best worst scaling; satisfaction; importance; attitudes; seabream and seabass products; island of Gran Canaria
Abstract :
[en] Attitudes are important key drivers that affect consumers’ seafood consumption. The present investigation used a best–worst scaling approach to measure the level of importance and satisfaction of consumers’ attitudes towards the purchase of seabream and seabass in Gran Canaria (Spain). The investigation also compared the results of the best–worst scaling (BWS) approach with those of the traditional Likert-scale method and offers a different perspective of the results using an Importance–Satisfaction Analysis (ISA). The results indicate that the most important attributes concerned the hygiene and safety of the product, the health benefits, the freshness, the taste and the nutrients. At the same time, these attributes were ranked as those which satisfied consumers the most. However, some of the results obtained from the methodologies differed. The results suggest that, in the Likert-scale task, respondents might be overstating the importance and satisfaction of the attributes; while in the BWS, consumers were forced to evaluate a trade-off in the selection of the best and worst attributes in each scenario, so the task impeded, in principle, to define every attribute as very important and providing a high satisfaction. As a result, we consider that BWS offers more reliable and clearer results than traditional Likert-scale experiments.
Research center :
CEPE - Centre d'Études de la Performance des Entreprises - ULiège
Disciplines :
Quantitative methods in economics & management
Author, co-author :
Cantillo Acosta, Javier Arturo ; University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria > Institute of Tourism and Sustainable Economic Development
Martín, Juan Carlos; University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria > Institute of Tourism and Sustainable Economic Development
Román, Concepción; University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria > Institute of Tourism and Sustainable Economic Development
Language :
English
Title :
A Best–Worst Measure of Attitudes toward Buying Seabream and Seabass Products: An Application to the Island of Gran Canaria
Publication date :
05 January 2021
Journal title :
Foods
eISSN :
2304-8158
Publisher :
MDPI AG, Switzerland
Special issue title :
Processing, Preservation and Analysis of Seafood Products
Volume :
10
Issue :
1
Pages :
90
Peer reviewed :
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi
European Projects :
H2020 - 766347 - BioMedaqu - Aquaculture meets Biomedicine: Innovation in Skeletal Health research.
Name of the research project :
BioMedAqu
Funders :
UE - Union Européenne [BE] CE - Commission Européenne [BE]
Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
Arsil, P.; Ardiansyah; Yanto, T. Consumers’ Intention and Behaviour towards Fish Consumption: A Conceptual Framework. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 255, p. 012006. [CrossRef]
Verbeke, W.; Vackier, I. Individual determinants of fish consumption: Application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite 2005, 44, 67–82. [CrossRef]
Bredahl, L.; Grunert, K.G. Determinants of the consumption of fish and shellfish in Denmark: An application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. In Proceedings of the International Seafood Conference: Seafood from Producer to Consumer, Integrated Approach to Quality, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, 13–16 November 1995; pp. 21–30.
Higuchi, A.; Dávalos, J.; Hernani-Merino, M.; Higuchi, A.; Dávalos, J.; Hernani-Merino, M. Theory of planned behavior applied to fish consumption in modern Metropolitan Lima. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 37, 202–208. [CrossRef]
Olsen, S.O. Antecedents of Seafood Consumption Behavior. J. Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 2004, 13, 79–91. [CrossRef]
Thong, N.T.; Olsen, S.O. Attitude toward and Consumption of Fish in Vietnam. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2012, 18, 79–95. [CrossRef]
Tomić, M.; Matulić, D.; Jelić, M. What determines fresh fish consumption in Croatia? Appetite 2016, 106, 13–22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tuu, H.H.; Olsen, S.O.; Thao, D.T.; Anh, N.T.K. The role of norms in explaining attitudes, intention and consumption of a common food (fish) in Vietnam. Appetite 2008, 51, 546–551. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Eagly, A.H.; Chaiken, S. The Psychology of Attitudes; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers: Orlando, FL, USA, 1993; p. 794. ISBN 978-0-15-500097-1.
Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64, 542–553. [CrossRef]
Birch, D.; Lawley, M.; Hamblin, D. Drivers and barriers to seafood consumption in Australia. J. Consum. Mark. 2012, 29, 64–73. [CrossRef]
Brunsø, K.; Verbeke, W.; Olsen, S.O.; Jeppesen, L.F. Motives, barriers and quality evaluation in fish consumption situations: Exploring and comparing heavy and light users in Spain and Belgium. Br. Food J. 2009, 111, 699–716. [CrossRef]
Gempesaw, C.M.; Bacon, R.; Wessells, C.R.; Manalo, A. Consumer Perceptions of Aquaculture Products. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1995, 77, 1306–1312. [CrossRef]
Olsen, S.O. Consumer involvement in seafood as family meals in Norway: An application of the expectancy-value approach. Appetite 2001, 36, 173–186. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rortveit, A.W.; Olsen, S.O. Combining the role of convenience and consideration set size in explaining fish consumption in Norway. Appetite 2009, 52, 313–317. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Myrland, Ø.; Trondsen, T.; Johnston, R.S.; Lund, E. Determinants of seafood consumption in Norway: Lifestyle, revealed preferences, and barriers to consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 2000, 11, 169–188. [CrossRef]
Carlucci, D.; Nocella, G.; De Devitiis, B.; Viscecchia, R.; Bimbo, F.; Nardone, G. Consumer purchasing behaviour towards fish and seafood products. Patterns and insights from a sample of international studies. Appetite 2015, 84, 212–227. [CrossRef]
FAO. FAO Yearbook. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2018/FAO Annuaire. Statistiques des Pêches et de L’aquaculture 2018/FAO anuario. Estadísticas de Pesca y Acuicultura 2018; FAO Yearbook of Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; ISBN 978-92-5-133371-6.
EUMOFA. The EU Fish Market, 2020th ed.; Publications Office of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; ISBN 978-92-76-15377-1.
FEAP European Aquaculture Production Report 2008–2016. Available online: http://feap.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/production-report-2017_web.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2020).
APROMAR La Acuicultura en España. Available online: http://apromar.es/sites/default/files/2019/InformeAcui/APROMAR%20Informe%20ACUICULTURA%202019%20v-1-2.pdf (accessed on 7 September 2020).
Rodríguez Feijoo, S.; Rodríguez Mireles, S.; Lopez-Valcarcel, B.G.; Serra Majem, L.; Rodriguez Caro, A.; Pinilla Domínguez, J.; Hernández Yumar, A.; Barber Pérez, P. Alimentación y Salud. Distribución, Mercados y Precios. Análisis Detallado de Pescado, Frutas, Hortalizas y Legumbres (PFHL). 2018. Available online: https://accedacris.ulpgc.es/handle/10553/42364 (accessed on 18 December 2020).
European Union. Special Eurobarometer 475: EU Consumer Habits Regarding Fishery and Aquaculture Products; Kantar Public: Brussels, Belgium, 2018; ISBN 978-92-79-98186-9.
Spanish National Institute of Statistics Población por Islas y Sexo. Available online: https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Datos.htm?t=29 10#!tabs-tabla (accessed on 7 September 2020).
Finn, A.; Louviere, J.J. Determining the Appropriate Response to Evidence of Public Concern: The Case of Food Safety. J. Public Policy Mark. 1992, 11, 12–25. [CrossRef]
Beck, M.J.; Rose, J.M. The best of times and the worst of times: A new best–worst measure of attitudes toward public transport experiences. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 86, 108–123. [CrossRef]
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M.; Baumgartner, H. Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research. J. Consum. Res. 1998, 25, 78–90. [CrossRef]
Cohen, S.H.; Markowitz, P. Renewing market segmentation: Some new tools to correct old problems. In Proceedings of the ESOMAR 2002 Congress Proceedings, ESOMAR, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 10 November 2002; pp. 595–612.
Marley, A.A.J. The best-worst method for the study of preferences. Cognit. Neuropsychol. Int. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2010, 11, 147.
Marley, A.A.J.; Louviere, J.J. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. J. Math. Psychol. 2005, 49, 464–480. [CrossRef]
Merlino, V.; Bora, D.; Verduna, T.; Massaglia, S. Household Behavior with Respect to Meat Consumption: Differences between Households with and without Children. Vet. Sci. 2017, 4, 53. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jodice, L.W.; Norman, W.C. Comparing importance and confidence for production and source attributes of seafood among residents and tourists in South Carolina and Florida coastal communities. Appetite 2020, 146, 104510. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2013.
McFadden, D. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1974; pp. 105–142.
Thurstone, L.L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 1927, 34, 273–286. [CrossRef]
Flynn, T.N.; Marley, A.A.J. Best-worst scaling: Theory and methods. In Handbook of Choice Modelling; Edward Elgar Publishing: Northampton, MA, USA, 2014.
Louviere, J.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Swait, J.D.; Adamowicz, W. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000.
Louviere, J.J.; Flynn, T.N.; Marley, A.A.J. Best-Worst Scaling: Theory, Methods and Applications; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-1-107-04315-2.
Bierlaire, M. BIOGEME: A free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. In Proceedings of the Swiss Transport Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland, 19–21 March 2003.
Sever, I. Importance-performance analysis: A valid management tool? Tour. Manag. 2015, 48, 43–53. [CrossRef]
Rial, A.; Rial, J.; Varela, J.; Real, E. An application of importance-performance analysis (IPA) to the management of sport centres. Manag. Leis. 2008, 13, 179–188. [CrossRef]
Watson, D. Correcting for Acquiescent Response Bias in the Absence of a Balanced Scale: An Application to Class Consciousness. Sociol. Methods Res. 1992, 21, 52–88. [CrossRef]
Weijters, B.; Cabooter, E.; Schillewaert, N. The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2010, 27, 236–247. [CrossRef]
Massaglia, S.; Borra, D.; Peano, C.; Sottile, F.; Merlino, V.M. Consumer Preference Heterogeneity Evaluation in Fruit and Vegetable Purchasing Decisions Using the Best-Worst Approach. Foods 2019, 8, 266. [CrossRef]
Lee, J.A.; Soutar, G.; Louviere, J. The Best–Worst Scaling Approach: An Alternative to Schwartz’s Values Survey. J. Personal. Assess. 2008, 90, 335–347. [CrossRef]
Ali, J.; Kapoor, S.; Moorthy, J. Buying behaviour of consumers for food products in an emerging economy. Br. Food J. 2010, 112, 109–124. [CrossRef]
Ortega, D.L.; Wang, H.H.; Widmar, N.J.O. Aquaculture imports from Asia: An analysis of U.S. consumer demand for select food quality attributes. Agric. Econ. 2014, 45, 625–634. [CrossRef]
Fernández-Polanco, J.; Loose, S.M.; Luna, L. Are retailers’ preferences for seafood attributes predictive for consumer wants? Results from a choice experiment for seabream (Sparus aurata). Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2013, 17, 103–122. [CrossRef]
Fonner, R.; Sylvia, G. Willingness to Pay for Multiple Seafood Labels in a Niche Market. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2015, 30, 51–70. [CrossRef]
Haghiri, M. Advances in traceability system: Consumer attitudes toward development of an integration method and quality control systems for the farmed Atlantic salmon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual World Symposium of the International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, Frankfurt, Germany, 20–23 June 2011; pp. 20–23.
Haghiri, M. An evaluation of consumers’ preferences for certified farmed Atlantic salmon. Br. Food J. 2014, 116, 1092–1105. [CrossRef]
Lee, M.-K.; Nam, J. The determinants of live fish consumption frequency in South Korea. Food Res. Int. 2019, 120, 382–388. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Arvanitoyannis, I.S.; Krystallis, A.; Panagiotaki, P.; Theodorou, A.J. A marketing survey on Greek consumers’ attitudes towards fish. Aquac. Int. 2004, 12, 259–279. [CrossRef]
Birch, D.; Lawley, M. Buying seafood: Understanding barriers to purchase across consumption segments. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 26, 12–21. [CrossRef]
Hall, T.E.; Amberg, S.M. Factors influencing consumption of farmed seafood products in the Pacific northwest. Appetite 2013, 66, 1–9. [CrossRef]
Stefani, G.; Scarpa, R.; Cavicchi, A. Exploring consumer’s preferences for farmed sea bream. Aquac. Int. 2012, 20, 673–691. [CrossRef]
Verbeke, W.; Vermeir, I.; Brunsø, K. Consumer evaluation of fish quality as basis for fish market segmentation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 651–661. [CrossRef]
Banovic, M.; Reinders, M.J.; Claret, A.; Guerrero, L.; Krystallis, A. A cross-cultural perspective on impact of health and nutrition claims, country-of-origin and eco-label on consumer choice of new aquaculture products. Food Res. Int. 2019, 123, 36–47. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lim, K.H.; Hu, W.; Nayga, R.M. Is Marine Stewardship Council’s ecolabel a rising tide for all? Consumers’ willingness to pay for origin-differentiated ecolabeled canned tuna. Mar. Policy 2018, 96, 18–26. [CrossRef]
Ramalho Ribeiro, A.; Altintzoglou, T.; Mendes, J.; Nunes, M.L.; Dinis, M.T.; Dias, J. Farmed fish as a functional food: Perception of fish fortification and the influence of origin—Insights from Portugal. Aquaculture 2019, 501, 22–31. [CrossRef]
Bi, X.; House, L.; Gao, Z. Impacts of Nutrition Information on Choices of Fresh Seafood Among Parents. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2016, 31, 355–372. [CrossRef]
Rudd, M.A.; Pelletier, N.; Tyedmers, P. Preferences for health and environmental attributes of farmed salmon amongst southern ontario salmon consumers. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2011, 15, 18–45. [CrossRef]
Davidson, K.; Pan, M.; Hu, W.; Poerwanto, D. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Aquaculture Fish Products Vs. Wild-Caught Seafood—A Case Study in Hawaii. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2012, 16, 136–154. [CrossRef]
Ankamah-Yeboah, I.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Olsen, S.B.; Nielsen, M.; Nielsen, R. The impact of animal welfare and environmental information on the choice of organic fish: An empirical investigation of German trout consumers. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2019, 34, 248–266. [CrossRef]
Ankamah-Yeboah, I.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Olsen, S.B. Innovating out of the fishmeal trap: The role of insect-based fish feed in consumers’ preferences for fish attributes. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2395–2410. [CrossRef]
Bronnmann, J.; Asche, F. Sustainable Seafood From Aquaculture and Wild Fisheries: Insights From a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 142, 113–119. [CrossRef]
Bronnmann, J.; Hoffmann, J. Consumer preferences for farmed and ecolabeled turbot: A North German perspective. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2018, 22, 342–361. [CrossRef]
Darko, F.A.; Quagrainie, K.K.; Chenyambuga, S. Consumer preferences for farmed tilapia in Tanzania: A choice experiment analysis. J. Appl. Aquac. 2016, 28, 131–143. [CrossRef]
Zander, K.; Feucht, Y. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Seafood Made in Europe. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2018, 30, 251–275. [CrossRef]
Cantillo, J.; Martín, J.C.; Román, C. Discrete choice experiments in the analysis of consumers’ preferences for finfish products: A systematic literature review. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 84, 103952. [CrossRef]