Data analyses include descriptive statistics to understand the overall distribution of respondents (as a function of gender, age, education level, etc.). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine statistical differences. The total frequency of seafood consumption was analysed as a dependent variable with other consumption variables, as different species, meals, places, preparation methods and level of interest for different information on seafood products when purchasing.
117
The scale used to measure seafood knowledge was multi-item. The reliability analyses were conducted with Cronbach’s test to confirm unidimensionality of the items relating to subjective knowledge. The construct had an alpha value of 0.9, indicating internal reliability consistency and further analyses used the averaged constructed score. Objective knowledge was obtained on a true / false scale. The number of correct answers, which varied between 1 and 7, was accounted per respondent. Objective and subjective knowledge were analyzed with socio-demographic variables. Socio-demographic groups were described and differences were tested using Pearson chi-square test. Then, respondents were separated into two groups regarding their level of knowledge about seafood. When reported values for knowledge were below the estimated medians of the construct, participants were allocated to the low knowledge group; when were above the median, participants were allocated to the high knowledge group. The differences between level of knowledge, the dependent variable, and the seafood consumption as total and species frequency, number of different species, shopping and preparing responsibility, and interest on information about the seafood products, were analyzed with ANOVA. All correlations were considered statistically significant if p value was lower than 0.05.
5.4 Results
Our results indicated a sample of respondents that were on average 30 to 39 years, mostly women, higher educated, employed, with an income between 500 – 2000 € (Table 5.1). The household size varied between 1 to 4 people and approximately half of the respondents lived with children. The residence place was either rural or urban, with respondents living in villages, small towns, or large towns; and the majority lived on the coast (90% of the respondents lived less than 50 km far from the coast). Almost half of the respondents were highly responsible for shopping and preparing food in the household.
118
Table 5.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (%, n = 1240).
Characteristic Survey (%) Gender Female 66.9 Age 20–29 years old 29.9 30–39 years old 42.7 40–49 years old 14.3 > 50 years old 9.5 Education level Secondary or lower 22.7 Higher 76.6 Work situation Employed 59.6 Student 24.8 Unemployed 8.7 Retired 2.3
Responsible for the household 0.5
Marital status
Single (never married) 46.7 Married or living together 46.0 Divorced or living alone 6.5
Income <500€ 3.1 501-2000€ 55.4 >2001€ 28.1 Household 1 person 17.5 2 persons 29.3 3 persons 25.0 ≥ 4 persons 26.1
Living with children 48.2
Living environment
Rural area or village 20.5
Small- or middle-sized town 39.0
Large town 40.3
Distance from the coast
Seaside (< 50 km) 89.9
Inland (> 50 km) 9.6
The frequency of seafood consumption was on average 3.3 times a week (Fig. 5.1). It was most often consumed at home (M = 3.5, SD = 2.8), almost twice as often as eating out of home (M = 1.3, SD =
119
1.8) (p < 0.05). People ate more frequently seafood at home for dinner than for lunch, and the opposite when eating out of home (p < 0.05). When we calculate the sum of the frequency of seafood consumption in the different occasions, it is even higher than the self-reported total frequency (M = 4.8, SD = 4.6). The most popular reported preparation methods of seafood were grilling and boiling. Baked and canned seafood had almost the same consumption frequency and fried was the least common way to cook seafood, being done on average once every 15 days (p < 0.05).
Figure 5.1 Relative frequency in occasions of seafood consumption in general, at different meals and different places; and in different preparation methods.
Tuna and cod were the fish most frequently consumed followed by hake and salmon (p < 0.05 for all species except for clams, mussels and cockle) (Table 5.2). The total seafood consumption frequency calculated by adding the 15 species items in the survey was 6.0 times a week (SD = 7.6). Tuna, cod, shrimp and clams had the highest total consumption, above 17 kg / year, after the conversion of consumption frequency to live weight.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Seafood Dinner at home Dinner out of home Lunch at home Lunch out of home
Grilled Boiled Baked Canned Fried
More than 5 times per week 2 - 5 times per week 1 time per week 1 - 3 times per month Less than 1 time per month 1 time per year
120
Table 5.2 Frequency of seafood in consumption occasions per week (mean and standard deviation) and in live weight per year calculated with edible content conversion and assuming a portion size of 125 grams / week (* p < 0.05).
Mean per week SD Edible content (%) Live weight per year (kg)
Tuna * 0.8 0.8 42 # 12.1 Cod * 0.7 0.7 42 # 10.9 Hake * 0.6 0.8 53 ## 7.8 Salmon * 0.6 0.6 63 # 6.1 Sea-bream * 0.5 0.5 53 # 5.7 Horse mackerel * 0.4 0.6 53 # 5.5 Shrimp * 0.4 0.5 24 # 11.2 Sardine * 0.4 0.7 62 ## 4.3 Sea-bass * 0.4 0.5 53 # 4.7 Octopus * 0.3 0.3 68 ## 3.1 Chub mackerel * 0.3 0.5 53 # 3.8 Clams 0.2 0.4 14 # 11.7 Cockle 0.2 0.3 14 # 8.5 Mussels 0.2 0.3 14 # 8.2 Total 6.0 7.6 103.7
# In James et al. (2011). We assumed the same edible content for sea-bream and sea-bass as mackerel, for
shrimp as warm water prawns, and for clams and cockle as mussels. ##
In Vázquez-Rowe et al. (2013).
Both objective and subjective knowledge, which means the information about seafood consumers have and their own perception of the amount of information they have, were high. In a scale 1 to 7, objective knowledge was above middle point scale, with an average of 5.6, and subjective knowledge was 3.8. The most relevant characteristics to explain the knowledge about seafood were age, education, living with children, and marital status (Table 5.3) (p < 0.05). Results indicated significant correlations on gender for subjective knowledge, with males presenting a higher value (p < 0.05). Older people, more educated, not living with children, and with higher income, had a higher knowledge level on average, both subjective and objective. The opposite happened to respondents that were single or living alone. The place of residence and the proximity to the sea did not influence the way respondents were informed about seafood (no statistical differences).
121
Table 5.3 Characterization on subjective and objective knowledge about seafood (mean values and standard deviation) in a scale 1 to 7 (* p < 0.05).
Characteristic Subjective Objective
n= 1238 Mean SD Mean SD Gender * - Female 3.6 1.5 5.5 1.1 Male 4.1 1.6 5.5 1.1 Age * * ≤ 30 years old 3.4 1.5 5.2 1.2 > 30 years old 4.0 1.6 5.8 1.0 Education * * Secondary or lower 3.0 1.6 5.2 1.1 Higher 4.0 1.6 5.7 1.0
Living with children * *
No 3.9 1.6 5.7 1.1
Yes 3.4 1.5 5.2 1.1
Regional distribution (%) - -
Rural area or village 3.8 1.7 5.6 1.1 Small- or middle-sized town 3.8 1.6 5.5 1.2
Large town 3.7 1.5 5.6 1.1
Distance from the coast * -
Seaside (≤ 50 km from the
coast) 3.8 1.6 5.6 1.1
Inland (> 50 km from the
coast) 3.4 1.5 5.4 1.2 Income * * <500€ 3.7 1.6 5.0 1.1 501-2000€ 3.7 1.6 5.5 1.1 >2001€ 4.0 1.6 5.8 1.0 Marital status * *
Single (never married) 3.5 1.5 5.4 1.1 Married or living together 4.1 1.6 5.7 1.1 Divorced or widowed 3.7 1.6 5.8 1.1
Respondents were in general very interested in information about the seafood products, all means were above the median value, 3.5 in a scale 1 to 7 (Mean = 5.6, SD = 1.6) (Fig. 5.2). Information related to expiry date (Mean = 6.6, SD = 1.0) and the price attained the highest interest (Mean = 6.5, SD = 1.1), and the feed used in farming (Mean = 4.6, SD = 2.0) and catch method in fishery (Mean = 4.5, SD = 2.1) had the lowest. Significant correlation was found between total frequency of seafood
122
consumption and information for all variables (p < 0.05) except for: catch method, feed used, fish welfare, minimum size allowed, and genetically modified organisms.
Figure 5.2 Consumers’ ranking on the importance of information to purchase decisions when buying seafood (seven point scale).
The results for the two levels of subjective knowledge defined showed that they were related to socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, age, children in the household, income and marital status (Table 5.4). Consumption frequency was statistical correlated to the subjective knowledge level (Fig. 5.3). More knowledgeable consumers had higher seafood consumption frequency, and more often at home, comparing with lower knowledgeable consumers (p < 0.05). Also the responsibility for shopping and preparing food is correlated to knowledge (p < 0.05). Higher knowledgeable consumers shop and prepare food in a more regularly frequency. Regarding the diversity of species respondents reported to eat, there was a positive correlation between the knowledge level and the number of different species (p < 0.05), with an average of 12 different species for higher knowledge people. When we analyze the consumption differences per specie (Fig. 5.4), we have found significant differences between knowledge and species consumption for all
4 5 6 7 8
Catch method (e.g. line, trawl) Feed used during farming Method of preparation (how to prepare the fish) Recipes (suggestions to cook) Fish welfare Minimum size of capture allowed Sustainable fisheries (e.g. MSC) Health benefits Processed origin (e.g. country) Wild / farmed Catch origin (e.g. country, region) Quality mark Catch date Colorants used Genetically modified Fresh / Frozen Price Expiry date
123
except tuna, cockle and mussels (p < 0.05). Higher knowledgeable consumers have higher consumption frequency of all the species, with the highest difference found for chub-mackerel and sardine.
Table 5.4 Different levels of subjective knowledge (mean values and standard deviation) in a scale 1 to 7 related to socio-demographic characteristics of the consumers.
Characteristic n= 1238 High n = 623 Low n = 613 Mean SD Mean SD Gender Female 5.0 1.0 2.5 0.7 Male 5.3 1.0 2.4 0.7 Age ≤ 30 years old 4.9 1.0 2.4 0.7 > 30 years old 5.1 1.0 2.5 0.8 Education Secondary or lower 5.1 0.9 2.3 0.7 Higher 5.1 1.0 2.5 0.8
Living with children
No 5.1 1.0 2.5 0.7 Yes 4.9 1.0 2.4 0.8 Income <500€ 5.1 1.1 2.5 0.7 501-2000€ 5.2 1.0 2.4 0.7 >2001€ 5.1 1.0 2.5 0.8 Marital status
Single (never married) 5.0 1.0 2.4 0.7
Married or living together 5.2 1.0 2.5 0.8
124
Figure 5.3 Means (standard deviation) of seafood consumption frequency per week per knowledge level on a seven point scale (all differences p < 0.05).
Figure 5.4 Means (standard deviation) of species consumption frequency per week per knowledge level on a seven point scale (* p < 0.05).
Finally, in what regards to the level of knowledge and interest in information about seafood production, there was a statistical significance between all (p < 0.05) except for “method of preparation” and “expiry date” categories. Respondents with higher knowledgeable were in general more interested in information about seafood products than lower knowledgeable consumers (Fig. 5.5). The only category that lower knowledgeable consumers have higher interest is on “recipes”.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
High Low
Consumption per week
Seafood in general Seafood consumption at home Seafood consumption out of home 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 C o n su m p ti o n p e r w e e k High Low
125
“Recipes” had the lowest rate of interest for consumers with high knowledge and “catch method” for consumers with low knowledge.
Figure 5.5 Means (standard deviation) of interest on information of respondents with high and low level of subjective knowledge on a seven point scale (all differences p < 0.05).
5.5 Discussion
The main finding of this study is that Portuguese consumers have high knowledge in general about seafood. Seafood is most frequently eaten at home and usually grilled. But Portuguese seafood consumption habits are changing and the traditional species (e.g. sardine) are becoming surpassed by more convenient ones (e.g. tuna). The higher knowledgeable consumers have a more sustainable behaviour, not because they are more interested in environmental issues, but as a result of being frequent seafood consumers of small pelagic fish and use a more diversified set of species.
We obtained a total consumption that represents a seafood meal every day during the week which is extremely high and exceed the recommended intake level of two servings of fish per week (Kris- Etherton et al. 2002). The high importance of seafood in Portuguese food habits is known, and it is in the same order as in Japan, one of the largest countries in terms of per capita consumption, where
4 5 6 7 8 Price Fresh / Frozen Genetically modified Colorants used Catch date Wild / farmed Catch origin Processed origin (e.g. country) Quality mark Certification (e.g. MSC) Minimum size of capture allowed Fish welfare Catch method (e.g. line, trawl) Feed used during farming Recipes
Level of interest
High Low
126
most of the consumers have seafood four or five times a week (Wakamatsu 2012, Cardoso et al. 2013b). It is a very high level of consumption especially compared to other countries, as for example Russia with 0.5 times a week (Van Dijk et al. 2011).
Seafood consumption habits have been described as very different among countries (Pieniak et al. 2007). Our results reveal that Portuguese eat most often seafood at home and for dinner, which can be related to a high level of cooking skills. High fish consumers, as Portuguese, are usually skilled to evaluate fish quality and prepare seafood (Brunsø et al. 2009). Grilling is the preferred way to prepare fish and it can be related to the importance of small pelagic fish in Portuguese fisheries, as for example sardine is the most landed species in Portugal (INE 2011). Those species are most easily cooked by grilling and Portuguese consumers’ preferred whole fish rather than fillets due to both the culinary traditions and freshness, because parts of the body indicate fish degradation (Cardoso et al. 2013b).
The self-reported seafood consumption frequency is three times a week but the estimated consumption by the sum of the seafood frequency in different meals and places or the sum of individual species frequency, is five to six times a week. The differences between the self-reported and total estimate consumption can be due to underreporting of salt-and-dried cod, which is a special product since it is not habitually consumed fresh in Portugal as with other fishes. Moreover, to underreport consumption is an usual problem when estimating consumption frequency and for that reason better estimations could result from asking consumption in more detailed ways, as such as by species or occasions, as we have done here.
In any case, it illustrates the difficulty to assess an accurate consumption frequency and the bias resulting from individuals own perceptions (Lopes 2002). Using surveys to estimate consumption has other cautions as for example, if we calculate the self-reported consumption with the recommended portion converted into the edible part of seafood, gives a seafood per capita consumption of 51 kg live weight / year (Sirot et al. 2012). For the most extreme scenario, of six times per week, the seafood per capita consumption would be 92 kg / year much higher than the apparent seafood
127
consumption of 57 kg / year given for Portugal (Laurenti 2011). Differences can be related to the fact that all seafood contains a high proportion of non-edible content and it varies between different products (James et al. 2011). For example, the most frequently consumed species are tuna and cod but regarding to the live weight, species as shrimp or clams have almost the same importance due to low edible yield. Nevertheless, the findings are in some way biased by the sample obtained, which as in other online survey studies, it over-represents well educated and higher income residents (Vanhonacker et al. 2013). And usually those groups have higher fish consumption and therefore they are people more devoted to respond to the questionnaire (Hall and Amberg 2013).
A remarkable feature of Portuguese seafood habits is the high diversity, including fish, shellfish, cephalopods, and crustaceans; mostly local seafood and related to the multispecies nature of Portuguese fisheries (Stewart et al. 2013, Moreno et al. 2014). The species mostly eaten are the same as in Cardoso et al. (2013b): cod, hake, and tuna; although in this study tuna was the species number one. Cod was reported as the most consumed fish in previous publications but habits might have changed in 10 years’ time (Willemsen 2003). Salted-and-dried cod is very important in Portuguese traditions partly because it was available and cheap in the past (Garrido 2010). But products that are quick and easy to prepare change consumption traditions into convenience habits (Spinks and Bose 2002). The higher importance of tuna found here, consumed almost once a week, can be related to the fact that canned tuna is a convenient seafood product, easy and fast to prepare. Salmon, which comes in fourth place, is also the preferred fish for Japanese before tuna, revealing its growing production and subsequently lower market prices nowadays (Whitmarsh and Palmieri 2011, Wakamatsu 2012). Convenience, lower price and availability in purchasing place act as drivers and illustrate modern food habits. Important species in Portuguese fisheries, such as sardine and octopus, are not the most preferred. Such preferences can explain why almost two thirds of seafood consumed in Portugal is imported and the change of Portuguese seafood consumption habits through time (INE 2011).
128
Consumers are interested in information about seafood products and the level of knowledge and interest is related to a higher level of income and education. The presence of children in the household affects consumer’s knowledge. The motivation to prepare food might be lower for people living alone and consequently the interest about seafood is also lower. We also found that consumption habits do not depend on the place of residence or the proximity to the sea, in opposite to Cardoso et al. (2013b) findings, which showed that seafood consumption patterns were affected by coastal vs inland location. Improvements in food supply chains nowadays make it possible to have different types of fish available all year round, especially in case of the most consumed species in Portugal, which usually are not commercialized fresh.
Higher seafood knowledge is related to higher consumption, often at home. Knowledge influences attitudes in shopping and preparing seafood and the number of species used. Higher knowledgeable consumers eat more seafood, especially small pelagic species such as chub mackerel and sardine and a more diversified number of species. Considering the current discussion about sustainable seafood consumption, the high consumption of small pelagic fish (e.g. sardines) and also the use of a diversified group of species, have the potential to be sustainable (Jacquet and Pauly 2007, Mitchell 2011). Such habits should be maintained since they make use of a diversified group of marine resources together with species from the low levels of the marine trophic web often used for feed in other countries (Tacon and Metian 2009, Olson et al. 2013).
Information on “Recipes” was showed the lowest rate of interest in the high level of knowledge consumers, meaning that people are not particularly interested in guidance on how to cook seafood. Indications on how to use the fish, as expiry date, seem to be more valued than knowing the catch method for example, which distinguishes the fishery and in some way the impacts on the environment. We hypothesize that Portuguese are not enough informed about fishery impacts on the ecosystems or either have not connected it with their purchase choices. As for the Japanese, environmental information is not very important for Portuguese consumers too and even though
129
they have high knowledge about seafood, they are not aware of eco-labels and those products are not a priority to them (Wakamatsu 2012).
Consumption habits are driven by significant behaviours from the past, and increasing consumers’ knowledge, has not a directly meaning of more sustainable consumer behaviour (Honkanen et al. 2005). As an example highly knowledgeable people, as educated biologists, do not make more responsible seafood choices (Bearzi 2009). From previous studies we know that quality, cooking, and product-related information are important attributes that highly influence seafood choices (Spinks and Bose 2002, Honkanen and Olsen 2009). And cultural factors, such as recipes and food traditions, are shared and influence the individual preferences within a nation (Apostolidis and Stergiou 2012). To approach the consumers’ and change consumption patterns, one must take cultural differences into account and understand the degree to which knowledge and educational level influence consumers’ comprehension of environmental messages (Honkanen and Olsen 2009). Buying eco- labelled products is one dimension of consuming sustainably. Purchasing local or from small scale sources are examples of alternative behaviours (Olson et al. 2013). Other important dimension for the sustainability of seafood supply is fisheries management. In case of well managed fisheries, the utilization of less popular fish could be promoted as more sustainable choice (Mitchell 2011).
5.6 Conclusions
Portuguese seafood consumption is high and with a high diversity of species. People buy and prepare seafood often, mainly at home. Convenience seems to have changed seafood consumption habits in Portugal. Tuna, including canned tuna, and cod, as salt and dried cod, are the most consumed seafood. Portuguese have relatively high knowledge about seafood. The more sustainable seafood choices are not influenced by environmental concerns but to some Portuguese seafood habits, such as a diversified use of species and use of small pelagic fish, which are potentially sustainable. Certification schemes that help the consumers in the sustainability of their choices are
130
useful in some countries, where there is demand for eco-labelled products (Koos 2011). In others,