Next Article in Journal
The Improvement of Dispersion Stability and Bioaccessibility of Calcium Carbonate by Solid/Oil/Water (S/O/W) Emulsion
Next Article in Special Issue
Perceptions toward Plant-Based Milk Alternatives among Young Adult Consumers and Non-Consumers in Denmark: An Exploratory Study
Previous Article in Journal
Major Causes of Variation of External Appearance, Chemical Composition, Texture, and Color Traits of 37 Categories of Cheeses
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Preliminary Study on the Validity and Stability of Projective Methods: An Application of the Structural Approach of Social Representations with Traditional Mexican Cheeses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 11
Issue 24
10.3390/foods11244043
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Factors Influencing Consumption Behaviour towards Aquatic Food among Asian Consumers: A Systematic Scoping Review

by
Mausam Budhathoki
1,*,
Danny Campbell
2,
Ben Belton
3,4,
Richard Newton
1,
Saihong Li
5,
Wenbo Zhang
6 and
David Little
1
1
Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK
2
Division of Economics, School of Management, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 5AE, UK
3
Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
4
WorldFish, Jalan Batu Maung, Pulau Pinang 11960, Malaysia
5
Faculty of Arts and Humanities, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK
6
National Demonstration Center for Experimental Fisheries Science Education, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201308, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2022, 11(24), 4043; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11244043
Submission received: 20 October 2022 / Revised: 28 November 2022 / Accepted: 7 December 2022 / Published: 14 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Consumer Behavior and Food Choice—Volume II)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Asia accounts for over 70% of total global aquatic food consumption, but aquatic food consumption behaviours and attitudes among Asian consumers are poorly documented and understood. This paper synthesises literature on factors influencing aquatic food consumption behaviour in Asia and the potential to support transitions toward more sustainable food consumption patterns. We identified 113 studies for inclusion in a scoping review, and identified five clusters of publications: (1) product attributes, availability, and accessibility (24% of publications); (2) willingness to pay for aquatic foods (25%); (3) psychosocial factors (e.g., attitudes and subjective norms) (17%); (4) sociodemographic and lifestyle factors (21%); and (5) miscellaneous factors, including food safety and social status (13%). This study indicates that multiple interacting factors influence aquatic food consumption behaviours among Asian consumers, among which price is central. Knowledge of, and attitudes toward, the perceived quality and safety of aquatic foods were identified as important but were mediated by household characteristics. Sustainable production practices, country of origin, and ecolabels were found to be less influential on consumption behaviour. We found that improving consumers’ knowledge and attitudes about the quality and safety of aquatic foods might positively influence aquatic food consumption behaviour. Future multidisciplinary research is required to better understand interactions among the multiple factors that influence Asian consumers’ aquatic food consumption behaviour.

1. Introduction

The landmark EAT-Lancet Commission issued recommendations for responsible food consumption within planetary boundaries [1], but aquatic food was considered as a single commodity group [2], and various aspects of food systems such as affordability and cultural and demographic variations in nutritional sufficiency were not considered [3,4]. Understanding of the diversity and impact of aquatic food consumption on broader food security and sustainability has been limited and has often ignored perceptions of seafood as a dietary component and any associated behaviours. The Blue Food Assessment has established a baseline to build an understanding of the role of aquatic food consumption in global food systems [5,6,7,8]. Researchers have found that the inclusion of aquatic foods in the diet can provide more sustainable food options than terrestrial animal production [9,10,11,12] and has the potential to meet the characteristics of a sustainable diet [10,13,14]. Further, several previous studies have indicated that the consumption of aquatic foods is critical to food and nutrition security for many vulnerable groups [15,16,17].
Eating behaviour is a complex phenomenon determined by several interacting factors that go far beyond its functional roles in mitigating hunger or providing nutrition and often include personal and socio-cultural factors [18,19,20,21,22,23]. Some authors [24] suggest that the food choice decisions that impact food consumption behaviour are frequent, multifaceted, situational, dynamic, and complex; thus, it is difficult to capture the full complexity of eating behaviour using any given theory, framework, or model. To date, known factors that affect aquatic food consumption behaviour include availability, price, self-efficacy, convenience, habit, health and nutrition beliefs, sensory perception, country of origin, production method, preservation method, product innovation, packaging, eco-labels, safety, culture, and religion, as well as socio-demographic characteristics [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32].
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Asian consumers enjoy high consumption levels of aquatic food (24.6 kg/capita/year), and in 2019, Asian consumers consumed over 70% of total global aquatic food [33]. However, there is vast heterogeneity in aquatic food consumption among countries within the Asian region [33,34], areas within countries (for instance, rural versus urban) [35], between households, and even at an intra-household level [36]. This might be due to various reasons including differences in economic development [7], technological innovation [15], infrastructure (cold-chain storage) and distribution channels, and availability [37,38,39], as well as consumers’ preferences [40,41]. Further, compared to six geographic regions of the world, the level of urbanization in Asia more than doubled from 17.5% in 1950 to 49.9% in 2018, and Asia experienced the highest average annual rate of urbanisation of 1.6% from 1990 to 2018 [42]. Thus, in line with ‘Bennett’s Law’, consumers in Asia, especially those residing in urban areas with rising income, reflect a desire for dietary diversity to significantly increase the consumption of non-grain products (fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, and fish) compared with grains and other starchy staples [7,43,44]. Thus, in a market driven by demand [45], a better understanding of consumption behaviour towards aquatic food is foremost in developing more effective marketing and policy strategies.
Preferences, choices, and habits occupy a central role in consumption behaviour towards aquatic food. Cairns [18] identified that marketing efforts targeted toward food choices in general could shift preferences and result in changed dietary norms in food and drink categories (at the population level) and in the cultural values underpinning food behaviours. However, studies investigating consumption behaviour towards aquatic food among Asian consumers remained highly fragmented and disorganized as nations in the Asian region have their own pre-existing national and local food cultures and traditions. Thus, the available studies vary greatly in terms of objectives, methodology, sampling technique, and their focus on differences in socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics. In addition, compared to other food categories, aquatic foods are highly heterogeneous in terms of production method, type/species, origin, and processing form. For instance, more than 2500 species or species groups of fish, invertebrates, algae, and aquatic plants are currently used for human consumption [6,11]. Further, unlike many Western consumers, Asian consumers often prefer to buy whole and/or live fish, whether in wet markets, restaurants, supermarkets, or online. From a marketing perspective, a better understanding of factors influencing consumption behaviour towards aquatic food is crucial, especially when diverse aquatic food consumption patterns and habits are involved.
So far, no review has been conducted that is aimed at establishing insights into consumption behaviour towards aquatic food in Asia, or retrieving and considering any factors associated with consumption behaviour. Thus, there is a challenge in understanding the key factors influencing consumers’ aquatic food consumption behaviour in the wider Asian context. In order to fill this gap, this paper identifies and examines the main findings of research on consumption behaviour towards aquatic foods among consumers in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia through a scoping literature review. In this study, aquatic foods include the full range of aquatic animals, plants, and microorganisms that can be eaten and that originate in bodies of water.

2. Materials and Methods

Scoping reviews examine emerging evidence and identify research gaps in the existing literature while maintaining the same methodological rigour as systematic reviews [46]. Previous studies have pointed out that a scoping review is particularly beneficial when formulating more precise questions than can be addressed by a systematic review [47,48]. Further, Peterson et al. [49] argue that a scoping review is particularly beneficial for complex and interdisciplinary areas of the literature, such as food consumption behaviour. The planning, development, and reporting of this scoping review have been informed by previous literature on a methodological framework for scoping reviews [46,50,51,52]. We strictly followed the PRISMA scoping review procedure in the paper.

2.1. Identification and Selection

A range of electronic databases was employed to locate records published between 1 January 2010 and 31 January 2022 (83% of the publications included in the final sample were published after 2015), written in the English language and targeting three regions of Asia: East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia. Search databases included the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. An initial search was conducted in January 2022 that included all records with a title or abstract containing the following search string: (aquatic OR seafood OR fish OR shellfish) AND (consum* OR eat* OR intake) AND (behav* OR intention OR choice* OR attribute OR preference OR attitud* OR habit OR buy* OR purchas* OR willing* OR perception) AND (Asia OR “South Asia” OR “Southeast Asia” OR “Northeast Asia” OR “East Asia” OR China OR Japan OR “South Korea” OR “North Korea” OR Taiwan OR “Hong Kong” OR Mongolia OR Macao OR Brunei OR Burma OR Myanmar OR Cambodia OR Timor-Leste OR Indonesia OR Laos OR Malaysia OR Philippines OR Singapore OR Thailand OR Vietnam OR India OR Bangladesh OR Nepal OR Maldives OR “Sri Lanka” OR Bhutan OR Pakistan OR Afghanistan). The search string was adapted to the syntax of each database.
For this purpose, aquatic foods include the full range of aquatic animals, plants, and microorganisms that can be eaten and that originate in bodies of water. Inclusion criteria include all types of records, including reviews, reports, and research (both qualitative and quantitative) published in the English language, available as full texts, and conducted among consumers of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia. Exclusion criteria include search terms in a different context to the research question (for instance, analytical sensory analysis of aquatic foods, logistics of aquatic foods, and business modelling of aquatic food sales) and records that are not relevant to the aim of the scoping review.

2.2. Scoping Review Characteristics and Assessment

All identified publications were imported into the EndNote software to manage the citations [53]. An Excel file was created with data items, including study characteristics (for instance, author, year of publication, and total Google citation count) [54]. Initially, variations in per capita publications versus per capita aquatic food consumption (kg/year) were determined to understand whether Asian countries with high per capita consumption of aquatic foods are well represented in the scoping review. Further, the number of publications in each year was determined to understand the trend of growth publications in the study period. An evolution of the selected publications stratified by countries and the number of citations received per article (CRPA) in each country were determined to understand which Asian country is most represented in the identified publications and to determine whether doing so attracts the most citations. The CRPA was based on the Google Scholar citation count divided by the number of papers published in each country.

2.3. Thematic Clustering

Thematic clustering was performed using the visualisation of similarities (VOS) viewer software version 1.6.18 environment created by Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman (https://www.vosviewer.com, accessed on 10 September 2022), which is particularly suitable for advancing the intellectual structure of scientific bibliometric mapping to generate research clusters [55,56,57]. Thus, thematic clustering was detected by applying the VOS clustering technique, followed by clustering of the co-occurrence frequencies on text data (title and abstract fields) using association strength [58,59]. Initially, a thesaurus file was created to ensure consistency for different spellings and synonyms in the text data (for instance, social norms would be exchanged with subjective norms). Further, some terms considered irrelevant for analyses were removed, including names of countries and cities. A co-word map was finally produced with a minimum of four occurrences of words in the text data using the VOS mapping technique for displaying clusters [60]. The counting method was set to binary, and the network and overlay visualization scales set to 1.00.

2.4. Characterising and Analysing Research Clusters

After associating each publication with a research cluster, descriptive statistics were gathered to show consumers’ age ranges, types of products analysed (e.g., fish, tuna, etc.), and research focus across clusters. Further, the quality of evidence within each research cluster was determined by aggregating individual papers’ scores with the following three criteria: (1) size, (2) quality, and (3) consistency [50]. Table S1 shows the framework for determining the individual scoring of the studies to evaluate the quality of studies in the three-criterion assessment system (validity: 2 questions; rigour: 5; and reliability: 2). For each question, 1 point was given to a “Yes” answer, while “Partially and No” answers scored 0 points.
After the individual papers’ scores were determined, the scores were then aggregated to determine the quality of evidence within each identified cluster. High quality was defined as having scores over 0.75 for all three indicators, i.e., validity, rigour, and reliability; moderate quality was defined as having at least one score below 0.75 but more than 0.5 in at least two out of three indicators; and low quality was defined as having scores less than 0.5 in at least two out of three indicators. It should be noted that reviews and conceptual papers were excluded from the quality assessment. Table S2. briefly shows the criteria for evaluating the size, quality, and consistency of evidence within each cluster.

3. Results

3.1. Scoping Review Characteristics and Assessment

After the initial search, 4232 potential records were identified from the three databases. Following the eligibility criteria, the title and abstract of each article were screened and evaluated to either include or exclude the article. At the title level, 3946 articles, and, at the abstract level, 153 articles were excluded that were clearly irrelevant. This process was further repeated by one independent reviewer, and disagreements were resolved through consensus. Full texts of 131 articles were further evaluated to finally include 111 articles. Two additional articles relevant for the scoping review but not identified through this process were recommended by experts. The overall selection process of the 113 identified articles is shown in Figure 1 and is summarized in Table S3, which contains brief information on each publication, including research focus and design. The results from Figure 2 indicate that variation exists in per capita research intensity versus per capita aquatic food consumption (kg/year). Countries such as Hong Kong and Macao have a high per capita aquatic food consumption as well as a high research intensity per capita; however, none were relevant for this scoping review. Further, although China has a comparatively low research intensity per capita, 29 publications were relevant for this study. The results from Figure 3 indicate that 31 publications were recorded in the year 2021 compared to 2 in the year 2010, and publications have more than doubled after 2019.
Further, the distribution of the identified 113 publications stratified by countries and the number of citations received per article (CRPA) in each country was obtained (Figure 4). The results indicated that Japan, with a lower volume of publications, is responsible for many cited articles.
Initially, a term map was constructed based on 64 terms that were characterised by five research clusters. Table 1 briefly shows the five identified research clusters, their definitions, and keywords, whereas Figure 5 shows their visualisation and level of saturation. The results from Table 1 and Figure 5 indicate that the term map takes “quality”, “safety”, “price”, “household”, and “attitude” as the core, of which “price” is central. The first cluster roughly corresponds to the product attributes, both intrinsic (i.e., features possessed by aquatic food itself) and extrinsic (packaging, brand) as well as the availability and accessibility of aquatic foods. The second cluster is defined as “willingness to pay for aquatic food products”, as the majority of the publications employed an econometric model to determine the willingness to pay (WTP) for aquatic food products. The third and fourth clusters corresponded roughly to “psychosocial factors, e.g., attitude, subjective norms”, and “sociodemographic and lifestyle factors”, respectively. The fifth cluster we called “aquatic food miscellaneous factors such as food safety, social status” as the keywords overlap with other research clusters; however, the majority of publications with these terms were conducted among Chinese consumers.

3.2. Characteristics and Analysis of the Research Clusters

The result of Table 2 indicates that the majority of publications across all research clusters covered consumers aged between 18 and 55 years old. Publications related to “willingness to pay for aquatic foods” analysed various types of aquatic food products; however, the majority of the publications related to the three research clusters, “sociodemographic and lifestyle factors”, “product attributes, availability, and accessibility”, and “psychosocial factors” narrowed to fish in general. All research clusters focused on understanding drivers and barriers to fish consumption, whereas “willingness to pay for aquatic foods” and “product attributes, availability, and accessibility” focused on understanding consumers’ preferences for fish attributes.
Moreover, the quality of the body of evidence ranged from moderate (“product attributes, availability, and accessibility”, “aquatic food miscellaneous factors”, and “psychosocial factors”) to high (“sociodemographic and lifestyle factors”, and “willingness to pay for aquatic foods”). Each research cluster had greater than 10 publications, and thus a large sample size. Remarkably, consistency of research outcome was noted among three research clusters (“product attributes, availability, and accessibility”, “sociodemographic and lifestyle factors”, and “willingness to pay”), whereas it was less consistent for “aquatic food miscellaneous factors” and “psychosocial factors”.
Research cluster 1: Aquatic food product attributes, availability, and accessibility—23.9% of the identified publications (n = 27). There was a clear, consistent finding indicating that product attributes, both intrinsic aquatic food product attributes (e.g., taste, flavour, texture, colour, form, and appearance) and external aquatic food product attributes (e.g., quality, packaging, and brand), determine Asian consumers’ aquatic food consumption behaviour. The findings also indicate that taste is dominant over attributes such as health and nutritional value of aquatic foods among the majority of consumers in Asia. Further, availability and accessibility also contribute to aquatic food consumption behaviour [62,63,64,65,66]. For instance, after price, availability and accessibility were ranked the second and third most important factors influencing fish purchasing behaviour among Indian consumers [65].
In general, studies indicated that consumers in Asia preferred wild-caught aquatic foods, especially for their intrinsic attributes [67,68,69,70]. More specifically, the authors of [69] found that consumers in Bangladesh preferred wild-caught fish for freshness and farmed fish for its bigger size. Further, Kitano and Yamamoto [68] indicated that consumers in Japan judge the quality of wild fish as superior to farmed fish and tend to consume wild-caught fish even if the product attributes and conditions between wild and farmed fish were the same.
Research cluster 2: Willingness to pay for aquatic foods—24.8% of the identified publications (n = 28). The second research cluster investigated consumers’ preferences and perceptions towards aquatic foods, as well as information and knowledge that influence aquatic food consumption behaviour. The majority of the publications employed an econometric model to determine the willingness to pay (WTP) for aquatic foods (see Table S3). The majority of the studies found that price is a crucial factor influencing aquatic food consumption behaviour among Asian consumers [71,72,73,74]. In general, Asian consumers were willing to pay a higher price for products that have clear package labelling indicating food safety certification [72,75,76,77,78], have been produced (ecolabel) [71,74,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86], or have country-of-origin [71,82,87] or traceability information [88]. Further, findings suggested that providing additional information and knowledge regarding certification and labelling, as well as processing, could further increase interest and, subsequently, increase willingness to pay for aquatic foods [76,80,81,82,83,85,88,89]. For instance, Yin et al. [88] found that after introducing EU organic certification status in the Chinese shrimp market, consumers’ willingness to pay increased by an average of 84.06%, and further, by providing knowledge introduction, it increased by about 120.16%. Studies have also found that consumers were willing to pay a higher price for ecolabel-farmed aquatic foods when compared with wild-caught aquatic foods [82] and conventionally farmed aquatic foods [80,88].
Research cluster 3: Psychological factors—16.8% of the identified publications (n = 19). The majority of the publications in this research cluster (of which 12 out of 19 publications employed structural equation modelling for data analysis) applied social-psychological behavioural theory to explain and predict aquatic food consumption behaviour (see Table S3). According to the theory, the three core components of human behaviour (1. attitude, 2. subjective norms, and 3. perceived behavioural control) together lead to the formation of the intention to consume aquatic foods [90]. In line with behavioural theory, the results from Table 3 show that, although the majority of articles found that attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control significantly influence the intention to consume aquatic foods, others did not. Further, some articles found attitudes [91,92] as the strongest direct determinants of intention to consume aquatic foods, while others have found subjective norms [93,94,95] and perceived behaviour control [96] to be more important. The underlying cause of having positive or negative attitudes toward aquatic foods tends to be complex, including multiple aquatic food attributes and cues. For instance, Thong and Olsen [92] found that bones and smell have a negative effect on attitude towards fish, while taste, texture, and appearance had important positive impacts on attitudes towards fish. However, product form may affect such attitudes; bones and smell were not perceived as negative factors in terms of attitudes towards dried fish consumption in Bangladesh [97], perhaps because of different food preparation and cooking techniques used for dried compared to fresh fish. Meanwhile, some articles have found that attitudes towards aquatic foods were influenced by perceptions of food safety, environmental concern, convenience and context, and socio-demographic characteristics [98,99,100]; however, having a positive attitude towards aquatic foods might not necessarily translate into eating more fish [101,102]. Finally, notable perceived behavioural control of aquatic food consumption includes affordability, convenience, and accessibility [91,92,96].
Research cluster 4: Sociodemographic and lifestyle factors—21.2% of the identified publications (n = 24). This research cluster investigated the sociodemographic and lifestyle factors affecting aquatic food consumption behaviour [108,109]. Studies have indicated that household profile, i.e., type, economy, and size, is one of the important factors affecting aquatic food consumption behaviour [108,109,110,111,112,113]. For instance, household size was found to have a negative correlation to fish consumption [109]. Further, socio-demographic characteristics—age [64,110,114,115,116,117], gender [64,110,116,118], education [110,114,116,118,119,120], marital status [114,115], occupation [119], number of household members [109,115,118], income [108,109,110,115,116,119,121,122], ethnicity [114], religion [116,123], and place of residence [108,114,115,117]—were significantly associated with aquatic food consumption. Overall, older male consumers with higher income and education residing either in an urban setting or coastal region tend to have higher aquatic food consumption levels in Asia. In contrast, other studies have indicated that age [108,118,120], gender [114,119], income [117], marital status [108], number of household members [108], and religion [113] had no significant association with aquatic food consumption.
Lifestyle factors such as health, habit, and dietary pattern also seem to determine aquatic food consumption behaviour. The majority of consumers in Asia preferred eating aquatic foods over alternatives for health benefits [64,109,110,111,113,114,116,124]. Further, Zhou et al. [109] found that the health condition of household members was moderately and positively associated with fish consumption at home. In contrast, Supartini et al. [113] found that the perceived health benefits of fish have no positive impact on seafood consumption behaviour among consumers in Singapore. Further, Zhang et al. [124] found that apart from health motives, dietary habits significantly affected seafood purchasing frequency among consumers from six urban cities in China. However, Huang et al. [106] found that habit strength only influenced the behaviour of consuming fish indirectly via intention, indicating that habits were not formed due to occasional and irregular behaviour, which further indicates that consumers may have inadequate information or experience to make cognitive efforts in fish consumption decision-making. Further, studies have also indicated that purchasing habits, selection of specific fish species, and cooking and eating practices influence aquatic food consumption behaviour [125,126,127,128]. For instance, rural-to-urban migrants in Myanmar fried widely available farmed fish such as tilapia to integrate it into their daily diets instead of cooking small fish species such as anchovies or gourami [Trichopodus pectoralis] [128].
Research cluster 5: Aquatic food miscellaneous factors—13.3% of the identified publications (n = 15). Closely linked to other research clusters, the majority of the publications in this cluster focused on factors influencing aquatic food consumption behaviour among Chinese consumers. Recurring food safety concerns in Asia have shifted rising middle-class consumers to focus more on the safety of aquatic foods, which is generally reflected in their demand for labelled, wild-caught, imported marine species, particularly from countries including Norway and North America [129,130,131]. Further, diverse consumption habits of aquatic foods were identified, which were explained by numerous factors including place of residence, cultural aspects, social status, and tradition, as well as the importance of convenience, context, and sensory attributes. More specifically, older consumers residing in rural areas preferred domestic and live aquatic foods from local “wet” markets, while younger and wealthier consumers residing in urban areas preferred more imported and convenient aquatic food products from supermarkets or online [129,132,133,134]. Meanwhile, among consumers in Japan, sushi and sashimi are considered convenience and status foods to be eaten in social gatherings [135]. Rising incomes have shifted consumers’ lifestyles and taste preferences among the majority of the middle class residing in urban areas to influence their desires regarding what, how, and where aquatic foods are consumed [131,133,136,137]. For instance, studies have indicated that salmon, lobster, abalone, and sea cucumber are luxury seafood species in China’s high-end market and are often consumed at out-of-home social gatherings. Further, Wang et al. [131] found that Chinese consumers aged 30 years and older and married, with higher-tier incomes, education, and occupations and residing in first-tier cities, have positive beliefs and images of luxury seafood consumption.

4. Discussion

This paper aimed to understand the factors influencing aquatic food consumption behaviour among Asian consumers. The VOS clustering of 113 included publications identified five research clusters: 1. product attributes, availability, and accessibility; 2. willingness to pay for aquatic foods; 3. psychosocial factors such as attitude and subjective norms; 4. sociodemographic and lifestyle factors; and 5. aquatic food miscellaneous factors such as food safety and social status. The analysis shows that there are overlapping factors among these five research clusters, suggesting that such behaviour is complex and multifactorial in nature. However, the main factors influencing behaviour are price, knowledge, attitude, quality and safety, and consumers’ household profiles in terms of size, economy, and type. Further, it is notable that publications have more than doubled after the COVID-19 pandemic; however, the majority of them are based on data collected before the COVID-19 pandemic, and only three publications contributed to understanding the impacts of COVID-19 on aquatic food consumption behaviour [73,117,132]. There might be different factors for increasing research interest in understanding Asian consumer preferences and choices towards aquatic foods, including intensification of aquaculture, the dynamic status of the international aquatic food trade, growing urbanisation and globalisation, and the emergence of new innovative technologies for product development. In general, there has been a steep rise in research interest aimed at understanding food choice and behaviour among Asian consumers—a quick search in the Scopus database indicated that the number of publications in the year 2021 was more than doubled when compared to 2015. However, considerable inequalities and anomalies can be seen in the per capita publication rate, the measure of societal investment in the sector versus per capita aquatic food consumption (kg/capita/year), and the measure of the importance of aquatic foods in the diet.
The results from the present study indicate that price is the most important factor influencing aquatic food consumption behaviour among Asian consumers, particularly among poor consumers. Consistently, previous studies have found that, although consumers consider most aquatic food products to be convenient and easy to prepare, price remains the main barrier to eating more aquatic foods [30,138,139]. A previous study found that European consumer food choices were also driven by price rather than sustainability credentials, even when sustainability-related information was understandable and available to consumers [140]. Further, Larson and Story [141] specified that the direct and indirect costs of buying and preparing nutrient-dense foods are important barriers to good nutrition among poorer consumers. In general, foods with higher nutritional value are more expensive in terms of cost per calorie, resulting in wider socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and health [142]. Similarly, aquatic foods are generally expensive yet less filling when compared with other meat alternatives [143]. This might explain why household profiles in terms of type, economy, and size influence aquatic food consumption behaviour among Asian consumers. This finding is in line with previous studies on Western consumers that identified that, as household size increases and income decreases, the probability of consuming aquatic foods declines [144,145]. Therefore, marketing strategies such as nudging and pricing strategies might be particularly effective in influencing aquatic food purchase behaviour in environments where consumption decisions are made [146,147,148]. Further, increasing investment in production research might reduce the direct as well as indirect costs for aquatic foods, making them more competitive with terrestrial animals (e.g., chicken, pork, and beef) to stimulate demand for aquatic foods. These terrestrial substitutes have benefited from centuries of investment compared to aquaculture; however, arguably the ‘yet to be improved’ aquatic species have already demonstrated many intrinsic advantages that R&D investment could further improve [149,150,151,152]. At present, farmed whitefish species, namely tilapia and pangasius, are cheaper than most meat cuts in many Asian countries [153].
Findings from this study suggest that knowledge of, and attitudes toward, aquatic foods are important factors explaining aquatic food consumption behaviour. In general, knowledge about the importance of aquatic foods in a healthy diet creates positive attitudes toward aquatic food. Thus, aquatic food practitioners could focus on promoting the benefits of consuming aquatic foods (e.g., their being healthy, nutritious, tasty, safe, and environmentally sustainable) in comparison to other non-aquatic foods to influence consumption behaviour. Further, quality and food safety tend to have more influence on behaviour when compared with sustainability. These findings are inconsistent with previous studies based on Western consumers that tended to show a higher interest in the sustainability aspects of aquatic foods and a preference for an ecolabel on aquatic foods [26,28,154]. Similarly, a recent study indicated that, unlike Western consumers who exhibit a high demand for ecolabels and sustainable production practices, Chinese consumers emphasize messaging around food safety and quality [31]. Fundamentally, aquatic foods, like any other food item, have the potential to cause disease from viral, bacterial, and parasitic microorganisms under certain conditions, mostly occurring through three sources: 1. processing and preparation; 2. faecal pollution of the aquatic environment; and 3. the natural aquatic environment [155]. However, the microbiological risk from aquatic foods other than raw molluscan shellfish is relatively lower, and such risk mostly results from recontamination or cross-contamination between cooked and raw food products, or contamination during preparation followed by time/temperature mishandling [156]. Additionally, regarding concerns about consuming toxicants such as mercury (Hg) in aquatic foods, recent studies have found that farmed aquatic species such as tilapia, and shrimp generally have the lowest levels of toxicity risk (Hg < 0.15) [157,158]. Therefore, it is recommended to provide credible information regarding the toxicity risks of aquatic foods, invest in educating Asian consumers on safer aquatic food handling practices, and improve food safety knowledge through different channels such as web-based applications [159]. It is also recommended to use credible quality and safety labelling information to create trust and positive attitudes towards aquatic foods [160]. Some argue [161] that integrating information other than the health-related benefits of aquatic foods (e.g., enjoyment and pleasure) and reinforcing positive attitudes towards aquatic foods through arguments that extend beyond health- and nutrition-related benefits might achieve higher levels of compliance with dietary recommendations for aquatic foods. Finally, due to the multifactorial nature of consumption behaviour, it is recommended to consider a multi-faceted approach when developing interventions aimed at increasing aquatic food consumption [162]. For instance, farmed salmon has become increasingly popular in the Chinese diet, latterly through marketing via China’s online sales channels, developing new products targeting individual consumers’ preferences and supported by traceability systems [163,164,165].
This review has some limitations. Firstly, the keywords employed for the literature search might have limited the inclusion of publications, for instance where consumption is not necessarily the focus. The majority of publications employed questionnaires administered either face-to-face or electronically, while few studies employed focus group discussions as exploratory research, and none were longitudinal (see Table S3), thus, limiting casual inference of the findings; in addition, it was not feasible to understand factors influencing behavioural change among Asian consumers. Further, the methodological foundations based on attitudes toward aquatic foods are problematic due to the ubiquitous attitude–behaviour gap [166,167]. Thus, a consumer having a high willingness to pay and positive attitudes toward aquatic foods in surveys might behave quite unpredictively in the marketplace. A recent meta-analysis found that substantial hypothetical bias exists, 21% on average, when measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods [168]. Therefore, methods to determine pricing strategies for aquatic foods should take such biases into account.
Further, only publications in English were reviewed, thus limiting our understanding. We employed VOS viewer software for visualising bibliometric networks; however, integrating VOS viewer with other tools such as SciMAT and Citespace might have increased the advantages and offered new opportunities for better interpretation of the scientific map. Further, the qualitative descriptive process involved in the interpretation of such a map is complex and such interpretation is prone to unintentional bias. Thirdly, the inclusion of two cross-national comparative studies that compared aquatic food consumption behaviour among consumers in Asia and Western countries might have influenced the findings.
Finally, consumer sensory tests were under-represented in this review, and only one study attempted to integrate consumer sensory taste testing; however, the study was subjected to poor methodological quality (see Table S3). Thus, the findings of research cluster 1: product attributes, availability, and accessibility—intrinsic aquatic food product attributes influencing behaviour, were based on a proxy of sensory perception, i.e., ‘to what extent does consumer agree or disagree that the aquatic foods have a great taste’ that might have methodological limitations [21]. However, such attitudinal statements tend to evaluate aquatic foods with some degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with either liking or disliking aquatic foods [169].

5. Conclusions and Future Research

In conclusion, the results from this study identified five clusters of publications— “product attributes, availability, and accessibility”, “willingness to pay for aquatic foods”, “psychosocial factors”, “sociodemographic and lifestyle factors”, and “miscellaneous factors”—that provided insights into multiple interacting factors influencing aquatic food consumption behaviours factors among Asian consumers. The main factor influencing aquatic food consumption behaviour among Asian consumers is price, as shown by the large majority of Asian consumers. Further, knowledge of, and attitudes toward, perceived quality and safety of aquatic foods were identified as important but mediated by household characteristics. Sustainable production practices, country of origin, and ecolabels were found to be less influential on consumption behaviour.
There are a growing number of research interests in understanding aquatic food consumption behaviour among Asian consumers; however, identified publications present a similar pattern involving a narrow tunnel-view of their respective disciplines toward the comprehension and prediction of complex aquatic food consumption behaviours in a real-world setting. At present, disciplines including sociology, marketing, food science, and economics have at least partially answered the central questions in aquatic food consumption behaviour research, i.e., why, when, and where do consumers in Asia consume aquatic foods? For instance, most of the available economic research investigated the price, aquatic food attributes, and household expenditure aspects of aquatic food consumption behaviour among consumers in Asia. Thus, future studies should consider more multidisciplinary research based on a deductionist approach [21] to better understand and predict multiple factors and their interactions that influence aquatic food consumption behaviour among Asian consumers. Arguably, there is an urgent need for more studies that address the gap between more intrinsic product characteristic perceptions, such as sensory characteristics, and more extrinsic aquatic food product attributes, such as packaging and labelling. Further, such an attempt should cross-fertilize with economics and psychology to make real progress in understanding complex aquatic food consumption behaviour in its totality.
Secondly, some studies have indicated that aquatic food consumption behaviour might be a habitual behaviour that is performed repeatedly and routinely without conscious evaluation of possible outcomes. Thus, the high consumption of aquatic foods among consumers in some parts of Asia might simply be due to a strong habit of eating aquatic foods formed by aggregated satisfactory past experiences through cultural predisposition that eventually become habitual. However, studies with in-depth analysis of habits influencing aquatic food consumption are under-represented, and in only one study was it possible to observe how individuals’ everyday aquatic food consumption practices changed when they shifted from rural to urban areas (see Table S3).
Generally, Asian consumers seem to have positive attitudes towards aquatic foods; however, efforts to bridge the gap between attitudes and behaviour towards aquatic food consumption could be developed by employing food safety, price, quality, convenience, and knowledge of aquatic foods as other relevant factors to behavioural decision-making criteria. Further, attitudinal ambivalence towards aquatic foods seems to have emerged, especially among consumers from urban areas, to influence the relationship between attitudes and behaviour towards aquatic food consumption. For instance, most urban consumers in Asia seem to prefer live and whole fish that is wild caught; on the other hand, they also prefer aquatic foods that are sustainable, convenient, and easily available at a competitive price. The focus on the effect of ambivalence on aquatic food consumption behaviour among consumers residing in urban settings is lacking, and this aspect could have important practical implications for practitioners who are involved in the promotion of change in aquatic food consumption behaviour. Finally, future studies might also consider conducting a systematic review with meta-analysis to understand how various but specific factors identified by this study influence aquatic food consumption behaviour among Asian consumers.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods11244043/s1: Table S1: Framework for determining identified publication’s individual score; Table S2: Criteria for evaluating the size, quality, and consistency within the identified research clusters. Table S3: Information on selected publications.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: M.B. and D.L.; methodology: M.B. and D.L.; software: M.B.; validation: D.C., B.B., R.N., S.L., W.Z. and D.L.; formal analysis: M.B; resources: D.L.; data curation: M.B.; writing—original draft preparation: M.B.; writing—review and editing: D.C., B.B., R.N., S.L., W.Z. and D.L.; visualization: M.B. and D.L.; supervision: D.C., B.B., R.N., S.L., W.Z. and D.L.; funding acquisition: D.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has been performed in the scope of the EATFISH project, which received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 956697.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Pounds, A.; Kaminski, A.M.; Budhathoki, M.; Gudbrandsen, O.; Kok, B.; Horn, S.; Malcorps, W.; Mamun, A.-A.; McGoohan, A.; Newton, R.; et al. More Than Fish—Framing Aquatic Animals within Sustainable Food Systems. Foods 2022, 11, 1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Adesogan, A.T.; Havelaar, A.H.; McKune, S.L.; Eilittä, M.; Dahl, G.E. Animal Source Foods: Sustainability Problem or Malnutrition and Sustainability Solution? Perspective Matters. Glob. Food Secur. 2020, 25, 100325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hirvonen, K.; Bai, Y.; Headey, D.; Masters, W.A. Affordability of the EAT–Lancet Reference Diet: A Global Analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 2020, 8, e59–e66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Gephart, J.A.; Golden, C.D.; Asche, F.; Belton, B.; Brugere, C.; Froehlich, H.E.; Fry, J.P.; Halpern, B.S.; Hicks, C.C.; Jones, R.C.; et al. Scenarios for Global Aquaculture and Its Role in Human Nutrition. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2021, 29, 122–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Golden, C.D.; Koehn, J.Z.; Shepon, A.; Passarelli, S.; Free, C.M.; Viana, D.F.; Matthey, H.; Eurich, J.G.; Gephart, J.A.; Fluet-Chouinard, E.; et al. Aquatic Foods to Nourish Nations. Nature 2021, 598, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Naylor, R.L.; Kishore, A.; Sumaila, U.R.; Issifu, I.; Hunter, B.P.; Belton, B.; Bush, S.R.; Cao, L.; Gelcich, S.; Gephart, J.A.; et al. Blue Food Demand across Geographic and Temporal Scales. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 5413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Short, R.E.; Gelcich, S.; Little, D.C.; Micheli, F.; Allison, E.H.; Basurto, X.; Belton, B.; Brugere, C.; Bush, S.R.; Cao, L.; et al. Harnessing the Diversity of Small-Scale Actors Is Key to the Future of Aquatic Food Systems. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 733–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bogard, J.R.; Farmery, A.K.; Little, D.C.; Fulton, E.A.; Cook, M. Will Fish Be Part of Future Healthy and Sustainable Diets? Lancet Planet. Health 2019, 3, e159–e160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Farmery, A.K.; Gardner, C.; Jennings, S.; Green, B.S.; Watson, R.A. Assessing the Inclusion of Seafood in the Sustainable Diet Literature. Fish Fish. 2017, 18, 607–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tigchelaar, M.; Leape, J.; Micheli, F.; Allison, E.H.; Basurto, X.; Bennett, A.; Bush, S.R.; Cao, L.; Cheung, W.W.L.; Crona, B.; et al. The Vital Roles of Blue Foods in the Global Food System. Glob. Food Secur. 2022, 33, 100637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Koehn, J.Z.; Allison, E.H.; Golden, C.D.; Hilborn, R. The Role of Seafood in Sustainable Diets. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 035003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Burlingame, B.; Sandro, D. Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity Directions and Solutions for Policy, Research and Action; FAO Headquarters: Rome, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  14. Troell, M.; Jonell, M.; Crona, B. Scoping Report: The Role of Seafood in Sustainable and Healthy Diets. The EAT-Lancet Commission Report Through a Blue Lens; Stockholm Resilience Centre: Stockholm, Sweden, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  15. Belton, B.; Bush, S.R.; Little, D.C. Not Just for the Wealthy: Rethinking Farmed Fish Consumption in the Global South. Glob. Food Secur. 2018, 16, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Beveridge, M.C.M.; Thilsted, S.H.; Phillips, M.J.; Metian, M.; Troell, M.; Hall, S.J. Meeting the Food and Nutrition Needs of the Poor: The Role of Fish and the Opportunities and Challenges Emerging from the Rise of Aquaculturea. J. Fish Biol. 2013, 83, 1067–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Garlock, T.; Asche, F.; Anderson, J.; Ceballos-Concha, A.; Love, D.C.; Osmundsen, T.C.; Pincinato, R.B.M. Aquaculture: The Missing Contributor in the Food Security Agenda. Glob. Food Secur. 2022, 32, 100620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cairns, G. A Critical Review of Evidence on the Sociocultural Impacts of Food Marketing and Policy Implications. Appetite 2019, 136, 193–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, P.-J.; Antonelli, M. Conceptual Models of Food Choice: Influential Factors Related to Foods, Individual Differences, and Society. Foods 2020, 9, 1898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Furst, T.; Connors, M.; Bisogni, C.A.; Sobal, J.; Falk, L.W. Food Choice: A Conceptual Model of the Process. Appetite 1996, 26, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Köster, E.P. Diversity in the Determinants of Food Choice: A Psychological Perspective. Food Qual. Prefer. 2009, 20, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rozin, P. Food and Eating. In Handbook of Cultural Psychology; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 391–416. ISBN 1-59385-444-7. [Google Scholar]
  23. Sobal, J.; Bisogni, C.A.; Devine, C.M.; Jastran, M. A Conceptual Model of the Food Choice Process over the Life Course. In The Psychology of Food Choice; Shepherd, R., Raats, M., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2006; pp. 1–18. ISBN 978-0-85199-032-3. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sobal, J.; Bisogni, C.A. Constructing Food Choice Decisions. Ann. Behav. Med. 2009, 38, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Belton, B.; Johnson, D.S.; Thrift, E.; Olsen, J.; Hossain, M.A.R.; Thilsted, S.H. Dried Fish at the Intersection of Food Science, Economy, and Culture: A Global Survey. Fish Fish. 2022, 23, 941–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Budhathoki, M.; Zølner, A.; Nielsen, T.; Rasmussen, M.A.; Reinbach, H.C. Intention to Buy Organic Fish among Danish Consumers: Application of the Segmentation Approach and the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Aquaculture 2022, 549, 737798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Budhathoki, M.; Zølner, A.; Nielsen, T.; Reinbach, H.C. The Role of Production Method Information on Sensory Perception of Smoked Salmon—A Mixed-Method Study from Denmark. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 94, 104325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cantillo, J.; Martín, J.C.; Román, C. Discrete Choice Experiments in the Analysis of Consumers’ Preferences for Finfish Products: A Systematic Literature Review. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 84, 103952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Carlucci, D.; Nocella, G.; De Devitiis, B.; Viscecchia, R.; Bimbo, F.; Nardone, G. Consumer Purchasing Behaviour towards Fish and Seafood Products. Patterns and Insights from a Sample of International Studies. Appetite 2015, 84, 212–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Govzman, S.; Looby, S.; Wang, X.; Butler, F.; Gibney, E.R.; Timon, C.M. A Systematic Review of the Determinants of Seafood Consumption. Br. J. Nutr. 2021, 126, 66–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Malcorps, W.; Newton, R.W.; Maiolo, S.; Eltholth, M.; Zhu, C.; Zhang, W.; Li, S.; Tlusty, M.; Little, D.C. Global Seafood Trade: Insights in Sustainability Messaging and Claims of the Major Producing and Consuming Regions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Richter, I.; Klöckner, C. The Psychology of Sustainable Seafood Consumption: A Comprehensive Approach. Foods 2017, 6, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022; ISBN 978-92-5-136364-5. [Google Scholar]
  34. Needham, S.; Funge-Smith, S. The Consumption of Fish and Fish Products in the Asia-Pacific Region Based on Household Surveys; FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific: Bangkok, Thailand, 2014; p. 87. [Google Scholar]
  35. Soselisa, P.S.; Soselisa, H.L.; Alfons, C.R. Seafood Consumption Patterns among Coastal People in Ambon Island, EasternIndonesia. Food Res. 2021, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mamun, A.-A.; Murray, F.J.; Sprague, M.; McAdam, B.J.; Roos, N.; de Roos, B.; Pounds, A.; Little, D.C. Export-Driven, Extensive Coastal Aquaculture Can Benefit Nutritionally Vulnerable People. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 713140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kobayashi, M.; Msangi, S.; Batka, M.; Vannuccini, S.; Dey, M.M.; Anderson, J.L. Fish to 2030: The Role and Opportunity for Aquaculture. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2015, 19, 282–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Tveterås, S.; Asche, F.; Bellemare, M.F.; Smith, M.D.; Guttormsen, A.G.; Lem, A.; Lien, K.; Vannuccini, S. Fish Is Food—The FAO’s Fish Price Index. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e036731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. York, R.; Gossard, M.H. Cross-National Meat and Fish Consumption: Exploring the Effects of Modernization and Ecological Context. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 48, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Olsen, S.O. Antecedents of Seafood Consumption Behavior: An Overview. J. Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 2004, 13, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tonsor, G.T.; Marsh, T.L. Comparing Heterogeneous Consumption in U.S. and Japanese Meat and Fish Demand. Agric. Econ. 2007, 37, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. United Nations; Department of Economic and Social Affairs; Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-92-1-148319-2. [Google Scholar]
  43. Reardon, T.; Tschirley, D.; Dolislager, M.; Snyder, J.; Hu, C.; White, S. Urbanization, Diet Change, and Transformation of Food Supply Chains in Asia; Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  44. Timmer, C.P.; Falcon, W.P.; Pearson, S.R. Food Policy Analysis; Published for the World Bank [by] The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1983; ISBN 978-0-8018-3072-3. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kidane, D.G.; Brækkan, E.H. Global Seafood Demand Growth Differences across Regions, Income Levels, and Time. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2021, 36, 289–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Armstrong, R.; Hall, B.J.; Doyle, J.; Waters, E. “Scoping the Scope” of a Cochrane Review. J. Public Health 2011, 33, 147–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Munn, Z.; Peters, M.D.J.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Systematic Review or Scoping Review? Guidance for Authors When Choosing between a Systematic or Scoping Review Approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Peterson, J.; Pearce, P.F.; Ferguson, L.A.; Langford, C.A. Understanding Scoping Reviews: Definition, Purpose, and Process. J. Am. Assoc. Nurse Pract. 2017, 29, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Béné, C.; Arthur, R.; Norbury, H.; Allison, E.H.; Beveridge, M.; Bush, S.; Campling, L.; Leschen, W.; Little, D.; Squires, D.; et al. Contribution of Fisheries and Aquaculture to Food Security and Poverty Reduction: Assessing the Current Evidence. World Dev. 2016, 79, 177–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Levac, D.; Colquhoun, H.; O’Brien, K.K. Scoping Studies: Advancing the Methodology. Implement. Sci 2010, 5, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Internal Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Peters, M.D.J. Managing and Coding References for Systematic Reviews and Scoping Reviews in EndNote. Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 2017, 36, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Martín-Martín, A.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A Systematic Comparison of Citations in 252 Subject Categories. J. Informetr. 2018, 12, 1160–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Alhammadi, K.; Santos-Roldán, L.; Cabeza-Ramírez, L.J. A Theoretical Framework on the Determinants of Food Purchasing Behavior of the Elderly: A Bibliometric Review with Scientific Mapping in Web of Science. Foods 2021, 10, 688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Cheng, P.; Tang, H.; Dong, Y.; Liu, K.; Jiang, P.; Liu, Y. Knowledge Mapping of Research on Land Use Change and Food Security: A Visual Analysis Using CiteSpace and VOSviewer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. How to Normalize Cooccurrence Data? An Analysis of Some Well-Known Similarity Measures. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 2009, 60, 1635–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Nardi, P.; Di Matteo, G.; Palahi, M.; Scarascia Mugnozza, G. Structure and Evolution of Mediterranean Forest Research: A Science Mapping Approach. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Text Mining and Visualization Using VOSviewer. arXiv 2011, arXiv:1109.2058. [Google Scholar]
  61. De Silva, S.; Yuan, D. Regional Review on Status and Trends in Aquaculture Development in Asia-Pacific—2020; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  62. Akter, R.; Thilsted, S.; Hossain, N.; Ishihara, H.; Yagi, N. Fish Is the Preferred Animal-Source Food in the Rural Community of Southern Bangladesh. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Das, A.; Kumar, N.; Debnath, B.; Barman, D.; Datta, M. Fish Consumers’ Behaviour at Selected Fish Markets of Tripura, India. Fish. Technol. 2013, 50, 185–190. [Google Scholar]
  64. Devadawson, C.; Jayasinghe, C.; Sivakanesan, R. Socio-demographic factors and fish eating trends in eastern community, sri lanka. J. Exp. Biol. Agric. Sci. 2015, 3, 423–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sajeev, M.; Joshy, C.; Rejula, K.; Sajesh, V.; Suresh, A.; Mohanty, A.; Ravishankar, C. Drivers and Barriers to Online Fish Purchase in Kerala, India. Fish. Technol. 2021, 58, 246–256. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sun, C.; Che, B. The influence of marine aquaculture on the seafood supply chain in China. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2012, 16, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hossain, A. Quantity or Quality of Fish in a Developing Country: A Hedonic Analysis. J. Appl. Aquac. 2021, 1, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kitano, S.; Yamamoto, N. The Role of Consumer Knowledge, Experience, and Heterogeneity in Fish Consumption: Policy Lessons from Japan. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 56, 102151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mitra, S.; Khatun, M.N.; Prodhan, M.M.H.; Khan, M.A. Consumer Preference, Willingness to Pay, and Market Price of Capture and Culture Fish: Do Their Attributes Matter? Aquaculture 2021, 544, 737139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sajiki, T.; Lu, Y.-H. Japanese Consumer Preference For Raw Fish: Best–Worst Scaling Method. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2022, 29, 808–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kim, B.-T.; Lee, M.-K. Consumer Preference for Eco-Labeled Seafood in Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Omar, N.A.; Abdullah, N.L.; Zainol, Z.; Nazri, M.A. Consumers’ Responsiveness towards Contaminated Canned Sardine in Malaysia: Does Perceived Severity Matter? Food Control 2021, 123, 107780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Prince, S.A.; Saira Wahid, I. The Purchase of Organic Fish in Bangladesh: Safeguarding against COVID-19. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1841524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wakamatsu, H.; Miyata, T. Reputational Damage and the Fukushima Disaster: An Analysis of Seafood in Japan. Fish. Sci. 2017, 83, 1049–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hoque, M.Z. Sustainability Indicators for Sustainably-Farmed Fish in Bangladesh. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Murakami, M.; Suzuki, M.; Yamaguchi, T. Presenting Information on Regulation Values Improves the Public’s Sense of Safety: Perceived Mercury Risk in Fish and Shellfish and Its Effects on Consumption Intention. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0188758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Tan, R.D. Comparing Awareness and Behaviour Towards Food Consumption Trends: Gender Differences among Milkfish, Chanos Chanos (Forsskål 1775), Purchase Decision Makers in the Province of Iloilo, Philippines. AFS 2017, 30S, 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zheng, Q.; Wang, H.H.; Shogren, J.F. Fishing or Aquaculture? Chinese Consumers’ Stated Preference for the Growing Environment of Salmon through a Choice Experiment and the Consequentiality Effect. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2021, 36, 23–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ariji, M. Conjoint Analysis of Consumer Preference for Bluefin Tuna. Fish. Sci. 2010, 76, 1023–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hoque, M.Z.; Akhter, N.; Mawa, Z. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Organically Farmed Fish in Bangladesh. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2021, 53, 482–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hori, J.; Wakamatsu, H.; Miyata, T.; Oozeki, Y. Has the Consumers Awareness of Sustainable Seafood Been Growing in Japan? Implications for Promoting Sustainable Consumerism at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics and Paralympics. Mar. Policy 2020, 115, 103851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Uchida, H.; Onozaka, Y.; Morita, T.; Managi, S. Demand for Ecolabeled Seafood in the Japanese Market: A Conjoint Analysis of the Impact of Information and Interaction with Other Labels. Food Policy 2014, 44, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wakamatsu, H.; Anderson, C.M.; Uchida, H.; Roheim, C.A. Pricing Ecolabeled Seafood Products with Heterogeneous Preferences: An Auction Experiment in Japan. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2017, 32, 277–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Xu, P.; Zeng, Y.; Fong, Q.; Lone, T.; Liu, Y. Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Green- and Eco-Labeled Seafood. Food Control 2012, 28, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Xuan, B.B. Consumer Preference for Eco-Labelled Aquaculture Products in Vietnam. Aquaculture 2021, 532, 736111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Zhang, X.; Fang, Y.; Gao, Z. Accounting for Attribute Non-Attendance (ANA) in Chinese Consumers’ Away-from-Home Sustainable Salmon Consumption. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2020, 35, 263–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Sayeed, Z.; Sugino, H.; Sakai, Y.; Yagi, N. Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Mud Crabs in Southeast Asian Countries: A Discrete Choice Experiment. Foods 2021, 10, 2873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yin, S.; Han, F.; Chen, M.; Li, K.; Li, Q. Chinese Urban Consumers’ Preferences for White Shrimp: Interactions between Organic Labels and Traceable Information. Aquaculture 2020, 521, 735047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Karnad, D.; Gangadharan, D.; Krishna, Y.C. Rethinking Sustainability: From Seafood Consumption to Seafood Commons. Geoforum 2021, 126, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Fiandari, Y.R.; Surachman, S.; Rohman, F.; Hussein, A.S. Perceived Value Dimension in Repetitive Fish Consumption in Indonesia by Using an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 1220–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Thong, N.T.; Olsen, S.O. Attitude toward and Consumption of Fish in Vietnam. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2012, 18, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Abidin, Z.; Setiawan, B.; Muhaimin, A.W.; Shinta, A.; Nandayani, D.R. Millennial Consumer Behavior on Purchasing of Fishery Functional Food at Tokopedia: Testing the Theory of Planned Behavior. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 718, 012073. [Google Scholar]
  94. Chen, T.; Wang, H. Consumers’ Purchase Intention of Wild Freshwater Fish in China from the Perspective of Ecological Protection. Br. Food J. 2021, 124, 3308–3322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ho Huy, T.; Anh, N.T.; Svein, O.; Vassdal, T. Explaining Repurchase Intention towards Fish: The Extension of the theory of Planned Behavior; International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  96. Duy, B.T.; Ai, T.H. Purchase behavior of organic seafood consumers in vietnam. EUrASEANs 2019, 1, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Siddique, M.A.M. Explaining the Role of Perceived Risk, Knowledge, Price, and Cost in Dry Fish Consumption Within the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Glob. Mark. 2012, 25, 181–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Dai, Y.; Yuan, Y.-M.; Yuan, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Zhang, H. Factors Influencing Chinese Consumer Attitudes on the Safety of Aquatic Products. J. World Aquac. Soc. 2021, 53, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Gajaria, T.K.; Mantri, V.A. Perspectives and Attitudes towards the Functional and Safety Aspects of Seaweeds for Edible Applications in India. Foods 2021, 10, 3026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Novita; Rowena, J. Determinant Factors of Indonesian People’s Fish Purchase Intention. Br. Food J. 2019, 123, 2272–2277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Pethiyagoda, N.; Olsen, S. Explaining Fish Consumption Behavior In Sri-Lanka: The Role Of Consideration Set Size, Attitude, Knowledge, Con-Venience Orientation, Price Consciousness, And Variety Seeking Tendency. Trop Agric Res Ext 2013, 15, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Rotuauli, T.F.; Handaka, A.A.; Rizal, A.; Nurhayati, A. Consumer Behavior Analysis in Purchase of Freshwater Fish in Bandung City (Case Study in the Traditional Market of Kosambi). AJFAR 2020, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Fauziyah, N.S. The Influence of Parents and Other Factors on Adolescents’ Fish Consumption in Selected Senior High School Students, Jakarta. Indian J. Public Health Res. Dev. 2020, 11, 825–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Junaidi, J.; Ilona, D.; Zaitul, Z. Fresh Fish Consumption Behaviour in Padang City, Indonesia. ECSOFiM 2020, 007, 197–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Ghifarini, A.F.; Sumarwan, U.; Najib, M. Application of Theory of Planned Behavior in Shrimp Consumer Behavior Analysis. Ind. J. Manag. Prod. 2018, 9, 984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Huang, J.; Antonides, G.; Nie, F. Social-Psychological Factors in Food Consumption of Rural Residents: The Role of Perceived Need and Habit within the Theory of Planned Behavior. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Li, Y.; Zhong, C. Factors Driving Consumption Behavior for Green Aquatic Products: Empirical Research from Ningbo, China. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 1442–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Lee, M.-K.; Nam, J. The Determinants of Live Fish Consumption Frequency in South Korea. Food Res. Int. 2019, 120, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Zhou, L.; Jin, S.; Zhang, B.; Cheng, G.; Zeng, Q.; Wang, D. Determinants of Fish Consumption by Household Type in China. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 1273–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Rahman, M.N.; Islam, A.R.M.T. Consumer Fish Consumption Preferences and Contributing Factors: Empirical Evidence from Rangpur City Corporation, Bangladesh. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Sajeev, M.V.; Radhakrishnan, A.; Mohanty, A.K.; Joshy, C.G.; Akber Ali, V.P.; Gopika, R.; Mathew, S.; Ravishankar, C.N. Factors Influencing the Fish Consumption Preferences: Understandings from the Tribes of Wayanad, Kerala. IJEE 2021, 57, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Shashikanth, H.M.; Somashekar, D. Survey of Fish Consumption Pattern in Households of Shivamogga, Karnataka. Glob. J. Zool. 2020, 5, 022–024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Supartini, A.; Oishi, T.; Yagi, N. Changes in Fish Consumption Desire and Its Factors: A Comparison between the United Kingdom and Singapore. Foods 2018, 7, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Ahmad, N.I.; Wan Mahiyuddin, W.R.; Tengku Mohamad, T.R.; Ling, C.Y.; Daud, S.F.; Hussein, N.C.; Abdullah, N.A.; Shaharudin, R.; Sulaiman, L.H. Fish Consumption Pattern among Adults of Different Ethnics in Peninsular Malaysia. Food Nutr. Res. 2016, 60, 32697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  115. Arthatiani, F.Y.; Luhur, E.S.; Wardono, B.; Yulisti, M. Socio-Economic Determinants of Preserved Fish Consumption in Java Island: SUSENAS Data Analysis 2019. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci 2021, 870, 012046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Haque, M.E.; Khanom, S.; Afrad, M.S.I.; Barau, A.A.; Rafiquzzaman, S. Consumer Preference for Sea Fish Consumption in Dhaka City of Bangladesh. Agriculturists 2019, 17, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Kashem, A.; Tasnim, N.; Rahman, M.; Bapary, M.A.J.; Akanda, A. Consumer’s Attitudes toward Fish Consumption during Pandemic Covid-19 in Bangladesh. Int. J. Nat. Sci. 2021, 11, 15–22. [Google Scholar]
  118. Islam, M.J.; Sayeed, M.A.; Akhtar, S.; Hossain, M.S.; Liza, A.A. Consumers Profile Analysis towards Chicken, Beef, Mutton, Fish and Egg Consumption in Bangladesh. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2818–2831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Fu, Y.; Huang, S.; Wu, Z.; Wang, C.-C.; Su, M.; Wang, X.; Xu, P.; Huang, X.; Wu, H.; Wang, Y.; et al. Socio-Demographic Drivers and Public Perceptions of Consumption and Conservation of Asian Horseshoe Crabs in Northern Beibu Gulf, China. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2019, 29, 1268–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Poti, M.; Long, S.L.; Rusli, M.U.; Jani, J.M.; Hugé, J.; Dahdouh-Guebas, F. Changing Trends and Perceptions of Sea Turtle Egg Consumption in Redang Island, Malaysia. Ecol. Soc. 2021, 26, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Danso, G.K.; Otoo, M.; Linh, N.D.; Madurangi, G. Households’ Willingness-to-Pay for Fish Product Attributes and Implications for Market Feasibility of Wastewater-Based Aquaculture Businesses in Hanoi, Vietnam. Resources 2017, 6, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Mugaonkar, P.; Kumar, N.; Shelar, G.; Polanco, J.; Ramsubramanian, V.; Biradar, R. A Case Study on the Non-Price Factors and Consumer Behaviour for Pangasius (Pangasianodon Hypophthalmus) (Valenciennes, 1840) Consumption in Pune City, India. Fish. Technol. 2017, 54, 279–286. [Google Scholar]
  123. Hoa, V.T.; Käre, S. Preference-Based Segmentation: A Study of Dish Preferences among Vietnamese Teenagers. J. Econ. Dev. 2017, 24, 132–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Zhang, H.; Sun, C.; Wang, Z.; Che, B. Seafood Consumption Patterns and Affecting Factors in Urban China: A Field Survey from Six Cities. Aquac. Rep. 2021, 19, 100608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Goh, E.V.; Ali, S.A.; Mitra, S.R.; McCullough, F. Understanding the Patterns of Fish and Seafood Consumption and Its Nutritional Roles among a Malaysian Population to Inform Sustainable Development. Asia Pacific J. Sustain. Agric. Food Energy 2013, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Salim, S.S. Demand Pattern and Willingness to Pay for High Value Fish Consumption: Case Study from Selected Coastal Cities in Kerala, South India. Indian J. Fish. 2020, 67, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Salim, S.S.; Monolisha, S.; Sunil, P.V. Fish Consumption: Gauging the Determinants of Consumption and Buying Patterns across Kerala Markets. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India 2020, 62, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Tezzo, X.; Aung, H.M.; Belton, B.; Oosterveer, P.; Bush, S.R. Consumption Practices in Transition: Rural-Urban Migration and the Food Fish System in Myanmar. Geoforum 2021, 127, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Fabinyi, M.; Liu, N.; Song, Q.; Li, R. Aquatic Product Consumption Patterns and Perceptions among the Chinese Middle Class. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2016, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Meng, T.; Wang, C.; Florkowski, W.J.; Yang, Z. Determinants of Urban Consumer Expenditure on Aquatic Products in Shanghai, China. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2021, 12, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Wang, O.; Somogyi, S.; Ablett, R. General Image, Perceptions and Consumer Segments of Luxury Seafood in China: A Case Study for Lobster. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 969–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Farradia, Y.; Sunarno, M.T.D. Consumer Purchase Decision on Fresh Fish in the New Norm: Preliminary Case Study in Indonesia. J. Soc. Transform. Reg. Dev. 2020, 2, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Hu, Y.; Yuan, C. An Online Survey Study of Consumer Preferences on Aquatic Products in China: Current Seafood Consumption Patterns and Trends. Fish. Aquac. J. 2015, 5, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Newton, R.; Zhang, W.; Xian, Z.; McAdam, B.; Little, D.C. Intensification, Regulation and Diversification: The Changing Face of Inland Aquaculture in China. Ambio 2021, 50, 1739–1756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Altintzoglou, T.; Heide, M.; Wien, A.H.; Honkanen, P. Traditional Sushi for Modern Consumers: A Comparison Between Sushi Consumption Behavior in Japan and Norway. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2016, 22, 717–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Fabinyi, M. Historical, Cultural and Social Perspectives on Luxury Seafood Consumption in China. Environ. Conserv. 2012, 39, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Wang, O.; Somogyi, S. Motives for Luxury Seafood Consumption in First-Tier Cities in China. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 79, 103780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Birch, D.; Lawley, M.; Hamblin, D. Drivers and Barriers to Seafood Consumption in Australia. J. Consum. Mark. 2012, 29, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Christenson, J.K.; O’Kane, G.M.; Farmery, A.K.; McManus, A. The Barriers and Drivers of Seafood Consumption in Australia: A Narrative Literature Review: CHRISTENSON et Al. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2017, 41, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Grunert, K.G.; Hieke, S.; Wills, J. Sustainability Labels on Food Products: Consumer Motivation, Understanding and Use. Food Policy 2014, 44, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Larson, N.; Story, M. A Review of Environmental Influences on Food Choices. Ann. Behav. Med. 2009, 38, 56–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Darmon, N.; Drewnowski, A. Contribution of Food Prices and Diet Cost to Socioeconomic Disparities in Diet Quality and Health: A Systematic Review and Analysis. Nutr. Rev. 2015, 73, 643–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Torrissen, J.K.; Onozaka, Y. Comparing Fish to Meat: Perceived Qualities by Food Lifestyle Segments. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2017, 21, 44–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Bronnmann, J.; Hoffmann, J. Consumer Preferences for Farmed and Ecolabeled Turbot: A North German Perspective. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2018, 22, 342–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Love, D.C.; Asche, F.; Young, R.; Nussbaumer, E.M.; Anderson, J.L.; Botta, R.; Conrad, Z.; Froehlich, H.E.; Garlock, T.M.; Gephart, J.A.; et al. An Overview of Retail Sales of Seafood in the USA, 2017–2019. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2022, 30, 259–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Castro, I.; Majmundar, A.; Williams, C.; Baquero, B. Customer Purchase Intentions and Choice in Food Retail Environments: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  147. Hoenink, J.C.; Mackenbach, J.D.; Waterlander, W.; Lakerveld, J.; van der Laan, N.; Beulens, J.W.J. The Effects of Nudging and Pricing on Healthy Food Purchasing Behavior in a Virtual Supermarket Setting: A Randomized Experiment. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Van der Molen, A.E.H.; Hoenink, J.C.; Mackenbach, J.D.; Waterlander, W.; Lakerveld, J.; Beulens, J.W.J. Are Nudging and Pricing Strategies on Food Purchasing Behaviors Equally Effective for All? Secondary Analyses from the Supreme Nudge Virtual Supermarket Study. Appetite 2021, 167, 105655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Belton, B.; Thilsted, S.H. Fisheries in Transition: Food and Nutrition Security Implications for the Global South. Glob. Food Secur. 2014, 3, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Kumar, G.; Engle, C.R. Technological Advances That Led to Growth of Shrimp, Salmon, and Tilapia Farming. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2016, 24, 136–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Little, D.C.; Newton, R.W.; Beveridge, M.C.M. Aquaculture: A Rapidly Growing and Significant Source of Sustainable Food? Status, Transitions and Potential. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2016, 75, 274–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  152. Little, D.C.; Bunting, S.W. Aquaculture Technologies for Food Security. In Emerging Technologies for Promoting Food Security; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 93–113. ISBN 978-1-78242-335-5. [Google Scholar]
  153. Meat Price Index in GPB. Available online: https://www.eatfirst.com/en-gb/meat-price-index (accessed on 10 September 2022).
  154. Bronnmann, J.; Asche, F. Sustainable Seafood From Aquaculture and Wild Fisheries: Insights From a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 142, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Ahmed, F.E.; Institute of Medicine (U.S.) (Eds.) Seafood Safety; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1991; ISBN 978-0-309-04387-8. [Google Scholar]
  156. Ahmed, F.E. Review: Assessing and Managing Risk Due to Consumption of Seafood Contaminated with Micro-Organisms, Parasites, and Natural Toxins in the US. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 27, 243–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Li, A.; Tang, Q.; Kearney, K.E.; Nagy, K.L.; Zhang, J.; Buchanan, S.; Turyk, M.E. Persistent and Toxic Chemical Pollutants in Fish Consumed by Asians in Chicago, United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 811, 152214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Yang, Y.; Chen, W.; Wang, M.; Li, Y.; Peng, C. Evaluating the Potential Health Risk of Toxic Trace Elements in Vegetables: Accounting for Variations in Soil Factors. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 584–585, 942–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Seow, W.-L.; Md Ariffin, U.K.; Lim, S.Y.; Mohamed, N.A.; Lee, K.W.; Devaraj, N.K.; Amin-Nordin, S. A Systematic Review on the Usability of Web-Based Applications in Advocating Consumers on Food Safety. Foods 2022, 11, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Wang, H.H.; Zhang, X.; Ortega, D.L.; Olynk Widmar, N.J. Information on Food Safety, Consumer Preference and Behavior: The Case of Seafood in the US. Food Control 2013, 33, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Pieniak, Z.; Verbeke, W.; Scholderer, J. Health-Related Beliefs and Consumer Knowledge as Determinants of Fish Consumption: Health, Knowledge and Fish Consumption. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2010, 23, 480–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. McManus, A.; White, J.; Newton, W.; Storey, J.; McManus, J.; Cuesta-Briand, B.; Golightly, A. Community Intervention to Increase Seafood Consumption (CIISC); Curtin University: Bentley, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  163. Godfrey, M. China’s Domestic Salmon Sector Facing Pressure from Bad Economy, Norwegian Imports. Sea Food Source. 2020. Available online: https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply-trade/chinas-domestic-salmon-sector-facing-pressure-from-bad-economy-norwegian-imports (accessed on 12 November 2022).
  164. Market Publishers. Research Report on Imported Salmon in China 2020-2024; Market Publishers: Limassol, Cyprus, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  165. With Great Confidence in Chinese Market, Salmon Exporters Plan for More Direct Access to Consumers. Available online: https://chinaseafoodexpo.com/with-great-confidence-in-chinese-market-salmon-exporters-plan-for-more-direct-access-to-consumers/ (accessed on 10 September 2022).
  166. Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer “Attitude—Behavioral Intention” Gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2006, 19, 169–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Yamoah, F.A.; Acquaye, A. Unravelling the Attitude-Behaviour Gap Paradox for Sustainable Food Consumption: Insight from the UK Apple Market. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 217, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Schmidt, J.; Bijmolt, T.H.A. Accurately Measuring Willingness to Pay for Consumer Goods: A Meta-Analysis of the Hypothetical Bias. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2020, 48, 499–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Gilbert, D.T.; Fiske, S.T.; Lindzey, G. (Eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill; Distributed exclusively by Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998; ISBN 978-0-19-521376-8. [Google Scholar]
Foods 11 04043 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA–ScR flow diagram indicating the selection process of publications.
Figure 1. PRISMA–ScR flow diagram indicating the selection process of publications.
Foods 11 04043 g001
Foods 11 04043 g002 550
Figure 2. Variations in per capita publication ×10−6 versus per capita aquatic food consumption (kg/capita/year). Data on per capita aquatic food consumption was taken from [61]; per capita publication was based on the potential publications to aquatic food consumption behaviour identified through the Scopus database; the bracket indicates the number of publications selected in the scoping review; the Maldives being an outlier was excluded.
Figure 2. Variations in per capita publication ×10−6 versus per capita aquatic food consumption (kg/capita/year). Data on per capita aquatic food consumption was taken from [61]; per capita publication was based on the potential publications to aquatic food consumption behaviour identified through the Scopus database; the bracket indicates the number of publications selected in the scoping review; the Maldives being an outlier was excluded.
Foods 11 04043 g002
Foods 11 04043 g003 550
Figure 3. Evolution of the number of publications addressing factors influencing aquatic food consumption behavior among Asian consumers. Publication published after 31st December 2021 was limited and therefore removed in the graph.
Figure 3. Evolution of the number of publications addressing factors influencing aquatic food consumption behavior among Asian consumers. Publication published after 31st December 2021 was limited and therefore removed in the graph.
Foods 11 04043 g003
Foods 11 04043 g004 550
Figure 4. The number of publications and citation impact per publication by research country (2010 to 2022).
Figure 4. The number of publications and citation impact per publication by research country (2010 to 2022).
Foods 11 04043 g004
Foods 11 04043 g005 550
Figure 5. Map of research clusters detected by keyword co-occurrence and density visualisation. Text data (both title and abstract fields) of the identified publication was considered.
Figure 5. Map of research clusters detected by keyword co-occurrence and density visualisation. Text data (both title and abstract fields) of the identified publication was considered.
Foods 11 04043 g005
Table
Table 1. Defining research clusters based on keywords used in aquatic food consumption literature.
Table 1. Defining research clusters based on keywords used in aquatic food consumption literature.
Cluster-ID/ColourResearch ClustersDefinition of ClusterKeywords (Links, Total Link Strength, Occurrences)
C1/RedProduct attributes, availability, and accessibilityProduct attributes both, intrinsic and extrinsic, as well as availability and accessibility of aquatic food products. Quality (56, 207, 25), availability (53, 160, 20), freshness (57, 147, 18), taste (53, 136, 16), nutrition (49, 121, 15), size (50, 129, 14), form (47, 93, 11), production (36, 68, 10), wild fish (42, 79, 8), tuna (39, 63, 8), colour (25, 48, 7), food security (36, 52, 6), supermarket (36, 54, 6), sensory attributes (38, 55, 5), packaging (31, 41, 5), appearance (28, 43, 4), quantity (28, 39, 4), brand (21, 30, 4)
C2/YellowWillingness to pay for aquatic foodsThe majority of the publications are related to Asian consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for aquatic foods.Price (60, 281, 41), knowledge (57, 220, 34), seafood (55, 168, 24), fish product (51, 152, 20), farmed fish (50, 107, 15), sustainability (48, 106, 14), eco (34, 72, 12), certification (42, 90, 11), origin (35, 61, 9), information (29, 52, 9), shrimp (30, 44, 7), sustainable farmed fish (22, 34, 5)
C3/PurplePsychosocial factorsPsychosocial factors influencing aquatic food consumption behaviour.Attitude (57, 202, 28), intention (52, 134, 22), subjective norms (34, 79, 12), planned behaviour (25, 68, 12), behavioural control (28, 63, 10)
C4/BlueSociodemographic and lifestyle factorsSociodemographic and lifestyle factors influencing consumption behaviour towards aquatic foods.Household (50, 165, 24), income (50, 167, 20), health (50, 143, 18), habit (52, 141, 17), age (43, 135, 17), education (51, 142, 16), pattern (45, 122, 15), economy (35, 60, 8), urban area (37, 63, 8), gender (34, 60, 8), fish species (33, 51, 8), region (33, 49, 8), diet (30, 52, 7), religion (21, 30, 5)
C5/GreenAquatic food miscellaneous factorsClosely linked to other research clusters, the majority of the publications are related to Chinese aquatic consumption.Safety (50, 183, 24), city (59, 173, 23), sociodemographic characteristics (55, 136, 20), status (43, 87, 11), culture (35, 54, 9), context (34, 47, 9), freshwater fish (38, 66, 8), salmon (32, 45, 8), convenience (41, 69, 7), aquatic product (36, 58, 7), occupation (35, 60, 7), Chinese consumer (35, 50, 6), tradition (20, 24, 5), shellfish (32, 42, 4), luxury seafood (20, 24, 4)
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of the five research clusters and their quality assessment.
Table 2. Characteristics of the five research clusters and their quality assessment.
Variables Product Attributes, Availability, and AccessibilityWillingness to Pay for Aquatic FoodPsychosocial FactorsSociodemographic and Lifestyle FactorsAquatic Food Miscellaneous Factors
Consumers’ age range, median (IQR) 37(21.8)43.2(13.4)30(28.25)43.5(23.7)47(25.7)
Types of products analysed
%(n)		Fish in general34.6(9)7.4(2)47.4(9)62.5(15)14.3(2)
Seafood in general7.7(2)26(7)10.5(2)12.5(3)35.7(5)
Aquaculture products11.6(3)22.2(6) 4.2(1)
Processed fish products19.2(5)3.7(1)15.8(3)8.3(2)21.4(3)
Tuna15.4(4)3.7(1) 4.2(1)
Salmon 7.4(2) 21.4(3)
Shrimp3.8(1)11.1(3)5.2(1)
Shellfish7.7(2)3.7(1)5.2(1) 7.1(1)
Labelling 11.1(3)10.5(2)
Others 3.7(1)5.3(1)8.3(2)
Research focus
%(n)		Drivers and barriers to fish consumption61.5(16)48.2(13)89.4(17)75(18)71.4(10)
Consumer preferences for fish attributes30.8(8)51.8(14)5.3(1)12.5(3)7.1(1)
Drivers and barriers to seafood consumption3.8(1) 14.3(2)
Drivers and barriers to shellfish consumption3.8(1) 8.3(2)7.1(1)
Drivers and barriers to seaweed consumption 5.3(1)
Fish consumption practices 4.2(1)
Validity 0.920.940.720.770.89
Rigour 0.880.950.880.900.94
Reliability 0.670.760.680.700.64
Quality a ModerateHighModerateHighModerate
Size LargeLargeLargeLargeLarge
Consistency ConsistentConsistentInconsistentInconsistentConsistent
Note: a Quality was based on the scores from validity, rigour, and reliability with scores >0.75 in all indicators considered high and at least one score <0.75 considered moderate [50]; three review or conceptual papers were not given a quality score; IQR: interquartile range.
Table
Table 3. Attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control influence the intention to consume aquatic foods.
Table 3. Attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control influence the intention to consume aquatic foods.
Association between Psychosocial FactorsSignificant InfluenceNo Significant Influence
Attitude→Intention[91,92,93,94,97,100,103,104][105,106]
Subjective norms→Intention[92,93,94,95,97,105][91,104,106]
Perceived behavioural control→Intention[91,94,95,96,106,107][92,93,97,104,105]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Budhathoki, M.; Campbell, D.; Belton, B.; Newton, R.; Li, S.; Zhang, W.; Little, D. Factors Influencing Consumption Behaviour towards Aquatic Food among Asian Consumers: A Systematic Scoping Review. Foods 2022, 11, 4043. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11244043

AMA Style

Budhathoki M, Campbell D, Belton B, Newton R, Li S, Zhang W, Little D. Factors Influencing Consumption Behaviour towards Aquatic Food among Asian Consumers: A Systematic Scoping Review. Foods. 2022; 11(24):4043. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11244043

Chicago/Turabian Style

Budhathoki, Mausam, Danny Campbell, Ben Belton, Richard Newton, Saihong Li, Wenbo Zhang, and David Little. 2022. "Factors Influencing Consumption Behaviour towards Aquatic Food among Asian Consumers: A Systematic Scoping Review" Foods 11, no. 24: 4043. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11244043

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop