Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Aquaculture International 12: 259–279, 2004.
# 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
A marketing survey on Greek consumers’ attitudestowards fish
I.S. ARVANITOYANNIS1,*, A. KRYSTALLIS2, P. PANAGIOTAKI3
and A.J. THEODOROU4
1Department of Agriculture, Crop Production and Rural Environment, School of Agricultural Sciences,
University of Thessaly, Fytokou str., N. Ionia Magnisias, 384 46, Greece; 2National Agricultural Research
Foundation, 5 Parthenonos str., Athens 141 21, Greece; 3Department of Agriculture, Animal Production
and Aquatic Environment, School of Agricultural Sciences, University of Thessaly, Fytokou str., N. Ionia
Magnisias 384 46, Greece; 4Department of Agriculture, Animal Production and Aquatic Environment,
School of Agricultural Sciences, University of Thessaly, Fytokou str., N. Ionia Magnisias 384 46, Greece;
*Author for correspondence (e-mail: [email protected]; phone: þ30-4210-93104; fax: þ30-4210-
93144)
Received 23 October 2002; accepted in revised form 19 January 2004
Key words: Aquaculture, Cluster analysis, Consumer behaviour, Farmed fish, Greece, Principal com-
ponent analysis
Abstract. The commercial fish industry in Greece traditionally represents one of the most important
natural resource-based industries. The process by which the wide variety of seafood products moves from
the deck of a trawler, or the fish farm, to the consumer’s dish is rather complicated. Considering the
various species marketed, the seasonal nature of the many domestic and foreign supplies, the specific
quality and safety attributes, and a multitude of processing methods and products, the effective marketing
of seafood products becomes very demanding. The present survey evaluates the Greek consumers’
attitude towards wild and farmed fish in order to understand and satisfy market needs. The results of this
study mainly indicate that fish consumption pattern is age-dependant. In addition, four consumer clusters
are identified, with clear-cut socio-demographic profiles.
Introduction
The Greek commercial fish industry has historically been able to successfully
provide a consistently high-quality product to consumers, which until recently has
been accomplished with traditional species, product forms long familiar to the
domestic seafood consumer, and a good reputation for quality and safety. However,
a host of challenges have recently appeared on the marketing horizon for seafood,
some of which have already begun changing the way fish was traditionally per-
ceived by consumers. These challenges include: alternative management methods
for fish stocks, public awareness of environmental impacts from seafood produc-
tion, increasing internationalisation of the fish market, and the development of new
product forms and packaging to meet the changing needs of consumers.
The Greek fish industry exhibits two opposite market trends, which demonstrate
the transition of consumer attitudes towards fish. Fisheries catches reduced by
10% between 1993 and 1997, in 1998 they further decreased by 16.4%, to reach
113,000t, valued at 255 million euros. This was mainly due to the serious reduction
of inshore fishing. In addition, depletion of open-sea and overseas fisheries was
reported between 1993 and 1998. This general downturn reveals the rigorous
structural problems the Greek fisheries industry faced in the mid-1990’s. On the
other hand, aquaculture production exhibited a substantial increase during the same
period, up to 63,000t valued at 239 million euros. This dramatic increase is mainly
attributed to the production of sea bream and sea bass, which increased by 170%. It
is worth noting that 66% of the production of the above species was exported to
Italy and Spain in 2000.
The present survey aims at presenting an evaluation of the Greek consumer
attitudes vis-a-vis fish in general and in relation to various packaging types in
particular. This study has the objective to segment the Greek demand in terms of
consumer perceptions of fish and identify a number of clusters of preferably clear-
cut socio-demographic and behavioural profiles.
Fish consumption trends and opportunities in Greece1
As regards the fish consumption in Greece, over the last number of years, a con-
siderable increase was recorded. From 1991 to 2000 the consumption rose from
177,767 to 202,758t (þ14.05%). Taking into account the rest of fish products
(molluscs, cephalopods etc), the total consumption in the Greek market rose to
266,212t in 2000 compared to 216,850t in 1991 (þ22.76%). The consumption of
fish products per capita rose from 21.2 kg in 1991 to 25.1 kg (þ18.39%) whereas
that of fish increased from 17.4 kg in 1991 to 19.0 kg in 2002 (þ9.19%), (Batzios
et al. 2003). However, the current large supply of cultivated fish led to a substantial
reduction of fish prices. For instance, the average price of sea bass decreased
between 1998 and 2002 from 6.22 to 4.64 euros=kg, while that of sea bream de-
creased from 6.72 to 5.38 euros=kg (Stathopoulos 2002).
In terms of market channels, it is estimated that 80% of the quantity consumed
domestically is distributed through wholesalers to cities’ central fish markets or
local fishmongers and the remaining 20% through supermarket chains. It seems
that, while the traditional behaviour of Greeks tends to fade away in the modern
food purchasing conditions, this mentality still persists for fish. Despite their
growing number, supermarkets with fresh fish counters do not constitute a common
fish distribution practice, compared to other products, such as meat. For instance, in
one of the major Greek supermarket chains, only 11 out of 270 stores in Greece and
abroad sell fresh fish, while the contribution of the fresh fish sector to the total
turnover of the chain does not exceed 2% (Stathopoulos 2002). On the contrary, a
US study reported by Adams (1998) indicates that out of the 25,000 major su-
permarkets surveyed in the country, approximately 16,000 offer fresh seafood. In
Greece, the customers who purchase fish over the supermarket counter do it mainly
for convenience and cost reasons, and they prefer to buy whole, fresh fish, which
1All data from Fisheries report, General Directorate of Fisheries (Greek Ministry of Agriculture 2001),
unless specified otherwise.
260
mainly originate from aquaculture and is considered inferior in quality to the wild
fish sold in central markets.
According to data from the 1999 National Research Family Accounts Survey
(reported in Self-Service, 2002), the typical consumers with above-average yearly
expenditure on fish are: (of both genders), members of a household with at least one
child (or usually two children under 16 years of age) with working parents; res-
idents of urban areas and belong to upper-average or high income categories
(higher than 14,000 euros per year); business owners, or in top or middle man-
agerial positions, or privateers (doctors, lawyers etc.) or scientists in the manu-
facturing sector (engineers).
Evolution in lifestyle and demographics create a plethora of opportunities for
new products, especially in the frozen fish sector. Frozen seafood consumption in
Greece has increased in recent years, reaching approximately 20% of the total
seafood consumption in 1998 valuewise, while in terms of quantity it represented
less than 9% of the total. These figures indicate the substantial added value of the
frozen seafood sector. Most frozen seafood is imported (90% in 2000, up from 70%
in 1998). Frozen seafood profited from the recent meat crisis (BSE), showing an
average consumption increase of 15% per year over the period 1998–2001. In 2000,
total frozen seafood consumption reached a level of 60,000 t valued at 58 million
euros (measured as retail turnover), (Stathopoulos 2002).
In an attempt to increase the consumer awareness of seafood and enrich the
respective traditional list, a variety of new, convenience-oriented products have
recently been introduced. These include microwavable portions and entrees that
will have an appeal to the two-wage earner households, whose schedule allows
minimal time for meal preparation. Frozen, individual servings have also been
introduced to the same market. Ready-to-eat, value-added products, such as va-
cuum-packed molluscs, have recently appeared on the supermarket shelves.
Methodology
The international literature on the determinants of fish preference of the general
population is surprisingly poor. Although there are a substantial number of articles
related to the matter, a large percentage is concerned with fish consumption aspects
of very specific interest, such as the role of sea pollutants determined in fish
consumed by sport fishermen (Chan et al. 1999; Falk et al. 1999; Hanrahan et al.
1999; Kearney et al. 1999; Boischio and Henshel 2000), dietary implications of
fish consumption (Burger et al. 1998; Shatenstein et al. 1999; Burger 2000) or fish
preferences of indigenous populations (Shatenstein et al. 1999; Brummett 2000).
These surveys cover a limited geographical area and use a small sample size.
However, there are several surveys from both sides of the Atlantic that highlight
the different approach to fish consumption between populations with different
cultural habits and food preferences (Sorensen et al. 1996; Cheng and Kezis 1997;
Adams 1998; Foxall et al. 1998; Juhl and Poulsen 2000; Leek et al. 2000; Olsen
2001).
261
The present marketing survey is exploratory, as no prior knowledge is avail-
able regarding Greek consumers’ attitudes towards fish. From a methodological
point of view, the segmentation task of the survey is especially helpful in
achieving the study’s objectives. Zandstra et al. (2001) have put forward the
theory that for marketing and nutrition education purposes it is important to
segment consumers on the basis of their attitudes. Product marketing requires
consumer segmentation to develop and produce food products that appeal to
different groups, with different attitudes and lifestyles. Roininen et al. (1999)
suggest that consumer populations are increasingly segmented on the basis of
their food orientations. Identification of different segments of these populations is
important for nutrition education and also for product marketing. The latter needs
consumer segmentation to relate different types of products with the appropriate
type of consumers.
The geographic location of the survey includes 16 major cities of continental
Greece and Crete, five in the south, two in the central and nine in the north and west
regions of the country. This geographic distribution of the sample enables the
survey of both coastal and mountainous=continental areas. Thus, residents of
Athens and another eight large ports and=or cities with a fish distribution centre are
included in the sample, in combination with residents of seven large agricultural
centres in rural areas at least 50 km from the seashore.
A random, stratified sample of 1093 respondents was used. Four methods of
personal interviews held at the respondents’ place of residence were selected. Each
interview lasted 20–30 min and used a structured questionnaire during the period
January–April 2002. Appointments had been arranged after approaching consumers
during their fish shopping at the central fish market of each city – where such
a market exists – or, alternatively, at major retail chains with a fresh fish counter
or at independent fishmongers, during the period September–October 2001.
Questionnaire pre-testing and the resulting improvements took place in November
2001.
The questionnaire first included an introductory ‘past and present preference for
fish consumption’ part, common in many relevant international studies (Foxall et al.
1998; Juhl and Poulsen 2000; Leek et al. 2000; Olsen 2001). Two sections followed
with the aim to explore, ‘consumers’ attitudes towards cultivated marine fish’ and,
‘consumers’ attitudes towards fish packaging’. The ‘overall factors inducing fish
purchasing=consumption decision’ section included a number of decisive concepts
influencing fish consumption, measured on 5-point Likert, agreement scales with
end-points termed 1¼ ‘strongly agree’ to 5¼ ‘strongly disagree’ (Juhl and Poulsen
2000). The final part included the socio-demographic selection strata, which helped
to explain behaviour and enrich the identified consumer profiles.
An attempt was made to closely follow the 1999 National Statistical Service of
Greece (NSSG 2000) socio-demographic data for the population of the 16 cities
included in the sample. However, the final sample is biased towards 2 socio-
demographic profiles, younger age and higher education (Table 1). These short-
comings are as a result of the sample selection process. A bias of a similar nature
was also present in similar surveys, for example, Juhl and Poulsen (2000).
262
Analysis and empirical results
Analysis of the questionnaire per section
In relation to the ‘past and present preference for fish consumption’ section
(Table 2), the majority of respondents during the year 2001 consumed fish once per
Table 1. Socio-demographic profile, overall sample (n¼ 1093).
Frequency Percentage (%)
Age group
<30 273 25
31–40 319 29.2
41–50 272 24.9
51–60 185 16.9
>60 44 4
Education
Elementary or 9-year circle 273 24.9
High school 12-year circle 352 32.2
Technical, after high school 204 18.7
University or higher 253 23.1
Yearly income in euro*
<8804 204 18.7
8804–11738 209 19.1
11738–14673 184 16.8
14673–17608 133 12.2
>17608 195 17.8
Gender
Male 557 51
Female 536 49
Marital status
Married, no children 83 7.6
Married with children 548 50.1
Divorced 52 4.8
Single 402 36.8
Family size
2 90 8.2
3 217 19.9
4 528 48.3
5 192 17.6
>5 44 4
Place of residence
Major 3 cities 210 19.2
N and W Greece 466 42.6
C. Greece 239 21.9
S. Greece 178 16.3
*Not answer: 15.4% or 168 persons.
263
week, with an additional substantial percentage exhibiting a higher consumption
frequency. Moreover, regarding present fish consumption, 39.9% of respondents
declared that they preferred to eat (much) more fish than a year ago, this percentage
is foreseen to be even higher in the future.
Table 2. Fish consumption preferences, overall sample (n¼ 1093), %.
1. Main responsible for fish purchase in the household
Father 38.6
Mother 49.6
Children 2.4
Grandfather 5.9
Grandmother 2.8
2. Fish consumption frequency a year ago (2001)
>2 times=week 8
2 times=week 27.5
1 time=week 41.7
1 time=2 weeks 13.4
1=month or less 9.1
3. Compared with last year, today I consume fish, in terms of quality
Much more 5.9
More 34
About the same 39.6
Less 16.2
Much less 3.9
4. I percer to consume the following types of fish
Fresh, whole 79.4
Frozen, fillets 9.1
Smoked or salted 4.7
Canned 1.8
Fish sticks 4.8
5. I can say the freshness of a fish when looking at its
Gills 32.6
Eyes 45.4
Smell 15.4
Scale 4.3
No answer 2.3
6. I believe that in the future I will consume fish, in terms of quantity
Much more 16.2
More 38.3
About the same 36.6
Less 6.3
Much less 1.3
7. I believe that in the future fish prices will be
Much higher 20.5
Higher 54.3
About the same 16.5
Lower 5
Much lower 2.5
264
The most preferred type of fish for the vast majority of the sample was fresh,
whole, marine fish, while a much lower percentage of consumers preferred the
substitutes to fresh fish types. So, for the Greek consumers, who prefer fresh whole
fish, a crucial question that remained to be answered was how one can judge the
freshness of the fish. The present survey indicated that almost half of respondents
rely on a fish eyes to evaluate its freshness, with an additional third relying on the
appearance of its gills.
The percentage of respondents that opted for wild caught (marine) fish is par-
ticularly significant (Table 3). The simpler explanation provided by half of the
sample members regarding this lack of preference for cultivated fish is the per-
ception of their lower safety, compared to that of wild fish. It is worth stressing that
this feeling is widely shared among respondents, since only 10% declared that they
Table 3. Consumer perceptions towards aquaculture fish, overall
sample (n¼ 1093), %.
8. I usually prefer to purchase
Cultivated marine fish 12.4
Marine, wild fish 86.1
9. In case I purchase fish from aquaculture, my preferable kind is
Sea bream 43.2
Sea bass 12.4
Trout 21.3
Salmon 9.6
Other 11.1
10. I find fish from aquaculture in the market easily
Always 52.9
Occasionally 41
Never 4.2
11. Compared to the wild fish, I believe that the safety of aqua-
culture fish is
Higher 14.1
About the same 22.6
Lower 52.2
No answer 9.8
12. I am aware of the requirements regarding fish welfare, packa-
ging and distribution of aquaculture
Fully 9.4
Partially 28.3
Not at all 60.7
No answer 1.6
13. I believe that I can tell the difference between a wild fish and an
aquaculture fish, either pre or post-consumption
Always 7.9
Most of the times 24.8
Some times 14.8
Rarely 24
Never 27
265
were unable to answer and a similar percentage considered aquaculture fish safer
than wild fish. This finding is in accordance with the perception of French and
Italian consumers, who are more reluctant to buy farmed fish versus wild fish.
The opposite was reported in the US market (Cheng and Kezis 1997), where
price stability and consistent quality are stressed as the main reasons for the
perceived superiority of wild fish compared to farmed fish (Batzios et al. 2003).
Nevertheless, the degree of penetration of aquaculture fish in the Greek market is
high, since more than half of respondents claimed that is was always easy to find
farmed fish.
The fact that one out of four respondents would frequently purchase packaged
fish – if its freshness is well preserved – is surprising (Table 4). Bearing in mind
that packaging of fresh, wild or cultivated fish, is a new manner of fish presentation
in Greece. In terms of package-specific preferences, most respondents preferred
packaging to be transparent and simple in its overall concept, while no firm con-
clusion was drawn regarding the preference for filleted fresh fish, possibly due to
consumers’ unfamiliarity with this idea. It is also interesting that the existence of a
certification on the package, such as HACCP, would have a positive influence on
the purchasing decision of a substantial percentage of consumers.
In terms of the overall factors that influence fish purchasing=consumption de-
cisions (Table 5), a substantial percentage of the sample strongly agree that these
include prices, season, and size according to fish type. However, an equally sub-
stantial percentage of respondents are only partially or not at all influenced by those
factors. This diverse range of answers suggests the existence of more than one type
of fish buyer among the sample members. Finally, almost two-thirds of respondents
strongly agree that fish has a higher nutritional value than meat, and a similar
percentage claim that they know how to distinguish the freshness of a fish, a
percentage that indicates strong involvement in, and knowledge of the fish pur-
chasing and consumption process.
The data reduction and market segmentation tasks
To test the hypothesis that fish preference is a multi-dimensional parameter, prin-
cipal component analysis (PCA) in SPSS version 10.0 was applied to the data. A set
of 13 non-metric variables had been selected to aid in the data reduction task. These
variables concern consumers’ attitudes towards aquaculture fish (4), towards fish
packaging (4), and all the factors involved in the purchasing=consumption decision
(5). PCA with varimax rotation identified four factors with eigenvalues greater than
1 (Table 6), which accounts for 48% of the total variance and have approximately
equal importance. Overall, from the initial 13 variables selected, only 10 can be
replaced by the four PCs identified. Based on the factor loadings of the initial
variables that are higher than 0.60, it can be concluded that PC 1 represents the
factor of ‘fish purchasing and consumption involvement’ (var. 13, 25). PC 2 ex-
presses the factor of ‘fish safety and nutritional value’ (var. 11, 24). PC 3 stands for
price, season and size as ‘factors determining fish consumption’ (var. 21, 22, 23).
266
Finally, PC 4 introduces the more recent issue of ‘fish packaging’ (var. 14, 17). A
larger number of more homogenously evaluated Likert agreement statements are
possibly needed, to unambiguously substantiate the emergence of these underlying
preference factors.
To investigate the above-defined indications of the existence of more than one
type of fish buyer and to identify, in more detail, potential segments within the
sample, the most natural step would be to use the four PCs as clustering variables.
Table 4. Consumer perceptions towards fish packaging, overall
sample (n¼ 1093), %.
14. I would buy packaged fish, provided that its freshness will be
preserved
Frequently 25.6
Rarely 36.3
Never 36.4
No answer 1.6
15. I would prefer fish packaging to be
Simple 55.3
Luxurious 16.3
No packaging 25.9
No answer 2.6
16. I would prefer fish packaging to be transparent
Yes 77
Do not know 19.1
No 5.9
17. If I bought packed fish, I would like it to be filleted
Yes 25.5
Do not know 36.2
No 38.3
18. I would buy HACCP-certified fish products
Always 21
Most of the times 20.5
Some times 18.6
Rarely 18.1
Never 17.6
19. I am aware of the differences in food packaging types
Fully 21.6
Partially 2
Not at all 76.4
20. The type of food packaging I prefer is
In vacuum* 30.1
In modified atmosphere* 9.1
In controlled atmosphere* 14.3
In regular atmosphere 33.9
No answer 26.9
*Answers given after provision of the relevant HACCP and food
packaging-related definitions.
267
However, due to a substantial loss of variability, the segmentation task is based on 8
out of the 13 metric variables selected for the data reduction task instead of the four
components identified (Table 7). A quick clustering approach (SPSS 10.0, k-means
clustering) was followed, with the options of 3, 4 and 5 clusters, based on the
results of a preceding hierarchical cluster analysis. The choice of four clusters was
preferred due to the smaller number of non-classified consumers and the easier way
of clusters’ profile development. All clusters statistically differ at p< 0.001. A clear
numerical description of the four clusters can be seen in Table 8. It should be noted
that 5 out of 7 socio-demographic variables statistically differ between the four
clusters at p< 0.01. Overall, 26 out of 32 variables used to identify and describe the
clusters exhibit statistically significant, high discriminating power.
Description of the cluster profiles
In terms of the four cluster profiles, one has to keep in mind that gender, family size
and preference for wild fish are variables that do not differ among the four clusters.
Their profiles are as follows (also see Table 8): Cluster 1 consists of ‘price sensi-
tive’ fish consumers. In terms of attitudes towards the eight clustering variables, the
large majority of the cluster ‘strongly agree’ that the nutritional value of fish is
higher than that of meat, but also that price is a very important factor of fish
purchasing. Only half of the cluster members believe that the safety of intensively
cultivated fish is lower than that of wild fish and claim they know how to distin-
guish the freshness of a fish ‘always or most of the time’. On the contrary, almost
none of the cluster members claim that they can distinguish the difference between
a cultivated and a wild fish ‘frequently’. Finally, almost a third of cluster members
would buy packaged fish ‘frequently’, with an additional third buying it ‘rarely’. In
terms of their socio-demographic profile, the majority of cluster members are
young to middle-aged, highly educated but of low to average income levels,
married, residents of north, western and central parts of Greece. The decision of fish
purchasing is almost equally shared between the mother and the father of cluster
1 member households, 25% of which consume fish less than once per week, a
Table 5. Factors influencing fish consumption decision, overall sample (n¼ 1093), %.
Strongly
agree
Agree Neither. . .nor. . .
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
21. I believe that price is very important
when purchasing fish
11.4 32.8 37.1 10.8 7.6
22. I believe that the period of the year
influences my consumption of fish
10.2 27.9 23.7 18.7 19
23. I believe that size is very important
when purchasing fish
7.7 29.3 38.2 14.7 9
24. I believe that the nutritional value
of the fish is higher than that of meat
10.4 50 19 7.4 6
25. I believe that I know how to distinguish
the freshness of a fish
17.6 43.2 23.9 10 4.9
268
Table 6. Rotated principal component matrix.
Variable no. PC 1 PC 2 PC 3 PC 4
10 I find farmed fish in the market easily �1.46E-03 0.304 2.13E-02 �0.115
11 Compared to the wild fish, I believe that the safety of aquaculture fish is 8.767E-02 0.741 �2.99E-02 �0.139
12 I am aware of the requirements regarding fish welfare packaging and
distribution of aquaculture
0.505 �0.716 0.206 0.184
13 I believe that I can say the difference between a wild fish and a
farmed fish, either pre or post-consumption
0.797 �5.38E-02 6.911E-02 �0.128
14 I would buy packaged fish provided that its freshness will be preserved 0.154 �2.18E-02 0.102 0.734
16 I would prefer fish packaging to be transparent 9.935E-03 0.473 4.315E-02 0.261
17 If I bought packed fish, I would like it to be sliced �0.164 �2.60E-02 �2.60E-02 0.761
18 I would buy HACCP-certified fish products 0.471 0.179 7.907E-02 0.238
21 I believe that price is very important when purchasing fish 6.694E-02 �5.90E-02 0.712 0.101
22 I believe that the period of the year influences my consumption of fish �2.58E-03 �7.99E-02 0.709 �8.650E-03
23 I believe that size is very important when purchasing fish 0.119 0.110 0.687 2.822E-03
24 I believe that the nutritional value of the fish is higher than that of meat 2.234E-03 0.773 �4.74E-02 0.120
25 I believe that I know how to distinguish the freshness of a fish 0.727 0.139 �6.28E-02 �0.126
KMO:0.602
Bartlett’s test of sphericity: 893.528 sig. 0.000
Eigenvalue 1.964 1.647 1.483 1.133
% Variance explained 13.212 12.090 11.959 10.635
% Cumulative variance 13.212 25.302 37.261 47.896
26
9
Table 7. Clusters identified according to the eight metric variables selected (n¼ 1040, non-classified cases: 53).
Variable no. Variables Significance n1¼ 302 (29%) n2 ¼ 216 (20.7%) n3¼ 243 (23.3%) n4¼ 279 (26.8%)
the price-
sensitive
the neo-
traditional
the young,
inexperienced
the older,
experienced
Strongly agree, % Strongly agree, % Strongly agree, % Strongly agree, %
21 I believe that price is very important
when purchasing fish
* 70.2 25.5 (46.3b) 17.3 (42.4b) 54.5
22 I believe that the period of the year
influences my consumption of fish
* 50.3 0.5 (87.5a) 14.8 (57.7a) 75.6
23 I believe that size is very important
when purchasing fish
* 57 30.5 8.6 (54.3a) 46.7 (41.2b)
24 I believe that the nutritional value
of fish is higher than that of meat
* 69.5 71.8 51.4 52.3
25 I believe that I know how to distinguish
the freshness of a fish
* 51 (29.5b) 86.5 28.8 (35a) 79.6
11 Compared to wild fish, I believe that * Lower, % Lower, % Lower, % Lower, %
the safety of aquaculture fish is 54.3 66.7 40.3 51.6
13 I believe that I can tell the difference * Always or Always or Always or Always or
between a wild fish and an aquaculture most of the times, % most of the times, % most of the times, % most of the times, %
fish, either pre or post-consumption 0 61.6 0.4 75.6
14 I would buy packaged fish, provided * Frequently, % Frequently, % Frequently, % Frequently, %
that its freshness will be preserved 29.5 20.4 43.2 30.1
*ANOVA results, statistically significant for p< 0.001.apercentages in brackets that correspond to the ‘strongly disagree’ choice.bpercentages in brackets that correspond to the ‘neither agree nor disagree’ choice.
27
0
Table 8. Identified cluster description (n¼ 1040).
Socio-demographic variables Significance n1¼ 302 (29%) n2¼ 216 (20.7%) n3¼ 243 (23.3%) n4¼ 279 (26.8%)
the price-sensitive the neo-traditional the young,
inexperienced
the older,
experienced
Age: <41 ** 54 36.1 87.3 41.3
Education: university or further ** 27.5 18.2 30.6 17.3
Yearly income: >14,673 euros ** 31 44.5 33 34
Marital status: married ** 61.4 72.3 26.8 70.7
Gender: female n.s. 49.7 47.7 49 49.5
Family size: 4 or > n.s. 68.8 74.7 73.8 69.8
Place of residence: 3 major cities ** 17.5 12.9 15.2 28.7
N. and W. Greece 36.5 48.2 47.4 39.8
C. Greece 29.8 18.5 24.3 15.8
S. Greece 16.2 20.4 13.1 15.7
1 Responsible for fish
purchases in the household
** Mother: 48.8 Mother: 48.4 Mother: 58.9 Mother: 43.1
2 Fish consumption: 1=week or > ** 73.8 81 66.7 89.2
3 Compared with last year, today
I consume fish (in terms of quantity)
* much more: 39.5 much more: 38.1 much more: 27.7 much more: 52.7
4 I prefer to consume the ** Fresh: 80.5 Fresh: 87 Fresh: 81.1 Fresh: 72
following types of fish Frozen: 8.6 Frozen: 6 Frozen: 4.9a Frozen: 15.8
5 I can tell the freshness of a fish ** Eyes:41.4 Eyes: 47.7 Eyes: 43.8 Eyes: 51.4
by looking at its Gills: 34.9 Gills: 40.7 Gills: 28.3 Gills: 30.9
6 I believe that in the future I will
consume fish (in terms of quantity)
* much more: 60.3 much more: 58.6 much more: 39.5 much more: 62.7
7 In the future, fish prices will be n.s. much higher: 78.5 much higher: 76.3 much higher: 72.3 much higher: 76.4
8 I usually prefer to purchase fish n.s. Wild: 88 Wild: 92.1 Wild: 87.8 Wild: 84.1
Aquaculture: 12 Aquaculture: 7.9 Aquaculture: 12.2 Aquaculture: 15.9
27
1
Table 8. (continued)
Socio-demographic Variables Significance n1¼ 302 (29%) n2¼ 216 (20.7%) n3¼ 243 (23.3%) n4¼ 279 (26.8%)
the price-sensitive the neo-traditional the young,
inexperienced
the older,
experienced
9 In case I purchase fish from ** Sea bream: 39.2 Sea bream: 53.1 Sea bream: 52.3 Sea bream: 35.9
aquaculture, my preferred kind is Sea bass: 11.1 Sea bass: 9.5 Sea bass: 5.9 Sea bass: 22.2
Trout: 29.1 Trout: 17.1 Trout: 20.1 Trout: 18.9
Salmon: 9.5 Salmon: 10 Salmon: 7.9 Salmon: 12.6
10 I find fish from aquaculture in * Always: 49.5 Always: 69.2 Always: 47.1 Always: 52
the market: Occasionally: 45.1 Occasionally: 26.6 Occasionally: 46.2 Occasionally: 46.2
12 I am aware of the requirements * Fully: 7 Fully: 13 Fully: 3.8 Fully: 16.2
regarding aquaculture fish
welfare, packaging and distribution
Not at all: 60.9 Not at all: 62.3 Not at all: 82.7 Not at all: 42.6
15 I would prefer fish packaging to be n.s. Simple: 61.5 Simple: 57.3 Simple: 57 Simple: 52
16 I would prefer fish packaging
to be transparent
** Yes: 84.4 Yes: 83.6 Yes: 82.1 Yes: 71.2
17 If I bought packed fish,
I would like it to be sliced
** No: 39.9 No: 53.9 No: 33.2 No: 47.9
18 I would buy HACCP-certified fish * Always or most of the Always or most of the Always or most of the Always or most of the
products times: 41.5 times: 52 times: 27.7 times: 51.1
19 I am aware of the differences in
food packaging types
* Not at all: 83.9 Not at all: 73.1 Not at all: 85.7 Not at all: 69.1
20 The type of food packaging I n.s. Vacuum: 42.6 Vacuum: 43.8 Vacuum: 43.6 Vacuum: 42.6
prefer is Regular atm.: 31.9 Regular atm.: 37.7 Regular atm.: 32.9 Regular atm.: 31.2
Controlled atm: 17.6 Controlled atm: 12.3 Controlled atm: 18.8 Controlled atm: 11.4
*ANOVA tests, statistically significant for p< 0.001;
**w2 tests, statistically significant for p< 0.01;a‘fish sticks’: 9.1%;
n.s.: not statistically significant.
27
2
percentage that is the second highest of all the clusters. However, almost 40% claim
to have increased their fish consumption last year and an additional 60% predict
doing the same next year. Regarding intensively cultivated fish preferences, most
like sea bream, while they exhibit the highest preference of all clusters for trout.
Nevertheless, almost 60% of cluster 1 members admit they ignore various aspects
of aquaculture. In terms of cluster attitudes towards fish packaging, the large
majority would prefer packaging, except for fillets of fish. The fact that more than
40% of cluster 1 members would be influenced by the HACCP certification scheme
is both important and promising. However, the vast majority are ‘not at all’ aware
of the differences in food packaging types.
Cluster 2 can be termed the ‘nouveau-rich, neo-traditional’ fish consumers. In
terms of attitudes towards the eight clustering variables, the large majority of the
cluster ‘strongly agree’ that the nutritional value of fish is higher than that of meat
(71.8%) and claim that they know how to distinguish the freshness of a fish ‘always
or most of the times’ (86.5%). Both percentages are the highest compared to all the
other clusters. On the other hand, they pay only limited attention to fish price and
size, while almost all ‘strongly disagree’ that the period of the year influences fish
consumption. Almost two-thirds of cluster 2 members believe that the safety of
aquaculture fish is lower than that of wild fish (the highest of all clusters) and claim
that they can distinguish the difference between a cultivated and a wild fish ‘fre-
quently’. Finally, almost half of cluster 2 members would ‘never’ buy packaged fish
(the highest percentage of all clusters). In terms of socio-demographic profile, the
majority of cluster members are middle-aged, highly educated, with the highest
income of all clusters identified, married, residents of north, western and south parts
of Greece. The decision of fish purchasing is almost equally shared between the
mother and the father of cluster 2 members households, more than 80% of them
consume fish at least once per week a percentage that ranks second of all the
clusters. Although almost half claim to have kept their fish consumption at the same
level as last year’s, an additional 60% envisage increasing their consumption next
year. Regarding aquaculture fish preferences, cluster 2 exhibits the highest per-
centage of loyalty to wild fish and the lowest preference of all clusters for cultivated
fish. Nevertheless, more than 50% like sea bream and almost 70% claim to find
cultivated fish in the market ‘easily’, a percentage that is the highest of all the
clusters. More than 60% of cluster 2 members admit that they ignore aquaculture
issues. In terms of attitudes towards fish packaging, the large majority would prefer
it to be transparent, while more than 50% would like the fish to be packaged in
whole form. Striking is the fact that more than 50% of cluster 2 members would be
influenced by the presence of a HACCP label, a percentage that is the highest of all
the clusters. The vast majority of cluster 2 are ‘not at all’ aware of the differences in
food packaging, a similar result to cluster 1 (Table 8).
Cluster 3 consists of ‘inexperienced’ fish consumers. In terms of attitudes
towards the eight clustering variables, only a minority of cluster 3 pays substantial
attention to fish price, size and season. Moreover, only 50% ‘strongly agree’ that
the nutritional value of fish is higher than that of meat and only 30% claim that they
know how to distinguish the freshness of a fish ‘always or most of the times’. Both
273
percentages are the lowest of all the clusters. Only 40% believe that the safety of
cultivated fish is lower than that of wild fish (the lowest of all clusters), while an
additional 20% believe the opposite. However, none of cluster 3 members can
distinguish the difference between a cultivated and a wild fish ‘frequently’. Finally,
more than 40% of cluster 3 members would buy packaged fish ‘frequently’. In
terms of their socio-demographic profile, the majority of cluster 3 members are
very young, highly educated but of low to average income level, single, residents of
north, western and central parts of Greece. The decision of fish purchasing is
mainly taken by the mother of their household. One-third of them consume fish less
than once per week (the lowest frequency of all the clusters). Although almost 50%
claim to have kept their fish consumption at the same level as last year’s, an
additional 27% have in fact decreased their fish consumption (the highest of all the
clusters), while only 40% predict increasing their consumption next year (the
lowest of all the clusters). It is worth noting that cluster 3 exhibits the highest
percentages of preference for processed fish types, for example, almost 10% prefer
to consume fish sticks. Regarding cultivated fish preferences, more than half like
sea bream and 20% trout. Nevertheless, more than 80% admit that they ignore
various aspects of aquaculture (the highest rate of all the clusters). In terms of
cluster attitudes towards fish packaging, the large majority of its members would
prefer it to be transparent, while disagreement or inability to answer is their choice
in relation to the preference for filleted packaged fish. Additionally, the percentage
of cluster 3 members that would be influenced by the HACCP certification is the
lowest of all the clusters. Similar to clusters 1 and 2, the vast majority of cluster 3
are ‘not at all’ aware of the differences in food packaging, with the percentage of
the ‘fully aware’ cluster 3 members being the lowest of all.
Cluster 4 is constituted by ‘experienced, aware’ fish consumers. In terms of
attitudes towards the eight clustering variables, the large majority of the cluster
‘strongly agree’ that fish consumption is influenced by the season (75.6%, the highest
of all the clusters), they know how to distinguish the freshness of a fish ‘always or
most of the times’ (79.6%, the second highest of all the clusters), and claim that they
can tell the difference between a cultivated and a wild fish ‘frequently’ (75.6%, the
highest of all the clusters). On the other hand, only half of cluster 4 members pay
substantial attention to fish price and size, believe that the nutritional value of fish
is higher than that of meat and that the safety of cultivated fish is lower than that of
wild fish. Finally, 40% of cluster 4 members would ‘never’ buy packaged fish (the
second highest percentages of all the clusters). In terms of their socio-demographic
profile, the majority of cluster members are middle-aged or older, of lower educational
level compared to the other three clusters and of rather average income level, married,
residents of north and western parts of Greece and of its three major cities. Fish
purchasing decisions are mainly the responsibility of the mother of cluster 4 member
households, while 20% of other family members may take this decision (e.g.,
grandparents). Almost 90% consume fish at least once per week (the highest of all the
clusters). More than 50% claim to have increased their fish consumption compared
to the previous year, while more than 60% predict an increase in their consumption
next year (both are the highest percentages of all the clusters). Cluster 4 exhibits
274
the highest of all cluster preference for cultivated fish, which is nationally low.
This specific cluster shows a preference for a wider variety of cultivated species
compared to other clusters, for example sea bass and salmon, but the preference
for sea bream remains high. Moreover, the percentage of those that are ‘fully’ or
‘partially’ aware of various matters related to aquaculture is the highest of all the
clusters. In terms of cluster attitudes towards fish packaging, the large majority of
its members would prefer it to be transparent, while almost 50% would like the
fish to be packaged in whole form. However, a substantial percentage of cluster 4
members express their lack of knowledge on this matter. It is worth noting that
more than 50% of cluster 4 members would be influenced by a HACCP certificate, a
percentage that is the second highest of all the clusters. Contrary to the other clusters,
the percentage of cluster 4 members that are ‘fully’ aware of the differences in food
packaging is substantial.
Discussion
Fish consumption and household life cycle
Fish consumption patterns in Greece seem to closely reflect the evolution of the
‘household’s life cycle’ (Engel et al. 1995), indicated by the successive increase
in age of cluster members. The formation of preference for specific fish types is
developed following the maturity stages in a person’s social role as a consumer.
Initially, cluster 3 consists of very young, single, occasional consumers of fish, in
their early household life cycle stage. Their overall socio-demographic and beha-
vioural profile indicates that a substantial percentage are students or young grad-
uates (based on their very high educational level), who cohabit or depend upon their
parents, a social pattern still common in the typical Greek household. They are
rather inexperienced with fresh fish consumption and decision-making, less nega-
tive than their older counterparts towards aquaculture fish and more accustomed to
non-fresh, processed fish. Overall, they may consume fish because it is a decision
taken by their parents rather than themselves. They do not seem especially opti-
mistic regarding their future fish consumption, and it is not certain if they will keep
this moderate fish consumption frequency in later stages of their household life
cycle. Most importantly, cluster 3 members are more willing to purchase innovative
fish products, such as fresh packaged fish, compared to any other cluster. According
to Foxall et al. (1998), the purchasers of a new product largely determine whether
this product is likely to be a success or a failure. If these ‘innovators’ find the
product appealing, they do not simply continue to purchase it themselves, but in
addition they convey their positive impression to other consumers thus ensuring the
success of the product. From this point of view, the importance of cluster 3 for the
fish industry is enormous. Therefore, an important marketing objective of packaged
fish products’ development is the identification of those characteristics of cluster 3-
potential first adopters that will convince them to buy packaged fish in more
‘mature’ stages of their household life cycle.
275
Cluster 1 consists of young to middle-aged, price sensitive, average to low
frequency consumers of fish. They are possibly members of newly formed
households with small children and in the first steps of their professional careers,
a fact that possibly explains their low to average income level. Consequently, fish
prices affect their overall preference and consumption decisions. Assuming that the
present cluster follows the previous household life cycle stage depicted in cluster 3,
its members remain inexperienced and of low awareness of fish preference and
consumption. Yet, they exhibit a satisfactory level of preference for packaged fish,
possibly due to convenience or because they consider packaging to be a form of
reduction of the risk of fish purchasing.
Cluster 2 can be related to a more ‘mature’ household life cycle stage. Its
members are middle-aged, well-off, heavy consumers of wild, fresh fish. They are
in their most productive professional stage, confirmed by their very high-income
level. They exhibit a substantially increased fish consumption accompanied with a
preference for the fresh, wild fish, of very high nutritional value. Given that con-
sumption of premium-priced, wild, fresh, whole fish is traditionally considered by
Greeks as a symbol of prosperity, the adherence of cluster 2 to this fish type
possibly expresses a ‘nouveau-rich’ attitude. In addition, they exhibit a ‘neo-
traditional’ behaviour as they are particularly negative towards aquaculture and fish
packaging. This behavioural pattern further supports their ‘nouveau-rich’ attitude,
since it is not justified by their age and their insufficient experience in fish pur-
chasing and awareness of related aspects.
Finally, older, heavy consumers of wild fish constitute the members of cluster 4.
They belong to the upper household life cycle stage. They are possibly heading for the
end of their professional careers and have no dependants (e.g., children) in their
household. Their older age justifies their experience and involvement in fish and food
purchasing or could result from a ‘generation’ effect. This is further supported by their
higher awareness regarding the distinction of fish freshness, the differentiation be-
tween wild caught and cultivated fish and the knowledge of aquaculture and fish
packaging aspects, despite their average income and lower educational level. In con-
trast to cluster 2, the overall socio-demographic profile of cluster 4 underlies an
authentically traditional fish consumption behaviour, expected of typical Greek con-
sumers of an older generation. Additionally, they exhibit a less pronounced loyalty to,
and more realistic attitude towards fresh fish, compared to cluster 2: only half of cluster
4 members find fish nutritional values higher than meat, (suggesting ‘generation’ or
‘period’ effects), almost 16% purchase frozen fish, and a proportionate percentage
purchase farmed fish.
Summary remarks and managerial implications
During the year 2001 the large majority of respondents consumed fish at least once
per week. Since fish is a basic component of the Greek dietary model, Greek
consumers are expected to be highly involved in the fish purchasing and con-
sumption processes. The figures of the present survey regarding past and future fish
276
consumption also justify a moderately optimistic view regarding fish consumption
in Greece, in accordance with forecasts for the year 2010 (Lazaridis 1999).
The most preferable type of fish is fresh, whole, marine, wild fish. This pattern of
fish consumption in Greece is similar to that of other Europeans who are ac-
customed to a particular kind of fish consumption culture, and have an old tradition
in fisheries, such as Scandinavians or Danes, as described by Sorensen et al. (1996),
Olsen (2001) and Juhl and Poulsen (2000). This contrasts with other fish nations,
such as the British and US consumers, as described by Cheng and Kezis (1997),
Foxall et al. (1998) and Leek et al. (2000). For instance, Adams (1998) argues that
the most popular species of seafood consumed in the US is canned tuna, while
processed ground-fish products (e.g., fish sticks, breaded fillets) are also a tradi-
tionally popular item for US consumers. In Greece, however, the answer to the
question ‘how can one judge the freshness of the fish one buys’ is considered to be a
matter of expertise. It is noteworthy that 97.7% of respondents hold a clear opinion
on this subject, an additional indication of the survey samples high involvement in
fish purchasing.
On the other hand, the wide variety of farmed fish sold in Greek markets in-
dicates that, despite the low preference stated, farmed fish (especially high-value
species such as sea bream, sea bass and trout) are often purchased as alternatives to
wild fish types. Additionally, a prejudice against aquaculture fish seems to exist
among Greek consumers, based on their low awareness levels of aquaculture issues:
60.7% of respondents admit to be being totally unaware of the requirements re-
garding aquaculture fish welfare, packaging and distribution conditions, with an-
other 51.1% being unable to distinguish an aquaculture fish from a wild fish, either
pre or post-consumption. This attitude has also been reported in previous Greek
surveys (e.g., Roussi and Dimitriou 2000), which signifies a commonly shared
perception that fish farms are potential pollutants of the environment (Karakassis
et al. 2000).
There is also a low awareness level regarding food packaging (76.4%). The
importance of HACCP for cultivated fish in Greece is far greater than most other
foods, because fish is sold in raw form (untreated) and is highly susceptible to
microbial spoilage. From this point of view, a very important outcome of the study
is the fact that HACCP constitutes a powerful marketing tool for the fish industry.
This outcome is commonly highlighted by many surveys regarding the Greek fish
and food industry as a whole (Chatziefstathiou et al. 2000; Arvanitoyannis et al. in
press, Batzios et al. 2002). According to Tzouros and Arvanitoyannis (2000), many
companies in the fish industry found out that the implementation of HACCP helped
them to increase their profits.
Conclusions
The large majority of respondents claimed to consume fish frequently i.e. more
than once per week. Implementation of clusters resulted in the identification of
four well-determined and comprehensive cohorts. Age emerged as a particularly
277
effective predictor of fish consumption of Greeks, in contrast to specific
socio-demographic parameters such as income and education. One particularly
interesting result was that preference for specific fish types is closely linked
with the maturity stages in a person’s social role. In general, Greek consumers
opted for fresh, marine, wild fish, which is similar to findings of other European
studies, despite the continuously increasing production of cultivated fish. This
could possibly be attributed to (a) the long and well established tradition of
Greeks with fisheries, along with difficulties in adapting to new products on the
market, and (b) the fact that a high percentage of cultivated fish is exported. For
this reason only a limited effort has been made to increase the potential of the
home market.
Acknowledgements
This survey was partly supported by a University of Thessaly Research Committee
grant and its accomplishment would not have been possible without the contribu-
tion of the 1093 Greek consumers that participated in the study.
References
Adams C. 1998. Selected factors affecting seafood markets in the United States. J. Food Distribution
Res. 29(1): 8–17.
Arvanitoyannis I.S., Krystallis A. and Kapirti A. Health and environmental consciousness: Greek con-
sumers’ attitudes towards the organic, HACCP and ISO14000 certifications on food. Int. J. Food
Agribusiness Marketing 15, in-press
Batzios C., Angelidis P., Moutopoulos D.K., Anastasiadou C. and Chisopolitou B. 2002. An investigation
for cultivated fish consumption in Greece. Fishing News 255: 110–111 (in Greek).
Batzios C., Tsakiridou E., Polymeros K. and Moutopoulos D. 2003. Consumers’ willingness to purchase
fish with quality certification label. Geotech. Sci. Issues 14: 40–47 (in Greek).
Boischio A.A.P. and Henshel D. 2000. Fish consumption, fish lore, and mercury pollution – risk com-
munication for the Madeira River People. Environ. Res. 84: 108–126.
Brummett R.E. 2000. Factors influencing fish prices in southern Malawi. Aquaculture 186: 243–251.
Burger J. 2000. Gender differences in meal patterns: role of self-caught fish and wild game in meat and
fish diets. Environ. Res. 83: 140–149.
Burger J., Sanchez J. and Gochfelt M. 1998. Fishing, consumption, and risk perception in fisherfolk
along an east coast estuary. Environ. Res. 77: 25–35.
Chan H.M., Trifonopoulos M., Ing A., Receveur O. and Johnson E. 1999. Consumption of fresh water
fish in Kahnawake: risks and benefits. Environ. Res. 80: S213–S222.
Chatziefstathiou M., Kontos S. and Argyrou J. 2000. HACCP system implementation in aquaculture
fish packaging units. Proc. 9th Pan-hellenic Conf. Ichthyologists Messologi, Greece, January, 2000,
pp. 285–288 (in Greek).
Cheng H. and Kezis A.S. 1997. Difference in foodservice seafood buyers impression of aquaculture
product. J. Food Distribution Res. 27(1): 121–126.
Engel J., Blackwell R.D. and Miniard P.W. 1995. Consumer Behaviour. The Dryden Press, NY.
Falk C., Hanrahan L., Anderson H.A., Kanarek M.S., Draheim L., Needham L., Patterson D.J. and Great
Lakes Consortium 1999. Body levels of dioxin, furans, and PCBs among frequent consumers of great
lakes sport fish. Environ. Res. 80: S19–S25.
278
Foxall G., Leek S. and Maddock S. 1998. Cognitive antecedents of consumers’ willingness to purchase
fish rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). Appetite 31: 391–402.
Greek Ministry of Agriculture 2001. Report on fisheries general directorate of fisheries, State Publica-
tions, Athens (in Greek).
Hanrahan L., Falk C., Anderson H.A., Draheim L., Kanarek M.S., Olson J. and Great Lakes Consortium
1999. Serum PCB and DDE levels of frequent great lakes sport fish consumers – a first look. Environ.
Res. 80: S27–S37.
Juhl H.J. and Poulsen C.S. 2000. Antecedents and effects of consumer involvement in fish as a product
group. Appetite 34: 261–267.
Karakassis I., Tsapakis M., Hatziyanni E., Papadopoulou K.N. and Plati W. 2000. Impact of cage farming
of fish on the seabed in the Mediterranean coastal areas. J. Marine Sci. 57: 1462–1471.
Kearney J.P., Cole D.C., Ferron L.A. and Weber J.-F. 1999. Blood PCB, p,p0-DDE and mirex levels on
great lakes fish and waterfowl consumers in two Ontario communities. Environ. Res. 80: S138–S149.
Lazaridis P. 1999. Major food categories’ demand structure description in Greece and projections for the
Year 2010. In: Maraveyias N. (ed) Greek Agriculture Towards 2010. Agricultural University Pub-
lications, Athens (in Greek).
Leek S., Maddock S. and Foxall G. 2000. Situational determinants of fish consumption. Br. Food J.
102(1): 18–39.
NSSG 2000. Official 1998 Data Series. National Statistical Service of Greece State Publication, Athens
(in Greek).
Olsen S.O. 2001. Consumer involvement in seafood as family meals in Norway: an application of the
expectancy-value theory. Appetite 36: 173–186.
Roininen K., Lahteenmaki L. and Tuorila H. 1999. Quantification of consumer attitudes to health and
hedonic characteristics of food. Appetite 33: 71–88.
Roussi A. and Dimitriou E. 2000. Aquaculture in the area of Ehinades in Ionian sea and the attitude of
the locals. Proc. 9th Pan-hellenic Conf. Ichthyologists. Messologi, Greece, January, 2000, pp. 307–310
(in Greek).
Self-service Review 2002. Family Accounts Survey 1999. National Statistical Service of Greece Data (in
Greek).
Shatenstein B., Kosatsky T., Tapia M., Nadom S. and Leclerc B.-S. 1999. Exploratory assessment of fish
consumption among asian-Origin Sportfishers on the St. Lawrence River in the Montreal region.
Environ. Res. 80: S57–S70.
Sorensen E., Grunert K.G. and Nielsen N.A. 1996. The impact of product experience, product in-
volvement and verbal processing style on consumers’ cognitive structures with regard to fresh fish.
Working Paper No. 42, MAPP, The Aarhus School of Business.
Stathopoulos D. 2002. Fresh fish: an increase of super market’ share is expected. Self-service Rev. 278:
(November), 108–110 (in Greek).
Tzouros N.E. and Arvanitoyannis I.S. 2000. Implementation of hazard analysis critical control point
(HACCP) system to the fish=seafood industry: a review. Food Rev. Int. 16(3): 273–325.
Zandstra E.H., de Graaf C. and van Staveren W.A. 2001. Influence of health and taste attitudes on
consumption of low- and high-fat foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 12: 75–82.
279
