IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i2p1363-d1031872.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Attitudes towards Fish and Seafood in Portugal: Opportunities for Footprint Reduction

Author

Listed:
  • Adeline Murthy

    (Global Footprint Network, 1528 Webster Street, Suite 11, Oakland, CA 94612, USA)

  • Alessandro Galli

    (Global Footprint Network, Avenue Louis-Casaï, 18, 1209 Geneva, Switzerland)

  • Catarina Madeira

    (GOVCOPP (Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies), Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

  • Sara Moreno Pires

    (GOVCOPP (Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies), Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

Abstract

Fish and seafood are central to the Portuguese diet, comprising a significant portion of Portugal’s Ecological Footprint. Diversifying dietary preferences is important because it has the potential to reduce pressure on marine ecosystems. We explored this opportunity by coupling (1) an Ecological Footprint assessment of Portugal to quantify the environmental impacts of Portugal’s food consumption choices (particularly fish and seafood), with (2) a consumer survey to assess attitudes towards fish and seafood of Portuguese residents and their willingness to modify their preferences, thus shedding light on the potential for sustainable dietary choices in Portugal and the best strategies by which to achieve them. Ecological Footprint results confirm that Portugal is unique in the Mediterranean region in that its food Footprint is driven by fish and seafood consumption, while, for most other countries, the main driver is meat. Results from the consumer survey show that Portuguese fish and seafood preferences are characterized by a high frequency of consumption and a preference for high trophic level species. Age was the primary demographic factor influencing consumption habits in Portugal. Moreover, Portuguese consumers lack knowledge on sustainable fishing practices. Actions and strategies to increase sustainable dietary choices in Portugal will need to consider these factors. We recommend targeted outreach messaging for different age groups, more and better information on sustainable options, together with efforts to protect marine biodiversity. Future research needs to better understand the whole value chain and all relevant stakeholders of the fish and seafood sector for more effective incentives for Footprint reduction.

Suggested Citation

  • Adeline Murthy & Alessandro Galli & Catarina Madeira & Sara Moreno Pires, 2023. "Consumer Attitudes towards Fish and Seafood in Portugal: Opportunities for Footprint Reduction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-18, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:2:p:1363-:d:1031872
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/2/1363/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/2/1363/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Turner, Karen & Lenzen, Manfred & Wiedmann, Thomas & Barrett, John, 2007. "Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities -- Part 1: A technical note on combining input-output and ecological footprint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 37-44, April.
    2. Sebastian Koos, 2011. "Varieties of Environmental Labelling, Market Structures, and Sustainable Consumption Across Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Organizational and Market Supply Determinants of Environmental-Labelled Go," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 127-151, March.
    3. Almeida, Cheila & Karadzic, Vanja & Vaz, Sofia, 2015. "The seafood market in Portugal: Driving forces and consequences," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 87-94.
    4. Paco, Arminda & Raposo, Mario, 2010. "Green Consumer Market Segmentation: Empirical Findings from Portugal," Apas Papers 203, Academic Public Administration Studies Archive - APAS.
    5. David Lin & Laurel Hanscom & Adeline Murthy & Alessandro Galli & Mikel Evans & Evan Neill & Maria Serena Mancini & Jon Martindill & Fatime-Zahra Medouar & Shiyu Huang & Mathis Wackernagel, 2018. "Ecological Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-22, September.
    6. Michal Carrington & Benjamin Neville & Gregory Whitwell, 2010. "Why Ethical Consumers Don’t Walk Their Talk: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Gap Between the Ethical Purchase Intentions and Actual Buying Behaviour of Ethically Minded Consumers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 139-158, November.
    7. Jason Hickel, 2019. "The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: Growth versus ecology on a finite planet," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 873-884, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michelle Bonera & Elisabetta Corvi & Anna Paola Codini & Ruijing Ma, 2017. "Does Nationality Matter in Eco-Behaviour?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Kathleen Krause & Dirk Battenfeld, 2019. "Coming Out of the Niche? Social Banking in Germany: An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Characteristics and Market Size," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 889-911, March.
    3. Sue Hornibrook & Claire May & Andrew Fearne, 2015. "Sustainable Development and the Consumer: Exploring the Role of Carbon Labelling in Retail Supply Chains," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(4), pages 266-276, May.
    4. Patrick Moriarty & Damon Honnery, 2020. "New Approaches for Ecological and Social Sustainability in a Post-Pandemic World," World, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Malin Jonell & Beatrice Crona & Kelsey Brown & Patrik Rönnbäck & Max Troell, 2016. "Eco-Labeled Seafood: Determinants for (Blue) Green Consumption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-19, September.
    6. Michael J. Fell & Alexandra Schneiders & David Shipworth, 2019. "Consumer Demand for Blockchain-Enabled Peer-to-Peer Electricity Trading in the United Kingdom: An Online Survey Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-25, October.
    7. Megan Devonald & Nicola Jones & Sally Youssef, 2022. "‘We Have No Hope for Anything’: Exploring Interconnected Economic, Social and Environmental Risks to Adolescents in Lebanon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-17, February.
    8. Arik Levinson, 2009. "Technology, International Trade, and Pollution from US Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 2177-2192, December.
    9. Rambabu Lavuri & Abhinav Jindal & Umair Akram & Bhukya Koteswara Rao Naik & Alrence Santiago Halibas, 2023. "Exploring the antecedents of sustainable consumers' purchase intentions: Evidence from emerging countries," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(1), pages 280-291, February.
    10. Hervé Corvellec & Johan Hultman & Anne Jerneck & Susanne Arvidsson & Johan Ekroos & Niklas Wahlberg & Timothy W. Luke, 2021. "Resourcification: A non‐essentialist theory of resources for sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 1249-1256, November.
    11. Katja H. Brunk & Cara Boer, 2020. "How do Consumers Reconcile Positive and Negative CSR-Related Information to Form an Ethical Brand Perception? A Mixed Method Inquiry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 443-458, January.
    12. Valentina Carfora & Patrizia Catellani, 2022. "Advertising Innovative Sustainable Fashion: Informational, Transformational, or Sustainability Appeal?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-21, December.
    13. Sembada, Agung Y. & Koay, Kian Yeik, 2021. "How perceived behavioral control affects trust to purchase in social media stores," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 574-582.
    14. Zou, Lili Wenli & Chan, Ricky Y.K., 2019. "Why and when do consumers perform green behaviors? An examination of regulatory focus and ethical ideology," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 113-127.
    15. Elena Kossmann & Mónica Gómez-Suárez, 2018. "Decision-making processes for purchases of ethical products: gaps between academic research and needs of marketing practitioners," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 15(3), pages 353-370, September.
    16. zu Ermgassen, Sophus & Drewniok, Michal & Bull, Joseph & Walker, Christine Corlet & Mancini, Mattia & Ryan-Collins, Josh & Serrenho, André Cabrera, 2022. "A home for all within planetary boundaries: pathways for meeting England’s housing needs without transgressing national climate and biodiversity goals," OSF Preprints 5kxce, Center for Open Science.
    17. Yulei Xie & Ling Ji & Beibei Zhang & Gordon Huang, 2018. "Evolution of the Scientific Literature on Input–Output Analysis: A Bibliometric Analysis of 1990–2017," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    18. Karen Turner, 2013. ""Rebound" Effects from Increased Energy Efficiency: A Time to Pause and Reflect," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4).
    19. Chitnis, Mona & Sorrell, Steve, 2015. "Living up to expectations: Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for UK households," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 100-116.
    20. Hametner, Markus, 2022. "Economics without ecology: How the SDGs fail to align socioeconomic development with environmental sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:2:p:1363-:d:1031872. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.