ebook img

Commercial Aquaponics Approaching the European Market PDF

22 Pages·2017·0.55 MB·English
by  
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Commercial Aquaponics Approaching the European Market

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.

Description:
Abstract: The first commercial aquaponics companies are starting up in of aquaponics, whilst more than 70% had already heard of hydroponics.
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.