Commercial Aquaponics Approaching the European Market

22 Pages·2017·0.55 MB·English

water
Article
Commercial Aquaponics Approaching the European
Market: To Consumers’ Perceptions of Aquaponics
Products in Europe
VesnaMilicˇic´ 1,*,RagnheidurThorarinsdottir2,MariaDosSantos3andMajaTurnšekHancˇicˇ 4
1 BiotechnicalFaculty,UniversityofLjubljana,Jamnikarjeva101,SI-1000Ljubljana,Slovenia
2 UniversityofIceland,Hjardarhaga2-6,IS-107Reykjavik,Iceland;[email protected]
3 DINAMIA’CET—ISCTE–IUL,ESCS—IPL,Av.dasForcasArmadas,Edificio,ISCTE,Sala2W4-d,
1649-026Lisboa,Portugal;[email protected]
4 FacultyofTourism,UniversityofMaribor,Cestaprvihborcev36,SI-8250Brežice,Slovenia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence:[email protected]
AcademicEditor:M.HaïssamJijakli
Received:1October2016;Accepted:16January2017;Published:31January2017
Abstract: ThefirstcommercialaquaponicscompaniesarestartingupinEurope. Themainfocushas
beenonsolvingtechnologyissuesandoptimizingproduction. However,increasingattentionisnow
beingpaidtocertificationandregulationslinkedtoaquaponics,aswellasthemarketingofproducts
andservices. Thepaperpresentstheresultsofastudywhosemainaimwastoestimateconsumers’
knowledgeaboutaquaponicsandtheiracceptanceofaquaponicsproductsindifferentEuropean
regions. Anon-linequestionnairewasadministeredtothegeneralpublicthroughtheaquaponics
networkofFoodandAgricultureCOST(EuropeanCooperationinScienceandTechnology)Action
FA1305“TheEUAquaponicsHub—RealisingSustainableIntegratedFishandVegetableProduction
for the EU” in 16 European countries. The methodology includes univariate and multivariate
statisticaltechniques. Theresultsshowthat,onaverage,attitudestowardsaquaponicswerepositive,
showingnosignificantdifferencesbetweenthosewhoalreadyknewaboutaquaponicsandthose
who only heard about it through the survey. More than 50% of respondents had never heard
of aquaponics, whilst more than 70% had already heard of hydroponics. No more than 17% of
respondentswerewillingtopaymoreforaquaponicallyproducedproductsandnomorethan40%
morewhencomparedtothepriceofproductsfromconventionalfarming. Theresultsconfirmthree
differentclustersofpotentialconsumersofaquaponicsproducts. Theyalsosuggestanurgentneed
forimplementingintegratedandholisticapproachesinvolvingallstakeholdersinaquaponics,in
ordertodefineamarketingplanandefficientcommunicationstrategies. ThisCOSTaction,other
projectsandpublicdecisionmakersmustinvestineducatingconsumersaboutaquaponicsthrough
theorganizationofguidedtours,thematicworkshopsandtastingsofaquaponicsproductsinorder
to raise their awareness about this new technology. It is absolutely urgent that public decision
makers, incooperation withaquaponics stakeholders, address themaininstitutional constraints,
namely the introduction of aquaponics as an economic activity and the organic certification of
aquaponicsproducts.
Keywords: questionnaire; aquaponics products; consumers’ acceptance; willingness-to-pay;
consumers’preferences;organiccertification;onlinesurvey;marketanalysis;education;multivariate
statistics;Europe
Water2017,9,80;doi:10.3390/w9020080 www.mdpi.com/journal/water
Water2017,9,80 2of22
1. Introduction
TheFoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNationshasemphasizedaquaponicsas
a future sustainable food production practice and has recently released guidelines on small scale
aquaponicsproductionsystems[1]. InEurope, manystart-upcompaniesaretakingthefirststeps
towardscommercialaquaponicsproduction[2]. However,Europeanfoodproductionstandardsand
aninstitutionalEuropeanframeworkarenotyetavailableforanintegratedproductionsystem[3,4].
The present paper therefore aims to contribute to the literature in two ways. First, to analyse
the current situation of aquaponics and highlight the main restrictions of the present activity in
Europeancountriesinordertoalertpublicdecisionmakersoftheneedtoanalyseandsolvethemain
problemsofthissectorbetter. Secondly,toanalyseconsumers’knowledgeaboutaquaponicsandtheir
acceptanceofaquaponicsproductsindifferentEuropeanregionsinorderbettertodefineamarketing
strategyandaplanofdevelopmenttoovercometheactualdifficultiesthatdirectlyaffectproducers,
commercializationandthesectoringeneral.
1.1. TheStateoftheArtofAquaponics
AccordingtoEuropeanfoodproductionstandards,aquaponicsproductsstillcannotbecertified
organic, sinceaccordingtoEuropeanCommissionRegulation(EC)No. 889/2008paragraph4[5],
organicplantproductionisbasedonnourishingplantsprimarilythroughasoilecosystemandso
hydroponiccultivation,inwhichplantsgrowwiththeirrootsinaninertmediumfeedwithsoluble
minerals and nutrients is not allowed. Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) are also clearly
prohibitedasorganicaquacultureaccordingtoEuropeanCommissionRegulation(EC)No. 710/2009
paragraph11[6],althoughexceptionsaremadeforhatcheriesandnurseries.
The current institutional European framework, the gaps in legislation and the lack of
legislativeuniformityamongEUMemberStates(EUMS)havestrongnegativeimpactsandhinder
commercializationofaquaponicsattheEuropeanlevel. AccordingtoJolyetal.[4],themaindifficulties
include constraints at three different levels: (1) administrative and organizational; (2) technical;
and(3)environmental.
Major administrative and organizational constraints in the EU MS include that the European
standardclassificationofproductiveeconomicactivities[7]doesnothaveageneralorspecificcode
foraquaponicsbutonlyseparatecodesforanimalorplantproduction. Thatmeans,inpractice,the
impossibilityofefficientdevelopmentandprogressofaquaponicsbusinessinEuropeancountriesona
commercialscale.Currently,theprocessofregistrationofaquaponicsproductionactivitiesisconfusing,
timeconsuming,involvesalotofeffortandisthereforeinefficient. Thisbecausecompaniescannot
registerandperformthisactivityinadistinctwaybutonlyastwoseparateproductionactivities,i.e.,
animal and plant production. On the other hand, and in correlation with the first constraint, that
meansthataquaponicsproductioncannotbesubsidizedbytheCommonAgriculturalPrograms(CAP)
asadistinctactivity. InEUMS,agriculturalactivitiesarehighlysubsidizedandtheircompetitiveness,
ingreatpart,isaresultoffinancialsupportfromCAPsubsidies[8]. Thatisnotpossibleinthecaseof
aquaponicsandrepresentsahugeconstrainttothedevelopmentoftheaquaponicssector.
Environmental constraints occur due to EU MS environmental legislation, which considers
separationoftheeffluentsofaquaponicsforplantsandforanimalproduction. Solidfishexcrements
arecurrentlyconsideredfishwasteandnotplantnutrient. Thisisanotherrestrictionthataquaponics
farmersinEuropefaceanditcontributestoalossofefficiencyintheactivity. “However,whensolid
fishwastesareadequatelyprocessed,thenthewaternourishingthevegetablesroots,isnolongerfishwastebut
treatedwater”[4],whichcanbeusedinthehydroponicpartinwhichplantsgrow.
Technicalrestrictionsoccurbecausecommercializationandfoodsafetynormsarenotexplicitfor
aquaponicsproducts. Itisthereforedifficulttorunabusinessandcommercializethefinalproduction
because each production type in the cycle belongs to different quality control services at different
ministries,dependingontheEUMS.Jolyetal.[4]notethatnospecificrulesapplyforproducegrown
Water2017,9,80 3of22
inaquaponicsproduction. Onecouldthereforeassumethatseparateregulationsapplyfor,ontheone
hand,vegetableand,ontheother,fishproduce.
Despite these restrictions, aquaponics companies, aquaponics suppliers and many start-up
businessesaretakingthefirststepstowardscommercialaquaponicsproductionandtherearealsoa
fewcountrygovernmentalinitiativesaroundtheworld.
IntheUnitedStatesofAmerica,thehistoryofaquaponicsgoesfurtherbackandafewmedium
scalecommercialsystemsoperate. Backyardaquaponicsfarminghasalsobeenquitepopularinmany
regions[9]. Since2008,aquaponicsproductsproducedintheUSAcanbecertifiedorganicaccording
totheruleslaidoutinfederallawbytheNationalOrganicProgramoftheUnitedStatesDepartment
ofAgriculture[10],whichprovidesagoodstartingpointforpricingaquaponicsproductshigherand
offersabettercompetitiveadvantageonthemarket.
Nowadays, consumer awareness of the health benefits of locally and organically produced
productsisontherise[11,12]andconsumersmakemoreconsciousdecisionswhenbuyingfood[13],
especiallyindevelopedandindustrialcountries. Consumeracceptanceandcertificationcriteriaareof
specialinterestforthedevelopmentofcommercial-scaleaquaponicssystems. Allavailablestudies
aboutaquaponicshavefocusedmainlyonsurveyingaquaponicsproducers[14]oranalysingspecific
casestudiesofaquaponicsproduction,mostlyintheUSA[15],orspecificCanadianprovincessuchas
Alberta[16],orstatessuchasPuertoRico[17]andHawaii[13,18,19]. Totheauthor’sknowledge,a
limitednumberofstudiesareavailableonconsumers’acceptanceofaquaponicsproducts,withonly
threepublishedsofar—onconsumers’acceptanceofaquaponicsproductsinMalaysia[20]andonthe
perceptionofaquaponicsproductsinRomania[21]andBerlin[22].
Aquaponics,duetoitsrecyclingcharacter,isoneofthemostpromisingtypesofsustainableurban
farming[23]. Analysisofcommercialurbanroof-topfarmsshowedthattherearetwotypes: soil-based
openfarmsandsoil-lesshydroponicoraquaponicfarms[24]. However,arecentstudyamongurban
residents in Berlin showed that only 28% of the sample approved aquaponics production of fish
andvegetablesinurbanareasandonly27%ofthissampleexpressedwillingnesstobuyaquaponics
products[22].ConsumersinMalaysia[20],ontheotherhand,expressedhighlevelsofpositiveattitude
towardsaquaponicsproductsandhighintentionstobuyaquaponicsproducts. ConsumersinRomania
alsoheldapositiveoverallimageofaquaponicsandaquacultureproductsduetotheirhealthbenefits
andfreshness[21]. Whatthesestudiesdidnottakeintoaccount,however,isthefactthataquaponicsis
averyyoungfoodproductionmethodandthat,ingeneral,consumersarenotlikelytobeacquainted
withthemethod. Peopleoftenexpressattitudesaboutissueswithwhichtheyarenotfamiliarorabout
whichtheyhaveneverthoughtbefore,buttheyexpresstheirattitudesnevertheless. Thisisbecause
theydonotwantto“loseface”andwouldratherexpressanattitudethanhavetoadmitthattheyare
notfamiliarwiththeconceptinquestion.
Thegreatchallengenowadaysisandwillbeinthecomingdecadesmeetingtheincreasingneed
forfoodproductionanddistributioninbigcitiesinasustainableway[25,26]. “Organoponics”means
aquaponics,andotherlow-inputsystems,asdefinedbyEigenbrodandGruda[26],willcontinueto
playanimportantroleinsustainableandsecurefoodproductioninthefuture.
AquaponicsisalsoespeciallypromotedbygovernmentofficialsinCuba,whichiswhyboththe
yieldandtheareaofthiscultivationmethodhaveincreased. Thesesystemsareusedinthecountryfor
self-consumptionaswellasforschoolsandhospitals. Thisparticularsystemisextremelysustainable,
sinceitoperateswithoutfertilizersandisclearlylinkedtoecologicallyfriendlypractices[26,27].
The current work of Feucht and Zander [28] about aquaculture in Germany reveals that
aquaculture methods are criticized by the public for potentially causing ecological problems and
healthrisksforconsumers. Unfavourablepublicperceptionsmayleadtoadeclineinconsumption.
FeuchtandZander[28]confirmedthatproductionmightbenegativelyaffected,sincelegislationand
thereforeapprovalproceduresareinfluencedbypublicperceptions. Theaquacultureindustrymust
considerpublicreactionstoaquacultureproductionpracticesinordertoprosperfurther.
Water2017,9,80 4of22
FeuchtandZander[28]alsofocusedonthepresentationofrecirculatingsystemsandorganic
aquaculture. Theresultsofmediaanalysisindicate,inthiscase,thattheanalysedmediaprimarily
reportedonaquacultureinapositivetoneutraltone. Theeconomicbenefitsofaquaculturedominated
thecoverage,whereaspotentialnegativeaspectsofaquaculturereceivedlessattention. Organicfish
farmingandclosedrecirculatingsystemswerebothpresentedaseco-friendlypractices.
ResultsfromMauracheretal.[29]aboutconsumerpreferencesregardingtheintroductionofnew
organicproductssuggestthat,whileorganicaquaculturemightbeanewandimportantstrategyfor
diversification, if suitable communication, either from a public policy or commercial perspective,
and labelling/certification are not taken into consideration, the added value of the production
method might not be perceived by the final consumers. The authors refer to the inefficiency of
smallproductionunitsalsoleadingtoscaleinefficiencies,duetothecostofmachineryandbuildings.
Theserecommendationscanalsobefollowedbyaquaponicspractitioners.
Consumers’willingnesstopay(WTP)fororganicleafyvegetableswasstudiedwithacontingent
valuation approach in Rasht City, Iran by Kalashami et al. [30]. The main conclusions were that
technologicaldevelopmentsandchangesinlifestyleandfoodregimehaveincreasedthefrequencyof
diseasessuchascancer. Modernagriculturalsystemshavebeencriticizedandaconsensusreachedfor
theintroductionoforganicagriculturetoincreaseefficiencyandreducedamagetotheenvironment
andpublichealth.
1.2. TheMethodologicalApproach
There is a huge consensus among various authors about the importance of multivariate
analysisofconsumers’attitudesandvaluesandconsumertypologiesthroughmultivariatemethods.
Thesetechniqueswereinitiallyusedinordertoavoidaggregationerrorsinmathematicalprogramming
modelsand/ortointegratethepsychologicalaspectsofstakeholdersinthedecision-makingprocess,
especiallywhenusingmulti-criteriadecisionmodels[31].
Themainauthorsconsiderthatsegmentationofapanelofconsumersisveryusefulinpreference
studies[32]. Twomainmultivariatetechniqueshavetraditionallybeenusedtoperformtypificationof
consumers: PrincipalComponentAnalysis(PCA)andClusterAnalysis(CA).
PCAconsistsofidentifying,basedonasetofvariables,afewfactorsthatcansynthesizemost
ofthetotalinformationcontainedintheoriginalvariables. Thesefactorsarethecommonelements
thatformthebasisofthevariablesintercollinearity[33,34]. Thistechniquehaslargelybeenusedfor
reducingthecomplexityofexplainingfarmers’andconsumers’typologies[35,36].
PCAisclassifiedamongdescriptivemethodsanalysinginterdependenciesbetweenvariables.
Therearethereforenodependentvariablesandindependentvariables;thesimultaneouscombination
ofanalysedvariables(interdependences)isimportant[33,37].
Based on different factors, CA is a good instrument to use for studying the consumption,
forexample,offoodproducts[38]. CAisamultivariateanalysistechniqueusedtoformhomogeneous
groups, i.e., those that represent major homogeneity characteristics within a group and great
heterogeneitybetweengroups[31].AccordingtoNikiforovaetal.[39],CAiswidelyusedineconomics
andotherrelatedsciences. Itinvolvesgroupingblocksofdatainclustersusingseveralindicators.
GámbaroandEllis[40]usedCAinordertoidentifypossiblegroupsofconsumerswithdifferent
perceptionsaboutthehealthinessofdifferenttypesofchocolate. HierarchicalCAwascarriedout
on the scores. Trocchia and Janda [41] used a CA approach for consumer segmentation using a
vegetarian/carnivorousdistinction. RohmandSwaminathan[42]usedCAtodefinethetypologyof
onlineshoppersbasedonshoppingmotivations. Theseauthorsreviewedalltheshoppingtypology
literatureandtheirdeterminantsandmotivations. Vigneauetal.[32]performedsegmentationofa
panelofconsumersusingtheclusteringofvariablesaroundlatentdirectionsofpreferences.
Toobtainmoreknowledgeaboutconsumers’behaviourandawarenessofaquaponicsproducts
indifferentEuropeanregions,amixedclosedandopen-endedquestionnairewasconstructedand
distributedontheweb. ThequestionnairewasappliedtoaEuropeansamplebasedon“convenience”
Water2017,9,80 5of22
throughtheaquaponicsnetworkofFoodandAgricultureCOST(EuropeanCooperationinScience
andTechnology)ActionFA1305“TheEUAquaponicsHub—RealisingSustainableIntegratedFishand
VegetableProductionfortheEU”(COSTactionFA1305“AquaponicsHub”)andrespectivecountries,
whichmightrepresentaweaknessofthepresentpaper. Nevertheless,thispaperpresentsthemain
resultsshowingconsumers’knowledgeofaquaponicsandtheirattitudestowardsaquaponicsfood
productsincomparisontolocal,organicandconventionalfoodproductsattheEuropeanlevel.
2. MaterialsandMethods
2.1. SurveyQuestionsandDistribution
A web survey with 10 main questions was distributed on the Internet from 20 February to
31August2016. Someofthequestionsectionsincludedasetofsubquestions,sothetotalnumberof
questionswas24. Thequestionnaireincludednumericalanswers,closedquestions,semi-closedand
openquestionsandLikertscalerangingfrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree). Fiveofthe
24questionsweretypicaldemographicquestionsaboutage,countryofresidence,gender,employment
status and monthly income. Two additional questions were added to this part, namely about
involvementinaquaponicsandwhointhehouseholdisinchargeofweeklyfoodpurchases. The
online questionnaire was published using the open source application “One click survey” (1 KA)
for online surveys developed at the Centre for Social Informatics at the Faculty of Social Sciences
oftheUniversityofLjubljana[43]. ItwastranslatedintofiveEuropeanlanguages(English,Dutch,
Greek,SpanishandPortuguese)anditwasdistributedviae-mailtothegeneralpublicthroughthe
aquaponicsnetworkwithintheCOSTactionFA1305“AquaponicsHub”. ThequestionnaireinEnglish
ispresentedinAppendixA.
2.2. StatisticalAnalysis
Statisticalanalysisincludedunivariateandmultivariateanalysis. Bothoftheanalyseswerebased
onquestionnaireresults. Thisincludedqualitative(e.g.,Likertscale)andquantitativeinformation,
aswellasopenandclosedquestions. Aconsumers’behaviourindexwasconstructedbasedonthe
ACSI(AmericanCustomerSatisfactionIndex)model[44]andcombiningthelatestdevelopmentsfrom
Johnson et al. [45]. The consumers’ attitudes index was based on a Likert scale with five choices.
This was used for the assessment of consumer’s attitudes according to Gliem and Gliem [46].
The mean was calculated based on four indicators and the index of consumers’ attitudes towards
aquaponicsproducts.
UnivariatestatisticalanalysiswasperformedusingMicrosoftOfficeExcel2013fordescriptive
analysisandRversion3.3.1(UniversityofAuckland,Auckland,NewZealand)forthecomparison
between different variables. SPSS version 21 (SPSS Inc, Chicago; IL, USA) was used for
multivariateanalysis.
3. Results
UntiltheendofAugust2016,2338answerswerereceived,ofwhich635werevalidforfurther
statisticalanalysisintermsofbeingfullycompleted. Thereasonforthedrop-outwastherelative
lengthofthesurvey,whichcausedrespondentstoquitthesurveybeforetheend.Theinvalidresponses
couldalsobeexplainedbythelargeamountofqualitativeinformationcollected.
TheanswersreceivedweremainlyfromBelgium(41.3%),Greece(9.4%),Iceland(9.1%),Slovenia
(3.8%)andtheNetherlands(3.5%). Othercountrieseachwithlessthan2%answerswere: Portugal
(1.9%), Italy(1.6%), Norway(0.9%), Germany(0.6%), Sweden(0.6%), Cyprus(0.5%), Spain(0.3%),
Switzerland(0.3%),UK(0.3%),Denmark(0.2%)andPoland(0.2%)andCanada(0.3%),astheonly
non-European country. The main results of univariate analysis are presented in Sections 3.1–3.4.
InSections3.5and3.6,theresultsofmultivariateanalysisarepresented.
Water2017,9,80 6of22
3.1. DemographicData
Therewerenosignificantdifferencesamongtherespondentageclasses. Thesamplerepresented
all age groups older than 20 years. The proportion of those aged between 20 and 30 years
representedaboutafifthofthesample(21.2%),althoughallotheragegroupswerewellrepresented.
Therespondentsagedbetween31to40yearsrepresented22.2%,thoseagedbetween41and50years
represented28.6%, thoseagedbetween51to60yearsoldrepresented21.7%andthoseolderthan
61yearsrepresented6.4%ofthewholesample.
Thegenderbalancewas50.8%femalesand49.2%males. Therespondentsweremostlyemployed
(64.5%),self-employed(15.3%)orstudents(8.5%).Themajorityoftherespondentsearnedbetween1000
and3000Eurosamonth(57.5%);15.8%ofrespondentsearnedlessthan1000Eurosamonth.Thesurvey
managedtoincludethedecisionmakersaboutweeklyfoodpurchasesinthehousehold,sincemost
respondentsclaimedthattheywereinchargeoffoodpurchases,eitherbythemselves(44.5%)orin
cooperationwiththeirpartner(36.7%).Morethan90%ofrespondentswerenotinvolvedinaquaponics
and they had never designed, built or run an aquaponics system by themselves. The majority of
respondentsinvolvedinaquaponicsweremen(70%).
3.2. Consumers’BehaviourWhenBuyingOrganicorLocallyProducedProducts
Consumers’behaviourpatternswhenbuyingfood,specificallytheirgeneralpurchasingattitude
to local or organically produced food, was analysed. The results showed that more than 45% of
respondents actively looked for ways to buy food from local farmers either at open markets or
directlyfromfarmersontheirfarms. Only25.1%ofrespondentsclaimedthattheyconsideredpriceto
bethemostimportantdecisionfactorwhenbuyingfood,although57%ofrespondentsdecidedfor
non-organicproduceifthepriceoforganicwastwicethepriceofnon-organicand55.6%ofrespondents
whenbuyinginthesupermarketstooklocallyproducedfood,evenifitwasmoreexpensive. When
buyingvegetables,45%ofrespondentslookedforpesticideandherbicidefreeproduce. Whenbuying
fish,36%ofrespondentswouldratherpaymorefororganicallyproducedfish(Table1).
Factoranalysis(seeAppendixB)showedthatallfiveindicatorsmeasuringconsumers’behaviour
measure the same factor. The mean was calculated from these five indicators and the consumers’
behaviourindex.
Table1.Theresultsofconsumers’behaviourwhenbuyingorganiclocalproducts.
ValidPerCent(n=635)
Statement StronglyDisagree Disagree Neutral Agree StronglyAgree
S1:Iactivelylookforwaystobuyfromlocalfarmers
7.2 20.8 24.4 31.3 16.2
(e.g.,buyatopenairmarketsordirectlyfromfarmers).
S2:WhenIbuyfoodIhavetoconsiderpriceasthemost
9.2 40.3 25.3 21.0 4.1
importantfactorforthedecision.
S3:Ifthepriceoforganicproduceistwicethepriceof
9.0 17.1 16.9 35.6 21.4
non-organicproduce,Idecidefornon-organicproduce.
S4:Iamcarefulwhenbuyingfishandratherpaymore
11.6 24.7 27.7 23.1 12.8
fororganicallyproducedfish.
S5:WhenbuyinginasupermarketItakethelocally
3.9 17.5 22.9 40.1 15.5
producedfood,evenifitismoreexpensive.
3.3. Consumers’KnowledgeaboutAquaponicsandAttitudestowardsAquaponicsProducts
First,theknowledgeofrespondentsofaquaponicsincomparisontohydroponicswasanalysed.
Morethan50%ofrespondentsstatedthattheyhadneverheardofaquaponics,whilstonly30%stated
theyhadneverheardofhydroponics. Respondentswhostatedthattheyhadheardofaquaponicsor
hydroponicswereaskedtoexplainwhatthesetwowordsmean. Lessthan1%ofanswerswerewrong;
ifrespondentsprovidedwronganswerstheyusuallyconfusedaquaponicsandhydroponics.
Water2017,9,80 7of22
Sinceaquaponicsisafairlyrecentfoodgrowingproductiontechnique,itwasanticipatedthata
numberofrespondentswouldnotbeacquaintedwiththetechnique. Thereforeasemi-experimental
methodwasperformed. Forthosewhohadneverheardofaquaponics,adescriptionofaquaponics
thatprovidesthemainvaluepropositionsthatcanbereadincommercialmaterialsaboutaquaponics
wascreated: “Aquaponicsisacombinationofaquaculture(fishfarming)andhydroponics(growingplants
usingwaterratherthansoil). Inaquaponics,thewasteproducedbyfarmedfishsuppliesthenutrientsforplants
grown hydroponically, which in turn purifies water for the fish. This secures a closed-loop sustainable food
productionsystem. Veryfewpesticidesandherbicidesarenon-toxicforfishsothisensuresthataquaponics
productionusesorganicpestandweedcontrol.”
Afterreadingapositivedescriptionofaquaponics,therespondentsansweredasetofquestions
abouttheirattitudestowardsaquaponicsfoodproductionandaquaponicsproducts. Thefirstquestion
wasanopen-endedquestionaskingabouttheirassociationswithaquaponics,theirfirstresponsein
terms of thoughts and argumentation. The answers can be grouped into two categories. Positive
associationsrangedfrommereone-worddescriptionssuchas“cool”,“clever”,“great”,“sustainable”
and“environmentallyfriendly”toexplanationssuchas“Interestingnewmethodofcultivatingfood
thatmayprovetobeveryimportant”. Ingeneral,positiveassociationswereabouttheinnovativeness
andsustainabilityofaquaponics.
Negativeassociationswerefewerthanpositivebutneedtobetakenintoaccountveryseriously,
sincethesewererespondentsthatprovidedanoppositeopiniontothatwhichwasdescribedinthe
survey. As such, these respondents were non-conformist, for which you need stronger opinions.
Thisisreflectedinthefactthatnegativeassociationsalsorangedfromtwo-worddescriptionssuch
as “not impressed”, but in general respondents felt the need to elaborate more on their negative
associations,sotheyprovidedlengthierexplanationssuchas“Vegetablesmixedwithfish—unpleasant
feelingthinkingaboutthatcombination”and“Ithinkfishshouldliveintheirnaturalenvironment
or a big enough artificial pond without overcrowding” or “I am a vegan. Fish farming? Are you
serious?”or“Ifearthat,eveniftheyarepesticideandherbicide-free,thefarmingwastesmaystill
not be”. The negative associations could be grouped into three types of responses to aquaponics:
(a) negative emotions, bordering on disgust with fish excrements in connection with vegetables;
(b)negativeperceptionsofanimalwelfareinaquaponics;and(c)generaldistrustofpositiveclaims
aboutaquaponics.
Afteransweringtheopen-endedassociationquestions,respondentsweregivenseveralLikert-
scaletypequestionsabouttheirattitudestoaquaponics. Morethan45%agreedorstronglyagreedthat
aquaponicsistheanswertomoresustainablefoodproductioninthefuture. Onaverage,attitudes
to aquaponics were positive, showing no significant difference between those who already knew
aboutaquaponicsandthosewhoonlyheardaboutitthroughthesurvey(Table2). Thissupported
ourexpectationthatthosewhohadheardaboutaquaponicsbefore,musthaveheardmostlypositive
descriptionsaboutaquaponics,eitherthroughcommercialmaterialorthroughmassmediaorother
communication channels. It should be noted here that although the amount of information about
aquaponicsinEuropeanmediaisquitesmallandpositive,Europehasnotfacedanyofthepotential
mediascaresabout aquaponics. Aquaponics is, forexample, veryrisk vulnerabletomedia scares
inrelationtofoodsafetyissuespreciselybecauseofthepotentiallynegativeassociationsaboutfish
excrementsinconnectionwithvegetables.
Factoranalysis(seeAppendixC)showedthatonlyfouroutoffiveindicatorsmeasurethesame
factor—consumers’attitudestowardsaquaponicsproducts. Themeanwascalculatedfromthesefour
indicatorsandtheindexofattitudestowardsaquaponicsproducts.
Inordertotestcorrelationsbetweentheindexofattitudestowardsaquaponicsproductsandother
analysedvariables,regressionanalysiswasperformed(seeAppendixD).Attitudestoaquaponics
productsprovedtobecorrelatedwithconsumers’behaviourwhenbuyingorganicorlocalfood,butnot
withgender,age,monthlyincomeorwhetherapersonisinchargeofweeklyfoodpurchases.Attitudes
aboutaquaponicsarehighlycorrelatedwithconsumers’behaviourintermsofbuyingorganicand
Water2017,9,80 8of22
localfood(seeAppendixD).Thismeansthatthemostlikelyconsumersofaquaponicsproductsare
consumerswhoalreadyvalueorganicandlocalproduce,andarenotspecificallycharacterizedby
gender,ageormonthlyincome.
Water 2017, 9, 80 Table2.Theresultsofconsumers’attitudestoaquaponicsproducts. 8 of 22
Table 2. The results of consumers’ attitudes to aquaponics products.
ValidPerCent(n=635)
Statement VStarloidn gPleyrDCiesnatg (rnee= 635D)isagree Neutral Agree StronglyAgree
S1:NexttimeIwillbuyvSetgaetetambelenstI willlookfor StronglyDisagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
aquaponSic1a: lNlyegxrt otiwmne vI ewgieltla bbuleys v.e*getables I will 19.2 25.6 37.9 13.7 3.6
19.2 25.6 37.9 13.7 3.6
look for aquaponically grown vegetables. *
S2:Whendecidingbetweenconventionallyfarmed
S2: When deciding between conventionally
fishandaquaponicallyfarmedfishIwouldchoose 7.5 13.5 40.7 32.3 6.0
aquaponfiacrfimsehd. *fish and aquaponically farmed fish 7.5 13.5 40.7 32.3 6.0
I would choose aquaponic fish. *
S3:Mostofthescareaboutpesticidesandherbicides
S3: Most of the scare about pesticides and 22.9 27.3 18.1 18.9 12.7
isexaggerated.* 22.9 27.3 18.1 18.9 12.7
herbicides is exaggerated. *
S4:IlikeSt4h:e I ildikeea ,thbeu tidIedao, ubbutt II wdoouubldt Ia wctouualldly eat 19.5 36.8 27.6 12.1 4.0
fishorveagcetutaablllye seagtr ofiwshn oirn vthegisetwabalye.s grown in 19.5 36.8 27.6 12.1 4.0
S5:Iwouthldisc whoaoys. eaquaponicsfishevenifthey
8.7 26.6 41.6 20.9 2.2
wouldcoSs5t: mI woroeu.l*d choose aquaponics fish even if
8.7 26.6 41.6 20.9 2.2
S6:Theotnhleyy twruoeuvlde gceotsatb mleoprer.o *d uctionisinsoil.* 19.1 34.0 19.7 17.7 9.5
S6: The only true vegetable production is
S7:Aquaponicsistheanswertomoresustainable 19.1 34.0 19.7 17.7 9.5
in soil. * 3.4 11.2 39.2 36.1 10.2
foodproduction.*
S7: Aquaponics is the answer to more
*Facstuosrtaainnaalbyles ifsosohdo pwroeddutchtiaotnt.h *e seindicatorsbelongt3o.4th esamefacto1r1.a2n dthus3m9.e2a surea3tt6i.t1u desabout10a.q2u aponics.
* Factor analysis showed that these indicators belong to the same factor and thus measure attitudes
3.4. Consumabeorust’ aWquiallpinongincse.s stoPayforAquaponicsProducts
Whenpurchasingvegetables,17%ofrespondentswouldlookforaquaponicallygrownvegetables,
3.4. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Aquaponics Products
38%wouldchooseaquaponicfishincomparisontoconventionallyfarmedfish,and23%wouldchoose
When purchasing vegetables, 17% of respondents would look for aquaponically grown
aquaponicfishevenifitcostmore.
vegetables, 38% would choose aquaponic fish in comparison to conventionally farmed fish, and 23%
Furthermore, the willingness to pay for aquaponics products in comparison to the other two
would choose aquaponic fish even if it cost more.
mainpremFiuurmthefremaoturer,e tshoe fwfiolloindgpnersosd tuoc ptsa,yi .feo.r, apqruoadpuocneicds pperosdtiuccidtse i/nh ceormbpicairdiseona ntod tahne toibthioert itcwfore eand
produmceadinl oprceamlliyu,mw faesataunreasl yosf efdoo.dF pigruodreuc1tsp, ir.ee.s, epnrtosduthceedse preestsiucildtse./hTerhbeicrideseu alntds sahntoibwiotthica ftr,eoe nanadv erage,
54%ofprroesdpuocendd leonctasllwy, owualsd abnealwysieldli.n Fgigtuorpe a1y pmresoernetsf otrhepsees rteicsuidltes/. Thheer briecsiudlets asnhdowa nthtiabt,i ootnic afvreereagper,o ducts
(58%f5o4r%tr oofu rte,s5p2o%ndfeonrtst womoualtdo baen wdil5li2n%g tfoo pralye tmtuocree )f,o4r 1p%estoicfidrees/hpeornbidceidnet sanwdo aunltdibiboeticw firlelein pgrotdoupctasy more
(58% for trout, 52% for tomato and 52% for lettuce), 41% of respondents would be willing to pay
forlocallyproducedproducts(44%fortomato,42%forlettuceand38%fortrout)andonly17%of
more for locally produced products (44% for tomato, 42% for lettuce and 38% for trout) and only 17%
respondentswouldbewillingtopaymoreforaquaponicsproducts(22%fortrout,15%fortomatoand
of respondents would be willing to pay more for aquaponics products (22% for trout, 15% for tomato
14%forlettuce).
and 14% for lettuce).
Consumers´willingness to pay for aquaponics products
80%
58%
52% 52%
43% 44%
39%
40%
5% 3% 4%
0%
s e e s e e s e e
s h r s m r s h r
tomato_le tomato_t same tomato_mo trout_le rout_the sa trout_mo lettuce_le lettuce_t same lettuce_mo
t

Figure 1. Consumers’ willingness to pay for tomato, trout and lettuce produced aquaponically.
Figure1.Consumers’willingnesstopayfortomato,troutandlettuceproducedaquaponically.
Additionally, respondents were asked how much more in percentage they would be willing to
Apdady iftoior nalal ltlhyr,eree tsyppoens dofe nprtosdwucetrse, laocsakle, dpehstoicwidem/huercbhicmideo raendin anpteibricoetinct fargeee atnhde yaqwuaopuolndicbs,e inw illing
topaycofomrpaalrlistohnr eteo tynpone-sloocfalp raonddu tchtos,sel opcarol,dpuceesdti ciind ec/onhveernbtiicoindael/ianntednsainveti bfaiormticinfgr.e eOann advaerqaugae,p onics,
respondents would be willing to pay 39.8% more for pesticide/herbicide and antibiotic free products
Water2017,9,80 9of22
in comparison to non-local and those produced in conventional/intensive farming. On average,
respondentswouldbewillingtopay39.8%moreforpesticide/herbicideandantibioticfreeproducts
in comparison to products that are produced in conventional/intensive farming, 39.5% more for
locallyproducedproductsincomparisontoproductsthatarenotproducedlocallyand37.6%morefor
aquaponicsproductsincomparisontothoseproducedinconventional/intensivefarming(Figure2).
For aquaponically produced products, 75% of respondents would pay the same as for products
producedinaconventionalwayiftheywereproducedlocally. Ontheotherhand,itisnotself-evident
thatsuchfoodshouldbemoreexpensive. Somerespondentswereoftheopinionthatitshouldcost
2
lessandnotmore.
2

Figure2.Boxplotsofconsumers’willingnesstopaymoreforlocally,pesticide/herbicideandantibiotic
3 freeandaquaponicallyproducedtomato,troutandlettuce.
Onaverage,11.2%respondentswouldpaylessforlocallyproducedproducts(12.3%forlettuce,
11.8% for tomato and 9.6% for trout), 8% of respondents would pay less for aquaponics products
(8.8%fortrout,7.7%forlettuceand7.4%fortomato)andonly4%ofrespondentswouldpaylessfor
pesticide/herbicideandantibioticfreeproducts(4.8%fortomato,4.1%forlettuceand3.1%fortrout).
Theserespondentswouldonaveragepay33.9%lessforlocalproducts,40.6%forpesticide/herbicide

and antibiotic free products and 41.1% less for aquaponics products (Figure 3). This leads to the
co3nclusionthataquaponicsinitself,notproducedlocallyandnotemphasizedaspesticide/herbicide
andantibioticfree,isregardedaslessattractivethantheothertwoattributes.

Figure3.Boxplotsofconsumers’willingnesstopaylessforlocally,pesticide/herbicideandantibiotic

freeandaquaponicallyproducedtomato,troutandlettuce.
3.5. MainFactorsthatExplainConsumers’AttitudestowardsAquaponics
Theresultsofunivariateanalysisareveryimportant,sincetheyallowustoanalyserespondents’
knowledgeofaquaponicsandtheirattitudesandvaluesacceptanceofaquaponicsproducts. Itisalso
importanttoconfirmwhetherrespondentsareahomogeneousgroupinrelationtotheirattitudes
towardsaquaponics,orwhethertheyhaveparticularcharacteristicsthatmayenableustoidentify
differenttypesofconsumersandwhataretheirmaincharacteristics.
TheresultsofPCAconfirmedtheexistenceofthreefactorsthatmainlyexplaintheattitudesand
valuesofrespondentsaboutaquaponics. Inotherwords,therearethreemaingroupsofcharacteristics
1

1
Water2017,9,80 10of22
thatenablegroupingtheattitudesandvaluesofrespondentsanddistinguishingpotentialconsumers
ofaquaponicsproducts. Thesefactorsinclude: (1)thepersonalandsocio-demographiccharacteristics
oftherespondentsandpreviousknowledgeofaquaponics;(2)therespondents’willingnesstopayin
percentageforlocallyproducedorpesticide/herbicideandantibioticfreeproductsbeforetheconcept
aquaponicswasintroduced;and(3)therespondents’willingnesstopayinpercentageforaquaponics
productsaftertheconceptofaquaponicswasintroducedandtherespondents’mainvaluesconcerning
aquaponics(Table3). Theseresultsconfirmedthatitisnecessaryandurgenttoeducateconsumers
aboutaquaponicsthroughvariouseducationalprogramsandtraining,suchasguidedtours,thematic
workshopsandlivetastingsofaquaponicsproductsontheaquaponicsfarm,inordertoraisetheir
awarenessaboutthisnewdevelopingtechnologyinthefoodproductionindustry.
Table3.Factorsthatexplainconsumers’attitudestoaquaponicsproducts.
Factor Variables(**)
VAR29
Factor1:Personalandsocio-demographiccharacteristicsand
VAR30,VAR31,VAR32,VAR33,VAR43,
previousknowledgeaboutaquaponics
VAR44,VAR45,VAR46VAR47VAR48
Factor2:Consumers’willingnesstopaymore(inpercentage)
VAR7,VAR8,VAR9,VAR16,VAR17,VAR19,VAR20,
foraquaponicsproductsbeforetheconceptofaquaponics
VAR22,VAR23,VAR24,VAR25,VAR26
wasintroduced
Factor3:Consumers’willingnesstopaymore(inpercentage)
foraquaponicsproductsaftertheconceptofaquaponics VAR34,VAR35,VAR36,VAR37,VAR39,VAR40,VAR41
wasintroduced
Source:ResultsofPCAfromtheauthors.**AllthevariablesarelistedinAppendixA.
3.6. MainTypologiesofPotentialConsumersofAquaponics
Cluster analysis used Euclidean distance and Ward’s aggregation method according to
Dos-Santos[8,31]andSilvaetal.[47]. Duetothenatureofthedata(numericalscale,Likertscale,etc.)
andthedistributionsamongdifferentdatafromdifferentcountries,itwasclearlydifficulttoseparate
andformconsumergroups. Toconfirmtheanalysis,multipleregressionanalysiswithquantitative
datawasperformed. Thecombinedresultsofthisanalysisshowedthatthereareonlythreegroupsof
potentialconsumersofaquaponicsproducts. Thefirstgroupofconsumers,“Innovative”,definedas
innovativebyseveralauthorsinvariousliterature[48–50],consistedofasmallgroupofconsumers
(lessthan17%)withameanageof35yearsandaverageincomebetween2001and3000Euroswhoare
employed. Thisgroupwaswillingtopaymorethan19%foraquaponicsproductsandwasrelatively
familiar with this type of food production. The second group of consumers, “Potential aquaponics
consumers”wasmadeupofabout23%ofthesampleandwasagedbetween46and50yearswith
anincomeofabout4001to5000Eurospermonth. Withinthisgroup,only15%ofconsumersknew
whataquaponicsis. Afterpresentingtheconceptofaquaponics,thisgroupofconsumerswaswilling
topay15%moreonaverageforproductsproducedinaquaponics. Thethirdgroup,“Status-quoof
aquaponicsconsumers”,wascomposedofthemajorityofthesample(60%). Thisclusterhadanaverage
agebetween55and60years;anincomebetween3001and4000Eurospermonth,hadneverheard
aboutaquaponicsonthemediaandwasnotwillingtopaymoreforproductsproducedinaquaponics.
Itshouldbenotedthatthepresentsamplewasbasedon“convenience”anddoesnotfullyrepresent
allofthecountriesunderstudy. Thatcouldcausesomedifficultiesintheanalysis. Theapplicationof
non-randomsamplinginthepresentstudywasjustifiedbyitsnoveltyandoriginality,becauseitisthe
firstinthisfield. Randomsamplingmayhaveprovidedamoreaccuraterepresentationofthesample
anduniversalityofstudybut,duetothenewconceptsonconsumers’perceptionintheaquaponics
field,theanalysisofresultscouldbeunviableduetotheunfamiliarityofthetheme. Forfurther,more
detailed, analysis, therefore, amorecomprehensivesamplethatrepresentsallthecountriesinthe
analysisisrecommended.