Does seafood knowledge relate to more sustainable consumption?

Abstract

Purpose
– Portugal is a country with one of the highest seafood consumption per capita in the world. The purpose of this paper is to understand the Portuguese knowledge and attitudes towards seafood and relate it to consumers’ environmental conscious.

Design/methodology/approach
– Using an internet-based survey the authors investigated the relation of socio-demographic variables to consumption frequency and how knowledge about seafood is associated with interest in different information when purchasing seafood products.

Findings
– Results demonstrate consumption of a high diversity of species. Tuna and cod are the top species related to convenience and food traditions. There is a preference to consume seafood mostly at home and prepared grilled. Differences between higher and lower knowledgeable consumers’ related to seafood, show that the first ones have a more diversified use of species and high prevalence of small pelagic fish.

Research limitations/implications
– The findings are influenced by the sample obtained, which over-represents well-educated and higher income people. Moreover the self-reported consumption can be biased by individuals own perceptions and different seafood products. Better estimations of consumption frequency could result from asking more detailed information, as such as by species or meal occasions.

Practical implications
– Portuguese consumers have high knowledge about seafood but it is not necessarily related to sustainable choices. To help in sustainable seafood choices it might be more effective to promote existing habits based on Portuguese traditions that still are good alternatives for the marine environment.

Originality/value
– A higher consumer’s knowledge does not necessarily mean more sustainability.

Full text

British Food Journal
Does seafood knowledge relate to more sustainable consumption?
Cheila Almeida Themistoklis Altintzoglou Henrique Cabral Sofia Vaz
Article information:
To cite this document:
Cheila Almeida Themistoklis Altintzoglou Henrique Cabral Sofia Vaz , (2015),"Does seafood
knowledge relate to more sustainable consumption?", British Food Journal, Vol. 117 Iss 2 pp. 894 -
914
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2014-0156
Downloaded on: 13 November 2015, At: 00:01 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 53 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 272 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Pirjo Honkanen, James A. Young, (2015),"What determines British consumers’ motivation to buy
sustainable seafood?", British Food Journal, Vol. 117 Iss 4 pp. 1289-1302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
BFJ-06-2014-0199
Paul T.M. Ingenbleek, (2015),"Price strategies for sustainable food products", British Food Journal,
Vol. 117 Iss 2 pp. 915-928 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2014-0066
Leonardo Casini, Caterina Contini, Caterina Romano, Gabriele Scozzafava, (2015),"Trends in food
consumptions: what is happening to generation X?", British Food Journal, Vol. 117 Iss 2 pp. 705-718
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2013-0283
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:563075 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of
download.
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

REGULAR PAPER
Does seafood knowledge relate to
more sustainable consumption?
Cheila Almeida
Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research, University of Lisbon,
Lisbon, Portugal and Department of Sustainable Food Production,
SIK-The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Göteborg, Sweden
Themistoklis Altintzoglou
Nofima Market, (NOFIMA) Norwegian Institute of Food,
Fisheries and Aquaculture Research, Tromsø, Norway
Henrique Cabral
Centre of Oceanography, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, and
Sofia Vaz
Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research, University of Lisbon,
Lisbon, Portugal
Abstract
Purpose –Portugal is a country with one of the highest seafood consumption per capita in the world.
The purpose of this paper is to understand the Portuguese knowledge and attitudes towards seafood
and relate it to consumers’environmental conscious.
Design/methodology/approach –Using an internet-based survey the authors investigated the
relation of socio-demographic variables to consumption frequency and how knowledge about seafood
is associated with interest in different information when purchasing seafood products.
Findings –Results demonstrate consumption of a high diversity of species. Tuna and cod are the top
species related to convenience and food traditions. There is a preference to consume seafood mostly at home
and prepared grilled. Differences between higher and lower knowledgeable consumers’related to seafood,
show that the first ones have a more diversified use of species and high prevalence of small pelagic fish.
Research limitations/implications –The findings are influenced by the sample obtained, which over-
represents well-educated and higher income people. Moreover the self-reported consumption can be biased
by individuals own perceptions and different seafood products. Better estimations of consumption
frequency could result from asking more detailed information, as such as by species or meal occasions.
Practical implications –Portuguese consumers have high knowledge about seafood but it is not
necessarily related to sustainable choices. To help in sustainable seafood choices it might be more
effective to promote existing habits based on Portuguese traditions that still are good alternatives for
the marine environment.
Originality/value –A higher consumer’s knowledge does not necessarily mean more sustainability.
Keywords Survey, Consumption, Consumer research, Fish (food)
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The world demand for seafood is increasing and global supply grows 3 per cent per
year, outpacing the world’s population increase (FAO, 2012). Apart from the population
rise, the growth is also driven by increasing per capita consumption rate, in particular
from developed countries (Frid and Paramor, 2012). Fish can be an affordable source
of protein in some countries but access to seafood is highly unequally and in some
parts of the world the consumption is still very low (FAO, 2012).
British Food Journal
Vol. 117 No. 2, 2015
pp. 894-914
© Emerald Group PublishingLimited
0007-070X
DOI 10.1108/BFJ-04-2014-0156
Received 29 April 2014
Revised 5 September 2014
Accepted 15 September 2014
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm
894
BFJ
117,2
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

Fish from capture fisheries are in some extent limited by overexploitation of stocks
and widespread ecosystem impacts resulting from the growth and industrialization of
modern fisheries (e.g. discards, depletion of predatory species, biodiversity loss)
(Myers and Worm, 2005; Branch et al., 2010; Johnsen and Eliasen, 2011). In order to
account for the limited supply from fisheries relative to the growing demand for
seafood, aquaculture has grown more than any other agro industry, contributing
to 47 per cent of all the aquatic food consumed in 2008 (Bostock et al., 2010; FAO, 2012).
However, aquaculture has several associated environmental tradeoffs as in general it is
dependent on wild fish for feed, especially in case of omnivorous species such as
salmon and prawns, resulting in an inefficiency of resources use (Campbell and
Pauly, 2013).
The lack of confidence in the ability of governments to implement effective fisheries
management raises the need to address production as well as consumption patterns
(Khalilian et al., 2010). The consumers had become part of the solution and a
sustainable seafood movement has risen with the goal to shift the consumer demand
towards more sustainable seafood products (de Vos and Bush, 2011; Mitchell, 2011).
Market-based tools, as awareness campaigns, boycotts that highlight particular
problems, and seafood certification schemes, have been developed ( Jaquet and Pauly,
2007). Eco-labels have become symbols of sustainability and some supermarket chains
and restaurants have committed to sell only certified sustainable seafood (Mitchell,
2011). Still, the tangible impacts of these programmes to change the market demand
and production practices have been poorly evaluated ( Jacquet et al., 2010). Their
potential remains uncertain since consumers are little informed about the different
schemes principles and the influence of consumer’s choices in the supply chain
operations is still poorly researched ( James et al., 2011; Jonell et al., 2013).
Portugal has the third highest seafood consumption in the world considering
only developed countries, with 57 kg in live weight per capita when the global
seafood consumption is 17 kg per capita (Laurenti, 2010). The Portuguese geography,
make the fisheries and the consumption of fish products of extreme importance
(Cardoso et al., 2013a). Fish is often described as healthy food and its consumption is
generally promoted (Sirot et al., 2012). However, given the toxic elements found in fish,
such as mercury, a balanced diet is the wisest way to have health benefits associated
to omega-3 fatty acids avoiding the risks of toxic contaminants (McManus et al., 2011;
Cardoso et al., 2013a). Although Portuguese consume more than twice of the EU
average and the recommended quantity by the World Health Organization, the
government still advises to eat more fish (Westhoek et al., 2011). Therefore, a deeper
knowledge of the Portuguese preferences and patterns of seafood consumption
is warranted.
Research has shown that attitudes towards eating fish depend on the country or
socio-demographic characteristics and are strongly related to regional factors and
traditions (Altintzoglou et al., 2011; Van Dijk et al., 2011; Hicks et al., 2008). Moreover,
the species consumed are linked to cultural traditions, which have been changing
overtime (Apostolidis and Stergiou, 2012). When trying to influence Portuguese
consumers and to communicate the impacts of their seafood choices, target population
needs to be identified and their specific preferences understood (Pieniak et al., 2008).
Consumers in Portugal do not tend to connect their consumption choices to
environmentally friendly actions and, for example, Portuguese have the lowest
purchase percentage of eco-labelled products within Europe (Finisterra do Paço and
Raposo, 2010; Koos, 2011).
895
Seafood
knowledge
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

There are a number of studies on fish consumer behaviour but not much about
sustainability (Verbeke et al., 2007). To our knowledge, only Cardoso et al. (2013b)
researched seafood consumption habits in Portugal and no survey has ever been done
related to environmental issues. Most studies research on topics such as health benefits,
product perception, perceived risks of fish intake, or seafood eco-labelling (Altintzoglou
et al., 2011; Salladarré et al., 2010; Van Dijk et al., 2011; Birch and Lawley, 2012). Little
research has been done about the information consumers seek on seafood products and
even for knowledgeable consumers, can be difficult to take action regarding to more
sustainable seafood choices (Pieniak et al., 2007; Whitmarsh et al., 2011). Researchers
and practitioners need to find solutions to reduce environmental impacts of food but
also aid to traduce consumer attitudes into behaviours (Verbeke et al., 2007).
The objective of this research project is to better understand the dynamics
associated with seafood consumption of the Portuguese. With our research, we want
to describe the consumption frequency, and attitudes towards seafood by Portuguese.
We also want to evaluate consumers’knowledge by exploring the following question:
How much knowledge do consumers have about seafood (objective knowledge),
how aware are they about it (subjective knowledge) and how does this reflect in their
choices? Finally, we want to determine consumer’s interest on information about
seafood products and to which extent consumers relate to environmental awareness
and traditions.
Methods
Research approach
To approach consumers, an online survey tool was developed (Appendix 1).
Respondents were asked to answer questions regarding their consumption habits,
knowledge, and perceptions related to seafood. The survey was administered using
the online service SurveyMonkey©. It was sent to potential respondents through
electronic mailing lists and social networks, with the web link address. A message
was sent asking receivers to further disseminate the web link in their respective
electronic mailing lists.
Questionnaire content, scaling, and sample description
The survey was first piloted by ten consumers to assess readability and assist in the
content reliability. It comprised 21 questions divided into four sections: frequency of
consumption, knowledge, information interest, and socio-demographic information.
The questions access was sequential and respondents were informed before starting
that completing the questionnaire was estimated to take around ten minutes. The
survey was launched on 1 September 2012 and closed on 31 October 2012. In total,
1,388 consumers replied to the survey. Respondents not living in Portugal or with
information gaps were eliminated. After that procedure there were a total of 1,240
validated questionnaires.
The first section about seafood consumption frequency was self-reported on a
13-point scale that ranged from “never”(1) to “seven times per week”(13). The
respondents were asked for the total frequency of seafood in general; and through two
questions on how often they eat seafood both at home and out of home and at lunch
or at dinner. Participants were also asked the individual consumption frequency for a
list of 14 seafood species and for six different preparation methods. The species were
chosen on the basis of consumption importance in Portugal and on apparent
896
BFJ
117,2
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

consumption data from Lopes (2002) and Willemsen (2003). For calculations the
scale was rescaled to average weekly consumption frequency, ranging from zero to
seven: “seven times per week”was as 7 and “2 to 11 times per year”was 0.16 per week.
The group of responses were added in the end to calculate a total fish consumption
resulting from the sum of the different consumption species or occasions. In this way,
two measures of indirect seafood consumption were obtained. Live weight seafood
consumption was calculated using edible content ratios in James et al. (2011) and
Vázquez-Rowe et al. (2014). Calculations were made with consumption frequency
for one year and assuming a portion of 125 grams/week. The average portion was
calculated from public health recommendations of 200 grams/week of fatty fish
species and approximately 50 grams/week of lean fish, molluscs and crustaceans
(Sirot et al., 2012).
In the second part, consumers were questioned about their knowledge regarding
seafood. Subjective knowledge, defined as a consumer perception of the amount of
information they have, is a self-estimate of the knowledge an individual has about a
particular subject (Flynn and Goldsmith, 1999). Four statements, consistent with
measures used in previous studies (e.g. Pieniak et al., 2008) and adapted to suit the
purpose of the study, were rated on a seven-point Likert agreement scale with extreme
values “totally disagree”(1) and “totally agree”(7): I know a lot about fish and other
seafood, my friends consider me as an expert on fish and other seafood, I have a lot
of knowledge of how to prepare fish and other seafood for dinner, I have a lot of
knowledge of how to evaluate the quality of fish and other seafood. The objective
knowledge was rated with true or false answers related to seafood production. Seven
statements were asked: Salmon is almost exclusively farmed; Fish is a source of
omega-3 fatty acids; Cod doesn’t exist in the Portuguese coast; Salmon is a fatty fish;
All fish stocks are overexploited; At least two servings of oily fish per week is the
recommendation for a healthy eating; The eyes of the fish don’t demonstrate its
freshness. The level of knowledge was considered as the number of correct answers
given by the respondents. The questions and the responses of the knowledge measure
are presented in Appendix 2. The third section about information interest, queried
consumers to what extent they were responsible for purchasing or preparing food in
the household (five-scales grade). A range of information appearing on the package/
shelf about the product (price, health benefits, expiry date, recipes, catch method, catch
date, catch origin, etc.) were presented to research consumers’interest in environmental
criteria when purchasing seafood. It produced a set of 18 different categories (variables)
that were rated on a seven-grade scale from not at all interested (1) to totally interested
(7). The last part of the survey contained questions regarding socio-demography
such as gender, age, nationality, residence, education, occupation, marital status,
household size and income, and considerations about the residence area (size and
distance from the coast).
Statistical analysis
Data analyses include descriptive statistics to understand the overall distribution of
respondents (as a function of gender, age, education level, etc.). One-way analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine statistical differences. The total
frequency of seafood consumption was analyzed as a dependent variable with other
consumption variables, as different species, meals, places, preparation methods, and
level of interest for different information on seafood products when purchasing.
897
Seafood
knowledge
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

The scale used to measure seafood knowledge was multi-item. The reliability
analyses were conducted with Cronbach’s test to confirm unidimensionality of the
items relating to subjective knowledge. The construct had an αvalue of 0.9, indicating
internal reliability consistency and further analyses used the averaged constructed
score. Objective knowledge was obtained on a true/false scale. The number of correct
answers, which varied between one and seven, was accounted per respondent.
Objective and subjective knowledge were analyzed with socio-demographic variables.
Socio-demographic groups were described and differences were tested using Pearson χ
2
test. Then, respondents were separated into two groups regarding their level of
knowledge about seafood. When reported values for knowledge were below the
estimated medians of the construct, participants were allocated to the low knowledge
group; when were above the median, participants were allocated to the high
knowledge group. The differences between level of knowledge, the dependent variable,
and the seafood consumption as total and species frequency, number of different
species, shopping and preparing responsibility, and interest on information about the
seafood products, were analyzed with ANOVA. All correlations were considered
statistically significant if pvalue was lower than 0.05.
Results
Our results indicated a sample of respondents that were on average 30-39 years,
mostly women, higher educated, employed, with an income between €500 and €2,000
per month (Table I). The household size varied between 1 and 4 people and
approximately half of the respondents lived with children. The residence place was
either rural or urban, with respondents living in villages, small towns, or large towns;
and the majority lived on the coast (90 per cent of the respondents lived less than
50 km far from the coast). Almost half of the respondents were highly responsible for
shopping and preparing food in the household.
The frequency of seafood consumption was on average three times self-reported
meals a week. It was most often consumed at home (M¼3.5, SD ¼2.8), almost twice as
often as eating out of home (M¼1.3, SD ¼1.8) (po0.05) (Figure 1). People ate more
frequently seafood at home for dinner than for lunch, and the opposite when eating out
of home (po0.05). When we calculate the sum of the frequency of seafood consumption
in the different occasions, it is even higher than the self-reported total frequency
(M¼4.8, SD ¼4.6). The most popular reported preparation methods of seafood were
grilling and boiling. Baked and canned seafood had almost the same consumption
frequency and fried was the least common way to cook seafood, being done on average
once every 15 days (po0.05).
Tuna and cod were the fish most frequently consumed followed by hake and salmon
(po0.05 for all species except for clams, mussels, and cockle) (Table II). By adding
the frequency of the 15 species items in the survey, we obtained a total seafood
consumption average of 5.0 times a week (SD ¼4.2). If we convert the total
consumption frequency in live weight, considering a portion of 125 grams per week, we
obtain a value of 77.8 kg of seafood/year. Tuna, cod, shrimp, and clams had the highest
total consumption, above 17 kg/year, after the conversion of consumption frequency to
live weight.
Both objective and subjective knowledge, which means the information about
seafood consumers have and their own perception of the amount of information they
have, were high. In a scale 1-7, objective knowledge was above middle-point scale, with
an average of 5.6, and subjective knowledge was 3.8. The most relevant characteristics
898
BFJ
117,2
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

to explain the knowledge about seafood were age, education, living with children, and
marital status (Table III) (po0.05). Results indicated significant correlations on gender
for subjective knowledge, with males presenting a higher value (po0.05). Older people,
more educated, not living with children, and with higher income, had a higher
knowledge level on average, both subjective and objective. The opposite happened to
respondents that were single or living alone. The place of residence and the proximity
to the sea did not influence the way respondents were informed about seafood (no
statistical differences).
Respondents were in general very interested in information about the seafood
products, all means were above the median value, 3.5 in a scale 1-7 (M¼5.6, SD ¼1.6)
(Figure 2). Information related to expiry date (M¼6.6, SD ¼1.0) and the price attained
Characteristic Survey (%)
Gender
Female 66.9
Age
20-29 years old 29.9
30-39 years old 42.7
40-49 years old 14.3
W50 years old 9.5
Education level
Secondary or lower 22.7
Higher 76.6
Work situation
Employed 59.6
Student 24.8
Unemployed 8.7
Retired 2.3
Responsible for the household 0.5
Marital status
Single (never married) 46.7
Married or living together 46.0
Divorced or living alone 6.5
Income
o€500 3.1
€501-€2,000 55.4
W€2,001 28.1
Household
1 person 17.5
2 persons 29.3
3 persons 25.0
⩾4 persons 26.1
Living with children 48.2
Living environment
Rural area or village 20.5
Small- or middle-sized town 39.0
Large town 40.3
Distance from the coast
Seaside (o50 km) 89.9
Inland (W50 km) 9.6
Note: n¼1,240
Table I.
Socio-demographic
characteristics
of the sample
899
Seafood
knowledge
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Seafood Dinner at
home Dinner
out of
home
Lunch at
home Lunch out
of home Grilled Boiled Baked Canned Fried
More than 5 times per week
2 - 5 times per week
1 time per week
1 - 3 times per month
Less than 1 time per month
1 time per year
Never
Figure 1.
Relative frequency in
occasions of seafood
consumption in
general, at different
meals and different
places; and in
different preparation
methods
Mean per week SD Edible content (%) Live weight per year (kg)
Tuna* 0.8 0.8 42
a
12.1
Cod* 0.7 0.7 42
a
10.9
Hake* 0.6 0.8 53
b
7.8
Salmon* 0.6 0.6 63
a
6.1
Sea-bream* 0.5 0.5 53
a
5.7
Horse mackerel* 0.4 0.6 53
a
5.5
Shrimp* 0.4 0.5 24
a
11.2
Sardine* 0.4 0.7 62
b
4.3
Sea-bass* 0.4 0.5 53
a
4.7
Octopus* 0.3 0.3 68
b
3.1
Chub mackerel* 0.3 0.5 53
a
3.8
Clams 0.2 0.4 14
a
11.7
Cockle 0.2 0.3 14
a
8.5
Mussels 0.2 0.3 14
a
8.2
Total 5.0 4.2 77.8
Notes:
a
In James et al. (2011). We assumed the same edible content for sea-bream and sea-bass as
mackerel, for shrimp as warm water prawns, and for clams and cockle as mussels;
b
in Vázquez-Rowe
et al. (2014). The edible content conversion presented for cod is only related to live weight. Most of the
cod eaten in Portugal is salted and dried and needs to be desalted before consumption, as a result there
is a weight increase in the end (Oliveira et al., 2012). *po0.05
Table II.
Frequency of
seafood in
consumption
occasions per week
(mean and standard
deviation) and in live
weight per year
calculated with
edible content
conversion and
assuming a portion
size of 125 grams/
week
900
BFJ
117,2
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

Characteristic Subjective Objective
n¼1,238 Mean SD Mean SD
Gender *–
Female 3.6 1.5 5.5 1.1
Male 4.1 1.6 5.5 1.1
Age **
⩽30 years old 3.4 1.5 5.2 1.2
W30 years old 4.0 1.6 5.8 1.0
Education **
Secondary or lower 3.0 1.6 5.2 1.1
Higher 4.0 1.6 5.7 1.0
Living with children **
No 3.9 1.6 5.7 1.1
Yes 3.4 1.5 5.2 1.1
Regional distribution (%) ––
Rural area or village 3.8 1.7 5.6 1.1
Small- or middle-sized town 3.8 1.6 5.5 1.2
Large town 3.7 1.5 5.6 1.1
Distance from the coast *–
Seaside (⩽50 km from the coast) 3.8 1.6 5.6 1.1
Inland (W50 km from the coast) 3.4 1.5 5.4 1.2
Income **
o€500 3.7 1.6 5.0 1.1
€501-€2,000 3.7 1.6 5.5 1.1
W€2,001 4.0 1.6 5.8 1.0
Marital status **
Single (never married) 3.5 1.5 5.4 1.1
Married or living together 4.1 1.6 5.7 1.1
Divorced or widowed 3.7 1.6 5.8 1.1
Note: *po0.05
Table III.
Characterization on
subjective and
objective knowledge
about seafood (mean
values and standard
deviation) in a
scale 1-7
45678
Catch method (e.g. line, trawl)
Feed used during farming
Method of preparation (how to prepare the fish)
Recipes (suggestions to cook)
Fish welfare
Minimum size of capture allowed
Sustainable fisheries (e.g. MSC)
Health benefits
Processed origin (e.g. country)
Wild / farmed
Catch origin (e.g. country, region)
Quality mark
Catch date
Colorants used
Genetically modified
Fresh / Frozen
Price
Expiry date
Figure 2.
Consumers’ranking
on the importance of
information to
purchase decisions
when buying seafood
(seven-point scale)
901
Seafood
knowledge
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

the highest interest (M¼6.5, SD ¼1.1), and the feed used in farming (M¼4.6, SD ¼2.0)
and catch method in fishery (M¼4.5, SD ¼2.1) had the lowest. Significant correlation
was found between total frequency of seafood consumption and information for all
variables (po0.05) except for: catch method, feed used, fish welfare, minimum size
allowed, and genetically modified organisms.
The results for the two levels of subjective knowledge defined showed that they
were related to socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, age, children in
the household, income, and marital status (Table IV). Consumption frequency was
statistical correlated to the subjective knowledge level (Figure 3). More knowledgeable
consumers had higher seafood consumption frequency, and more often at home,
comparing with lower knowledgeable consumers (po0.05). Also the responsibility
for shopping and preparing food is correlated to knowledge (po0.05). Higher
knowledgeable consumers shop and prepare food in a more regularly frequency.
Regarding the diversity of species respondents reported to eat, there was a positive
correlation between the knowledge level and the number of different species (po0.05),
with an average of 12 different species for higher knowledge people. When we analyze
the consumption differences per specie (Table IV), we have found significant
differences between knowledge and species consumption for all except tuna, cockle,
and mussels (po0.05). Higher knowledgeable consumers have higher consumption
frequency of all the species, with the highest difference found for chub-mackerel
and sardine (Figure 4).
Finally, in what regards to the level of knowledge and interest in information about
seafood production, there was a statistical significance between all (po0.05) except for
“method of preparation”and “expiry date”categories. Respondents with higher
knowledgeable were in general more interested in information about seafood products
than lower knowledgeable consumers (Figure 5). The only category that lower
High (n¼623) Low (n¼613)
Characteristic (n¼1,238) Mean SD Mean SD
Gender
Female 5.0 1.0 2.5 0.7
Male 5.3 1.0 2.4 0.7
Age
⩽30 years old 4.9 1.0 2.4 0.7
W30 years old 5.1 1.0 2.5 0.8
Education
Secondary or lower 5.1 0.9 2.3 0.7
Higher 5.1 1.0 2.5 0.8
Living with children
No 5.1 1.0 2.5 0.7
Yes 4.9 1.0 2.4 0.8
Income
o€500 5.1 1.1 2.5 0.7
€501-€2,000 5.2 1.0 2.4 0.7
W€2,001 5.1 1.0 2.5 0.8
Marital status
Single (never married) 5.0 1.0 2.4 0.7
Married or living together 5.2 1.0 2.5 0.8
Divorced or widowed 4.9 0.9 2.3 0.8
Table IV.
Different levels of
subjective knowledge
(mean values and
standard deviation)
in a scale 1-7 related
to socio-demographic
characteristics of the
consumers
902
BFJ
117,2
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

knowledgeable consumers have higher interest is on “recipes”.“Recipes”had the lowest
rate of interest for consumers with high knowledge and “catch method”for consumers
with low knowledge.
Discussion
The main finding of this study is that Portuguese consumers have high knowledge in
general about seafood. Seafood is most frequently eaten at home and usually grilled.
However, Portuguese seafood consumption habits are changing and the traditional
01234567
High
Low
Consumption per week
Seafood in general
Seafood consumption at
home
Seafood consumption
out of home
Note: All differences p<0.05
Figure 3.
Means (standard
deviation) of seafood
consumption
frequency per week
per knowledge level
on a seven-point scale
0.0
Tuna
Cod
Hake
Salmon
Horse mackerel
Sea-bream
Sardine
Shrimp
Sea-bass
Chub mackerel
Octopus
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Consumption per week
High Low
Clams
Cockle
Mussles
Note: *p<0.05
Figure 4.
Means (standard
deviation) of species
consumption
frequency per week
per knowledge level
on a seven-point scale
903
Seafood
knowledge
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

species (e.g. sardine) are becoming surpassed by more convenient ones (e.g. tuna).
The higher knowledgeable consumers have a more sustainable behaviour, not because
they are more interested in environmental issues, but as a result of being frequent
seafood consumers of small pelagic fish and use a more diversified set of species.
We obtained a total consumption that represents a seafood meal almost every day
during the week which is extremely high and exceed the recommended intake level
of two servings of fish per week (Kris-Etherton et al., 2002). The high importance of
seafood in Portuguese food habits is known, and it is in the same order as in Japan, one
of the largest countries in terms of per capita consumption, where most of the
consumers have seafood four or five times a week (Wakamatsu, 2012; Cardoso et al.,
2013b). It is a very high level of consumption especially compared to other countries, for
example Russia with 0.5 times a week (Van Dijk et al., 2011).
Seafood consumption habits have been described as very different among countries
(Pieniak et al., 2007). Our results reveal that Portuguese eat most often seafood at home
and for dinner, which can be related to a high level of cooking skills. High fish
consumers, as Portuguese, are usually skilled to evaluate fish quality and prepare
seafood (Brunsø et al., 2009). Grilling is the preferred way to prepare fish and it can be
related to the importance of small pelagic fish in Portuguese fisheries, for example
sardine is the most landed species in Portugal (INE, 2011). Those species are most
easily cooked by grilling and Portuguese consumers’preferred whole fish rather than
fillets due to both the culinary traditions and freshness, because parts of the body can
indicate fish degradation (Cardoso et al., 2013b). However, this preference might be
related only to some fishes. The mostly consumed species; tuna, cod, and salmon;
are often presented as fillets in imported processed products, for example canned tuna,
salted-and-dried cod, and smoked salmon.
The self-reported seafood consumption frequency is three times a week but the
estimated consumption by the sum of the seafood frequency in different meals
and places or the sum of individual species frequency, is around five times a week.
The differences between the self-reported and total estimate consumption can be due to
45678
Price
Fresh / Frozen
Genetically modified
Colorants used
Catch date
Wild / farmed
Catch origin
Processed origin (e.g. country)
Quality mark
Certification (e.g. MSC)
Minimum size of capture allowed
Fish welfare
Catch method (e.g. line, trawl)
Feed used during farming
Recipes
Level of interest
High Low
Note: All differences p<0.05
Figure 5.
Means (standard
deviation) of interest
on information of
respondents with
high and low level of
subjective knowledge
on a seven-point scale
904
BFJ
117,2
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

underreporting of salt-and-dried cod, which is a special product since it is not
habitually consumed fresh in Portugal as with other fishes, and requires different
preparation. Another possible reason is that respondents might be more precise when
their consumption is asked by species, since it is possible to have seafood as a starter or
in a sandwich instead of the main meal dish. Moreover, to underreport consumption is
an usual problem when estimating total consumption frequency and for that reason
better estimations could result from asking consumption in more detailed ways, as
such as by species or occasions, as we have done here.
In any case, it illustrates the difficulty to assess an accurate consumption frequency
and the bias resulting from individuals own perceptions (Lopes, 2002). Using surveys
to estimate consumption has other cautions, for example, if we calculate the
self-reported consumption with the recommended portion converted into the edible part
of seafood, gives a seafood per capita consumption of 51 kg live weight/year (Sirot et al.,
2012). For the most extreme scenario, of five times per week, the seafood per capita
consumption would be 78 kg/year, and higher than the apparent seafood consumption
of 57 kg/year given for Portugal (Laurenti, 2010). Differences can be related to the fact
that all seafood contains a high proportion of non-edible content and it varies between
different products ( James et al., 2011). For example, the most frequently consumed
species are tuna and cod but regarding to the live weight, species as shrimp, or clams
have almost the same importance due to low edible yield. Nevertheless, the findings are
in some way biased by the sample obtained, which as in other online survey studies,
it over-represents well-educated and higher income residents (Vanhonacker et al., 2012).
Those groups have usually higher fish consumption and therefore they represent
people more devoted to respond to the questionnaires (Hall and Amberg, 2013).
A remarkable feature of Portuguese seafood habits is the high diversity, including
fish, shellfish, cephalopods, and crustaceans; mostly related to the multispecies nature
of Portuguese fisheries (Stewart et al., 2013; Moreno et al., 2013). The species mostly
eaten are the same as in Cardoso et al. (2013b): cod, hake, and tuna; although in this
study tuna was the species number one. Cod was reported as the most consumed fish in
previous publications but habits might have changed in ten years’time (Willemsen,
2003). Salted-and-dried cod is very important in Portuguese traditions partly because it
was available and cheap in the past (Garrido, 2010). However, products that are quick
and easy to prepare change consumption traditions into convenience habits (Spinks
and Bose, 2002). The higher importance of tuna found here, consumed almost once
a week, can be related to the fact that canned tuna is a convenient seafood product, easy
and fast to prepare, for example in salads. Salmon, which comes in fourth place, is also
the preferred fish for Japanese before tuna, revealing its growing production and
subsequently lower market prices nowadays (Whitmarsh and Palmieri, 2011;
Wakamatsu, 2012). Convenience, lower price and availability in the purchasing place
act as drivers and illustrate modern food habits. Important species for Portuguese
fisheries, such as sardine and octopus, are not the most preferred. Such preferences
can explain why almost two-thirds of seafood consumed in Portugal is imported and
the change of Portuguese seafood consumption habits through time (INE, 2011).
Consumers are interested in information about seafood products and the level of
knowledge and interest is related to a higher level of income and education. The
presence of children in the household is a factor that affects consumer’s knowledge.
The motivation to prepare food might be lower for people living alone and
consequently the interest about seafood is also lower. We also found that consumption
habits do not depend on the place of residence or the proximity to the sea, in opposite to
905
Seafood
knowledge
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

Cardoso et al. (2013b) findings, which showed that seafood consumption patterns were
affected by coastal vs inland location. Improvements in food supply chains nowadays
make it possible to have different types of fish available all year round, especially in
case of the most consumed species in Portugal, which usually are not commercialized
fresh (e.g. tuna and cod).
Higher seafood knowledge is related to higher consumption, often at home.
Knowledge influences attitudes in shopping and preparing seafood and the number of
species used. Higher knowledgeable consumers eat more seafood, especially small
pelagic species such as chub mackerel and sardine and a more diversified number of
species. Considering the current discussion about sustainable seafood consumption,
the high consumption of small pelagic fish (e.g. sardines), and also the use of a
diversified group of species, have the potential to be sustainable ( Jacquet and Pauly,
2007; Mitchell, 2011). Such habits should be maintained since they make use of a
diversified group of marine resources together with species from the low levels of the
marine trophic web, which are more often used for feed of industrial livestock
production (Tacon and Metian, 2009; Olson et al., 2013).
Information on “Recipes”was showed the lowest rate of interest in the high level
of knowledge consumers, meaning that people are not particularly interested in
guidance on how to cook seafood. Indications on how to use the fish, as expiry date,
seem to be more valued than knowing the catch method, for example, which
distinguishes the fishery and in some way the impacts on the environment. We
hypothesize that Portuguese are not enough informed about fishery impacts on
the ecosystems or either have not connected it with their purchase choices. As for the
Japanese, environmental information is not very important for Portuguese
consumers too and even though they have high knowledge about seafood, they
are not aware of eco-labels and those products are not a priority to them
(Wakamatsu, 2012).
Consumption habits are driven by significant behaviours from the past, and
increasing consumers’knowledge, has not a directly meaning of more sustainable
consumer behaviour (Honkanen et al., 2005). As an example highly knowledgeable
people, as educated biologists, do not make more responsible seafood choices (Bearzi,
2009). From previous studies we know that quality, cooking, and product-related
information are important attributes that highly influence seafood choices (Spinks and
Bose, 2002; Honkanen and Olsen, 2009). Moreover, cultural factors, such as recipes
and food traditions, are shared and influence the individual preferences within a nation
(Apostolidis and Stergiou, 2012). To approach the consumers’and change consumption
patterns, one must take cultural differences into account and understand the degree
to which knowledge and educational level influence consumers’comprehension of
environmental messages (Honkanen and Olsen, 2009). Nevertheless, buying
eco-labelled products is one dimension of consuming sustainably. Purchasing local
or from small-scale sources are examples of alternative behaviours (Olson et al., 2013).
Other important dimension for the sustainability in the seafood supply is resources
management and in case of well-managed fisheries, the utilization of less popular fish
could be promoted as more sustainable choice (Mitchell, 2011).
Conclusions
Portuguese seafood consumption is high and with a high diversity of species. People
buy and prepare seafood often, mainly at home. Convenient seafood products, easy and
fast to prepare, act as drivers to change seafood consumption habits in Portugal.
906
BFJ
117,2
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

Important species for Portuguese fisheries, such as sardine and octopus, are not the
most preferred. Tuna, including canned tuna, and cod, as salt-and-dried cod, are
the most consumed fishes. Portuguese have relatively high knowledge about seafood
but sustainable seafood choices are not influenced by environmental concerns.
However, some Portuguese seafood habits, such as a diversified use of species and use
of small pelagic fish, are potentially sustainable. Certification schemes that help the
consumers in the sustainability of their choices are useful in some countries, where
there is demand for eco-labelled products (Koos, 2011) but in others, such as Portugal, it
might be more effective to complement it by promoting food traditions that still are
good alternatives for the marine resources.
References
Altintzoglou, T., Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W. and Luten, J. (2011), “Association of
health involvement and attitudes towards eating fish on farmed and wild fish
consumption in Belgium, Norway and Spain”,Aquaculture International, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 475-488.
Apostolidis, C. and Stergiou, K.I. (2012), “Fish ingredients in online recipes do not
promote the sustainable use of vulnerable taxa”,Marine Ecology Progress Series,
Vol. 465, pp. 299-304.
Bearzi, G. (2009), “When swordfish conservation biologists eat swordfish”,Conservation Biology,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-2.
Birch, D. and Lawley, M. (2012), “Buying seafood: understanding barriers to purchase across
consumption segments”,Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 12-21.
Bostock, J., McAndrew, B., Richards, R., Jauncey, K., Telfer, T., Lorenzen, K. and Corner, R. (2010),
“Aquaculture: global status and trends”,Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, Vol. 365 No. 1554, pp. 2897-2912.
Branch, T.A., Watson, R., Fulton, E.A., Jennings, S., McGilliard, C.R., Pablico, G.T. and Tracey, S.R.
(2010), “The trophic fingerprint of marine fisheries”,Nature, Vol. 468 No. 7322,
pp. 431-435.
Brunsø, K., Verbeke, W., Olsen, S.O. and Jeppesen, L.F. (2009), “Motives, barriers and quality
evaluation in fish consumption situations: exploring and comparing heavy and light users
in Spain and Belgium”,British Food Journal, Vol. 111 No. 7, pp. 699-716.
Campbell, B. and Pauly, D. (2013), “Mariculture: a global analysis of production trends since
1950”,Marine Policy, Vol. 39, pp. 94-100.
Cardoso, C., Afonso, C., Lourenço, H. and Nunes, M.L. (2013a), “Seafood consumption health
concerns: the assessment of methylmercury, selenium, and eicosapentaenoic+
docosahexaenoic fatty acids intake”,Food Control, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 581-588.
Cardoso, C., Lourenço, H., Costa, S., Gonçalves, S. and Nunes, M.L. (2013b), “Survey into the
seafood consumption preferences and patterns in the Portuguese population. Gender and
regional variability”,Appetite, Vol. 64, pp. 20-31.
De Vos, B.I. and Bush, S.R. (2011), “Far more than market‐based: rethinking the impact of the
Dutch viswijzer (good fish guide) on fisheries’governance”,Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 51
No. 3, pp. 284-303.
FAO. Fisheries Department (2012), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: 2012, FAO,
Rome.
907
Seafood
knowledge
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

Finisterra do Paço, A.M. and Raposo, M.B. (2010), “Green consumer market segmentation:
empirical findings from Portugal”,International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 429-436.
Flynn, L.R. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1999), “A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge”,
Journal of business research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 57-66.
Frid, C.L. and Paramor, O.A. (2012), “Feeding the world: what role for fisheries?”,ICES Journal of
Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 145-150.
Garrido, A. (2010), O Estado Novo e campanha do bacalhau, Temas e Debates, 2nd ed., ISBN
978989441111, Lisbon, 454pp.
Hall, T.E. and Amberg, S.M. (2013), “Factors influencing consumption of farmed seafood
products in the Pacific Northwest”,Appetite, Vol. 66, pp. 1-9.
Hicks, D., Pivarnik, L. and McDermott, R. (2008), “Consumer perceptions about seafood –an
internet survey”,Journal of Food Service, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 213-226.
Honkanen, P. and Olsen, S.O. (2009), “Environmental and animal welfare issues in food choice: the
case of farmed fish”,British Food Journal, Vol. 111 No. 3, pp. 293-309.
Honkanen, P., Olsen, S.O. and Verplanken, B. (2005), “Intention to consume seafood –the
importance of habit”,Appetite, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 161-168.
INE (2011), Estatísticas da Pesca –2010, Instituto Nacional de Estatística, Lisbon, available
at: www.ine.pt/
Jacquet, J., Hocevar, J., Lai, S., Majluf, P., Pelletier, N., Pitcher, T., Sala, E., Sumaila, R. and
Pauly, D. (2010), “Conserving wild fish in a sea of market-based efforts”,Oryx, Vol. 44 No. 1,
pp. 45-56.
Jacquet, J.L. and Pauly, D. (2007), “The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of
collapsing fisheries”,Marine Policy, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 308-313.
James, R., Archer, M., Henderson, J. and Garrett, A. (2011), “Resource maps for fish across retail
and wholesale supply chains project”, WRAP report, WRAP, Oxon.
Johnsen, P. and Eliasen, S. (2011), “Solving complex fisheries management problems: what the EU
can learn from the nordic experiences of reduction of discards”,Marine Policy, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 130-139.
Jonell, M., Phillips, M., Rönnbäck, P. and Troell, M. (2013), “Eco-certification of farmed seafood:
will it make a difference?”,Ambio, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 1-16.
Khalilian, S., Froese, R., Proelss, A. and Requate, T. (2010), “Designed for failure: a critique
of the common fisheries policy of the European Union”,Marine Policy, Vol. 34 No. 6,
pp. 1178-1182.
Koos, S. (2011), “Varieties of environmental labelling, market structures, and sustainable
consumption across Europe: a comparative analysis of organizational and market supply
determinants of environmental-labelled goods”,Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 127-151.
Kris-Etherton, P.M., Harris, W.S. and Appel, L.J. (2002), “Fish consumption, fish oil
omega-3 fatty acids, and cardiovascular disease”,Circulation,Vol.106No.21,
pp. 2747-2757.
Laurenti, G. (Ed.) (2010), Fish and Fishery Products: World Apparent Consumption Statistics
Based on Food Balance Sheets 1961-2007, FAO, Rome.
908
BFJ
117,2
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

Lopes, J. (2002), “MASMANAP country report: Portugal”, in Paquotte, P., Mariojouls, C. and
Young, J. (Eds), Seafood Market Studies for the Introduction of New Aquaculture Products,
CIHEAM-IAMZ, Zaragoza, pp. 241-263.
McManus, A., Merga, M. and Newton, W. (2011), “Omega-3 fatty acids. What consumers need to
know”,Appetite, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 80-83.
Mitchell, M. (2011), “Increasing fish consumption for better health –are we being advised
to eat more of an inherently unsustainable protein?”,Nutrition Bulletin, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 438-442.
Moreno, A., Lourenço, S., Pereira, J., Gaspar, M.B., Cabral, H.N., Pierce, G.J. and Santos, A.P.
(2013), “Essential habitats for pre-recruit Octopus vulgaris along the Portuguese coast”,
Fisheries Research, Vol. 152, pp. 74-85.
Myers, R.A. and Worm, B. (2005), “Extinction, survival or recovery of large predatory fishes”,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 360 No. 1453,
pp. 13-20.
Oliveira, H., Pedro, S., Nunes, M.L., Costa, R. and Vaz‐Pires, P. (2012), “Processing of salted
cod (Gadus spp.): a review”,Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety,
Vol.11 No. 6, pp. 546-564.
Olson, J., Clay, P.M. and Pinto da Silva, P. (2013), “Putting the seafood in sustainable food
systems”,Marine Policy, Vol. 43, pp. 104-111.
Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Perez-Cueto, F., Brunsø, K. and De Henauw, S. (2008), “Fish consumption
and its motives in households with versus without self-reported medical history
of CVD: a consumer survey from five European countries”,BMC Public Health, Vol. 8
No. 1, p. 306.
Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Scholderer, J., Brunsø, K. and Olsen, S.O. (2007), “European consumers’
use of and trust in information sources about fish”,Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 18
No. 8, pp. 1050-1063.
Salladarré, F., Guillotreau, P., Perraudeau, Y. and Monfort, M.C. (2010), “The demand for
seafood eco-labels in France”,Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization,
Vol. 8 No. 1.
Sirot, V., Leblanc, J.C. and Margaritis, I. (2012), “A risk-benefit analysis approach to seafood
intake to determine optimal consumption”,Britism Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 107 No. 12,
pp. 1812-1822.
Spinks, A. and Bose, S. (2002), “Factors affecting households’seafood purchasing decisions in
Auckland, New Zealand: an empirical analysis”,International Journal of Consumer Studies,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 62-70.
Stewart, A., Fragoso, B.D., Clímaco, R. and Icely, J.D. (2013), “Evaluation of stakeholder
perspectives on the management of the stalked Barnacles (Pollicipes pollicipes) resource
in the parque natural do sudoeste alentejano e costa vicentina”,Marine Policy, Vol. 43,
pp. 71-79.
Tacon, A.G. and Metian, M. (2009), “Fishing for feed or fishing for food: increasing global
competition for small pelagic forage fish”,AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment,
Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 294-302.
Van Dijk, H., Fischer, A.R., Honkanen, P. and Frewer, L.J. (2011), “Perceptions of health risks and
benefits associated with fish consumption among Russian consumers”,Appetite, Vol. 56
No. 2, pp. 227-234.
909
Seafood
knowledge
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

Vanhonacker, F., Van Loo, E.J., Gellynck, X. and Verbeke, W. (2012), “Flemish consumer attitudes
towards more sustainable food choices”,Appetite, Vol. 62, pp. 7-16.
Vázquez-Rowe, I., Villabueva-Ray, P., Moreira, M.T. and Feijoo, G. (2014), “Edible protein energy
return on investment ratio (ep-EROI) for Spanish seafood products”,Ambio, Vol. 43 No. 3,
pp. 381-394.
Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Sioen, I., Van Camp, J. and De Henauw, S. (2007),
“Perceived importance of sustainability and ethics related to fish: a consumer behavior
perspective”,AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment,Vol.36No.7,
pp. 580-585.
Wakamatsu, H. (2012), “The consumer preference and possibility of seafood ecolabeling in
Japan”, dissertations and master’s theses.
Westhoek, H., Rood, T., Van den Berg, M., Janse, J., Nijdam, D., Reudink, M. and Stehfest, E.
(2011), “The protein puzzle”, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency,
The Hague.
Whitmarsh, D. and Palmieri, M.G. (2011), “Consumer behaviour and environmental preferences:
a case study of Scottish salmon aquaculture”,Aquaculture Research, Vol. 42 No. S1,
pp. 142-147.
Whitmarsh, L., Seyfang, G. and O’Neill, S. (2011), “Public engagement with carbon and climate
change: to what extent is the public ‘carbon capable’?”,Global Environmental Change,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 56-65.
Willemsen, F. (2003), “Report on the seafood consumption data found in the European countries
of the OT-SAFE project”, Institute for Environment Studies in Amsterdam.
910
BFJ
117,2
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

Appendix 1. Elaborated questionnaire on the seafood consumption, knowledge
and information interest of the Portuguese consumers (four sections)
911
Seafood
knowledge
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

912
BFJ
117,2
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

913
Seafood
knowledge
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)

Appendix 2. Survey subjective and objective knowledge question responses.
Bolded score indicates the correct answer
Corresponding author
Cheila Almeida can be contacted at: cpa@sik.se
Totally
disagree
Totally
agreeSubjective knowledge about
seafood
Mean
(SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Blank
Compared to an average person,
I know a lot about fish and
other seafood 4.4 (1.7) 69 138 146 323 192 184 181 7
My friends consider me as an
expert on fish and other seafood 3.2 (1.9) 335 220 161 223 114 85 96 6
I have a lot of knowledge of how
to prepare fish and other
seafood for dinner 3.7 (1.7) 163 177 208 267 218 111 89 7
I have a lot of knowledge of how
to evaluate the quality of fish
and other seafood 3.8 (1.8) 137 206 204 225 200 144 117 7
Table AI.
Objective knowledge False (%) True (%) Blank
Salmon is almost exclusively farmed 282 (22.7) 944 (76.1) 14
Fish is a source of omega-3 fatty acids 61 (4.9) 1,170 (94.4) 9
Cod doesn’t exist in the Portuguese coast 322 (26.0) 913 (73.6) 5
Salmon is a fatty fish 98 (7.9) 1,135 (91.5) 7
All fish stocks are overexploited 685 (55.2) 532 (42.9) 23
At least two servings of oily fish per week is the
recommendation for a healthy eating 329 (26.5) 895 (72.2) 16
The eyes of the fish demonstrate its freshness 100 (8.1) 1,126 (90.8) 14
Table AII.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
914
BFJ
117,2
Downloaded by NOFIMA AS At 00:01 13 November 2015 (PT)