<%BANNER%>

Attitudes, Preferences, and Consumption Behavior of Consumers Fifty-Five and Older for Fish and Shellfish

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024137/00001

Material Information

Title: Attitudes, Preferences, and Consumption Behavior of Consumers Fifty-Five and Older for Fish and Shellfish
Physical Description: 1 online resource (107 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Olson, Kathryn
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: baby, boomers, consumption, seafood
Food and Resource Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food and Resource Economics thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Our purpose was to identify the attitudes and consumption behavior of consumers 55 years old and older for fish and shellfish. Focus group studies were conducted in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Hillsboro counties. These focus groups consisted of 7 to 11 people with varying levels of fish and shellfish consumption. Preliminary results were used to construct a telephone survey that enabled a wider sampling of individuals in these counties. Education level of the respondent and trust in their local grocer both positively affected the decision to consume seafood. However, respondents who said they trusted their doctor, were of Hispanic decent, or had been a resident in Florida from 31 to 60 years were less likely to be seafood consumers. Variables that positively affected the frequency of consumption included willingness to buy seafood from grocery stores, preparing seafood at home, willingness to try new seafood, and Hispanic descent. Conversely results showed that people who catch some of their own seafood consume seafood less frequently than those who do not. In addition, consumers who have lived in Florida over 60 years consume less seafood than those who have resided there for less time. The information obtained from the focus groups and the subsequent telephone survey was used to determine the method and content required to positively influence purchasing decisions and determine the best educational and marketing plan for reaching these goals.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kathryn Olson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: House, Lisa O.
Local: Co-adviser: Wysocki, Allen F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024137:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024137/00001

Material Information

Title: Attitudes, Preferences, and Consumption Behavior of Consumers Fifty-Five and Older for Fish and Shellfish
Physical Description: 1 online resource (107 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Olson, Kathryn
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: baby, boomers, consumption, seafood
Food and Resource Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food and Resource Economics thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Our purpose was to identify the attitudes and consumption behavior of consumers 55 years old and older for fish and shellfish. Focus group studies were conducted in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Hillsboro counties. These focus groups consisted of 7 to 11 people with varying levels of fish and shellfish consumption. Preliminary results were used to construct a telephone survey that enabled a wider sampling of individuals in these counties. Education level of the respondent and trust in their local grocer both positively affected the decision to consume seafood. However, respondents who said they trusted their doctor, were of Hispanic decent, or had been a resident in Florida from 31 to 60 years were less likely to be seafood consumers. Variables that positively affected the frequency of consumption included willingness to buy seafood from grocery stores, preparing seafood at home, willingness to try new seafood, and Hispanic descent. Conversely results showed that people who catch some of their own seafood consume seafood less frequently than those who do not. In addition, consumers who have lived in Florida over 60 years consume less seafood than those who have resided there for less time. The information obtained from the focus groups and the subsequent telephone survey was used to determine the method and content required to positively influence purchasing decisions and determine the best educational and marketing plan for reaching these goals.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kathryn Olson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: House, Lisa O.
Local: Co-adviser: Wysocki, Allen F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024137:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ATTITUDES, PREFERENCES, AND CO NSUMPTION BEHAVIOR OF CONSUMERS FIFTY-FIVE AND OLDER FOR FISH AND SHELLFISH By KATHRYN FRANCES OLSON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Kathryn Frances Olson

PAGE 3

3 To Far Far

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would never have m ade it this far in life w ithout the support of my friends and family. First I wish to thank my father, who provided the means for my success also gave me the drive to succeed. I thank my mother for giving me the emotional support needed to complete this journey. I also thank my little si ster who gives me a reason to stri ve to be a great role model. I thank my friends for keeping life interest ing and never dull. Joy was there from the start of this crazy journey to obtain our education in agricult ural economics. Through the good times and the bad, through thick and thin, they were always there and always will be. Sara taught me to step out of my comfort zone, try new things and live a little. Many professors have impacted my journey a nd all should be tha nked for the education they imparted to me and their desire to make each student succeed. Dr. Fairchild showed me that 7:30 class really wasnt all that bad. Dr. Adams gave me fis hy advice. Dr. Wysocki pushed me to do things I did not know I could do. Dr. Hous e made this thesis possible. They all looked out for me, worked with me, f ound opportunities, and never failed to make me feel like I could succeed at this thesis and for the rest of my career. Carlos is a mad programming genius and without him I would never have made it through the thousand odd lines of SAS and Limdep programming. I also wish to thank the USDA Federal State Marketing Improvement Program and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Serv ices (FDACS) who funded this research; and USDA, CSREES, who provided the National Needs Fell owship that funded my studies. Finally I thank my grandfather, Far Far, to w hom this is dedicated. He taught me many things: the greatest of which was to dream.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ...............9CHAPTER 1 OLDER AMERICANS AND U.S. SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION ....................................... 11Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........11Expenditures .................................................................................................................. .........12Food Consumption ..................................................................................................................13Health Concerns ......................................................................................................................13Seafood ....................................................................................................................... ............14Seafood Consumption ..................................................................................................... 14Health ........................................................................................................................ ......14Research Problem ...................................................................................................................16Objectives .................................................................................................................... ...........172 LITURATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................20Seafood Consumption ........................................................................................................... ..20Seafood Consumption of People 55+ Years ...........................................................................243 METHODS AND DAT A ....................................................................................................... 26Focus Group Methods .............................................................................................................26Focus Group Data ...................................................................................................................26Survey Methods ......................................................................................................................27Survey Data ............................................................................................................................28Demographic Profile of Respondents ..............................................................................28Seafood Consumption ..................................................................................................... 29Location of Consumption/Purchase ................................................................................31Preparation Methods ........................................................................................................ 32Types of Seafood Consumed ........................................................................................... 32Willingness to Try New Types ........................................................................................ 32Reasons for Consumption ................................................................................................ 33Origin ........................................................................................................................ .......33Non-Consumers ............................................................................................................... 35

PAGE 6

6 Seafood Safety Issues ......................................................................................................36Information Source .......................................................................................................... 37Sustainable Seafood ......................................................................................................... 384 METHODS, THEORETICAL MODEL AND MODEL SPECIFICATIONS .......................54Methods ..................................................................................................................................54Theoretical Model ............................................................................................................. ......54Probit Model .................................................................................................................. .........55Tobit ......................................................................................................................... ...............58Double-Hurdle Model ........................................................................................................... ..59Model Specification ................................................................................................................60Expected Results .....................................................................................................................62Respondents Choice to Consume Seafood ..................................................................... 62Respondents Frequency of Consumption ....................................................................... 625 EMPIRICAL MODEL ............................................................................................................67Probit Results ................................................................................................................ ..........67Demographics .................................................................................................................. 67Influence/Trust ............................................................................................................... .68Safety/Health ................................................................................................................. ..68Sustainability ................................................................................................................ ...69Tobit Results ...........................................................................................................................69Demographics .................................................................................................................. 69Influence/Trust ............................................................................................................... .70Safety/Health ................................................................................................................. ..70Sustainability ................................................................................................................ ...70Source of Purchase ..........................................................................................................70Seafood Consumption ..................................................................................................... 716 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... .74Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........74Discussion of Statistical Results ............................................................................................. 74Marketing Messages ............................................................................................................ ...77APPENDIX A FOCUS GROUP MODERATORS GUIDE ........................................................................... 80B SURVEY ................................................................................................................................84LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................100BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................105

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 County of residence of survey respondents. ......................................................................393-2 Race and ethnicity of respondent. ...................................................................................... 393-3 Highest level of education. ................................................................................................393-4 Income of respondents. .................................................................................................... ..403-5 Frequency of consumption of seafood at breakfast, lunch, and dinner for seafood consumers ..................................................................................................................... .....413-6 Times out of last ten that s eafood was purchased by location. ..........................................423-7 Why respondents do not prepare seafood at home. ...........................................................423-8 Shellfish species consumption. .......................................................................................... 423-9 Finfish species consumption. ............................................................................................. 433-10 Reasons for the consumption of seafood. .......................................................................... 443-11 Single most important f actor in selecting seafood ............................................................. 443-12 Other factors respondents cons ider when selecting seafood. .............................................453-13 Reasons consumers dont eat raw oysters. ......................................................................... 453-14 People who respondents trust for information about seafood. ........................................... 464-1 Explanation of variable coding. ......................................................................................... 645-1 Probit analysis results ........................................................................................................725-2 Tobit analysis results..........................................................................................................73

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Males per 100 females by age, United States, 2000. .........................................................171-2 Expenditure changes from 1985 to 2005 for households with family head aged 55 to 64 years of age. ..................................................................................................................181-3 Expenditure changes from 1985 to 2005 for households with family head aged 65 to 74 years of age. ..................................................................................................................181-4 Expenditure changes from 1985 to 2005 for households with family head aged 74 years of age and above. ...................................................................................................... 191-5 Seafood consumption in the United States in pounds per person. ..................................... 193-1 Age of respondents. ...........................................................................................................463-2 Number of years respondents ha ve lived in the united states. ........................................... 473-3 Frequency of consumption of seafood. .............................................................................. 473-4 Reasons for purchasing from specialty stor es or fish markets over grocery stores. .......... 483-5 Preparation of seafood. ................................................................................................... ...483-6 Importance of knowing whether seafood was raised or caught in general, and in Florida. ...................................................................................................................... .........493-7 Confidence in safety of seafood in ge neral, and that raised in Florida .............................. 4938 Variables that could increase seafood consumption .......................................................... 503-9 Reasons non-consumers do not consume seafood. ............................................................ 503-10 Perceptions of safest and least safe seafood. .....................................................................513-11 Oyster consumption. ...................................................................................................... ....513-12 Health concerns about seafood. ......................................................................................... 523-13 Perceived health benefits from eating seafood. ................................................................. 523-14 Sources of information on seafood. ...................................................................................533-15 People who influence deci sions on seafood consumption. ................................................ 53

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science ATTITUDES, PREFERENCES, AND CO NSUMPTION BEHAVIOR OF CONSUMERS FIFTY-FIVE AND OLDER FOR FISH AND SHELLFISH By Kathryn Olson May 2009 Chair: Lisa House Major: Food and Resource Economics Our purpose was to identify the attitudes and consumption behavior of consumers 55 years old and older for fish and shellfish. Focus gr oup studies were conducted in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Hillsboro counties. These focus groups consisted of 7 to 11 people with varying levels of fish and shellfish consumption. Prelim inary results were used to construct a telephone survey that enabled a wider sampling of individuals in these counties. Education level of the respondent and trust in their local groc er both positively affected the decision to consume seafood. However, respondents who said they trusted their doctor, were of Hispanic decent, or had been a resident in Flor ida from 31 to 60 years were less likely to be seafood consumers. Variables that positively affected the frequency of consumption included willingness to buy seafood from grocery stores, preparing seaf ood at home, willingness to try new seafood, and Hispanic decent. Conversely re sults showed that people who cat ch some of their own seafood consume seafood less frequently than those who do not. In addition, consumers who have lived in Florida over 60 years consume less seafood than those who have resided there for less time. The information obtained from the focus groups a nd the subsequent telephone survey was used

PAGE 10

10 to determine the method and content required to positively influence purchasing decisions and determine the best educational and marketing plan for reaching these goals.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 OLDER AMERICANS AND U.S. SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION Introduction The com position of the United States population is changing due to the growing number of Americans age 55 and older. This expansion is due to the aging Baby Boomer generation, a term meant to represent the unusual spike in bi rth rates following World War II. Though the exact range is under dispute, most authorities ag ree that the Baby Boomer generation started in 1946 with the end of WWII and ended in 1965 af ter millions of women started using birth control (Baby Boomer Generati on, 2004; The Boomer Initiative; Welcome to It Seems Like Yesterday, 1998). As of July 1, 2005 the U.S. Census Bureau estimated the number of Baby Boomers to be 78.2 million (U.S Census Bureau, 2006). At this rate, 96 million Americans will be age 50 or older in the next three years. Sloan (2006) studied the population trends and found when the last baby boomer turns 65 in 2030, this segment of the population will control 40 percent of the nations disposable income. Housing, transp ortation, and food are th eir largest expense categories. While this segment of the population is already signi ficant in terms of purchasing power, the predicted trends in growth w ill only serve to increase their impact. The demographic composition of the U.S. popul ation over the age of 55 has many unique characteristics. For instance, the ratio of men to women for the entire U.S. population is almost equal, 49.1% male and 50.9% female; however, for the population over 55 only 44.75 % are male while 55.25% are female. This gap continue s to widen as the population ages (Figure 1-1). This can be partially explained by the longer life span of women relative to men. As a corollary to the declining gender ratios with age, the ag e distribution of women was older than for men among the population aged 55 and over (Smith, 2002).

PAGE 12

12 Over the age of 55 more men are likely to be married than women owing in part to the shorter life span of men. Sim ilarly, 31% percent of women and 9% of men are widowed (Smith, 2002). The 2002 Census showed that diversity decreases amongst the older segment of the population, due to variations in life span. While 81% of people over 55 were non-Hispanic whites, only 69% of those under 55 fe ll into this category (Smith, 2002). Men in the 55 and over age group are more likely to have bachelors degrees than women. In general, the number of high school, bachelors, and professional degrees drop as the population gets older. In the civilian labor force the num ber of men and women working declined with age, however men were more likely than women to be working (Smith, 2002). Reported household income also decreases with age. (Smith, 2002). Expenditures In 2005, the three largest areas of spending for consum ers 55 and older were housing, transportation, and food (Figures 1-2, 1-3, 1-4). While total spending, housing, and healthcare expenditures rose from 1985 to 2005; spending on food, transportation, appare l and services fell during the same period (Figures 1-2, 1-3, 1-4) (Purcell, 2007). Age distribution has a greater effect on food expenditures than income, gende r, and race. Per capita food expenditures are expected to increase only 1% over the next 20 ye ar period; away-from-home consumption will decline 1% and at-home consumption will increa se 2%. The categories of food predicted to change the most are fruit (increase 3.7%), vegeta bles (increase 3.6%), fish (increase 3.1%), and pork (increase 3.1%) (B lisard, 2002).

PAGE 13

13 Food Consumption It is projected by the U.S. Departm ent of Ag riculture that individua ls 55 and older will increase their consumption of fruits, vegetables, fish, eggs and pork; while reducing their consumption of fried potatoes, cheese and suga r through 2020 (Sloan, 2006). Consumers aged 55 to 64 spent an average of $1,077 per person in restaurants in 2005 (Sloan, 2006). On the other hand, older consumers do not frequent rest aurants as often as other age groups (Sloan, 2006). Consumers 65 and older have the lowest spending in restaurants with $770 per person spent in 2005. Historically restaurant visits de cline with age but a repo rt by the NPD group found that boomers aged 50 and older are returning to re staurants as their children leave home (Sloan, 2006). Nearly 50% of adults aged 45 to 64 ate fewer comfort foods (less healthy food alternatives) in 2004 than in the previous year (Sloan, 2006). Health concerns and guilty feelings were the primary reasons for cutting back (Sloan, 2006). Health Concerns The increasing availability of health infor m ation and the requirements for nutritional labeling are paralleling an increase in consumer health awareness (Baltas, 2001). Individuals aged 55 and older are especially concerned with the health attri butes of their food, and as such, are inspiring a more healthful nutritional la ndscape (Functional Food and Drink Consumption Trends, 2007; Helm, 2008). Research has shown this group has a desire to prepare and consume nutritious and healthy meals with the aim of pr eventing heart disease, high blood pressure, and dementia (D. Mozaffarian & E. B. Rimm, 2006). There may be much to gain from nutritional promotions directed to ward this age group, However, some of these consumers can be ske ptical of efficacy of health related claims (Functional Food and Drink Consumption Trends, 2007). In addition, the senior demographic

PAGE 14

14 cannot be targeted as one group. Early Seniors will lead increasingly healthy, active lives, while, older seniors will be le ss likely to change their habi ts (Functional Food and Drink Consumption Trends, 2007). Seafood Seafood Consumption Total seafood consum ption in the United Stat es, 4.9 billion pounds in 2007, is the third largest behind Japan and China (Damassa 2007; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008). However, per capita seafood consumption remains below many other countries due to geographic, socio-economic, and/or cultural reasons (Damassa, 2007). In 2007, Americans consumed 16.3 pounds of fish and shellfish per person, a 1 percent decrease from 2006 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad ministration, 2008). Despite the decrease in 2007, there has been an upward tren d in seafood consumption over the past five years (Figure 15) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008). The average per capita consumption of 16.3 pounds of seafood per pers on was composed of 12.1 pounds of fresh and frozen finfish and shellfish and 3.9 pounds of canned seafood (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008). The amount of canned seafood consumed did not change between 2006 and 2007; however, the amount of fresh and frozen seafood consumed dropped from 12.3 in 2006 to 12.1 pounds per person in 2007. Sh rimp continues to be the top seller in the seafood industry with 4.1 pounds per person in 2007, however, this is down 0.3 pounds from 2006 (National Oceanic and Atmo spheric Administration, 2008). Health Seafood is a nutrient rich food that provides high quality protein which is low in saturated fat and rich in polyunsaturated fats. Contam inan ts present in seafood, how ever, may pose a risk to susceptible groups (Institute of Medicine 2007).

PAGE 15

15 The most notable nutrient found in seafood is Om ega-3 fatty acids. The effect and benefits of Omega-3 fatty acids have been thoroughly st udied. Omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosapantaen oic acid (DPA), are found in the highest concentrations in oily fish such as salmon, sard ines, and herring. Seafood is the source of most Omega-3, EPA and DPA in the American diet. In adults, fish has been linked to numerous benefits, including the prevention of cardiovascular disease, myo cardial infarction, arrhythmia, and decreases in serum triglyceride levels, blood pressure, and platelet aggregation (Levenson & Axelrad, 2006). It has also been linked to a lower incidence of stroke, depression, Alzheimers disease and dementia, and has even been linked to the reduction in general inflammation and lower risk of cancer (Helm, 2008). The case for these benefits is strong enough that many of the United States premiere health organizations recommend the consumption of seafood as a preventative for disease. The American Hear t Association recommends the consumption of seafood at least twice a w eek to help prevent heart disease and benefit those who already have heart disease (American Heart Association, 2007) Although the benefits are widely documented in literature, fish can also contain contaminants such as chemicals, metals, and mi crobes; although the amount and type depends on the species, size, geographic source, age and diet of the fish (Institute of Medicine 2007). Some fish also contain the organic compound methylmercury (MeHg), a neurotoxic compound. Methylmercury can cause advers e effects, though the amount and long term consequences are unknown. (Myers & Davidson, 2007; In stitute of Medicine 2007). There have been very few proven cases of methylmercury pois oning in infants, and those that have been recorded are over 40 years old. In these cases however, poisoning was linked to massive in dustrial pollution of nearby water sources (Myers & Davidson, 2007). In addition, new studi es by Dr. Nicholas

PAGE 16

16 Ralston, a researcher at the Energy and Environm ental Research Center at the University of North Dakota, are showing that selenium, also common in seafood, has the capability to counteract the harmful effects of methyl mercury (seafoodsource, 2007). Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) ar e found in fish but at low leve ls similar to meat and dairy products (Torpy, 2006). The number of reporte d illnesses from seafood-born microbes has been steady over the past decade. One such microbe is Vibrio; a bacterium that occurs naturally in raw oysters and other molluscan shellfish. By avoiding raw shellfish and properly cooking all seafood, one can greatly limit the ri sk of seafood-borne illness. For major health outcomes among adults, base d on both the strength of the evidence and the potential magnitudes of effect, the benefits of fish intake exceed the potential risks (Mozaffarian & Rimm, 2006). Research Problem Even with the wealth of infor mation on baby boomers and seafood consumption, we still do not understand exactly what this age gr oup knows about seafood. Information is needed to understand their level of know ledge, what impact this information has on their food choices, and what the determinants of their seafood c onsumption behavior are. This knowledge is imperative to the seafood industry because of this groups potential economic impact now and in the future. Likewise, the health benefits of seafood ar e well documented; however, it is unknown how this knowledge reaches consumers 55 and older and how it influences their consumption decisions. The seafood industry needs to understand the motives of this age group when it comes to the consumption of seafood. Results pr ovided from this research could shed light on a potentially profitable market segment for the se afood industry. For consumers, it could mean

PAGE 17

17 changes to the industry to make seafood more c onsumer-friendly and help improve their overall health. Objectives The goal of this research is to identify the attitudes and consumption behavior of consumers age 55 and older for fish and shellfis h and to develop marketing messages that best utilizes this information. The following are four specific objectives of this research: Identify the consumption behavior of consum ers age 55 and older for fish and shellfish. Identify what, if any, demographic variable s influence the decision to consume seafood and frequency of consumption. Identify current perceptions of health bene fits and concerns regarding seafood, and the ways these influence eating habits. Use information gathered to determine a marketing message suited to positively influence buying decisions for seafood. Figure 1-1. Males per 100 female s by age, United States, 2000.

PAGE 18

18 Figure 1-2. Expenditure changes from 1985 to 2005 for households with family head aged 55 to 64 years of age. Figure 1-3. Expenditure changes from 1985 to 2005 for households with family head aged 65 to 74 years of age.

PAGE 19

19 Figure 1-4. Expenditure changes from 1985 to 2005 for households with family head aged 74 years of age and above. Figure 1-5. Seafood consumption in the United States in pounds per person.

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 2 LITURATURE REVIEW Seafood Consumption In the 1980s the seafood industry p rojected seafood consumption would reach 20 pounds per person by 2000 (Hanson, Herrmann, & Dunn, 1995). Unfortunately for the industry, that projection has not come to fruition and the cons umption stands at 16.3 pounds per person as of 2007 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administ ration, 2008). Hanson et al. suspects that most of seafoods demand issues arise from its high cost when compared to beef, chicken, and pork. Between 1985 and 1993, the consumer pri ce index for seafood rose 46%, while poultry and beef only rose 29% and 27%, respectively. Their research goes on to suggest that this increase in price might be secondary to a de crease in supply, due to over fishing and warmer temperatures. The study by Hanson et al. found price perceptions to be a key factor in differentiating consumers who hold favorable at titudes toward fish (Hanson, Herrmann, & Dunn, 1995). In 1988 they performed a cluster analysis including national and northeastern US data. Two of the five clusters found fish highly favor able, however, one cluste r (25%) liked everything about fish while the other (22%) viewed seafood as highly favorable but expensive. Hanson et al. noted, our contentio n is that high seafood prices are negatively affecting seafood demand, offsetting the nutritional advantages associat ed with fish (Hanson, Herrmann, & Dunn, 1995). Reinforcing this finding is a study completed for the National Fish and Seafood Promotional Council by the Data Development Corporation whic h found that rising pri ces are a factor in inhibiting frequent purchases of seafood (Hanson, Herrmann, & Dunn, 1995). These findings contrast with two earlier studies done by Cheng and Capps (1988) and Wellman (1992). The 1988 study by Cheng and Capps (1988) found that finfish and shellfish had inelastic own-price elastici ty for at-home consumption. Wellman (1992) found that fish

PAGE 21

21 products, with the exception of shellfish, have a relatively inelastic de mand. Although the case for price affecting demand may be contested, many contemporary studies have concluded that price does have some eff ect on seafood consumption. Many studies have investigated the effect income has on seafood consumption. A study by Edwards (1992) found income to have an unc lear effect on seafood consumption, while two other studies by Cheng and Capps (1988) and Rauniyar et al. (1995) found income to be positively related to fish consumption. Rauniyar et al. found the probabilit y of being a frequent (three or more times per month) restaurant pur chaser of seafood rose from .42 for incomes of $30,000 to $40,000 per year, to .51 for individuals w ith incomes over $40,000 a year (Rauniyar, Herman, & Hanson, 1995). Using an almost id eal demand system approach, Wellman (1992) found a positive and significant price/income inte raction for fish products. Simply put, the higher a persons income, the more he/she is willing to spend on seafood products per pound. As well as income, research has shown that at titudinal factors have a significant effect on seafood consumption. A focus group study by the Data Development Corp identified three distinct attitudinal groups; pos itive, neutral, and negative (D ataDevelopmentCorporation, 1980). The positive group said seafood was light, less fi lling and added dietary variety. The negative group said they disliked its ap pearance, taste and odor. Anothe r study by Hermann et al.(1992) found a total of six attitudinal categories in the northeastern United States; very favorable, favorable but expensive, nutri tion and convenience focused, av ailability-nutrition-quality focused, indifferent, and do not like fish. Herm ann et al. conducted an other study including the entire US and found five categories: totally fa vorable, favorable but expensive, favorable but dislike odor and boniness, moderate ly favorable and not favorable. Both studies identified two favorable groups with very diffe rent ideas about the price of seafood. It is this perception

PAGE 22

22 about price that Hanson et al. contends constrains the seafoo d consumption of even those favorable to seafood (Hanson, Herrmann, & Dunn, 1995). Flavor was also identified as having an impor tant attitudinal effect (Hamilton & Bennett, 1983). A six month investigation published in Consumer Reports showed that consumers relate flavor to freshness and both are vitally important to frequent purchasers of fish and seafood. A study by Kinnucan et al. (1993) used the evoked set developed by consumer researchers to show that flavor, nutrition, and cost, while at times important in the decision to purchase seafood, were not as important when deciding am ong different types of seafood. Their findings showed that for catfish, qualit y and flavor were important fa ctors, while convenience was important to the consumption of lobster. Nutrition and health were important only in determining whether shrimp and cod entered the e voked set. This reveal s an interesting trend suggesting just how little the role of health and nutritional cons iderations play in forming a preference for seafood (Hanson, Herrmann, & D unn, 1995). Along these lines, Sioen et al. (2007) found that in terms of health benefits and risks there is a vast amount of inconsistencies and misinformation available to the consum er (Sioen, Henauw, Verdonck, Thuyne, & Camp, 2007). Even with these problems, Hanson conclude s that while nutrition has not yet had a great impact on seafood consumption, in the near future the nutritional message will be of paramount importance to the industry (Hanson, Herrmann, & Dunn, 1995). Some studies took different a pproaches to the seafood consumption problem. Studies by Graul (1991), Mason-Jenkins (1991) and the Data Development Corporation (1980) showed that stores and markets with a wide variety of seaf ood, an attractive presenta tion, proper lighting, and a knowledgeable staff had an impact on whethe r or not consumers purchased seafood (Graul, 1991; Mason-Jenkins, 1991; DataDevelopmentC orporation, 1980). Cheng and Capps (1988),

PAGE 23

23 Dellenbarger et al. (1992), Ha nson et al.(1994), Herman et al .(1994), and Wellman(1992) have all shown in their research th at household size has a positive correlation with at-home dinning, while the presence of small children has a nega tive correlation with rest aurant consumption. While some studies had a broad focus on s eafood consumption, others concentrated on select types of seafood. Yen and Huang (1996) found several key variables that affected both the probability and level of household finfish consum ption in the United States. These variables included price of finfish, shopping frequency, geogra phic region, race, and lifecycle. In another study using a double-hurdle model, House et al. (2003) found source of seafood for consumption, enjoyment of flavor, availability, price, allergies, male consumers, and geographic reasons to be significant in dete rmining probability of participati on in oyster consumption. The level of consumption of oysters was also affected by similar va riables: source of seafood for consumption; enjoyment of flavor; tradition; price; product safety; geographic region; income and age (House, Hanson, & Sureshwaran, 2003). In a study conducted in 2000-2001 by Zhang et al., at-home seafood (shrimp, oysters, and catfi sh) consumption in the United States was analyzed. Their results showed that the pr obability and frequency of consumption was negatively affected if a consumer felt they lacked preparation knowle dge, product preparation was too time consuming, or the smell was unattractive. Researchers of past studies, Edwards (1992) and Wessells and Anderson (1992), point out that there are some limitations to their studie s; namely the instability of seafood supplies and breakdowns in the marketing chain (Edwards 1992; Wessells & Anderson, 1992). Yet, the majority of studies have conclude d that price, income level, regi on of residence, family size and presence of children are all impor tant in determining restaurant consumption. Flavor, freshness,

PAGE 24

24 ease of preparation and other sensory/attitu dinal variables are significant to at-home consumption. Seafood Consumption of People 55+ Years Many studies that have been conducted to date have not looked at the effect of age on seafood consum ption, or have merely included it as one in a long list of demographic variables. Olsens (2003) research on Norw ays seafood consumption, however, is an exception to this norm. Olsen (2003) examined the relationship between the consumers chronological age and frequent consumption of seafood, and how this re lationship is mediated by three psychological variables: Attitudes/preferen ces towards eating seafood, involve ment in healthy eating, and perceived time used to prepare meals (convenience) (Olsen, 2003). This is contrary to normal economic analysis where socio-economic and dem ographic variables are kept separate from psychological construc ts (Olsen, 2003). The study was done by using cross-sectional da ta under the assumption that the path a persons life takes (including, experiences, family e nvironment, etc) is important in modeling his or her food consumption behavior (Olsen, 2003). Olsen was able to estimate the strength and direction of direct and indirect relationships between external internal, and behavioral variables as proposed in general attitude theory using st ructural equation modeling (Olsen, 2003). He did this using maximum likelihood estim ation (Olsen, 2003). Confirmatory factor analysis including Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Goodne ss of Fit Index (GFI), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was preformed to find correlations betw een variables (Olsen, 2003). The results showed that age was positiv ely related to the fr equency of seafood consumption (Olsen, 2003). In addition, his rese arch showed that there is a highly positive relationship between health involv ement and attitudes toward seafood. This indicates that health involvement has an influence on attitudes toward eating seafood. Convenien ce and age also had

PAGE 25

25 a positive significant relationship (Olsen, 2003). Th is indicated that any inconvenience incurred from eating or preparing seafood does not deter the older population from consuming seafood as happens among the younger population (Olsen, 2003) The core finding of Olsens (2003) study is that the external variable (age) and the cons umption of seafood is mediated by attitudinal and motivational variables (Olsen, 2003). While the research done by Olsen correlates wi th the objectives of our research, there are several limitations that prevent his work from being directly used to understand the age 55 and above seafood market in the Unite d States. First, the research for that study was conducted five years ago. This time sensitive type of research needs to be updated for current trends because peoples habits and preferences change. Most im portantly, however, is th e location in which his research took place. Olsens survey data was co llected in Norway and it is unclear whether or not his findings translate to the American mark et and people. In a ddition, Norway did not experience a baby boom as the United States did and therefore does not have the same population characteristics.

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND DATA Focus Group Methods A telephone survey was used to collect the data f or this study (Appendix B). In preparing the script for the survey, focus groups were conducted in Hillsborough, Palm Beach, and MiamiDade counties in the state of Flor ida to gain insight into consump tion patterns and to facilitate construction of the telephone survey (Appendix A). A total of si x focus groups were held: four in Palm Beach and Miami-Dade county on Oc tober 25 and 26, 2007 and tw o in Hillsborough on November 14, 2007. Each group consisted of 7 to 11 participants over the age of 55. The participants were recruited by the private ma rket research firm, Pl aza Research, and were screened to meet the age criteria for the study. Focus Group Data Prelim inary results of the focus groups showed consumers can be classified as passionate, lukewarm, or having a strong distaste for seafood. For the passionate consumers, seafood is a regular part of their diet, much like milk. These consumers are willing to experiment with new seafood species. For the lukewarm consumers, ther e is potential to increase consumption, but the industry must clearly address th eir concerns. For the non-consumer s, life experiences reinforced their distaste for seafood and it may be that litt le can be done to increase their consumption. However, these non-consumers can still provid e insight into why they dont purchase and consume seafood that could be useful for the passionate and lukewarm consumers. Terminology such as aquaculture, finfish and sustainability are not widely understood by consumers over the age of fifty fi ve. This group also had an overa ll negative view of processed seafood products, though their definition of proce ssed seemed to vary. A majority of the respondents consumed seafood both at and away fr om home but said the choice of product might

PAGE 27

27 depend on the location of consumption. Responde nts categorized as se rious fish consumers often opted to buy their seafood at fish markets. Top concerns related to fish and shellfish consumption were identified by respondents to be: odor, appearance, health, food safety, and flavor. Interestingly, pri ce was always mentioned last on the list of concerns with seafood. Focus group respondents recommended that the industry work on better packaging, promotion of bene ficial health effects, increased advertising, and the availability of recipe s and preparation materials. Survey Methods After com pletion of the focus groups, a tele phone survey instrument was developed and pre-tested (appendix B). The telephone surv ey was conducted in April and May 2008. The telephone numbers for the survey were selected fr om a random list of individuals 55 and above. This list was purchased from a private market research firm, USA Data. In total, 8,962 households were contacted in the three counties that are the focus of this study: Miami-Dade, Hillsborough, and Palm Beach. Of the 8,962 contacted, 1,796 were invalid numbers (i.e. disconnected, no resident under the age of 55 available, incorrect county, etc.), leaving 7,166 true attempts. This large number of calls was necessary to reach the studys goal of 600 completed surveys. Although 600 surveys were initially tho ught to be completed, three were later thrown out due to inconsistencies in th e age data provided by these respondents. Therefore a total of 597 surveys were successfully completed, creating a res ponse rate of 8.3%. The original goal was to complete 200 responses per county (a total of 600 surveys), however, response rates in MiamiDade County were lower than the others so targets were readjusted, leading to more responses from the other two counties (Table 3-1). The survey was conducted at the Bureau of Economics and Business Researchs survey research lab by trained personnel. The survey begi ns with a standard introduction of the research

PAGE 28

28 to the respondent followed by a series of qualifier questions to make sure he/she met our needs. The first true question asked by the interviewer was whether or not the respondent consumed seafood. Even though this is ultimately a surv ey aimed at seafood consumers, much can be learned by those who choose not to consume seaf ood. The next section of questions was asked of both the seafood consumers and the non-consumers to find out their nutritional behavior. This section was followed by questions to discove r the respondents knowle dge about the seafood category. Those respondents who indicated they were seafood consumers were asked numerous questions to find information about their seafood consumption, while non-seafood consumers were asked questions about thei r reasons for not consuming seafood. Both groups were then asked questions about seafood safety, seafood hea lth effects, information source, and seafood sustainability. The last set of questions was for typical demographic information. Survey Data Demographic Profile of Respondents Respondents, by design, were aged 55 and above Figure 3-1 shows the distribution of age of respondents. As age increased, the number of respondents in the category generally decreased (Figure 3-1). The largest number of respondents, 31.7%, fell in the between the ages of 60 to age 64. The majority of respondents reported they were the only resident of their household age 55 and above (56.3%), while 40.5% indicated there we re 2 people in the household in this age group. Respondents were asked to identify their racial background. This information was compared to the 2005 Census data for these coun ties to check for representativeness of the sample (Table 3-2). Results from the telephon e survey closely reflect the census data. The major exception is in the case of Asian respondents. In this case, only two respondents, or 0.4%, of our survey indicated Asian descent. The Census, however, indicated that 4.0% of the

PAGE 29

29 population was of Asian descent. Due to the us e of both Spanish and E nglish versions of the telephone survey, response rates from Hispan ic respondents were good, with slightly more respondents in the survey th an census data indicate. Gender of respondents was more frequently female. In our case, 415, or 69.0% of respondents, were female. Data were also coll ected on education and inco me levels (Tables 3-3 and 3-4). Education levels vari ed widely, and income was spr ead amongst the categories, with less people in the higher income categories. It is worth noting that 30.0% of the respondents either refused to answer the question on income or indicated they did not know the answer. One reason for conducting the survey in Fl orida was the belief that many respondents would be from different regions of the U.S., ha ving moved to Florida for retirement. Indeed, many of the respondents did not live in Florida their entire life, of the 597 respondents, only 40 indicated they had lived in Florida their entire life. Twenty-f ive percent had lived in Florida since they were children, and 20.0% moved to Florida after turning 55 years of age (Figure 3-2.). Seafood Consumption Data were collected both from seafood consumers and non-seafood consumers. As with prior studies, approximately 87.0% of respondents (n=521) indicated they consumed some type of seafood. Seafood consumers were then asked a series of questions about the frequency of their consumption, type of seafood consumed, and the issues that were important to them in choosing seafood. To identify seafood consumption patterns, respondents were as ked to identify how often they ate seafood products for breakfast, lunch, and dinner (Table 3-5). As expected, people were more likely to consume seafood for lunch and di nner than for breakfast; however, a substantial number of consumers did indicate they ate seafood for breakfast. A total of 97 consumers indicated they ate seafood for breakfast at leas t occasionally, 402 indicated they ate seafood for

PAGE 30

30 lunch, and 510 indicated they ate seafood for dinner. This indicates that demand for seafood items typically consumed for dinner, such as filets and steaks, will have higher consumption rates than, say, canned tuna (a lunch ite m), and lox (a breakfast item). Responses to these three questions were used to generate the frequency of consumption for each respondent. Frequency of consumption was calculated by summing the responses for the breakfast, lunch and dinner questions (with th e following numerical conversions used: if the respondent consumed seafood daily then they were said to consume seafood 365 times a year, if the individual chose that they consumed 4-6 ti mes/week then an average of 5 was chosen and they were said to consume 260 times per year; if the individual chose that they consumed 2-3 times/week then an average of 2.5 was chosen and they were said to consume 130 times per year; if the individual chose that they consumed seaf ood weekly then they were said to consume 52 times per year, if the individual chose that they consumed 2-3 tim es/month then an average of 2.5 was chosen and they were said to consume 30 times per year, if the individual chose to consume seafood monthly they were said to cons ume seafood 12 times a year, 6 if consumed less than 1 time/month, and 0 if never). Respondents who refused to answer this question were eliminated from this calculation. Using this methodology, consumers could eat from 0 times per year to 1,095 times (if they ate seafood at each m eal every day). Results are shown in Figure 3-3. We found that four people indicate d they ate seafood, but not for me als. This could be the result of someone occasionally eating seafood as an appetizer, but never for a meal. Twenty respondents (4.0% of consumers) only eat seaf ood once/month or less. Forty-six respondents (9.0% of consumers) eat seafood more than once/month, but less than once/week. Consumers who ate seafood between one time per week a nd two times per week made up 20.5% of the sample (107 respondents). Fifty-nine (or 11.0%) indicated eating seafood at least one time per

PAGE 31

31 day. These results show that consumers aged 55 and above tend to be frequent seafood consumers. Location of Consumption/Purchase In addition to asking how often consum ers ate seafood, they were asked where they typically ate seafood. This was achieved by asking respondents to indicate the product source the last ten times they consumed seafood. This included seafood purchased from restaurants, specialty stores, fish markets, grocery stores, shipping companies, or caught on their own (Table 3-6). Results indicate most consumers eat se afood at home which was purchased in grocery stores or less commonly at fish markets. Restaurants were also a common source of seafood. Only 17(3.3%) of consumers indicated purchasin g seafood from a shipping company, while 79 (15.2%) ate seafood they had caught. One hundr ed two (19.6%) respondents purchase their seafood exclusively at grocery stores, but only 48 (9.2%) purchased exclusively at restaurants, 41 (7.9%) at fish markets, and one person only purchased seafood exclus ively through a shipping company. In addition, ten people only ate seaf ood which they caught on their own. Conversely, 115 (22.1%), 149 (28.6%), and 266 (51.1%) did not make any of their last ten purchases at a grocery store, restaurant, or fish market, respectively. Probing further into the reasons for the loca tion of purchase, respondents who purchased fish from fish markets or specialty stores were asked why they made purch ases at these locations over grocery stores. Sixty-nine point five percent (n=164) of those who purchased seafood at fish markets said that this was due to the freshne ss of the seafood found at fish markets. Quality (n=106, 44.9%) and selection (n =85, 36.0%) were also common answers for why people chose fish markets over grocery stores (Figure 3-4). Consumers who purch ased at grocery stores were asked what form of seafood they purchased. The most common answer was fresh, with 73.0% (n=277) of the respondents indicat ing they purchased fresh seafood at the grocery store. In

PAGE 32

32 addition to purchasing fresh seafood these consum ers also purchased frozen seafood (56.6% of grocery shoppers, n=218). Another, 20.4% (n=73) purchased prepared seafood and 8.9% (n=56) purchased canned seafood. Preparation Methods In addition to asking about location of purchase, consum ers were asked if they ever prepared seafood in the home. Over 86.0% indicat ed they did prepare seafood at home. Those that did not were asked why (T able 3-7). The most common response from respondents was that either they did not cook, only eat out, or thought seafood was hard to prepare for just one person. The smell of seafood also deterred respondents from preparing seafood in their homes. Types of Seafood Consumed Whether at a restaurant or at hom e, responde nts were asked how they ate the seafood and what type of seafood they most commonly ate. C onsumers ate a variety of shellfish (Table 3-8) and finfish (Table 3-9). The most commonly consumed shellfish was shrimp, with 70.0% of respondents indicating they at e shrimp, followed by lobster and crab with 39.0% and 32.0%, respectively. For finfish, many types of fish identified, however, the most common were Salmon (44.3%), Tilapia (37.8%), Grouper (24.2%), Catfish (22.1%), Tuna (21.1%), and Snapper (21.1%). Preparation methods also varied, with fried, baked, and broiled the most popular (this includes both at-home and away-fromhome consumption) (Figure 3-5). Willingness to Try New Types To gain m ore insight into the type of s eafood consumed, respondents were asked if they would be willing to try new types of seafood they had not previously consumed. A majority (62.2%) did indicate they would be willing to try new types of seafood, 33.2% indicated they would not try new types, and 4.6% were unsure.

PAGE 33

33 Reasons for Consumption Next, consum ers were asked to identify why th ey ate seafood, as well as what criteria were important in the selection of that seafood. There were ma ny reasons consumers ate seafood (Table 3-10), with health or nut rition reasons topping the list with over 50.0% of respondents. Thirty-seven percent indi cated they ate seafood because of the flavor or taste, and another 20.9% indicated they ate it because they liked or lov ed it. It is possible these two categories are representative of the same sentiment, though fla vor and taste were not mentioned in the other responses as the reason for lik ing seafood. Likewise, 15 responde nts indicated they ate seafood because it was better than beef or chicken, which may correspond to those who say they ate seafood to add variety to their diet. Respondents were then asked to identify both the most important thing they considered when selecting seafood (Table 3-11 ) as well as all other determin ates (Table 3-12). The singlemost important reason for selecting seafood was freshness, with over 54.0% of the respondents indicating this was the deciding fa ctor. Other factors varied in importance, with 5.0-10.0% of the respondents indicating price, flavor/taste, color/appearance, smell, and/or health reasons affected their decision. When asked to list all the f actors that influence purchasing, price was cited most often as one of those factors. Origin An i mportant piece of information for Florid a producers is whether or not consumers in Florida perceive Florida seafood as high quality. To this end, seafood consumers in the survey were asked if they would purchase seafood if they did not know where it was raised or caught. Almost 50.0% said that they would buy seafood re gardless of whether they knew where it was raised or caught, while 45.0% said they would not. Consumers were then asked two follow up questions rating the importance on knowing where the seafood wa s raised or caught, and the

PAGE 34

34 importance of knowing it was raised or caught in Florida (Figure 36). While 70.5% (n=366) indicated it was at least sli ghtly important to know where th eir seafood came from, only 52.3% (n=271) said it was just as important to know th at their seafood came fr om Florida. On the opposite end, only 6.6% (n=34) in dicated where their seafood came from was very unimportant, while nearly double that amount, 12.6% (n=65) indicated it was very unimportant to know the seafood was from Florida. Consumers were then asked about the differen ce between wild-caught an d farm-raised fish. A majority, 56%, said that ther e was a difference in taste betw een wild-caught and farm-raised seafood. However, the remainder was split between those who felt there was no difference (23.4%) and those who didnt know (19.7%). Interestingly, nearly half (47.9%) of those that felt there was a difference said that they did not have a preference between wild-caught and farmraised seafood. Of those that did have a pr eference, 37.3% preferred wild-caught while 11.0% preferred farm-raised. Another distinction between general seafood a nd Florida seafood is related to safety. Consumers were asked how confident they were in the safety of seafood they purchase in general, and how confident they were in the safe ty of seafood raised in Florida. Results are shown in Figure 3-7. Though results appear similar, with 74.5% (n= 386) confident in the seafood they purchase, and 68.7% (n=356) confident in Florida seafood, the difference is statistically significant ( 2=454.7), with respondents more conf ident in seafood they purchase in general than Florida seafood. Of concern for the Florida industry should be the 7.9% and 4.8% that indicated a slight and high l ack in confidence in the safety of Florida seafood (compared to 10.0% and 2.5% for general seafood purchases).

PAGE 35

35 Finally, consumers were asked what would increase their consumption of seafood (Figure 3-8). They were given choices between re cipes, information on preparing seafood, TV commercials, talking with specia lists at your local store, pa ckaging, promotion of health advantages, and other. On their own, many res pondents added price and freshness to the list. The item most likely to increase consumption is promotion of health advantages of seafood (36.0%) and recipes (35.0%). Talk ing with knowledgeable specialists would help 33.0% of the respondents and 31.0% indicated that more preparat ion information would be helpful. As was mentioned in the focus groups, packaging was significant, with 22.0% indicating packaging could lead to more purchases. Only 13.6% indi cated nothing would increase consumption. Non-Consumers In addition to asking questions of seafood consum ers, the 17.0% of respondents who indicated they did not eat seafood were asked a series of questions to develop an understanding of whether or not they can be converted to s eafood consumers. The initial question was the reason they dont consume seafood (Figure 3-9). Non-seafood cons umers polled said that the primary reason they did not consume seafood was that they (or their spouse) didnt like it (20.0%), plus another 9.0% specifi cally did not like the flavor or taste. These answers can be categorized together as they por tray the same sentiment. Approximately 18.0% indicated they didnt consume seafood because of health reason s, with an additional 12.7% not eating seafood due to safety concerns. Of the non-consumers 66. 0% could never be entic ed to eat seafood. Of the 34.0% (n=27) who could be enticed to eat seafood, 25.9% indicated it would take changes in safety standards to change their behavior, 22.2 % indicated it would take a lower price, 22.2% indicated recipes would help, a nd 51.9% had other reasons (such as if they could get over an allergy or if there was a bone less product available).

PAGE 36

36 Seafood Safety Issues Seafood consum ers were asked to rate their c onfidence level in the seafood they purchase (reported earlier in Figure 3-7). Of the consumer s, 12.5% had less than ne utral confidence levels in safety. Among non-consumers that might be enticed to eat seafood, 66.7% indicated they were concerned about the safety of seafood. A ll respondents were asked to identify the fish or shellfish they believe to be the most safe and th e least safe. Responses are shown in Figure 3-10. A large proportion of respondents indicated they did not know whic h fish was the safest (21.0%) or least safe (31.0%). Shrimp and salmon were considered the safest seafood, with 15.0% and 14.0% indicating these choices respectively. Oysters were seen as th e least safe most frequently (24.0%), followed by clams (6.0%). Few responde nts indicated all seafood was considered safe (3.5%) or unsafe (1.7%), indica ting people do see the species diffe rently in regards to safety. Due to concerns about oyster safety perceptions, as verified by this survey, consumers were asked direct questions about their perception of safety in oysters. In total, 45 consumers only ate raw oysters, 111 only ate cooked oysters 76 ate both cooked and raw, and 360 indicated they dont eat oysters (Figure 3-11). Those w ho didnt eat raw oysters were asked why, with 21.0% indicating safety as the reason and 42.0% i ndicating that they did not have an appetite for oysters (Table 3-13). To expl ore the safety issue further, cons umers were asked if they would consume raw oysters if health and safety c oncerns were reduced or eliminated. Only 82 respondents, or 17.0%, indicated this would change their behavior. Finally, when asked if they were aware of any new processes to reduce risk in eating raw oys ters, 27 (4.6%) said they were. All respondents were also asked if they had sa fety concerns for seafood other than oysters. Nearly one-third (31.0%) i ndicated they did, while 68.0% indicated they had no other concerns(Figure 3-12). For those with concerns, they were asked to identify the concern. This

PAGE 37

37 answer was hard to interpret as most peoples answers were different, and included things like they just dont like seafood, religion, or ot her factors not really related to safety. Next, respondents were asked whether they fe lt there were health benefits from eating seafood. Due to a survey administration problem only 185 respondents answered this question. Of those, 86.0% perceived benefits. However, al l respondents were asked what health benefits they perceived (Figure 3-13). Most respondents indicated there was a general health benefit, or that fish was nutritious (20.5%), while others referred directly to Omega-3 or fish oil (16.5%) or lower fat content including h elps my diet (19.3%). Some respondents were more focused on the direct benefit with 14.0% in terested in cholesterol, 8.0% in terested in heart health, and 7.7% interested in benefits for the brain. Information Source To target inform ation effectively, respondents were asked where they received information about seafood and who they would trust to give them that information. People most commonly said they received information from the news paper or news (26.8%), Television or the media (25.6%), and magazines (21.5%) (Figure 3-14). Other major sources of information included cookbooks (12.4%), word of mouth (11.6%) and as king for help at the store (7.7%). When asked who influenced their decision to purchase seafood, nearly three-quarters (73.7%) said nobody influenced their decision. Of those who were influenced, immediate family, doctors, media, friends and extended fa mily were mentioned (Figure 3-15). Respondents were also asked who they trusted for informati on about seafood (Table 3-14). Interestingly, the most frequently trusted source was the person selling the seafood (17.7%). This was closely followed by nobody influences me (15.7%), the media (14.3%), immediate family (7.6%), themselves (6.2%), doctors (5.7%), and governme nt (4.1%). When mentioning the government, many respondents mentioned the USDA and FDA sp ecifically (split evenly between the two).

PAGE 38

38 Sustainable Seafood Only 12.4% of respondents indicated they knew what the term sustainable seafood meant. Those who didnt know the term we re read the following question: Sustainable Seafood is the practice of keeping fisheries and the fish they raise healthy and productive through management and responsible harvesting. Knowing this would you pay extra for it? Following this statement, 56.6% of the people that did not know wh at sustainable seafood was indicated a willingness to pay extra for it and 48.0% felt there s hould be federal funding available to support sustainable production. Overall, 58.0% of pe ople indicated a willingness to pay more for sustainable seafood.

PAGE 39

39 Table 3-1. County of residence of survey respondents. County of Residence Number Percent Miami-Dade 115 19.3% Hillsborough 250 41.9% Palm Beach 232 38.9% Table 3-2. Race and ethnicity of respondent. Race Number in survey Percent in Survey Census Percent Black/African American 74 12.4% 13% White 454 76.1% 80% Asian 2 0.4% 4% American Indian/ Aleut 6 1.0% 1% Other 58 9.7% 2% Don't know/Refused 15 2.5% N/A Hispanic 98 16.4% 14% Table 3-3. Highest level of education. Highest Level of Education Number Percent Census Data 8th grade or less 30 5.0% 8.8% Some high school 30 5.0% 9.8% High school graduate or GED 158 26.5% 34.3% Technical or Vocati onal School (some or certificate) 26 4.3% N/A Some college, but no degree 111 18.6% 15.9% Associate's degree 42 7.0% 6.9% Bachelor's degree 105 17.6% 14.3% Some Graduate or Professional school 14 2.4% N/A Graduate or Professional degree 72 12.1% 10.1% Refused/Dont Know 9 1.5% N/A

PAGE 40

40 Table 3-4. Income of respondents. Income Number Percent less than $10,000 50 8.3% $10,000 to $19,999 69 11.6% $20,000 to $29,000 59 9.9% $30,000 to $39,000 55 9.2% $40,000 to $49,000 49 8.2% $50,000 to $59,000 32 5.4% $60,000 to $79,000 36 6.0% $80,000 to $99,999 27 4.5% $100,000 to $150,000 20 3.4% Over $150,000 20 3.4% Don't know/refused 180 30.2%

PAGE 41

41 Table 3-5. Frequency of consumpti on of seafood at breakfast, lunch, and dinner for seafood consumers Daily 4-6/ week 2-3/ week 1/week 2-3/ month 1/month < 1/ month Never Refused Breakfast 4 (0.8) 5 (1.0) 11 (2.1) 24 (4.6) 14 (2.7) 27 (5.2) 12 (2.3) 419 (80.4) 5 (1.0) Lunch 5 (1.0) 30 (5.8) 133 (25.5) 126 (24.2) 49 (9.4) 48 (9.2) 11 (2.1) 109 (20.9) 10 (1.9) Dinner 7 (1.3) 45 (8.6) 242 (46.5) 117 (22.5) 58 (11.1) 33 (6.3) 8 (1.5) 8 (1.5) 3 (0.6) (number of respondents followed by percents in parentheses)

PAGE 42

42 Table 3-6. Times out of last ten th at seafood was purchased by location. Frequency of purchase Restaurant Fish Market (specialty store) Grocery Store Shipping Self-Caught 10 48 41 102 1 10 9 6 4 13 0 1 8 17 8 18 1 7 7 22 9 13 0 3 6 17 6 12 0 3 5 48 30 50 2 17 4 29 21 34 3 5 3 39 34 47 3 7 2 64 52 59 3 12 1 54 33 44 4 14 0 149 266 115 500 433 Dont know/refused 28 17 14 4 9 Table 3-7. Why respondents do not prepare seafood at home. Why Not Prepare Seafood at Home Number Percent Don't like the smell 14 20.6% Don't know how 7 12.1% Takes too much time 4 5.9% Tradition, habit, I grew up not eating seafood at home 1 1.7% Eat out, hard to prepare for one person, dont cook 21 36.2% Other 23 70.59% Refused 1 39.7% Table 3-8. Shellfish species consumption. Shellfish Number Percent Shrimp 363 70.1% Lobster 202 39.0% Crab 167 32.2% Clams 98 18.9% Oysters 97 18.7% Scallops 79 15.3% None 65 12.5% Mussels 37 7.1% Other 25 4.8% Don't Know/Refused 20 3.9% Crawfish 18 3.5% Everything 8 1.5%

PAGE 43

43 Table 3-9. Finfish species consumption. Finfish Number Percent Salmon 231 44.3% Tilapia 197 37.8% Other 130 25.0% Grouper 126 24.2% Catfish 115 22.1% Snapper 110 21.1% Tuna 110 21.1% Flounder/sole 93 17.9% Cod 63 12.1% Mahi mahi 56 10.7% Bass 31 6.0% Trout 28 5.4% Halibut 25 4.8% None 22 4.2% Seabass 19 3.7% Swordfish 17 3.3% Mullet 13 2.5% Kingfish 12 2.3% Squid/calamari 11 2.1% Everything 11 2.1% Don't Know 10 1.9% Sardines 9 1.7% Haddock 7 1.3% Pollock 6 1.2%

PAGE 44

44 Table 3-10. Reasons for the consumption of seafood. Reason for Consumption of Seafood Number Percent Health/nutrition 304 58.3 Flavor or Taste 194 37.2 "like" or "love" it 109 20.9 Other 36 6.9 Add variety to diet 32 6.1 Tradition, habit, I grew up eating it 26 5.0 Better than beef/chicken 15 2.9 Price 5 1.0 Don't know 5 1.0 Religious beliefs 4 0.8 Refused 3 0.6 Table 3-11. Single most important factor in selecting seafood Most Important Thing Number Percentage Freshness 285 54.7 Price or Cost 51 9.8 Other 41 7.9 Flavor or Taste 34 6.5 Color or Appearance 30 5.8 Smell 27 5.2 Health Reasons 26 5.0 Don't Know/Refused 11 2.1 Location of Origin 3 0.6 Wild-caught 3 0.6 Convenience 3 0.6 Know how to Prepare 3 0.6 Availability 2 0.4 Tradition, habit I grew up eating it 2 0.4

PAGE 45

45 Table 3-12. Other factors respondents consider when selecting seafood. Things Considered Number Percentage Price or cost 138 26.1 Freshness 104 19.4 Color or Appearance 95 17.9 Flavor or Taste 85 16.1 Smell 66 12.3 Don't Know/Refused 74 14.2 Health Reasons 58 10.8 Know how to Prepare 33 6.3 Other 31 8.1 Location of Origin 30 5.8 Convenience 24 4.6 Availability 23 4.4 Safety 17 3.3 Seasonality, time of the year 17 3.3 Wild-caught 15 2.9 Tradition, habit I grew up eating it 13 2.5 Farm-raised 11 2.1 Religion 5 1.0 Table 3-13. Reasons consum ers dont eat raw oysters. Why do you not eat raw oysters Number Percent Personal safety concern 101 21.4 No appetite for oysters 200 42.4 Dont eat raw foods 32 6.8 Dont like the look 24 5.1 Bad experience 8 1.7 Medical advice by doctor 6 1.3 Allergic 5 1.1 Not readily available 2 0.4 Other 85 18.0 Dont know 7 1.5 Refused 2 0.4

PAGE 46

46 Table 3-14. People who respondents tr ust for information about seafood. Trust for Reliable Information Number Percentage Grocer or Fish Guy 103 17.7% Nobody 91 15.6% Media 83 14.3% Dont know 58 10.0% Other 49 8.4% Immediate Family (including spouse) 44 7.6% Myself 36 6.2% Doctore 33 5.7% Government 24 4.1% Friends 21 3.6% Extended Family 13 2.2% Refused 4 .7% Waiter/ waitress 2 .3% Figure 3-1. Age of respondents. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 55 5960 6465 6970 7475 7980 8485 8990 and aboveNumber of RespondentsAge

PAGE 47

47 Figure 3-2. Number of years respondents have lived in the united states. Figure 3-3. Frequency of consumption of seafood. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 thru 1011 thru 2021 thru 3031 thru 4041 thru 5051 thru 6061 thru 7071 thru 80Over 80Number of RespondentsYears 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900 12 24 36 48 58 64 76 90 104 112 134 142 154 160 172 188 194 234 266 290 312 365 390 417 501 547 572 742 885 Number of RespondentsNumber of times seafood consumed per year 5/week 7.5/week 2.5/week 2/week 3.5/week 1/wee k

PAGE 48

48 Figure 3-4. Reasons for purchasing from specialty stores or fish markets over grocery stores. Figure 3-5. Preparation of seafood. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 FreshnessQualityWider selection/variety Can get size/shape wanted PriceConvenienceNumber of Respondents

PAGE 49

49 Figure 3-6. Importance of knowi ng whether seafood was raised or caught in general, and in Florida. Figure 3-7. Confidence in safety of seafood in general, and that raised in Florida 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Very important Slightly important neither important nor unemportant slightly unimportant very unimportantNumber of Respondents General Florida 0 50 100 150 200 250 Very confident Slightly confident Neither Confident nor unconfident Slightly unconfident Very unconfidentNumber of Respondents General Florida

PAGE 50

50 Figure 38. Variables that could increase seafood consumption Figure 3-9. Reasons non-consum ers do not consume seafood.

PAGE 51

51 Figure 3-10. Perceptions of safest and least safe seafood. Figure 3-11. Oyster consumption. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Shrimp Crab Lobster Oysters Clams Scallops Crawfish Bass Catfish Cod Flounder/ sole Grouper Halibut Mahi mahi Pollock Salmon Sardines Seabass Snapper Squid Tilapia Tuna Other Don't Know Number of Respondents SAFE UNSAFE Raw 7% Cooked 19% Raw and Cooked 13% None 61%

PAGE 52

52 Figure 3-12. Health concerns about seafood. Figure 3-13. Perceived health benefits from eating seafood.

PAGE 53

53 Figure 3-14. Sources of information on seafood. Figure 3-15. People who influence decisions on seafood consumption.

PAGE 54

54 CHAPTER 4 METHODS, THEORETICAL MODEL AND MODEL S PECIFICATIONS Methods This research project consists of four parts: prelim inary research, focus groups, telephone surveys, and data analysis. Initially, b ackground research on seafood, consumers age 55 and older, and past studies involving focuses in he alth, economics, and demographics was conducted. This information was then used to aid in the creation of a moderators guide (Appendix A) that was used to lead focus group studies in Miam i-Dade, Palm Beach, and Hillsborough counties. These focus groups consisted of groups of 7 to 11 people with varying levels of fish and shellfish consumption. The results obtained from these focus groups were used to construct a telephone survey to facilitate a wider sampling in these counties. The final two steps involved conducting the telephone survey and analyzing the results through econometric modeling. Theoretical Model Neoclassical econom ics is an approach to ec onomics whose focal point is to establish price, outputs, and income distributions in markets through traditional demand and supply theory. Two general goals of this theory ar e to maximize the income-constrained utility of individuals while constraining co st and to maximize the cost-c onstrained profits of firms by employing available information and factors of pr oduction. They are formulated in accordance with rational choice theory wh ich is the framework for unders tanding and modeling social and economic behavior. Further neoclassical demand theory states that demand is a function of information, own price, the prices of other goods income, government rules and regulations, and other socio-economic and demographic variables (P erloff, 2004). It is the purpose of this study to use neoclassical theory and modeling to dete rmine the factors that influence the demand for seafood amongst individuals aged 55 and above.

PAGE 55

55 The demand for seafood was analyzed usi ng two different approaches for collecting consumption data. In the first method the indi vidual was simply asked whether or not to consume seafood, while the second was to record the frequency of respondents consumption. The survey instrument used to collect the data for this research is discussed in depth in the previous chapter. The data collected from th is telephone survey will be used to conduct a double hurdle model. The study first uses a probit an alysis to determine th e independent variables which influence a respondents choice on whet her or not to consume seafood (the dependent variable). As the second part of the double hurdle model a truncat ed tobit is used to determine the influences on the frequency of consumpti on for those respondents who do consume seafood. Many factors are used as explan atory variables to test their impact on seafood consumption and frequency of seafood consumption. These variab les include information pertaining to the respondents attitudes, percepti ons and knowledge of seafood. In addition, socioeconomic, as well as, typical demographic questions will be asked to determine their impact, if any, on the dependent variables. Probit Model Linear regression m odels, t hough popular, are often misused. These models can cause inaccurate statistical in ferences when the endogenous variable is qualitative rather than continuous (Aldrich & Nelson, 1984). The regressa nd in the first part of this research is dichotomous because the answer can only be ye s, the respondent does consume seafood, or no, the respondent does not consume seafood. This is not a continuous variable, but rather a discrete variable. In this case, anothe r analytical model, such as a probit model, must be used. Probit models estimate the probability of th e binary dependent variable, y, which is dependent on k observable exogenous X values. These exogenous variables are assumed to account for the variation in the variable of probabi lity (P). It is also a ssumed that the data are

PAGE 56

56 generated from a random sample size N, with the sample point i=1,.,N and that the observations are statistically independent from one another, negating serial correlation. In this research the independent variable s are random and not fixed as in an experiment, although either is acceptable for a probit model. The model doe s require that there be no linear correlation between the X values, this implying that N > K or that the number of observations exceeds the explanatory variables. Also, variation must exist among the X variables and no two can be perfectly correlated (Aldrich & Nelson, 1984). The expected outcomes of the dependent variable are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Dummy variables are nominal scale variables used to classify data into mutually exclusive categories. In this research th e first dependent variable is a du mmy variable classified into two categories, the respondent does consume seafood or does not consume seafood. For the purpose of the probit model the dependent variables are recoded as Y=1 if the respondent does consume seafood and Y=0 if the respondent does not consume seafood (Gujarati, 2004). yi = 1 + Xi2 + i, i ~ NID(0, 2) yi = 1 + Xi2 +Xi2+ Xi76+ i, i ~ NID(0, 2) In the probit model the depe ndent variable depends on an unobservable utility index also known as a latent variable Ii. This variable is determined by one or more explanatory variables. The larger the value of the index Ii, the greater the probabi lity that Y takes on the value of one. +2Xi Xi would be the value of the i th observation for that specific independent variable. There is a critical level of the index where if exceeds then Y=1. This threshold index is also not observable, but assumed to be nor mally distributed with the same mean and variance. Here the

PAGE 57

57 standardized normal cumulative distribution function, CDF, can be used to compute the probability that is less than or equal to Ii. (Gujarati, 2004) Ii) = P(Zi 1 + 2Xi) = F( 1 + 2Xi) Here refers to the probability of an even occurring given values of X. The standard normal variable is represented with Zi, while F is the standard normal CDF. Probit parameters are commonly estimated through the method of maximum likelihood, or MLE. The MLE is the estimation of the unknown parameters, so that the probability of observing the given Ys is as gr eat as possible. MLE involves nonlinear and asymptotically unbiased equations. As the sample size increases the bias factor moves toward zero, and as such, produces better results (Gujarati, 2004). In large sample sizes the MLE parameters are nonbiased (close to the true values), effici ent, and normal (sampling distribution known and statistical testing possible) (Aldrich & Nelson, 1984). Th e likelihood function yields a probability between zero and one of observing a particular sample of Y if the estimate of b was the exact value of b. The object, therefore for maxi mum likelihood is to find the b value that gives the greatest probability. It is now necessary to take the log of this equation.

PAGE 58

58 It is then possible to take the first derivative of the log likeli hood function with respect to each coefficient bk and set equal to zero to find the parame ter estimates (Aldrich & Nelson, 1984). The goodness of fit measure looks at how well th e regression line fits a set of data. There will be positive and negative estimated i however, it is hoped that th ese residuals are as close to the regression line as possible. The coefficient of determination R2 is a summary measure that tests the fit of the data to the regression line. This value shows the portion of variation in the regressand that is explained by the regressor and lies somewhere between zero (no relationship) and 1 (perfect fit) (Gujara ti, 2004; Aldrich & Nelson, 1984). Tobit The tobit m odel, created by Tobin (1958), is an extension of the probit model that is used to test whether or not certain demographic or socioeconomic variables have an effect on the dependent variable (Tobin, 1958). For the probit model the concer n was for whether or not the individual consumed seafood. However, the se cond equation is used to see which variables affect the frequency of seafood consumption. In formation is available about seafood consumers and non-seafood consumers; however, data on seafood consumption frequency was only collected from seafood consumers. This is known as a censored sample. To deal with this, two groups are defined, n1, where people consumed seafood and data are therefore available on the regressand and n2, where there is no information about frequency of consumption because the respondent did not consume seafood. The tob it model can be expressed by the following equation. =0 otherwise

PAGE 59

59 In the above equation RHS stands for right-hand side and additional X variables can be added to the model (Gujarati, 2004). The nature of this research led to a large am ount of zero observations. This problem was observed in other seafood consumption studies as well (Keithly, 1985; Lin & Milon, 1993; Yen & Huang, 1996; House, Hanson, & Sureshwaran, U.S. Consumers: examining the Decision to Consume Oysters and the Decision of How Freque ntly to Consume Oysters, 2003). Fortunately, this can be solved through a tr uncated-at-zero tobit model. Th ese zero observations cannot be treated as non-consumption observations due to the probability that the zero observations could represent infrequency of consump tion or conscientious abstention, or other behavioral reasons. Any and all zero observations, therefore, are truncated to deal with the problem. The tobit model has a critical flaw for use in this research, however, in that the variable that increases the probability of consumption also increases the quantity or frequency of consumption at the same time. This is not, however, always true. An in dependent variable that affects the probability may or may not affect the frequency or may affect it in a contradictory manner. For this reason a typical tobit model cannot be used for this research. Instead a DoubleHurdle model is utilized. Double-Hurdle Model In the double-hurdle m odel, first proposed by Cragg (1971), the probability of an event occurring is independent of the model to de termine effects on quantity or frequency of consumption (Cregg, 1971). Many studies have us ed variations on the double hurdle model to analyze seafood consumption (Cheng & O. Capps, 1998; Yen & Huang, 1996; Lin & Milon, 1993; Drammeh, House, Sureshwaran, & Selassie, 2002; House, Hanson, & Sureshwaran, 2003). The standard double hurdle model created by Cragg (1971) is shown below: Individuals i s participation equation can be expressed as

PAGE 60

60 Individuals i Where stands for the latent consumption decision, and is a la tent variable describing participation. The vectors of exogenous variables are z i and x i and are parameter vectors. Random errors, u i and v i, are assumed to be independent and normally 2 ), respectively. The separate participation and consumption equations of the double hurdle model are as follows: =0 O therwise The observed y i explains the latent consumption y i *, only if y i >0 and d i *>0 and is the conditional decision on whether or not to consume the product, seafood in this case. The use of two equations in the double hurdle model allows the two dependent variables to be determined separately. In this way the same independent variables can be used for both equations because they affect each differently This is due to difference s in parameter coefficients ( Model Specification The model used for this study is a Double Hurdle model comprised of a probit model to determine probability of consumption and a truncated tobit to determine frequency of is whether or not the respondent consumes seafood ( SEA1 ) while the dependent variable for the truncated tobit is the frequency of seafood consumption ( TSFC ) Both used various socioeconomic, demographic, index, and habit

PAGE 61

61 variables as the independent variables. SAS a nd LIMDEP are used to compute these models. Specification for the probit is as follows: Yki* = k1HILLS + k2 PALMB+ k3HETHCON + k4 Q58_7 + k5 Q58_10 + k6Q59_1 + k7 Q59_4 + k8Q59_5 + k9 Q59_8 + k10 q59_11 + k11Q59_12 + k12 Q59_13 + k13HABCHAN + k14KNSUST + k15 YRFL2 + k16YRFL3 + k17EDU2 + k18EDU3 + k19EDU4 + k20AGE + k21BLACK + k22WHITE + k23HISP+ k24MALE Y= The specification for the truncated tobit model is as follows: if yji > 0 if yji 0 The variables are described in Table 4-1. The model is expressed more simply below: Frequency of Seafood Consumption = f(County, Influences, Trust, Location of Purchase, Home preparation, Willingness to try new products,

PAGE 62

62 Reasons for consumption, Importance of knowing source, confidence in seafood, health concerns, habits, Years in Florida, Education, Age, Race, Gender) Expected Results Respondents Choice to Consume Seafood The variables that are expect ed to have an effect on the decision to consum e seafood include: health concerns, who influences the respondent and who the respondent trusts about seafood. These variables were chosen due to findi ngs of past research and preliminary results of the focus groups and survey. It is believed that if an individual has hea lth concerns associated with the consumption of seafood they will be less likely to be consumers of seafood. The last two variables that are believed to have a sta tistically significant effect on the decision to consume seafood involve the individuals who in fluence the consumption of seafood and the individuals the respondents trust to give them reliable information a bout seafood. It is not known how these variables will aff ect the decision to consume seafood, but it is reasonable to expect that they will have an impact on the respondents decision. Respondents Frequency of Consumption It is expec ted that many more variables will affect the frequency of consumption than will affect the choice to consume seaf ood. It would be reasonable to assume that respondents who purchase seafood at fish markets or catch thei r own seafood consume seafood more frequently than those who do not. Also those who are confid ent in the safety of seafood are expected to consume seafood more frequently than those who are not confident in seafoods safety. It is expected that the more a person trusts and/or is influenced by other people when it comes to the consumption of seafood, the more frequently th ey will consume seafood. County of residence,

PAGE 63

63 gender, and race are less likely to affect the c onsumption frequency. However, individuals who have changed their eating habits as they have gotten older will likel y consume more seafood because it is assumed they are changing their habits for the better and thus eating healthier. It is also expected that if individua ls are willing or able to prepar e seafood at home, then they will consume seafood more frequently. Likewise, re spondents willing to try new types of seafood are also expected to have a higher consumption rate.

PAGE 64

64 Table 4-1. Explanation of variable coding. Variables Explanation of Variable SEA1 Respondent Consumes Seafood TSFC Total Seafood Consumption HILLS Respondent lives in Hillsbourgh County PALMB Respondent lives in Palm Beach County DADE Respondent lives in Miami-Dade County NINDEX Nutrition Index SFINDEX Seafood Index NPINDEX Neophobia Index RESTZERO Consume zero percent of seafood at restaurants RESTSOME Consume some seafood at restaurants RESTALL Consume all seafood at restaurants FISHZERO Zero percent of seafood consumed was bought from fish markets or specialty stores FISHSOME Some seafood consumed was bought from fish markets or specialty stores FISHALL All seafood consumed was bought from fish markets or specialty stores GROCZERO Zero percent of seafood consumed was bought at grocery stores CROCSOME Some seafood consumed was bought at grocery stores CROCALL All seafood consumed was bought at grocery stores SHIPZERO Zero percent of seafood consum ed was shipped to respondent SHIPSOME Some seafood consumed was shipped to respondent SHIPALL All seafood consumed was shipped to respondent CATZERO Zero percent of seafood consumed was caught by respondent CATSOME Some seafood consumed was caught by respondent CATALL All seafood consumed was caught by respondent PREPHOME Respondent prepares seafood at home NEWSEA Respondent was willing to try new types of seafood RES1 Reason they consume seafood: health and safety RES2 Reason they consume seafood: freshness RES3 Reason they consume seafood: color, smell, appearance, flavor and taste RES4 Reason they consume seafood: price RES5 Reason they consume seafood: other IMP_1 How important is it to know where seafood raised or caught: very unimportant IMP_2 How important is it to know where seafood raised or caught: slightly unimportant IMP_3 How important is it to know where seafood raised or caught: neither important nor unimportant IMP_4 How important is it to know where seafood raised or caught: slightly important IMP_5 How important is it to know where seafood raised or caught: very important WVSF Respondent believed that there is a differe nce between wild caught and farm raised CONFNOT Respondent was not confident in safety of seafood CONFNEU Respondent was nuetral about seafood being safe CONFYES Respondent was confident in safety of seafood HETHCON Have health concerns with eating seafood

PAGE 65

65 Table 4-1 Continued. BELHLTH Believe health benefits exist from eating seafood Q58_1 Who influences your decision to buy seafood: Immediate family Q58_2 Who influences your decision to buy seafood: Friends Q58_3 Who influences your decision to buy seafood: Extended family Q58_4 Who influences your decision to buy seafood: Media Q58_5 Who influences your decision to buy seafood: waiter/waitress Q58_6 Who influences your decision to buy seafood: Other Q58_7 Who influences your decision to buy seafood: Nobody Q58_8 Who influences your decision to buy seafood: Don't Know Q58_9 Who influences your decision to buy seafood: Refused Q58_10 Q58_11 Who influences your decision to buy seafood: Myself Who influences your decision to buy seafood: Doctor Q59_1 Who do you trust to give information on seafood: Immediate family Q59_2 Who do you trust to give information on seafood: Friends Q59_3 Who do you trust to give information on seafood: Extended family Q59_4 Who do you trust to give information on seafood: Media Q59_5 Who do you trust to give information on seaf ood: Government, Universities, or Health agencies. Q59_6 Who do you trust to give info rmation on seafood: waiter/waitress Q59_7 Who do you trust to give information on seafood: Other Q59_8 Who do you trust to give information on seafood: Nobody Q59_9 Who do you trust to give information on seafood: Don't know Q59_10 Who do you trust to give information on seafood: Refused Q59_11 Who do you trust to give information on seafood: Myself Q59_12 Who do you trust to give information on seafood: Doctor Q59_13 Who do you trust to give information on seafood: Grocer HABCHAN Eating habits have changed as gotten older KNUST They say they know what sustainable seafood is YRFL1 Lived less than 31 years in Florida YRFL2 Lived from 31 to 60 years in Florida YRFL3 Lived over 61 years in Florida EDU1 High school or GED EDU2 Vocational or Technical College EDU3 College degree EDU4 Graduate or Professional school AGE Age of individual BLACK Identified themselves as black WHITE Identified themselves as White OTHRACE Identified themselves as some other race HISP Identified themselves as from Hispanic decent MALE Respondent was Male FISHMARK Do you Shop at fish markets

PAGE 66

66 Table 4-1 Continued. FISHSHIP Do you have seafood shipped to you FISHCAT Do you catch your own seafood NOTIMP It is not important to know wher e my seafood was raised or caught NUETRL I do not care where my seafood has been raised or caught YESIMP It is important to know where my seafood was raised or caught

PAGE 67

67 CHAPTER 5 EMPIRICAL MODEL Probit Results The probit analysis exam ined the factors that influence a persons willingness to consume seafood and as such the dependent variable wa s whether or not the respondent consumed seafood. The study had 516 usable responses, 44 3 (or 86.7%) of which said they at least infrequently consumed seafood. The results of the probit analysis were explanatory, with the model making correct predictions 88% of the time compared to the na ve prediction of 86.7%. The nave prediction is how often you would be correct if you simply selected the most common outcome. The results of the probit analysis revealed interesting information (results shown in Table 5-1). Variables are reported as statistically significan t at a confidence level of 90% or greater. Table 5-1 lists all variables in the probit regres sion analysis and indicates whether they are statistically significant with a 90% 95%, or 99% conf idence level. Demographics The regression results revealed that education, ethnicity, a nd num ber of years spent in Florida are all significan t demographic variables in the decisi on to consume seafood. Education was the only demographic variable to have a positi ve effect on the consumption of seafood. The results showed that individuals with a vocational or technical sc hool degree, college degree, and graduate degree were 5.61%, 6.74%, and 7.31% more likely to consume seafood than those individuals who had a High School diploma (or equivalent) or less. The other two demographic variables to have a statistically significant eff ect on the decision of whether or not to consume seafood both had negative effects. People who ha ve lived in Florida 31 to 60 years are 5.74% less likely to consume seafood than those who have lived there for a shorter time period

PAGE 68

68 (however, residence in Florida over 61 years was not significant). Similarly, those of Hispanic decent were 17.37% less likely to consume seafood th an those of non-Hispanic descent. None of these variables were ones predicted to have a st atistically significant impact on the decision to consume seafood. The regression results also revealed that several demographic variables were not statistically significant to the decision to c onsume seafood. These variables were: county of residence, age (amongst 55 and above age group), race, and gender. Influence/Trust In the survey, respondents were asked who influenced their decision to buy or consume seafood. Possible answers included imm ediat e family, friends, extended family, media, waiter/waitress, nobody, myself and doctor. No ne of these variables had a statistically significant effect on the respondent s choice to consume seafood. Respondents were also asked who they tr ust to give them information on seafood. Immediate family, friends, extended family, th e media, government, waiter/waitress, nobody and myself were all insignificant to the decision to consume seafood. Doctor and grocer variables were statistically significant. People who said they trusted their grocer for information were 10.36% more likely to consume seafood, while thos e who trusted their doctors were 11.6% less likely to consume seafood. Safety/Health None of the variables that deal with safety and health have any statistically significan t impact on the decision of whether or not to buy or consume seafood. This was unexpected as it was predicted that individuals c onfident in the safety of seaf ood would be more likely to be seafood consumers. It is, however, consistent with a previous study of shellfish consumption (House, Hanson, & Sureshwaran, 2003).

PAGE 69

69 Sustainability Knowledge of sustainability did not have an impact on the decision to consume seafood. Tobit Results The second model investigated the decision of how often to consum e seafood. Frequency of consumption was calculated by a series of three questions that asked the respondent how often they ate seafood for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Any observations in which the individual did not consume seafood were truncated, leaving 447 us able observations. In addition, observations with missing information were dropped leaving 369 usable observations. Table 5-2 shows the variables th at were found to be statistical ly significant. The marginal effects were calculated as the amount the freque ncy of consumption would increase (or decrease if negative) compared to the base case. The conditional mean (base case for frequency of seafood consumption) in this model was 176 times pe r year. This is the av erage times a year the respondents of the study consumed seafood. A person who consumed seafood around 176 times a year is therefore an av erage seafood consumer. Variables are reported as statistically signifi cant when at a confidence level of 90% or greater. Table 5-2 lists all variables in the tob it regression analysis and reports whether they are statistically significant with a 90% 95%, or 99% conf idence level. Demographics The regression analysis showed that the de m ographic variable pertaining to people who have lived in Florida more than 60 years had a st atistically significant eff ect on the frequency of seafood consumption. This group consumed seafood 46 times less frequently per year (around 130 times a year) than those who have lived in Florida less time (or 26.1 % less than the average yearly consumption).

PAGE 70

70 Education and county of residence, on th e other hand, did not have a statistically significant effect on the frequency of consum ption. Likewise, age and gender were not statistically significant at or a bove a 90% confidence level. An individual of Hispanic decent was likely to consume seafood 47 times more frequently per year than those of non-Hispanic decent. Th us, respondents of Hispanic decent are likely to consume seafood 176+47 or 223 times per year ( 26.7% more frequently than average). However, race did not have a significant e ffect on the frequency of consumption. Influence/Trust In contrast with what was expected, the re gression results indicated that none of the influence or trust variables had a st atistically sign ificant impact. Safety/Health The only variable related to seafood safety a nd health behavior that was significant was whether or not an individual changed their eat ing habits as they ag ed. These individuals consum ed seafood 207 times a year as opposed to the average of 176 times a year (17.6% more frequently than average). Sustainability Knowledge of sustainability was not a statistically significant variable. Source of Purchase Individuals who buy at least som e of their seafood from grocery stores are likely to eat seafood 35 times per year more than those w ho do not buy seafood from grocery stores (19.9% more than average). This means they consume seafood 176+35 or 211 times per year. (The variable indicating that all of the respondents seafood is bought at grocery stores was not significant.) When compared to those who do not catch some of their fish, those who do catch fish only consume seafood 122 times compared to the base of 176 times a year (30.7% less

PAGE 71

71 frequently than average). (The variable indi cating that the respondent catches all their seafood was not significant.) While these variables s howed significance, other variables involved in seafood purchase location (such as re staurant or fish market purch ases) were not significant. These results are contrary to previous studies which estimated that individuals who purchased seafood from fish markets would have highe r consumption frequencies (Drammeh, House, Sureshwaran, & Selassie, 2002). Seafood Consumption While the reason for consum ption was not signif icant, the willingness to prepare seafood at home and to try new seafood did have statistically significant effects on th e frequency of seafood consumption. Individuals who are willing to prepare seafood at home are likely to consume seafood 76 times more (43.2% more frequently) of ten than those who do not prepare seafood at home. If the respondent is will ing to try new types of seafood their consumption frequency is 265 times a year, compared to the base of 176 ti mes a year (50.6% more frequently). These results are congruent with expected results.

PAGE 72

72 Table 5-1. Probit analysis results (*variable is significant with a 99% confidence level, ** variable is significant with a 95% confidence interval, *** variables is signi ficant with a 90% confidence interval) PROBIT VariableCoefficientStd. Error T-statP-valueMeanMarginal Effect Constant0.84550.73301.15400.24870.1362 DEMOGRAPHICS Hillsborough County Resident0.14370.21990.65300.51350.42250.0228 Palm Beach County Resident0.16230.22950.70700.47950.38370.0255 Lived in Fl 31-60 YRS**-0.34430.1753-1.96400.04950.4322-0.0574 Lived in Fl > 60 YRS-0.06960.2789-0.24900.80300.1298-0.0116 Vocational or Technical College***0.40710.22871.78000.07500.21510.0561 College Degree**0.48980.21952.23100.02570.25580.0674 Graduate or Professional School**0.60640.28522.12600.03350.14730.0731 Age-0.00100.0082-0.12000.904270.8101-0.0002 Black0.10720.33950.31600.75210.12210.0164 White-0.17020.2521-0.67500.49950.7636-0.0258 Male0.27230.18531.47000.14170.30620.0409 Hispanic *-0.78310.2181-3.59000.00030.1686-0.1737 INFLUENCE/TRUST Influenced: Nobody0.23780.19511.21900.22300.51940.0386 Influenced: Myself0.20140.23730.84800.39620.23450.0302 Trust: Immediate family0.29560.30130.98100.32650.09500.0404 Trust: Media0.05610.24420.23000.81840.16670.0088 Trust: Government, Universities, or Health agencies-0.09660.2734-0.35300.72380.1066-0.0164 Trust: Nobody-0.18210.2332-0.78100.43480.1570-0.0319 Trust: Myself0.21930.37700.58200.56080.06010.0309 Trust: Doctor***-0.53580.3201-1.67400.09420.0543-0.1160 Trust: Grocer*0.95330.35112.71500.00660.18220.1036 SAFETY/HEALTH Health Concerns with Seafood-0.04350.1762-0.24700.80480.3198-0.0071 Habits Changed0.20570.17611.16800.24290.77440.0355 SUSTAINABILITY Know what Sustainability is0. 05550.26950.20600.83690.12790.0087

PAGE 73

73 Table 5-2. Tobit analysis results. (*variable is significant with a 99% confidence level, ** variable is significant with a 95% confidence interval, *** variables is signi ficant with a 90% confidence interval) TOBIT VariableCoefficientStd. ErrorT-statP-valueMeanMarginal Effect Constant -418.0948180.3807-2.31800.2050 -211.8132 DEMOGRAPHICS Hillsborough County Resident -40.0082 39.9512-1.00100.31660.4344 -20.2688 Palm Beach County Resident 52.0816 40.53371.28500.19880.4126 26.3853 Lived in Fl 31-60 YRS -6.7078 27.8079-0.24100.80940.4071-3.3983 Lived in Fl > 60 YRS*** -91.4667 50.4350-1.81400.06970.1202-46.3384 Vocational or Technical College -6.3816 36.9138-0.17300.86270.2322-3.2330 College Degree 37.2719 35.44691.05100.29300.270518.8825 Graduate or Professional School 30.5457 43.45470.70300.48210.163915.4749 Age 1.4762 1.42071.03900.298869.94810.7479 Black 3.4494 56.36390.06100.95120.12841.7475 White -52.9012 44.8835-1.17900.23860.7705-26.8006 Hispanic** 92.4368 45.41122.03600.04180.120246.8299 Male -23.5264 31.1821-0.75400.45060.3279-11.9188 INFLUENCE/TRUST Influence: Immediate Family 26.2661 53.63650.49000.62430.106613.3068 Influence: Nobody -45.5016 42.0562-1.08200.27930.5109-23.0518 Influence: Myself 8.5747 47.00710.18200.85530.25684.3441 Trust: Immediate Family -49.3663 49.6277-0.99500.31990.1011-25.0097 Trust: Media -55.7032 38.2584-1.45600.14540.1776-28.2201 Trust: Government, Universities, or Health agencies -44.9018 45.0202-0.99700.31860.1202-22.7480 Trust: Nobody -5.6239 45.9239-0.12200.90250.1202-2.8492 Trust: Myself -73.1903 58.5835-1.24900.21150.0656-37.0793 Trust: Doctor 24.7198 57.22980.43200.66540.054612.5234 Trust: Grocer -23.2866 37.3710-0.62300.53320.2104-11.7973 Trust: Waiter/Waitress -44.9018 45.0202-0.99700.31860.1202-22.7480 SAFETY/HEALTH Not Confident in Seafood Safety 64.1113 65.08880.98500.32460.139332.4798 Confident in Seafood Safety 60.9922 58.51491.04200.29730.781430.8996 Health Concerns with Seafood -4.1220 29.2460-0.14100.88790.3415-2.0883 Habits Changed*** 62.0925 33.89571.83200.06700.7760 31.4570 Important to know where seafood is caught or raised** 123.6527 50.41692.45300.01420.732262.6444 Not important to know where seafood is caught or raised 85.3464 56.30941.51600.12960.163943.2378 SUSTAINABILITY Know what Sustainability is -6.4370 36.6987-0.17500.86080.1448-3.2611 SEAFOOD ACQUISITION Catch Seafood** -107.0875 41.8454-2.55900.01050.1557 -54.2522 Some Seafood Consumed in Restaurants -15.9675 31.0174-0.51500.60670.6257-8.0894 All Seafood Consumed in Restaurants 32.0779 58.37780.54900.58270.095616.2511 Seafood bought at Fishmarkets 16.6742 31.18370.53500.59290.46178.4474 Some Seafood Bought at Grocery Stores*** 69.7488 37.61351.85400.06370.5738 35.3358 All Seafood Bought at Grocery Stores 25.4127 45.90650.55400.57990.213112.8744 Seafood Shipped 62.1170 64.29290.96600.33400.035531.4694 SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION Prepare Seafood at Home* 149.0194 56.63002.63100.00850.8907 75.4955 Willing to Try New Seafood* 175.6044 33.43435.25200.00000.6639 88.9639 Reason for Consumption: Health and Saftey 69.1442 66.02071.04700.29500.068335.0295 Reason for Consumption: Freshness -5.7270 47.1474-0.12100.90330.5574-2.9014 Reason for Consumption: Color, Smell, Appearance, Flavor and Taste. 5.8657 53.32080.11000.91240.18582.9716 Reason for Consumption: Price 12.6015 61.59380.20500.83790.10386.3841

PAGE 74

74 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS Summary The purpose of this research was to discover the attitudes and percep tions of people 55 and older toward fish and shellfis h. To accom plish this, focus groups were conducted in MiamiDade, Palm Beach, and Hillsborough Counties. The results of these focus groups were then used to construct a telephone survey. The results showed that 86.7% of this age group does consume seafood and those who do, consume it an average 176 times per year. Regression analysis was performed to determine statistical si gnificance of selected variables. Discussion of Statistical Results The regression results for the dem ographic vari ables revealed that ed ucation, ethnicity, and number of years in Florida were all significan t factors affecting seafood consumption and the level of that consumption. The results of this study were consistent w ith the findings of many similar studies which showed that education had a positive impact on whether or not the respondent was a seafood consumer (Senhui He, 2003). This result is likely due to their ability or propensity to seek out correct information due to their higher le vel of education. For instance, they may be more aware of the health benefits of seafood. In addition, higher education leads to higher paying jobs and therefore these individuals may simply be able to afford more seafood than those of lower incomes. These results led us to believe that income itself is also positively related to seafood consumption. This cannot be confirmed as income was excluded from the model due to the high percentage number of res ponses that were either refused or did not know, however it is supported by previous studies (Degner, 1995). The r easoning for this is probably the makeup of the respondent group, a large percentage of which was reluctant to reveal their

PAGE 75

75 income level, or may not know how to answer th e question as they are retired. The lack of responses led the regression re sults to be in significant. The variable indicating how long a person has lived in Florida did not behave in the manner expected. One could expe ct people living in Florida to increase their consumption the longer they live in Florida, or you might expect there to be no difference. However, results showed that individuals who ha ve lived in Florida 31 to 60 years are less likely to consume seafood than those who have lived in Florida for a shorter time period. In addition, individuals who have resided in Florida 60 years or more c onsume less seafood. This is a result that cannot be explained and further rese arch may be warranted. Another interesting finding is that respondents of Hispanic decent were less likely to be seafood consumers than non-Hispanics, but likely to consume more seafood than average if they did consume seafood. This may be explained by the fact that many Hi spanics do not include seafood as a primary part of thei r cultural diet. For example, Mexican Americans consume a diet composed mostly of corn, beans, chili peppers and tomatoes (Mitchel 2008). However, other Hispanics, such as Puerto Ricans, Domini cans, and Cubans (second largest subgroup of Hispanics in America), consume large amounts of fish due to the culture of island nations (Mitchel 2008). Therefore, it stands to reason that Hispanics in general may be less likely to consume seafood, but those who do, may consume it in large amounts. The results of the tobit analysis, however, contradicted a 1995 Florida Agricultural Marketing Research Center (FAMRC) report which showed that Hispanics had lower seafood consumption frequency than non-Hispanics. One potential explanation for th e difference between the two studies might be the makeup of the Hispanic groups within each st udy. As this data was not collected, it is not possible to prove, however, it is an area for future research.

PAGE 76

76 Two sets of variables that were largely f ound to be insignifican t related to who the respondent trusted to get information about seaf ood from and who influenced their decision to purchase seafood. Among this group, only two variables were significant: trust in doctors and trust in grocers. People over th e age of 55 who indicated they tr ust their doctor for information about seafood are signifi cantly less likely to cons ume seafood as frequently as those who trusted other sources. These seafood consumers doc tors may recommend the consumption of only certain species or to stay away from fried seafood, both of which could decrease their seafood consumption. Further research on doctors perceptions and recommendations about seafood would be useful to test this theory. Interestingly, individuals who tr usted their grocer for information about seafood had a higher than average level of seafood consumptions. This suggests that a person that can trust the pers on selling seafood is be more likely to seek information or listen to recommendations to purchase seafood products. Another category of variables that was studied relates to the location of purchase of seafood products. Individuals who buy at least some of their seafood from the grocery store consume seafood more frequently than those w ho do not buy seafood from the grocery store. This demonstrates that these individuals are heavy seafood consumers because they are willing to purchase their seafood from multiple locations and therefore have more opportunities to buy seafood. The results also indicated that if an individual catches some of his or her seafood he/she is likely a light seafood consumer This, however, may be due to the fact that many of these individuals prefer only to c onsume seafood they have caught themselves, thus limiting the amount they eat. Closely related to where a person purchases their seafood is whether or not the person prepares seafood at home and their willingness to try different seafood produc ts. It is reasonable

PAGE 77

77 that people who prepare seafood at home are he avy seafood consumers because they have more opportunities and less expense when consuming seafood than those who only eat seafood at restaurants. Additionally, indi viduals who are willing to tr y new seafood or seafood dishes consume seafood more often. This also makes se nse as these people are more adventurous and less likely to get bored with limited seafood choices that are prepared the same way all the time. Finally, after the focus groups, based on the large amount of people who talked about health and safety and the indica tion that safety is a factor for many people in the survey, the expectation was the individuals level of concern about safety and belief about health properties of seafood would be significant. However, this did not prove to be the case and all variables related to health concerns, safety and ch anging eating habits we re insignificant. Marketing Messages From the results of this research it is possi ble to suggest marketing messages and actions that could help the industry to improve sales to people 55 and above. Since over 86% of this population indicates they eat seafood, which is sim ilar to studies of other age groups, it doesnt appear there is a prejudice for or against seafood in this group in general. Also due to the high percentage of people who do eat seafood, resour ces should be spent on market penetration (targeting existing consumers) rather than market development (finding new consumers). This is supported by the 66% of non-consumers who said that nothing would convince them to consume seafood. Similarly, people who indicated a wi llingness to try new seafood products were likely to consume seafood more frequently than those who are not willing to try new seafood products. This indicates efforts in product development to this group would be successful in increasing consumption, not just in displacing other consumption. Results show that there should be emphasis on nutrition and health benefits. Although the regression results did not show health factors as statistically significant in determining the

PAGE 78

78 decision to consume seafood or the frequency of consumption, the survey and focus results demonstrated their importance. For example, 50% of respondents indicated they eat seafood because of nutrition and health, 36% indicated that promotion of health benefits would cause them to consume more seafood. Thus, the indus try should focus advertising for consumers 55 and older on the nutritional aspects of seafood and the potential health benefits from the consumption of seafood. In addition, the signif icance of changing nutritional habits increasing seafood consumption showed that these consumers are consuming more seafood as they get older. This is most likely a result of the in crease of nutritionally cons cious eating habits. Many of the individuals in the focus groups were aware that seafood had health benefits, however, they generally did not have specifics and most were not aware of the central nervous system benefits that seafood can have. Continuing emphasis of seaf oods health benefits is likely to be effective as the aging population becomes increasingly mo re concerned about nutrition. In addition, efforts need to be made to dispel incorrect information and hype about the risks of seafood. Many individuals did not consume more seafood because they were worried about the risks associated with the consumption of seafood. The disturbing factor wa s how many individuals had incorrect information about these risks. Therefore along with the promotion of health benefits it would be effective to work on disp elling risk factor myths and providing correct and easy to understand information about the risks as sociated with the consumption of seafood. Although a large number of respondents did not know the meaning of sustainability, they did indicate a willingness to pay a premium for it once they were read the definition. Further information is needed about the costs of sust ainable production, and the specific willingness to pay premium prices. However, the ability to market sustainable seafood appears to be an advantage. This fact may be used in future advertising campaigns to increase sales without

PAGE 79

79 specials on pricing, or by changing consumption over to these higher priced items. However an education program would also be necessary to help the public understand sustainability, or use terms that are easer unders tand such as eco-friendly. Many respondents in both the focus groups a nd the survey indicated they would consume more seafood if recipes (35% in survey) and pr eparation information (31% in survey) were available to them. It would ther efore be advantageous to make recipes and preparation brochures available at the point of sale in grocery stores as well as informa tion that could be made available through other outlets such as the Internet. Finally 33% of respondents said that they would consume more seafood if they had knowledgeable seafood specialists to talk to. Training seafood sell ers to be more knowledgeable could be a very expensive proposition. However, it may be worth investigating the possibility of having trained personnel visit grocery stores occasionally to talk with consumers and answer questions. The results of this research show several opportunities for the indus try to increase the frequency of consumption among this age group. More research is need ed on the impacts of health, safety, influence, trust, and sustainability determine the e ffect they could have on future marketing promotions.

PAGE 80

80 APPENDIX A FOCUS GROUP MODERATORS GUIDE MODERATORS GUIDE FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION FISH/SEAFOOD/ 2007 Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL and Tampa, FL Introduction Have Participants sign release/waiver form. Group process (explain) and purpose: We are interested in a general discussion of nutrition, foods, specific food categories, how they are purchased and consumed, and various issues, concerns and perceptions you might have. We are interested in talking with each of you because you have indicated an interest in the topic and answered the qualifying question indicating that you (dont) consume the food item of interest: Fish and Shellfish. We will ask a question or make a statem ent and then ask that you respond. I hope that everyone will feel comfortable and fell free to participate. There is no particular order for the responses. There are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions. Each of you has a valid perspective that we ask you to share. For the sake of clarity, we do ask that you speak one at a time. Introduction of Focus Group participants and others in attendance (name, age, occupation) establishing rapport. (find out marital status and if they live in a home, apartment, retirement home Fill out name cards: just first name and place in fr ont of each participant for ease of identification. Objective of Focus Group Exploratory Focus Groups: these groups aid in the precise definition and understanding of the topic under investigation. Our primary purpose here is to understand the topic and to generate a useable questionnaire for later research. Goal: to learn and understand the perceptions, knowledge and preferences of people fifty five and older who purchase and consume seafood and other foods. Focus groups are much more than mere question-answer interviews. Ice Breaker Rapport building (5 minutes) BEFORE WE PROCEED, LETS TALK ABOUT FIRST IMPRESSIONS OF THE FOLLOWING WORDS (A WORD GAME), OR WHAT YOU THINK THEY MEAN: Fish Shellfish Catfish Finfish Seafood Farm-raised Wild-caught Aquaculture Sustainable Organic

PAGE 81

81 Processed Fresh DISCUSSION OF SEAFOOD AND FISH CONSUMPTION (Approximately 30 minutes) Fish: Seafood (from the ocean) fish and other Fresh water fish (farm raised) Fresh water fish (wild-caught) Are you the Primary Shopper for the household? If you are not who does the primary shopping? Does that influence the amount of seafood consumed by your household? Consumption sites: Home or restaurant? Both? Occasions? Traditions? Prepared how? (Fried? Grilled? Baked/Broiled? Other?) When? How often do you eat fish? shellfish? Forms of fish/Seafood consumed: Canned (Tuna) Do you see this as a Seafood? Caught Locally/Self caught Fillet Fresh Frozen Nuggets Steaks Whole Types of Fish/Seafood Alligator Amberjacks Blue Crab Catfish Clams Flounder Golden Tile Grouper Grunts Jack Crevalle King Mackerel Mahi Mahi Mullet Oysters Pompano Porgies Shark Shrimp Snapper Spanish Mackerel Spiny Lobster Stone Crab Swordfish Tilapia Tuna Whiting Food/Nutrition/Concerns What are you concerned about when buy ing and consuming fish and seafood?

PAGE 82

82 Quality? Freshness? Price Chemicals? Convenience? Taste? Flavor? Appearance? Sustainable? Local? Organic? Criteria: Most Important? Discussion Flavor Health (switching to fish from other protein choices) Cost Habit (Custom/Religion) Convenience Appearance Form: fresh, frozen, whole, fillet, nuggets Freshness Safety issues Packaging Other issues related? Any other? Factors that influence fish consumption: Price Processing (e.g., precooked, cleaned, frozen, fresh) Exposure/previous experience with preparing fish Knowledge of farm-raised concept Wild-caught Cultural or Religious affiliations (as influence) Seasonality Social groups (friends tastes and preferences) Availability: at restaurants What are your top thr ee seafood restaurants? Availability: in grocery stores Availability: in fish markets Where do you typically purchase seafood? Varieties available Relevant information: (e.g., recipes, benefits, image) Other NOW I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT WHERE YOU ARE FROM? (10 min) Do you visit Florida Seasonally? If so do you consume seafood more while youre in Florida? Does your consumption vary with season? If not how long have you lived in Florida? Where did you live before you moved to Florida?

PAGE 83

83 Did your consumption of Seafood increase when you moved? FINALLY, DO YOU PAY ATTENTION TO WHERE YOUR FOOD COMES FROM? (10 min) Do you make your decision to buy based on the location the seafood was harvested from? Is country of origin important to you? Do you consider Florida seafood to be better than other types of seafood? Is this more or less important when ordering seafood in a restaurant? Have you changed your eating habits substantially in the last 5 years? 10 years? Has your seafood consumption change d in this time? If so, how? Do you use the internet? GENERAL DISCUSSION OF FOODS, SOURCES, ISSUES, AND CONCERNS (GENERAL) [Approximately 15 minutes ]: a brief discussion of recent issues and behaviors in food consumption; generally things that are considered in deciding, buying, preparing, or consuming various foods (ex: safety, chemicals, price, etc.) Protein sources/Health concerns, for foods generally and for meats, poultry and fish Brief discussion of meat/fish/poultry and other protei n sources and the hows and why s of purchase and consumption: general concerns, issues, perceptions Proportion of protein in diet? Proportion of Meats (red?), Poultry, Fish/Seafood as protein sources? Wrap-Up Thanks! Debriefing (What the information will be used for ) Questions, comments? Evaluation? Questionnaire completion (demographics, etc)

PAGE 84

84 APPENDIX B SURVEY Question Hello : Hello, my name is _________________. I'm calling from the University of Florida. (This is not a sales call.) [Interviewer:press 1 to continue with survey press 3 to survey in Spanish press ctrl/end to terminate call (int: this could be a partial complete. Please ask fo r the person we spoke to previously. Press 1 to continue)] Question Lang: [Interviewer: you coded this survey as a *Spanish* case. If this is not correct, use mouse to click on back key in the lower le ft hand of the screen and re-code this case correctly. Do not press ctrl-e nd if this is a Spanish case Interviewer: press 1 to con tinue with survey in Spanish press 2 to terminate call] Question ER: The University is conducting research fo r the Florida Dept of Agriculture and Consumer Services on the att itudes of people age 55 and older toward SEAFOOD, (and your eating habits). (According to th e research method being used by the university,) We need to speak to the person age 55 and older who buys most of the food for your household. (The reason we need to speak to the person (55 and older) wh o buys most of the food is only so that we can speak with the person who would best be able to answer our questions. We are not trying to sell anything.) [Int: if person on phone says that food buying is sh ared equally among two or more people age 55 or older ask to speak with the one that is available now Int: if there is at l east one person in the household age 55 or older, but the person in the household that buys most of the food is under age 55, enter 3 Int: if er is not home schedule a call back Int: do not read choices 1 er is on the phone 2 phone is passed to er 3 no one in the household is 55 or older or person who buys most of the food is under 55] Question Exit: Thank you for your time, but we are only interviewing households that meet our selection criteria. [Int: press any key to continue, case will be au to-coded as no one 55 or older **leave note**] Question Hello2: Hello, my name is _________________. I'm calling from the University of Florida. (This is not a sales ca ll.) The University is conducting research for the Florida Dept of Agriculture and Consumer Servi ces on the attitudes of people age 55 and older toward seafood, (and your eating habits). (Accordi ng to the research method bei ng used by the university,) We need to speak to the person age 55 and older w ho buys most of the food for your household. (The reason we need to speak to the person (55 and ol der) who buys most of the food is only so that we can speak with the person who would best be able to answer our quest ions. We are not trying to sell anything.) [Int: do not read choices 1 ER is on the phone 2 Phone is passed to ER

PAGE 85

85 3 No one in the household is 55 or older OR person who buys most of the food is under 55] Question Intro: Your opinions are important to our re search. Your identity and comments will remain confidential. You don't have to answer any question you don't want to. You don't have to participate in the survey. This should onl y take about 20 minutes. Is now a good time? [Int: press 1 to continue] Question County: Do you live in. 1 Hillsborough 2 Palm Beach 3 Dade (miami) 4 Or some other county Question Exit2: Thank you for your time, but we are only interviewing house holds that meet our selection criteria. [Int: press any key to continue, case will be auto-coded as wrong county. **leave note**] Question Sea: We are conducting a survey about seafood consumption. Do you eat seafood? 1 Yes 2 No Question Intro: Your opinions are important to our pr oducers, and your identity and comments will remain confidential. You don't have to pa rticipate in the survey, and you don't have to answer any question you don't want to. This sh ould only take about 20 minutes. Is now a good time? [Int: press any key to continue] Question Q2: On a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 being none of the time and 7 being all of the time, indicate how much you engage in the following activities: reduce my sodium intake (One is none of the time and seven is all of the time) -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q3: On a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 being none of the time and 7 being all of the time, indicate how much you engage in the following activities: watc h the amount of fat I consume (One is none of the time and seven is all of the time) -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q4: On a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 being none of the time and 7 being all of the time, indicate how much you engage in the following ac tivities: moderate my sugar intake One is none of the time and seven is all of the time -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q5: On a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 being none of the time and 7 being all of the time, indicate how muchyou engage in the following activities: moderate my red meat consumption (One is none of the time and seven is all of the time) -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q6: On a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 being none of the time and 7 being all of the time, indicate how much you engage in the followi ng activities: cut back on snacks and treats

PAGE 86

86 One is none of the time and seven is all of the time) -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q7: On a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 being none of the time and 7 being all of the time, indicate how much you engage in the following activities: a void foods with additives and preservatives (One is none of the time and seven is all of the time) -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q8: On a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 being str ongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree, please answer the following three statements: I am knowledgeable about the nutritional aspects of seafood. (One is none of the time and seven is all of the time) -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q9: On a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 being str ongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree, please answer the following three statements : in general, I know a lot about seafood. (One is none of the time and seven is all of the time) -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q10: On a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 being strongly disagree and 7 bei ng strongly agree, please answer the following three statements: I am very interested in the seafood product category. (One is none of the time and seven is all of the time) -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q11 : Please answer yes or no to the followi ng statements: I am constantly sampling new and different foods [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q12: Please answer yes or no to the follow ing statements: I don't trust new foods [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q13: Please answer yes or no to the followi ng statements: If I don't know what a food is, I won't try it [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused

PAGE 87

87 Question Q14: Please answer yes or no to the following statements: I like foods from different cultures [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q15: Please answer yes or no to the following statements: At dinner parties, I try new foods [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q16: Please answer yes or no to the following st atements: I am afraid to eat things I have never had before [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q17: Please answer yes or no to the following statements: I am very particular about the foods I eat [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q18: Please answer yes or no to the followi ng statements: I like to try new ethnic restaurants [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q19: For the purpose of this surve y, seafood is any fish with fins or shellfish and can also include edible freshwater species. Exam ples of seafood include catfish, lox, canned tuna, salmon, oysters, crab, shrimp, and others. How many times a week do you eat seafood for dinner? 1 Daily 2 4-6 times/week 3 2-3 times/week 4 1 time/week 5 2-3 times/month 6 1 time/month 7 Less than 1 time per month

PAGE 88

88 8 Never -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q20: How many times a week do you eat seafood for lunch? [Int: read if necessary] 1 Daily 2 4-6 times/week 3 2-3 times/week 4 1 time/week 5 2-3 times/month 6 1 time/month 7 Less than 1 time per month 8 Never -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q21: How many times a week do you eat seafood for breakfast? [Int: read if necessary] 1 Daily 2 4-6 times/week 3 2-3 times/week 4 1 time/week 5 2-3 times/month 6 1 time/month 7 Less than 1 time per month 8 Never -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q22: Of the last ten times you ate seafood, how many were at re staurants or were take home from a restaurant? (0-10) -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q23: Of the last ten times you ate seaf ood, how many times did you purchase the seafood from a fish market or specialty store? (Please do NOT include grocery stores.) (0-10) -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q23A: Why do you purchase seafood at a fish mark et or specialty store instead of the grocery store? Quality Wider seafood selection Freshness Price Can get the size, shape or cut I want Other (Please specify)

PAGE 89

89 Refused Don't know Question Q24: Of the last ten times you ate seaf ood, how many times did you purchase the seafood from a grocery store? (0-10) -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q24A: When shopping at the grocery store do you buy? Frozen seafood Fresh seafood Prepared seafood Other (Please specify) Don't know Refused Question Q25: Of the last ten times you ate seaf ood, how many times did you purchase the seafood and have it shipped to your home? (0-10) -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q26: Of the last ten times you ate seafood, how many times did you catch the seafood yourself? (0-10) -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q27: Do you prepare seafood at home? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q27A: Why not? [Int: do not read choices] Don't like the smell Don't know how Takes too much time Tradition, habit, I grew up NOT eating seafood at home Costs too much Other (Please specify) Don't know Refused Question Q28: What types of shellfish do you eat? [Int: do not read choices] Shrimp Crab Lobster Oysters

PAGE 90

90 Clams Scallops Crawfish Other (Please specify) None Don't know Refused Question Q29: Besides shellfish, what othe r types of fish do you eat? [Int: do not read choices] Bass Catfish Cod Flounder/sole Grouper Halibut Mahi mahi Pollock Salmon Sardines Seabass Snapper Squid/calamari Tuna Tilapia Other (Please specify) None Don't know Refused Question Q30: How is the seafood you eat prepared? [Int: read choices if necessary] Baked Boiled Broiled Grilled Fried Raw Smoked Steamed Other (Please specify) Don't know Refused Question Q31: Are you willing to try new type s of seafood that you have not previously eaten? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No

PAGE 91

91 -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q32: What are the main reasons you eat seafood? [Int: do not read choices] Tradition, habit, I grew up eating it. Flavor or taste Price Health/nutrition Add variety to diet Religious beliefs Other (Please specify) Don't know Refused Question Q33: When you are selecting seafood to purchas e, what is the ONE most important thing that you consider? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Health reasons 2 Safety 3 Freshness 4 Smell 5 Color or Appearance 6 Flavor or Taste 7 Price or cost 8 Availability, how hard it is to get at the store 9 Location of origin 10 Tradition, habit, I grew up eating it 11 Farm-raised 12 Wild-caught 13 Convenience 14 Religion 15 Know how to prepare 16 Seasonality, time of the year 17 Other (Please specify) 18 None of these -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q34: What other things do you consider? [Int: read choices if necessary] Health reasons Safety Freshness Smell Color or Appearance Flavor or Taste Price or cost Availability, how hard it is to get at the store

PAGE 92

92 Location of origin Tradition, habit, I grew up eating it Farm-raised Wild-caught Convenience Religion Know how to prepare Seasonality, time of the year Don't know Refused Other (Please Specify) Question Q35: Do you purchase seafood if you do not know where it was raised or caught? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q36: How important is it for you to know wh ere your seafood was raised or caught? 1 Very unimportant 2 Slightly unimportant 3 Neither important nor unimportant 4 Slightly important 5 Very important -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q37 How important is it for you to know your seafood was raised or caught in Florida waters? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Very unimportant 2 Slightly unimportant 3 Neither important nor unimportant 4 Slightly important 5 Very important -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q38: Is there a difference in taste between wild-caught and farm-raised seafood? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q39: Which do you prefer, wild-caught or farm-raised fish, or no preference? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Wild-Caught 2 Farm-Raised 3 No preference (prefer equally)

PAGE 93

93 -8 Don't Know -9 Refused Question Q40: How confident are you in the safety of seafood you purchase? 1 Very unconfident 2 Slightly unconfident 3 Neither confident nor unconfident 4 Slightly confident 5 Very confident -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q41: How confident are you in the safe ty of seafood raised in Florida? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Very unconfident 2 Slightly unconfident 3 Neither confident nor unconfident 4 Slightly confident 5 Very confident -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q42: Which of the following would incr ease your consumption of seafood: Recipes Information about preparing seafood TV commercials Talking with a seafood specialist at your local store Packaging Promotion of health advantages Other (Please specify) None of the above [Int: do not read] Don't know Refused Question Q43: Why don't you buy or eat seafood? [Int: do not read choices] Safety Texture Smell Color/Appearance Flavor/Taste Price or cost Availability Custom or Habit Religion Don't know how to prepare Too time consuming to prepare Traumatic experience (got sick, bone stuck in the throat, etc.) Allergy Health/nutrition

PAGE 94

94 Other (Please specify) Don't know Refused Question Q44: Is there anything that w ould entice you to eat seafood? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q45: What would lead you to eat seafood? Lower price Changes in safety standards Having Recipes Other (Please specify) Don't know Refused Question Q46: Are you concerned with the safety of seafood? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q47: What one type of fish or shellfish do you believe is the safest one to consume? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Shrimp 14 Mahi mahi 2 Crab 15 Pollock 3 Lobster 16 Salmon 4 Oysters 17 Sardines 5 Clams 18 Seabass 6 Scallops 19 Snapper 7 Crawfish 20 Squid 8 Bass 21 Tilapia 9 Catfish 22 Tuna 10 Cod 23 Other (Please specify) 11 Flounder/sole 24 All are safe (INT: DO NOT READ) 12 Grouper 25 All are unsafe (INT: DO NOT READ) 13 Halibut -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q48: What one type of fish or shellfish do you believe is the least safe to consume? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Shrimp 14 Mahi mahi 2 Crab 15 Pollock 3 Lobster 16 Salmon 4 Oysters 17 Sardines 5 Clams 18 Seabass 6 Scallops 19 Snapper

PAGE 95

95 7 Crawfish 20 Squid 8 Bass 21 Tilapia 9 Catfish 22 Tuna 10 Cod 23 Other (Please specify) 11 Flounder/sole 24 All are safe (INT: DO NOT READ) 12 Grouper 25 All are unsafe (INT: DO NOT READ) 13 Halibut -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q49: Do you eat oysters: Raw Cooked Don't eat oysters Don't know Refused Question Q50: Why do you not eat raw oysters? [Int: do not read choices] 1 Medical advice by doctor 2 Personal safety concern 3 Not readily available 4 No appetite for oysters 5 Other (Please specify) -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q51: Would you eat raw oysters more often if health and safety concerns were reduced or eliminated? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q52: Are you aware of any new processing methods for oysters that keep the taste of raw oysters but reduce the health risk? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q53: Do you have any health concerns about eating seafood other th an oysters? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q54: What health concerns do you have associated with eating seafood? [Int: do not read choices] General safety

PAGE 96

96 Iodine Mercury Selenium Food poisoning Neurological problems in children Sodium bisulfate Phosphates Bacteria or vibrio or oyster bacteria or vibriovulnificus Worms Other (Please specify) Don't know Refused Question Q55: Do you think there are health benefits from eating seafood? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q56: What health benefits do you expect from eating seafood? [Int: do not read choices] Cholesterol Cardiovascular/heart Brain Low fat content More nutritious Easy to digest Other (Please specify) Don't know Refused Question Q57: How do you get your information about seafood? [Int: do not read choices] TV Newspaper Magazines Internet Word of mouth From family Other (Please specify) Don't get information Don't know Refused Question Q58: Who influences your decision on whether or not to eat seafood? [Int: do not read choices] Parents, siblings, children, brothers, sisters, immediate family Friends Extended family inlaws, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents

PAGE 97

97 Media Waiter/waitress Other (Please specify) Nobody Don't know Refused Question Q59: Who do you trust to give you reli able information about seafood? [Int: do not read choices] Parents, siblings, children, brothers, sisters, immediate family Friends Extended family inlaws, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents Media Government Waiter/waitress Other (Please specify) Nobody Don't know Refused Question Q60: Have your eating habits changed as you have gotten older? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q61: How have your eating habits changed? [Int: press 1 to reco rd answer verbatim] -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q62: Do you know what sustainable seafood is? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q63: Would you pay extra to have sustainable seafood? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q64: Sustainable Seafood is the practice of keep ing fisheries and the fish they raise healthy and productive through management and responsible harvesting. Knowing this would you pay extra for it? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No

PAGE 98

98 -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q65: If having sustainable seafood were an ad ded cost, do you believe there should be federal funding to support it? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes 2 No -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q66: What advice would you give the seafood i ndustry to improve marketing efforts? [Int: press 1 to reco rd answer verbatim] -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q67: How many years have you lived in Florida? [Int: if under one year enter 0] -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q67A: What state (or country) did you come from? [Int: press 1 to reco rd answer verbatim] -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q68: Including yourself, how many adults ag e 55 or older live in your household? -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q69: What is the highest level of educ ation that you have completed? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 8th grade or less 2 Some high school 3 High school graduate or GED 4 Some Technical or Vocational School 5 Vocational or Technical certificate or license 6 Some College, but no degree 7 Associate's degree 8 Bachelor's degree 9 Some Graduate or Professional School 10 Graduate or Professional degree -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q70: In what year were you born? [Int: enter four digit year] -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q71: Just for statistical purposes, please tell me your family's total yearly income before taxes. As I read a list, stop me when I get to the income level that best describes your household income in 2007/(Before Taxes)

PAGE 99

99 [Int: read choices. Stop when respondent indicates answer] 1 less than $10,000 2 $10,000 to $19,999 3 $20,000 to $29,999 4 $30,000 to $39,999 5 $40,000 to $49,999 6 $50,000 to $59,999 7 $60,000 to $79,999 8 $80,000 to $99,999 9 $100,000 to $150,000 10 Over $150,000 -8 Don't Know -9 Refused Question Q72: What is your race? [Int: read choices if necessary] Black / African American White Asian American Indian / Aleut Other (Please specify) Don't know Refused Question Q73: Would you say that you are of Hispanic ancestory or not? [Int: read choices if necessary] 1 Yes (Hispanic or Latino) 2 No (Not Hispanic or Latino) -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question Q74: [ Int: record gender of resp. Ask if you don't know:]I have to ask, are you male or female? 1 Male 2 Female -8 Don't know -9 Refused Question END: That completes our survey. Thank you ve ry much for your time. Press g to complete

PAGE 100

100 LIST OF REFERENCES Aldrich, J. H., & Nelson, F. D. (1984). Linear P robibility, Logit, and Probit Models. A Sage University Paper. American Heart A ssociation. (2007). Fish and Omega-3 Fatty Acids. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from American Heart Association: http://www.americanheart.org/ presenter.jhtm l? identifier=4632 Baby Boomer Generation (2004, 12 27). Retrieved 11 23, 2007, from U.S Census Bureau. Washington, D.C.: https://ask.census.gov/cgibin/askcensus.cfg/php/enduser/std_a dp.php? p_faqid=786&p_created=1104186431&p_si d=*k5M4PZi&p_accessibil ity=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=& p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J 0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9NjMsNjMmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXR zPSZwX3B2PSZw BarbergerGateau, P., Letenneur, L., Deschamps, V., Prs, K., Dartigues, J.F., & Renaud, S. (2002). Fish, meat, and risk of dementia: Cohort study. BMJ (325), 932-3. Blisard, N. (2002). America's changing appeti te: food consumption and spending to 2020 Statistical Data Included. Food Review Cheng, H., & O. Capps, J. (1998). Demand Analysis of Fresh and Frozen Finfish and Shellfish in the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70, 533-42. Cregg, J. (1971). Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Va riables with Ap plications to the Demand for Durable Goods. Econometrica 39, 829-844. D. Mozaffarian, M. D., & E. B. Rimm, S. (2006) Fish Intake, Contaminants, and Human Health: Evaluating the Risk and the Benefits. The Journal of the Amer ican Medical Association 1885-1899. Damassa, T. (2007, Febuary 12). Recent trends in U.S. Fish eries and Seafood Consumption. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from World Resources Institute: http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/157 DataDevelopm entCorporation. (1980). Analysis of Consumer Attitudes Toward Fish and Seafood. Report for the National Fish and Seafood Promotional Council, U.S. Department of Commerce, National O ceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. Dellenbarger, L., Dillard, J., Schupp, A., Zapta, H., & Young, B. (1992). Socioeconomic Factors Associated with At-home and Away-from-h ome Catfish Consumption in the United States. Agribusiness 8, 35-46.

PAGE 101

101 Drammeh, L., House, L., Sureshwaran, S., & Selassi e, H. (2002). Analysis of Factors Influening the Frequency of Catfish Consumption in the United States. Anual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association. Long Beach, CA. Edwards, S. (1992). Evidence of Structur al Change in Preferences for Seafood. Marine Resource Economics 7, 141-51. Fish Intake and Risk of In cident Heart Failure. (2005). Journal of the American College of Cardiology 45 (12). (2007). Functional Food and Drink Consumption Trends. Datamonitor. Graul, H. (1991). Seafood Distribu tion Stratevies: Merchandising St rategies for Retailers in the '90s. Journal of Food Distribution Research 22, 67-68. Gujarati, D. N. (2004). Basic Econometrics (Fourth ed.). New York: Tata McGraw-Hill. Hamilton, M., & Bennett, R. (1983). An Investica tion into Consumer Pref erences for Nine Fresh White Fish Species and the Sensory A ttributes Which Determine Acceptability. Journal of Food Technology 18 75-84. Hanson, G. D., Herrmann, R. O., & Dunn, J. W. (1995). Determinants of Seafood Purchase Behavior: Consumers, Restau rants, and Grocery Stores. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77 (5), 1301-1305. Hanson, G., Rauniyar, G., & Herman, R. (1994). Us ing Consumer Profiles to Increase the United States Market for Seafood: Implications for Aquaculture. Aquaculture 127, 303-16. Helm, J. (2008, March 5). Baby Boomers inspire a new, and more healhful, nutrition landscape for everyone. Chicago Tribune Chicago, Illinois, USA: Chicago Tribune Company. Hermann, R., Rauniyar, G., Hanson, G., & Wi ng, G. (1994). Identifying Frequent Seafood Purchases in the Northeastern United States. Agriculture and Resource Economic Review 23, 226-35. Hetzel, L., & Smith, A. (2001). The 65 Years and Over Population: 2000. U.S. Census Bureau. House, L., Hanson, T., & Sureshwaran, S. (2003) U.S. Consumers: Examining the Decision to Consume Oysters and the Decision of Ho w Frequently to Consume Oysters. Journal of Shellfish Research 22 (1), 51-59. Institute of Medicine (2007). Seafood Choices: Balancing Benifits and Risks. (M. C. Nesheim, & A. L. Yaktine, Eds.) Washington: The National Academies Press.

PAGE 102

102 Keithly, M. (1985). Socioeconomic Determinants of At-Home Seafood Consumption: Limited Dependent Variable Analysis of Existing and Latent Consumers. University of Florida, Gainesville, Fl.: Unpublis hed Ph.D. dissertation. Kinnucan, H., Nelson, R., & Hiaries, J. (1993). Un ited States Preferences for Fish and Seafood: An Evoked Set Analyasis. Marine Resource Economics 8, 273-91. Levenson, C. W., & Axelrad, D. M. (2006). Too Much of a Good Thing? Update on Fish Consumption. Nutritional Reviews 64 (3), 139-145. Lin, C., & Milon, J. (1993). Attr ibute and Safety Perceptions in a Double-Hurdle Model of Shellfish Consumption. Amercan Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 724-729. Long, S. J. (1997). Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. London: Sage Publications. Mason-Jenkins, G. (1991). Consumer Concerns about Seafood. Journal of Food Distribution Research 22 57-65. Mitchel, B.B. (n.d.) Nutrition and Well Being A to Z: Hispanics and Latinos, Diet of. RetrievedDecember 14, 2008, from www.faqs.org: http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/HeaIrr/Hispanics-and-Latinos-Diet-of.htm l Mozaffarian, D., & Rimm, E. B. (2006). Fish Intake, Contaminants, and Human Health. Journal of the American Medical Association 296 (15), 1885-1899. Myers, G. J., & Davidson, P. W. (2007). Maternal fi sh cons umption benefi ts childrens development. The Lancet 369. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2007, Febuary 2). Seafood Consumption Declines Slightly in 2005: NOAA News Release 2007. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from NOAA: http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2007/feb07/noaa07-r102.htm l Nicholson, W. (1992). Microeconomic Theory (Fifth ed.). Fort Worth: Dryden Press. Olsen, S. O. (2003). Understanding the relations hip between age and seafood consumption: the mediating role of attitude, hea lth involvement and convenience. Food Quality and Preference 199-209. Olson, K. (2006). Boom or Bust: Why advertisers can't afford to ignore today's influential midlifers. iconoculture. Perloff, J. M. (2004). Microevonomics (Third ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc. Purcell, P. (2007). Consumer Spending by Older Americans, 1985 to 2005. Congressional Research Service, Cornell University.

PAGE 103

103 Rauniyar, G., Herman, R., & Hanson, G. ( 1995). "Characteristics of Frequent Seafood Purchasers: At-home and Resturant purchases by United States Consumers. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Soci ology. The Pennsylvania State University. Degner, R. L., Adams, C.M., Moss, S.D., Mack, S.K. (1995). Per Capita Fish and Shellfish Consumption in Florida. Florida: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center. Seafoodsource. (2007, October 19). Selenium counteracts mercury, studies say. Retrieved December 13, 2008, from seafoodsource.com: http://www.seafoodsource.com/NST-13301/Selenium -counteracts-mercury-studies-say.aspx Senhui He, S. F. (2003). Identifying Factors Influencing Beef, Poutlry, and Seafood. Journal of Food Distribution Research 34 (01), 50-55. Sioen, I., Henauw, S., Verdonck, F., Thuyne, N., & Camp, J. (2007). Development of a nutrient database and distributions for use in a pr obabilistic riskbenefit analysis of human seafood consumption. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 20 (8), 662-670. Sloan, D. A. (2006). Bringing Back Boomers. Flavor & Menu 16-22. Smith, D. (2002). The Older Population in th e United States: March 2002. U.S. Census Bureau. The Boomer Initiative (n.d.). Retrieved 3 3, 2008, from The Boomer Initiative: http://www.babyboomers.com/ Tobin, J. (1958). Estim ation of Relations hips for Limited Dependent Variables. Econometrica 26, 24-36. Torpy, J. M. (2006). Eating Fish: Health Benefits and Risks. JAMA 296 (15), 1926. U.S Census Bureau. (2006, January 3). Oldest Baby Bommer Turns 60! Facts For Features Welcome to It Seems Like Yesterday (1998). Retrieved 3 3, 2008, from It Seems Like Yesterday: http://www.itseemslikeyesterday.com/1998_fall/welcome.asp Wellm an, K. F. (1992). The United States Retail Demand for Fish Products: An Application of the Almost Ideal Demand System. Applied Economics 24, 445-57. Wessells, C., & Anderson, J. (1992). Innovations and Progress in Seafood Demand and Market Analysis. Marine Resource Economics 7, 209-28. Yen, T., & Huang, L. (1996). Household Demand for Finfish: A Generalized Double-Hurdle Model. Journal of Agricultura l and Resource Economics 21, 220-234.

PAGE 104

104 Zhang, X., House, L., Sureshwaran, S., & Hanson, T. (2004). At-Home and Away-From-Home Consumption of Seafood in the United States.

PAGE 105

105 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH I wasnt exactly born to be an agricultura l econom ist, nor did I wake up one night and realize it was my lifes ambition. My path to becoming an agricultural economist was subtle and has taken the majority of my life so far. I grew up in the city, went to school in the city, and made my friends in the city. My school did not have 4-H and most of my friends had never seen a cow. Even though it was in the ci ty that I gained my formal e ducation, it was in the country where I gained my heart. My grandfather was a dentist and a cowboy. He was a regular man, with regular dreams, a loving heart, and crazy spirit; to me he was simply Far Far (the term for dads dad in Swedish). Of all my family I think, I am most like him a nd I miss him dearly. He too grew up in the city but he gave me something he never had and th at was a country home. Long ago, before I was born, he had a crazy idea: he was going to be cowboy. (He did look good in cowboy hats after all.) I dont know if it was a life long dream, if he grew up play ing cowboy, or if it was a dream he found later; in life but it was a dream and one he was determined to see through. So he purchased about 700 acres in the middl e of no-where (that was then, now its not so in the middle of no-where as people slowly encro ach on even the most deserted places, but then it could have been on the moon for all the civili zation the area possessed.) He named his dream Circle O Citrus and it became both a citrus operation and a limousine cattle ranch. He never lived there full time: as with many dreams, he had to work to support his, and so he continued to work as a dentist, spending time down on the ranc h whenever possible. When he retired, he spent even more time down there. While he neve r lived there full-time that was where his heart was, down among the citrus, cattle, and cyprus trees And that is were I grew to know him best. Ever since I can remember, my very city family would pack up and drive down to the farm. My dad would play cowboy, my mom would become as country as Dixie chicken, and my

PAGE 106

106 sister and I would run around with wild abandon, children of natu re. I never felt more myself than when I spent time down on that ranch and it is still the place my heart calls home. When I entered high school, the undercurrent of problems that dwelled in my family became a raging river and life as I knew it would ne ver be the same. But as everything I ever knew changed and people I thought I could always re ly on let me down, the one thing that never changed, never let me down was Circle O. It was there that I gained the first tendrils of agricultural knowledge. When I entered college, I started as a business major, simply because it was what my father told me to do. Although I was good at it, it never stru ck a chord or inspired me. It simply was; I simply was! I tried to combine it with something I loved and therefore I st arted a dual degree in business and animal science but it still wasnt exactly the right fit. In all this time, I never lost my love and passion for the farm. I still went to it whenever I could. One day an advisor in the Animal Science Department, knowing how much the ranch inspired me and my need to find that passion at school, put me in touch with someone in the Food and Resource Economics Department (FRED). I never knew it existed: I never knew there was even such a thing as a degree based on agricultural business and I never knew that th at was where I belonged. It did not take me long, however, to find out. I tran sferred over to FRED a nd have been happy there ever since. The teachers gave me knowledge and advice, the students gave me companionship and competition, and the department gave me st ructure and stability. It became my second home; one combining both my innate business skills and my love of ever ything agricultural. After I finished my undergraduate degree, I wasnt ready to st op learning; I wasnt ready to give up my academic home. I took the next logical step for someone who is both willing to learn more and disinclined to enter the mysterious real world: I applie d for the Master of

PAGE 107

107 Agribusiness program. While I admit it may have started partly because of my reluctance to get a real job, it has evolved in to a quest to understand why people do what they do, why the economy works as it does, and how exactly these two interact. A nd as I learned more I wanted to know more, so I worked hard and I did well. That would be the end of the story except for a certain professor and the Nationa l Needs Fellowship I received. This fellowship, while helping to finance my education and allowing me to travel to conferences, provided an unexpected friendship with a professor in the department who became my supervisory committee chair: Dr. Lisa House. As I worked closely with her, I realized an important thing: I loved her job! I loved the research, I loved finding answers to questions, bu t could I do the teaching part? I didnt know. So I took the oppor tunity to teach Introduction to Economics for Non-Majors. It wasnt easy and I made mistakes, but I did it. I, the girl who before had trouble giving in-class presentations, managed to get up in front of thir ty students twice a week and lecture. And so I made the decision that I would work to become a professor of agricultura l economics and that is what leads me here this moment writing this essa y. Its been a long road, and not always an easy one. I would not change a thing, however, beca use its the sum of thes e experiences that has made me who I am and le d me to where I am. After all this time, the place that gave me a footing into the world of agriculture is still there! I can no longer expect to see my grandfather waving as I turn around the barn. Time has taken its toll on the land, barns, and tractor. The citrus trees are olde r and we no longer raise purebred Limousin, but the essence is the same. In the end, even though Ci rcle O has changed, it still remains part home, pa rt dream, and all heart.