Changes in Fish Consumption Desire and Its Factors: A Comparison between the United Kingdom and Singapore
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- The Fisheries Agency of Japan. White Paper on Fisheries. 2011. Available online: http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/wpaper/h23/pdf/04_dai2shou.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2018). (In Japanese)
- FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. 2010. Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2018).
- Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40, 471–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Verbeke, W.; Vackier, I. Individual determinants of Fish Consumption: Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Appetite 2005, 44, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Olsen, S.O.; Heide, M.; Dopico, D.C.; Toften, K. Explaining Intention to Consume a New Fish Product: A Cross-Generational and Cross-Cultural Comparison. Food Qual. Preference 2008, 19, 618–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaimakoudi, E.; Polymeros, K.; Schinaraki, M.G.; Batzios, C. Consumers’ Attitudes Towards Fisheries Products. Proc. Technol. 2013, 8, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brouwer, A.M.; Mosack, K.E. Expanding the Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Healthy Eating Behaviors: Exploring a Healthy Eater Identity. Nutr. Food Sci. 2015, 45, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Government Appointed Industry Expert Working Group Members. Seafood 2040. 2017. Available online: http://www.seafish.org/media/publications/SEAFOOD_2040_lo_singlep.pdf (accessed on 19 May 2018).
- Roheim, C.A.; Asche, F.; Santos, J.I. The Elusive Price Premium for Ecolabelled Products: Evidence from Seafood in the UK Market. J. Agric. Econ. 2011, 62, 655–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrmann, R.O.; Rauniyar, G.P.; Hanson, G.D.; Wang, G. Identifying Frequent Seafood Purchasers in the Northeastern US. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 1994, 23, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Global Agriculture Information Network, Singapore: Seafood Report 2017; Global Agriculture Information Network, USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
- Jorm, A.F. A short form of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE): Development and cross-validation. Psychol. Med. 1994, 24, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smith, C.A.; Henderson, V.W.; McCleary, C.A.; Murdock, G.A.; Buckwalter, J.G. Anosognosia and Alzheimer’s Disease: The Role of Depressive Symptoms in Mediating Impaired Insight. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 2000, 22, 437–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reilly, W.T.; Talley, N.J.; Pemberton, J.H.; Zinsmeister, A.R. Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Fecal Incontinence and Associated Risk Factors. Dis. Colon Rectum 2000, 43, 146–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fox, N.; Ward, K. Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of vegetarian motivation. Appetite 2008, 50, 422–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nayga, R.M.; Capps, O. Factors Affecting the Probability of Consuming Fish and Shellfish in the Away from Home and At Home Markets. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 1995, 27, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chopra, A.; Bessler, D.A. Impact of BSE and FMD on beef industry in UK. In Proceedings of the NCR-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management, St. Louis, MO, USA, 18–19 April 2005; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Daniel, M.C. Sociocultural Considerations of Fish Consumption. Comments Texicol. 2002, 8, 421–430. [Google Scholar]
- Assadi, D. Do Religions Influence Customer Behaviour? Confronting Religious Rules and Marketing Concepts. Cahiers du CEREN 2003, 5, 2–13. [Google Scholar]
Variable Name | Question | Options | |
---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable | The desire of consuming fish | How has your desire to eat fish changed in comparison with 10 years ago? | 1. It has increased 2. It has decreased 3. It has not changed |
Independent Variables | The price of the fish | We would like to ask about your current situation in comparison with 10 years ago. Please select the closest answer for each item. | 1. Closer to A (Fish has become cheaper) 2. Between A and B 3. Closer to B (Fish has become more expensive) |
Household income | 1. Closer to A (Household income has increased) 2. Between A and B 3. Closer to B (Household income has decreased) | ||
Health related reasons (1) | 1. Closer to A (I have started to think that eating fish is good for my health (e.g. omega fatty acids, nutrition)) 2. Between A and B 3. Closer to B (I have started to think that eating fish is bad for my health (e.g. organic mercury, dioxins) ) | ||
Health related reasons (2) | 1. Closer to A (I have started to think that eating meat is dangerous (e.g. mad cow disease, avian flu)) 2. Between A and B 3. Closer to B (I have started to think that eating meat is safe.) | ||
Fish variety | 1. Closer to A (Fish variety has increased (e.g., more imported fish) ) 2. Between A and B 3. Closer to B (Fish variety has decreased (e.g., less imported fish)) | ||
Sustainability concerns | 1. Closer to A (The opportunity to purchase fish produced in sustainable fisheries has increased) 2. Between A and B 3. Closer to B (The opportunity to purchase fish produced in sustainable fisheries has decreased ) | ||
Age | What is your age? | Age of respondent | |
Sex | What is your gender? | 1. Male, 2. Female | |
Education | Your highest education level is: | 1. Primary to Junior high school, 2. High school, 3. Vocational school and junior college, 4. University (Bachelors or 4-year degree), 5. Graduate school, 98. Other—Please specify:, 99. I decline to answer | |
Having religion | Your religion is: | 1. Hinduism, 2. Christianity, 3. Islam, 4. Buddhism, 5. Sikhism, 6. Judaism, 7. Taoism, 8. No religion, 98. Other—Please specify: , 99. I decline to answer | |
Household composition | Please indicate your relationship to the people you are currently living with. | 1. Spouse, 2. Child, 3. Grandson, 4. Parent or parent-in-law , 5. Brother/sister or brother/ sister-in-law, 98. Other—Please specify: , 99. Living alone |
Total | UK | Singapore | p-Value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% (n = 1200) | % (n = 600) | % (n = 600) | |||
Age (mean ± SD) | 43.7 ± 13.4 | 44.1 ± 13.9 | 43.3 ± 12.9 | <0.001 | |
Sex | 0.82 | ||||
Male | 49.3 | 49.7 | 49 | ||
Female | 50.7 | 50.3 | 51 | ||
Education | <0.0001 | ||||
Lower than high school | 2.7 | 1.4 | 4 | ||
High school level | 21.4 | 29.7 | 13.3 | ||
Vocational school level | 23 | 23.9 | 22.2 | ||
Undergraduate level | 42.1 | 37.1 | 47 | ||
Graduate level | 10.8 | 7.9 | 13.5 | ||
Religious | <0.001 | ||||
Yes | 66.1 | 51.8 | 80.3 | ||
No | 30.2 | 42.7 | 17.7 | ||
Unknown | 3.8 | 5.5 | 2 | ||
Household composition | <0.0001 | ||||
With family | 87 | 79.5 | 94.5 | ||
Living alone | 13 | 20.5 | 5.5 | ||
The desire of consuming fish | <0.003 | ||||
Has increased | 44 | 40.3 | 47.7 | ||
Has decreased | 9.5 | 8.3 | 10.7 | ||
Unchanged | 46.5 | 51.3 | 41.7 |
The UK | Singapore | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Odds Ratio | (CI 95%) | Odds Ratio | (CI 95%) | ||
Age | |||||
20–29 years old | 6.8 | (2.99–15.43) | 1.43 | (0.71–2.91) | |
30–39 years old | 2.15 | (1.01–4.59) | 1.76 | (0.87–3.57) | |
40–49 years old | 1.92 | (0.92–3.98) | 1.26 | (0.66–2.42) | |
50–59 years old | 1.7 | (0.84–3.44) | 1.34 | (0.72–2.51) | |
60–69 years old | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
Sex | 0.72 | (0.45–1.15) | 0.95 | (0.64–1.40) | |
The price of the fish | |||||
It has become cheaper | 3.44 | (1.71–6.93) | 5 | (2.12–11.77) | |
Neutral | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
It has become more expensive | 1.2 | (0.72–2.01) | 1.3 | (0.83–2.03) | |
Household income | |||||
It has increased | 1.02 | (0.54–1.93) | 1.15 | (0.66–1.99) | |
Neutral | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
It has decreased | 1.48 | (0.81–2.74) | 0.84 | (0.50–1.40) | |
Health related reasons (1) | |||||
Fish is good for health | 3.67 | (1.46–9.21) | 0.42 | (0.19–0.95) | |
Neutral | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
Fish is bad for health | 0.95 | (0.38–2.42) | 0.35 | (0.15–0.80) | |
Health related reasons (2) | |||||
Meat is unsafe to be consumed | 2.82 | (1.24–6.41) | 1.24 | (0.61–2.50) | |
Neutral | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
Meat is safe to be consumed | 1.48 | (0.81–2.74) | 0.74 | (0.39–1.40) | |
Fish variety | |||||
It has increased | 1.25 | (0.43–3.64) | 1.82 | (0.89–3.71) | |
Neutral | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
It has decreased | 1.1 | (0.38–3.19) | 1.68 | (0.85–3.31) | |
Sustainability concerns | |||||
Sustainable fisheries has increased | 0.68 | (0.27–1.73) | 0.53 | (0.25–1.10) | |
Neutral | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
Sustainable fisheries has decreased | 0.56 | (0.22–1.42) | 1.49 | (0.25–0.98) | |
Education | |||||
High school level | 1.44 | (0.87–2.36) | 1.11 | (0.71–1.74) | |
Vocational school level | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
Undergraduate level | 1.84 | (0.74–4.58) | 1.9 | (0.98–3.66) | |
Religious | |||||
Yes | 1.03 | 1.01–1.05 | 0.95 | (0.88–1.02) | |
No | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
Household composition | |||||
With family | 1.77 | (0.97–3.22) | 0.71 | (0.31–1.63) | |
Alone | 1.00 | 1.00 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Supartini, A.; Oishi, T.; Yagi, N. Changes in Fish Consumption Desire and Its Factors: A Comparison between the United Kingdom and Singapore. Foods 2018, 7, 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods7070097
Supartini A, Oishi T, Yagi N. Changes in Fish Consumption Desire and Its Factors: A Comparison between the United Kingdom and Singapore. Foods. 2018; 7(7):97. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods7070097
Chicago/Turabian StyleSupartini, Atin, Taro Oishi, and Nobuyuki Yagi. 2018. "Changes in Fish Consumption Desire and Its Factors: A Comparison between the United Kingdom and Singapore" Foods 7, no. 7: 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods7070097