed at the Mooloolaba Spit made fewer visits to Mooloolaba than those who were surveyed at the Esplanade.
In Model 3(a), the interaction variable between the importance of seeing the fishing fleet and or fish markets and the travel cost variable was negative and significant at a 5% level. The consumer surplus attributed to seeing the fishing fleet and/or fish market can be calculated as follows:
ݐ݁݇ݎ݄ܽ݉ݏ݂݅ݎݐƬ݈݂݁݁ݎ݂ܵܥ ݏݐ݁݇ݎ݄ܽ݉ݏ݂݅ݎƬ݄݃݊݅ݏݐ݂݂ܽ݊ܿ݁݅ݎ݉ܫ ൌെͳൈ ݐݏܥݒ݈݁ܽݎܶ כ ݏݐ݁݇ݎ݄ܽ݉ݏ݂݅ݎݐ݂݂݈ܽ݊ܿ݁݁݁ݐƬݎ݉ܫ
The consumer surplus associated with seeing the fishing fleet or fish market for the entire sample (excluding Mooloolaba residents and outliers) was significant at a 5% level. This indicates that the maximum value of seeing the fishing fleet/fish market was $39.41 per trip. Although the consumer surplus for the sub-sample that knew about the fishing industry before their trip was not significant, the implied consumer surplus associated with seeing the fishing fleet or fish market was $29.66. As the estimates between the entire sample and the sub-sample that knew about the fishing industry were similar in magnitude, this does not suggest that the those who knew about the fishing industry prior to their trip value the fishing industry less. Rather this appears to be a consequence of a smaller sample size when estimating the model using the sub-sample.
Effect of importance of being able to eat freshly caught local seafood As stated above, a separate model was estimated to capture the effect of the importance of being able to eat freshly caught local seafood on trips to Mooloolaba. The dependent variable was again the unadjusted trip number but weighted by 1/(trip number) to remove the effect of endogenous stratification (Shi & Huang, 2018). In this model a variable was added to represent the importance of being able to eat locally caught seafood. This variable was also interacted with the travel cost variable to create the ‘Importance of seafood*Travel Cost’ variable. As the interaction variable ‘Importance of seafood*Travel Cost’ was found to be correlated with the travel cost
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 91 variable, the travel cost variable was removed from the model. Other variables which were not significant (as seen in Model 2 - Table 4-9) were iteratively removed from the model. The reduced form of this model is seen in Table 4-12.
This model (Model 4) was also estimated twice. The model was first estimated using all respondents removing outliers (those who travelled 1000km or more) and Mooloolaba residents (see Table 4-12 Model 4(a)). The model was then estimated using the sub-sample who were aware of the fishing industry before their trip and those who travelled less than 1000km (see Table 4-12 Model 4(b)). Again, this model also excluded Mooloolaba residents.
Table 4-12. Negative binomial model – importance of seafood
Model 4(b): all respondents Model 4(a): all respondents (excluding Mooloolaba (excluding Mooloolaba residents) who travelled less than residents) who travelled less than 1000km and knew of the fishing 1000km industry before their trip Est S.E Sig Est S.E Sig Intercept 1.337 0.526 * 1.694 0.735 * Importance of seafood 0.836 0.507 + 1.111 0.751 Importance of seafood*Travel Cost -0.018 0.010 + -0.039 0.021 + International -1.320 0.421 ** -1.680 0.603 ** Interstate -1.119 0.505 * -1.690 0.773 * Mooloolaba Spit -0.665 0.454 -0.563 0.636 Related fishing industry connections 0.612 0.443 0.827 0.607 Theta 1.764 0.461 *** 1.529 0.535 ** AIC 233.19 129.72 2 x log-likelihood -217.19 -113.718 CS for seafood 45.30 27.090 + 28.16 18.53 ***, **, *, + = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
The dispersion parameter (theta) for both Model 4(a) and Model 4(b) was significantly different to zero, thus indicating the appropriate model form (negative binomial). The variable representing the importance of being able to eat freshly caught seafood from the local fishing fleet to the respondent’s trip was positive and significant at a 10% level for Model 4(a). This indicates that the more important locally caught seafood is to the respondent, the more likely they are to visit Mooloolaba. However, the importance of seafood variable was not significant for Model 4(b).
92 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism The coefficient for the interstate and international visitor dummy variables were negative and significant for both Model 4(a) and 4(b). This again indicates that interstate and international visitors were less likely to visit Mooloolaba. Arguably this can be attributed to the expectation that those living further away are less likely to visit.
In both Model 4(a) and Model 4(b), the interaction variable ‘Importance of seafood*Travel Cost’ was negative and significant. The consumer surplus attributed to locally caught seafood was calculated as follows:
݂݀ܽ݁ݏݐ݂ܽ݊ܿ݁ݎ݉ܫ ܥ݂ܵݎ݈݈ܿܽݏ݂݁ܽ݀ ൌ െͳ ൈ ݐݏݒ݈݁ܿܽݎܶ כ ݂݀ܽ݁ݏݐ݂ܽ݊ܿ݁ݎ݉ܫ
Here it is seen that the maximum consumer surplus attributed to eating locally caught seafood for the entire sample was valued at $45.30 (significant at the 10% level). The consumer surplus attributed to eating locally caught seafood for the group who were aware of the fishing industry before their trip to Mooloolaba was significant at the 13% level. This implies a maximum consumer surplus of $28.16 for this group.
Distribution of consumer surplus To gain a deeper understanding of what value was held for each of these activities, the distribution of consumer surplus was also examined. More specifically, the distribution of consumer surplus attributable to seeing the fleet and fish market was examined in comparison to the distribution of consumer surplus attributable to locally caught seafood. This analysis was conducted for both the entire sample (see Figure 4-16) and the subset of the sample whom had prior knowledge of the fishing industry before their trip (see Figure 4-17).
Here it is seen that the consumer surplus attributable to eating seafood was much higher than the consumer surplus attributable to seeing the fishing fleet/ fish market. Similar results were found for both the entire sample and for the subset of the sample whom had prior knowledge of the fishing industry before their trip.
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 93 Figure 4-16. Distribution of consumer surplus for entire sample (excluding Mooloolaba residents and outliers)
Figure 4-17. Distribution of consumer surplus for sub-sample whom had prior knowledge of the fishing industry before their trip (excluding Mooloolaba residents and outliers)
94 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 4.6.3 Approach 2: Contingent behaviour travel cost model Before estimating the contingent behaviour travel cost models, additional analysis was undertaken to check the response of individuals to the scenario of there being no fishing fleet in Mooloolaba and no seafood available in Mooloolaba. For the first model, the dependent variable was called ‘nofish1’. This variable represents the number of trips that would be taken by the respondent in future if there was no fishing industry in Mooloolaba. Trips were scaled on a 0 to 1 basis, with the resulting number of trips being represented by the remaining percentage of trips that would be taken. For example, if a respondent indicated they would decrease their future trips by 10% due to there being no fishing industry in the area, the resulting number of trips would be 0.90. Where the answer indicated a percentage range (e.g. decrease by 30-40%), the average of this range (35%) was used to calculate the remaining trips (i.e. 0.65). This model was estimated as a tobit model.
For the second model, the dependent variable was called ‘noeat’ and was used to represent the number of trips that would be taken by the respondent in the future if there was no locally caught seafood available in the area. The resulting trips were scaled in the same manner as the ‘nofish1’ variable. A tobit model was also used in this case.
Both models were regressed over the subset of the sample who knew of the industry before their trip. Both models also excluded Mooloolaba residents from the sample. For both models, variables which were found to be not significant were iteratively removed. The results of each model are displayed in Table 4-13 and Table 4-14 below.
As seen in Table 4-13, the importance of seeing the fishing fleet and/or fish markets variable was negative and significant. This indicates that the more important it is to the respondent to see the fishing fleet/ fish market, the less likely they are to visit Mooloolaba if there was no fishing industry in the town. Respondents who had connections to related fishing industry or were travelling in large groups were less likely to visit Mooloolaba if there was no fishing industry in the town. Conversely, it is seen that interstate visitors and members of an environmental organisation were still likely to visit even if there were no fishing industry in the town.
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 95 Table 4-13. Tobit model checking response to no fishing industry (nofish1)
Estimate S.E. Sig Intercept 1.0251 0.0592 *** Interstate 0.1644 0.0713 * Number of adults in travel party -0.0406 0.0236 + Importance of fishing fleet/fish markets -0.1387 0.0579 * Related fishing industry connections -0.1761 0.0539 ** Member of an environmental organisation 0.1408 0.0605 * Log(scale) -1.5999 0.0743 *** AIC -9.4427 Log-likelihood 11.72 on 7 Df Wald-statistic 26.32 on 5 Df, p-value: 0.00007 ***,**,*,+ = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
The results of the reduced form tobit model which was used to check the response to no locally caught seafood in the area can be seen in Table 4-14. Here it is seen that all of the residential dummy variables were positive and significant. This indicates that respondents of other Queensland, interstate and international residence were still likely to visit even if there was no locally caught seafood in the area. The importance of seafood variable is negative and significant. This indicates that those whom valued eating locally caught seafood were less likely to visit Mooloolaba if there was no locally caught seafood available in the area. Similarly, those with higher incomes, travelling in a large group or had connections to commercial fisheries were also found to reduce the number of trips if no locally caught seafood was available in the area.
96 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism Table 4-14. Tobit model checking response to no seafood (noeat)
Estimate S.E Sig Intercept 1.0910 0.0720 *** OthQld 0.0953 0.0485 * Interstate 0.2095 0.0713 ** International 0.1618 0.0761 * income2 -0.0007 0.0003 * Number of adults in travel party -0.0667 0.0248 ** Importance of seafood -0.1464 0.0637 * Commercial fisher connections -0.1418 0.0598 * Log(scale) -1.6629 0.0735 *** AIC -20.9903 Log-likelihood 19.5 on 9 Df Wald-statistic 32.05 on 7 Df, p-value: 0.00004 ***,**,*,+ = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
The models above indicate that there is a relationship between the number of trips taken to Mooloolaba and the importance of seeing the fleet and or fish market and eating locally caught seafood. To gain a better understanding of the relationship between these variables, two scatter plots were generated (see Figure 4-18).
As expected, there is a negative relationship between the importance of seeing the fishing fleet/ fish market to the decision to visit and the number of trips taken in response to there being no local fishing industry in the area (correlation coefficient of -0.214). Similarly, there is also a negative relationship between the importance of seafood to the decision to visit and the number of trips taken in relation to there being no locally caught seafood available in the area (correlation coefficient of -0.263).
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 97 Figure 4-18. Scatter plot of response to no fishing industry and importance of seeing the fishing fleet/fish markets to the decision to visit AND scatter plot of response to no seafood and importance of seafood to the decision to visit.
The blue line represents the expected relationship between these variables; whereas the red line represents the line of fit for the actual relationship
After confirming the relationship between the change in behaviour (decrease in the number of trips) and the importance of seeing the fleet/ fish markets and the importance of seafood to the decision to visit, contingent behaviour travel cost models were estimated. The results of these models are outlined below.
Contingent behaviour travel cost model 1: no fishing industry or local seafood In this model, the value of visiting Mooloolaba and the value of the fishing industry were examined. The dependent variable was the change in number of trips if the fishing fleet or fresh local seafood were not available in the area. As each respondent had three data points (i.e. baseline, without fishing industry and without seafood), individual effects not captured by the variables in the model needed to be
98 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism accounted for. The models were estimated using the ‘pglm’ package (Croissant, 2017) in R (R Core Team, 2018) to take account of the panel data structure of the contingent behaviour data, estimating a negative binomial model with random effects9. The dependent variable was again weighted by 1/(trip number) to remove the effect of endogenous stratification (Shi & Huang, 2018).
Only those who knew about the fishing industry before their trip were included in this model. Respondents who travelled 1000km or more, were again considered as outliers and were excluded from estimation. Mooloolaba residents were also excluded from estimation. Like the other models, variables which were found not significant were iteratively dropped from the model. The results of the model are seen in Table 4-15 below:
Table 4-15 Approach 2 Contingent behaviour travel cost model – no fishing industry or seafood Estimate S.E. Sig Intercept 4.3474 0.2836 *** Travel cost -0.0201 0.0060 *** International -2.0512 0.4952 *** No fishing industry dummy -0.1480 0.0385 *** No seafood dummy -0.2111 0.0391 *** a 2.0782 0.4162 *** b 0.7887 0.1175 *** AIC 1843.892 Log-Likelihood -914.946 CS for trip $49.76 14.9109 *** Δ CS for fleet -$7.36 2.922 * Δ CS for seafood -$10.51 3.6601 ** ***,**,*,+ = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
9 Fixed effects specifications were also tested but random effects were found to be the appropriate assumption.
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 99 In this model, travel cost was negative and significant at a 0.1% level. The international dummy variable was negative and significant, indicating international visitors made fewer trips to Mooloolaba than other visitors.
The consumer surplus associated with a trip to Mooloolaba was found to be $49.76 per trip. Both contingent behaviour dummy variables were significant. This indicates if there was no fishing industry in Mooloolaba, the consumer surplus value for the trip would be approximately $7.36 lower and if there was no local seafood available in Mooloolaba, this value would be approximately $10.51 lower.
The parameters ‘a’ and ‘b’ are the parameters of the Beta distribution (Hausman, Hall, & Griliches, 1984). The beta distribution is representative of the probability distribution of the fixed effects component (i.e. the individual respondent effect) ఈ (Hausman et al., 1984). Here the mean of these two parameters = 0.73. This ఈାఉ indicates in the absence of any additional data, on average the removal of the fishing industry and seafood from the area would result in a 27% reduction in the days visiting Mooloolaba.
Contingent behaviour travel cost model 2: influence of new knowledge of fishing industry and local seafood
An attempt was made to estimate a second contingent behaviour travel cost model to capture the influence of new knowledge of the fishing industry and availability of local seafood on trip behaviour. The attempt was made using the sub- sample who were not aware of the fishing industry before their trip. However, given the size of this sub-sample and the little variation in the response to this knowledge (due to the rounding of trips, this only resulted in one trip rounding up to two trips), this model could not be estimated.
Testing the characteristics of respondents who indicated no change in trip behaviour if there was no fishing industry or seafood in the area
For completeness, the characteristics of respondents who indicated they would still go to Mooloolaba even if there were no fishing industry or seafood in the area was tested using two probit models. The first model was used to capture the characteristics
100 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism of respondents who indicated no change to the number of trips to Mooloolaba even if there was no fishing industry in the area. The second model was used to capture the characteristics of respondents who indicated they would still go to Mooloolaba even if there was no seafood in the area. Mooloolaba residents were again excluded from both models. The results these two models are shown below.
With respect to the first model (see Table 4-16), it is seen that respondents with connections to any commercial fishing industry are less likely to go to Mooloolaba if there was no fishing industry in the area (significant at 5% level). More specifically, if the respondent has connections to a commercial fishing industry, they are approximately 41% less likely to go to Mooloolaba if there was no fishing industry in the area.
Respondents who identify as being part of an environmental organisation are more likely to go to Mooloolaba if there was no fishing industry in the area (significant at 10% level). As per the calculated average marginal effect, it is seen that those who identify as being part of an environmental organisation are 25% more likely to go to Mooloolaba if there was no fishing industry in the area.
Table 4-16 Probit model testing testing characteristics of respondents who stated 'no change' to trips if no fishing industry present Estimate S.E. Sig Ave Marg Eff Intercept 1.5145 0.5437 ** 0.4553 Other Queensland resident 0.0074 0.3566 0.0022 Interstate 6.4602 270.9149 1.9422 International 0.2490 0.5673 0.0749 Income2 -0.0029 0.0021 -0.00009 Adults in party -0.2893 0.1831 -0.0870 Satisfaction with seeing boats -0.0071 0.0186 -0.0021 Importance of seeing boats/fish markets -0.7700 0.5963 -0.2315 Commercial fishing connections -1.3724 0.6298 * -0.4126 Related fishing connections -0.0636 0.4594 -0.0191 Recreational fisher 0.2470 0.3454 0.0742 Member of an environmental organisation 0.8436 0.4956 + 0.2562 AIC 123.5738 ***,**,*,+ = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 101 With respect to the second model (see Table 4-17), it is seen that respondents with higher incomes and those who value eating locally caught seafood are less likely to go to Mooloolaba if there is no seafood in the area. With respect to the average marginal effect for income, it is seen that for every $1000 increase in income, a respondent is 0.14% less likely to go to Mooloolaba if there is no local seafood available in the area. Furthermore, if the respondent highly values eating locally caught seafood, on average the respondent would be 46% less likely to go to Mooloolaba if there were no seafood in the area. With respect to the residential dummy variables, it is seen that interstate visitors were 36% more likely to go to Mooloolaba even if there was no seafood in the area. Anecdotal evidence from the surveys suggests that some holiday makers from interstate were repeat holiday makers and hence they would still visit Mooloolaba regardless of whether the fishing industry was there or not.
Table 4-17 Probit model testing testing characteristics of respondents who stated 'no change' to trips if no seafood present Estimate S.E Sig Ave Marg Eff Intercept 1.7872 0.6524 ** 0.6073 Other Queensland resident 0.1391 0.3558 0.0472 Interstate 1.0782 0.5348 * 0.3664 International 0.2098 0.5420 0.0713 Income2 -0.0041 0.0022 + -0.0014 Adults in party -0.1852 0.1819 -0.0629 Satisfaction with seafood -0.0013 0.0105 -0.0005 Importance of eating seafood -1.3632 0.5625 * -0.4632 Commercial fishing connections 0.0217 0.5083 0.0074 Related fishing connections -0.1655 0.4318 -0.0562 Recreational fisher -0.0002 0.3020 -0.0001 Member of an environmental organisation -0.1841 0.4234 -0.0626 AIC 136.07 ***,**,*,+ = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
4.7 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This study is the first study to examine what value is placed on the existence of the fishing industry and the experience of eating locally caught seafood by day trippers and holiday makers in Mooloolaba. It is also the first study to utilise the travel cost method to value these experiences. The results of this study indicate that the local fishing industry and ability to eat local seafood caught by the local fleet is contributing positive values to tourism in Mooloolaba. The results of the models indicate that the
102 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism more the respondent values seeing the local fishing fleet and or fish market, the more likely they are to visit Mooloolaba. Similarly, the more the respondent values the ability to eat local seafood caught by the fleet, the more likely they are to visit Mooloolaba. In quantifying this, it was found that the consumers surplus which is attributed to seeing the local fleet/fish markets was $39.41 (see Table 4-11) while the consumer surplus attributed to being able to eat locally caught seafood was $45.30 (see Table 4-12).
The value of the local fishing industry and locally caught seafood to tourism was also confirmed through the use of a contingent behaviour travel cost model. The results of the contingent behaviour travel cost model (see Table 4-15) indicate that if the fishing industry and local seafood were removed from the area, a loss of welfare would result. That is, the consumer surplus attributed to a trip to Mooloolaba (valued at $49.76) would decrease by approximately $7.36 if the fishing industry was to disappear from the area. Similarly, the consumer surplus attributed to a trip to Mooloolaba would decrease by approximately $10.51 if there was no locally caught seafood available in the area.
The results of the contingent behaviour questions indicate that approximately 40% of respondents would decrease their visitation rate by some amount if no fishing industry was present in Mooloolaba (see Figure 4-10). Similarly, approximately 49% of respondents indicated that they would also decrease their visitation rate to Mooloolaba by some amount if there was no locally caught seafood available in Mooloolaba (see Figure 4-11). Under the contingent behaviour travel cost model (see Table 4-15), there would be a reduction in the days visiting Mooloolaba by approximately 27% as a result of the removal of the local fishing industry and ability to eat locally caught seafood. While the actual magnitude of the reduction is uncertain, and differs from approach to approach undertaken, what is consistent is that visitor numbers would decrease if the fishing industry or seafood were to disappear from the area.
In both of the travel cost approaches that were estimated, it became clear that seafood was more valued by tourists than the fishing industry. When checking the current use of activities involving the fishing industry and seafood, it was found that almost half of respondents had eaten or had plans to eat seafood on the day of the survey, however only 15% had plans to see the local fishing fleet (see Table 4-5). This
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 103 may be indicative of the fact that seeing the fishing industry itself is not currently perceived as a major tourist attraction in Mooloolaba; whereas seafood is at the forefront of tourism activities. That is, seafood is readily available from the wide variety of cafés, restaurants and bars along Mooloolaba Esplanade and the Mooloolaba Spit.
The qualitative data obtained in this study also indicates that seeing the local fishing fleet would increase interest in eating locally caught fish. The main themes arising in responses related to visual confirmation that the seafood was locally caught and a desire to support the local industry. These responses align with reasons of consumer ethnocentrism and gaining a sense of authenticity in food consumption (i.e. knowing it is locally caught and not imported) (Bianchi & Mortimer, 2015; Björk & Kauppinen-Räisänen, 2016). This indicates that the fishing industry may benefit from expanding into other tourism activities which involve some direct interaction with tourists (e.g. selling direct off the boat or pescatourism) (Piasecki et al., 2016). This will be further explored in Chapter 8 of the thesis.
Respondents also indicated that they were more willing to purchase locally caught fish in future (at home or while on holiday), given their experience in Mooloolaba. Respondents were generally happy with their local seafood purchases whilst on holiday in Mooloolaba citing a noticeable difference in taste and freshness when buying seafood from the source as opposed to purchasing seafood from the supermarket. An acknowledgement of supporting the local industry was again cited as a key reason for continuing to purchase locally caught seafood in future. Given this, although it is currently not mandatory for food establishments which prepare seafood for immediate consumption to label their seafood with the country of origin (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 2019); they may benefit from the introduction of local labelling (e.g. on sign boards or menus). There may also be an opportunity for Mooloolaba to improve its marketing of the role of the local fishing industry and fresh seafood experiences.
This study was also subject to certain limitations. In this study a difficulty was encountered with collection of data due to a low response rate and delays caused by weather. The low response rate (approximately 20%) may have been caused due to an aversion of respondents to people in uniform with clipboards. To further increase the sample size, more research assistants were recruited to assist with data collection.
104 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism Multiple trips to Mooloolaba were also planned to counter days missed due to bad weather.
Moreover, given that the survey was conducted on site, the questions posed to the respondent needed to be short and succinct for the respondent to retain interest and complete the survey. Further studies may wish to extend upon this study by controlling for other variables which may explain trip behaviour. For example, the importance of other specific activities undertaken by day/trippers and holiday makers during their trip. Furthermore it may be useful to gain more information with respect to habit formation and travel (Björk & Jansson, 2008). That is, discussions with some respondents indicated they regularly visit Mooloolaba given it is their closest area of recreation or they continually have visited Mooloolaba as a holiday destination since their childhood. Habit formation is important, but further work needs to be done with respect to how this would be measured or factored into travel cost.
During the open ended questioning with respect to plans for the day, some respondents indicated they were spending time with family and friends, however it was not clear if the respondent were visiting their family/friends in Mooloolaba (or the Sunshine Coast) or if they had travelled with the respondent. Future studies may therefore wish to control for whether respondents have family or friends within the area.
Future studies may also benefit from gaining more information with respect to the type of method of transportation to Mooloolaba (e.g. walking, car, bus, train or yacht) as this would give a more accurate representation of the opportunity cost of time and monetary cost of travel. A longer survey could be implemented if it were to be conducted online or mailed to the respondents to be completed at a later date, however issues with respect to off-site sampling should also be considered (e.g. how the sample is targeted, response rate, cost etc) (Parsons, 2003).
The results of this study examined one coastal holiday site in the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, Australia. While the results are indicative that the fishing and seafood industries contribute a positive value to tourism, similar studies could be conducted in other coastal regions in Queensland or across Australia.
Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism 105 106 Chapter 4: The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism PART III: THE PURCHASING HABITS AND PREFERENCES OF QUEENSLAND CONSUMERS FOR LOCAL FISH
107
Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Australian seafood (inclusive of fish, crustaceans and molluscs) consumption has mostly increased, particularly in the last two decades (IBISWorld, 2019). However over the same period, Australian seafood production has decreased, primarily from wild caught fisheries (Australian Government Department of Agriculture, 2015), resulting in an increased reliance on imports to meet the domestic demand. The increasing availability of imported seafood products is placing downward pressure on prices, which for some Australian fisheries has contributed to the production decline. The industry is seeking ways of improving its economic viability in the face of these external pressures. At the same time, interest in locally produced product is emerging as a consumer trend in agriculture for a number of reasons. The interest in local food suggests that there may be opportunities for the fishing industry to increase the demand for local seafood, however this requires an understanding of the current demand for local seafood, inclusive of consumption preferences and perceptions regarding local seafood.
The chapter begins by providing an overview of Australian seafood consumption (section 5.2), followed by an outline of Australian country of origin labelling requirements with respect to seafood (section 5.3). The next section of the chapter gives a general review of what factors drive and deter seafood consumption (section 5.4). Section 5.5 outlines the aims of studies 3 and 4 which examine the purchasing habits and preferences, as well as the willingness to pay of Queensland consumers for local fish respectively. The survey and data used for these studies is described in section 5.6. The demographics of the sample are outlined in section 5.7. The chapter concludes by providing a summary (section 5.8) of the chapter, inclusive of how the next two studies in chapters 6 and 7 will address the gaps in the literature.
Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood 109 5.2 OVERVIEW OF AUSTRALIAN SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION
The Australian per capita consumption of seafood has trended upwards since the mid-1990s, peaking in 2003-04, at 28 kg per capita per year (IBISWorld, 2019). As consumers become more health conscious, this may lead to increased consumption of healthier forms of protein inclusive of fish and seafood (IBISWorld, 2019). The preference for the form of seafood product has also changed, with an increasing number of consumers purchasing high-value fresh seafood as opposed to processed seafood (e.g. calamari rings). The change in demand is partly attributed to the rise in television cooking shows which promote the use of premium ingredients such as high value Australian seafood (IBISWorld, 2019).
Sources of seafood production in Australia include wild capture fisheries and aquaculture (Australian Government Department of Agriculture, 2015). In 2016-17, the commercial fishing industry and aquaculture production was valued at $3.06 billion (Mobsby, 2018). In comparison to other countries, the amount produced in wild capture fisheries is limited due to low productivity in Australian marine waters (Australian Government Department of Agriculture, 2015). The reduction in wild caught production between 2006 – 07 to 2013-14 was mainly attributed to a decrease in the amount of landed finfish. This was caused by a reduction in the total allowable catches for various species; increased import competition due to the high value of the Australian dollar; as well as increased input costs (Mobsby, 2018). Although wild caught production volume increased by 14% in 2015-16 (174, 247 tonnes); production declined in 2016-17 by 5% to 166,022 tonnes. This decline was again caused by a reduction in finfish catch (Mobsby, 2018).
In contrast to the wild catch fishery production, Australian aquaculture production has increased by 53% between the 2006-07 and 2016-17 reaching 93,968 tonnes (Mobsby, 2018). The increase in production value of aquaculture is largely attributed to the rise in Tasmanian salmonid production; though other valuable aquaculture products include southern bluefin tuna, edible oysters and prawns (Mobsby, 2018). Despite the increase in aquaculture production, in 2016-17 a significant proportion (63%) of Australia’s total apparent consumption of seafood was from imported seafood products (Mobsby, 2018). Future projections indicate that an increase in imported seafood will still be required to meet the growing demand for seafood in Australia (IBISWorld, 2019).
110 Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood 5.3 AUSTRALIAN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING REQUIREMENTS AND SEAFOOD
The interest in local food has also brought to light issues with respect to seafood labelling in Australia. Prior to the introduction of the new standard for food labelling as of 1 July 2016 (Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard (Cth), 2016), food labelling laws in Australia were only governed by the ‘Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code’, developed and maintained by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2015). Compliance and enforcement with the code lies with the relevant departments of each State and Territory of Australia (however regulation of imported food is handled by the Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources) and the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries (Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2015). The code outlined requirements with respect to the country of origin labelling for packaged and unpackaged food and did not provide any such requirements for food that was sold for immediate consumption. Thus, while a fresh fish (e.g. sold at a supermarket or fish monger) is required to be labelled with its country of origin, cooked or pre-prepared fish which is sold at outlets for immediate consumption (e.g. cooked fish sold at a restaurant or fish and chip shop) need not have such labelling. Moreover, there is also the issue of the inconsistency of fish names on products. That is, while the Australian Fish Names Standard has been created (Fisheries Research & Development Corporation, 2013), use of the Australian Fish Names Standard is not mandatory (Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, 2014).
Concerns with respect to seafood labelling triggered the “Label My Fish” campaign. The campaign advocated for the Australian Government to change current seafood labelling laws such that the label should indicate the species of the fish, where the fish was caught, as well as the method used in catching the fish or farming (Greenpeace Australia Pacific Limited, 2014). This concern for fish and seafood labelling led to a 2014 Senate inquiry regarding the “Current requirements for labelling of seafood and seafood products” (Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, 2014). Following the inquiry, the Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015 (Cth)) was introduced to Parliament on 26 March 2015.
Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood 111 The Bill was intended to give effect to the recommendations of the Senate inquiry to ensure that country of origin labelling was also applied to fish which was sold for immediate consumption ("Explanatory Memorandum, Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill ", 2015). However, the second reading of the Bill was negatived on 12 August 2015 (Parliament of Australia, n.d.).
New labelling requirements came into effect on 1 July 2016 under the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard (Cth) (2016). The country of origin labelling requirements were removed from the Food Standards code on 1 July 2018 through Proposal P1041, such that these labelling requirements are now under the jurisdiction of Australian Consumer Law (Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2018). Like the ‘Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code’, the new standard requires that packaged and unpackaged food be labelled with country of origin labelling. The new standard differs from the old Food Standards code requirements as it requires a specific indication of what food was grown, produced, made or packaged in Australia, as well as if the food was grown, produced, made or packaged in another country (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 2019). The green and gold kangaroo logo is now required to indicate if the food was grown, produced or made from Australian ingredients. The standard requires an indication on the label of what proportion (measured by ingoing weight) of ingredients were grown, produced or made in Australia (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 2019). These labelling requirements were made mandatory on 1 July 2018, giving businesses two years to adjust from the introduction of new labelling laws in 2016 (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 2019). However, despite these new changes, the country of origin labelling still does not apply to food which is to be sold for immediate consumption (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 2019). Furthermore, like the country of origin labelling requirements in the ‘Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code’, it appears that any reference to ‘local’ ingredients in the new standard refers to an indication of whether the food was produced in Australia (i.e. it remains at a country level), but not at a regional level.
112 Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood 5.4 DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION
The majority of seafood studies have concentrated on consumer preferences in Europe and the US. Some research has been conducted with respect to Australian seafood preferences, however this body of knowledge is still growing. A general outline of the main drivers and barriers to seafood consumption are outlined below.
5.4.1.1 Drivers of seafood consumption
Health benefits: One commonly cited driver of seafood consumption are the health benefits associated with consuming seafood. As per the recommendation of the National Heart Foundation of Australia, Australian adults are encouraged to consume two to three serves of fish a week as part of a healthy diet (National Heart Foundation of Australia, 2008). As fish and seafood contains high levels of omega-3 fats, the consumption of seafood can assist in lowering the possibility of contracting heart disease and stroke (National Heart Foundation of Australia, 2008). Rising health consciousness is also expected to increase the consumption of fish and seafood in Australia (IBISWorld, 2019). Various studies have also confirmed that consumers purchase seafood due to the known health benefits associated with consumption (Olsen, 2004; Pieniak, Verbeke, Scholderer, Brunsø, & Olsen, 2008). With respect to Australian consumers, Birch et al. (2012) found that 61% of respondents consumed fresh chilled seafood as it is high in Omega 3 and 58% of respondents did so as it was perceived as being low in fat. Gaining variety in the diet was also found to be a key driver for seafood consumption (Birch et al., 2012; Olsen, 2004). Quality: The quality of seafood can significantly influence a consumer’s decision to purchase seafood. Several attributes can be used to judge the quality of seafood. These can include, but are not limited to: physical appearance, taste, smell, feel of the seafood product, use by dates, country of origin and whether the product was farmed or wild caught (Brunsø, Verbeke, Olsen, & Jeppesen, 2009). McManus et al. (2014) found that Australian consumers had difficulty assessing the freshness and quality of seafood, however indicated an intention to increase their consumption of seafood provided their confidence in assessing the quality of the product could be increased. One common way consumers judge the quality of seafood is by whether the seafood product is sold fresh (chilled on ice) or frozen (Olsen, 2004). Although cheaper seafood options are available in Australia, fresh fish and seafood is consumed more than the frozen or tinned alternatives. That is, according to the survey of
Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood 113 Australian main grocery buyers (Intuitive Solutions, 2019), approximately 92% of the sample ate fresh fish and seafood, while 87% and 86% of consumers ate frozen or tinned seafood products respectively. Taste and preferences: Liking the taste of seafood was found to be a major reason for seafood consumption in Australia (Danenberg & Mueller, 2011). In Belgium, frequent consumers of fish are more influenced to buy fish based on its taste, than the perceived health benefits of consuming fish (Brunsø et al., 2009). Each region also has its own preferences for particular types of seafood. For example, in Australia, frequently consumed types of fish include tuna, salmon and trout (IBISWorld, 2019), whereas in the US, consumers have shown a preference for shrimp, salmon, canned tuna, catfish and tilapia (Shamshak, Anderson, Asche, Garlock, & Love, 2019). Luxury/ high value seafood consumption: Some consumers have also shown preference for luxury or high value seafood. The demand for seafood is particularly strong in China, especially for high value seafood products such as live reef food fish and sea cucumbers (Fabinyi, 2016). The demand for high end seafood products in the Chinese market is driven by historical, social and cultural aspects of China (Fabinyi, 2011). Given the interest of Chinese consumers for seafood, it is seen that Chinese tourists have undertaken some seafood-based tourism when visiting Australia. For example, Barclay et al. (2016) found that Chinese tour groups were the second largest market for a land-based aquaculture farm. With respect to Australian consumers, it is seen that there has been an increase in taste for higher value seafood products such as Atlantic salmon and oysters (IBISWorld, 2019). Over recent years, the demand for abalone in the Australian domestic market has also increased due to purchases from local restaurants (NSW Total Allowable Fishing Committee, 2018). Domestic demand for lobster also exists, with the Sydney Fish Market selling 38% of New South Wales rock lobster landings in 2018-19. The Sydney Fish market is considered the largest market for New South Wales rock lobster (NSW Total Allowable Fishing Committee, 2020). However, while an Australian domestic market for higher end seafood products such as abalone and rock lobster do exist, these markets are still largely export oriented (NSW Total Allowable Fishing Committee, 2018, 2020). Sustainability and environmental concerns: Sustainability and environmental concerns have also been credited as influencing a consumer’s choice of seafood. For example, there is evidence to suggest that Swedish consumers are willing to pay a
114 Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood substantially higher price for seafood which is certified as sustainable (Blomquist, Bartolino, & Waldo, 2015). Similarly, Japanese consumers were also willing to pay a 20% premium for Marine Stewardship Council ecolabelled salmon (Uchida, Roheim, Wakamatsu, & Anderson, 2014). Consumers in the London metropolitan area were also willing to pay a premium for frozen Alaska pollock products which were MSC certified (Roheim, Asche, & Santos, 2011). While there are some studies which indicate sustainability and/or ecolabels are valuable to consumers, other studies have indicated that the presence of ecolabels or sustainability information may not always be enough to encourage consumers to buy environmentally friendly products. One study found that while sustainability is important to chefs from Perth, Sydney and Brisbane, they are generally more concerned with the consistent supply and quality of seafood (Lawley & Howieson, 2014). Previous Australian consumer studies have indicated similar sentiment from consumers. That is, the sustainability label had little impact on the decision of Australian consumers to purchase seafood (Danenberg & Remaud, 2010; Lawley, 2015). Similarly, consumers from Connecticut may not be willing to sacrifice their favourite seafood products for the sake of an ecolabel (Johnston & Roheim, 2006). The inability of the ecolabel to fully deter consumers from purchasing unsustainable seafood, suggests that such labels may need revision to properly convey the importance of sustainable food practices (Gutierrez & Thornton, 2014). Season: Another driver of seafood consumption is the season. Higher seafood consumption is generally associated with certain times of the year, such as Easter, Christmas and Lunar New Year. Such seafood consumption patterns are especially prevalent for Australian consumers during the holiday season. One study found that an increase in seafood consumption during these times is particularly strong for consumers located in inland Victoria, as opposed to Victorian coastal residents (Bose & Brown, 2000). Socio-demographic characteristics: Some individual characteristics which have been found to influence seafood consumption are: having a family, age and income/employment status. There is evidence to suggest that consumers will purchase seafood out of moral obligation to keep their families healthy (Olsen, 2001, 2004). Older consumers also increase their seafood consumption, though this is generally related to health benefits (Olsen, 2003). With respect to employment, it has been seen that an increase in the employed members of the household can increase the
Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood 115 opportunities to eat out, thereby increasing seafood consumption. Though, this can lead to decreased seafood consumption at home (Bose & Brown, 2000). In terms of residential location, consumers located closer to the ocean have been found to pay more for seafood (Cowley & Coulon, 2014; Lambert et al., 2008; Verbeke & Vackier, 2005).
5.4.1.2 Barriers to seafood consumption In contrast to the above, various factors have been identified which reduce seafood consumption. These include price, food safety, convenience and previous experience with seafood preparation, the availability of other types of protein and socio-demographic characteristics. These are outlined below.
Price: A barrier to seafood consumption is the price of seafood. Several studies have examined the effect of price on the decision to purchase seafood. Consistent with the law of demand, studies in Australia, the US and Europe have found that ceteris paribus, an increase in the price of the seafood product leads to a decrease in the quantity demanded (Australian Government Department of Agriculture, 2015; Chidmi, Hanson, & Nguyen, 2012; Olsen, 2004). In the Australian market, locally caught seafood has faced the challenge of competing with cheaper imported substitutes. The consequence of this being that Australian producers find it more profitable to export local product to foreign consumers (Australian Government Department of Agriculture, 2015). There has also been some contention with respect to how the price of seafood affects the individual’s purchasing decision. One study has shown that to account for this expense, consumers are likely to purchase seafood on a planned basis (Birch et al., 2012). Moreover, given the expectation that seafood is expected to be an expensive commodity, seafood which is priced too low may not attract customers as this may be a signal of lower quality (Birch et al., 2012).
Food safety: Perceptions that the seafood is unsafe to eat can act as a barrier to seafood consumption. A key issue to food safety generally relates to frozen seafood, especially if imported from another country. While there is generally an indication of freshness in the use-by date on frozen products, the length of time taken from when the seafood is caught, landed and delivered is usually untraceable (Sterling et al., 2015). With respect to farmed seafood, there may also be a concern regarding where and how the product was raised (e.g. use of antibiotics) and what precautions were
116 Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood taken to improve food safety (Ortega, Wang, & Olynk Widmar, 2014). For example, in Queensland, commercial prawn farms in the Logan river were affected by an outbreak of White Spot Syndrome Virus in December 2016 (Knibb, Le, Katouli, Bar, & Lloyd, 2018). One in three Australians were found to be concerned about the contamination of white spot disease in prawns. Consumers were mainly concerned about the health impacts with respect to consuming local prawns, the ability to purchase local prawns (sustainability issues) and the economic impact to the industry (Intuitive Solutions, 2017).
Convenience and previous experience with uncooked seafood preparation: The convenience of preparing seafood and previous experience with seafood have also been identified as potential barriers of seafood consumption. Convenience has generally been more problematic for light consumers (rarely consume seafood) than heavy consumers of seafood (avid consumers of seafood). In has been found that in Australia (Birch & Lawley, 2012), Belgium and Spain (Brunsø et al., 2009), light- weight consumers of seafood generally find the preparation of seafood confronting, whereas heavy consumers of seafood have more experience with preparation and tend to enjoy cooking seafood. A Norwegian study also found that younger consumers also find preparing seafood inconvenient (Olsen, 2003). Again, this may be linked to the limited experience of younger consumers in seafood preparation in comparison to older consumers (Olsen, 2003). However, this issue could also be linked to the inconvenience of preparing meals as working hours increase. Arguably the problem of inconvenience can be mitigated by selling seafood in pre-prepared/pre-packaged forms, whereby the product requires little preparation apart from the final stage of cooking (Birch et al., 2012). However, as the majority of such products are frozen, some consumers may be hesitant to buy the frozen pre-packaged product for fear of a lack of quality.
Availability of other types of protein: Another barrier to seafood consumption is the availability of other sources of protein. In Australia, the previous decline in seafood consumption was attributed to the price of seafood, as well as an increase in the availability of substitute products (i.e. meat) (IBISWorld, 2015). It has been found that beef, chicken and pork are consumed more so than seafood, however lamb and sheep meat are consumed less than seafood (Steven, Mobsby, & Curtotti, 2020). While seafood is consumed for its health benefits, it has been found that its consumption is
Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood 117 not as satisfying as the consumption of other sources of protein such as meat (Birch et al., 2012; Brunsø et al., 2009; Sterling et al., 2015). Some Australians studies have found that consumers may choose to purchase meat as opposed to seafood, as the quality of the meat may be easier to identify than that of seafood (Birch et al., 2012; McManus et al., 2014). However, seafood consumption may increase in Australia given the rise in health consciousness of Australians and the desire to eat leaner forms of protein (IBISWorld, 2019).
Socio-demographic characteristics: Some socio-demographic characteristics which have been found to significantly decrease the decision to buy seafood include, but are not limited to, type of household members and age. With respect to members of a household, it has been found that the presence of children or adolescents can significantly decrease the decision to purchase seafood (Birch & Lawley, 2012). As previously mentioned, there is evidence to suggest that in Norway (Olsen, 2003) and Belgium (Brunsø et al., 2009), some younger and less experienced seafood consumers find preparing seafood too time consuming and may therefore opt for more convenient food alternatives.
5.5 AIMS
The importance of local food has been widely researched in the fields of marketing, anthropology and sociology (Dodds et al., 2014; Hinrichs, 2000; Pratt, 2007). While several economic studies have attempted to quantify the value or willingness to pay for local food, these studies have mostly concentrated on local food in general (Toler et al., 2009), agricultural produce (Grebitus et al., 2013) or meat (Gracia, 2014). As seen above, many studies have identified the drivers and barriers for seafood consumption (Birch et al., 2012; Olsen, 2004), however the importance of origin to the consumer has only been examined on a broader ‘country of origin’ basis (e.g. Product of Australia) (Danenberg & Mueller, 2011; Danenberg & Remaud, 2010). That is, few studies have concentrated on the value (and reason behind) consuming local seafood (e.g. from a particular town or province). This may be attributed to the difficulty in defining what ‘local’ is, especially in the case of seafood (Coombs & LaBelle, 2014), as well as the lack of local or regional labelling requirements. This lack of understanding with respect to the perceptions, preferences
118 Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood and buying habits for local seafood led to the development for the third and fourth research questions of the thesis:
x What are the buying habits and purchasing preferences of local residents for local fish? x What value do local consumers attach to the ‘local’ aspect of fish, as opposed to other attributes and why?
Given the above, the aim of the third study of the thesis is to determine the buying habits and preferences of local residents for local fish in Queensland. The aim of the fourth study of the thesis is to ascertain the importance/willingness to pay for the attributes of origin, sustainability and freshness when purchasing fish in Queensland. As will be detailed later in the chapter, these research questions are answered in the subsequent chapters of the thesis (chapters 6 and 7 respectively).
5.6 SURVEY METHODS
Survey design:
The survey and data used for the third and fourth studies of the thesis was collected as part of the project funded by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC Project No 2013-301): Beyond GVP: The value of inshore commercial fisheries to fishers and consumers in regional communities on Queensland’s east coast (Pascoe et al., 2016). The survey received ethics clearance through the CSIRO Human Research Ethics Committee (Project 034/15). The aim of the survey was to ascertain the levels of Queensland consumption of fish and the importance of origin and sustainability when purchasing fish.
The survey was divided into three main sections. In the first section, consumers were asked questions in relation to how often they bought and consumed fish. In the second section, respondents were presented with the choice experiment relating to fresh barramundi fillets. In the last section, respondents were asked some general demographic questions.
To be eligible for this survey, the consumer needed to have eaten fish/ seafood in the last 12 months and be an adult (18 years and over) residing in Queensland. The first question in the survey was thus designed to separate fish/seafood eaters from those who did not eat fish/ seafood in the last 12 months. Consumers who did not eat seafood
Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood 119 internet). Respondents were also asked about the importance of buying locally caught or farmed fish, when purchasing fresh fish and to define their expected distance for fresh fish labelled as ‘local’. Consumers who indicated a preference for locally caught or farmed fish were asked to rate reasons for why they preferred to do so. From the literature, such reasons included the belief that it was fresher, that consuming local food reduces food miles (i.e. lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions) and is thus better for the environment and supporting the local seafood industry. In addition to this, respondents were also given the option of stating other reasons (in their own words) for purchasing locally caught or farmed fish. The final question in relation to fresh fish consumption was a determination of the types of fish that were bought from three main outlets (supermarket fresh fish counter, fisher monger/ boat (uncooked) and the internet).
The questions in relation to cooked fish were similar to that of fresh fish consumption. Questions related to the frequency of eating out, as well as eating fish at restaurants, cafes or fish and chip shops. Respondents were also asked to rank the importance of reasons for choosing to eat locally caught or farmed fish while eating out (i.e. fresher, food miles and supporting the local seafood industry), as well as the likelihood of purchasing fish while eating out if identified as locally caught or farmed. The final question in this section asked respondents to provide an estimate of what proportion of their meals that were (on average) of local or other origin (e.g. unknown, caught in Queensland, Australian etc).
Section 2: The choice experiment
Section 2 contained the choice experiment component of the survey. In this section, respondents were presented with a hypothetical scenario where respondents were to host a dinner for friends. Respondents were told that they had found a good recipe requiring fresh Barramundi fillets. In addition to this, respondents were also told that the scenario would only consider Australian wild caught Barramundi. Given this, respondents were told that they could choose to buy their fish from four local fish retailers, located side by side. The study was used to examine trade offs between four particular attributes: price, sustainability, freshness and origin. After completing the choice experiment, respondents were then asked follow up questions to check for potential bias and to verify they had understood the choice task.
Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood 121 Section 3: Demographic questions
In the third section of the survey, respondents were asked some general demographic questions. Such questions were included to check whether the group of respondents who took the survey was a representative sample of Queensland residents and to assist in explaining if these characteristics were influencing the choice of fish. Questions were in relation to: gender, age, number of people in the household, level of education completed, employment status and income. Respondents were also asked for their postcode and an estimate of how far they lived from the sea (in km). The questions in relation to geographic location were placed in the survey to (later) test if distance from the coastline had an impact on preferences for locally caught/ farmed fish. A few questions in relation to fishing were also placed in this section. This included asking whether the respondent was a recreational fisher and whether they work for a commercial fishing industry. Respondents were also asked if they were a member of an environmental conservation society or organisation. Before exiting the survey, respondents were also given an opportunity to give comments or raise any issues about the survey. The summary of demographic information is provided in the section below.
5.7 SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS
The participants of this study were Queensland residents (i.e. aged 18 years and over), whom identified themselves as consumers of fish/seafood in the last 12 months. Participants were sourced by the Online Research Unit (ORU), an online data collection agency. To gain accuracy in the response rate, a target sample of 1000 respondents was set. Given that the majority of responses would most likely be derived from respondents living in the Brisbane metropolitan area, the ORU was asked to target more non-metropolitan consumers while distributing the survey (Figure 5-2). Responses came from two main areas: (1) Brisbane and greater metropolitan areas (see pink area in Figure 5-2) and (2) the rest of Queensland whom mostly resided near the coastline (see red indicators Figure 5-2). The survey was conducted online in late March 2016, with a total of 1011 survey responses received. Respondents received an incentive for completing the survey which was determined by ORU. The results of the study were analysed using NLOGIT 6 (Econometric Software Inc, 2016).
122 Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%
Cumulative proportion Cumulative 20% 10% 0% 0 3 6 9 12 17 20 24 27 30 45 60 75 90 112 128 160 181 250 300 500 800 Distance from the coast (km)
Figure 5-8. Distance from the coastline (km)
Respondents were also asked if they were members of an environmental conservation society or organisation. The results indicate that only a small number of the sample (4%) were affiliated with an environmental conservation society or organisation.
The highest level of education completed by the sample is displayed in Figure 5-9. A small proportion of the sample indicated they did not complete high school, while approximately 21% of the sample did complete high school. The majority of the sample were either TAFE/Trade/Technical certificate holders or university graduates. A small proportion of the sample (10%) received a postgraduate education.
Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood 127 studies are undertaken. The sample demographics for these studies were provided in this chapter. In Chapter 6, the consumer preferences for cooked and uncooked fish are examined, as well as purchasing habits and perceptions of local fish. Chapter 7 of the thesis outlines the Barramundi choice experiment and provides an estimate of the consumers’ willingness to pay for the ‘local’ attribute of fish against wider origin attributes (i.e. Queensland and Australia), as well as the attributes of sustainability and freshness.
Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood 129 130 Chapter 5: Understanding the demands for local seafood Chapter 6: Consumer preferences and purchasing habits for local fish
6.1 INTRODUCTION
For the fishing and seafood industry to remain competitive in the growing retail market for seafood, the product being sold (seafood) must meet the needs of the consumer. Although various studies have been undertaken to identify factors which influence or deter the demand for seafood, such findings may be location specific and can also change over time. Consumers have their own tastes, attitudes and perceptions regarding seafood. Consumers may also differ with respect to how often they consume seafood and where they purchase seafood. Hence it is important for the fishing industry to identify consumer segments for seafood, as this allows for seafood to be positioned or sold in a manner which meets the needs of consumers and aligns to consumer preferences.
In Queensland, there is growing interest in improving returns to fishers through better connecting them with local consumers. This requires an understanding of the consumer base, namely their current purchasing behaviour, their preference for local fish and why they may have these preferences. For this study, the hypothesis is that Queensland consumers have a preference for local seafood. The aim of this study is to determine the buying habits and purchasing preferences of local residents for local fish. This corresponds to addressing the third research question of the thesis: What are the buying habits and purchasing preferences of local residents for local fish?
In this chapter the consumption patterns for local fish are examined. More specifically, section 6.2 outlines general consumption of seafood by the sample, followed by an examination of both uncooked (section 6.3) and cooked ( section 6.4) fish consumption. Section 6.5 then examines consumers perceptions with respect to the meaning of a local fish, as well as the importance and reasoning behind the purchase of local fish. The chapter concludes (section 6.6) by summarising and discussing the key results of this study.
131 6.2 SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION
The following section outlines the seafood consumption patterns of the sample. The response of the sample to the question determining their eligibility to complete the survey can be seen in Figure 6-1. That is, whether they ate fish/seafood in the last 12 months from the date of the survey (March 2016). It was found that the majority of the sample did eat fish/seafood (approximately 90%) (Figure 6-1).
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Proportion of sample % of sample Proportion 20% 10% 0% Did not eat fish/seafood in the Ate fish/seafood in the last 12 last 12 months months
Figure 6-1. Fish/Seafood consumption in the last 12 months
Respondents who indicated that they did eat fish/seafood in the last 12 months were then asked to identify the reason why they did so (see Figure 6-2). The results indicate that taste was the predominate factor for eating fish/seafood, followed closely by the ability to gain variety in the diet. Interestingly, health reasons only appealed to a third of those who ate fish/seafood, while less common reasons included eating fish/seafood as a special treat (e.g. for Easter, Christmas, New Year or Birthday) and to avoid red meat.
Similarly, respondents who stated they did not eat fish/seafood in the last year were asked to identify the reasons why they chose not to do so (Figure 6-3). The majority of responses indicated that the choice to avoid eating fish/seafood was because of the dislike of its taste. Other reasons included a specific lifestyle choice (either vegan or vegetarian) or the inability to eat fish/seafood due to allergies. Less common reasons cited for not eating fish/seafood included the price of seafood (too
132 Chapter 6: Consumer preferences and purchasing habits for local fish
35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Proportion of sample % of sample Proportion 0% 4-7 2-3 About About About About About 3About 2 About times a times a once a once once a 4-6 times times once a week week week every 2 month times a per per year weeks year year year Frequency of fish consumption
Figure 6-4. Frequency of fish consumption over the last 12 months
Respondents who ate fish/seafood were asked to specify the frequency of fish consumption over the last 12 months. As seen in Figure 6-4, fish consumption was generally moderate with approximately a third of the sample indicating that they ate fish about once per week. There also appears to be more occasional fish eaters (about once every 2 weeks to about once a month), then avid fish eaters (between 2-7 times per week). A small proportion of the sample claimed to eat fish sparsely (between 1 – 6 times per year).
6.3 UNCOOKED FISH CONSUMPTION (FILLETS OR WHOLE)
To get a more accurate profile of the consumption patterns of fish eaters, respondents were asked specific questions in relation to their purchase of fresh (uncooked) fish. That is, fish bought from a supermarket fish counter or fish monger in the form of either a whole fish or in fillet form. This excluded processed fish (e.g. fish fingers, crumbed fillets etc). The results of these consumption patterns are outlined below.
Of those who ate fish/seafood, approximately 74% indicated they bought uncooked fish in the form of fillets or whole fish. Table 6-1 displays the frequency of buying fresh (uncooked) fish from different outlets. The most popular place to buy fresh (uncooked) fish was from the supermarket. Over half the sample made an
134 Chapter 6: Consumer preferences and purchasing habits for local fish
30%
25%
20%
15%
10% Proportion of sample 5%
0% 1 Not 2345678910 more Very likely likely
Figure 6-10. Likelihood of purchasing locally caught/farmed fish at restaurant, cafe or fish and chip shop
Respondents were also asked to indicate on a scale of 1 (Not more likely) to 10 (Very likely), the likelihood of purchasing locally caught/farmed fish while dining at a restaurant, café or fish and chip shop (Figure 6-10). The results indicate that consumers were more likely to purchase the fish while eating out if it was locally caught or farmed.
To get an even greater indication of how much fish was consumed by respondents and where the fish was sourced, respondents were asked to give an average estimate of the amount and origin of the fish eaten while eating out (Table 6-3). Interestingly, respondents reported that 21% of meals eaten included fish with unknown origin, while a similar proportion (20%) included locally landed fish. The third most eaten type of fish was fish landed elsewhere in Queensland, followed closely by salmon. The results indicate that Queensland consumers least preferred to eat Australian farmed fish other than salmon, fish landed elsewhere in Australia and imported fish.
140 Chapter 6: Consumer preferences and purchasing habits for local fish supermarket, followed by the fish monger. Most respondents did not buy fish off the boat and very rarely purchased seafood through the internet. The preference for the supermarket may be explained by the convenience of one stop shopping at the supermarket, as opposed to purchasing from many speciality outlets such as from the fish monger or off the boat (M. K. Blake et al., 2010; Penney & Prior, 2014). In terms of eating fish while out of home (i.e. at a restaurant, café or fish and chip shop), it was found that fish was eaten out on a more moderate or occasional basis. Given that this pattern was in line with the frequency of eating out in general, this could be linked to the financial ability of the individual to eat at restaurants, cafes or fish and chip shops (e.g. eating out may be classified more as a special treat then a regular occurrence).
The results also indicate that Queensland consumers do have a preference for locally caught fish/seafood. Respondents indicated that they would be more willing to buy fish if it was labelled with a ‘locally caught’ label. In terms of where the fish was bought, an indication of where the fish was landed was slightly more important when purchasing from the supermarket and fish monger, then from directly off the boat. This may be because consumers may be more aware of where the fish was caught when purchasing off the boat (i.e. information directly from the fisher selling it to them), rather than through an intermediary (supermarket or fish monger). Given this information, outlets selling seafood (fresh or to be sold for immediate consumption) may find it beneficial to label their seafood with local or regional labelling.
With respect to the motivation for purchasing locally caught fish (both cooked and uncooked fresh fish), the belief that local fish was fresher, the ability to support the local fishing industry and the creation of lower food miles were found to be important reasons for purchasing local fish. However, lower food miles were slightly less important when purchasing cooked local fish. Hence, an indication of freshness and an indication of how proceeds benefit local fishers on the label may increase fish consumption. Similarly, more campaigns such as Queensland Catch (Queensland Seafood Industry Association, n.d.), which promotes the benefits of buying local seafood (e.g. supporting local fishers), may need to be created and implemented to further encourage domestic seafood consumption.
In terms of defining a locally caught fish, most Queensland consumers were willing to accept the definition of a fish caught somewhere within 50 – 100km away from the retail outlet. This definition is generally consistent with the definition of local
142 Chapter 6: Consumer preferences and purchasing habits for local fish food found in other food studies (e.g. Lim and Hu (2016) who found consumers were willing to accept the distance of 160km as local). However, there were still some respondents who were willing to accept a wider definition of local, stating that a locally caught fish could also be fish landed in Queensland or in Australia. When examined by residential location it is seen that respondents residing closer to the coastline (rest of Queensland group) were more likely to accept the narrower definition of ‘local’ (i.e. caught somewhere within 50-100km of the retail outlet), whereas those residing in Brisbane and surrounding cities favoured the wider definition of local (in Queensland or in Australia).
In terms of eating fish of Australian or local origin while dining out (at a restaurant, café or fish and chip shop), respondents reported that approximately 20% of meals included locally caught fish, 17% of meals included fish landed elsewhere in Queensland and 10% of meals were of fish landed elsewhere in Australia. The results are interesting given that retail outlets who sell food for immediate consumption are not legally obligated to display origin information to the consumer (Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard (Cth), 2016). Consequently, more information may be needed to ascertain how consumers were made aware of this information (e.g. through the consumer’s own initiative to ask where the fish was from or through voluntary labelling efforts of the food establishment on sign boards or menus).
This study provided an examination of consumer preferences and purchasing habits of Queensland residents for local fish. Although this provides a greater insight into the consumption patterns of Queensland residents for local fish, it does not provide an estimate of how much consumers are willing to pay for specific fish attributes. Consequently, in the next study of the thesis (Chapter 7), a choice experiment is used to estimate the economic value attached to specific fish attributes (i.e. origin, sustainability and freshness).
Chapter 6: Consumer preferences and purchasing habits for local fish 143 144 Chapter 6: Consumer preferences and purchasing habits for local fish Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish
7.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous study, the purchasing habits and frequency of consumption for local fish was examined. In this study, a closer examination of consumer preferences for the attributes of local fish is undertaken using a discrete choice experiment. In this chapter the fourth research question (What value do local consumers attach to the ‘local’ aspect of fish, as opposed to other attributes and why?) is addressed. The hypothesis of this study is that Queensland consumers are willing to pay more for local seafood. The aim of the study is to ascertain the importance/willingness to pay (WTP) for the attributes of origin, sustainability and freshness when purchasing fish.
The second section of this chapter outlines the methodology underlying a discrete choice experiment. Section 7.3 of this chapter provides the theory behind the research design of the choice experiment and the results of the choice experiment is outlined in section 7.4. The discussion and conclusion of the choice experiment is given in section 7.5.
7.2 METHODOLOGY: CHOICE EXPERIMENT
The discrete choice experiment technique is a stated preference method of valuation which has emerged from a combination of consumer behaviour theory, Lancaster’s characteristics theory of value (Lancaster, 1966) and Random Utility Theory (RUT) (Manski, 1977; McFadden, 1974; Thurstone, 1994). As per general consumer theory, a rational individual will aim to maximise their utility, though this is limited by their respective budget constraint (Hensher, Rose, & Green, 2005). With respect to why a particular product or good is chosen, Lancaster’s characteristics theory of value states that it is the characteristics of a product, as opposed to the product itself, which make the product attractive to the consumer (Lancaster, 1966). According to RUT, a person’s utility for a particular good can be explained by factors which can be observed by the researcher (e.g. the characteristics of the good and individual characteristics of a person) and factors which cannot be observed by the researcher (i.e. random components of utility) (Manski, 1977; McFadden, 1974; Thurstone,
145 1994). The formal derivation of utility for an individual for good (i) may be expressed in the following manner (Hensher et al., 2005, p.75):
ܷ ൌܸ ߝ
where utility (Ui) is composed of systematic or known components of utility
(ܸ) and the random or unknown components of utility (ߝ). As previously stated, the aim of the individual is to maximise their own utility. That is, an individual’s probability of choosing good (i) over any other good (good j), will depend on whether the utility derived from good (i) exceeds that of all other goods (j). According to Hensher et al. (2005, p.82), the formal derivation of the probability of choosing good (i) may be represented in the following manner:
Ǣ്݆݅ܬൌͳǡǥǡ݆אܾ൫ܷ ܷ൯݆ݎܾ ൌܲݎܲ
When substituting the utility functions for both goods (i) and (j) into the equation above, the equation for the probability of choosing good (i) now comes:
Ǣ്݆݅ሿܬൌͳǡǥǡ ݆אܾሾሺܸ ߝሻ ൫ܸ ߝ൯݆ݎܾ ൌܲݎܲ
The most common model used to estimate the probability of choosing one good over another is the multinomial logit (MNL) model (McFadden, 1974). The model is estimated using maximum likelihood estimation. According to Hensher et al. (2005, p86) the form of the MNL model is presented in the following manner:
ܸ ܲݎܾ ൌ Ǣ݆ ൌ ͳǡǥǡ݅ǡǥǡܬ݅ ് ݆ σୀଵ ܸ
When using the MNL model, two assumptions are made with respect to the random component or error terms associated with an individual’s utility function. The first assumption is that the random components or error terms are independently and identically distributed (IID) Gumbel random variables (Hensher et al., 2005; Louviere, 2001). This assumption implies that the unobserved component of utility lies on an unknown distribution, which is randomly allocated for every person in the sample. The second assumption implies that choices across alternatives are independent of one another, such that the removal of one alternative should not affect the probability of choosing the other alternatives. This is referred to as the property of independence of
146 Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish irrelevant alternatives (IIA) (Ben-Akiva & Lerman, 1985; Hensher et al., 2005). As these assumptions have been found to be restrictive, other models have been developed to relax these assumptions (Greene & Hensher, 2003; McFadden & Train, 2000).
Given the restrictions of the MNL model, the most commonly used model is the mixed multinomial logit model, otherwise referred to as the random parameter logit model or hybrid logit model (Hensher et al., 2005). The probability of a mixed logit is described as, “… the integrals of standard logit probabilities over a density of parameters” (Train, 2009, p.135). According to Hensher et al. (2005, p607) the unconditional probability is specified as:
ܲ൫ࢄǡࢠǡષ൯ൌන ܮ൫ࢼหࢄǡࣁሻ݂൫ࣁหࢠǡષ൯݀ࣁ ఉ
Where each j is an alternative considered by individual q; X q is the vector of explanatory variables inclusive of attributes and sociodemographic characteristics; zq is observed data which relates to the individual; Ω are the underlying parameters of the distribution; ηq is a vector of K random components in the set of utility functions;
β are the parameters of the model; Ljq is the conditional probability for choice j; and f is the mixing distribution (Hensher et al., 2005).
The mixed logit model allows for heterogeneity in the model. More specifically, the mixed logit model removes the three main restrictions of a standard logit. Firstly, the mixed logit model allows for random taste variation (Train, 2009). In the logit model, the taste coefficient or parameters for each respondent to the choice scenario is assumed to be the same for every respondent (i.e. it is fixed). The mixed logit provides greater variability than the logit model as it allows the taste coefficients or parameters to be random, such that each is different for every individual rather than fixed. Secondly, the model allows unrestricted substitution patterns (Train, 2009). In other words, the mixed logit model is not subject to the IIA assumption such that the probability of choosing one alternative does not affect the probability of choosing another alternative. Lastly, the mixed logit model allows for the occurrence of unobserved factors over time (Train, 2009). Instead, if using the standard logit model, this assumes that the unobserved factors which affect the decision are different for every decision made by the individual. Hence, when using panel data, a standard logit model disregards the fact that the unobserved factors which affect choice for each
Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish 147 individual may remain present across time. Given the flexibility of the mixed logit model, it is able to estimate any type of choice model (McFadden & Train, 2000; Train, 2009).
While revealed preference data for this study would be preferable and while it is acknowledged that data exists in relation to seafood purchases in supermarket chains (e.g. information from scanned barcodes), it is determined that such data would not be sufficient enough for the purposes of this study. Firstly, since seafood outlets and supermarkets are not legally required to state whether the seafood is locally sourced,10 the preferences for local seafood cannot be determined from such data. Secondly, since the range of seafood offered from supermarkets is limited to popular types of seafood, this would only provide a segmented view of seafood consumption in Australia. Thirdly, given that this data is commercially sensitive, such data would be difficult to obtain. Consequently, the choice modelling methodology was the most appropriate methodology for this study.
The choice modelling technique has been widely applied in the context of determining consumer preferences for food. For example, previous choice experiments have been used to determine the preferences and WTP for certain food attributes such as: local food products (Gracia, 2014), organic produce (Holmes & Yan, 2012), genetically modified food (James & Burton, 2003), different store types (Dong & Stewart, 2012) and certain meal options when dining at home (O’Neill, Hess, & Campbell, 2014). Choice models have also been used to determine the preferences for specific types of food. These include, but are not limited to: Mediterranean food products (Scarpa, Philippidis, & Spalatro, 2005), yoghurt (Moro, Veneziani, Sckokai, & Castellari, 2015), beef (Loureiro & Umberger, 2007), lamb (Gracia, 2014) and different types of seafood (e.g. salmon, barramundi, prawns and oysters) (Alfnes, Guttormsen, Steine, & Kolstad, 2006; Danenberg & Mueller, 2011; Danenberg & Remaud, 2010).
10 ‘Locally sourced’ in this instance refers to being sourced within a particular local region rather than the more generic ‘local’ term which is used to refer to products of Australia.
148 Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish 7.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
General Design Considerations
A choice scenario is generally comprised of two or more alternatives or options. Several choice scenarios result in a choice set (Adamowicz, Louviere, & Swait, 1998; Hensher et al., 2005). Respondents were asked to choose from a set of mutually exclusive seafood options, which are characterised by various attributes. Each attribute varied according to different levels (Adamowicz, Louviere, et al., 1998; Hensher et al., 2005). Given that the combination of different attributes and levels can result in a variety of different options, this can result in a complex choice set design. Therefore, several design considerations should be considered when designing the choice set. Firstly, a choice set with too many options may place a heavy cognitive burden on the respondent, such that they may feel confused, fatigued or may not complete the choice task accurately (Bennett & Blamey, 2001). To pre-empt this problem, the design of the choice task should be kept as simple as possible. That is, the researcher should aim to include all relevant attributes to make the choice set, however should limit attributes and levels to a reasonable and manageable size. Moreover, even if the number of attributes and levels is kept to a minimum, it is noted that the addition of one additional attribute or level can lead to a significant increase in the number of possible choice combinations (Hensher et al., 2005; Rose & Bliemer, 2014). If all possible choice set combinations (referred to as the full factorial design) were put forth before the respondent, the number of treatment combinations may become too much for the respondent to complete. To circumvent this problem, it is generally recommended that fractional factorial design be implemented, whereby only a fraction of the full factorial design is presented to each respondent. By doing so, a reasonable number of choice sets may then be presented to respondents without sacrificing design efficiency (Hensher et al., 2005).
While the size of the choice set is an important aspect of choice set design, the quality of the options and their respective attributes and levels should also be carefully reviewed. Arguably, the chosen attributes, their respective levels and the resulting alternatives, should be kept as realistic as possible (Hensher et al., 2005). Depending on the situation, it is generally acknowledged that in most real life situations, the individual can choose the status quo alternative (e.g. if they choose to do nothing, they can choose the results of the current policy) or can choose an opt-out alternative (e.g.
Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish 149 while shopping an individual may not like any of the goods on offer and may choose not to purchase anything at all) (Banzhaf, Johnson, & Mathews, 2001; Hensher et al., 2005). Given this, it is generally considered good practice to include either a status- quo or opt-out alternative in the choice set to avoid problems associated with forced choice (e.g. inaccurate estimates) (Dhar & Simonson, 2003; Hensher, 2010) and to ensure that an accurate reflection of the individual’s preference is obtained (Lanz & Provins, 2015). Though it is argued by some that the status quo or opt-out option may tempt respondents into becoming reliant on this option (as it may be the most familiar or easiest way to complete the choice set) (Bennett & Adamowicz, 2001; Bennett & Blamey, 2001), there are ways to determine if this option was chosen due to protesting against the choice set exercise or if this was a legitimate choice.
As previously stated, the completion of the choice task may be taxing on respondent as they may not have encountered a formal choice task such as this before. This may lead to incomplete or inaccurate responses (Bennett & Blamey, 2001). There is also the fear that as a stated preference technique, the responses of the choice experiment may be subject to hypothetical bias. That is, respondents may respond to the hypothetical choice task with hypothetical answers that do not truly align to the choice they would have made in real life (Harrison, 2014; Hensher, 2010). To ensure that the choice task is accurately completed by the respondent and to gain further insight as to what influenced the respondent to choose one option over another, certain precautions must be taken in the choice experiment survey. As with any survey, the respondent must be sufficiently introduced to the problem at hand. This is generally followed with questions preceding the choice task and follow up questions regarding opinions of the choice task (Harrison, 2014; Hensher, 2010). Furthermore, as per the general practice of survey design, a component of the survey should be reserved for the collection of socio-demographic information of the respondent. The demographic information is used not only to check if a representative sample has been obtained, but to be tested as the explanatory variables for choosing a certain option. That is, such information can be used to observe the known components of the utility function (Vi), which may influence the respondent’s choice (Hensher et al., 2005).
7.4 THE BARRAMUNDI CHOICE EXPERIMENT
In the choice experiment, respondents were presented with a hypothetical scenario where they were to host a dinner for friends. Respondents were told that they
150 Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish had found a good recipe requiring fresh Barramundi fillets. In addition to this, respondents were also told that in the scenario, only Australian wild caught Barramundi was considered. Given this, respondents were told that they could choose to buy their fish from four local fish retailers: Ana’s fresh fish, Ben’s fresh fish, Con’s fresh fish or Deb’s fresh fish. Each of these retailers was located side by side11. The first three retailers (Ana, Ben and Con) display key characteristics of the fish which they sell. The last retailer (Deb) displays no such information, apart from country of origin and price.
Type of fish: For this choice experiment, respondents were given a scenario in relation to purchasing Australian wild caught barramundi fillets. Arguably, Barramundi is an iconic Australian fish and would thus be easily recognised by most respondents. As stated in the scenario to respondents, barramundi was chosen given that “…it is widely available in Queensland, is both farmed and wild caught in Australia, and is also imported. It is also very tasty” (Pascoe et al., 2016, p116). Furthermore, to keep the scenario simple for respondents, only one type of fish was used.
Attributes: Four attributes were chosen for this choice experiment: price, sustainability, freshness and origin. The attributes and their various levels can be seen in Table 7-1 below.
Table 7-1. Attributes of choice experiment Attribute Attribute Levels Price ($/kg ) $40, $42, $44, $48, $50 Sustainability from a source accredited to be sustainable not specified Freshness Guaranteed fresh not specified Origin Produced locally Product of Queensland Product of Australia Fish attributes selected for the choice experiment. Reproduced from: Beyond GVP: The value of inshore commercial fisheries to fishers and consumers in regional communities on Queensland’s east coast, FRDC Project No 2013-301 (page 52), by S. Pascoe, J. Innes, R. Tobin, N Stoeckl, S. Paredes & K. Dauth, 2016, Canberra: FRDC, Retrieved from: http://www.frdc.com.au/project?id=425 under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, Full terms at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode
11 See Pascoe et al. (2016, p. 116) for choice experiment hypothetical scenario pictorial.
Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish 151 Price: The price attribute was included in order to ascertain the willingness to pay of a respondent for the different types of attributes. The price of the fish was also included to ensure the hypothetical scenario remained realistic to the respondent. After visiting supermarkets and fish mongers in Brisbane and Townsville, as well as searching online for fresh barramundi fillet prices, a price range from $40 - $50/kg was set.
Sustainability: The inclusion of eco-labels has been found as one influence for purchasing food (Blomquist et al., 2015). In the choice scenario, two levels of sustainability were included. A tick in the sustainability box indicates that the fish was from a fishery certified as sustainable. Options which did not have a tick for sustainability indicated no information about sustainability were provided.
Freshness: It has been found that consumers value fresh seafood (Birch et al., 2012; L. M. Campbell, Boucquey, Stoll, Coppola, & Smith, 2014; McManus et al., 2014). The freshness of the fish was thus an important attribute to be included in this choice experiment. Only two levels of freshness were used. A tick for freshness indicates that the fish fillets were less than 24 hours old, whereas a blank box indicates this information was not available.
Origin: Given that the ultimate aim of this study is to determine preferences for local fish against fish caught from other regions, an origin attribute was added. For this study, only three origin levels were used. These were: local, Queensland and Australia.
Efficient survey design
Given the number of attributes and various levels as outlined in Table 7-1, each fish outlet in this scenario would have 60 potential combinations (5x2x2x3) to present. To circumvent the problem of having an unmanageable size of comparisons for each respondent, a D-efficient design was used to create the choice set (Bliemer & Rose, 2011; Rose, Bliemer, Hensher, & Collins, 2008). This would ensure that a sufficient amount of information would be presented to the respondents without resorting to presenting all possible combinations. The D-efficient design was created using NGENE (version 1.1.1) (Choice Metrics Pty Ltd, 2012). A total of 24 choice scenarios were created. This restriction was set in order to keep the choice sets manageable. The
152 Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish
Table 7-2. Interpretation of sample choice scenario When the curser is placed over the button for Ana’s fresh fish By choosing this option, it would mean that you prefer Option 1: Fish fillets that have been wild caught locally from a fishery certified as sustainable and they are less than 24hrs old. These fillets cost $48/kg.
When the curser is placed over the button for Ben’s fresh fish By choosing this option, it would mean that you prefer Option 2: Fish fillets that have been wild caught in Queensland from a fishery certified as sustainable and no information is provided with respect to freshness. These fillets cost $44./kg.
When the curser is placed over the button for Con’s fresh fish By choosing this option, it would mean that you prefer Option 3: Fish fillets that have been wild caught in Queensland. No information is provided about the sustainability of the fishery or the freshness of the fillets. These fillets cost $42/kg.
When the curser is placed over the button for Deb’s fresh fish By choosing this option, it would mean that you prefer Option 4: Fish fillets that have no information provided, other than that they are a product of Australia. These fillets cost $40/kg. Reproduced from: Beyond GVP: The value of inshore commercial fisheries to fishers and consumers in regional communities on Queensland’s east coast, FRDC Project No 2013-301 (page 118), by S. Pascoe, J. Innes, R. Tobin, N. Stoeckl, S. Paredes & K. Dauth, 2016, Canberra: FRDC, Retrieved from: http://www frdc.com.au/project?id=425 under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, Full terms at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode
Status quo / Default option
A status quo option was included in all the choice scenarios (Banzhaf et al., 2001; Lanz & Provins, 2015; Meyerhoff & Liebe, 2009). The status quo option took the form of the last option ‘Deb’s Fresh Fish’ which was included in every scenario. As seen in the interpretation of the sample choice scenario in Table 7-2 above, this option provided no information with respect to sustainability or freshness. This option offered respondents the lowest price available for barramundi fillets ($40/kg) and was identified as a product of Australia. The ‘product of Australia’ level was chosen for the status quo option given that under the food labelling laws at the time of the survey, only the country of origin is required to be displayed on the product.
Choice experiment follow up questions
After the choice experiment was completed, respondents were asked to complete some follow up questions. These questions were asked in order to check if the respondent had any potential biases while completing the choice set task and to verify that they understood the task at hand. Questions included: whether respondents thought
154 Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish the choice set was confusing; an indication of the importance of the attributes (i.e. origin, freshness, sustainability, and price) while making their choices and whether they have ever inquired about attributes (i.e. freshness, sustainability or origin) if information was not provided on the label.
To catch potential protest answers, a further question was directed only to respondents who continuously chose the status quo option (i.e. Deb’s Fresh Fish) in every scenario. This question was used to determine the reason behind their choice. Respondents were asked if they continually chose this option due to a preference for ‘Deb’s Fresh Fish’ to all others or because they could not afford to purchase other options due to their financial circumstances or some other reason. If the respondent indicated it was for another reason, they were then given the opportunity to state their reasoning in their own words.
7.4.1 The models To derive the multinomial logit model, the following utility functions were estimated in NLOGIT 6:
݄ݏ݁ݎܨݐܽ݅݊ߚସ ൈݏߚଷ ൈܵݑܦܮ݈ܿܽߚଶ ൈܳܮሺͳǡʹǡ͵ሻ ൌߚଵ ൈܷ ߚହ ൈܲݎ݅ܿ݁
݄ݏ݁ݎܨ ݐܽ݅݊ߚସ ൈݏߚଷ ൈܵݑܦܮ݈ܿܽߚଶ ൈܳܮߚଵ ൈݍݏܥܵܣሺͶሻ ൌܷ ݐܽ݊ܿ݁ݏ݅ܦ ߚ଼ ൈ݁݃ܣߚ ൈܵ݁ݔߚ ൈ݁ܿ݅ݎߚହ ൈܲ ߚଽ ൈܴ݂݁ܿ݅ݏ݄ߚଵ ൈܷݎܾܽ݊ߚଵଵ ൈܶܣܨܧܶݎܽ݀݁ ݉݁ܿ݊ܫ ߚଵସ ൈ݀ܽݎܩݐݏߚଵଶ ൈܷ݊݅ߚଵଷ ൈܲ ݑݎݒ݃݊ܧ ߚଵ ൈ݄ݏ݂݉݅ܥߚଵହ ൈ
The alternative options (Ana, Ben and Con’s Fresh Fish) are represented by the utility function U(1,2,3). The default option (Deb’s Fresh Fish) is represented by U(4). U(1,2,3) includes only the attributes of the choice experiment, however U(4) includes both the fish attributes, as well as socio-demographic characteristics. U(4) also includes the alternative specific constant (ASCsq). The ASC is included for the purposes of determining unobserved influences on respondent’s choices for the default option. A positive and significant ASC indicates that the consumer prefers the default option, whereas a negative and significant ASC indicates the consumer prefers the alternative options as opposed to the status quo (Adamowicz, Boxall, Williams, &
Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish 155
Table 7-6 MNL and Mixed MNL Choice Models
Multinomial Logit (MNL) Model Mixed MNL - normal distribution Coeff Sig Std Err WTP Sig Std Err Coeff Sig Std Err WTP Sig Std Err LOCAL 1.129 *** 0.073 4.36 *** 0.309 1.491 *** 0.106 3.42 *** 0.275 QLD 0.631 *** 0.084 2.44 *** 0.335 0.655 *** 0.108 1.50 *** 0.256 SUSTAIN 0.983 *** 0.041 3.80 *** 0.190 1.598 *** 0.087 3.66 *** 0.232 FRESH 1.538 *** 0.042 5.95 *** 0.244 2.574 *** 0.108 5.90 *** 0.326 PRICE -0.259 *** 0.009 -0.436 *** 0.020 ASCSQ 1.068 *** 0.218 0.751 * 0.429 SEX -0.410 *** 0.091 -0.430 ** 0.191 AGE -0.015 *** 0.003 -0.021 *** 0.006 DISTANCE 0.000 *** 0.000 0.000 ** 0.000 RECFISH -0.396 *** 0.098 -0.272 0.211 URBAN 0.122 0.090 0.178 0.190 TAFETRAD 0.132 0.108 0.085 0.226 UNI 0.163 0.123 -0.050 0.255 POSTGRAD 0.024 0.165 0.112 0.339 INCOME -0.003 *** 0.001 -0.004 ** 0.002 COMFISH 0.882 *** 0.293 1.178 * 0.645 ENVGROUP -0.008 0.235 0.359 0.503 NsLOCAL 1.467 *** 0.091 NsQLD 0.175 0.194 NsSUSTAI 1.618 *** 0.096 NsFRESH 2.268 *** 0.118 NsPRICE 0.336 *** 0.020 N 5490 5490 K 17 22 AIC/N 2.051 1.712 LL Function -5614.3 -4676.316 ***, **,Restricted * = significance LL at 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively -7610.756 Chi squared [ 22](P= .000) 5868.880
161 As all fish attributes of choice experiment were significant, the willingness to pay (WTP) for attributes could be calculated. The average WTP in dollar terms is displayed in Table 7-6, while the distribution of the individual WTP of each attribute can be seen in Figure 7-2. The results indicate that each of the non-monetary attributes attracted a premium. That is, respondents would be willing to pay more for the local and Queensland labels, as well as the attributes of sustainability and freshness. The attribute of most value to respondents was freshness, with respondents willing to pay an average of $5.90 (or approximately 15% more than the base price of $40) for an additional kilo of fresh fish. The sustainability attribute was valued slightly higher than the local attribute, however the distribution of individual WTP was somewhat similar. While respondents were still willing to pay on average 3.75% more than the base price for fish caught in Queensland, it appears respondents were on average, still willing to pay even more for freshness, sustainability and the local label.
Figure 7-2 Distribution of WTP
7.4.4 Testing respondent characteristics Although the individual characteristics of respondents were included in the models above, three additional models were estimated to test whether particular groups of people had different preferences with respect to the fish attributes. In the first model,
162 only the sub-sample who indicated they had previously bought fresh whole fish or fillets (uncooked) were included in model (see Table 7-7). The next two models were used to test whether there was a difference in the preferences of respondents based on their residential location. Two main groups were examined: (1) Brisbane residents and surrounding suburbs and (2) those classified as ‘Rest of Queensland’ (see Chapter 5, Figure 5-2). The results of these models are outlined below. All models were estimated as mixed multinomial logit models with the error terms specified as normal distributions.
Sample who had previously bought fresh whole fish or fillets (uncooked)
To check for heterogeneity in preferences, the MMNL specification was estimated using only the sample who indicated they bought fresh fish either whole or in fillets (i.e. fresh uncooked fish available at the supermarket fish counter or fishmonger) (see Table 7-7).
The results of this model also indicate that the fish attributes again attract a price premium for respondents who buy uncooked fish (as whole fish or in fillets). Freshness was again the most important attribute to respondents, gaining the highest WTP of $6.40. Unlike the preferences of the entire sample, this group of respondents appear to favour the local attribute slightly more so than the sustainability attribute. Although the Queensland attribute still attracted a price premium, this attribute had the lowest WTP out of the non-monetary fish attributes.
The results relating to the alternative specific constant and individual characteristics of respondents were consistent with the entire sample. That is, as the alternative specific constant was positive and significant, respondents with other characteristics again preferred the Deb’s fresh fish (default option). For respondents who had indicated they had previously bought fresh fish (uncooked whole fish or fillets of fish), females and older respondents were again less likely to prefer the default option of Deb’s fresh fish. The results also indicate that those who lived further away from the coastline and commercial fishers were more likely to choose Deb’s fresh fish option.
Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish 163 Table 7-7 Mixed MNL model – sample who buys fresh (uncooked) whole fish or fillets
Coeff Sig Std Err WTP Sig Std Err LOCAL 1.602 *** 0.125 4.05 *** 0.357 QLD 0.640 *** 0.124 1.62 *** 0.321 SUSTAIN 1.575 *** 0.097 3.98 *** 0.296 FRESH 2.534 *** 0.121 6.40 *** 0.403 PRICE -0.396 *** 0.021 ASCSQ 1.246 ** 0.528 SEX -0.836 *** 0.231 AGE -0.025 *** 0.007 DISTANCE 0.000 *** 0.000 RECFISH -0.365 0.231 URBAN 0.144 0.221 TAFETRAD 0.008 0.267 UNI -0.486 0.299 POSTGRAD -0.227 0.369 INCOME -0.004 0.002 COMFISH 1.311 ** 0.513 ENVGROUP 0.251 0.502 NsLOCAL 1.495 *** 0.100 NsQLD 0.009 0.282 NsSUSTAI 1.558 *** 0.110 NsFRESH 2.138 *** 0.125 NsPRICE 0.301 *** 0.022 N 4068 K 22 AIC/N 1.705 LL Function -3446.870 Restricted LL -5639.45 Chi squared [ 22](P= .000) ***, **, * = significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
Testing location of respondents
Two additional models were also estimated to check for differences in the preferences of the sample based on residence of the respondents. Two main sub-groups were used: (1) respondents from Brisbane and surrounding cities and (2) respondents from the rest of Queensland (see Chapter 5 Figure 5-2). Again, both models were mixed multinomial logit models with normal distributed error terms. Although the model specification was kept the same for these models, the URBAN variable was removed given that location was already accounted for. The results of both models are outlined below (see Table 7-8).
164 Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish Residents from Brisbane and surrounding cities
The preferences of the group from Brisbane and surrounding cities were again similar to the entire sample (see Table 7-8). The highest WTP was for freshness followed by sustainability and origin. Of the origin attributes the local label was again preferred over the Queensland label.
For this model, it was found that the alternative specific constant was negative. While it is inferred that respondents with other characteristics in the group were less likely to choose the default option, the coefficient for the alternative specific constant was not significant. For the group of residents from Brisbane and surrounding cities, the only individual characteristic which was significant was the distance from the coastline. That is, respondents in this group who were further from the coastline were more likely to choose the default option (i.e. Deb’s fresh fish).
Residents from the rest of Queensland
For residents from the rest of Queensland, freshness was again the most preferred fish attribute, however unlike the previous models there is a clear preference for the local attribute over sustainability (see Table 7-8). In this model, the local label attracted a higher WTP of $5.54 which was close to the WTP of the freshness attribute ($6.73). In this model the sustainability attribute attracted approximately half the WTP of the freshness attribute. Consistent with the preferences of the other groups tested, although the Queensland label did attract a price premium, it attracted the lowest WTP ($1.84).
In this model the alternative specific constant is positive and significant, indicating that those with other characteristics in this group were more likely to prefer the default option (Deb’s fresh fish). Similar to the other models, it is seen that females, older respondents and those with higher incomes were less likely to choose the default option. Similar to the model using the entire sample, it is seen that commercial fishers in this group were more likely to choose the default option (Deb’s fresh fish). A main difference in this model was the significance of the UNI variable. This indicates that those with a university degree who live outside of Brisbane and surrounding suburbs were less likely to choose the default option (Deb’s fresh fish).
Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish 165 Table 7-8 Mixed MNL models – Brisbane/surrounding cities and rest of Queensland
Mixed MNL - Brisbane and surrounding cities Mixed MNL - Rest of Queensland Coeff Sig Std Err WTP Sig Std Err Coeff Sig Std Err WTP Sig Std Err LOCAL 0.783 *** 0.134 2.00 *** 0.359 3.354 *** 0.185 5.54 *** 0.446 QLD 0.316 ** 0.143 0.81 ** 0.370 1.114 *** 0.203 1.84 *** 0.360 SUSTAIN 1.510 *** 0.120 3.86 *** 0.378 2.058 *** 0.098 3.40 *** 0.252 FRESH 2.561 *** 0.148 6.54 *** 0.532 4.073 *** 0.147 6.73 *** 0.451 PRICE -0.392 *** 0.028 -0.605 *** 0.035 ASCSQ -0.722 0.565 2.476 *** 0.582 SEX -0.202 0.259 -1.117 *** 0.268 AGE -0.001 0.008 -0.040 *** 0.009 DISTANCE 0.000 ** 0.000 0.000 0.001 RECFISH -0.351 0.306 0.000 0.284 TAFETRAD 0.294 0.337 0.372 0.226 UNI 0.260 0.338 -0.653 * 0.359 POSTGRAD 0.092 0.400 -0.160 0.403 INCOME -0.001 0.002 -0.009 *** 0.002 COMFISH 0.972 0.870 2.165 *** 0.614 ENVGROUP 0.898 0.579 -0.379 0.759 NsLOCAL 1.086 *** 0.121 1.972 *** 0.136 NsQLD 0.343 0.230 1.066 *** 0.151 NsSUSTAI 1.466 *** 0.147 1.287 *** 0.104 NsFRESH 1.898 *** 0.142 2.717 *** 0.150 NsPRICE 0.359 *** 0.030 0.637 *** 0.022 N 2580 2910 K 21 21 AIC/N 1.795 1.698 LL Function -2294.0382 -2449.6308 Restricted LL -3576.6395 -4034.1166 Chi squared [ 21](P= .000) 2565.2026 3168.97163 ***, **, * = significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
166 7.4.5 Choice experiment follow up questions To check the accuracy of respondent answers, respondents were asked some questions following the choice experiment. Firstly, respondents were asked if they found the choice task confusing. Only 11% of the sample found the choice task confusing. To check the accuracy of the MMNL model with normal error term specifications, the model was estimated using the subset of the sample who did not find the choice experiment confusing. That is, those who found the choice set confusing were removed from the sample (see Table 7-9).
The results of the model (see Table 7-9) with respect to the fish attributes were similar to the MML model using the entire sample (see Table 7-6), though the magnitudes and resulting willingness to pay were slightly different. That is, all fish attributes attracted a price premium, with freshness being the most important to respondents. Here it is seen that the group removing the confused respondents resulted in a WTP which was approximately two dollars higher than the WTP estimated for the entire sample. Sustainability was the next preferred fish attributed in this model, with the WTP approximately one dollar higher than the WTP of the entire sample. This was again consistent with the preferences of the entire sample. While the preferences for origin were again similar to the entire sample (i.e. local was preferred more than the Queensland label), it is seen that the WTP is slightly lower for the group which removed the confused respondents.
With respect to the individual characteristics of the sample, it is seen that the variables of: SEX, AGE and INCOME were significant and had similar signs. That is, for this model, on average, females, older respondents and those with higher incomes were again less likely to choose the default option (Deb’s Fresh Fish). Unlike the model which used the entire sample, in this model the RECFISH variable was negative and significant, indicating that recreational fishers were less likely to choose the default option.
167 Table 7-9 Mixed MNL model removing confused respondents
Coeff Sig Std Err WTP Sig Std Err LOCAL 1.464 *** 0.114 2.96 *** 0.309 QLD 0.569 *** 0.127 1.15 *** 0.272 SUSTAIN 2.286 *** 0.078 4.62 *** 0.333 FRESH 3.750 *** 0.099 7.57 *** 0.522 PRICE -0.495 *** 0.034 ASCSQ 1.087 *** 0.349 SEX -1.001 *** 0.149 AGE -0.021 *** 0.005 DISTANCE 0.000 0.000 RECFISH -0.790 *** 0.188 URBAN 0.154 0.154 TAFETRAD 0.109 0.189 UNI 0.000 0.209 POSTGRAD 0.364 0.248 INCOME -0.010 *** 0.001 COMFISH 0.147 0.898 ENVGROUP -0.144 0.735 NsLOCAL 1.319 *** 0.084 NsQLD 0.368 *** 0.129 NsSUSTAI 1.372 *** 0.081 NsFRESH 1.834 *** 0.097 NsPRICE 0.871 *** 0.018 N 4896 K 22 AIC/N 1.739 LL Function -4236.132 Restricted LL -6787.30 Chi squared [ 22](P= .000) 5102.331 ***, **, * = significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
Follow up questions relating to fish attributes
Figure 7-3 displays the importance of choice attributes to respondents, which were ranked on a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 10 (very important). Prima face, the results indicate that all four attributes were generally important to respondents. However, upon closer examination it was found that the freshness attribute was valued slightly higher (median score of 9) than the origin and price attributes (both receiving a median score of 8). While the sustainability attribute was still considered somewhat important to respondents (median score of 7), it appears this attribute is not valued as much as freshness, origin or price.
168 Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish
than any of the other attributes in all of the choice experiments. This finding is consistent with other studies which have found freshness to be the most important attribute when purchasing seafood (Heide & Olsen, 2017). In this choice experiment, ‘freshness’ was described to the respondent as being a fish fillet which was less than 24 hours old. At present, apart from the general use by date, there are no labels in Queensland or Australia which represent freshness of seafood in the current retail market. This may be due to the contentious nature of what is to be considered as ‘fresh’ seafood (Clark, 2017; McManus et al., 2014). Given the importance of freshness to consumers, the consideration of traceability of seafood along the supply chain may be beneficial for retailers and consumers (this is discussed further in Chapter 8 of the thesis).
This study also found that for most of the choice experiments conducted (except for the ‘rest of Queensland’ resident group) sustainability was favoured more so than origin of the fish. The results of this study are consistent with the findings of Cowley and Coulon (2014) whom found consumers in Denmark and the UK would be willing to pay a premium for locally caught seafood, but would pay even more for sustainable seafood. At present, there is no requirement that seafood be labelled with sustainability certification in Australia, rather engagement in sustainability certification is voluntary (Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, 2014). Major retailers in Australia have already capitalised on the sustainability certification of seafood (e.g. MSC labelling for Coles brand seafood (Coles Group, n.d.)). Some restaurants have even identified whether the seafood used in their menu was sustainability sourced. However, the lack of consistency of sustainability certification and information may be confusing for consumers and may thus undermine the sustainability label (Klein & Ferrari, 2012). Given this clearer information with respect to sustainability certification may be required.
With respect to individual characteristics, in all choice experiments (with the exception of the Brisbane and surrounding cities resident group) it was found that females and older respondents and those with higher incomes were less likely to choose the default option of Deb’s fresh fish (i.e. baseline origin of Australia and price at $40/kg). This suggest that females and older respondents may be more be more receptive of the alternative options (i.e. involving local or Queensland labels, sustainability and freshness). In terms of the result for older respondents, this is
Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish 171 consistent with the findings of Lambert et al. (2008) whom found that consumers in the US are more likely to support local producers and purchase fresh seafood as they grow older. There is evidence to suggest that sustainability is of more concern to women and such concern increases as women grow older (Grunert, Hieke, & Wills, 2014). Females have also been found to be more likely to use food labels, hence would be more likely to consider the alternative information presented (Bazhan, Mirghotbi, & Amiri, 2015).
In the case of the general sample (inclusive of when confused respondents were removed from the sample) and the rest of Queensland resident group, it is seen that respondents with higher incomes were less likely to choose the default option. There is evidence to suggest that individuals with higher incomes make more use of food labels (Bazhan et al., 2015) and thus may be more receptive to the alternative options presented. Arguably this may because respondents with higher incomes may prefer to pay for higher quality products.
In the case of the general sample (in the initial multinomial logit model and in the case of removing confused respondents) it is seen that recreational fishers are less likely to choose the default option. Conversely, in the case of the general sample, the group who indicated they had bought fresh uncooked fish in real life and the group of residents from Brisbane and surrounding cities, respondents who were located further away from the coastline were more inclined to purchase the default option. That is, these respondents may be more inclined to purchase the wider Australian label given that their location does not allow for access to locally caught fish.
When examining the choice experiments using the entire sample, those who bought fresh uncooked fish in real life and the group from the rest of Queensland, it is seen that commercial fishers in these groups were more likely to choose the default option.
In all cases (with the exception of the Brisbane and surrounding cities group), the alternative specific constant was positive and significant. This indicates that those with other characteristics were more likely to choose the default option of Deb’s fresh fish. Future studies may wish to examine the effect of individual characteristics on fish consumption.
172 Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish The choice experiment for this study was framed in the context of purchasing barramundi. The decision to do this was deliberate as this is an iconic Australian fish that would be familiar to respondents. For comparison purposes, future studies could implement a similar choice experiment using different species of fish or seafood. The choice experiment could also be replicated interstate or nationally.
Future studies may wish to control for other factors which may have influenced the choice. For example, this could include, but is not limited to a deeper understanding of attitudes towards the fish attributes. For the ‘origin’ attribute, this could include an examination of attitudes/bias towards local products (consumer ethnocentrism) or whether the respondent is a member of a community supported agriculture arrangement (may signify bias towards local products). With respect to the sustainability and freshness attributes, attitudes towards these labels could be further examined. Other contextual factors which could be controlled for include experience cooking fish, whether the respondent ate fish as a child or whether the respondent is a pescatarian.
Moreover, it is interesting to note that while sustainability attracts a price premium in the choice experiment, many of the sample did not inquire about sustainability in real life purchases. This may have been due to the voluntary certification already being used by major retailers or the respondent’s initiative to look up the sustainability status of the species they were purchasing (e.g. through the Sustainable Seafood Guide (Australian Marine Conservation Society, n.d.)). Future studies may wish to explore this in more detail.
Chapter 7: The willingness to pay for local fish 173 174 PART IV: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
175 Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood
8.1 INTRODUCTION
The discourse analysis and travel cost studies in Part II of this thesis have indicated there are benefits provided by the fishing industry and seafood with respect to tourism. The consumer preferences/purchasing habits and choice model studies in Part III of the thesis have confirmed that the fishing industry provides benefit to local consumers. Whilst these benefits have been established, it is recognised that the industry may need to do more to maintain and enhance these benefits.
In this chapter the final research question (How can the fishing and tourism industries utilise the findings from the above studies to maximise values associated with the local fisheries and seafood?) is addressed. With respect to enhancing tourism benefits offered by the fishing industry, a review of the current use of fisheries and seafood in tourism in Australia and elsewhere is examined. An examination of how the benefits to consumers can be enhanced through the use of labelling and experiences from the local food movement is provided in subsequent sections.
8.2 FISHERIES AND SEAFOOD TOURISM
The discourse analysis study (Chapter 3) and travel cost study (Chapter 4) of this thesis indicate that fisheries and seafood are important aspects of the Queensland food tourism scene. To recap, the results of the discourse analysis indicates that seafood is an iconic food of Queensland. However, the presence of an active commercial fishing industry (and its history) plays a limited role with respect to promoting tourism.
The results of travel cost study indicates that, in the case study of Mooloolaba, the availability of fresh seafood and the presence of an active commercial fishing fleet make a positive contribution tourism. However, the results indicate that visitors valued eating seafood (consumer surplus value of $45.30)13 more than seeing the fleet
13 See Chapter 4 Table 4-12.
176 (consumer surplus value of $39.41)14. This result is consistent with the conclusions of the discourse analysis study.
Given the above results, in this section, the potential ways of expanding the role of fishers in tourism are examined, as well as ways to enhance the tourism benefits provided by local seafood.
8.2.1 Direct fisher/farmer involvement with tourism As seen in the literature review, the ‘paddock to plate’ concept has been popular among both locals and tourists, with many destinations highlighting the best of their local produce. The discourse analysis study of the thesis (Chapter 3) finds that a similar concept of ‘boat’ or ‘ocean’ to plate has been adopted by coastal destinations with tourists being encouraged to purchase locally caught or farmed seafood. In Australia and elsewhere, tourists interactions with the commercial fishing industry generally takes the form of buying seafood directly from the fisher. For example, the Rock lobster fishers in South Australia have indicated that tourists have shown a strong interest in buying directly from them (Fisheries Research & Development Corporation, 2017a).
The opportunities for tourists to interact with the aquaculture industry are scarce. Barclay et al. (2016) identify one opportunity for tourists to visit a fish farm part as part of a food tour in NSW. Similarly, in the discourse analysis study of this thesis (see Chapter 3), only a few opportunities were identified where tourists could interact with the aquaculture industry.
Experiences with the fishing industry can enhance the tourist experience as they can learn more about their holiday destination through their food and how it was produced. The aquaculture industry also has potential to add to the authentic local food experience of the tourist. Meeting the fisher and/or farmer can assure the tourist that the food is local to their holiday destination, whilst seeing the production process can confirm the quality of the product to be consumed. That is, interactions with industry can validate the authenticity of their seafood experience.
While the above forms of tourism experiences may be short-lived, some fishing industries in Europe offer a more intense interactive experience. More recently, a new
14 See Chapter 4 Table 4-11.
Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood 177 form of tourism called ‘pescatourism’ has emerged within the professional fishing industry (Piasecki et al., 2016). Tourists are invited on board fishing boats where they can experience the life of a fisher. The tourist essentially becomes part of the crew by participating in fishing activity. This interactive tour is not only attractive to tourists for the novelty of becoming a fisher for the day, but also for the experience of learning about traditional fishing methods, as well as being able to sample their own catch prepared in the local way (Lai, Cicia, & Del Giudice, 2016). First originating in Italy in 1982, pescatourism has since been adopted in several other countries across Europe (Piasecki et al., 2016). Pescatourism is generally undertaken by fishers as a secondary activity to normal fishing activities and provides an additional income stream (Piasecki et al., 2016).
The results of the discourse analysis study of this thesis indicate that the fishing industry is valued as an important part of promoting coastal tourism, however is not emphasised as much as seafood or seafood experiences. The results of the travel cost study of this thesis also indicates that the fishing industry is valued by tourists, though again seafood is valued more so than the fishing industry itself. Given this, an opportunity exists to explore the role of fishers beyond selling directly off the boat. That is, as more tourists seek local food experiences during their holiday, the Queensland fishing industry could benefit from the implementation of pescatourism. This form of tourism could not only lift the profile of the Queensland fishing industry, but could also be used to educate tourists about sustainable seafood practices and choices.
8.2.2 Fisheries/ seafood heritage and culture as part of coastal tourism Many coastal towns are quiet well known for their strong connections to the fishing industry. This connection to, or representation of, fishing heritage is also present throughout the coastal town and is incorporated into the tourist’s overall seaside experience. For example, apart from an active fishing industry, indications of strong fishing heritage may be seen by the tourist through museums, public art and seafood/ fishing monuments, iconic infrastructure, and festivals.
In the UK, the Hastings Fishermen’s Museum pays tribute to Hasting’s fishing industry and maritime history. Run by the Old Hastings Preservation Society, the
178 Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood museum was opened in 1956 and provides visitors with access to old vessels, historical photographs, model displays of boats and other artefacts. A souvenir shop also allows visitors to take home a reminder of the town’s fishing industry (Old Hastings Preservation Society, 2018).
Similarly, in Mississippi, USA, there exists the Maritime & Seafood Industry Museum. Founded in 1986 the museum has worked towards preserving and showcasing the maritime history and heritage of the Biloxi and the Mississippi Gulf Coast (Maritime & Seafood Industry Museum, 2019). The museum’s exhibits are diverse and provide visitors with the opportunity to see historic artefacts from the Biloxi seafood industry (e.g. shrimp peeling machine etc), as well as other extensive exhibits which include but are not limited to: shrimping, oystering, recreational fishing, boat building and net making. The museum also has an art gallery, theatre, research library and classrooms which, combined with their educational program, assist in the preservation of the area’s fishing and seafood heritage. One of the museum’s main attractions is the interactive experience of sailing in one of the two replicas of the 65 foot two-masted Biloxi Schooners (Maritime & Seafood Industry Museum, 2019).
Certain fishing monuments have been built to pay homage to the fishing industry and the lives of fishers who were lost at sea. For example, in Gloucester, Massachusetts, USA two fishing monuments have been built. The first is the Gloucester Fisherman’s Memorial. The monument was completed in 1925 and is an eight foot tall statue of a fisher at the wheel of a ship facing out towards Gloucester Harbour. The statue has become an icon for the area and was completed in honour of Gloucester’s 300th anniversary. Name plaques of those who were lost at sea can be found at the base of the statue (Discover Gloucester, n.d.). The second monument is the Fishermen’s Wives Memorial, a statue of a woman and two children facing out to sea. The statue honours the families of fishers whom await their return (Discover Gloucester, n.d.). Similar monuments have also been built across the USA including the Fishermen’s Memorial in Seattle (Seattle Fishermen's Memorial, 2019) and the Fishing Industry Memorial in San Pedro, California (SanPedro.com, 2019).
Fishing monuments have also been erected in Australia. In Urangan, Queensland, Australia, a statue of Saint Peter (patron saint of fishermen) has been built in order to pay tribute to the lives of Fraser Coast fishers whom were lost or perished
Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood 179 at sea (Monument Australia, 2019b). As previously mentioned, a similar statue of a fisher was erected in Fisherman’s Park in Mooloolaba, Queensland, Australia in 2008 to pay tribute to fishers lost at sea. Plaques at the base of the statue name the fishers lost at sea, and also displays ‘the Fisherman’s Prayer’ (Monument Australia, 2019a).
Other types of sculptures or public art may also be found within certain towns as a reminder of the town’s fishing industry and notable seafood products. In Australia, sculptures of seafood have been built to pay tribute to local industries. These also serve as tourist attractions in their own right. For example, in South Australia, the town of Kingston SE boasts a 17 metre tall spiny lobster sculpture, aptly named ‘the Big Lobster’ (though is locally known as Larry the Lobster) (Mount Gambier Point - Holiday Point Network, 2018). The sculpture has been open for public viewing since 1979 and is regarded as an iconic representation of the town’s fishing heritage (Mount Gambier Point - Holiday Point Network, 2018). Similarly, in the town of Ballina, located in the state of New South Wales in Australia, stands a nine metre high statue called the ‘Big Prawn’ (Ballina Visitor Information Centre, n.d.). Built in 1989, the Big Prawn stands as a testament to the local prawn industry (Saunders, 2017). Other notable sculptures in Australia which celebrate local seafood include the ‘The Big Barramundi’ (Daintree, QLD), ‘The Big Crab’ (Miriam Vale, QLD), ‘The Big Murray Cod’ (Swan Hill, VIC), ‘The Big Trout’ (Adaminaby, NSW) and ‘The Big Oyster’ (Taree, NSW) (Australian Explorer, n.d.).
The heritage and success of the fishing industry is also celebrated through festivals. Claesson et al. (2005) identifies two types of festivals: “Fishing” festival or “Seafood” festival. A fishing festival is one that is deeply ingrained in cultural or religious meaning and have remained an important tradition for the community of the coastal town. Such festivals generally include religious ceremonies (e.g. blessing of the fleet) or a parade showcasing the region’s fishing heritage. Alternatively, ‘Seafood Festivals’ are less representative of fishing heritage and groups, with a stronger focus on realising the economic benefits for the region’s community and businesses. These festivals incorporate seaside activities and a range of entertainment (e.g. music, fireworks and cooking demonstrations etc) which tend to draw large crowds. Fishing festivals have become an important way for locals to keep their heritage alive, whilst educating younger generations and tourists about the importance of the industry (Claesson et al., 2005).
180 Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood Whilst museums featuring the fishing industry do exist in Queensland, these are not heavily promoted as key tourism activities. As seen in the discourse analysis study of the thesis, Queensland most commonly promotes fishing heritage through seafood or fishing festivals, as well as through specific coastal tours (e.g. seafood cruise detailing the history of region inclusive of fishing industry). As seen from the examples above, there remains many unexploited opportunities in Queensland to further incorporate fishing heritage in tourism activities. For example, current seafood trails could be adjusted to include historical stops (e.g. monuments, statutes or public art) rather than purely focusing on restaurants which feature seafood. Alternatively, museums and other establishments which work towards preserving the history of the fishing industry could capitalise on the interest in local food experiences. That is, these establishments could provide more interactive exhibits featuring the fishing industry or could hold a seafood event.
8.2.3 The role of related seafood industry: seafood markets Tourist also engage indirectly with the fishing industry include through visiting seafood markets. For example, Tokyo’s Tsukiji Fish Market is a key tourist destination (Bestor, 2001). Within the market, visitors can find a variety of fresh, frozen, live, processed and cooked fish/seafood products. The market is also renowned for its seafood auctions (Bestor, 2001), with spaces for viewing the auction in high demand and limited to 120 guests per day (Martin, 2018). The latest composition of the Tsukiji market was two main markets (japan-guide.com, 2018). The inner market was the Tsukiji Fish market, while the outer market consists of a range of wholesale retailers, retail shops and restaurants. The inner Tsukiji Market was permanently closed on 6 October, 2018, while the outer market remains in its original location. The inner Tsukiji Market has relocated to Toyosu and was renamed as Toyosu Market (japan- guide.com, 2018). The Toyosu market remains a tourist attraction and continues to allow seafood auction viewings, whilst providing other services such as restaurants and a fruit and vegetable market (japan-guide.com, 2019).
In the Australian context, the Sydney fish market is regarded as one of Australia’s premier seafood experiences. Whilst still operating as a functioning fish market, the Sydney Fish market has evolved beyond being a physical space to sell seafood. Patrons can purchase fresh Australian and international seafood and also provides visitors with access to a variety of other food retail stores to complement their
Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood 181 seafood purchases (Sydney Fish Market, 2019c). Tourists (and locals) wishing to learn more about how to prepare their seafood purchases can also attend a class at the Sydney Seafood School (Sydney Fish Market, 2019a). Visitors wanting a more relaxed trip (or less hands on experience) can also choose from a range of restaurants and cafes which utilise the local seafood obtained from the market (Sydney Fish Market, 2019c). The Sydney Fish market also offers a behind the scenes tour of the market where visitors can learn more about the history of the market, as well as the inner workings of trading (auction) and processing of seafood (Sydney Fish Market, 2019b). The Sydney Fish Market hosts approximately 3 million visitors a year and generates $72 million per annum through tourism (Deloitte Access Economics, 2016).
Whilst seafood markets are operational throughout Queensland, these markets are smaller in scale and do not operate to the extent of the markets as outlined above. That is, current seafood markets serve the purpose of providing seafood (both cooked and uncooked), but do not engage in other activities (e.g. tours and events) which work towards educating visitors about the fishing industry, seafood (and preparation of seafood) and the market itself. The experiences from the seafood markets above indicate that there is substantial benefit in expanding the activities of seafood markets in Queensland. Anecdotal evidence from the travel cost study of the thesis indicate that visitors would enjoy a fish market in Queensland, similar to that of the Sydney Fish Market. As seen by the experiences from other markets, the presence of a fish market in a town could also have flow on effects for businesses such as restaurants, take-aways, cooking schools which could be attached to other stores to complement seafood purchases (e.g. general grocery stores).
8.3 SEAFOOD LABELLING
The results of this thesis indicate that particular seafood attributes are of value to both tourists and residents of Queensland. More specifically, in the discourse analysis study, it is seen that the tourism industry uses concepts of locally caught, fresh seafood to attract tourists (see Chapter 3). The value placed on eating locally caught seafood by tourists was confirmed in the travel cost study of the thesis (Chapter 4). The preference to eat locally caught fish is confirmed in the consumer preference study of the thesis (Chapter 6), while the results of the choice experiment study of the thesis
182 Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood (see Chapter 7) indicate that Queensland consumers would be willing to pay a premium for the attributes of origin, sustainability and freshness. Although the best way to convey this information to the consumer is through labelling, it is recognised that such information is either limited or non-existent in Queensland. In this section, current labelling laws are examined, followed by recommendations to improve labelling of fish attributes based on the results of the thesis.
8.3.1 Local seafood labelling Food labels allow producers to highlight beneficial attributes about their product and assist consumers to make informed choices (Golan, Kuchler, Mitchell, Greene, & Jessup, 2001). In the case of seafood, it is arguable that country of origin labelling may enhance the efficiency of the market by allowing consumers to differentiate between local and imported products. However, current country of origin labelling requirements for fresh and packaged seafood are broad and may only partially satisfy the demand for local products. While seafood products are sold under the label of ‘Grown in Australia’ (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 2019), the results of the consumer preferences and purchasing habits study (Chapter 6) and the choice experiment study (Chapter 7) of the thesis indicate that consumers want additional or more detailed information regarding the specific State or region in which the seafood originated. The move towards a more specific origin label would beneficial for fishers given the increased willingness to pay of consumers for local seafood, but would also be beneficial for consumers to make their preferred seafood purchase.
Furthermore, the problem of asymmetric information exists for seafood which is sold for immediate consumption. Cooked seafood sold in restaurants, cafes, canteens etc does not require country of origin specification (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 2019). Consequently, the reduction in efficiency of the food sector (sold for immediate consumption) is arguably larger than the retail sector (selling fresh or packaged seafood) given consumers are not given any information with respect to the origin of their food, unless the establishment chooses to do so voluntarily. The results of this thesis indicate that a substantial benefit can be gained for the food sector providing local seafood if this information is provided to the consumer (i.e. premium for local seafood).
In 2008, the Government of the Northern Territory mandated the introduction of country of origin labelling for fish retailers who sold seafood for immediate
Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood 183 consumption (e.g. restaurants, cafes, take away stores and fish and chip shops) (Calogeras, Morgan, Sarneckis, Cooper, & Lee, 2011). That is, as a condition of holding a licence to sell seafood to the public in the Northern Territory, retail outlets were required to label imported seafood as ‘imported’ if sold for immediate consumption. Following this change, a study was conducted to determine the effects of the new labelling requirements on affected retail outlets and consumers (Calogeras et al., 2011). The study found that retail outlets and consumers supported the labelling change. Consumers of the Northern Territory also indicated that the change in labelling laws would significantly influence their choice of seafood. The study also found that while affected retail outlets were initially concerned about the cost of changing menus and signboards, the average cost of compliance was not considered high at $603.00 (Calogeras et al., 2011). Two of the five business (suppliers to seafood retailers) who were surveyed about the labelling change indicated they had reduced their use of imported seafood product by 10% and 20% respectively (Calogeras et al., 2011).
The results of the travel cost, consumer preferences/purchasing habits and choice model studies of the thesis indicate that Queensland could benefit from the introduction of similar laws to the Northern Territory. That is, the efficiency of Queensland’s food sector could increase if country of origin information is provided given consumers are able to make more informed choices which align to their preferences. Furthermore, this would also benefit tourists who attribute importance to eating local seafood as part of the coastal holiday experience.
8.3.2 Sustainability seafood labelling Currently sustainability labelling is voluntary in Australia (Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, 2014). However, the results of the consumer preference and choice experiment studies of this thesis indicate that consumers value information with respect to the sustainability of seafood. As previously mentioned, studies elsewhere have indicated that consumers may be willing to pay a price premium for the sustainability label. Consumers in the London metropolitan area were willing to pay a 14.2% premium for Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certified frozen processed Alaska pollock products (Roheim et al., 2011). Similarly, there is evidence to suggest that Japanese consumers were willing to pay a 20% premium for MSC-ecolabelled salmon (Uchida et al., 2014). A US study also found that eco-friendly albacore canned tuna attracted a price premium (Sun,
184 Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood Chiang, Owens, & Squires, 2017). Hence, it may be in the retailer’s best interests to engage in sustainability labelling in order to capture more consumer surplus through increased prices.
Some major retail outlets in Australia have already adopted the use of sustainability certification for seafood. For example, Coles brand wild caught seafood products now carry the MSC certification and also require suppliers of farmed seafood to be certified by Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC); Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) – minimum 2-star level or GLOBALG.A.P (Coles Group, n.d.). Woolworths is also working towards adopting similar sustainable seafood certification for both wild caught and farmed seafood (Woolworths Group, 2019). Furthermore, some restaurants have also taken steps to indicate on their menus that the seafood used in their restaurants is sustainability sourced.
In addition to the many sustainable and environmentally friendly labels, consumers are also encouraged to examine other sources of information which verifies if seafood is from a sustainable source (Kilvert, 2019). For example, the Australian Marine Conservation Society’s Sustainable Seafood Guide is based on a traffic light system, where the status of particular species are shown as either “green = Better Choice, amber = Eat Less; red = Say No” (Australian Marine Conservation Society, n.d.). Furthermore, consumers can also search the Fisheries Research & Development Corporation (2016) Australian Fish Stocks report. However, the myriad of eco-labels and sources of information which indicate sustainable seafood choices may be confusing for the consumer and or in some cases even contradictory (Klein & Ferrari, 2012). For other retailers intending to follow this lead, it should be noted that the benefits associated with sustainability labelling may not be fully gained if using an uncertified eco-label. That is, eco-labels which have not been certified as sustainable by a reputable third party may attract lower prices (Sogn-Grundvåg, Larsen, & Young, 2014). A recommendation of this research is that Queensland (and Australia) could work towards establishing a more uniform approach to sustainability labelling, hence assisting more sustainable seafood consumption.
Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood 185 8.3.3 Freshness labelling At present, indications of freshness of seafood are limited to use by dates and the consumer’s sensory assessment of the seafood product (e.g. smell, touch and appearance of fish). In the choice experiment of this thesis (refer to Chapter 7) freshness was defined as a fish fillet which was less than 24 hours old. The results of the study indicate that freshness was regarded by Queensland consumers as the most important attribute when purchasing fish. Given this, retailers may benefit from the introduction of technology which provides the traceability of the seafood supply chain. Projects are currently underway which are trialling the use of new technology such as Blockchain or image recognition to further increase the traceability of seafood (e.g. see the Fishcoin (2018) project and the Food Agility (2018) Seafood tracking and traceability project). The use of these digital systems would be beneficial for consumers given it not only provides an indication of freshness, but would also carry information with respect to the location of harvest and sustainability of the fishery. Such a system would also work towards authenticating the product and preventing product mislabelling (Pahl, 2018).
The consumers’ interest in freshness may also indicate an opportunity to further market the boat to plate experience or other forms of direct sale. Arguably this may also relieve concerns related to origin of seafood and potentially sustainability. This alternative food system will be considered in the following section.
8.4 EXPERIENCES FROM LOCAL FOOD MOVEMENT – COMMUNITY SUPPORTED FISHERIES
The consumer preferences and purchasing habits study (Chapter 6) and the choice experiment study (Chapter 7) of the thesis indicate that consumers do prefer local seafood and are willing to pay more for it. In the absence of labels which convey the specific origin of food, consumers have turned to alternative supply systems to access local food. In this section agricultural local food supply systems and their benefits are examined. This is then followed by an examination of how the agricultural local food supply system can be applied to seafood through the community supported fishery model.
186 Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood 8.4.1 Agricultural local food supply systems
The local food movement was initially triggered by the concerns of sustainability in food production and the fear of losing access to fresh and healthy food (Hinrichs, 2000). This demand for locally produced food was then accommodated by the introduction of food systems that offered consumers direct access to the local producer. The most established of these food systems are farmers markets and community supported agriculture (CSA).
Within Australia, the local food trend has led to the popularity of farmers markets, with the number of farmers markets across the nation continuing to grow. In 2004 there were 70 farmers markets in existence across Australia, however as of 2015 there were 180 markets listed on the Australian Farmers Market Association Directory (Australian Farmers' Markets Association, n.d; Nelan, Jansson, & Szabo, 2017). Farmers markets are an alternative method of supply to conventional supermarkets, given that produce is sold directly from the producer (the farmers) to the consumer. The farmers’ market arrangement is mutually beneficial for both the consumer and producer. The main benefit for consumers is the guarantee of good quality local produce and the ability to interact with the farmer (Conner et al., 2010; Dodds et al., 2014). For farmers, the market arrangement provides a greater share of income, allows for greater control of their products and also provides an opportunity of direct feedback from consumers (Nelan et al., 2017). This social connection or relationship which is created between the farmer and consumer is referred to as ‘embeddedness’ and has been cited as the key to the success of direct local food systems (Hinrichs, 2000).
An extension of the farmers market is community supported agriculture (CSA). The aim of a CSA is similar to that of farmers markets, as consumers are given the opportunity to purchase local produce. However, CSAs differ from farmers markets as of CSAs are contractually bound to the arrangement, whereas consumers at farmers markets are not (Bougherara et al., 2009; Hinrichs, 2000). The benefits of the CSA arrangement cannot be accessed until the consumer joins or becomes a member of the CSA. By joining, the CSA members are expected to provide a financial contribution to their local farmer which is invested in the production of local food. This pre- payment reduces the farmer’s costs and allows CSA members a share in the harvest. If for any reason the harvest is not as successful as expected, CSA members are
Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood 187 generally not entitled to a refund as they have agreed to share the risk with the farmer (Bougherara et al., 2009). As members of the CSA are more invested in the arrangement than consumers who frequent farmers markets, it is arguable that a greater sense of community and social cohesion can be brought about by the CSA. Like farmers markets, the notion of embeddedness is highly present in the CSA arrangement as a mutual relationship based on trust is created between CSA members and the farmer (Bougherara et al., 2009; Hinrichs, 2000). The CSA arrangement has now been adopted in other industries, such as fisheries.
8.4.2 Community supported fisheries (CSF)
Within Australia, the majority of the seafood consumed (approximately 66%) is imported (Australian Government Department of Agriculture, 2015). As previously mentioned, while Australian seafood is available, higher prices remain a key deterrent for consumers. To fulfil the desire to consume seafood and maintain the ability to choose from a wide variety of products, consumers are drawn to cheaper imported seafood, usually sourced from Asia (Australian Government Department of Agriculture, 2015). As previously stated, cheaper imported alternatives are currently required to maintain consumer demand, given that the production of wild capture fisheries in Australia is limited according to regulation and the fact that aquaculture within Australia continues to grow (Australian Government Department of Agriculture, 2015). Competing with cheaper seafood alternatives has long been recognised as an ongoing challenge by Australian and other fishing industries around the world (Andreatta, Nash, & Martin, 2011). Given this, fisheries elsewhere have developed alternative business models to increase the demand for local seafood.
The USA was the first country to implement a direct food system which encouraged the consumption of locally caught seafood through direct point of sale. This type of model is referred to as a ‘community supported fishery’ (CSF) and was first established in Carteret County, North Carolina (Andreatta et al., 2011). The goal of the CSF and its accompanying marketing strategy, known as Carteret Catch, was to encourage the demand for local seafood. This initiative was formed in 2007 through the work and support of local fishers and their families and various parts of the local community (Andreatta et al., 2011). The CSF model is largely based on the CSA model
188 Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood discussed above (Andreatta et al., 2011; L. M. Campbell et al., 2014). Essentially, willing participants (consumers) in the CSF arrangement, agree to take on a shareholder role, whereby prepayment is made for a share in the catch. This payment is used to fund fisher’s start-up costs and relevant resources. The model works under the assumption that consumers support the sustainability of their local fishery and trust that they will be provided with local seafood within the agreed time period (Andreatta et al., 2011; Brinson, Lee, & Rountree, 2011; L. M. Campbell et al., 2014). Since the introduction of the first CSF in 2007 in the USA, the CSF model has been adopted across the USA and Canada (Bolton, Dubik, Stoll, & Basurto, 2016). In 2014, there were 40 CSFs in North America, with approximately 190 delivery locations (LocalCatch.org (2014) as cited in Stoll, Dubik, and Campbell (2015)). CSFs have also begun operating in the UK (see Catchbox (Giorgi, Herren, & King, 2013) and Faircatch (2016)).
There are several advantages of the CSF model. Firstly, by participating in a CSF, consumers are able to support their local fishery and sustain the livelihoods of local fishers (McClenachan et al., 2014). Consumers are also provided with an opportunity to learn more about sustainable food practices and can be exposed to new varieties of local seafood which they have not yet tried. Provided the CSF is marketed correctly, there are opportunities to increase the sales of local seafood as opposed to imported products. Moreover, given that the CSF is operated by fishers and sold directly to consumers, this method of supply is arguably more profitable than selling through intermediaries such as retailers (Brinson et al., 2011). Similarly, consumers could receive better prices through the CSF as opposed to the prices advertised by intermediaries. Though, like CSA members, it has been recognised that CSF members are not concerned by the prices of the CSF, as their main objective in joining is to support their local fishers (Andreatta et al., 2011). The creation of a CSF also has the potential to enhance social cohesion within the community (Andreatta et al., 2011; Brinson et al., 2011; L. M. Campbell et al., 2014). Furthermore, in the long run, as the CSF becomes more established with a steady supply of members, less money will be required for advertising and marketing.
There are of course challenges for the CSF model. The first is the recruitment of willing participants to join the CSF (Brinson et al., 2011). This includes both fishers and consumers. With respect to the supply of seafood, the CSF cannot be undertaken
Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood 189 by a single fisher, as the quantity of a single catch would not be sufficient to sustain the demand of numerous CSF members. Problems could arise for a single fisher operation if they did not catch anything during the allocated time. Consequently, the CSF can only be formed with a group of fishers, whom are willing to share responsibility for the catch (L. M. Campbell et al., 2014). Similarly, to join the CSF, consumers are required to undertake some risk, as they expected to provide a non- refundable prepayment for their share of the catch. Hence, some consumers may be reluctant to join the CSF if they are unsure whether they will receive the expected portion of seafood. Any reduction in the supply of seafood (e.g. caused by weather or season) may also deter members from returning to the CSF in the next contracted period. The potential lack of variety offered by the CSF can pose problems for the operation of this model. Previous CSF arrangements have found that some members reported dissatisfaction with their seafood share, as the local catch sometimes has a limited selection of fish and seafood products (L. M. Campbell et al., 2014). However, issues relating to quantity and variety can be somewhat mitigated by ensuring the participation of a wide variety of fishers in the CSF. The inclusion of such fishers would create a safety net if one fisher were to fall short on their catch and would also increase the variety of seafood available to CSF members. Another problem is the hours of operation for the CSF. Fishers can spend days or weeks at sea in order to catch a sufficient quantity of fish or seafood. Under the CSF models, fishers are also expected to sell the fish as soon as they dock, given that one of the main attractions of the CSF is the direct interaction with the local fishers. This has been flagged as a potential concern for fishers as this leaves little time for fishers to rest (Andreatta et al., 2011). Nevertheless, despite these issues, the CSF model continues to grow and has expanded across the USA (LocalCatch.org, 2015) and beyond its borders.
The first CSF in Australia (called Fair Fish) was recently launched in South Australia in 2018 (Fair Fish, n.d.). Apart from this, the majority of direct marketing strategies for seafood within Australia generally include road-side stands, seafood stalls at farmers markets (Coster & Kennon, 2005), fishing cooperatives (Byrom, 2014) and fishers who choose to sell directly off the boat. In Queensland there is the ‘Queensland Catch’ campaign which encourages consumers to support their local fishery by actively asking if the catch was local (Queensland Seafood Industry
190 Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood Association, n.d.), however no formal arrangement between fishers and consumers like the CSF model have been established.
The results of the consumer preference and choice experiment studies of the thesis indicate a strong interest from Queensland consumers for fresh locally caught seafood which has been sustainably sourced. This suggests an opportunity exists for Queensland to establish a CSF. Various factors have been observed in the literature which may influence or deter potential members from joining a CSF. For a consideration of these factors in a Queensland context see Appendix F of the thesis.
8.5 CONCLUSION
In this chapter, a review of experiences from across Australia and elsewhere have indicated ways in which benefits provided by fisheries and seafood can be enhanced. With respect to tourism, it was found that opportunities may exist for the Queensland fishing industry to expand their role beyond selling seafood directly off the trawler. The increasing popularity of food experiences and heritage tourism indicate that the introduction of pescatourism, seafood trails involving fishing heritage and interactive museum exhibits may be beneficial for Queensland’s coastal tourism.
Benefits were also found with respect to potentially amending the requirements for labelling of seafood. When making seafood purchases, the consumer is currently presented with the broader country of origin label and in some cases, the State label (Queensland). However, the choice experiment study of this thesis indicates consumers value the locally caught label more so than the State or wider Australian label. Arguably, the introduction of more specific origin labelling may increase efficiency in the market given consumers can make more informed choices which align to their preferences, while producers benefit from the increased willingness to pay of consumers. Similarly, sustainability labelling is currently voluntary. However, given consumers are willing to pay a premium for this attribute and the role of sustainable tourism is growing, both traditional retail outlets and the food sector may find it beneficial to implement sustainability labelling. Retailers may also find it beneficial to provide information with respect to the traceability of the seafood supply chain. This not only provides information with respect to the freshness of seafood, but can also validate the origin of the harvest as well as indicate if seafood was sustainably sourced.
Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood 191 Lastly it is seen that Queensland may benefit from the introduction of a community supported fishery. The CSF arrangement is beneficial for consumers given that they are provided with access to locally caught seafood and can have the experience of interacting directly with the fishers responsible for catching their share. The CSF arrangement is beneficial for fishers as they can receive fair prices for their catch and can heighten the profile of the local fishing industry by promoting locally caught fish/seafood.
192 Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood Chapter 8: Enhancing the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood 193 Chapter 9: Conclusion
9.1 INTRODUCTION
The key aim of this thesis is to consider the additional benefits (i.e. positive externalities) generated by commercial fishing in local communities. In particular, this thesis identifies the benefits the fishing industry bring to local tourism and benefits to local consumers of locally caught fish. Based on experiences from across Australia and elsewhere, this thesis also provides recommendations for how the identified benefits can be maximised to the advantage of key stakeholders. That is, the thesis identifies opportunities to maximise profit and consumer surplus for fishers and consumers respectively; as well as ensure an economically viable and sustainable fishery for society.
In this chapter the key results of each study are summarised. This is followed by an outline of the contribution to knowledge of the thesis. A summary of the limitations of each study and areas of future research is also provided.
9.2 HYPOTHESIS, OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The thesis examined the hypothesis that the fishing industry provides benefits to local communities beyond that captured by usual industry economic analysis. In particular, the fishing industry can provide positive externalities to local communities through facilitating the provision of ecosystem services such as attracting tourists (cultural services) and provision of locally produced seafood (provisioning services). The overarching objective of this thesis was to identify the additional economic benefits that are generated by the fishing industry with respect to tourism and provision of local seafood, estimate their size and how their values might be maximised. To fulfil this objective, the following research questions were formulated:
1. In what ways are fisheries and seafood linked to placed-based tourism in Queensland, Australia? 2. What value does having a fishing fleet and eating local seafood add to the overall coastal holiday destination experience of tourists?
194 3. What are the buying habits and purchasing preferences of local residents for local fish? 4. What value do local consumers attach to the ‘local’ aspect of fish, as opposed to other attributes and why? 5. How can the fishing and tourism industries utilise the findings from the above studies to maximise the values associated with the local fisheries and seafood?
Each research question was answered in a separate study. The key results of these studies are summarised below.
9.3 KEY RESULTS
9.3.1 Discourses of fisheries and seafood in place-based tourism The aim of the discourse analysis study was to examine how the commercial fishing industry and seafood have been portrayed in the context of promoting place- based tourism in coastal Queensland. Using a discourse analysis approach, online tourism artefacts were examined to gain a greater understanding of how fisheries and seafood have been marketed and promoted as being an intrinsic aspect of coastal tourism. From this analysis, three main themes were identified.
The first theme found an emphasis on the concept of ‘local’. The first theme was further deconstructed into three sub-themes: (1.1) Linking local food and regional identity; (1.2) Promoting the boat/farm to plate experience and (1.3) the conflation of freshness and local. Here it was found that Queensland (and its coastal regions) is generally portrayed as a destination that is synonymous with an abundance of fresh, local seafood. Seafood is also found to be representative of Queensland and is therefore framed as an integral part of the tourist’s coastal experience. The portrayal of local seafood aligns to the social construction of local food, such that the purchase of local seafood is framed as being good or better for the tourist. The ‘sustainability’ attribute of seafood was somewhat absent, particularly when describing seafood at a State or regional level but was present at the restaurant level. However, sustainability was inferred through descriptions of ongoing abundance of seafood. Given the growing interest of sustainable tourism and food practices, this indicates the tourism industry and food sector may benefit from highlighting whether the seafood from certain destinations is sustainably sourced.
Chapter 9: Conclusion 195 In the second theme, it was found that seafood was positioned as a luxury good (e.g. star ingredient in fine dining restaurants and luxury buffets) but was also complementary to luxurious activities (and food) which are undertaken by the elite (e.g. private cruises, renting private sea planes or sailing on a private yacht). The intention of these texts may be to appeal to the tourist’s desire to show a higher level of taste than their current social standing (Bourdieu, 2010). That is, the choice to consume particular types of luxurious seafood (e.g. prawns, oysters, crab, lobster and bugs) along with other luxurious activities shows the ‘good taste’ of the tourist which aligns to the taste of social elite. It is this form of escapism which is relied upon by the creators of these experiences to extract the maximum willingness to pay from tourist.
The last theme observed within Queensland coastal tourism documents was the linking of the town’s fishery and seafood to heritage. Historical references to the commercial fishing industry were mainly made in connection to promoting seafood festivals or special events. Mention of the current or active commercial fishing industry were generally made to indicate where direct purchases could be made or to confirm that seafood within the region was locally caught. Whilst the heritage of the fishing industry was used to add some character to the town or event, fishing heritage (or places to learn about the fishing industry) was not classified as a main tourist attraction.
Overall it was seen that while seafood and fisheries were portrayed positively, seafood was prioritised over the fishing industry itself. This may reflect the limited role that is currently played by the fishing industry in the context of tourism (i.e. selling off the boat and providing visual evidence of the authenticity of the food experience). However, given the increasing role of food industries in food tourism activities and events, this suggests an opportunity for the tourism industry to further highlight the existence of the fishing industry, as well as fishing heritage as part of the destination or food events.
9.3.2 The economic value of fisheries and seafood to coastal tourism The main aim of this study was to investigate whether the existence of the local fishing fleet and the ability to experience local seafood sourced from this fleet added value to the overall trip experience of day trippers and holiday makers in Mooloolaba.
196 Chapter 9: Conclusion Travel cost models were estimated using primary data collected from the research site. Consumer surplus attributed to seeing the local fleet/fish markets was $39.41 while the consumer surplus attributed to being able to purchase locally caught seafood was $45.30. Furthermore, the more the respondent valued the fishing fleet/fish market, the more likely they were to make a trip to Mooloolaba. Similarly, the more the respondent valued the ability to purchase locally caught seafood in the area, the more trips were made to Mooloolaba.
A contingent behaviour travel cost model was used to estimate the change in consumer surplus if the fishing fleet or local seafood were not available in Mooloolaba. The results indicate that a loss of welfare would result if either the fishing industry or locally caught seafood were not available in Mooloolaba. That is, the estimated trip value of $49.76 would decrease by approximately $7.36 if the fishing industry was not in the area and would decrease by approximately $10.51 if there was no locally caught seafood available in the area.
While the results of the travel cost models indicate that the fishing industry and seafood are important to the overall coastal trip experience, the results of these models and other questions (e.g. plans for the day) in the study indicate that eating seafood is regarded as more important than seeing the fishing industry itself. These values currently align with how the fishing industry is portrayed in the context of promoting tourism in the discourse analysis study of the thesis. However, the results also suggest an opportunity for the fishing industry to expand its role in the realm of food tourism. For example, majority of the sample indicated that seeing the fishing fleet would encourage interest in local seafood as this adds to the authenticity of the local seafood experience.
9.3.3 The buying habits and purchasing preferences of consumers for local fish In this study, the buying habits and purchasing preferences of Queensland consumers for local fish was examined. The results of the study indicate that the majority of Queensland residents (90%) do consume fish/seafood. The major driver and deterrent of seafood consumption was taste of seafood. Other reasons for consuming seafood included gaining variety in diet, increasing health and eating seafood as a ‘treat’. The avoidance of red meat was a less common reason for eating
Chapter 9: Conclusion 197 seafood. In terms of deterrents to eating seafood, apart from taste, being vegan/vegetarian; being allergic and seafood being too expense were listed as the main reasons for not eating seafood.
Approximately 74% of the sample indicated that they purchased uncooked fish (not processed). The major source of consumer purchases of uncooked seafood (fillets or whole) were from the supermarket, followed by the fish monger, with less purchasing direct from fishers (off the boat) and the internet. Purchasing preferences most likely reflect the opportunity cost of sourcing seafood from direct off the boat as opposed to the one stop shop (supermarket and fish monger).
With respect to cooked fish consumption, the results indicated that 90% of consumers bought cooked fish from a fish and chip shop, restaurant or café. Respondents chose to eat fish at a café or fish and chip shop on a more occasional (once a month) to sparse basis (4-6 times per year).
Respondents indicated a preference for locally caught fish. In terms of the motivation for purchasing locally caught fish, the reasons of freshness, lower food miles and supporting the local industry were found important to consumers. However, the reason of lower food miles was slightly less important to consumers when purchasing local fish while eating out.
With respect to the perception of what a locally caught fish is, most respondents (55%) were of the view that the fish should be sourced between 50-100km of the retail outlet. However, one fifth of respondents were still of the view that a locally caught fish could also be one caught anywhere in Queensland (20%), while a smaller proportion of respondents still accepted the definition of a fish caught anywhere in Australia (12%). This measure of distance aligns with the current accepted range for local produce of between 20-100 miles (i.e. approximately 32 to 160km) (Adams & Adams, 2011; Chambers et al., 2007). When examined by residential location, it was found that respondents living closer to the coastline (rest of Queensland group) were more inclined to accept the narrower definition of fish caught within 50-100km of the retail outlet. Conversely, those living in Brisbane and surrounding cities were slightly more inclined to accept the wider definition of caught anywhere in Queensland or in Australia.
198 Chapter 9: Conclusion 9.3.4 The willingness to pay for locally caught fish In this study, a choice experiment was used to examine the trade-offs made by Queensland consumers between the attributes of origin, sustainability and freshness. A mixed multinomial logit model was estimated. The results indicate that consumers were willing to pay a premium for the attributes of origin, sustainability and freshness. Consumers are willing to pay the most for the freshness attribute (an average of $5.90 for an additional kilo of fresh fish), followed by the sustainability attribute (an average of $3.66 for an additional kilo of fish from a sustainable source). Consumers were willing to pay an average of $3.42 more for the ‘local’ label and an average of $1.50 more for the Queensland label. The ‘local’ attribute was preferred to the broader ‘Queensland’ label, whereas the ‘Queensland’ label was preferred to the more generic ‘Australian’ label. Similar results were also found when the model was estimated using particular sub-groups. That is, in all cases respondents were willing to pay a premium for the non-monetary fish attributes (origin, sustainability and freshness), however there was some variation in the order of preference for sustainability and origin.
The results of this study indicate that consumers derive consumer surplus from the attributes of origin, sustainability and freshness. However, current labelling of seafood may not be sufficient to realise this. With respect to origin, retailers are only required to specify the ‘country of origin’ as opposed to the region the fish was caught in (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 2019). Whilst some retailers do specify the origin of seafood by State labelling, the results indicate that a higher willingness to pay is attached to more specific information. Moreover, as seafood which is sold for immediate consumption does not require any form of origin labelling, consumers who would be willing to pay more for local seafood may be missed entirely.
Given that consumers would be willing to pay more for the attributes of freshness and sustainability, these forms of labelling also warrant consideration. Consequently, this study indicates that seafood labelling with respect to origin, sustainability and freshness may require improvement as there is potential for the fishing industry to realise a gain (higher revenues) from the use of such labelling.
Chapter 9: Conclusion 199 9.4 MAXIMISING ECONOMIC VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE FISHING INDUSTRY AND SEAFOOD
The combined results of this thesis found that the fishing industry provides positive externalities with respect to the provision of ecosystem services such as attracting tourists (cultural services) and provision of locally produced seafood (provisioning services). To enhance the benefits provided by fisheries and seafood, experiences from across Australia and elsewhere were examined with respect to tourism, labelling and the local food movement.
The current role of the fishing industry in the realm of Queensland tourism is limited to the activity of selling seafood directly off the trawler and or the occasional appearance at seafood festivals (see Chapter 3). The increasing popularity of experience based tourism activities (Yeoman, 2016) and the importance of heritage based tourism, suggests that the fishing and tourism industries may benefit from the introduction of: pescatourism, seafood trails involving fishing heritage and interactive fishing museum exhibits combined with seafood events.
The results of this thesis also indicate that consumers do have a preference for locally caught fish (see Chapter 6) and would be willing to pay a premium for the attributes of ‘locally caught’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘freshness’ (see Chapter 7). The results of these studies suggest that the broader ‘Australian’ label may result in an inefficient market, as consumers are provided with limited information about the origin of their seafood. Moreover, an asymmetric information problem also exists in the food sector as outlets which sell seafood for immediate consumption are not required to disclose country of origin to consumers. Amending the seafood labelling requirements to specify the country of origin for seafood sold in the food sector would result in a more efficient market as consumers can make more informed decisions about their seafood purchases (Golan et al., 2001). However, for this to work, consideration must also be given to what would be classified as ‘local’.
At present there is no requirement for retailers to specify whether seafood was obtained from a sustainable source (Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, 2014). The results of this thesis indicate that there would be considerable benefit from indicating if seafood was obtained from a sustainable fishery, as well as some indication of whether the fish is fresh (i.e. consumers would pay a premium for these attributes as seen in Chapter 7). One way of providing this
200 Chapter 9: Conclusion information to consumers is to increase the traceability of the seafood supply chain. Retailers may consider the use of new technologies such as Blockchain that can build and supply information with respect to origin, sustainability and freshness (Pahl, 2018).
The rise of the local food movement has led to a variety of different food supply systems whereby consumers can gain access to locally produced food. Given the strong preference for Queensland consumers for local fish and the moderate consumption of seafood by consumers, this suggests an opportunity for the fishing industry to establish a CSF in Queensland.
9.5 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE
Using an interdisciplinary approach (economics and social science), this thesis makes two main contributions to knowledge:
1. establishes that the fishing industry directly contributes to tourism benefits and provides a measure for the magnitude of these benefits
2. establishes that there is a benefit to local consumers from locally caught fish and also provides a measure for the magnitude of these benefits
This research utilised primary and secondary data and analysis to addresses key gaps in the research literature. Specific contributions to knowledge include:
x a discourse analysis which provides insights into how fisheries and seafood are used in place-based tourism in Queensland
x primary data collection undertaken to conduct travel cost models, in Mooloolaba, Queensland, to determine the economic value of the fishing fleet and eating locally caught seafood for the overall day trip/holiday experience
x examination of the preferences, perceptions and buying habits of Queensland consumers for locally caught fish and to provide a greater understanding of what consumers classify as a locally caught fish
x estimation of the willingness to pay for local seafood and other key seafood attributes and the role of food labelling to maximise economic value
Chapter 9: Conclusion 201 Recommendations were made as to how the above analysis could realise the positive externalities with respect to facilitating the provision of ecosystem services such as attracting tourists (cultural services) and provision of locally produced seafood (provisioning services). These recommendations were framed to inform potential policy direction for both the Queensland fishing industry and Queensland tourism to realise the full economic benefits in an evolving food landscape, notably with respect to local food and food tourism.
9.6 LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
As previously discussed, each of the studies in this thesis were subject to certain limitations. Such limitations provide opportunities for further research which will be outlined below.
The discourse analysis study examined the portrayal of fisheries and seafood in the context of Queensland coastal tourism. In this study, a discourse analysis of tourism articles was examined, but only with respect to online written text. While this decision was deliberate, future research could examine the portrayal of fisheries and seafood with respect to images used in the promotional material. In terms of medium, future studies could also analyse differences between the portrayal of the fishing industry in online and in print material.
The travel cost study of the thesis examined the economic value of fisheries and seafood to tourism in Mooloolaba, Queensland. As previously stated, the main limitation encountered with this study was the difficulty of collecting data due to low response rates and delays caused by weather. This difficulty was mitigated through increasing the number of research assistants for the study and making multiple trips to Mooloolaba to account for delays caused by weather. Future studies may wish to extend upon this study by examining specific activities undertaken by tourists, as well as other costs.
In the choice experiment, the study was based around Australian wild caught barramundi fillets. Firstly, this fish was chosen on the basis that it was widely known amongst the Queensland general public. Secondly, only one species was chosen to keep the choice experiment manageable for respondents. The study could be further extended to examine preferences for other types/species of locally caught fish or
202 Chapter 9: Conclusion seafood. This study also found that sustainability was highly valued despite only 28% of respondents inquiring about this attribute in real life purchases. Future studies could examine how sustainability information is obtained by respondents when making seafood purchases. A qualitative interview or focus group could be undertaken to first gain insight into the preferences of consumers for different species and other seafood attributes. The results of the qualitative study could be used to design the choice experiment.
Each study was limited to Queensland or a region in Queensland (i.e. Mooloolaba). The decision was deliberate given that none of these studies had yet been conducted in Queensland. However, the studies above could be replicated in the context of other states in Australia or even internationally. This would allow for interstate as well as international comparisons of how local fisheries and seafood are valued by residents, tourists and the tourism industry.
The discourse analysis study of the thesis found that wild caught fisheries were generally prioritised over aquaculture in coastal destinations. The travel cost study of the thesis was deliberately limited to the value attributed to seeing the local wild caught fishery and eating wild caught seafood in Mooloolaba. However, there is evidence to suggest that opportunities do exist for aquaculture in the realm of food tourism. Further studies could thus examine how aquaculture and farmed seafood is portrayed in the context of tourism; as well as whether this is a valued experience for tourists (e.g. touring farmed seafood or buying direct from farm).
Although the consumer preferences and purchasing habits study of the thesis did examine preferences for locally caught/farmed fish, these preferences were examined together as opposed to separately. Furthermore, the choice experiment was centred around wild caught barramundi fillets. The intention was to capture the preference for the ‘local’ aspect of seafood, rather than their method of production. Future studies could account for this by comparing the preference for locally caught against locally farmed fish.
Finally, while the discourse analysis and travel cost studies of the thesis centred around the role and value of commercial fisheries for tourism, it is acknowledged that other forms of tourism involving fishing do exist. For example, future studies could examine the portrayal and value of the charter fishing industry or recreational fishing to tourism.
Chapter 9: Conclusion 203 9.7 FINAL CONCLUSION
The thesis was based on the hypothesis that the fishing industry provides benefits to local communities beyond that captured by usual industry economic analysis. The combined results of the four studies of this thesis confirm this hypothesis. That is, the fishing industry provides positive externalities to local communities through facilitating the provision of ecosystem services such as attracting tourists (cultural services) and provision of locally produced seafood (provisioning services). Given this, the thesis provides recommendations for how these additional benefits could be enhanced by the fishing industry and tourism sector in Queensland, such as: expanding the current role of the fishing industry in the tourism sector (e.g. pescatourism, combined seafood and heritage events and seafood market), considerations for seafood labelling (local, sustainability and freshness labelling) and local seafood supply systems (e.g. community supported fisheries).
204 Chapter 9: Conclusion References
Ab Karim, S., & Chi, C. G.-Q. (2010). Culinary Tourism as a Destination Attraction: An Empirical Examination of Destinations' Food Image. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19(6), 531-555. doi:10.1080/19368623.2010.493064 Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1998). Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(1), 64- 75. doi:10.2307/3180269 Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., & Swait, J. (1998). Introduction to Attribute-Based Stated Choice Methods - Final Report. Resource Valuation Branch, Damage Assessment Center, NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce Adams, D. C., & Adams, A. E. (2011). De-placing local at the farmers' market: Consumer conceptions of local foods. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 26(2), 74-100. Adu, P. (2019). A Step-By-Step Guide to Qualitative Data Coding. ProQuest Ebook Central, Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut/reader.action?docID=5747025&ppg =38 Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Alberini, A., & Longo, A. (2006). Combining the travel cost and contingent behavior methods to value cultural heritage sites: Evidence from Armenia. Journal of Cultural Economics, 30(4), 287-304. doi:10.1007/s10824-006-9020-9 Albrecht, C., & Smithers, J. (2018). Reconnecting through local food initiatives? Purpose, practice and conceptions of ‘value’. Agriculture and Human Values, 35(1), 67-81. doi:10.1007/s10460-017-9797-5 Alexander, L. (2019, April 25). The best places to eat seafood on the Gold Coast. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2019/04/25/best-seafood-gold-coast/ Alfnes, F., Guttormsen, A. G., Steine, G., & Kolstad, K. (2006). Consumers' Willingness to Pay for the Color of Salmon: A Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(4), 1050-1061. doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/4123545 Amsden, B., & McEntee, J. (2011). Agrileisure: re-imagining the relationship between agriculture, leisure, and social change. Leisure/Loisir, 35(1), 37-48. doi:10.1080/14927713.2011.549194 Andreatta, S., Nash, B., & Martin, G. B. (2011). Carteret Catch(TM): Raising Awareness of Local Seafood through Community and Business Partnerships. Human Organization, 70(3), 279-288. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17730/humo.70.3.l2284858q672j47g
References 205 Asche, F., Garlock, T. M., Anderson, J. L., Bush, S. R., Smith, M. D., Anderson, C. M., . . . Vannuccini, S. (2018). Three pillars of sustainability in fisheries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(44), 11221-11225. doi:10.1073/pnas.1807677115 Auld, S. (2019, May 21). 10 spots to eat fresh seafood on the Sunshine Coast. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2019/05/21/seafood-sunshine-coast/ Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016a). Australian Demographic Statistics, Table 53. Estimated Resident Population By Single Year Of Age, Queensland, time series spreadsheet, cat. no. 3101.0 Retrieved from: https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3101.0Mar%202 016?OpenDocument Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016b). Estimates of Personal Income for Small Areas, 2012-13. cat no. 6524.0.55.002. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/6524.0.55.002 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016c). Household Use of Information Technology, Australia 2014-15. cat no. 8146.0. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/8146.0 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, 12 months ended 30 June 2016. cat no. 9208.0. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/allprimarymainfeatures/DBD0 AA9045AB53E9CA2583C2001D18CE?opendocument Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018a). 2016 Census QuickStats - Queensland. Retrieved from http://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census services/getproduct/census/20 16/quickstat/3?opendocument Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018b). QuickStats. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/quickstats?opendoc ument&navpos=220 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018c). Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2016-17 - Queensland, cat no. 3218.0. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/allprimarymainfeatures/3DE8 4F1FB21E21EBCA2583C9000DFA27?opendocument Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. (2019). Country of Origin food labelling. Retrieved from https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Country%20of%20Origin%20food%20 %20labelling%20Guide_March%202019.pdf Australian Explorer. (2018). Sunshine Coast Seafood Lunch Cruise. Retrieved from https://www.australianexplorer.com/experiences/EX3153/profile.htm Australian Explorer. (n.d.). Australian Big Icons. Retrieved from https://www.australianexplorer.com/australian_big_icons.htm Australian Farmers' Markets Association. (n.d). Australian Farmers' Markets Directory. Retrieved from http://farmersmarkets.org.au/markets Australian Government Department of Agriculture. (2015). Australia's seafood trade. Canberra: Department of Agriculture Retrieved from http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/aus-seafood-trade Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. (2018). Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy. Canberra Retrieved from http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/domestic/harvest strategy policy
206 References Australian Marine Conservation Society. (n.d.). Australia's Sustainable Seafood Guide: How to use the Guide. Retrieved from https://www.sustainableseafood.org.au/pages/how-to-use-the-guide.html Ballina Visitor Information Centre. (n.d.). Big Prawn. Retrieved from https://www.discoverballina.com.au/visit/big-prawn Banzhaf, M. R., Johnson, F. R., & Mathews, K. E. (2001). Opt-out Alternatives and Anglers' Stated Preferences In J. Bennett & R. Blamey (Eds.), The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation (pp. 157-177). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Barclay, K., McIlgorm, A., Mazur, N., Voyer, M., Schnierer, S., & Payne, A. M. (2016). Social and Economic Evaluation of NSW Coastal Aquaculture [FRDC 2015/302]. Sydney: Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and University of Technology Sydney Retrieved from https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/fass-social-economic-evaluation- nsw-coastal-aquaculture-report.pdf?no-cache Bazhan, M., Mirghotbi, M., & Amiri, Z. (2015). Food labels: An analysis of the consumers' reasons for non-use. Journal of Paramedical Sciences, 6(1), 2-10. Becker, G. S. (1965). A Theory of the Allocation of Time. The Economic Journal, 75(299), 493-517. doi:10.2307/2228949 Ben-Akiva, M., & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Bennett, J., & Adamowicz, V. (2001). Some Fundamentals of Environmental Choice Modelling. In J. Bennett & R. Blamey (Eds.), The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation (pp. 37-72). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Bennett, J., & Blamey, R. (2001). The Strengths and Weaknesses of Environmental Choice Modelling. In J. Bennett & R. Blamey (Eds.), The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation (pp. 227-242). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Benson, C., Watson, P., Taylor, G., Cook, P., & Hollenhorst, S. (2013). Who Visits a National Park and What do They Get Out of It?: A Joint Visitor Cluster Analysis and Travel Cost Model for Yellowstone National Park. Environmental Management, 52(4), 917-928. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0143-4 Bessière, J. (1998). Local Development and Heritage: Traditional Food and Cuisine as Tourist Attractions in Rural Areas. Sociologia Ruralis, 38(1), 21-34. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00061 Bestor, T. C. (2001). Tsukiji, Tokyo's pantry. Japan Quarterly, 48(1), 31-41. Bianchi, C., & Mortimer, G. (2015). Drivers of local food consumption: a comparative study. British Food Journal, 117(9), 2282-2299. doi:10.1108/BFJ-03-2015- 0111 bin Mohammad Afandi, S. H., Samdin, Z., & bin Shuib, A. (2013). Review of valuation from a non-market perspective: travel cost method for rural tourism. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 5(4), 329-341. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-03-2013-0018 Birch, D., & Lawley, M. (2012). Buying seafood: Understanding barriers to purchase across consumption segments. Food Quality and Preference, 26(1), 12-21. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.03.004 Birch, D., Lawley, M., & Hamblin, D. (2012). Drivers and barriers to seafood consumption in Australia. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(1), 64-73. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761211193055
References 207 Björk, P., & Jansson, T. (2008). Travel Decision-making: The Role of Habit. MPRA, Paper 25360. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/25360.html Björk, P., & Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. (2014). Culinary-gastronomic tourism - a search for local food experiences. Nutrition and Food Science, 44(4), 294-309. doi:10.1108/NFS-12-2013-0142 Björk, P., & Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. (2016). Local food: a source for destination attraction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(1), 177-194. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-05-2014-0214 Björk, P., & Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. (2017). Interested in eating and drinking? How food affects travel satisfaction and the overall holiday experience. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 17(1), 9-26. doi:10.1080/15022250.2016.1215871 Blackwell, B. (2007). The Value of a Recreational Beach Visit: an Application to Mooloolaba Beach and Comparisons With Other Outdoor Recreation Sites. Economic Analysis and Policy, 37(1), 77-98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(07)50005-6 Blake, C. (2016, November 28). Catch of the Day | Brisbane's Best Seafood Everything! The Urban List. Retrieved from https://www.theurbanlist.com/brisbane/a-list/catch-of-the-day-brisbanes-best- seafood-everything Blake, M. K., Mellor, J., & Crane, L. (2010). Buying Local Food: Shopping Practices, Place, and Consumption Networks in Defining Food as “Local”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(2), 409-426. doi:10.1080/00045601003595545 Bliemer, M. C. J., & Rose, J. M. (2011). Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: An empirical study in air travel choice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(1), 63-79. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2010.09.003 Blomquist, J., Bartolino, V., & Waldo, S. (2015). Price Premiums for Providing Eco- labelled Seafood: Evidence from MSC-certified Cod in Sweden. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 690-704. doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12106 Boffa, F., & Castriota, S. (2019). The Economics of Gossip and Collective Reputation. In F. Giardini & R. Wittek (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Gossip and Reputation (pp. 401-416). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Bolton, A. E., Dubik, B. A., Stoll, J. S., & Basurto, X. (2016). Describing the diversity of community supported fishery programs in North America. Marine Policy, 66, 21-29. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.01.007 Bose, S., & Brown, N. (2000). A preliminary investigation of factors affecting seafood consumption behaviour in the inland and coastal regions of Victoria, Australia. Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics, 24(4), 257-262. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2000.00157.x Bougherara, D., Grolleau, G., & Mzoughi, N. (2009). Buy local, pollute less: What drives households to join a community supported farm? Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1488-1495. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.10.009 Bourdieu, P. (2010). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London Routledge. Brinson, A., Lee, M.-Y., & Rountree, B. (2011). Direct marketing strategies: The rise of community supported fishery programs. Marine Policy, 35(4), 542-548. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.014
208 References Brooks-Pollock, E., Tilston, N., Edmunds, W. J., & Eames, K. T. (2011). Using an online survey of healthcare-seeking behaviour to estimate the magnitude and severity of the 2009 H1N1v influenza epidemic in England. BMC Infectious Diseases, 11(1), 1-8. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-11-68 Brown, W. G., & Nawas, F. (1973). Impact of Aggregation on the Estimation of Outdoor Recreation Demand Functions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55(2), 246-249. doi:10.2307/1238448 Brunsø, K., Verbeke, W., Olsen, S. O., & Jeppesen, L. F. (2009). Motives, barriers and quality evaluation in fish consumption situations: Exploring and comparing heavy and light users in Spain and Belgium. British Food Journal, 111(7), 699- 716. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700910972387 Busby, G., Huang, R., & Jarman, R. (2013). The Stein Effect: an Alternative Film- induced Tourism Perspective. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(6), 570-582. doi:10.1002/jtr.1875 Business Queensland. (2016a). Commercial fishing in Queensland. Retrieved from https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industries/farms-fishing- forestry/fisheries/commercial-fishing-qld Business Queensland. (2016b, 13 June). What are geographical indications? Retrieved from https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/protecting- business/ip-kit/browse-ip-topics/place-names-identifying-the-origin-of-a- product-geographical-indications/definition Byrom, D. J. (2014). Optimising Markets for Moreton Bay Fresh Prawns Through Supply Chain Management. (Masters of Business by Research Masters Thesis). University of the Sunshine Coast, Retrieved from http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:15145 Calogeras, C., Morgan, S., Sarneckis, K., Cooper, L., & Lee, T. Y. (2011). Tracking the impacts on seafood consumption at dining venues arising from the Northern Territory’s seafood labelling laws - Final Report (FRDC Project No. 2009/216). Canberra: Fisheries Research & Development Corporation Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10070/265571 Campbell, J. M., & Fairhurst, A. (2014). Billion Dollar Baby: Local Foods and U.S. Grocery. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 20(3), 215-228. doi:10.1080/10454446.2012.728985 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. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.842276 Campigotto, R. M. (2010). Farmers' markets and their practices concerning income, privilege, and race: A case study of Wychwood Artscape Barns in Toronto. (MR72854 M.Ed.). University of Toronto (Canada), Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie w/869312550?accountid=13380 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. Carlucci, D., Nocella, G., De Devitiis, B., Viscecchia, R., Bimbo, F., & Nardone, G. (2015). Consumer purchasing behaviour towards fish and seafood products. Patterns and insights from a sample of international studies. Appetite, 84, 212- 227. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.008
References 209 Carpio, C. E., & Isengildina-Massa, O. (2009). Consumer willingness to pay for locally grown products: the case of South Carolina. Agribusiness, 25(3), 412- 426. doi:10.1002/agr.20210 Castriota, S., & Delmastro, M. (2015). The economics of collective reputation: Evidence from the wine industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 97(2), 469-489. doi:10.1093/ajae/aau107 Cesario, F. J. (1976). Value of time in recreation benefit studies. Land Economics, 52, 32-41. doi:10.2307/3144984 Chambers, S., Lobb, A., Butler, L., Harvey, K., & Bruce Traill, W. (2007). Local, national and imported foods: A qualitative study. Appetite, 49(1), 208-213. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.02.003 Chen, A., & Peng, N. (2018). Examining consumers’ intentions to dine at luxury restaurants while traveling. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 71, 59-67. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.11.009 Chen, W., Hong, H., Liu, Y., Zhang, L., Hou, X., & Raymond, M. (2004). Recreation demand and economic value: An application of travel cost method for Xiamen Island. China Economic Review, 15(4), 398-406. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2003.11.001 Chidmi, B., Hanson, T., & Nguyen, G. (2012). Substitutions between Fish and Seafood Products at the US National Retail Level. Marine Resource Economics, 27(4), 359-370. doi:10.5950/0738-1360-27.4.359 Choice Metrics Pty Ltd. (2012). Ngene 1.1.1. Christensen, V. (2010). MEY = MSY. Fish and Fisheries, 11(1), 105-110. doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2009.00341.x Claesson, S., Robertson, R. A., & Hall-Arber, M. (2005). Fishing Heritage Festivals, Tourism and Community Development in the Gulf of Maine. Paper presented at the Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Bolton Landing, NY. 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. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.05.006 Clark, T. (2017). Who Would Eat Such a Fish? Contexts, 16(3), 26-33. doi:10.1177/1536504217732049 Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297-298. doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613 Clawson, M. (1959). Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of Outdoor Recreation. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, Reprint No. 10. Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. L. (1966). Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press. Cohen, E., & Avieli, N. (2004). Food in tourism: Attraction and Impediment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 755-778. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.02.003 Coles Group. (n.d.). Responsible Sourcing: Certified products and ingredients. Retrieved from https://www.colesgroup.com.au/sustainability/?page=responsible-sourcing Comité Champagne. (2020a). Protection of the Champagne name. Retrieved from https://www.champagne.fr/en/comite-champagne/bureaus/bureaus/united- states/pages/protection-of-the-champagne-name
210 References Comité Champagne. (2020b). Protection: where do we stand today? Retrieved from https://www.champagne.fr/en/terroir-appellation/protection-of-champagne- appellation/protection-where-do-we-stand-today Competition and Consumer Act, (Cth) (2010). Conner, D., Colasanti, K., Ross, R. B., & Smalley, S. B. (2010). Locally Grown Foods and Farmers Markets: Consumer Attitudes and Behaviors. Sustainability, 2(3), 742-756. Retrieved from http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/3/742 Coombs, M., & LaBelle, A. (2014). When is seafood local? National Fisherman, 94(11), 6-7. Coster, M., & Kennon, N. (2005). 'New Generation' Farmers' Markets in Rural Communities: A report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. (RIRDC Publication No 05/109). Barton, ACT: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Retrieved from https://australianfoodtimeline.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/New- Generation-Famers-Markets-in-Rural-Communities-1.pdf Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 (Cth). Coward, S. (2017, April 13). Where To Eat The Freshest Seafood In Brisbane. The Urban List. Retrieved from https://www.theurbanlist.com/brisbane/a- list/seafood-restaurants-brisbane Cowley, D., & Coulon, J. R. (2014). Consumer Preferences With Regard To Local and Sustainable Seafood Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics at Colby, 01(01), Article 14. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.colby.edu/jerec/vol01/iss01/14 Croft, F., Voyer, M., Adams, M., Visser, C., Leadbitter, D., Reverly, J., . . . Kennedy, J. (2019). Does 'the local' provide a pathway to revitalizing primary production in regional communities? A case study of professional fishing on the NSW South coast. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 25(2), 254-281. Croissant, Y. (2017). pglm. R Package version 0.2-1. Retrieved from https://cran.r- project.org/package=pglm Cross, R., Plantinga, A. J., & Stavins, R. N. (2011). What Is the Value of Terroir? American Economic Review, 101(3), 152-156. doi:10.1257/aer.101.3.152 Curtain, E. (2019, November 26). Batter Up For 14 of the Best Fish and Chip Joints in Brisbane. The Urban List. Retrieved from https://www.theurbanlist.com/brisbane/a-list/best-fish-and-chips-brisbane Danenberg, N., & Mueller, S. (2011). Omnibus Consumer Research Findings wave 2, Seafood CRC project no. 2008/779. Australian Seafood Cooperative Research Centre Retrieved from http://www.seafoodcrc.com/southern-bluefin- tuna/consumer-research/2008-779-omnibus-consumer-research-findings- wave-2.html Danenberg, N., & Remaud, H. (2010). Omnibus Consumer Research Findings wave 1, Seafood CRC project no. 2008/779. Australian Seafood Cooperative Research Centre Retrieved from http://www.seafoodcrc.com/southern-bluefin- tuna/consumer-research/2008-779-omnibus-consumer-research-findings.html Darby, K., Batte, M. T., Ernst, S., & Roe, B. (2008). Decomposing Local: A Conjoint Analysis of Locally Produced Foods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(2), 476-486. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01111.x Davidson, H., Donnelly, F., Harden, M., Sly, D., Veenhuyzen, M., & Whitney, P. (2019, February 11). Australia's best fish and chips. Gourmet Traveller. Retrieved from https://www.gourmettraveller.com.au/dining-out/restaurant- reviews/best-fish-and-chips-australia-17007
References 211 Daviglus, M., Sheeshka, J., & Murkin, E. (2002). Health benefits from eating fish. Comments on Toxicology, 8(4-6), 345-374. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08865140215064 de Jong, A., & Varley, P. (2017). Food tourism policy: Deconstructing boundaries of taste and class. Tourism Management, 60, 212-222. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.12.009 Deale, C., Norman, W. C., & Jodice, L. W. (2008). Marketing Locally Harvested Shrimp to South Carolina Coastal Visitors: The Development of a Culinary Tourism Supply Chain. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 6(1), 5-23. doi:10.1080/15428050701884121 Deloitte Access Economics. (2016). The wider economic and social impact of Sydney Fish Market Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/Economics/d eloitte-au-economic-social-impact-sydney-fish-market-pictorial-090816.pdf Destination Gold Coast. (2018, March 12). Your local's guide to Southport & Labrador. We are Gold Coast Blog. Retrieved from https://www.destinationgoldcoast.com/blog/the-best-locals-guide-to- southport-labrador/ Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 146-160. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/30038845 Dichmont, C. M., Pascoe, S., Kompas, T., Punt, A. E., Deng, R., & Dasgupta, P. S. (2010). On Implementing Maximum Economic Yield in Commercial Fisheries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(1), 16-21. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/40536220 Discover Gloucester. (n.d.). Discover Gloucester: Official Visitor Guide 2018-2019. Retrieved from https://issuu.com/bostonguide/docs/guide_2018?e=3458647/61548058 Dodds, R., Holmes, M., Arunsopha, V., Chin, N., Le, T., Maung, S., & Shum, M. (2014). Consumer Choice and Farmers' Markets. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27(3), 397-416. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806- 013-9469-4 Dong, D., & Stewart, H. (2012). Modeling A Household’s Choice among Food Store Types. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94(3), 702-717. doi:10.1093/ajae/aas013 Down Under Tours. (2018). Experiencing the Fresh Seafood and Produce of Tropical North Queensland. Retrieved from https://www.downundertours.com/blog/experiencing-the-fresh-seafood-and- produce-of-tropical-north-queensland/ Durack, T. (2017, October 18). The ultimate Australian luxury food tour: From hand- dived scallops to freshly-dug truffles. Traveller. Retrieved from http://www.traveller.com.au/coaster-to-coaster-the-ultimate-australian-food- tour-gz289d#ixzz5Y3boZNSc Durán, R., Farizo, B. A., & Vázquez, M. X. (2015). Conservation of maritime cultural heritage: A discrete choice experiment in a European Atlantic Region. Marine Policy, 51, 356-365. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.023 Econometric Software Inc. (2016). NLOGIT 6. Eiswerth, M. E., Englin, J., Fadali, E., & Shaw, W. D. (2000). The value of water levels in water-based recreation: A pooled revealed preference/contingent
212 References behavior model. Water Resources Research, 36(4), 1079-1086. doi:10.1029/1999wr900332 Englin, J., & Cameron, T. A. (1996). Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data. Environmental and Resource Economics, 7(2), 133-147. doi:10.1007/bf00699288 Englin, J., & Shonkwiler, J. S. (1995). Estimating Social Welfare Using Count Data Models: An Application to Long-Run Recreation Demand Under Conditions of Endogenous Stratification and Truncation. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 104-112. doi:10.2307/2109996 Explanatory Memorandum, Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill (Cth) (2015). Ezzy, E., Scarborough, H., & Wallis, A. (2012). Recreational Value of Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishing. Economic Papers: A journal of applied economics and policy, 31(2), 150-159. doi:10.1111/j.1759-3441.2012.00174.x Fabinyi, M. (2011). Historical, cultural and social perspectives on luxury seafood consumption in China. Environmental Conservation, 39(1), 83-92. doi:10.1017/S0376892911000609 Fabinyi, M. (2016). Producing for Chinese luxury seafood value chains: Different outcomes for producers in the Philippines and North America. Marine Policy, 63, 184-190. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.024 Fair Fish. (n.d.). Fair Fish: South Australia's Community Supported Fishery. Retrieved from https://fairfishsa.com.au/ Faircatch. (2016). Retrieved from http://faircatch.co.uk/ Falvey, B. (2018). Gold Coast's Most Luxurious Experiences. Destination Gold Coast. Retrieved from https://www.destinationgoldcoast.com/inside- stories/posts/postid/127/the-most-luxurious-things-to-do-on-the-gold-coast 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. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.007 Farr, M., Stoeckl, N., & Beg, R. A. (2011). The efficiency of the Environmental Management Charge in the Cairns management area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 55(3), 322-341. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8489.2011.00548.x Feagan, R. (2007). The place of food: mapping out the "local" in local food systems. Progress in Human Geography, 31(1), 23-42. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132507073527 Feldmann, C., & Hamm, U. (2015). Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: A review. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 152-164. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.09.014 Fezzi, C., Bateman, I. J., & Ferrini, S. (2014). Using revealed preferences to estimate the Value of Travel Time to recreation sites. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 67(1), 58-70. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2013.10.003 Finneran, N. (2017). Beside the Seaside. The Archaeology of the Twentieth-Century English Seaside Holiday Experience: A Phenomenological Context. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 21(3), 533-557. doi:10.1007/s10761-016-0382-1 Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
References 213 Fishcoin. (2018). Fishcoin: Blockchain Based Seafood Traceability & Data Ecosystem. Retrieved from https://fishcoin.co/ Fisheries Act 1994 (Qld). Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Cth). Fisheries Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. (2017). Queensland Sustainable Fisheries Strategy 2017-2027. State of Queensland Retrieved from https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2017/Jun/FishPol/Attachments/Strategy. pdf Fisheries Regulation 2008 (Qld). Fisheries Research & Development Corporation. (2013). Australian Fish Names Standard. Retrieved from http://www.fishnames.com.au/ Fisheries Research & Development Corporation. (2016). Australian Fish Stocks Report. Retrieved from https://www.fish.gov.au/reportstock?kw=&page=1&sort=LatestFirst Fisheries Research & Development Corporation. (2017a). Calls for Expressions of Interest – Indigenous Fishing Subprogram and Southern Rocklobster Ltd IPA 2017: Call for Applications, 3 May 2017. Fisheries Research & Development Corporation. (2017b). Seafood Festivals. Retrieved from https://www.fishfiles.com.au/Media/Seafood-Festivals Fleming, C. M., & Cook, A. (2008). The recreational value of Lake McKenzie, Fraser Island: An application of the travel cost method. Tourism Management, 29(6), 1197-1205. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.02.022 Fonner, R., & Sylvia, G. (2015). Willingness to Pay for Multiple Seafood Labels in a Niche Market. Marine Resource Economics, 30(1), 51-70. doi:10.1086/679466 Food Act, (Qld) (2006). Food Agility. (2018). Food Agility project: Seafood tracking and traceability. Retrieved from https://www.foodagility.com/projects/seafood-tracking-and- traceability Food Production (Safety) Act 2000 (Qld). Food Production (Safety) Regulation 2014 (Qld). Food Regulation 2006 (Qld). Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015 (Cth). Food Standards Australia New Zealand. (2015). Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Retrieved from http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/Pages/default.aspx Food Standards Australia New Zealand. (2018). Country of origin labelling Retrieved from http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/labelling/coo/Pages/default.aspx Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York: Pantheon Books. Fusté-Forné, F. (2018). Drawing a gastronomy landscape from food markets’ produce. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 12(3), 378-384. doi:10.1108/IJCTHR-05-2018-0064 Garibaldi, R., & Pozzi, A. (2018). Creating tourism experiences combining food and culture: an analysis among Italian producers. Tourism Review, 73(2), 230-241. doi:10.1108/TR-06-2017-0097 Geoscience Australia. (n.d.). Border Lengths - States and Territories. Retrieved from http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/national-location- information/dimensions/border-lengths#heading-1
214 References Gheorghe, G., & Bulin, D. (2014). Cuisine - a regional tourism differentiation tool. Knowledge Horizons. Economics, 6(2), 194-199. Giorgi, S., Herren, S., & King, G. (2013). Community Supported Fisheries (CSFs): Exploring the potential of CSFS through Catchbox. A report for Defra: Brook Lyndhurst. Golan, E., Kuchler, F., Mitchell, L., Greene, C., & Jessup, A. (2001). Economics of Food Labeling. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24(2), 117-184. doi:10.1023/a:1012272504846 Goodstein, E. S. (2011). Economics and the Environment (6 ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc Gordon, H. S. (1954). The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery. Journal of Political Economy, 62(2), 124-142. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/1825571 Goti-Aralucea, L., Fitzpatrick, M., Döring, R., Reid, D., Mumford, J., & Rindorf, A. (2018). Overarching sustainability objectives overcome incompatible directions in the Common Fisheries Policy. Marine Policy, 91, 49-57. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.02.006 Gracia, A. (2014). Consumers’ preferences for a local food product: a real choice experiment. Empirical Economics, 47(1), 111-128. doi:10.1007/s00181-013- 0738-x Grauel, J. (2014). Being authentic or being responsible? Food consumption, morality and the presentation of self. Journal of Consumer Culture. doi:10.1177/1469540514541880 Grebitus, C., Lusk, J. L., & Nayga Jr, R. M. (2013). Effect of distance of transportation on willingness to pay for food. Ecological Economics, 88(1), 67-75. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.006 Greene, W. H., & Hensher, D. A. (2003). A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 37(8), 681-698. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191- 2615(02)00046-2 Greenpeace Australia Pacific Limited. (2014). Label My Fish: Why Accurate Seafood Labelling Matters. Sydney, NSW: Greenpeace Australia Pacific Limited Retrieved from http://labelmyfish.com/ Grijalva, T. C., Berrens, R. P., Bohara, A. K., & Shaw, W. D. (2002). Testing the Validity of Contingent Behavior Trip Responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(2), 401-414. doi:10.1111/1467-8276.00306 Grossetti, C. (2019, April 5). The best places to eat fresh seafood in and around Cairns. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2019/04/05/fresh-seafood-restaurants-cairns/ Grossmann, M. (2011). Impacts of boating trip limitations on the recreational value of the Spreewald wetland: a pooled revealed/contingent behaviour application of the travel cost method. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(2), 211-226. doi:10.1080/09640568.2010.505827 Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S., & Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, 44, 177-189. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001 Gum, R. L., & Martin, W. E. (1975). Problems and Solutions in Estimating the Demand for and Value of Rural Outdoor Recreation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(4), 558-566. doi:10.2307/1238873
References 215 Gutierrez, A., & Thornton, T. (2014). Can Consumers Understand Sustainability through Seafood Eco-Labels? A U.S. and UK Case Study. Sustainability, 6(11), 8195-8217. Retrieved from http://www.mdpi.com/2071- 1050/6/11/8195 Haab, T. C., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Hall, C. M., & Sharples, L. (2003). The consumption of experiences or the experience of consumption? An introduction to the tourism of taste. In C. M. Hall, L. Sharples, R. Mitchell, N. Macionis, & B. Cambourne (Eds.), Food tourism around the world (pp. 1-24). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Hanley, N., Bell, D., & Alvarez-Farizo, B. (2003). Valuing the Benefits of Coastal Water Quality Improvements Using Contingent and Real Behaviour. Environmental and Resource Economics, 24(3), 273-285. doi:10.1023/a:1022904706306 Hannam, K., & Knox, D. (2005). Discourse Analysis in Tourism Research A Critical Perspective. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(2), 23-30. doi:10.1080/02508281.2005.11081470 Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 Harrison, G. W. (2014). Real choices and hypothetical choices. In S. Hess & A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of Choice Modelling (pp. 236-254). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Hausman, J., Hall, B. H., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents - R&D relationship. Econometrica, 52(4), 909-938. doi:10.2307/1911191s Hausman, J., & McFadden, D. (1984). Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model. Econometrica, 52(5), 1219-1240. doi:10.2307/1910997 Hawke, K. (2019, February 7). 5 Great Seafood Restaurants to Try in Brisbane. The Culture Trip. Retrieved from https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/australia/articles/5-great-seafood- restaurants-to-try-in-brisbane/ Heide, M., & Olsen, S. O. (2017). Influence of packaging attributes on consumer evaluation of fresh cod. Food Quality and Preference, 60, 9-18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.02.015 Hensher, D. A. (2010). Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 44(6), 735-752. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2009.12.012 Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Green, W. H. (2005). Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hervey Bay Seafood Festival. (2018). Hervey Bay Seafood Festival. Retrieved from https://herveybayseafoodfestival.com.au/festival/ Hilborn, R. (2007). Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives. Marine Policy, 31(2), 153-158. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2006.05.014 Hillel, D., Belhassen, Y., & Shani, A. (2013). What makes a gastronomic destination attractive? Evidence from the Israeli Negev. Tourism Management, 36, 200- 209. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.12.006 Hinrichs, C. C. (2000). Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(3), 295-303. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00063-7
216 References History: Karumba - Yesterday - Today - Tomorrow. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://karumba.qld.au/history/ Hodges, B. D., Kuper, A., & Reeves, S. (2008). Qualitative Research: Discourse Analysis. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 337(7669), 570-572. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/20510756 Holmes, T. J., & Yan, R. (2012). Predicting Consumers' Preferences for and Likely Buying of Local and Organic Produce: Results of a Choice Experiment. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 18(5), 369-384. doi:10.1080/10454446.2012.685029 Hot Air Balloon. (2018). Visitors Guide to Australian Seafood on a Gold Coast holiday in Queensland. Retrieved from https://www.hotair.com.au/gold- coast/destination-guide/visitors-guide-australian-seafood-gold-coast-holiday- queensland Hotelling, H. (1949). "Letter". In An Economic Study of the Monetary Evaluation of Recreation in the National Parks. Washington, DC: National Parks Service. Howard, J.-L. (2018, July 22). 5 Iconic Queensland food ingredients you need to try. Delectable Tours. Retrieved from http://www.delectabletours.com.au/5- iconic-queensland-food-ingredients/ Hrastovec, J. (2019, October 10). The round-up: where to find the Gold Coast’s best fish and chips. The Weekend Edition. Retrieved from https://theweekendedition.com.au/gold-coast/food-drink/gold-coasts-top-fish- and-chips/ IBISWorld. (2015). IBISWorld Business Environment Report: Seafood Consumption - May 2015. Retrieved from http://clients1.ibisworld.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/reports/au/bed/defau lt.aspx?bedid=41 IBISWorld. (2019). Business Environment Report C3242: Seafood Consumption - November 2019. Retrieved from https://my-ibisworld- com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/au/en/business-environment- profiles/c3242/business-environment-profile Intuitive Solutions. (2017). Consumer Confidence in Prawns: Consumer Perceptions of Australian Prawns. FRDC Retrieved from https://frdc.com.au/issues/white- spot-disease Intuitive Solutions. (2019). Unpacking the consumer seafood experience 2019. Fisheries Research & Development Corporation James, S., & Burton, M. (2003). Consumer preferences for GM food and other attributes of the food system. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 47(4), 501-518. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8489.2003.t01-1-00225.x japan-guide.com. (2018). Tsukiji Outer Market. Retrieved from https://www.japan- guide.com/e/e3021.html japan-guide.com. (2019). Toyosu Market. Retrieved from https://www.japan- guide.com/e/e3013_market.html Jiménez-Beltrán, F. J., López-Guzmán, T., & González Santa Cruz, F. (2016). Analysis of the Relationship between Tourism and Food Culture. Sustainability, 8(5), 418. doi:10.3390/su8050418 Jiménez de Madariaga, C., & García del Hoyo, J. J. (2019). Enhancing of the cultural fishing heritage and the development of tourism: A case study in Isla Cristina (Spain). Ocean & Coastal Management, 168, 1-11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.10.023
References 217 Jodice, L. W., Ramshaw, G., Sirima, A., & Goris, L. (2018). Coastal Gastronomy: Envisioning a South Carolina Seafood Trail. Journal of Gastronomy and Tourism, 3, 1-16. doi:https://doi.org/10.3727/216929718X15193195617764 Johnston, R. J., & Roheim, C. A. (2006). A Battle of Taste and Environmental Convictions for Ecolabeled Seafood: A Contingent Ranking Experiment. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 31(2), 283-300. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40987319 Johnstone, B. (2018). Discourse Analysis (3rd ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell Khakzad, S. (2018). Promoting coastal communities through cultural tourism: the case of fishing communities in Brunswick County, North Carolina. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 13(5), 455-471. doi:10.1080/1743873X.2017.1391272 Khakzad, S., & Griffith, D. (2016). The role of fishing material culture in communities’ sense of place as an added-value in management of coastal areas. Journal of Marine and Island Cultures, 5(2), 95-117. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imic.2016.09.002 Kilvert, N. (2019, 23 March). Is your favourite seafood sustainable? Here's how to find out. ABC News. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019- 03-23/sustainable-seafood-what-are-the-options/10912830 Klein, C., & Ferrari, R. (2012, October 19). Conflicting sustainable seafood guides confuse consumers. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/conflicting-sustainable-seafood-guides-confuse- consumers-9867 Knetsch, J. L. (1963). Outdoor Recreation Demands and Benefits. Land Economics, 39(4), 387-396. doi:10.2307/3144843 Knibb, W., Le, C., Katouli, M., Bar, I., & Lloyd, C. (2018). Assessment of the origin of white spot syndrome virus DNA sequences in farmed Penaeus monodon in Australia. Aquaculture, 494, 26-29. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.05.018 Kragt, M. E., Bennett, J., Lloyd, C., & Dumsday, R. (2007). Comparing Choice Models for River Health Improvement for the Goulbourn River. Paper presented at the 51st Australian Agricultural & Resource Economics Society (AARES) Conference, Queenstown, New Zealand. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/10359/1/cp07kr01.pdf Kuch, J. (2018). Seafood Lovers' Guide to Cairns. Tropical North Queensland [blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.tropicalnorthqueensland.org.au/articles/seafood-guide-to-cairns/ Lacher, R. G., Oh, C.-O., Jodice, L. W., & Norman, W. C. (2013). The Role of Heritage and Cultural Elements in Coastal Tourism Destination Preferences: A Choice Modeling–Based Analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 52(4), 534- 546. doi:10.1177/0047287512475215 Lai, M. B., Cicia, G., & Del Giudice, T. (2016). Pescatourism, a sustainable tourist experience. Journal of Cleaner Production, 133, 1034-1042. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.013 Lambert, J., Klieb, L., & Weber, M. (2008). Regional influences upon the selection of imported versus domestic seafood. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 12(1), 17-42. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1828835
218 References Lang, M., Stanton, J., & Qu, Y. (2014). Consumers’ evolving definition and expectations for local foods. British Food Journal, 116(11), 1808-1820. doi:10.1108/BFJ-03-2014-0117 Lanz, B., & Provins, A. (2015). Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences? Journal of Regulatory Economics, 47(3), 300-324. doi:10.1007/s11149-015-9272-4 Larsen, R., Eilertsen, K.-E., & Elvevoll, E. O. (2011). Health benefits of marine foods and ingredients. Biotechnology Advances, 29(5), 508-518. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.05.017 Lawley, M. (2015). A Final Seafood Omnibus: Evaluating changes in Consumer attitudes and behaviours (Project No. 2015/702). Australian Seafood Cooperative Research Centre Retrieved from https://www.frdc.com.au/Archived-Reports/FRDC%20Projects/2015-702- DLD.pdf Lawley, M., & Howieson, J. (2014). What Chefs Want When Buying Australian Seafood. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 21(1), 1-11. doi:10.1080/10454446.2013.838533 Lee, J. H., & Hwang, J. (2011). Luxury marketing: The influences of psychological and demographic characteristics on attitudes toward luxury restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3), 658-669. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.12.001 Li, E. A. L. (1999). A Travel Cost Demand Model for Recreational Snapper Angling in Port Phillip Bay, Australia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 128(4), 639-647. doi:10.1577/1548- 8659(1999)128<0639:ATCDMF>2.0.CO;2 Liasidou, S. (2018). Representation of cultural tourism on the Web: critical discourse analysis of tourism websites. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 12(3), 327-347. doi:10.1108/IJCTHR-07-2017-0078 Lim, K. H., & Hu, W. (2016). How Local Is Local? A Reflection on Canadian Local Food Labeling Policy from Consumer Preference. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, 64(1), 71-88. doi:10.1111/cjag.12062 Lindholm, C. (2008). Culture and Authenticity. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Lloyd, K., & Morgan, C. (2008). Murky Waters: Tourism, Heritage and the Development of the Ecomuseum in Ha Long Bay, Vietnam. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 3(1), 1-17. doi:10.1080/1743873X.2008.9701247 LocalCatch.org. (2015). Seafood Locator. Retrieved from http://www.localcatch.org/ Long, L. M. (2006). Food pilgrimages: Seeking the sacred and the authentic in food. Appetite, 47(3), 393. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.08.035 Long, L. M. (Ed.) (2004). Culinary Tourism. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Loomis, J., Tadjion, O., Watson, P., Wilson, J., Davies, S., & Thilmany, D. (2009). A Hybrid Individual—Zonal Travel Cost Model for Estimating the Consumer Surplus of Golfing in Colorado. Journal of Sports Economics, 10(2), 155-167. doi:10.1177/1527002508320136 Loomis, J., & Walsh, R. (1997). Recreation economic decisions: comparing benefits and costs. State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc. Loureiro, M. L., & Umberger, W. J. (2007). A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety,
References 219 country-of-origin labeling and traceability. Food Policy, 32(4), 496-514. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.11.006 Louviere, J. J. (2001). Choice Experiments: an Overview of Concepts and Issues. In J. Bennett & R. Blamey (Eds.), The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation (pp. 13-36). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Lowes, A. (2016, December). The Ultimate Moreton Bay Seafood. Virgin Australia Travel. Retrieved from https://travel.virginaustralia.com/au/travel- tips/ultimate-moreton-bay-seafood Malorgio, G., Mulazzani, L., Di Terlizzi, B., Zuccaro, M., & Petruzzella, D. (2013). Enhancing small-scale fisheries value chains in the Mediterranean and Black Sea: Part 2. Paper presented at the First Regional Symposium on Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Mediterranean and Black Sea, St Julian's, Malta. Manski, C. (1977). The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision, 8(3), 229-254. doi:10.1007/BF00133443 Mapes, G. (2018). (De)constructing distinction: Class inequality and elite authenticity in mediatized food discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 22(3), 265-287. doi:10.1111/josl.12285 Maritime & Seafood Industry Museum. (2019). About us. Retrieved from https://maritimemuseum.org/new/about-us-2/ Martin, J. G. (2018). Tokyo’s famous fish market is moving to make more room for visiting tourists. Retrieved from https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/tsukiji- fish-market-toyosu McClenachan, L., Neal, B. P., Al-Abdulrazzak, D., Witkin, T., Fisher, K., & Kittinger, J. N. (2014). Do community supported fisheries (CSFs) improve sustainability? Fisheries Research, 157, 62-69. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2014.03.016 McConnell, K. E., & Strand, I. (1981). Measuring the Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Analysis: An Application to Sportfishing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(1), 153-156. doi:10.2307/1239822 McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics (pp. 105-142). New York: Academic Press. McFadden, D., & Train, K. (2000). Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15(5), 447-470. doi:10.1002/1099- 1255(200009/10)15:5<447::AID-JAE570>3.0.CO;2-1 McHoul, A., & Grace, W. (1993). A Foucault Primer: Discourse, power and the subject. doi:https://doi-org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.4324/9780203501122 McKean, J. R., Johnson, D. M., & Walsh, R. G. (1995). Valuing Time in Travel Cost Demand Analysis: An Empirical Investigation. Land Economics, 71(1), 96- 105. doi:10.2307/3146761 McManus, A., Hunt, W., Storey, J., McManus, J., & Hilhorst, S. (2014). Perceptions and preference for fresh seafood in an Australian context. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(2), 146-152. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12076 Meneguel, C. R. d. A., Mundet, L., & Aulet, S. (2019). The role of a high-quality restaurant in stimulating the creation and development of gastronomy tourism. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 83, 220-228. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.10.018 Merlin Entertainments. (2019). Sea Life: Everything you need to plan your aquarium visit. Retrieved from https://www.underwaterworld.com.au/plan/
220 References Meyerhoff, J., & Liebe, U. (2009). Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity. Land Economics, 85(3), 515-528. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/27759693 Mitchell, C. (2018, September 2). 12 of the absolute best food experiences in Queensland. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2018/09/02/best-food-experiences-queensland/ Mobsby, D. (2018). Australian fisheries and aquaculture statistics 2017. Canberra: Fisheries Research and Development Corporation project 2018-134, ABARES Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.25814/5c07b19d3fec4 Monument Australia. (2019a). Fisherman`s Park (Lost Fishermen`s Memorial). Retrieved from http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/disaster/maritime/display/92025- fisherman%60s-park-lost-fishermen%60s-memorial- Monument Australia. (2019b). Lost Fisherman Memorial. Retrieved from http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/disaster/maritime/display/100560- lost-fisherman-memorial- Mooloolaba Tourism. (2018). Relaxed Beachfront Dining Mooloolaba. Retrieved from https://www.mooloolabatourism.com.au/restaurants-and-bars- mooloolaba Moro, D., Veneziani, M., Sckokai, P., & Castellari, E. (2015). Consumer Willingness to Pay for Catechin-enriched Yogurt: Evidence from a Stated Choice Experiment. Agribusiness, 31(2), 243-258. doi:10.1002/agr.21401 Mount Gambier Point - Holiday Point Network. (2018). Big Lobster. Retrieved from https://www.mountgambierpoint.com.au/attractions/big-lobster/ Mwebaze, P., & MacLeod, A. (2013). Valuing marine parks in a small island developing state: a travel cost analysis in Seychelles. Environment and Development Economics, 18(4), 405-426. doi:10.1017/S1355770X12000538 National Heart Foundation of Australia. (2008). Position statement: Fish, fish oils, n- 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and cardiovascular health. National Heart Foundation of Australia Retrieved from http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/information-for-professionals/food- professionals/Pages/guides-policies-position-statement.aspx Nelan, B., Jansson, E., & Szabo, L. (2017). An Overview of Farmers Markets in Australia. In J. A. Harrison (Ed.), Food Safety for Farmers Markets: A Guide to Enhancing Safety of Local Foods (pp. 103-117). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Newton, P., Wood, R., Galeano, D., Vieira, S., & Perry, R. (2007). Fishery Economic Status Report, ABARE Report 07.19 Prepared for the Fisheries Resources Research Fund. Retrieved from Canberra: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/7f651dc6-f95b-422b- 9483-d1063335ca29/files/attachment-3.pdf NSW Total Allowable Fishing Committee. (2018). Report and Determination 2019: Abalone Fishery. NSW Government: Department of Primary Industries Retrieved from https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/commercial/fisheries/abalone NSW Total Allowable Fishing Committee. (2020). Report and Determination 2020- 21: Rock Lobster Fishery. NSW Government: Department of Primary Industries Retrieved from https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/commercial/fisheries/lobster-fishery
References 221 Nunan, D. (1993). Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin English. O’Neill, V., Hess, S., & Campbell, D. (2014). A question of taste: Recognising the role of latent preferences and attitudes in analysing food choices. Food Quality and Preference, 32, Part C, 299-310. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.10.003 Old Hastings Preservation Society. (2018). Hastings Fishermen's Museum. Retrieved from https://www.ohps.org.uk/hastings-fishermans-museum/ Olsen, S. O. (2001). Consumer involvement in seafood as family meals in Norway: an application of the expectancy-value approach. Appetite, 36(2), 173-186. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/appe.2001.0393 Olsen, S. O. (2003). Understanding the relationship between age and seafood consumption: the mediating role of attitude, health involvement and convenience. Food Quality and Preference, 14(3), 199-209. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00055-1 Olsen, S. O. (2004). Antecedents of Seafood Consumption Behavior. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 13(3), 79-91. doi:10.1300/J030v13n03_08 Ortega, D. L., Wang, H. H., & Olynk Widmar, N. J. (2014). Aquaculture imports from Asia: an analysis of U.S. consumer demand for select food quality attributes. Agricultural Economics, 45(5), 625-634. doi:10.1111/agec.12111 Oxford University Press. (2020a). 'discourse' In Lexico.com. Retrieved August 29, 2020, from https://www.lexico.com/definition/discourse Oxford University Press. (2020b). 'locavore' In Lexico.com. Retrieved August 29, 2020, from https://www.lexico.com/definition/locavore Pahl, S. (2018). Authenticity for the Australian Seafood Sector: A Review of Available Tools to Identify Substitution and Mislabelling. Adelaide SA: SafeFish Retrieved from https://www.safefish.com.au/Reports/Technical- Reports/Seafood-Authenticity Parliament of Australia. (n.d.). Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015. Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary Business/Bills Legislation/Bills Searc h Results/Result?bId=s1004 Parsons, G. R. (2003). The Travel Cost Model. In P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, & T. C. Brown (Eds.), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation (pp. 269-330). London: Kluwer Academic Publishing. Pascoe, S. (2019). Recreational beach use values with multiple activities. Ecological Economics, 160, 137-144. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.02.018 Pascoe, S., Doshi, A., Dell, Q., Tonks, M., & Kenyon, R. (2014). Economic value of recreational fishing in Moreton Bay and the potential impact of the marine park rezoning. Tourism Management, 41(0), 53-63. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.08.015 Pascoe, S., Doshi, A., Thébaud, O., Thomas, C. R., Schuttenberg, H. Z., Heron, S. F., . . . Calgaro, E. (2014). Estimating the potential impact of entry fees for marine parks on dive tourism in South East Asia. Marine Policy, 47(0), 147-152. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.02.017 Pascoe, S., Hutton, T., & Hoshino, E. (2018). Offsetting Externalities in Estimating MEY in Multispecies Fisheries. Ecological Economics, 146, 304-311. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.012 Pascoe, S., Hutton, T., Hoshino, E., Sporcic, M., Yamazaki, S., & Kompas, T. (2018). Maximising net economic returns from a multispecies fishery - FRDC Project
222 References No 2015-202. Retrieved from Canberra: https://www.frdc.com.au/Archived- Reports/FRDC%20Projects/2015-202-DLD.pdf Pascoe, S., Innes, J., Tobin, R., Stoeckl, N., Paredes, S., & Dauth, K. (2016). Beyond GVP: The value of inshore commercial fisheries to fishers and consumers in regional communities on Queensland’s east coast. (FRDC Project No 2013- 301). Canberra: FRDC Retrieved from http://www.frdc.com.au/project?id=425 Pascoe, S., Thebaud, O., & Vieira, S. (2014). Estimating Proxy Economic Target Reference Points in Data-Poor Single-Species Fisheries. Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 6(1), 247-259. doi:10.1080/19425120.2014.966215 Pearce, D. W., & Turner, R. K. (1990). Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Penney, U., & Prior, C. (2014). Exploring the urban consumer's perception of local food. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 42(7), 580- 594. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-09-2012-0077 Piasecki, W., Glabinski, Z., Francour, P., Koper, P., Saba, G., García, A. M., . . . Stergiou, K. I. (2016). Pescatourism - A European review and perspective. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria, 46(4), 325-350. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3750/AIP2016.46.4.06 Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Scholderer, J., Brunsø, K., & Olsen, S. O. (2008). Impact of consumers’ health beliefs, health involvement and risk perception on fish consumption: a study in five European countries. British Food Journal, 110(9), 898-915. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700810900602 Pratt, J. (2007). Food Values: The Local and the Authentic. Critique of Anthropology, 27(3), 285-300. doi:10.1177/0308275x07080357 Prayaga, P., Rolfe, J., & Sinden, J. (2006). A Travel Cost Analysis of the Value of Special Events: Gemfest in Central Queensland. Tourism Economics, 12(3), 403-420. doi:10.5367/000000006778493592 Prayaga, P., Rolfe, J., & Stoeckl, N. (2010). The value of recreational fishing in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia: A pooled revealed preference and contingent behaviour model. Marine Policy, 34(2), 244-251. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.07.002 Productivity Commission. (2015). Australia's International Tourism Industry, Commission Research Paper. Canberra Retrieved from https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/international- tourism/international-tourism.pdf Pucciarelli, D., & Faith, S. (2014). Consumer Ideology Determines Shopping Preferences at Farmers Markets in Two US Geographical Regions. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 5(19), 1935-1944. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/fns.2014.519205 Qian, J., Wei, J., & Law, R. (2018). Review of critical discourse analysis in tourism studies. International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(4), 526-537. doi:10.1002/jtr.2202 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. doi:10.1080/13657300801962591 Queensland Government. (2019). Interesting facts about Queensland. Retrieved from https://www.qld.gov.au/about/about-queensland/statistics-facts/facts
References 223 Queensland Government Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. (2016, 27 April). What is aquaculture? Retrieved from https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/business- priorities/fisheries/aquaculture/what-is-aquaculture Queensland Seafood Industry Association. (n.d.). Queensland Catch Retrieved from http://queenslandcatch.com.au/ R Core Team. (2018). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org RACQ. (2018). Monthly Fuel Price Report - March 2018. Retrieved from https://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/cars/owning-and-maintaining-a- car/fuel-prices Randall, A. (1994). A Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method. Land Economics, 70(1), 88-96. doi:10.2307/3146443 Regional Flavours. (n.d.). Regional Flavours - About. Retrieved from http://regionalflavours.com.au/about/ Rennick, L. (2018, October 3). Marvel over Australia's sensational shellfish bounty. SBS Food. Retrieved from https://www.sbs.com.au/food/article/2018/10/02/marvel-over-australias- sensational-shellfish-bounty Reserve Bank of Australia. (2019). Inflation Calculator. Retrieved from https://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html Richards, G. (2002). Gastronomy: An Essential Ingredient in Tourism Production and Consumption? In A.-M. Hjalager & G. Richards (Eds.), Tourism and Gastronomy (pp. 3-20). London: Routledge. Robinson, R. N. S., & Getz, D. (2014). Profiling potential food tourists: an Australian study. British Food Journal, 116(4), 690-706. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2012-0030 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. doi:10.1111/j.1477- 9552.2011.00299.x Rolfe, J., & Dyack, B. (2011). Valuing Recreation in the Coorong, Australia, with Travel Cost and Contingent Behaviour Models. Economic Record, 87(277), 282-293. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4932.2010.00683.x Rolfe, J., & Gregg, D. (2012). Valuing beach recreation across a regional area: The Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 69, 282-290. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.08.019 Rolfe, J., & Prayaga, P. (2007). Estimating values for recreational fishing at freshwater dams in Queensland. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 51(2), 157-174. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8489.2007.00369.x Ropars-Collet, C., Leplat, M., & Goffe, P. L. (2017). Commercial Fisheries as an Asset for Recreational Demand on the Coast: Evidence from a Choice Experiment. Marine Resource Economics, 32(4), 391-409. doi:10.1086/693022 Ropicki, A. J., Larkin, S. L., & Adams, C. M. (2010). Seafood Substitution and Mislabeling: WTP for a Locally Caught Grouper Labeling Program in Florida. Marine Resource Economics, 25(1), 77-93. doi:10.5950/0738-1360-25.1.77 Rose, J. M., & Bliemer, M. C. J. (2014). Stated choice experimental design theory: the who, the what and the why. In S. Hess & A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of Choice Modelling (pp. 152-177). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
224 References Rose, J. M., Bliemer, M. C. J., Hensher, D. A., & Collins, A. T. (2008). Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 42(4), 395-406. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2007.09.002 Sanchez-Cañizares, S., & Castillo-Canalejo, A. M. (2015). A comparative study of tourist attitudes towards culinary tourism in Spain and Slovenia. British Food Journal, 117(9), 2387-2411. doi:10.1108/BFJ-01-2015-0008 SanPedro.com. (2019). Fishing Industry Memorial. Retrieved from https://sanpedro.com/san-pedro-area-points-interest/fishing-industry- memorial/ Santos, C. A., Belhassen, Y., & Caton, K. (2008). Reimagining Chinatown: An analysis of tourism discourse. Tourism Management, 29(5), 1002-1012. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.01.002 Saunders, M. (2017, 2 November). Ballina's Big Prawn survives the chop to celebrate local industry. ABC News. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017- 11-01/big-prawn-still-celebrates-ballina/9102600 Scarpa, R., Philippidis, G., & Spalatro, F. (2005). Product-country images and preference heterogeneity for Mediterranean food products: A discrete choice framework. Agribusiness, 21(3), 329-349. doi:10.1002/agr.20051 Scenic Rim Regional Council (Producer). (2019). Scenic Rim Eat Local Week 29 June - 7 July 2019 Program. Retrieved from https://www.eatlocalweek.com.au/ Schaefer, M. B. (1954). Some aspects of the dynamics of populations important to the management of commercial marine fisheries. Bulletin of the Inter‐American Tropical Tuna Commission, 1, 25-56. Schiffrin, D. (1997). Theory and method in discourse analysis: what context for what unit? Language & Communication, 17(2), 75-92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(97)00002-5 Seattle Fishermen's Memorial. (2019). Seattle Fishermen's Memorial: The Memorial. Retrieved from https://www.seattlefishermensmemorial.org/ Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. (2014). Current requirements for labelling of seafood and seafood products. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_an d_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Seafood_labelling/Report Shamshak, G. L., Anderson, J. L., Asche, F., Garlock, T., & Love, D. C. (2019). U.S. seafood consumption. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 50(4), 715- 727. doi:10.1111/jwas.12619 Shaw, S. E., & Bailey, J. (2009). Discourse analysis: what is it and why is it relevant to family practice? Family practice, 26(5), 413-419. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmp038 Shea, M. (2019, April 17). The best places to eat seafood in Brisbane. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2019/04/17/best-seafood-brisbane/ Shi, W., & Huang, J.-C. (2018). Correcting On-Site Sampling Bias: A New Method with Application to Recreation Demand Analysis. Land Economics, 94(3), 459-474. doi:10.3368/le.94.3.459 Shin, Y. H., Hancer, M., & Song, J. H. (2016). Self-Congruity and the Theory of Planned Behavior in the Prediction of Local Food Purchase. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 28(4), 330-345. doi:10.1080/08974438.2016.1145612
References 225 Shrestha, R. K., Seidl, A. F., & Moraes, A. S. (2002). Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models. Ecological Economics, 42(1-2), 289-299. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921- 8009(02)00106-4 Shugart, H. A. (2014). Food Fixations. Food, Culture & Society, 17(2), 261-281. doi:10.2752/175174414X13871910531665 Sims, R. (2009). Food, place and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 321-336. doi:10.1080/09669580802359293 Sirgy, M. J. (1986). Self-congruity toward a theory of personality and cybernetics. New York, NY: Praeger. Smith, A., & MacKinnon, J. B. (2007). The 100-Mile Diet: A Year Of Local Eating. Toronto, Ontario: Random House Canada. Sogn-Grundvåg, G., Larsen, T. A., & Young, J. A. (2014). Product Differentiation with Credence Attributes and Private Labels: The Case of Whitefish in UK Supermarkets. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(2), 368-382. doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12047 South East Queensland Food Trails. (2019). Retrieved from https://seqfoodtrails.com.au/ South East Queensland Food Trails, & Moreton Bay Regional Council. (2019). Seafood Lovers Trail. Retrieved from https://seqfoodtrails.com.au/Moreton- Bay/Articles/Feature-Trail-2 Squires, D., & Vestergaard, N. (2016). Putting Economics into Maximum Economic Yield. Marine Resource Economics, 31(1), 101-116. doi:10.1086/683670 Sterling, B., Gooch, M., Dent, B., Marenick, N., Miller, A., & Sylvia, G. (2015). Assessing the Value and Role of Seafood Traceability from an Entire Value- Chain Perspective. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 14(3), 205-268. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12130 Steven, A. H., Mobsby, D., & Curtotti, R. (2020). Australian fisheries and aquaculture statistics 2018. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation project 2019-093. Canberra: ABARES Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.25814/5de0959d55bab Stoll, J. S., Dubik, B. A., & Campbell, L. M. (2015). Local seafood: rethinking the direct marketing paradigm. Ecology and Society, 20(2), 40. doi:10.5751/ES- 07686-200240 Sun, C.-H. J., Chiang, F.-S., Owens, M., & Squires, D. (2017). Will American consumers pay more for eco-friendly labeled canned tuna? Estimating US consumer demand for canned tuna varieties using scanner data. Marine Policy, 79, 62-69. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.02.006 Sunshine Coast Regional Council. (2017, 15 March). Coast records highest ever international holiday visitor numbers. Retrieved from https://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/Council/News-Centre/Coast-records- highest-ever-international-holiday-visitor-numbers-150317 Sunshine Coast Regional Council. (2019). Heritage: Mooloolaba. Retrieved from https://heritage.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/Places/Town-Histories/Mooloolaba Swinnen, J., Meloni, G., & Haeck, C. (2018). What is the Value of Terroir? Historical Evidence from Champagne and Bordeaux. Paper presented at the 30th Annual International Conference of Agricultural Economists, Vancouver, British Columbia. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277221.html
226 References Sydney Fish Market. (2019a). About SSS: Australia's Leading Cooking School. Retrieved from https://www.sydneyfishmarket.com.au/seafood-school/about- sss Sydney Fish Market. (2019b). Behind the Scenes at the Market. Retrieved from https://www.sydneyfishmarket.com.au/at-the-market/tours Sydney Fish Market. (2019c). SFM Retailers. Retrieved from https://www.sydneyfishmarket.com.au/at-the-market/retailers The Great Day Out. (2018). Sea to the City - Brisbane's New Bug and Oyster Trail. Retrieved from http://thegreatdayout.com.au/food/sea-to-the-city-brisbanes- new-bug-and-oyster-trail The State of Queensland. (2016, 29 June). Animal industries. Retrieved from https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industries/farms-fishing- forestry/agriculture/overview/animal-industries The State of Queensland. (2018, 18 December). Plant industries. Retrieved from https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industries/farms-fishing- forestry/agriculture/overview/plant-industries Thurlow, C., & Jaworski, A. (2012). Elite mobilities: the semiotic landscapes of luxury and privilege. Social Semiotics, 22(4), 487-516. doi:10.1080/10350330.2012.721592 Thurot, J. M., & Thurot, G. (1983). The ideology of class and tourism confronting the discourse of advertising. Annals of Tourism Research, 10(1), 173-189. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(83)90121-4 Thurstone, L. L. (1994). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 101(2), 266-270. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.2.266 Tjostheim, I., Tussyadiah, I. P., & Hoem, S. O. (2007). Combination of Information Sources in Travel Planning A Cross-national Study. In M. Sigala, L. Mich, & J. Murphy (Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2007 (pp. 153-162). Vienna: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211- 69566-1_15 Toler, S., Briggeman, B. C., Jayson, L. L., & Adams, D. C. (2009). Fairness, Farmers Markets, and Local Production. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(5), 1272-1278. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/20616294 Tourism and Events Queensland. (2019). Celebrity Chefs promoting Queensland's fresh culinary produce to lure more tourists. Retrieved from https://teq.queensland.com/news-and-media/latest-news/celebrity-chefs- promoting-fresh-culinary-produce-in-queensland-to-lure-more-tourists-here Tourism and Events Queensland. (n.d.-a). Food and Drink. Retrieved from https://www.queensland.com/en-au/things-to-see-and-do/food-and-wine Tourism and Events Queensland. (n.d.-b). Food and Wine Festivals. Retrieved from https://www.queensland.com/en-au/events/food-and-wine Tourism and Events Queensland. (n.d.-c). Gladstone and Surrounds. Retrieved from https://www.queensland.com/en-au/explore-queensland/gladstone- region/places-to-visit/gladstone-and-surrounds Tourism and Events Queensland. (n.d.-d). Les Wilson Barramundi Discovery Centre. Retrieved from https://www.queensland.com/en-au/attraction/les-wilson- barramundi-discovery-centre Tourism and Events Queensland. (n.d.-e). Queensland beaches. Retrieved from https://www.queensland.com/en-au/things-to-see-and-do/beaches
References 227 Tourism Australia. (2016). Australia's Best Seafood Experiences. Retrieved from http://www.australia.com/en/things-to-do/food-and-wine/australias-best- seafood-experiences.html Tourism Australia. (2018). Explore Australia's Fresh Seafood Festivals. Retrieved from https://www.australia.com/en-ie/things-to-do/food-and-wine/explore- australias-fresh-seafood-festivals.html Tourism Australia. (n.d.-a). Consumer Demand Project: Food & Wine. Tourism Australia Retrieved from http://www.tourism.australia.com/statistics/consumer-demand-research.aspx Tourism Australia. (n.d.-b). Restaurant Australia: Why it's time to share our food and wine with the world. Retrieved from http://www.tourism.australia.com/content/dam/assets/document/1/6/x/6/c/200 2548.pdf Tourism Research Australia. (2011). Snapshots 2011 - Internet use in trip planning and booking. Retrieved from https://www.tra.gov.au/tra/2016/documents/Snapshots 2011 Internet FINA L.pdf Tourism Research Australia. (2018). National Visitor Survey Domestic Day trip. Retrieved from: http://traonline.tra.gov.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/webapi/jsf/dataCatalogueE xplorer.xhtml Tourism Whitsundays. (2018). Where to eat. Retrieved from https://www.tourismwhitsundays.com.au/visitor- information/directions/where-to-eat Tourkolias, C., Skiada, T., Mirasgedis, S., & Diakoulaki, D. (2015). Application of the travel cost method for the valuation of the Poseidon temple in Sounio, Greece. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 16(4), 567-574. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2014.09.011 Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tribe, J. (2005). The Economics of Recreation, Leisure and Tourism (3rd ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Ltd. Trivette, S. A. (2015). How local is local? Determining the boundaries of local food in practice. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(3), 475-490. doi:10.1007/s10460- 014-9566-7 Tucker-Evans, A. (2015, February 2). Top 10 fish ‘n’ chip shops in southeast Queensland revealed. The Courier Mail. Retrieved from https://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/food/top-10-fish-n-chip-shops-in- southeast-queensland-revealed/news- story/9bf06f68df8677ab02a8b2b1a176e36c Uchida, H., Roheim, C. A., Wakamatsu, H., & Anderson, C. M. (2014). Do Japanese consumers care about sustainable fisheries? Evidence from an auction of ecolabelled seafood. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 58(2), 263-280. doi:10.1111/1467-8489.12036 UNESCO. (n.d.). Browse the Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Register of good safeguarding practices. Retrieved from https://ich.unesco.org/en/lists Veenhuyzen, M. (2014, April 17). Great Australian dishes: fish and chips. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/australia-food- blog/2014/apr/17/great-australian-dishes-fish-and-chips
228 References Veenhuyzen, M. (2018, 10 December). Get Your Hooks into Australia’s Best Fish and Chips. Qantas Travel Insider. Retrieved from https://www.qantas.com/travelinsider/en/explore/australia/best-fish-and- chips-shops-in-australia.html Verbeke, W., & Vackier, I. (2005). Individual determinants of fish consumption: application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite, 44(1), 67-82. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.08.006 Visit Brisbane. (2018a). 26 things to do in Sandgate, Brighton and Shorncliffe. Retrieved from https://www.visitbrisbane.com.au/information/articles/activities/things-to-do- sandgate-brighton-shorncliffe?sc lang=en-au Visit Brisbane. (2018b). Our quick guide to exploring the seaside town of Sandgate. Retrieved from https://www.visitbrisbane.com.au/brisbanes- bayside/sandgate?sc_lang=en-au Visit Brisbane. (2018c). Sea to the city: Brisbane's Bug and Oyster Trail. Retrieved from https://www.visitbrisbane.com.au/the-city/sea-to-the-city?sc lang=en- au Visit Brisbane. (2018d). Where to dine in the Redlands. Retrieved from https://www.visitbrisbane.com.au/information/articles/destinations/dining- redlands?sc lang=en-au Visit Moreton Bay Region. (2017). Local Tastes in the Moreton Bay Region. Retrieved from https://www.visitmoretonbayregion.com.au/blog/posts/local-tastes-in- the-moreton-bay-region Visit Sunshine Coast. (2016, July 13). Mooloolaba visitor guide. Retrieved from https://www.visitsunshinecoast.com/Travel-guides/Trip-ideas/Mooloolaba- visitor-guide Voltaire, L., Lévi, L., Alban, F., & Boncoeur, J. (2017). Valuing cultural world heritage sites: an application of the travel cost method to Mont-Saint-Michel. Applied Economics, 49(16), 1593-1605. doi:10.1080/00036846.2016.1221046 Voyer, M., Barclay, K., McIlgorm, A., & Mazur, N. (2016). Social and Economic Evaluation of NSW Coastal Professional Wild-Catch Fisheries: Valuing Coastal Fisheries [FRDC 2014-301]. Canberra, Australia: Fisheries Research & Development Corporation Retrieved from https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/fass-vcf-social-economic- evaluation-fisheries-report.pdf Wallace, A. (2018, 20 February ). Fishing industry important to Coast. The Queensland Times. Retrieved from https://www.qt.com.au/news/fishing- industry-important-to-coast/3339298/ Wang, H. H., Zhang, X., Ortega, D. L., & Olynk Widmar, N. J. (2013). Information on food safety, consumer preference and behavior: The case of seafood in the US. Food Control, 33(1), 293-300. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.02.033 Wang, O., Somogyi, S., & Ablett, R. (2018). General image, perceptions and consumer segments of luxury seafood in China: A case study for lobster. British Food Journal, 120(5), 969-983. doi:10.1108/BFJ-07-2017-0379 Whitehead, J. C., Haab, T. C., & Huang, J.-C. (2000). Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data. Resource and Energy Economics, 22(4), 339-354. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0928- 7655(00)00023-3
References 229 Whitehead, J. C., Pattanayak, S. K., Van Houtven, G. L., & Gelso, B. R. (2008). Combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate the nonmarket value of ecological services: An assessment of the state of the science. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(5), 872-908. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2008.00552.x Woolworths Group. (2019). Sustainable Seafood. Retrieved from https://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/page/community-and- responsibility/group-responsibility/responsible- sourcing/Sustainable_Fish_and_Seafood/ World Intellectual Property Organisation. (2017). Geographical Indications: An Introduction. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=272 World Intellectual Property Organization. (n.d.). Geographical Indications. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/geo_indications/en/ Wynnum Seafood Festival. (2016a). Wynnum Seafood Festival. Retrieved from http://wynnumseafoodfestival.com.au/ Wynnum Seafood Festival. (2016b). Wynnum Seafood Festival - About. Retrieved from http://wynnumseafoodfestival.com.au/about/ Yeoman, I. (2016). The future of food tourism. Journal of Tourism Futures, 2(1), 95- 98. doi:10.1108/JTF-12-2015-0051 Yeoman, I., Brass, D., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2007). Current issue in tourism: The authentic tourist. Tourism Management, 28(4), 1128-1138. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.09.012 Zhang, F., Wang, X. H., Nunes, P. A. L. D., & Ma, C. (2015). The recreational value of gold coast beaches, Australia: An application of the travel cost method. Ecosystem Services, 11, 106-114. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.001
230 References References 231 Appendices
Appendix A Discourse Analysis study bibliography Alexander, L. (2019, April 11). 9 food tours you’d be crazy to miss in Queensland. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2019/04/11/food-tours-queensland/ Alexander, L. (2019, April 25). The best places to eat seafood on the Gold Coast. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2019/04/25/best-seafood-gold-coast/ Auld, S. (2019, May 21). 10 spots to eat fresh seafood on the Sunshine Coast. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2019/05/21/seafood-sunshine-coast/ Australian Explorer. (2018). Sunshine Coast Seafood Lunch Cruise. Retrieved from https://www.australianexplorer.com/experiences/EX3153/profile.htm Backhouse, A. (2017, May 6). Airlie Beach's best seafood restaurants. Sunshine Coast Daily. Retrieved from https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/airlie-beachs-best-seafood- restaurants/3174680/ Barrier Reef Australia. (2018). Cairns luxury sunset dinner cruise. Retrieved from https://www.barrierreefaustralia.com/things-to-do/tours/cairns-luxury-sunset- dinner-cruise.331/ Blake, C. (2016, November 28). Catch of the Day | Brisbane's Best Seafood Everything! The Urban List. Retrieved from https://www.theurbanlist.com/brisbane/a-list/catch-of-the-day-brisbanes-best- seafood-everything Boath, L. (2018, February 22). 5 Gold Coast Neighbourhoods to Check Out. We are Gold Coast Blog, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.destinationgoldcoast.com/blog/five-gold-coast-neighbourhoods/ Boys, C. (2017, May 5). Where to eat and drink on the Sunshine Coast. Good Food. Retrieved from https://www.goodfood.com.au/travel/queensland/where-to- eat-and-drink-on-the-sunshine-coast-20170503-gvy2t1 Bristow, S. (2019, May 1). The 5 most unforgettable dining experiences on the Great Barrier Reef. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2019/05/01/dining-experiences-great-barrier- reef/ Coward, S. (2017, April 13). Where To Eat The Freshest Seafood In Brisbane. The Urban List. Retrieved from https://www.theurbanlist.com/brisbane/a- list/seafood-restaurants-brisbane Cruise Mooloolaba. (2018). Coastal Cruises Mooloolaba - Cruises. Retrieved from https://www.cruisemooloolaba.com.au/cruises Curtain, E. (2019, November 26). Batter Up For 14 of the Best Fish and Chip Joints in Brisbane. The Urban List. Retrieved from https://www.theurbanlist.com/brisbane/a-list/best-fish-and-chips-brisbane Davidson, H., Donnelly, F., Harden, M., Sly, D., Veenhuyzen, M., & Whitney, P. (2019, February 11). Australia's best fish and chips. Gourmet Traveller. Retrieved from https://www.gourmettraveller.com.au/dining-out/restaurant- reviews/best-fish-and-chips-australia-17007
Appendices 232 Destination Gold Coast. (2018, March 26). Your local's guide to Coolangatta & Currumbin. We are Gold Coast Blog. Retrieved from https://www.destinationgoldcoast.com/blog/locals-guide-to-coolangatta- currumbin/ Destination Gold Coast. (2018, March 12). Your local's guide to Southport & Labrador. We are Gold Coast Blog. Retrieved from https://www.destinationgoldcoast.com/blog/the-best-locals-guide-to- southport-labrador/ Down Under Tours. (2018). Experiencing the Fresh Seafood and Produce of Tropical North Queensland. Retrieved from https://www.downundertours.com/blog/experiencing-the-fresh-seafood-and- produce-of-tropical-north-queensland/ Durack, T. (2017, October 18). The ultimate Australian luxury food tour: From hand- dived scallops to freshly-dug truffles. Traveller. Retrieved from http://www.traveller.com.au/coaster-to-coaster-the-ultimate-australian-food- tour-gz289d#ixzz5Y3boZNSc Ennion, J. (2019, May 14). 13 of the best spots to get your seafood fix in The Whitsundays. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2019/05/14/best-seafood-airlie-beach-the- whitsundays/ Falvey, B. (2018). Gold Coast's Most Luxurious Experiences. Destination Gold Coast. Retrieved from https://www.destinationgoldcoast.com/inside- stories/posts/postid/127/the-most-luxurious-things-to-do-on-the-gold-coast Frostick, J. (2016, September 15). The round-up: crack into Brisbane’s most delicious crab and crustacean dishes. The Weekend Edition. Retrieved from https://theweekendedition.com.au/food-drink/brisbanes-best-crab/ Frostick, J. (2018, February 1). The round-up: Brisbane’s finest fish and chip spots. The Weekend Edition. Retrieved from https://theweekendedition.com.au/food-drink/brisbanes-finest-fish-and-chip- spots/ Giacomantonio, A. (2015, November 12). The round-up: Where to get your summer seafood fix. The Weekend Edition. Retrieved from https://theweekendedition.com.au/gold-coast/food-drink/the-round-up- seafood-gold-coast/ Gold Coast Fishermen's Co-operative. (2018). Gold Coast Fishermen's Co-operative. Retrieved from https://www.freshestcatch.com.au/ Grossetti, C. (2019, April 5). The best places to eat fresh seafood in and around Cairns. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2019/04/05/fresh-seafood-restaurants-cairns/ Grossetti, C. (2019, November 8). The Gold Coast's fascination with Food. Good Food. Retrieved from https://www.goodfood.com.au/travel/the-gold-coasts- fascination-with-food-20191105-h1jdn9 Hawke, K. (2019, February 7). 5 Great Seafood Restaurants to Try in Brisbane. The Culture Trip. Retrieved from https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/australia/articles/5-great-seafood- restaurants-to-try-in-brisbane/ Heaney, K. (2015, May 29). Queensland On A Plate. Flight Centre Travel Blog. Retrieved from https://www.flightcentre.com.au/travel- news/destinations/queensland-plate
Appendices 233 Hervey Bay Seafood Festival. (2018). Hervey Bay Seafood Festival. Retrieved from https://herveybayseafoodfestival.com.au/festival/ Hot Air Balloon. (2018). Visitors Guide to Australian Seafood on a Gold Coast holiday in Queensland. Retrieved from https://www.hotair.com.au/gold- coast/destination-guide/visitors-guide-australian-seafood-gold-coast-holiday- queensland Howard, J.-L. (2018, July 22). 5 Iconic Queensland food ingredients you need to try. Delectable Tours. Retrieved from http://www.delectabletours.com.au/5- iconic-queensland-food-ingredients/ Hrastovec, J. (2019, October 10). The round-up: where to find the Gold Coast’s best fish and chips. The Weekend Edition. Retrieved from https://theweekendedition.com.au/gold-coast/food-drink/gold-coasts-top-fish- and-chips/ Hume, A. (2014, August 23). How these Cairns prawn stars hope to catch a floating market. Cairns Post. Retrieved from https://www.cairnspost.com.au/lifestyle/how-these-cairns-prawn-stars-hope- to-catch-a-floating-market/news-story/79ff7b32a8a8063eebdfbd4fcf70e2f7 Iliagoueva, N. (2019, 13 May). The Star's Seafood Freshtival is coming for you this Autumn. GQ. Retrieved from https://www.gq.com.au/lifestyle/food-wine/the- stars-seafood-freshtival-is-coming-for-you-this-autumn/news- story/c8322eee4d811c298dd51c210c5f987f Karumba - Carpentaria Shire. (n.d.). Karumba community website. Retrieved from http://karumba.qld.au/ Kuch, J. (2018). Seafood Lovers' Guide to Cairns. Tropical North Queensland [blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.tropicalnorthqueensland.org.au/articles/seafood-guide-to-cairns/ Lay, R. (2017, January 17). A Seafood And Sushi Bar Is Popping Up In Brisbane! The Urban List. Retrieved from https://www.theurbanlist.com/brisbane/a- list/an-aussie-day-seafood-and-sushi-bar-is-popping-up Logan Tourism Association. (n.d.). Tiger Prawn Tours. Retrieved from https://logantourismassociation.com.au/tiger-prawn-tours Lowes, A. (2016, December). The Ultimate Moreton Bay Seafood. Virgin Australia Travel. Retrieved from https://travel.virginaustralia.com/au/travel- tips/ultimate-moreton-bay-seafood Mitchell, C. (2018, September 2). 12 of the absolute best food experiences in Queensland. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2018/09/02/best-food-experiences-queensland/ Mooloolaba Tourism. (2018). Relaxed Beachfront Dining Mooloolaba. Retrieved from https://www.mooloolabatourism.com.au/restaurants-and-bars- mooloolaba Rawson, S., & Tucker-Evans, A. (2015, September 15). Queensland gourmet getaways. News Pty Limited. Retrieved from https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/eat/queensland-gourmet- getaways/news-story/1266319f5fbb4cdb9f6bcab11cd0e641 Reckless, D. (2019, October 25). Queensland food festivals to add to your calendar now. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2019/10/25/queensland-food-festivals/ Rennick, L. (2018, October 3). Marvel over Australia's sensational shellfish bounty. SBS Food. Retrieved from
234 Appendices https://www.sbs.com.au/food/article/2018/10/02/marvel-over-australias- sensational-shellfish-bounty Rigg, A. (2014, 30 December). What's On the Ultimate Queensland Bucket List? Flight Centre Travel Blog. Retrieved from https://www.flightcentre.com.au/travel-news/destinations/ultimate- queensland-bucket-list Shea, M. (2019, April 17). The best places to eat seafood in Brisbane. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2019/04/17/best-seafood-brisbane/ South East Queensland Food Trails. (2018). Manly Harbour Village. Retrieved from https://seqfoodtrails.com.au/Brisbane/Suppliers/Manly-Harbour-Village South East Queensland Food Trails. (2018). Parkyn Parade Seafood Precinct. Retrieved from https://seqfoodtrails.com.au/Sunshine- Coast/Suppliers/Parkyn-Parade-Seafood-Precinct South East Queensland Food Trails, & Moreton Bay Regional Council. (2019). Seafood Lovers Trail. Retrieved from https://seqfoodtrails.com.au/Moreton- Bay/Articles/Feature-Trail-2 Statham, H. (2019, July 15). 48 hours of eating and exploring in Hervey Bay. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2019/07/15/48-hours-in-hervey-bay/ Statham, H. (2019, May 29). Foodie bucket list: 9 ways to experience Queensland’s food culture. Queensland Uncovered Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.queensland.com/2019/05/29/queensland-food-culture/ The Great Day Out. (2018). Sea to the City - Brisbane's New Bug and Oyster Trail. Retrieved from http://thegreatdayout.com.au/food/sea-to-the-city-brisbanes- new-bug-and-oyster-trail Tiger Prawn Tours. (n.d.). Tiger Prawn Tours - Quintessentially Queensland. Retrieved from http://www.tigerprawntours.com.au/index.html Tourism and Events Queensland. (n.d.). Food and Drink. Retrieved from https://www.queensland.com/en-au/things-to-see-and-do/food-and-wine Tourism and Events Queensland. (n.d.). Food and Wine Festivals. Retrieved from https://www.queensland.com/en-au/events/food-and-wine Tourism and Events Queensland. (n.d.). Gladstone and Surrounds. Retrieved from https://www.queensland.com/en-au/explore-queensland/gladstone- region/places-to-visit/gladstone-and-surrounds Tourism and Events Queensland. (n.d.). Hervey Bay Seafood Festival. Retrieved from https://www.queensland.com/en-au/event/hervey-bay-seafood-festival Tourism and Events Queensland. (n.d.). Les Wilson Barramundi Discovery Centre. Retrieved from https://www.queensland.com/en-au/attraction/les-wilson- barramundi-discovery-centre Tourism and Events Queensland. (n.d.). Tropical North Queensland | Places to visit. Retrieved from https://www.queensland.com/en-au/explore- queensland/tropical-north-queensland/places-to-visit Tourism Australia. (2018). Australia's Best Seafood Experiences. Retrieved from https://www.australia.com/en/things-to-do/food-and-wine/australias-best- seafood-experiences.html Tourism Australia. (2018). Explore Australia's Fresh Seafood Festivals. Retrieved from https://www.australia.com/en-ie/things-to-do/food-and-wine/explore- australias-fresh-seafood-festivals.html
Appendices 235 Tourism Whitsundays. (2018). Where to eat. Retrieved from https://www.tourismwhitsundays.com.au/visitor- information/directions/where-to-eat Tucker-Evans, A. (2015, February 2). Top 10 fish ‘n’ chip shops in southeast Queensland revealed. The Courier Mail. Retrieved from https://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/food/top-10-fish-n-chip-shops-in- southeast-queensland-revealed/news- story/9bf06f68df8677ab02a8b2b1a176e36c Veenhuyzen, M. (2014, April 17). Great Australian dishes: fish and chips. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/australia-food- blog/2014/apr/17/great-australian-dishes-fish-and-chips Veenhuyzen, M. (2018, 10 December). Get Your Hooks into Australia’s Best Fish and Chips. Qantas Travel Insider. Retrieved from https://www.qantas.com/travelinsider/en/explore/australia/best-fish-and- chips-shops-in-australia.html Visit Brisbane. (2018). 26 things to do in Sandgate, Brighton and Shorncliffe. Retrieved from https://www.visitbrisbane.com.au/information/articles/activities/things-to-do- sandgate-brighton-shorncliffe?sc lang=en-au Visit Brisbane. (2018). 26 things to do in Wynnum and Manly. Retrieved from https://www.visitbrisbane.com.au/information/articles/activities/things-to-do- in-wynnum-manly?sc_lang=en-au Visit Brisbane. (2018). Our quick guide to exploring the seaside town of Sandgate. Retrieved from https://www.visitbrisbane.com.au/brisbanes- bayside/sandgate?sc lang=en-au Visit Brisbane. (2018). Sea to the city: Brisbane's Bug and Oyster Trail. Retrieved from https://www.visitbrisbane.com.au/the-city/sea-to-the-city?sc_lang=en- au Visit Brisbane. (2018). Where to dine in the Redlands. Retrieved from https://www.visitbrisbane.com.au/information/articles/destinations/dining- redlands?sc_lang=en-au Visit Moreton Bay Region. (2017). Local Tastes in the Moreton Bay Region. Retrieved from https://www.visitmoretonbayregion.com.au/blog/posts/local- tastes-in-the-moreton-bay-region Visit Moreton Bay Region. (2017). Take a holiday, mini-break or day trip to Bribie Island. Retrieved from https://www.visitmoretonbayregion.com.au/blog/posts/take-a-holiday-mini- break-or-day-trip-to-bribie-island Visit Sunshine Coast. (2016, July 13). Mooloolaba visitor guide. Retrieved from https://www.visitsunshinecoast.com/Travel-guides/Trip-ideas/Mooloolaba- visitor-guide Visit Sunshine Coast. (2018). Coastal Cruises Mooloolaba. Retrieved from https://www.visitsunshinecoast.com/Operators/Coastal-Cruises-Mooloolaba Visit Sunshine Coast. (2018, July 11). Discover the flavours of the Sunshine Coast. Retrieved from https://www.visitsunshinecoast.com/Discover-the-flavours- of-the-Sunshine-Coast Visit Sunshine Coast. (2018). Mooloolaba. Retrieved from https://www.visitsunshinecoast.com/Mooloolaba
236 Appendices Visit Sunshine Coast. (2018). Tin Can Bay. Retrieved from https://www.visitsunshinecoast.com/Tin-Can-Bay Visit Sunshine Coast. (2019, May 27). Time for an epic foodie safari. Retrieved from https://www.visitsunshinecoast.com/Travel-guides/Articles/Caloundra-Jetski- Seafood-Safari-Hinterland-Farm Visit Sunshine Coast. (n.d). Sunshine Coast Queensland Official Food Guide. Retrieved from https://d2qnbqwlpf7cqd.cloudfront.net/SCDL/media/Sunshine-Coast- Destination- Ltd/VSC/Corporate/Resources/Brochures,%20guides%20and%20manuals/Su nshine-Coast-Official-Food-Guide.pdf Visit Sunshine Coast Point. (2018). Tin Can Bay Seafood Festival. Retrieved from https://www.sunshinecoastpoint.com.au/events/tin-can-bay-seafood-festival/ Walker, S. (2018, June). Moreton Bay, the ultimate chill out island holiday. Jetstar. Retrieved from https://www.jetstar.com/au/en/inspiration/articles/queensland- explore-moreton-bay-islands Wynnum Seafood Festival. (2016). Wynnum Seafood Festival - About. Retrieved from http://wynnumseafoodfestival.com.au/about/
Appendices 237
Appendix C Travel Cost Survey
The value of local fisheries for the coastal community and tourism
Background Known for its stunning beach, variety of recreational and maritime activities, and fresh local seafood, Mooloolaba is recognised as one of Australia’s favourite getaway destinations on the Sunshine Coast.
Mooloolaba is also home to a working tuna and prawn fishing fleet and its catch is sold across Australia and South East Asia. However, the Mooloolaba fishing fleet is also an important part of Mooloolaba’s identity. Visitors at the Mooloolaba Spit can observe the fishing trawlers and can sample their harvest in local seafood outlets.
As a day tripper / holiday maker, we would like to know whether the existence of the local fishing fleet and the ability to experience local seafood sourced from this fleet add value to your overall trip experience in Mooloolaba.
Section 1 will ask your age to confirm you are 18 years or over and establish your prior experiences with the area. Section 2 will ask questions about your trip to Mooloolaba. Section 3 will ask some questions about you.
Appendices 239
Section 1 – Prior Experience Questions
1. What is your age? ______[Exit survey if under 18 years old]
2. Are you: A Mooloolaba resident (skip question 3 and 4, go to 5) A Queensland resident (other than Mooloolaba) [go to Question 3(a)] An interstate visitor [go to Question 3(b)] An international visitor [go to Question 3(b)]
For Queensland residents –other than Mooloolaba: NOT from Queensland 3. (a) What is your: 3. (b) What is the suburb/town of the last place you were staying? Home postcode ______
Home suburb/town? ______
______
[If you do not feel comfortable giving both, please state your postcode only]
4. Is this your first time to Mooloolaba? Yes (1) No (2)
5. Before your visit today, were you aware that commercial fishing was one of Mooloolaba’s main industries? Yes (1) No (2)
6. What have you done (or plan on doing) today while at Mooloolaba? (check all that apply) See the fishing fleet Eat or bought locally caught seafood Other – provide details
240 Appendices Section 2 – Questions about your trip
FIRST TIME 7(a) How long are you staying in Mooloolaba? visitor Day trip Short stay (1-2 nights) Medium stay (3-6 nights) Long stay (7 nights or more)
NOT first 7(b) In the last 12 months, how many times have you visited time visitor Mooloolaba and NOT local Day trip ______(times)
Short stay (1-2 nights) ______(times)
Medium stay (3-6 nights) ______(times)
Long stay (7 nights or more) ______(times)
LOCAL 7(c )In the last 12 months, roughly how many times have you visited residents the Spit in order to buy seafood and/or see the fishing fleet (i.e. not for work related purposes)?
______(times)
8. How many people have travelled with you today?
Number of adults ______(including you)
Number of children ______(total number)
If you travel with children, how many of your children are:
Less than 5 years old ______
5 – 12 years old ______
13 – 17 years old ______
9. Roughly, how far is it to Mooloolaba (or to the Spit if staying or living locally) from your place of residence / the last place you were staying? (whichever is applicable)
______(Km)
Appendices 241
(ii) see the local fish outlets selling locally caught fish 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(iii) purchase freshly caught fish/seafood from the local fishing fleet (%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Questions about future trips to Mooloolaba (If the answer to Question 5 was ‘YES’ – they KNEW about the fishing industry before hand) The following questions (questions 14 & 15) relate to your future trips to Mooloolaba. Please choose the point which best reflects your level of importance for the following:
14a. If there was not a local fishing industry based in Mooloolaba, how would this affect your likelihood of future trips to the area?
Decrease by Would not Decrease by Decrease by Decrease by more than visit again No change 10% 20% 30-40% 50% (e.g. (go halve) elsewhere)
14b. If there was no locally caught seafood available in Mooloolaba, how would this affect your likelihood of future trips to the area?
Decrease by Would not Decrease by Decrease by Decrease by more than visit again No change 10% 20% 30-40% 50% (e.g. (go halve) elsewhere)
Questions about future trips to Mooloolaba (If the answer to Question 5 was ‘NO’ – they DID NOT KNOW about the fishing industry before hand) The following questions (questions 14 & 15) relate to your future trips to Mooloolaba. Please choose the point which best reflects your level of importance for the following:
15a. Now that you are aware that there is a local fishing industry based in Mooloolaba, how does this affect your likelihood of future trips to the area?
Double the Increase by Increase by Increase by Increase by No change number of 10% 20% 30-40% 50% trips
Appendices 243 15b. Now that you are aware that there is locally caught seafood available in Mooloolaba, how would this affect your likelihood of future trips to the area?
Double the Increase by Increase by Increase by Increase by No change number of 10% 20% 30-40% 50% trips
Questions for QUEENSLAND respondents only
16. Do you think that seeing the local fishing fleet will make you more interested in eating locally caught fish? Yes No
In either case, please explain your reasoning
17. Do you think that eating locally caught fish today, will mean that you more likely to purchase fish caught along the coast of Queensland? Yes No
In either case, please explain your reasoning
244 Appendices
Section 3 – Questions about you 18. What is your gender? Male (1) Female (2) Other (3) I would rather not say (4)
19. What is the highest level of education you have completed? Year 11 or below (1) Year 12 (2) Certificate III/IV (3) Advanced Diploma and Diploma (4) Bachelor Degree (5) Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate (6) Postgraduate degree (7) I would rather not say (8)
20. What is your occupation? Full time employee (1) Part time employee (2) Casual employee (3) Self-employed (4) Student (5) A homemaker (6) Retired (7) Unable to work (8) Unemployed (9) I would rather not say (10)
21. Which of the following gross (before tax) annual total household income group applied to you in 2016-17? Under $20,000 (1) $20,000-$39,999 (2) $40,000-$59,999 (3) $60,000-$79,999 (4) $80,000-$99,999 (5) $100,000-$124,999 (6) $125,000-$149,999 (7) $150,000-$174,999 (8) $175,000-$199,999 (9) $200,000-$249,999 (10) $250,000 -$299,999 (11) $300,000 -$349,999 (12) $350,000 -$399,999 (13) $400,000 and over (14) I would rather not say (15)
Appendices 245
22. Do you have connections (e.g., work, family background) with any commercial fishing industry? Yes (1) No (2) I would rather not say (3)
23. Do you have connections (e.g. work, family background) with any related fishing industry? (e.g. charter industry, seafood marketing, catering etc). Yes (1) No (2) I would rather not say (3)
24. Do you go fishing for recreation? Yes (1) No (2) I would rather not say (3)
25. Are you a member of an environmental conservation society or organization? Yes (1) No (2) I would rather not say (3)
Comments If you have any comments with respect to this study, please put them in the box below:
Thank you for your time! -
246 Appendices Appendix D Travel Cost Models including Mooloolaba residents
Testing the opportunity cost of time
Before estimating the models which included Mooloolaba residents, the opportunity cost of time was first examined (see Appendix D – Table 1). In both cases (including Mooloolaba residents (see Appendix D – Table 1) or excluding Mooloolaba residents (see Chapter 4 Table 4-7)) it was found that the time cost variable was not significant. The resulting opportunity cost of time variable was also not significant, thus this was excluded from the models below.
Appendix D – Table 1 Testing the opportunity cost of time – including Mooloolaba residents
Estimate Std. Error Sig Intercept 52.70854 8.53445 *** Travel cost -1.33177 0.47806 ** Time cost 0.09411 0.19737 Residual standard error 75.53 on 142 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared 0.08182 Adjusted R-squared 0.06889 F-statistic 6.327 on 2 and 142 DF, p-value: 0.002333 Opportunity cost -0.0707 0.1311 ***,**,*,+ = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
Testing relationship between importance of seeing the fleet and importance of eating locally caught seafood
In a similar manner to the above,15 the correlation between the importance of seeing the fleet and the importance of eating locally caught seafood was tested. The correlation coefficient when Mooloolaba residents were included in the sample was 0.6065 (previously 0.6015 when Mooloolaba residents were excluded). Given the moderate positive correlation between these variables it was again decided that two
15 See Chapter 4, Section 4.5.2.
Appendices 247 separate models would be needed in order to capture the effect of each activity on the decision to visit Mooloolaba.
Initial Poisson and negative binomial model
The results of the initial Poisson and negative binomial model which include Mooloolaba residents are presented below (see Appendix D - Table 2 below). For the Poisson model, the dependent variable was the total number of trips reduced by one to correct for endogenous stratification (Haab & McConnell, 2002). Although the majority of the variables in the Poisson model are significant (except the variables indicating that the respondent would not like to reveal their education or occupation), in this case the over dispersion test for the Poisson model is significant at a 10% level (see Appendix D - Table 3). This indicates that an alternative model should be used.
For the negative binomial model, the dependent variable was the original trip number but weighted by 1/(trip number) to remove the effect of endogenous stratification (Shi & Huang, 2018). The theta coefficient for the negative binomial model is significantly different from zero indicating that the negative binomial is the correct specification (see Appendix D - Table 2 below). The AIC for the negative binomial model is also much smaller than the Poisson model AIC indicating a better model fit. The negative binomial model was thus chosen as the appropriate model form.
When comparing the initial negative binomial model that includes Mooloolaba residents (see Appendix D - Table 2 below) against the initial negative binomial model that removes Mooloolaba residents from the sample (see Chapter 4 Table 4-9), the results are similar. For both models, those with related fishing industry connections were more likely to visit Mooloolaba, whereas respondents living further away (interstate and international visitors) were less likely to visit Mooloolaba. With respect to the consumer surplus, when including Mooloolaba residents in the sample, the consumer surplus for the trip increases to $75.02 (in comparison to $70.79 when Mooloolaba residents are excluded from the sample – see Chapter 4 Table 4-9).
248 Appendices Appendix D – Table 2 – including Mooloolaba residents
Poisson Negative Bionomial Est S.E. Sig Est S.E. Sig Intercept 6.6567 0.1160 *** 1.8880 0.9411 * Travel cost -0.0524 0.0023 *** -0.0133 0.0080 + Age -0.0161 0.0018 *** 0.0153 0.0123 Female -0.1499 0.0377 *** 0.0412 0.3182 Income2 0.0061 0.0002 *** 0.0000 0.0025 Commercial fisher connections -1.0660 0.0865 *** -0.3006 0.6219 Related fishing industry connections 0.5947 0.0557 *** 1.0510 0.5725 + Recreational fisher -0.1388 0.0388 *** 0.0555 0.3583 Member of an environmental organisation 0.5651 0.0505 *** -0.0701 0.4738 Number of adults in travel party -0.7577 0.0377 *** -0.1968 0.1478 Kids dummy variable 0.2228 0.0503 *** 0.4623 0.4295 Year 12 -1.1923 0.0684 *** -0.4374 0.6845 Certificate III / IV -0.9444 0.0641 *** -0.0942 0.6656 Advanced Diploma and Diploma -1.4670 0.0592 *** 0.1767 0.6320 Bachelor Degree -2.2418 0.0742 *** -0.3541 0.5892 Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate -1.4237 0.0845 *** 0.0043 0.7398 Postgraduate degree -2.3958 0.0860 *** -0.4497 0.6645 I would rather not say (education) -0.0378 0.4899 -0.1739 2.6580 Part time employee 0.2379 0.0617 *** -0.0002 0.6289 Casual employee -0.9309 0.1071 *** -1.2030 0.8031 Self Employed -0.3952 0.0602 *** -0.0798 0.5394 Student -1.7494 0.3396 *** -0.2764 0.6294 Homemaker -0.6980 0.1920 *** -0.4956 1.0230 Retired 0.5998 0.0722 *** -0.4989 0.6137 Unemployed -0.6209 0.3116 * -0.0069 1.2450 I would rather not say (occupation) 0.4242 0.3700 -0.4323 0.8273 International -4.0226 0.3413 *** -1.2560 0.4636 ** Interstate -1.9346 0.1212 *** -1.3520 0.5804 * Mooloolaba Spit 0.1343 0.0443 ** -0.5670 0.4812 AIC 5959.118 286.6405 Theta 2.044 0.544 *** 2 x log-likelihood -226.641 Consumer surplus for trip 19.09 0.8247 75.019 45.0609 + ***,**,*,+ = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
Appendix D - Table 3 Over dispersion test for Poisson regression Z score 1.5057 P – value 0.06607 alpha 123.638
Appendices 249 Negative binomial models – importance of fleet/fish market
The results of the negative binomial models which examine the importance of the fleet/fish market on the decision to visit is seen below (see Appendix D – Table 4). The dependent variable is again the unadjusted trip number but weighted by 1/(trip number) to remove the effect of endogenous stratification (Shi & Huang, 2018). Like the models in Chapter 4 (Table 4-11) which exclude Mooloolaba residents, the model which includes Mooloolaba residents below was estimated twice: first using the entire sample and second using the sub-sample who knew of the industry before their trip. In both instances those who travelled 1000km or more were excluded from estimation as they were considered as outliers.
The models which include Mooloolaba results below are similar to the models which exclude Mooloolaba residents (see Chapter 4 Table 4-11 ). The coefficient signs for each variable in both models (the entire sample and the subset that knew about the industry before their trip) have remained the same. While there were slight changes to the levels of significance for some variables, the variables which were significant in the models that exclude Mooloolaba are still significant in the models that include Mooloolaba.
The main difference between these models (including or excluding Mooloolaba residents) is the higher consumer surplus attributed to seeing the fishing fleet/fish market when Mooloolaba residents are included in the model. When examining the model estimated using the entire sample including Mooloolaba residents (see below), the consumer surplus attributed to seeing the fleet/fish markets increases to $42.06 (previously $39.41 when Mooloolaba residents are excluded). Similarly, when examining the model estimated using the sub-sample that knew of the fishing industry before their trip (including Mooloolaba residents), the consumer surplus attributed to seeing the fleet/fish markets increases to $36.03 (previously $29.66 when Mooloolaba residents are excluded). However, it is noted that the consumer surplus of the group who knew about the fishing industry before their trip is not significant. In both cases, regardless of whether Mooloolaba residents are included or excluded, the consumer surplus attributed to seeing the fleet/fish markets is much higher for the entire sample than it is for the sub-sample who knew about the fishing industry before their trip. Arguably, this again may be the result of using a smaller sample when using the sub- set of those who knew of the fishing industry before their trip.
250 Appendices Appendix D – Table 4: Examining importance of fleet/fish market including Mooloolaba residents
Model 3(b): respondents who Model 3(a): all respondents who were aware of the fishing travelled less than 1000km industry before trip and travelled <1000km Est S.E. Sig Est S.E. Sig Intercept 1.4605 0.4269 *** 1.6455 0.5952 ** Importance of fishing fleet/fish 1.2421 0.4738 ** 1.0838 0.6624 markets Importance of fishing fleet/fish -0.0295 0.0124 * -0.0301 0.0188 markets*Travel Cost International -1.3517 0.3961 *** -1.3301 0.7083 + Interstate -1.2424 0.4987 * -1.4451 0.5706 * Mooloolaba Spit -0.8077 0.4136 + -0.6091 0.5674 Related fishing industry 0.6945 0.4271 0.7241 0.5805 connections Theta 1.856 0.483 *** 1.425 0.459 *** AIC 247.6915 148.8071 2 x log-likelihood -231.692 -132.807 CS for fishing fleet/ fish $42.06 17.07385 * $36.03 22.32374 markets ***,**,*,+ = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
Appendices 251 Negative binomial model – importance of local seafood
The results of the negative binomial models which examine the importance of the fleet/fish market on the decision to visit is seen below (see Appendix D – Table 5). The dependent variable is again the unadjusted trip number but weighted by 1/(trip number) to remove the effect of endogenous stratification (Shi & Huang, 2018). Like the models in Chapter 4 (Table 4-12) which exclude Mooloolaba residents, the model which includes Mooloolaba residents below was estimated twice: first using the entire sample and second using the sub-sample who knew of the industry before their trip. In both instances those who travelled 1000km or more were excluded from estimation as they were considered as outliers.
The models which include Mooloolaba results below are similar to the models which exclude Mooloolaba residents (see Chapter 4 Table 4-12). The coefficient signs for each variable in both models (the entire sample and the subset that knew about the industry before their trip) have remained the same. While there are slight changes to the levels of significance for some variables, the variables which were significant in the models that exclude Mooloolaba residents are still significant in the models that include Mooloolaba residents.
Again, the main difference between these models is the higher consumer surplus attributed to being able to eat locally caught seafood when Mooloolaba residents are included in the model. When examining the model estimated using the entire sample including Mooloolaba residents (see below), the consumer surplus attributed to eating locally caught seafood increases to $47.93 (previously $45.30 when Mooloolaba residents are excluded). Similarly, when examining the model estimated using the sub- sample that knew of the fishing industry before their trip (including Mooloolaba residents), the consumer surplus attributed to eating locally caught seafood increases to $32.21 (previously $28.16 when Mooloolaba residents are excluded). However it is noted that for both models (including or excluding Mooloolaba) the consumer surplus for the group that knew about the fishing industry before their trip is not significant. Again, in both cases, regardless of whether Mooloolaba residents are included or excluded, the consumer surplus attributed to seeing the fleet/fish markets is much higher for the entire sample than it is for the sub-sample who knew about the fishing industry before their trip. Again, this may be the result of using a smaller sample when using the sub-set of those who knew of the fishing industry before their trip.
252 Appendices Appendix D – Table 5 Examining the importance of local seafood – including Mooloolaba residents
Model 4(b): respondents who Model 4(a): all respondents were aware of the fishing who travelled less than industry before trip and 1000km travelled <1000km Est S.E. Sig Est S.E. Sig
Intercept 1.2974 0.4922 ** 1.5062 0.6719 *
Importance of seafood 0.8921 0.4644 + 1.0806 0.6414 + Importance of seafood*Travel -0.0186 0.0091 * -0.0331 0.0180 + Cost International -1.3249 0.3986 *** -1.5311 0.5691 **
Interstate -1.1275 0.4940 * -1.5021 0.7259 *
Mooloolaba Spit -0.6653 0.4164 -0.5317 0.5688 Related fishing industry 0.6200 0.4316 0.7780 0.5860 connections Theta 1.749 0.441 *** 1.458 0.47 ***
AIC 250.3123 147.791
2 x log-likelihood -234.312 -131.791
CS for seafood 47.93 26.54 + 32.64 21.3313
***, **, *, + = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
Appendices 253 Testing of response to no fishing industry and no locally caught seafood
In a similar manner to the models in chapter 4 (see Table 4-13 and Table 4-14), tobit models were also estimated to check the response of individuals to the scenario of there being no fishing fleet in Mooloolaba (Appendix D – Table 6) and no seafood available in Mooloolaba (Appendix D – Table 7). Again, trips were scaled on a 0 to 1 basis, with the resulting number of trips being represented by the remaining percentage of trips that would be taken due to the given scenario. In the first model, the dependent variable was again ‘nofish1’ – representing the number of trips that be taken by the respondent if there were no fishing industry in the area (Appendix D – Table 6). In the second model, the dependent variable was ‘noeat’ representing the number of trips that would be taken by the respondent if there were no locally caught seafood in the area (Appendix D – Table 7). Again, variables which were not significant were iteratively removed from the model.
When including Mooloolaba residents in the estimation, the number of significant variables reduces for both models (Appendix D – Tables 6 & 7). In both cases, the importance of seeing the fishing fleet or fish markets and the importance of eating locally caught seafood are still significant. In terms of individual characteristics, only income is significant for the model testing the relationship between checking response to locally caught seafood in the area (Appendix D – Table 7).
Appendix D – Table 6: Tobit model checking response to no fishing industry (nofish1) – including Mooloolaba residents
Est S.E. Sig Intercept 0.94921 0.03896 *** Importance of seeing the fishing fleet or fish markets -0.14189 0.05744 * Log(scale) -1.51338 0.0685 *** AIC -3.351875 Log-likelihood 4.676 on 3 Df Wald-statistic 6.103 on 1 Df, p-value 0.0135 ***, **, *, + = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
254 Appendices Appendix D – Table 7: Tobit model checking response to no seafood (noeat) – including Mooloolaba residents.
Est S.E. Sig Intercept 1.0487 0.0581 *** Income2 -0.0005 0.0003 * Importance of eating seafood -0.2076 0.0618 *** Log(scale) -1.5763 0.0679 *** AIC -19.2297 Log-likelihood 13.61 on 4 Df Wald-statistic 14.96 on 2 Df, p-value: 0.0006 ***, **, *, + = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
Contingent behaviour travel cost model
A contingent behaviour travel cost model was estimated to test the scenario where there would be no fishing industry or locally caught seafood in the area (Appendix D – Table 8). Again, only those who were aware of the fishing industry before their trip were included in this model. The dependent variable was again the change in the number of trips if the fishing fleet or fresh local seafood were not available in the area. To take account the panel data structure of the contingent behaviour data, the model was estimated as a negative binomial model with random effects. The dependent variable was again weighted by 1/(trip number) to remove the effect of endogenous stratification (Shi & Huang, 2018). Mooloolaba residents were included in this model.16
Variables which were found to be not significant were iteratively removed from the model. The reduced form model specification is the same as the model which excluded Mooloolaba residents. When compared to the contingent behaviour travel cost model that excludes Mooloolaba residents (see Chapter 4 Table 4-15), it is seen that the signs of each variable coefficient and levels of significance remain the same
16 Note that the results of the second contingent behaviour model (testing the influence of new knowledge on future trips) remain the same (i.e. the model could not be estimated given the small sample size) given there were no Mooloolaba residents in the sample for this model. That is, all Mooloolaba residents were aware of the fishing industry and thus were included in the first contingent behaviour model which tested the scenario of there being no fishing industry or locally caught seafood in the area.
Appendices 255 (with the exception of the travel cost variable which now has a level of significance of 1%).
Here it is found that when Mooloolaba residents are included in the contingent behaviour travel cost model, the consumer surplus associated with a trip to Mooloolaba increases to $54.75 (previously $49.76 in the model which excludes Mooloolaba residents). Similarly, the change in consumer surplus associated with seeing the fleet would decrease by a slightly larger amount of $8.27 (previously $7.36 when Mooloolaba residents were excluded). The change in consumer surplus associated with eating locally caught seafood also decreases by a larger amount of $11.47 (previously $10.51 when Mooloolaba residents were excluded).
ఈ The mean of the parameters of the Beta distribution (‘a’ and ‘b’) is = 0.75. ఈାఉ This indicates in the absence of any additional data, on average the removal of the fishing industry and seafood from the area would result in a 25% reduction in the days visiting Mooloolaba. However, when Mooloolaba residents are excluded from the sample, the removal of the fishing industry and seafood from the area results in a slightly larger decrease in visitation days of 27%.
Appendix D – Table 8: Contingent behaviour travel cost model – no fishing industry and no seafood – including Mooloolaba residents
Std. Estimate error Sig Intercept 4.3360 0.2707 *** Travel cost -0.0183 0.0057 ** International -1.9855 0.4886 *** No fishing industry dummy -0.1511 0.0365 *** No seafood dummy -0.2095 0.0370 *** a 2.2871 0.4365 *** b 0.7871 0.1076 *** AIC 2123.574 Log-Likelihood -1054.787 CS for trip 54.75 17.0478 *** Δ CS for fleet -8.27 3.2587 * Δ CS for seafood -11.47 4.0670 ** ***, **, *,+ = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
256 Appendices Testing the characteristics of respondents who indicated no change in trip behaviour if there was no fishing industry or seafood in the area
Appendix D – Table 9 displays the results of the probit model that tests the characteristics of those who responded ‘no change’ to the number of trips if there were no fishing industry in the area. For this model, a dummy variable representing Sunshine Coast residents (excluding Mooloolaba) was included in the model.
Regardless of whether Mooloolaba residents are included (see Chapter 4 Table 4-16) or excluded from the model, a significant characteristic is the connection to any commercial fishing industry. That is, respondents with connections to commercial fishing are less likely (in this case approximately 35% less likely) to go to Mooloolaba if there is no fishing industry in the area. When Mooloolaba residents are included in the model the income variable comes significant at a 10% level. That is, for every $1000 increase in income, there is a 1% decrease in the probability of visiting Mooloolaba if there were no fishing industry in the area. In comparison to the model which includes Mooloolaba residents, it appears the variable representing membership to a environmental organisation is no longer significant.
Appendix D – Table 9: Probit model testing characteristics of those who responded ‘no change’ to number of trips if there were no fishing industry - Mooloolaba residents included
Std. Ave Marg Estimate error Sig Eff Intercept 1.4013 0.5795 * 0.4502 Sunshine coast resident -0.0235 0.4071 -0.0080 Other Queensland resident -0.0313 0.4507 -0.0100 Interstate 6.1640 278.7789 1.9806 International 0.1623 0.6422 0.0521 Income2 -0.0034 0.0020 + -0.0010 Adults in party -0.2148 0.1727 -0.0690 Satisfaction with seeing boats -0.0073 0.0170 -0.0023 Importance of seeing boats/fish markets -0.5669 0.5213 -0.1822 Commercial fishing connections -1.1054 0.5668 + -0.3552 Related fishing connections 0.1208 0.4278 0.0388 Recreational fisher 0.0256 0.2977 0.0082 Member of an environmental organisation 0.6776 0.4660 0.2177 AIC 150.1221 ***, **, *,+ = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
Appendices 257 Appendix D – Table 10 displays the results of the probit model that tests the characteristics of those who responded ‘no change’ to the number of trips if there were no locally caught seafood in the area. Again, a dummy variable representing Sunshine Coast residents (excluding Mooloolaba) was included in the model.
In both models (including Mooloolaba residents (see Appendix D – Table 10) and excluding Mooloolaba residents (see Chapter 4 Table 4-17)) the income variable and the importance of eating seafood variable are both negative and significant. Hence those with higher incomes and those who value eating locally caught seafood are less likely to visit if there was no locally caught seafood in the area. More specifically, when Mooloolaba residents are included in the model, this group is 1% less likely to visit for every $1000 increase income and 53% less likely to visit if eating locally caught seafood is important to the respondent (see Appendix D, Table 10). The interstate visitor dummy variable is no longer significant when Mooloolaba residents are included in the sample.
Appendix D – Table 10: Probit model testing characteristics of those who responded ‘no change’ to number of trips if there were no locally caught seafood - Mooloolaba residents included
Ave Marg Est S.E Sig Eff Intercept 1.8288 0.6464 ** 0.6166 Sunshine coast resident -0.1041 0.4025 -0.0350 Other Queensland resident -0.0469 0.4466 -0.0158 Interstate 0.9333 0.6071 0.3147 International 0.0339 0.6166 0.0114 Income2 -0.0044 0.0021 * -0.0014 Adults in party -0.0780 0.1759 -0.0263 Satisfaction with eating seafood 0.0024 0.0104 0.0007 Importance of eating seafood -1.5748 0.5417 ** -0.5310 Commercial fishing connections 0.1217 0.4922 0.0410 Related fishing connections -0.0322 0.4070 -0.0108 Recreational fisher -0.1190 0.2794 -0.0401 Member of an environmental -0.2291 0.4239 organisation -0.0772 AIC 155.85 ***, **, *, + = significance at 0.1%, 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
258 Appendices Appendix E Choice model – sample goodness of fit test and additional models Goodness of fit test for gender
Step 1: Hypothesis
H0: There is no difference between the gender composition of the adult Queensland population and the general sample H1: There is a difference between the gender composition of the adult Queensland population and the general sample
Step 2: Choose the test The Chi-squared ߯ଶ test statistic is calculated as follows:
ሺை௦௩ௗ௨ିா௫௧ௗ௨ሻమ ߯ଶ = σ ா௫௧ௗ௨
Male Female Observed Value 460 551 Expected %17 49% 51% Expected Value 495 516
ሺସିସଽହሻమ ሺହହଵିହଵሻమ ߯ଶ = + = 4.957 ସଽହ ହଵ
Step 3: Distribution of the test Degrees of freedom = n – 1 (where ‘n’ is the number of classes) Here there are 2 classes (male and female). Degrees of freedom = 2 – 1 = 1
Step 4: Level of significance The level of significance for this test is α = 0.05
Step 5: State the rule ଶ ଶ Reject the null hypothesis if ߯ > ߯௧
Step 6: Conclude ଶ ଶ Here ߯ ൌ4.957 and ߯௧ = 3.841
ଶ ଶ Since ߯ > ߯௧ the null hypothesis must be rejected. Therefore, there is a difference between the gender composition of the adult Queensland population and the general sample. That is, there is slightly more females in the sample in comparison to the adult Queensland population as of June 2015.
17 Expected % of males and females calculated using Queensland adult population as of June 2015 from: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Australian Demographic Statistics, Table 53. Estimated Resident Population By Single Year Of Age, Queensland, time series spreadsheet, cat. no. 3101.0 Retrieved from: https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@ nsf/DetailsPage/3101.0Mar%202016?OpenDocument
Appendices 259 Goodness of fit test for age
Step 1: Hypothesis
H0: There is no difference between the age composition of the adult Queensland population and the general sample H1: There is a difference between the age composition of the adult Queensland population and the general sample
Step 2: Choose the test The Chi-squared ߯ଶ test statistic is calculated as follows:
ሺை௦௩ௗ௨ିா௫௧ௗ௨ሻమ ߯ଶ = σ ா௫௧ௗ௨
Age class Observed value Expected %18 Expected Value 18-24 79 12.71% 128 25-29 79 9.38% 95 30-34 108 9.25% 94 35-39 109 8.49% 86 40-44 87 9.25% 93 45-49 89 8.66% 88 50-54 107 8.59% 87 55-59 95 7.88% 80 60-64 85 7.00% 71 65-69 68 6.34% 64 70+ 105 12.45% 126
ሺଽିଵଶ଼ሻమ ሺଽିଽହሻమ ሺଵ଼ିଽସሻమ ሺଵଽି଼ሻమ ሺ଼ିଽଷሻమ ߯ଶ = + + + ଵଶ଼ ଽହ ଽସ ଼ ଽଷ ሺ଼ଽି଼଼ሻమ ሺଵି଼ሻమ ሺଽହି଼ሻమ ሺ଼ହିଵሻమ ሺ଼ିସሻమ ሺଵହିଵଶሻమ ଼଼ ଼ ଼ ଵ ସ ଵଶ = 44.870
Step 3: Distribution of the test Degrees of freedom = n – 1 (where ‘n’ is the number of classes) Here there are 11 age classes. Degrees of freedom = 11 – 1 = 10
Step 4: Level of significance The level of significance for this test is α = 0.05
Step 5: State the rule ଶ ଶ Reject the null hypothesis if ߯ > ߯௧
Step 6: Conclude ଶ ଶ Here ߯ ൌ ͶͶǤͺͲ and ߯௧ = 18.307
18 Expected % of age classes calculated using Queensland adult population as of June 2015 from: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Australian Demographic Statistics, Table 53. Estimated Resident Population By Single Year Of Age, Queensland, time series spreadsheet, cat. no. 3101.0 Retrieved from: https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3101.0Mar%202016?OpenDocument
260 Appendices ଶ ଶ Since ߯ > ߯௧ it is concluded that there is a difference between the age structure and the adult Queensland population. To find which age classes differ from the adult Queensland population, the chi square distribution for each age class was determined as follows:
(Observed value – Age class expected value)^2 / (years) expected value Chi distribution 18-24 19.054 0.000 25-29 2.652 0.103 30-34 2.244 0.134 35-39 6.247 0.012 40-44 0.447 0.504 45-49 0.022 0.881 50-54 4.667 0.031 55-59 2.971 0.085 60-64 2.855 0.091 65-69 0.241 0.624 70+ 3.470 0.062
Here it is seen that the majority of age classes were similar to that of the Queensland adult population as of June 2015, however the age classes of 18-24, 35-39 and 50-54 year olds were significantly different from the Queensland adult population (chi distribution was less than 0.05). More specifically, the 18-24 year old group was underrepresented, while the 35-39 year old group and the 50-54 year old age group appeared to be overrepresented in the sample.
Appendices 261 Appendix E – Table 1 – Alternative mixed multinomial logit moodels
Mixed MNL - error terms of non monetary attributes as normal distribution and error term of price attribute as Mixed MNL model - all error terms specified as trigular triangular distribution distribution Coeff Sig Std Err WTP Sig Std Err Coeff Sig Std Err WTP Sig Std Err LOCAL 1.495 *** 0.107 3.39 *** 0.2720 1.509 *** 0.107 3.42 *** 0.273 QLD 0.663 *** 0.108 1.50 *** 0.2527 0.660 *** 0.108 1.50 *** 0.253 SUSTAIN 1.599 *** 0.087 3.62 *** 0.2288 1.619 *** 0.088 3.67 *** 0.232 FRESH 2.579 *** 0.109 5.84 *** 0.3213 2.604 *** 0.109 5.90 *** 0.324 PRICE -0.441 *** 0.020 -0.441 *** 0.020 ASCSQ 0.747 * 0.428 0.748 * 0.428 SEX -0.441 ** 0.190 -0.426 ** 0.190 AGE -0.021 *** 0.006 -0.021 *** 0.006 DISTANCE 0.000 ** 0.000 0.000 ** 0.000 RECFISH -0.279 0.209 -0.286 0.209 URBAN 0.178 0.188 0.186 0.189 TAFETRAD 0.087 0.225 0.093 0.224 UNI -0.052 0.253 -0.062 0.254 POSTGRAD 0.081 0.339 0.076 0.341 INCOME -0.004 ** 0.002 -0.004 ** 0.002 COMFISH 1.254 * 0.664 1.206 * 0.662 ENVGROUP 0.322 0.508 0.339 0.506 NsLOCAL | TsLOCAL 1.479 *** 0.091 3.567 *** 0.213 NsQLD | TsQLD 0.177 0.190 0.411 0.481 NsSUSTAIN | TsSUSTAIN 1.627 *** 0.096 3.921 *** 0.223 NsFRESH | TsFRESH 2.280 *** 0.119 5.376 *** 0.266 TsPRICE | TsPRICE 0.797 *** 0.046 0.798 *** 0.047 N 5490 5490 K 22 22 AIC/N 1.712 1.712 LL Function -4678.195 -4676.151 Restricted LL -7610.756 -7610.756 Chi squared [ 22](P= .000) 5865.122 5869.210 ***, **, * = significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively
Appendices 262 Appendix F Considerations for CSF in Queensland
The following section provides a brief outline of factors which may influence the decision of fishers and consumers to join a Community Supported Fishery (CSF) should one be considered for Queensland. These factors have been identified from the current literature surrounding CSF arrangements as well as literature regarding the general drivers and barriers to seafood consumption. Future studies may wish to examine these factors in more detail.
CSF considerations for fishers
Regulation: In terms of regulation of the CSF, two main forms of regulation have been identified: government regulation (mandatory regulation as imposed by law) and self-regulation (how the CSF will conduct itself internally). With respect to government regulations, three main types of regulation have been identified. These are:
x the health and safety regulations associated with running a food outlet (Food Act 2006 (Qld); Food Production (Safety) Act 2000 (Qld); Food Production (Safety) Regulation 2014 (Qld); Food Regulation 2006 (Qld); Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code),
x the Australian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth))
x and fishing regulations (Fisheries Act 1994 (Qld); Fisheries Regulation 2008 (Qld)).
With respect to fishing regulations, it is acknowledged that fishers will need to obtain: licences for each boat and adhere by any quotas, environmental and sustainability regulations in relation to fishing gear and fishing methods, as well as any fishing prohibitions.
Trust: Trust within a group or any entity is a key component to the success of a CSA and arguably a CSF (L. M. Campbell et al., 2014; Hinrichs, 2000). In the case of a CSF, a fishery may need to join forces with another fishery to ensure that the expectations of a consumer are met. That is, if the fishery wishing to establish the CSF
Appendices 263 only specialises in one type of seafood (e.g. prawns), this may not be enough to secure a customer base.
Monetary Incentives: Arguably profit is a key consideration for fishers. If the cost of operating the CSF is higher than the current form of operation (e.g. selling off the boat), then fishers may decline to join. Similarly, if the price of the CSF seafood package is unattractive to the fisher or is less than the current price of the catch, the fisher will be less likely to join the CSF. However, Brinson et al (2011) state that a potential benefit for fishers in a CSF is the ability to sell seafood at premium prices as opposed to wholesale prices.
Lifestyle: Without a CSF, there is no contractual obligation on fishers to provide their catch within a certain time. However, under a CSF arrangement, consumers expect a specified share of the catch. Arguably, this would put more pressure on fishers to not only catch fish/seafood, but to operate the CSF site immediately upon their return. Hence, an initial concern of fishers involved in one CSF in the US was the time constraints of operation (Andreatta et al., 2011). However, this may be mitigated with the assistance of other CSF members. The CSF could also work on the basis that consumers pick up their share from the designated CSF site or could be delivered to their home. In either case, it would require additional CSF staff to be available to run the CSF site as well as drive the delivery trucks. The additional staff required to run the CSF (and additional resources such as delivery vehicles) may be factored into the cost of operation.
Marketing: The ability of the CSF to market itself to its consumer base is essential to the initial recruitment of CSF members, as well as the ongoing success of its operation in future seasons (Andreatta et al., 2011; Giorgi et al., 2013). As it is assumed that those located closer to the CSF would be more likely to join the CSF, those further away from the CSF may also consider joining the CSF if a delivery service was available. Hence, it appears that the ability to market to consumers near and far is an essential variable for fishers participating in the CSF.
External Factors: The operation and success of any fishery is largely dependent upon the weather and the type of season. Arguably, the CSF would not be operational during periods of unfavourable weather given that fishers would not have products to sell. Moreover, some types of seafood may only be available during certain types of the year, making the CSF only operational during certain seasons.
264 Appendices CSF consideration for consumers
Attitudes: According to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), the intention of an individual to perform an action (and subsequently actually perform that action) is contingent upon the person’s attitude toward the particular activity (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). It has been found that a person’s attitudes towards local food can strongly influence their intention and purchase decision of local food (J. M. Campbell & Fairhurst, 2014). Furthermore it has been found that CSA members have a greater concern for the natural environment (Bougherara et al., 2009). In terms of joining a CSF, L. M. Campbell et al. (2014) found that a major primary motive for joining the Walking Fish CSF in North Carolina was to gain access to fresh, high quality seafood. This was followed by the desire to support local fishers and the community, then the environmental benefits associated with joining the CSF (L. M. Campbell et al., 2014). Attitudes towards the producer are also important to joining the CSF. That is, a former customer of the fishery now participating in the CSF would have a greater idea of the fisher’s reliability and would thus be more willing to participate in the CSF. However, consumer’s attitudes towards the producer could also be reliant upon the reputation of the fishery, marketing of the fishery, as well as reviews from other customers.
Social Norms: A second element of the TPB theory is social norms. That is, if the family and friends (and other people in the individual’s social circle) are likely to approve of a particular action, then the individual is more likely to undertake the activity (such as join a CSF) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Apart from family and friends, social norms may also be influenced by whether it is the norm to eat locally and marketing campaigns which advocate the supporting of local industry.
Behavioural control: The last element of the TPB theory is a person’s behavioural control over the situation (Ajzen, 1991). Applied in the context of a CSF, this is the actual ability of a person to undertake the activity, pending on whether the individual believes it is easy or difficult to purchase locally caught seafood. Some factors which may make it easier or difficult for the individual to obtain local seafood from the CSF include: the number of substitute retail outlets where the individual could buy seafood, whether the CSF has a delivery service, the residential location of the customer in relation to the CSF, the price of the share to be paid to the CSF upon
Appendices 265 joining, how the CSF communicates with the customer (e.g. email/phone) and the days of operation of the CSF (e.g. weekly, fortnightly or monthly).
Other factors: Some other factors which may influence whether a consumer chooses to join a CSF include:
x Frequency of consumption: With respect to frequency of consumption, it is expected that avid, frequent, moderate and possibly occasional consumers of seafood will benefit from joining the CSF.
x Season: With respect to season, certain types of seafood may only be available during certain points of the year. Furthermore, consumers may be more influenced to join the CSF during specific times of year (e.g. during Easter and Christmas) when seafood consumption is at its highest.
x Variety of seafood available: As seen in the third study of this thesis (see Chapter 6), the second most common reason for eating seafood was to gain variety in the diet. In terms of previous CSF findings, L. M. Campbell et al. (2014) found that while the general response to the CSF was positive, a major concern was the lack of variety of seafood on offer. Hence, it is expected that consumers will only join the CSF if there is a wide variety of seafood on offer as part of the seafood package.
266 Appendices