# Societal perceptions of aquaculture: Combining scoping review and media analysis

Mausam Budhathoki, Sezgin Tunca, Raquel Lopez Martinez, Wenbo Zhang, Saihong Li, Bertrand Le Gallic, Karen Brunsø, Priya Sharma, Piotr Eljasik, Gergo Gyalog, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Mausam Budhathoki, Sezgin Tunca, Raquel Lopez Martinez, Wenbo Zhang, Saihong Li, et al. "Societal perceptions of aquaculture: Combining scoping review and media analysis. Reviews in Aquaculture, 2024, 16, pp.1879 - 1900. 10.1111/raq.12927. hal-05244663

HAL Id: hal-05244663

https://hal.univ-brest.fr/hal-05244663v1

Submitted on 8 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
## REVIEW

REVIEWS IN Aquaculture

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Societal perceptions of aquaculture: Combining scoping review and media analysis

Mausam Budhathoki<fnref n="1" /> ID | Sezgin Tunca<fnref n="2" /> | Raquel Lopez Martinez<fnref n="3" /> |

Wenbo Zhang<fnref n="4" /> ID | Saihong Li<fnref n="5" /> | Bertrand Le Gallic<fnref n="3" /> | Karen Brunsø<fnref n="2" /> |

Priya Sharma<fnref n="6" /> ID | Piotr Eljasik<fnref n="7" /> | Gergo Gyalog<fnref n="6" /> | Remigiusz Panicz<fnref n="7" /> |

David Little<fnref n="1" />

### Correspondence

Mausam Budhathoki, Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.
Email: mausam.budhathoki@stir.ac.uk

### Funding information

European Union's Horizon 2020, Grant/Award Number: 956697

## Abstract

Aquaculture has been recognised for achieving multiple United Nations Sustainable Development Goals; its further growth depends on understanding, and responding to, societal perceptions in a broader context. Thus, this study aims to understand societal perceptions of aquaculture through a scoping review and media analysis. A scoping review identified 151 academic studies for inclusion in our five identified research clusters: (1) social acceptability, (2) growth and development, (3) media coverage, (4) sustainable aquaculture, and (5) consumer perceptions. Further, newspaper articles (n = 100) were sampled from the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Spain, Turkey, and China; elsewhere all articles identified were included (Poland, 79; Hungary, 29; India, 70). The findings suggest that scientific and newspaper articles tend to present sustainability aspects in a simplified form. Key stakeholder groups include fish farming enterprises, civil society, governmental officials, scientists, and business leaders both within aquaculture value chains (retailers/wholesalers, technology industry) and outside of them (fisheries, tourism). Also, other stakeholders included the public (indigenous groups, residents, consumers). The stakeholder groups perceived aquaculture differently and depending on the circumstances and context, their perceptions ranged from positive to negative. Many factors influenced their perceptions, including aquaculture's impact on multiple sustainability dimensions, knowledge, transparency, personal interests, types, and location of aquaculture practises, regulations, experience, and sociodemographic characteristics such as age, gender, education, and income. We recommend that aquaculture practitioners focus on context-specific multifaceted strategies—prioritising transparency, communication, and accountability—and provide essential knowledge to ensure that societal perceptions of aquaculture are based on accurate, empirical information.

## KEYWORDS

newspapers, public perceptions, social acceptability, sustainable aquaculture, sustainable dimensions

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2024 The Authors. *Reviews in Aquaculture* published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

<footnote n="1">¹Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²MAPP Centre, Department of Management, Aarhus BSS, Aarhus University (AU), Aarhus, Denmark</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Université Brest, Ifremer, CNRS, UMR 6308, AMURE, IUEM, Plouzané, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴National Demonstration Center for Experimental Fisheries Science Education, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, China</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Faculty of Arts and Humanities, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Research Centre for Fisheries and Aquaculture, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Szarvas, Hungary</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Department of Meat Science, Faculty of Food Science and Fisheries, West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland</footnote>
# 1 | INTRODUCTION

Aquaculture has been recognised as one of the critical food sectors to achieve a range of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030, SDG1: 'No Poverty', SDG2: 'Zero Hunger', SDG3: 'Promoting health and wellbeing', SDG12: 'Responsible consumption and production', SDG13: 'Climate change', and SDG14: 'Life below water'.¹⁻⁴ Substantial evidence shows that aquaculture provides significant socioeconomic opportunities for coastal and rural communities.⁵⁻⁸ Further, aquaculture products are rich sources of both macro- and micronutrients and provide food and nutrition security for many vulnerable groups.⁹⁻¹¹ Increasing use of genomic tools to assist selective breeding is improving already low feed conversion ratios compared to terrestrial animals¹² and a variety of approaches ranging from therapeutics to better management practice and system design are improving resilience to disease—eventually leading to improving sustainability of production.¹³

There is a strong public interest in developing national legislation supporting the development of conventional/traditional aquaculture towards more sustainable practices through responsible, resilient and conservation aquaculture principles and strategies.²,¹⁴⁻¹⁶ Conceptually, responsible and resilient aquaculture prioritises more on environmental sustainability, social responsibility, and economic viability,¹⁷ while 'conservation aquaculture' focuses on biodiversity conservation to minimise environmental impact.¹⁸,¹⁹ Similarly, a recently proposed 'restorative aquaculture' principle aims to provide direct ecological benefits to the environment.²⁰ So far it has been responsible and resilient principles and strategies that have been assured by third-party certification and with increasing influence in markets, signposting responsible consumption opportunities.²¹

Aquaculture production has grown rapidly in Asia for decades, now producing over 90% of global farmed production.²² In contrast, production is currently negligible in Europe (<3%), the Americas (<4%), Africa (<2%), and Oceania (<0.2%). Costa-Pierce and Chopin refer to the new geographies of aquaculture—'almost everywhere outside of Asia where aquaculture is new and not traditional' but aquaculture was only ever traditional in relatively small areas of Asia²³ and growth has been slow or even in decline within this new geographies.⁶ Certainly, the level of aquaculture development within regions is also variable. For example, the production of Atlantic salmon in the European region has increased by more than 33%, and sea bass by 29%, while mussel production declined by 5% in 2021 compared to 2011. However, the increased dependence of high-income European countries on farmed aquatic food imports from low-and medium-income countries and insecurity concerning the product's environmental, social, and safety credentials have resulted in substantial negative media coverage in the past.²⁴,²⁵ Efforts to stimulate local production have yet to be delivered, for which strict governance and regulatory environments are considered the biggest obstacles rather than a lack of technological capacity or problems with the economy.⁵,²⁶,²⁷ Further, researchers argue that an improved understanding of societal perceptions of the sector is critical for aquaculture expansion and advancement.²⁴,²⁸⁻³¹ Thus, studies that aim to understand how society

perceives different aquaculture practises and their products in a broader context are crucial to supporting the continued evolution of aquaculture towards greater sustainability while boosting public acceptance of the sector.

This review differentiates from previous studies²⁴,³²,³³ through (1) its methodological rigour (2) its geographical framing that spans a range of production-consumption contexts, and (3) its focus on linking perceptions to contemporary sustainability dimensions. The objective of the study is to synthesise and analyse scientific and newspaper articles to determine if they mention multiple dimensions of sustainability before portraying aquaculture as positive, negative, or neutral. A comprehensive analysis was conducted on scientific articles to understand the various dimensions of sustainability mentioned, without categorising them based on sentiment, while sentiment analysis was performed on newspaper articles to classify the portrayal of aquaculture. Further, efforts will be made to identify key stakeholders, their roles, and factors influencing their perception of aquaculture. This research is organised into two complementary steps: a systematic scoping review to understand the societal perceptions of aquaculture through the scientific literature and a media analysis of the portrayal of aquaculture in mainstream newspaper outlets. In this study, the findings from the systematic scoping review informed the design of media analysis. This study set out to use both methods to develop a more comprehensive and triangulated analysis of prevailing perceptions, which has been the main limitation of previous perception studies of aquaculture.³⁴⁻³⁷

# 2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS

## 2.1 | Systematic scoping review

A systematic scoping review was performed to identify and synthesise relevant scientific literature. Specifically, and similarly to a systematic review, a systematic scoping review follows a detailed protocol specifying the review process in advance.³⁸,³⁹ Still, it aims to capture a holistic understanding of a broader research topic than a systematic review. This study strictly followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews guidelines.⁴⁰ In this study, the questions guiding the systematic scoping literature review were: 'How was stakeholder perception documented in aquaculture literature: who were the relevant stakeholders, what perception did they have towards aquaculture, and what factors influenced their perceptions towards aquaculture?'

### 2.1.1 | Data collection

The three scientific databases, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar were consulted to search research articles published from 1 January 2015 to 15 January 2023. The authors discussed and agreed upon the broad and inclusive search terms to capture a wide
range of relevant aquaculture perceptions literature. An example of a search string employed in the Scopus database was as follows: (ALL (aquaculture OR farm* fish OR aquafarm* OR mariculture OR polyculture)) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (perception* OR belief* OR attitude* OR imag* OR opinion*)) and the string was adapted to the syntax of each database. The reference sections in the identified academic articles were thoroughly checked for other potential articles.

The inclusion criteria were all types of records, including reviews, books, reports, conference papers, and original articles; documents published from 1 January 2015 to 15 January 2023; records published in the English language; records available as full texts; and records that are relevant to the purpose of the study. Exclusion criteria included search terms used in a different context to the research question (for instance, management and conservation aspects of aquaculture, economic and demand analysis, technological aspects of aquaculture, and perception towards wild fisheries); records that are not relevant to the aim of the study that is, records with the primary aim of understanding societal perceptions of aquaculture.

## 2.1.2 | Data analysis

The scientific articles following inclusion criteria were imported into the Zotero software to manage the citations.⁴¹ Initially, a thesaurus file was created to ensure consistency for different spelling and synonyms in the text data (for instance, farmed fish was exchanged with aquaculture). For identifying the research cluster, thematic clustering was employed through the visualisation of similarities (VOS) software version 1.6.20 environment.⁴² The association strength of the co-occurrence terms in the text data in the title and abstract fields was considered for determining the research clusters. A co-word map was produced with a minimum of eight occurrences of words in the text data using the VOS mapping technique for displaying research clusters.⁴³ Some of the terms considered not relevant for analysis were removed, for instance, countries and cities. The counting method was set to binary and the network and overlay visualisation scales were set to 1.00. Each article was then associated with a research cluster where it best fit. This process included screening the title and abstract for the terms defining the research clusters as well as reading the full text to align the meaning of the research cluster. This task was undertaken independently by three reviewers, and in case of disagreement, a fourth reviewer was consulted to reach a consensus through discussion. Finally, the article was summarised based on the article's information concerning the author(s) and year of publication, research design, topic focus, stakeholder involvement, and aquaculture/sustainability attributes (see Appendix A).

## 2.2 | Media analysis

National, regional, and local mainstream newspaper media of the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Turkey,

China, and India were analysed for articles on aquaculture perceptions. The countries selected for the media analysis were based on their production level (aquaculture versus wild-caught), aquatic food trade deficit, per capita consumption of aquatic foods, geographical location, and current and potential future roles in world aquaculture. For example, China was the largest aquaculture producer, with one of the highest per capita consumption and no aquatic food trade balance deficit. Meanwhile, Hungary is the lowest aquaculture producer, with one of the lowest per capita consumption and has an aquatic food trade deficit balance. Further, the inclusion of both Asian (China and India) and European (United Kingdom, France, Spain, Denmark, Poland, Turkey, Hungary) countries in the media analysis provided a greater geographical and cultural range to the analysis allowing deeper insights, and a more nuanced understanding of cross-cultural dynamics shaping the portrayal of societal perceptions of aquaculture among a significant portion of the global population. Figure 1 shows a comparative analysis between them.

Table 1 shows the keywords search terms and databases/online archives used and the number of newspaper articles analysed in each country. The keywords search terms, and the databases/online archives were adjusted according to the country. The main reason for this was not being able to locate potential newspaper articles with a standard database/online archive. Further, to locate potential newspaper articles in selected databases for country analysis, we had also to adjust the keyword search terms. Despite the adjustments, we intended to locate as many potential newspaper articles as possible in each country.

Inclusion criteria were subject matter (the primary focus of articles on societal perception of aquaculture), article types (wire, feature, or editorial), period (1 January 2015 to 15 January 2023), and official languages of selected countries (see Table 1). We employed a random quota sampling technique to select 100 newspaper articles from countries with more newspaper articles. Following the inclusion criteria, each newspaper article entered content and stakeholder analysis process, including a ‘summative content’ analysis. This type of analysis explores certain words in the article quantitatively but also seeks to assess the contextual use of the phrase.⁴⁵ Terms to conduct a summative content analysis were identified from the findings of the scoping review. The particular benefit of this approach is that it combines quantitative and qualitative techniques to investigate what is communicated and how specific topics are represented in newspaper articles.⁴⁶ An Excel worksheet (see Appendix B) was created to summarise each newspaper article that contains information including the headline, published data, publisher, country, headline, stakeholder involved, sustainability attributes/topics, significant findings, sentiments/tones, and types of aquacultures reported. Articles were counted according to the topic and subject involved; therefore, the sum of the topic rankings may be higher than the number of articles analysed due to the multiple themes some articles cover. For example, the same article includes mentions of both environmental benefits of aquaculture as well as social benefits.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 1** Comparative analysis between countries selected for newspaper media analysis. Data on per capita aquatic food consumption (kg/year/capita) and production (tonnes live weight) were taken from the Food and Agriculture Organisation⁴⁴; both the x-axis and y-axis are in logarithmic scale for better visualisation. NTD, no aquatic food trade deficit; TD, aquatic food trade deficit.</figcaption></figure>

# 3 | RESULTS

## 3.1 | Scoping review

The initial Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar search yielded 12,504 potential records. Following the eligibility criteria, 11,648 articles at the title level and 655 at the abstract level were excluded. Full texts of 201 articles were further evaluated to include 151 for the scoping review. Figure 2 shows the selection process of articles based on the PRISMA systematic scoping review procedure.

### 3.1.1 | Thematic clustering

Thematic clustering of selected scientific articles identified five research clusters: (1) Social acceptability, (2) Growth and development, (3) Media coverage, (4) Sustainable aquaculture, and (5) Consumer perceptions. Figure 3 shows the co-word map of the co-occurring terms in scientific literature. The first research cluster, ‘Social acceptability’, outlined the public acceptability of different types of aquacultures. The second research cluster, ‘Growth and Development’, is closely related to research cluster 1, but this research cluster investigates multiple stakeholder perceptions about aquaculture’s growth and development. The third research cluster,

‘Media coverage’, examines media analysis to uncover conflicts interest between multiple stakeholders. The fourth research cluster, ‘Sustainable aquaculture’, describes the sustainability aspects of aquaculture, particularly from the perspective of the fish farming industry. Finally, the ‘Consumer perceptions’ research cluster examines consumer perceptions of aquaculture and its influencing factors.

## 3.2 | Characteristics and analysis of the research clusters

Table 2 shows the characteristics of the identified research clusters. Most of the research was conducted in Europe (49.7%), followed by North America (25.2%). Notably, Asia, the highest aquaculture production region, had only 6.6% of research focusing on understanding societal perceptions towards aquaculture. The main focus of most of the studies was user perceptions (42.3%), that is, individuals who interact with or utilise aquaculture products, often consumers. Furthermore, such user, often consumer, perceptions were mainly concentrated in research cluster 5, ‘Consumer Perceptions’ and the articles were based on studies conducted primarily in Europe. More than half of the research articles focused on aquaculture in general (53%), while others specified finfish aquaculture (9.9%), marine aquaculture (9.3%), and shellfish aquaculture (7.3%). More than one-third
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Keyword search terms, databases, and the number of newspaper articles analysed in each country.ª</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>United Kingdom (English)</th><th>Denmark (Danish)</th><th>France (French)</th><th>Spain (Spanish)</th><th>Poland (Polish)</th><th>Hungary (Hungarian)</th><th>Turkey (Turkish)</th><th>China (Chinese)</th><th>India (Hindi/English)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Keywords</th><td>Aquaculture<br>Farm fish<br>Aquafarming<br>Mariculture<br>Polyculture</td><td>Akvakultura,<br>fiskeopdræt</td><td>Aquaculture,<br>Pisciculture,<br>Conchylviculture,<br>Saumon elevage</td><td>Acuicultura,<br>Piscicultura</td><td>Akwakultura, Hodowlą<br>ryb, Gospodarka<br>rybacka, Polikultura</td><td>Haltenyésztés,<br>Akvakultúra,<br>Tögazdaság</td><td>Su Ürünleri<br>Yetiştiriciliği,<br>Akuakültür, Su<br>Ürünleri Çiftliği</td><td>水产养殖<br>鱼养殖<br>虾养殖<br>蟹养殖<br>贝养殖<br>藻养殖<br>海水养殖<br>淡水养殖</td><td>मत्तसूच पालन,<br>एक्वाक्चुल्च,<br>मछनी पालन</td></tr><tr><th>Perception, Belief, Attitude, Image, Opinion</th><td>Opfattelse,<br>Synes,<br>Tänke</td><td>Opinion, Perception,<br>Croyance</td><td></td><td>Opinion,<br>Percepción,<br>Creencias</td><td>Opinia, Postrzeganie,<br>Percepcja, Zdanie,<br>Punkt widzenia</td><td>Vélekedés,<br>Hozzáállás,<br>Vélemény,<br>Megítélés</td><td>Algı, Görüş, Fikir</td><td>观念<br>信仰<br>态度<br>形象<br>意见<br>观点<br>看法</td><td>अनुभवति, न्यूनता,<br>छवि, राष्ट्र</td></tr><tr><th>Databases</th><td>Nexis</td><td>Infomedia</td><td>Europress</td><td>Hemeroteca nacional</td><td>AGRO, SIGŻ,<br>newspaper websites</td><td>Arcanaum</td><td>Sabah, Türkiye,<br>Sözcü, Milliyet,<br>Hürriyet</td><td>Chinese<br>National<br>Knowledge<br>Infrastructure</td><td>ProQuest</td></tr><tr><th>Results</th><td>2072</td><td>1455</td><td>424</td><td>445</td><td>79</td><td>29</td><td>1147</td><td>146</td><td>130</td></tr><tr><th>Analysed</th><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>79</td><td>29</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>70</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>ªThe term under the country is the language used in each country.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2 PRISMA systematic scoping review flow diagram.</figcaption></figure>

of the publications explored the perceptions of stakeholders about sustainability aspects (two or multiple dimensions) of aquaculture. In contrast, others explored perceptions in general (46.3%), risks and benefits (7.9%), and access arrangement (2.6%).

### 3.2.1 | Research cluster 1: Social acceptability

This research cluster investigated the social acceptability of aquaculture, with the general public being the key stakeholder group. The findings indicated that they have positive, neutral, and negative perceptions of aquaculture depending on the specific aquacultural activities, location, knowledge about aquaculture, its impact on socioeconomic benefits, and environmental risks.

Perceptions about the type of aquaculture activities vary across countries. For example, a survey found that the Italian and Israeli public tended to have a more positive perception of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) than conventional aquaculture, but Norwegians were uncertain of its potential benefits.47,48 IMTA—the integrated culturing of fed species, such as finfish, inorganic extractive species such as seaweeds, and organic extractive species such as suspension- and deposit-feeders remains largely a conceptual

model.49 Based on the idea that the wastes of one cultured species support the production of another, it has not been adopted by commercial actors despite intense research interest—mainly due to regulatory challenges. Across the geographies assessed, most of the general public had a more positive perception towards farming mussels and seaweed.50–53 In Atlantic Canadian communities attitudes were more divided with an understanding that farming bivalves could stem pollution, but also that impacts specifically on the ocean floor, and broader coastal ecology were possible.35

A review paper on European aquaculture concluded that as most aquaculture activities operated in public spaces and interacted with a wide range of other resource users and local communities; their social acceptability was closely related to the location of its operation.33 Although some general public groups in Spain perceive areas closer to the coast are most suitable for aquaculture development,50 more generally conflicts with other economic and recreational uses close to the coast and resultant adverse impacts, especially on aesthetics47,54–58 were the main perception. However, in one specific case, Northern Norway, attitudes were more accommodating and neutral regarding its impacts on fishing and commercial and recreational uses.59

Knowledge about aquaculture among stakeholders also seems to determine the social acceptability of aquaculture. The public with a
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 3** Co-word map constructed from the frequency of co-occurred terms.</figcaption></figure>

broader understanding of aquaculture tended to support the development of this sector more than others.⁶⁰⁻⁶³ For instance, Whitmore and colleagues found that men who graduated from college and non-whites in general in the United States claimed greater subjective knowledge of aquaculture and thus were significantly more supportive of aquaculture.⁶³ While women with lower levels of education, and whites rated their subjective knowledge lowest. Such studies do not differentiate between familiarity and knowledge, however, the approach of Flaherty et al.⁶⁴ who uses a specific knowledge question (what species are produced in their area?) allows the separation of real knowledge rather than a self-reported assessment of knowledge.

The findings suggest that perceptions of aquaculture sustainability are critical in determining social acceptability among the general public but the articles that link such negative or mixed perceptions do not relate them to specific or quantified negative environmental impacts.⁵⁹,⁶⁵⁻⁶⁷ Most European and North American public generally perceive aquaculture as a threat or a severe threat to the marine environment, including eutrophication, harmful/disruptive to wild stocks,

heavy metal contamination, and pollution. Therefore, demonstrating environmental sustainability was highly prioritised by such studies to improve public confidence in aquaculture products.⁶⁴,⁶⁸⁻⁷¹ In contrast, aquaculture has been associated with local job creation and supporting the local economy and products. Attitudes associated with the socioeconomic impacts of aquaculture have been crucial for supporting (or opposing) aquaculture rather than with environmental impacts in some parts of the world, such as the United States, Ireland, and Norway.⁵¹,⁵⁴⁻⁵⁶,⁶⁷,⁷² The trade-offs between socioeconomic and environmental impacts are rarely made explicit in these articles and an opportunity to reflect on their interconnectedness and interdependency is lost.

Another dimension of social acceptability identified by the two papers was that lower fish prices are a positive aspect of aquaculture to consumers.⁵⁸,⁷³ At the same time, food safety, mainly relating to disease transfer, lower quality, and poorer taste, are considered negative aspects of aquaculture for others.⁴⁷,⁷³ Sinner and colleagues found that cultural impacts such as community identity and culture
<table><caption>TABLE 2 Characteristics of the research clusters and the per cent of the total sample (N = 151).</caption><thead><tr><th>% (n)</th><th>Categories</th><th>Social acceptability, N = 30</th><th>Growth and development, N = 24</th><th>Media coverage, N = 35</th><th>Sustainability aspects, N = 23</th><th>Consumer perceptions, N = 39</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Primary article location</td><td>Asia</td><td></td><td></td><td>2.8 (1)</td><td>30.4 (7)</td><td>5.1 (2)</td><td>6.6 (10)</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td></td><td>4.2 (1)</td><td></td><td>8.7 (2)</td><td></td><td>2 (3)</td></tr><tr><td>Australia</td><td>3.3 (1)</td><td></td><td>14.3 (5)</td><td>8.7 (2)</td><td></td><td>5.3 (8)</td></tr><tr><td>Europe</td><td>40 (12)</td><td>62.5 (15)</td><td>37.1 (13)</td><td>30.4 (7)</td><td>71.8 (28)</td><td>49.7 (75)</td></tr><tr><td>North America</td><td>43.3 (13)</td><td>20.8 (5)</td><td>34.2 (12)</td><td>4.3 (1)</td><td>17.9 (7)</td><td>25.2 (38)</td></tr><tr><td>South America</td><td>6.6 (2)</td><td></td><td>8.6 (3)</td><td>4.3 (1)</td><td></td><td>3.9 (6)</td></tr><tr><td>Global</td><td>6.6 (2)</td><td>16.6 (4)</td><td>8.6 (3)</td><td>13.0 (3)</td><td>7.7 (3)</td><td>9.9 (15)</td></tr><tr><td>Growth and development</td><td>13.3 (4)</td><td>33.3 (8)</td><td></td><td>26.1 (6)</td><td></td><td>11.9 (18)</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sustainability aspects</td><td>6.6 (2)</td><td>12.5 (3)</td><td>5.7 (2)</td><td>21.7 (5)</td><td></td><td>7.9 (12)</td></tr><tr><td>Policy and regulation</td><td>3.3 (1)</td><td>12.5 (3)</td><td></td><td>4.3 (1)</td><td></td><td>3.3 (5)</td></tr><tr><td>Profitability</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>8.7 (2)</td><td></td><td>1.3 (2)</td></tr><tr><td>Conflict of interests</td><td></td><td>16.6 (4)</td><td>42.8 (15)</td><td>4.3 (1)</td><td></td><td>13.2 (20)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Social acceptability</td><td>6.6 (2)</td><td>8.3 (2)</td><td>2.8 (1)</td><td>8.7 (2)</td><td></td><td>4.6 (7)</td></tr><tr><td>Risk perception</td><td>3.3 (1)</td><td>4.2 (1)</td><td>2.8 (1)</td><td></td><td></td><td>2 (3)</td></tr><tr><td>User perception</td><td>46.6 (14)</td><td>8.3 (2)</td><td>14.3 (5)</td><td>17.4 (4)</td><td>100 (39)</td><td>42.3 (64)</td></tr><tr><td>User impacts</td><td>10 (3)</td><td>4.2 (1)</td><td>5.7 (2)</td><td>4.3 (1)</td><td></td><td>4.6 (7)</td></tr><tr><td>Public perception</td><td>10 (3)</td><td></td><td>2.8 (1)</td><td>4.3 (1)</td><td></td><td>3.3 (5)</td></tr><tr><td>Transparency and communication</td><td></td><td></td><td>22.8 (8)</td><td></td><td></td><td>5.3 (8)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="8">Types of aquacultures analysed</td><td>Aquaculture in general</td><td>53.3 (16)</td><td>58.3 (14)</td><td>42.8 (15)</td><td>39.1 (9)</td><td>66.6 (26)</td><td>53 (80)</td></tr><tr><td>Aquaculture products, in general</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>10.3 (4)</td><td>2.6 (4)</td></tr><tr><td>Finfish aquaculture</td><td></td><td>8.3 (2)</td><td>31.4 (11)</td><td></td><td>5.1 (2)</td><td>9.9 (15)</td></tr><tr><td>Marine aquaculture</td><td>23.3 (7)</td><td>8.3 (2)</td><td>8.6 (3)</td><td>8.7 (2)</td><td></td><td>9.3 (14)</td></tr><tr><td>Integrated multitrophic aquaculture</td><td>3.3 (1)</td><td>8.3 (2)</td><td></td><td>13.0 (3)</td><td>7.7 (3)</td><td>5.9 (9)</td></tr><tr><td>Shellfish aquaculture</td><td>20 (6)</td><td></td><td>5.7 (2)</td><td>13.0 (3)</td><td></td><td>7.3 (11)</td></tr><tr><td>Organic aquaculture</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>13.0 (3)</td><td>7.7 (3)</td><td>3.9 (6)</td></tr><tr><td>Offshore aquaculture</td><td>12.5 (3)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2 (3)</td></tr><tr><td>Others (cage, inland, etc.)</td><td></td><td>4.2 (1)</td><td>11.4 (4)</td><td>13.0 (3)</td><td>2.5 (1)</td><td>5.9 (9)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 2 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>% (n)</th><th>Categories</th><th>Social acceptability, N = 30</th><th>Growth and development, N = 24</th><th>Media coverage, N = 35</th><th>Sustainability aspects, N = 23</th><th>Consumer perceptions, N = 39</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Aquaculture/sustainability attributes</td><td>Economic and environment</td><td>6.6 (2)</td><td></td><td>2.8 (1)</td><td>4.3 (1)</td><td>5.1 (2)</td><td>3.9 (6)</td></tr><tr><td>Social and environment</td><td>3.3 (1)</td><td>4.2 (1)</td><td></td><td>8.7 (2)</td><td></td><td>2.6 (4)</td></tr><tr><td>Socioeconomic</td><td></td><td>12.5 (3)</td><td></td><td>17.4 (4)</td><td></td><td>4.6 (7)</td></tr><tr><td>Social, economic, and environment</td><td>23.3 (7)</td><td>25 (6)</td><td>22.8 (8)</td><td>4.3 (1)</td><td>2.5 (1)</td><td>15.2 (23)</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple dimensions (social, economic, health, quality, environment, etc.)</td><td>16.6 (5)</td><td>20.8 (5)</td><td>25.7 (9)</td><td>21.7 (5)</td><td>2.5 (1)</td><td>16.5 (25)</td></tr><tr><td>Risks and benefits</td><td>10 (3)</td><td>8.3 (2)</td><td>14.3 (5)</td><td>8.7 (2)</td><td></td><td>7.9 (12)</td></tr><tr><td>Access arrangement</td><td>3.3 (1)</td><td>8.3 (2)</td><td></td><td></td><td>2.5 (1)</td><td>2.6 (4)</td></tr><tr><td>Perception in general</td><td>36.6 (11)</td><td>20.8 (5)</td><td>34.3 (12)</td><td>34.8 (8)</td><td>87.2 (34)</td><td>46.3 (70)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Research cluster 1: Social acceptability. Research cluster 2: Growth and development. Research cluster 3: Media coverage. Research cluster 4: Sustainable aquaculture. Research cluster 5: Consumer perceptions.

were the only significant predictors of social licence scores determining the public acceptability of aquaculture in New Zealand, whereas environmental, economic, and social impacts were not.⁶² In contrast, economic impacts for benefits to coastal communities were not critical to the social acceptability of aquaculture in Europe.³³

### 3.2.2 | Research cluster 2: Growth and development

The growth and development cluster was closely linked to research cluster 1 (Societal acceptability; Figure 3); but more focused on the views of direct stakeholders in the sector such as governmental officials, civil society stakeholders (environmental nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), activists, community groups), the fish farming enterprises (fish farmers, industry associations or groups), business leaders [both within aquaculture value chains (retailers/wholesalers, technology industry) and outside of them (fisheries, tourism)], and scientists (researchers, students, other specialist expertise such as law) perceptions towards the growth and development of aquaculture.

The findings suggest that governmental officials, the fish farming industry, scientists, and business leaders (particularly retailers/wholesalers technology industry) tended to have neutral to positive perceptions towards aquaculture's growth and development. In contrast, civil society stakeholders (particularly environmental NGOs, activists, and some community groups) and business leaders with perceived competing interests (particularly fisheries and tourism) had more neutral to negative views.⁷⁴⁻⁷⁷ The general public had less polarised perceptions of aquaculture growth and development, ranging from positive to negative.⁷⁸,⁷⁹

The growth and development of aquaculture are central to debates on food security and sustainability. Pro-aquaculture stakeholders, including the fish farming enterprises, governmental officials, and scientists, perceived that expanding aquaculture increases food production and contributes to national food security; a decreased dependence on aquatic food imports was a key positive attribute in Europe.⁸⁰⁻⁸²,⁸³ Furthermore, they perceived that growth in aquaculture would strengthen related industries throughout the value chain and create new business structures and areas. Other perceived benefits include decreased pressure on wild stocks, but only if aquaculture shifted its reliance on wild-caught fish to alternative feed ingredients and improved water quality (in the case of shellfish aquaculture or IMTA).⁸⁴ The position of civil society stakeholders (especially environmental NGOs, activists, and some community groups) was that aquaculture expansion resulted in disease outbreaks and threats to genetic robustness in wild populations, chemical pollution, and visual pollution of the coastal landscape. Further, in the case of marine aquaculture, they perceived that it would create more traffic congestion at sea and in harbours, pollution, and various risks (e.g., accidents and oil spills). Overall their objections to the growth and development of aquaculture were based on their judgement that adverse risks to the natural environment outweighed the benefits of further expansion.²⁴,⁸¹,⁸⁵⁻⁸⁷
<table><caption>TABLE 3 Newspaper articles characteristics.</caption><thead><tr><th>% (n)</th><th>Categories</th><th>United Kingdom, N = 100</th><th>Denmark, N = 100</th><th>France, N = 100</th><th>Spain, N = 100</th><th>Poland, N = 79</th><th>Hungary, N = 29</th><th>Turkey, N = 100</th><th>China, N = 100</th><th>India, N = 70</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Stakeholder involved</td><td>Government officials</td><td>23</td><td>70</td><td>14</td><td>21</td><td>22.7 (18)</td><td>24.1 (7)</td><td>66</td><td>63</td><td>42.8 (30)</td></tr><tr><td>Business leader</td><td>8</td><td>69</td><td>19</td><td>19</td><td>7.6 (6)</td><td>-</td><td>44</td><td>-</td><td>5.7 (4)</td></tr><tr><td>Civil society group</td><td>59</td><td>16</td><td>38</td><td>11</td><td>17.7 (14)</td><td>17.2 (5)</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>22.8 (16)</td></tr><tr><td>Fish farming industry</td><td>55</td><td>71</td><td>38</td><td>39</td><td>39.2 (31)</td><td>62 (18)</td><td>90</td><td>51</td><td>12.8 (9)</td></tr><tr><td>Scientists</td><td>13</td><td>15</td><td>18</td><td>15</td><td>36.7 (29)</td><td>13.8 (4)</td><td>9</td><td>16</td><td>15.7 (11)</td></tr><tr><td>Public</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>23</td><td>37</td><td>5 (4)</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Article focus</td><td>Growth and development</td><td>8</td><td>27</td><td>17</td><td>37</td><td>19 (15)</td><td>13.8 (4)</td><td>40</td><td>48</td><td>17.1 (12)</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sustainability aspects</td><td>4</td><td>32</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>13.9 (11)</td><td>17.5 (5)</td><td>24</td><td>14</td><td>37.1 (26)</td></tr><tr><td>Policy and regulation</td><td>4</td><td>28</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>19 (15)</td><td>13.8 (4)</td><td>26</td><td>16</td><td>5.7 (4)</td></tr><tr><td>Profitability</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>13</td><td>9</td><td>5 (4)</td><td>20.6 (6)</td><td>3</td><td>13</td><td>2.8 (2)</td></tr><tr><td>Conflicts of interests</td><td>4</td><td>20</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>2.5 (2)</td><td>6.9 (2)</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>11.4 (8)</td></tr><tr><td>Social acceptability</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>8.8 (7)</td><td>3.4 (1)</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>1.4 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>Risk perception</td><td>44</td><td>8</td><td>17</td><td>6</td><td>15.2 (12)</td><td>6.9 (2)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>10 (7)</td></tr><tr><td>User perceptions</td><td>13</td><td>4</td><td>10</td><td>-</td><td>6.3 (5)</td><td>13.8 (4)</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>8.5 (6)</td></tr><tr><td>User impacts</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>2</td><td>2.5 (2)</td><td>10.3 (3)</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1.4 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>Public perception</td><td>2</td><td>19</td><td>9</td><td>9</td><td>2.5 (2)</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>2.8 (2)</td></tr><tr><td>Transparency and communication</td><td>2</td><td>20</td><td>1</td><td>15</td><td>5 (4)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>1.4 (1)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Sustainability attributes</td><td>Economic</td><td>25</td><td>26</td><td>31</td><td>20</td><td>36.7 (29)</td><td>31 (9)</td><td>78</td><td>59</td><td>27.1 (19)</td></tr><tr><td>Social</td><td>28</td><td>29</td><td>29</td><td>15</td><td>29.1 (23)</td><td>24.1 (7)</td><td>67</td><td>46</td><td>12.8 (9)</td></tr><tr><td>Environment</td><td>55</td><td>36</td><td>15</td><td>18</td><td>16.4 (13)</td><td>17.5 (5)</td><td>12</td><td>25</td><td>11.4 (8)</td></tr><tr><td>Quality, health, and safety</td><td>12</td><td>25</td><td>25</td><td>13</td><td>1.2 (1)</td><td>3.4 (1)</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sustainability aspects</td><td>3</td><td>21</td><td>9</td><td>21</td><td>6.3 (5)</td><td>17.5 (5)</td><td>13</td><td>16</td><td>24.3 (17)</td></tr><tr><td>Access arrangement</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>7</td><td>20.2 (16)</td><td>6.9 (2)</td><td>3</td><td>16</td><td>5.7 (4)</td></tr><tr><td>Animal welfare</td><td>12</td><td>-</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>12.6 (10)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Types of aquaculture</td><td>Perception in general</td><td>3</td><td>23</td><td>17</td><td>12</td><td>7.6 (6)</td><td>20.6 (6)</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>31.4 (22)</td></tr><tr><td>Aquaculture in general</td><td>41</td><td>84</td><td>49</td><td>62</td><td>20.2 (16)</td><td>44.8 (13)</td><td>70</td><td>59</td><td>52.8 (37)</td></tr><tr><td>Aquaculture products, in general</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>10 (7)</td></tr><tr><td>Finfish aquaculture</td><td>46</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>12.8 (9)</td></tr><tr><td>Marine aquaculture</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>5 (4)</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>20 (14)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Shellfish aquaculture</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>33</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>1.4 (1)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>TABLE 3 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>% (n)</th><th>Categories</th><th>United Kingdom, N = 100</th><th>Denmark, N = 100</th><th>France, N = 100</th><th>Spain, N = 100</th><th>Poland, N = 79</th><th>Hungary, N = 29</th><th>Turkey, N = 100</th><th>China, N = 100</th><th>India, N = 70</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Organic aquaculture</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Offshore aquaculture</td><td>-</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>13</td><td>1.2 (1)</td><td>-</td><td>8</td><td>4</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Other (cage, inland, freshwater, etc.)</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>11</td><td>73.4 (58)</td><td>58.6 (17)</td><td>17</td><td>13</td><td>2.8 (2)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Polyculture</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>19</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Seaweed</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Sentiments/tones</td><td>Positive</td><td>33</td><td>48</td><td>54</td><td>70</td><td>48.1 (38)</td><td>79 (23)</td><td>95</td><td>87</td><td>58.5 (41)</td></tr><tr><td>Negative</td><td>45</td><td>14</td><td>29</td><td>16</td><td>35.4 (28)</td><td>6.9 (2)</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>22.8 (16)</td></tr><tr><td>Neutral</td><td>20</td><td>38</td><td>17</td><td>14</td><td>16.4 (13)</td><td>13.8 (4)</td><td>4</td><td>9</td><td>18.5 (13)</td></tr></tbody></table>

The fish farming enterprises, business leaders, and scientists view that novel aquaculture practices such as IMTA, greater use of plant-based feed ingredients, organic practice, polyculture, and the combination of offshore wind energy farms with aquaculture might improve the public image of aquaculture.⁸⁸⁻⁹²,⁹³ However, they acknowledged that negative public perceptions of aquaculture in general, regulatory and financial constraints, and poor knowledge about the potential of these innovations among policy makers are challenges for expanding such practices. However, the potential cost-effectiveness and broader economic benefits of a move to such practices have not been considered in this literature.

### 3.2.3 | Research cluster 3: Media coverage

The research cluster examines media coverage of aquaculture and the conflict of interests between key stakeholder groups. Around one-third of the publications were focused on finfish aquaculture indicating the level of public controversy over finfish aquaculture.

In general, on a global scale, coverage of aquaculture is positive,⁹⁴⁻⁹⁶ but the literature identified that the mainstream media in developed countries was proportionately more hostile towards aquaculture than in developing countries.³⁴,⁹⁷ Predominant stakeholder groups referenced within mainstream media were fish farmers and government officials. Civil society stakeholders (environmental NGOs, activists, and community groups) were represented more than scientists and experts. The weakest voices were those of non-producers within the seafood value chain such as retailers, processors, and product and service suppliers.⁹⁴,⁹⁶ In general, civil society stakeholders (environmental NGOs, activists, and community groups) tended to be critical of the sector.

Furthermore, studies have found that most of the general responses from aquaculture enterprises or government agencies that are included in the media coverage are typically defensive towards criticisms or concerns of civil society stakeholders.⁹⁶,⁹⁷ In contrast, the media seek out ‘expert’ opinions from academics and specialists employed in the private and public sectors. In French newspaper articles, Govaerts⁹⁸ found that positively framed news was based on engagement with the fish farmers industry and the government, with most articles focused on economic, scientific, and technological attributes. At the same time, news framed negatively involved a higher proportion of stakeholders from the civil society stakeholders with most articles focused on health and safety, governance, and ecological attributes.

Overall, environmental impacts are more prominent in newspaper media discourse than other topics (e.g., social, cultural, and economic).⁹⁵,⁹⁷,⁹⁹⁻¹⁰² However, some studies suggest that many newspaper articles communicate benefits or a balance of benefits and risks.³⁴,⁹⁶ For instance, Rickard and colleagues¹⁰³ found that newspaper articles often touted the environmental benefits of farming shellfish and seaweed as a ‘green operation’ with no adverse environmental effects. Generally, threats to wild fish and wildlife, disease and parasites, fish escapees, and the use of antibiotics and
pesticides were the most salient reported perceived environmental impacts of aquaculture.⁹⁴⁻⁹⁶,⁹⁸,¹⁰²,¹⁰⁴,¹⁰⁵

There are consistent findings that the rapid expansion of finfish farming in Western countries has increased social conflicts and concerns.³⁴,¹⁰⁴,¹⁰⁶⁻¹⁰⁹ Narratives developed by civil society stakeholders towards the salmon industries in New Zealand focus on public health concerns 'a potentially unhealthy and unclean product'; environmental issues, 'damaging the local environment'; and the discourse around local development, 'threatening local democracy and public resource'.¹¹⁰ Conflicts and concerns over community impacts, indigenous rights, use of space, transparency, and public consultation were also prominently featured. The growing presence of civil society stakeholders in the media implies support for the public's changing role in the aquaculture discourses.⁹⁷,¹⁰⁷,¹¹⁰,¹¹¹ In contrast, after analysing 273,319 tweets from 2006 to 2021, Glutting¹¹² found that most tweets from stakeholder groups (academic/researcher, fish industry/worker, environmental NGOs/conservation, government officials, indigenous and media) generally had a positive sentiment and trend over time. Communications were particularly positive among the academic/researcher and the fish farming industry/worker groups, clear evidence of an 'echo chamber effect'.¹¹³

### 3.2.4 | Research cluster 4: Sustainable aquaculture

The research cluster investigated sustainable aquaculture with a specific focus on the perception of the economic and social aspects of aquaculture. This research cluster explores perceptions towards sustainable aquaculture by fish farming enterprises and value chain stakeholders, who themselves are key stakeholder groups.

Aquaculture is generally perceived by the fish farming enterprise and aquaculture value chains stakeholders as a practice with viable components for adaptation to climate impact and food security in many parts of the world. But to maintain adherence to environmental and ecological issues, its sustainability aspects require proper monitoring, control, and surveillance.⁶,¹¹⁴ Currently, ensuring sustainable and responsible aquaculture has become essential for developed economies. At the same time, civil society stakeholders perceived that government officials were not doing enough to address environmental threats. The aquaculture sector seeks to avoid increased production costs and damage to their reputations, which have all contributed to the rise of certification offered by various organisations, including the aquaculture stewardship council (ASC) and best aquaculture practises (BAP). The third-party, standard-setting organisations perceived that international certification standards are vital tools to increase consumer trust in aquaculture products, provide legitimacy to the industry, and reduce liability by ensuring compliance with sustainability dimensions.⁶,²⁴,¹¹⁵,¹¹⁶

Conceptualised and non-conventional aquaculture practices such as IMTA, aquaponics, and organic were mainly perceived as sustainable compared to traditional conventional aquaculture, even though they are practised on a small scale or commercially underdeveloped and often lack evidence of sustainable performance. Therefore, most

of these studies focused on alternative aquacultural practices to traditional conventional aquaculture and were small pilots. For instance, Australian scientists considered seaweed farming expansion to be developed in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and have various benefits, including local ecosystem services, food provisioning, and economic opportunities.¹¹⁷ Similarly, many European fish farmers and scientists, those involved in European projects, believe that IMTA allows European aquaculture to be more economically and ecologically sustainable and provides food security and resilience in the region.¹¹⁸,¹¹⁹ A systematic review by Gambelli et al.¹²⁰ found that organic aquaculture can improve living conditions for fish farmers in developing countries. However, all species are not guaranteed profitability due to higher feed costs and lower yields. Furthermore, Lembo and colleagues¹²¹ found that stakeholders perceived IMTA as in line with organic principles, while recirculation aquaculture systems were not while in reality these practices have not yet been applied at scale for commercially important farmed fish species such as salmon. However, polyculture, which is the norm in commercial practice in Asia in contrast to Europe, is considered a more sustainable practice and a recent pilot study has found that adopting polyculture practises (integrating shrimp-tilapia-seaweed) resulted in higher economic gains and more significant reductions in feed and pond preparation costs among Vietnamese farmers.¹²²

In general, the fish farming enterprises were very satisfied with the productivity of sustainable aquaculture practices.¹¹⁶,¹²²⁻¹²⁵ However, some farmers discontinued practising aquaculture because of the inherent risks.¹²⁶,¹²⁷ Others perceived that the main drivers for the adoption of aquaculture practices among fishermen/farmers/fish farmers include a decline in the availability of wild stocks, increased earnings potential from aquaculture production, advantages of working from home over migration, increased household food availability, and perception of fish demand following the growth in urban-driven purchasing power.¹²²,¹²⁵⁻¹²⁸ In contrast, barriers to the adoption of aquaculture included the provision of quality feed and seeds/fingerlings, inadequate financial return, insufficient knowledge and technology, legislation and regulatory challenges, disease outbreak and mortality, and perceived negative societal perception.¹¹⁶,¹¹⁹,¹²⁶,¹²⁷,¹²⁹⁻¹³¹ Sociodemographic characteristics, age, gender, occupation, fishing experience, education, and household size were influential for the adoption or expansion of aquaculture.¹¹⁶,¹²⁴,¹²⁷,¹²⁸,¹³²

### 3.2.5 | Research cluster 5: Consumer perceptions

This research cluster investigated the consumers' perceptions of aquaculture and the factors influencing these perceptions. The findings suggested that most consumers generally have a negative perception of aquaculture compared to wild fisheries.¹³³⁻¹⁴⁴,¹⁴⁵ In general, consumers perceived wild fisheries products are natural, healthier, nutritious, safer, and tastier, with higher quality and firmer flesh, while aquaculture products are cheaper, lower quality, and more readily available than wild fisheries.¹³⁶,¹⁴²,¹⁴⁶,¹⁴⁷ However, some studies
concluded that most consumers are not able to differentiate between aquaculture and wild fish products at the point of purchase or that, aquaculture products actually had better sensory attributes (taste and overall liking) than wild fishery products.<sup>134,148</sup>

Recent studies have suggested that consumers are beginning to perceive aquaculture more positively.<sup>149–153,154</sup> One study, by Nguyen and colleagues<sup>151</sup> found US consumers' perceptions were beginning to believe that aquaculture products are safer to eat, better tasting, better quality and fairer traded than wild-caught fisheries. Positive perceptions were accentuated when the products were sourced from non-conventional aquacultural practices,<sup>139,152,155,156</sup> specifically, IMTA,<sup>157,158</sup> aquaponics,<sup>159</sup> and organic<sup>160–163</sup> systems. However, most of the consumers who participated in these studies had not tasted the aquatic food products grown in these practices and their perceptions are solely based on what they have read or heard. Consumers perceived eco-labelled aquacultural products as healthier, safer, tastier, and less fatty but more expensive and less available. Consumers, in addition to valuing sustainability eco-labels, focused on country-of-origin credentials and preferred aquaculture products originating from the European region.<sup>134,143,155,164–166</sup> Further, psychographic segmentation was used in two studies to identify aquatic food consumers.<sup>153,167</sup> The findings indicated that European consumers can be categorised by behaviour and that two groups were particularly likely to favour aquaculture products. ‘Foodies’—people who tend to attach high value to food choice, demonstrate responsibility and seek out innovative products and consumption formats and ‘Involved innovators’ who have knowledge, and engage with seafood products especially if they are innovative.<sup>153,167</sup> Furthermore, Cantillo and colleagues<sup>166</sup> found a better acceptance of aquaculture and its products if they considered salmon a favourite species, tended to prefer products of European origin, and bought their food in supermarkets. In contrast, there was a lower acceptance of aquaculture and its products by those who regularly consumed seabream and bought their food products in retail outlets other than supermarkets.

Sociodemographic characteristics such as age, gender, education, household size, and income influence consumers' perceptions towards aquaculture products. For example, the study by<sup>166</sup> found that Spanish women with two or more children at home and households with a lower income level were more likely to accept aquaculture products.

## 3.3 | Characteristics and analysis of newspaper articles

The characteristics of newspaper articles from each country are shown in Table 3. The findings indicated variations in newspaper articles' focus, the stakeholder group represented, types of aquacultures reported, sustainability attributes considered, and their sentiment/ tone. In the *United Kingdom*, civil society stakeholders were predominantly represented in newspaper articles focusing on risk perception. There is growing concern regarding the negative environmental impact of finfish aquacultures, such as sea lice infections, fish escapees to the wild, and pollution in general. The overall sentiment

of the articles is negative due to the concerns raised about animal welfare and negative environmental impacts. Positive newspaper articles focus on socioeconomic benefits and technological innovations in finfish aquaculture. For instance, *Scotland* is a leader in producing high-quality salmon products for consumers, reducing seafood trade deficits, boosting the local economy, and providing equal opportunities for women. In *Denmark*, fish farming enterprises, governmental officials, and business leaders were predominantly represented in news articles focusing on policy and regulation aspects as well as the growth and development of sustainable aquaculture practices. Most of the newspaper articles (48%) were positive, generally reporting on fish farming activities implementing new sustainable initiatives such as documentation and labelling. Still, civil society stakeholders (particularly environmental NGOs) have placed environmental concerns at the centre of a political debate framed negatively (38% of total articles). In *France*, newspaper articles focus more on growth, development, and perceptions of risk, while civil society stakeholders and fish farming enterprises are equally represented. Most of the articles reported on aquaculture in general, followed by shellfish aquaculture which dominates production in France. There is a strong interest in promoting the domestic sector instead of imports, which seems to be a recurring theme in national newspapers; thus, most articles have positive sentiments. However, mentions of quality, health, food safety, and negative environmental impacts are recurring. In *Spain*, fish farming enterprises and the public were the predominant groups that were represented in newspaper articles. The predominant sentiments of newspaper articles were positive, focusing on the benefits of including aquatic food in the diet and how aquaculture has democratised access to this resource. Further, newspaper articles predominantly mentioned aquaculture's growth and developmental aspects and associated socioeconomic benefits. In *Poland*, the newspaper articles were generally positively focused on growth and development and policy and regulation aspects. The predominant stakeholder group represented were fish farming enterprises, followed by scientists and civil society stakeholders. New legislation, which will stop water and environmental subsidies for common carp (*Cyprinus carpio* Linnaeus, 1758), led to wide criticism from the fish farming enterprises. Civil society stakeholders were against the new recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) aquaculture facilities and showed increased concern about animal welfare issues, for example, selling live carp. In *Hungary*, newspaper articles were dominated by the fish farming enterprises, focusing on the low profitability of Hungarian pond aquaculture. Most articles highlighted socioeconomic benefits positively, but a few focused on aquaculture's negative environmental and social impacts. In *Turkey*, pro-aquaculture stakeholders (fish farming enterprises, government officials, and business leaders) dominated newspaper articles focusing on aquaculture's growth and development. Most articles discussed the positive socioeconomic benefits of aquaculture, resulting in more positively framed articles. In *China*, most stakeholders represented in newspaper articles are government officers (63%), followed by fish farming enterprises (51%) and scientists (16%) who emphasise the growth and development of aquaculture. The socioeconomic aspects of aquaculture and polyculture were often a
positive focus reflecting the rapid transformation of China from a middle-income to a high-income economy. Media tended to emphasise the demand for better quality seafood and efforts to improve the environment through scientific and technological innovation, farming improved aquaculture varieties, and improved legal systems and management levels. In *India*, governmental officials dominated newspaper articles on aquaculture followed by civil society stakeholders. Most of the articles focused on multiple sustainability aspects, followed by growth and development aimed at planning and a special budget allocation by the Union Government to implement new developmental projects to support small-scale aquaculture farmers. Most articles are framed positively, with a focus on strengthening export opportunities with government support. However, civil society stakeholders have contrasting views, including aquaculture's negative environmental and social impacts.

## 3.4 | Comparing and contrasting findings from the scoping review and newspaper media analysis

Most scientific literature and newspaper articles mention one or more sustainability dimensions in relation to aquaculture. However, due to the complexity of defining sustainability, both scientific literature and newspaper articles tend to simplify sustainability as a concept. Scientific literature conducted a more comprehensive and rigorous analysis of social perceptions, while newspaper articles provided a general overview of the social perceptions of aquaculture. Furthermore, the scientific literature covers a deep understanding of specific topics and issues, but newspaper articles tend to cover current events and trends. The scientific literature analysed mainly aimed to understand public perceptions of aquaculture, while newspaper articles aimed to shape societal perceptions typically through engagement and amplification of specific stakeholder voices. These result in the creation of a complex aquaculture discourse, discussing and responding to the multiple sustainability aspects of aquaculture.

The results of both analyses indicated that aquaculture tends to be perceived positively for its economic benefits and negatively for environmental risks. This is typical for food production where it has a significant impact on freshwater, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use, among others.<sup>168</sup> Further, social issues ranged from negative to positive, depending on the context. The scoping review in which a media coverage cluster (3) was identified supported the newspaper media analysis. The triangulation possible using these two approaches through analysis of newspaper articles revealed which stakeholder groups are primarily represented in the newspaper media coverage of nine different countries and how they perceived aquaculture. For example, in Spain, a country with a developed seafood-eating culture, the perceived benefits of including seafood in the diet and how aquaculture has democratised access to this resource resulted in a more positive sentiment in newspaper articles.

The relative dietary contributions made by aquaculture also impact representation in the media Further, Chinese newspaper articles point to the fact that it has high aquaculture production and

seafood demand. Thus, articles focus more on policy and technological innovation for sustainable aquacultural growth and development. In contrast in India where average per capita consumption is very low the debate centres around aquaculture as an export opportunity or potentially, a livelihood opportunity for smallholders. Danish newspaper articles are characterised by discussion and debate around various aspects of aquaculture's sustainability, resulting in more balanced-narratives around aquaculture that are neither overtly negative nor positive than in other European countries. The findings from both analyses indicate that, in general, perceived socio-environmental risks are a key agenda of civil society groups (particularly environmental NGOs, activists, and some community groups) and for business leaders with perceived competing interests (particularly fisheries and tourism). In contrast, perceived socioeconomic benefits are often toured by the commercial fish farming sector, governmental officials, and some business leaders (particularly retailers/wholesalers and the technology industry) in support of aquaculture.

## 4 | PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

As the aquaculture industry continues to grow in scale and value, its impacts on sustainability dimensions will be increasingly scrutinised; thus, aquaculture coalitions (pro-aquaculture industry groups) will increasingly need to respond to an evolving aquaculture discourse. One way to do this might be to implement different strategies (involve, collaborate, defend, or monitor) for ‘effective’ communication with stakeholder groups according to their positions regarding aquaculture.<sup>169</sup> Furthermore, this also connects with the advocacy Spectrum of Allies theory that divides stakeholder groups into five subsystems, (1) active allies, (2) passive allies, (3) neutrals, (4) passive opponents, and (5) active opponents.<sup>170</sup> The theory indicates that a focus on shifting the attitudes and perceptions of passive supporters and neutral observers is needed to win a campaign rather than just targeting active allies or opponents. Thus, the aquaculture coalition could maximise its social acceptability by shifting the attitudes and perceptions of those with neutral or diverse/mixed positions. In addition, aquaculture coalitions should involve more groups who are, or could be, supportive of the aquaculture industry and its products. This might also involve stakeholders who perceived aquacultural practices based on organic principles, the seaweed sector and even IMTA are more sustainable—even when commercial-level evidence for their viability is lacking and such perceptions are perhaps exaggerated by their advocates. Coalition building may be a crucial step for such stakeholders who might perceive established aquacultural practices to be unsustainable.

The findings from this study suggest that closer engagement with mainstream newspaper media (as an enabling force) and a broader range of civil society groups, particularly groups interested in the transformation of food systems, is required. Chatterton<sup>171</sup> argues that mainstream media are neutral and suggests hiring communication experts for regular media briefings covering contextual aquaculture topics. The findings from this study indicated that some stakeholder
groups are more informed/aware of aquaculture practises than others, suggesting that targeted communications would be most effective.¹⁷² Social media platforms are a powerful way to communicate with the public, particularly younger consumers.

Swinburn¹⁷³ argues that ‘for some countries and regions, narratives around food security, food sovereignty or malnutrition may have greater currency, but whatever the narrative, it should be inclusive of the many groups and people passionate about all aspects of food—organic farming, animal welfare, reduction of anti-biotic and pesticides, sustainable diets, food waste, etc.’. Ensuring a transparent narrative, open communication, realistic timelines and mechanisms to deal with trade-offs will be critical, however—eventually motivating governments to support aquaculture growth and expansion. In this sense, aquaculture coalitions can increase collaboration with stakeholders having diverse positions to promote sustainable aquacultural practises. One such effort is the Global Salmon Initiative (GSI)—a pre-competitive collaboration aimed at making significant improvements across the salmon sector regarding social responsibility, environmental impact, and social contributions through global collaboration and research, pooling of resources, and sharing of knowledge.¹⁷⁴ Such initiatives are claiming significant results, as the 2021 GSI Sustainability Report indicates that approximately 48% of the production of members' GSI is now ASC certified, and the average use of antibiotics in their production has reduced by nearly half since 2013.¹⁷⁵ The transparent disclosure of such a report is essential for the general public and relevant stakeholders to better understand risks and commitment to sustainability and transparency. A similar approach for other commercially farmed species such as tilapia, shrimp, and prawns might also enhance positive perceptions of aquaculture among stakeholders, but progress is likely to be constrained by the much greater diversity of systems and contexts than is the case for cage salmon farming.

Some of the perceptions of aquaculture held by environmental advocacy groups are based on reality and the challenges faced by any intensive food production systems but different organisations use different strategies to advance their goals ranging from confrontation and criticism to positive engagement.¹⁷⁶,¹⁷⁷ Aquaculture coalitions can influence outcomes by taking a proactive approach and beginning an evidence-based discussion of social and environmental risks with NGOs that have legitimate concerns. Initiatives such as aquaculture or seafood dialogues organised by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) over the years can involve representatives from the aquaculture industry, NGOs, governments, scientists, and others to build a framework for discussion, a significant step in addressing negative perceptions. Further, engaging environmental actors within the governance of aquaculture certification might be decisive in changing their perceptions.

Furthermore, many scientists argue that the perceived negative environmental risks of aquaculture can be addressed through collaborative research between fish farming enterprises and specialised science/research institutions.⁵,¹⁴,¹⁷⁸ Specific tools such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and overarching frameworks such as the

Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture (EAA) could help steer aquaculture towards greater sustainability. Increasingly, third-party standards are applying these tools to improve individual farms' sustainability²⁷,¹⁷⁹ and there are many initiatives to understand and improve governance on different scales.¹⁸⁰

There may be opportunities for fish farmers to build bridges with public- and private-sector-led initiatives (such as certification, subsidy policies, and standards, among others) in constructive ways that explicitly promote sustainable aquaculture practices.¹⁸¹ For example, business-to-business certifications such as Global Good Agricultural Practices (GlobalGAP) may be more effective in focusing on food safety and socially and environmentally responsible farming practice standards. However, creating and using international certifications and standards to improve environmental performance remain irrelevant to small-scale aquacultural practises in many countries, particularly in the Global South. Sustainability labelling schemes can impose undue pressures on small-scale farmers and studies have indicated that without external support (e.g., from a collective or co-op, donor-funded project, government, or NGOs), small-scale aquaculture producers are often excluded from markets that require sustainable certification.¹⁸²,¹⁸³ Moreover, there are claims that such certification schemes can result in increased prices for eco-labelled aquaculture products,¹⁸⁴ adversely affecting poorer consumers' access to farmed aquatic foods.¹⁸⁵ There is some evidence that eco-labelled certifications based on Northern norms are losing leverage in emerging markets such as China, which demand alternative criteria to determine sustainability.¹⁸⁶

The sustainability aspects of aquaculture are not only an abstract attribute for many of the public (particularly consumers) but one whose benefits may not be apparent to them. Evidence suggests that most aquatic food consumers focus more on price and food safety than sustainable production practises and eco-labels.¹⁸⁷,¹⁸⁸ Influencing consumer decision-making towards sustainable aquaculture products is challenging, as evidenced by the intention-behaviour gap. Therefore, White and colleagues¹⁸⁹ proposed that consumers are more influenced to engage in pro-environmental behaviours when messages or tactics incorporate the following psychosocial factors: social influence, habit formation, self-esteem, feelings and cognition, and tangibility. In addition, aquaculture practitioners could apply behavioural approaches such as the Social, Habit, Individual, Feeling and Cognition, and Tangibility (SHIFT) to overcome barriers to changing consumer behaviour towards buying sustainable aquaculture products.¹⁸⁹

## 5 | CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE STUDIES

The present systematic scoping review and newspaper media analysis synthesise the main findings from scientific and newspaper articles focused on understanding societal perceptions of aquaculture in the broader context. In particular, the scoping review identified five research clusters, (1) social acceptability, (2) growth and development,
(3) media coverage, (4) sustainable aquaculture, and (5) consumer perceptions. While comparing and contrasting findings from the scoping review and newspaper analysis, the results suggest that scientific publications and newspaper articles mention the sustainability aspects of aquaculture in simplified form.

The primary stakeholder groups identified were the fish farming enterprises (fish farmers, aquaculture associations or groups), civil society stakeholders (environmental NGOs, activists, community groups, media), governmental officials, scientists, and business leaders both within aquaculture value chains (retailers/wholesalers, technology industry) and outside of them (fisheries, tourism). Also, other stakeholders included the public and can be disaggregated as indigeneous groups, residents, and consumers. Further, these stakeholder groups perceive aquaculture differently and depending on the circumstances and context, their perceptions range from positive to negative. Many factors influence their perceptions, including aquaculture's impact on sustainability dimensions, knowledge, transparency, personal interests, types, and location of aquaculture practises, regulations, experience, food-related and dietary lifestyles, as well as sociodemographic characteristics such as age, gender, education, household size, occupation, and income. The environmental risks of aquaculture were perceived particularly negatively by some stakeholders especially environmental NGOs, while the economic benefits were perceived positively. Furthermore, aquaculture's social and cultural aspects ranged from positive to negative depending on the context and circumstances.

There are several limitations to this study. First, the keywords used for the search might have limited the inclusion of relevant articles, for instance, where societal perception was not necessarily the focus. Second, the scoping review was limited to English, while newspaper media analysis was limited to the official languages of the selected countries the author felt comfortable with. Third, most articles exploring the research cluster ‘Media Coverage’ also analysed newspaper media. Therefore, comparing, and contrasting aquaculture perceptions on social media platforms, newspaper articles, and the scientific literature was limited. Further, social scientists have argued that media analysis can provide valuable insights into how societal perceptions of aquaculture are framed, represented, and discussed in the media, but has limited in its ability to fully capture and understand societal perceptions of aquaculture.190,191 Thus, future studies could complement media analysis with other research methods such as mixed methods, and content analysis of public discourse, among others to gain a more holistic understanding of societal perceptions of aquaculture.

Fourth, studies with in-depth analysis of sociodemographic characteristics influencing societal perceptions of aquaculture are under-represented, thus, it was difficult for us to explain some of the findings of primary articles. Future studies might also consider conducting a qualitative study to explore sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics that influence societal perceptions of aquaculture.

Lastly, none of the scientific articles was longitudinal, so understanding what factors changed the societal perceptions of aquaculture over time was limited. Interpreted scientific and newspaper articles

might be prone to unconscious bias. Finally, most of the articles only mentioned the sustainability aspects of aquaculture in a simplified form, indicating that stakeholders did not necessarily focus on the sustainability aspect of aquaculture to base their perceptions. Therefore, future research could investigate whether stakeholders perceive one sustainability dimension of aquaculture as more critical than others and whether they perceive each sustainability dimension differently to base their perceptions.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

**Mausam Budhathoki:** Conceptualization; methodology; software; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; visualization; project administration; writing – original draft. **Sezgin Tunca:** Data curation; formal analysis; investigation. **Raquel Lopez Martinez:** Data curation; formal analysis; investigation. **Wenbo Zhang:** Data curation; validation; writing – review and editing; supervision; formal analysis; investigation. **Saihong Li:** Data curation; supervision; writing – review and editing; formal analysis; validation; investigation. **Bertrand Le Gallic:** Data curation; supervision; funding acquisition; writing – review and editing; validation; conceptualization. **Karen Brunsø:** Supervision; funding acquisition; writing – review and editing; validation; data curation. **Priya Sharma:** Data curation; investigation; formal analysis. **Piotr Eljasik:** Data curation; formal analysis; investigation. **Gergo Gyalog:** Writing – review and editing; supervision; formal analysis; investigation; data curation. **Remigiusz Panicz:** Supervision; validation; writing – review and editing. **David Little:** Supervision; writing – review and editing; conceptualization; methodology; resources; funding acquisition; validation.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme through the EATFISH project. We thank the editor and three reviewers for their helpful comments. All remaining errors are our own.

## FUNDING INFORMATION

This research was carried out within the scope of the EATFISH project, which received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 956697.

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

## DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

## ORCID

Mausam Budhathoki ID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4689-2238

Wenbo Zhang ID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3765-3980

Priya Sharma ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1255-2158
REFERENCES

1. Troell M, Costa-Pierce B, Stead S, et al. Perspectives on aquaculture's contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals for improved human and planetary health. *J World Aquac Soc.* 2023; 54(2):251-342. doi:10.1111/jwas.12946

2. Schatte Olivier A, Jones L, Vay LL, Christie M, Wilson J, Malham SK. A global review of the ecosystem services provided by bivalve aquaculture. *Rev Aquac.* 2020;12(1):3-25. doi:10.1111/raq.12301

3. Zeller D, Cashion T, Palomares M, Pauly D. Global marine fisheries discards: a synthesis of reconstructed data. *Fish Fish.* 2018;19(1):30-39. doi:10.1111/faf.12233

4. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. *Sustainable Development Goal 14: Conserve and Sustainably Use the Oceans, Seas and Marine Resources for Sustainable Development.* 2022. Accessed January 12, 2023. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal14

5. Bostock J, McAndrew B, Richards R, et al. Aquaculture: global status and trends. *Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci.* 2010;365(1554):2897-2912. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0170

6. Little DC, Newton RW, Beveridge MCM. Aquaculture: a rapidly growing and significant source of sustainable food? Status, transitions and potential. *Proc Nutr Soc.* 2016;75(3):274-286. doi:10.1017/S0029665116000665

7. Fonseca T, Costa-Pierce BA, Valenti WC. Lambari aquaculture as a means for the sustainable development of rural communities in Brazil. *Rev Fish Sci Aquac.* 2017;25(4):316-330. doi:10.1080/23308249.2017.1320647

8. Rimmer MA, Larson S, Lapong I, et al. Seaweed aquaculture in Indonesia contributes to social and economic aspects of livelihoods and community wellbeing. *Sustainability.* 2021;13(19):10946. doi:10.3390/su131910946

9. Beveridge MCM, Thilsted SH, Phillips MJ, Metian M, Troell M, Hall SJ. Meeting the food and nutrition needs of the poor: the role of fish and the opportunities and challenges emerging from the rise of aquaculture. *J Fish Biol.* 2013;83(4):1067-1084. doi:10.1111/jfb.12187

10. Belton B, Bush SR, Little DC. Not just for the wealthy: rethinking farmed fish consumption in the global south. *Glob Food Sec.* 2018; 16:85-92. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2017.10.005

11. Garlock T, Asche F, Anderson J, et al. Aquaculture: the missing contributor in the food security agenda. *Glob Food Sec.* 2022;32: 100620. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100620

12. Fry JP, Mailloux NA, Love DC, Milli MC, Cao L. Feed conversion efficiency in aquaculture: do we measure it correctly? *Environ Res Lett.* 2018;13(2):024017. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaa273

13. Pounds A, Kaminski AM, Budhathoki M, et al. More than fish—framing aquatic animals within sustainable food systems. *Foods.* 2022;11(10):1413. doi:10.3390/foods11101413

14. Brugère C, Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Beveridge MCM, Soto D. The ecosystem approach to aquaculture 10 years on—a critical review and consideration of its future role in blue growth. *Rev Aquac.* 2019; 11(3):493-514. doi:10.1111/raq.12242

15. Naylor R, Fang S, Fanzo J. A global view of aquaculture policy. *Food Policy.* 2023;116:102422. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102422

16. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. FAO; 2022. doi: 10.4060/cc0461en

17. Bunting SW. *Principles of Sustainable Aquaculture: Promoting Social, Economic and Environmental Resilience*. Taylor and Francis; 2013.

18. Froehlich HE, Gentry RR, Halpern BS. Conservation aquaculture: shifting the narrative and paradigm of aquaculture's role in resource management. *Biol Conserv.* 2017;215:162-168. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.09.012

19. asc-aqua.org. Find a Farm. 2023. Accessed January 12, 2023. https://asc-aqua.org/find-a-farm/

20. Alleway HK, Waters TJ, Brummett R, et al. Global principles for restorative aquaculture to foster aquaculture practices that benefit

the environment. *Conserv Sci Pract.* 2023;5(8):e12982. doi:10.1111/csp.2.12982

21. Amundsen VS, Osmundsen TC. Becoming certified, becoming sustainable? Improvements from aquaculture certification schemes as experienced by those certified. *Mar Policy.* 2020;119:104097. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104097

22. FAO. *Towards Blue Transformation*. FAO; 2022. doi:10.4060/cc0461en

23. Costa-Pierce BA, Chopin T. The hype, fantasies and realities of aquaculture development globally and in its new geographies. *World Aquac.* 2021;52(2):23-35.

24. Bacher K. *Perceptions and Misconceptions of Aquaculture: A Global Overview*. Vol 120. GLOBEFISH Research Programme; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2015:1-35.

25. Krøvel AV, Gjerstad B, Skoland K, Lindland KM, Hynes S, Ravagnan E. Exploring attitudes toward aquaculture in Norway—is there a difference between the Norwegian general public and local communities where the industry is established? *Mar Policy.* 2019; 108:103648. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103648

26. Gentry RR, Froehlich HE, Grimm D, et al. Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture. *Nat Ecol Evol.* 2017;1(9):1317-1324. doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0257-9

27. Hishamunda N, Ridler N, Martone E. *Policy and Governance in Aquaculture: Lessons Learned and Way Forward*. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. 2014; (577):I, IV, VII, 1-7, 9-31, 33-39, 41-43, 45-53, 55-59.

28. Mazur NA, Curtis AL. Risk perceptions, aquaculture, and issues of trust: lessons from Australia. *Soc Nat Resour.* 2006;19(9):791-808. doi:10.1080/08941920600835551

29. Chu J, Anderson JL, Asche F, Tudur L. Stakeholders' perceptions of aquaculture and implications for its future: a comparison of the U.S.A. and Norway. *Mar Resour Econ.* 2010;25(1):61-76. doi:10.5950/0738-1360-25.1.61

30. Tiller R, Gentry R, Richards R. Stakeholder driven future scenarios as an element of interdisciplinary management tools; the case of future offshore aquaculture development and the potential effects on fishermen in Santa Barbara, California. *Ocean Coast Manag.* 2013;73: 127-135. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.12.011

31. Little DC, Young JA, Zhang W, Newton RW, Al Mamun A, Murray FJ. Sustainable intensification of aquaculture value chains between Asia and Europe: a framework for understanding impacts and challenges. *Aquaculture.* 2018;493:338-354. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.12.033

32. Schlag AK. Aquaculture: an emerging issue for public concern. *J Risk Res.* 2010;13(7):829-844. doi:10.1080/13669871003660742

33. Cavallo M, Raux P, Massa F, Fezzardi D, Pérez Agúndez JA. Why not? Decrypting social attitudes toward European aquaculture: an updated policy perspective for an old problem. *Integr Environ Assess Manag.* 2023;19(4):896-909. doi:10.1002/ieam.4663

34. Froehlich HE, Gentry RR, Rust MB, Grimm D, Halpern BS. Public perceptions of aquaculture: evaluating spatiotemporal patterns of sentiment around the world. *PLoS ONE.* 2017;12(1):e0169281. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169281

35. Wood SE, Filgueira R. Drivers of social acceptability for bivalve aquaculture in Atlantic Canadian communities. *Ecol Soc.* 2022;27(3): 9. doi:10.5751/ES-13358-270309

36. Joyce AL, Satterfield TA. Shellfish aquaculture and First Nations' sovereignty: the quest for sustainable development in contested sea space. *Nat Resour Forum.* 2010;34(2):106-123. doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2010.01297.x

37. Rector ME, Filgueira R, Bailey M, Walker TR, Grant J. Sustainability outcomes of aquaculture eco-certification: challenges and opportunities. *Rev Aquac.* 2023;15(2):840-852.

38. Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, Waters E. "Scoping the scope" of a cochrane review. *J Public Health.* 2011;33(1):147-150. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdr015
39. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

40. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850

41. Ivey C, Crum J. Choosing the right citation management tool: End-Note, Mendeley, RefWorks, or Zotero. Jmla. 2018;106(3). doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.468

42. van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010;84(2):523-538. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

43. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Text Mining and Visualization Using VOSviewer. arXiv preprint arXiv:11092058. 2011.

44. Food and Agriculture Organization. FAOSTAT. 2020. Accessed January 12, 2023. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS

45. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277-1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687

46. Weber R. Basic Content Analysis. SAGE Publications; 1990. doi:10.4135/9781412983488

47. Alexander KA, Freeman S, Angel DL. Public attitudes and decision making in environmental resource planning—a perception gap. Environ Sci Policy. 2018;80:38-43. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.012

48. Alexander KA, Hughes AD. A problem shared: Technology transfer and development in European integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). Aquaculture, 2017;473:13-19. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.01.029

49. Chopin T, Cooper JA, Reid G, Cross S, Moore C. Open-water integrated multi-trophic aquaculture: environmental biomitigation and economic diversification of fed aquaculture by extractive aquaculture. Rev Aquac. 2012;4(4):209-220. doi:10.1111/j.1753-5131.2012.01074.x

50. Agúndez JAP, Raux P, Pak MV, Cavallo M, Lancelot L. Top-level institutional policies and their implementation at regional level—a difficult equation. The example of the social acceptability of aquaculture development in Malaga, Spain. Aquac Rep. 2022;25:101227. doi:10.1016/j.aqrep.2022.101227

51. Hudson B, Allen T, Moore D. Shellfish farming in the pacific northwest: public and stakeholder perceptions. J Shellfish Res. 2015;34(2):642.

52. Nenciu MI, Niță V, Massa F, Fezzardi D, Fourdain L. Let's talk seafood: Romanian acceptability of marine aquaculture at a glance. Mar Res J. 2021;51(1):156-177. doi:10.55268/CM.2021.51.156

53. Thomas JBE, Nordström J, Risén E, Malmström ME, Gröndahl F. The perception of aquaculture on the Swedish west coast. Ambio. 2017;47:398-409. doi:10.1007/s13280-017-0945-3

54. Dalton T, Jin D, Thompson R, Katznek A. Using normative evaluations to plan for and manage shellfish aquaculture development in Rhode Island coastal waters. Mar Policy. 2017;83:194-203. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.06.010

55. Dalton TM, Jin D. Attitudinal factors and personal characteristics influence support for shellfish aquaculture in Rhode Island (US) coastal waters. Environ Manag. 2018;61(5):848-859. doi:10.1007/s00267-018-1011-z

56. Jodice LW, Norman WC, Davis J, Coskun G, Kang S. Perceptions of Marine Aquaculture in Coastal Tourist Destinations in the US Southeastern Region. Clemson University; 2015. Accessed January 12, 2023. http://media.clemson.edu/cbshs/prtm/research/Mariculture.pdf

57. Murray G, D'Anna L. Seeing shellfish from the seashore: the importance of values and place in perceptions of aquaculture and marine social-ecological system interactions. Mar Policy. 2015;62:125-133. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.09.005

58. Ruiz-Chico J, Biedma-Ferrer JM, Peña-Sánchez AR, Jiménez-García M. Social acceptance of aquaculture in Spain: an instrument to achieve sustainability for society. IJERPH. 2020;17(18):6628. doi:10.3390/ijerph17186628

59. Bjørkan M, Eilertsen SM. Local perceptions of aquaculture: a case study on legitimacy from northern Norway. Ocean Coast Manag. 2020;195:105276. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105276

60. Kim G, Jodice LW, Duffy LN, Norman WC. Tourists' attitudes toward the benefits of mariculture: a case of decision-making in marine tourism in Southeast USA. Tour Mar Environ. 2020;15(1):29-45. doi:10.3727/154427320X15781713928749

61. Rickard LN, Britwum K, Noblet CL, Evans KS. Factory-made or farm fresh? Measuring U.S. support for aquaculture as a food technology. Mar Policy. 2020;115:103858. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103858

62. Sinner J, Newton M, Barclay J, et al. Measuring social licence: what and who determines public acceptability of aquaculture in New Zealand? Aquaculture. 2020;521:734973. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.734973

63. Whitmore EH, Safford TG, Hamilton LC. What does the public think about farming seafood? Modeling predictors of social support for aquaculture development in the U.S. Ocean Coast Manag. 2022;226:106279. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106279

64. Flaherty M, Reid G, Chopin T, Latham E. Public attitudes towards marine aquaculture in Canada: insights from the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Aquac Int. 2019;27(1):9-32. doi:10.1007/s10499-018-0312-9

65. Armbrecht J, Skallerud K. Attitudes and intentional reactions towards mariculture development—local residents' perspective. Ocean Coast Manag. 2019;174:56-62. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.03.017

66. D'Anna LM, Murray GD. Perceptions of shellfish aquaculture in British Columbia and implications for well-being in marine social-ecological systems. E&S. 2015;20(1):art57. doi:10.5751/ES-07319-200157

67. Hynes S, Skoland K, Ravagnan E, Gjerstad B, Krøvel AV. Public attitudes toward aquaculture: an Irish and Norwegian comparative study. Mar Policy. 2018;96:1-8. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2018.07.011

68. Hynes S, Skoland K, Ravagnan E, et al. Attitudes Toward Aquaculture in Ireland and Norway. The Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit (SEMRU) National University of Ireland; 2017. Working Paper 17-WP-SEMRU-02. doi:10.22004/AG.ECON.266405

69. Outeiro L, Villasante S, Oyarzo H. The interplay between fish farming and nature based recreation-tourism in southern Chile: a perception approach. Ecosyst Serv. 2018;32:90-100. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.05.006

70. Jodice LW, Norman WC. Comparing importance and confidence for production and source attributes of seafood among residents and tourists in South Carolina and Florida coastal communities. Appetite. 2020;146:104510. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.104510

71. Fernández FJ, Muñoz M, Ponce Oliva RD, Vásquez-Lavín F, Gelcich S. Mapping Firms' adaptive profiles: the role of experiences and risk perception in the aquaculture industry. Aquaculture. 2023;562:738802. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738802

72. Knapp G, Rubino MC. The political Economics of marine aquaculture in the United States. Rev Fish Sci Aquac. 2016;24(3):213-229. doi:10.1080/23308249.2015.1121202

73. Ruiz-Chico J, Biedma-Ferrer JM, Peña-Sánchez AR, Jiménez-García M. Acceptance of aquaculture as compared with traditional fishing in the province of Cadiz (Spain): an empirical study from the standpoint of social carrying capacity. Rev Aquac. 2020;12(4):2429-2445. doi:10.1111/raq.12442

74. Corner RA, Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Massa F, Fezzardi D. Multi-stakeholder perspectives on spatial planning processes for mariculture in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. Rev Aquac. 2020;12(1):347-364. doi:10.1111/raq.12321
75. Ertör I, Ortega-Cerdà M. Unpacking the objectives and assumptions underpinning European aquaculture. *Environ Polit*. 2017;26(5):893-914. doi:10.1080/09644016.2017.1306908

76. Kongsvik TO, Thorvaldsen T, Holmen IM, Storkersen KV. In: Haugen S, Barros A, VanGulijk C, Kongsvik T, Vinnem J, eds. Safety Climate and Compliance in the Norwegian Aquaculture Industry-Employees' Perceptions at Different Company Levels. CRC Press; 2018:157-164.

77. Memory J, Birch D. Exploring attitudes toward aquaculture development in the United Kingdom: a consultative stakeholder approach. *J Int Food Agribus Market*. 2016;28(4):363-372. doi:10.1080/08974438.2016.1151397

78. Billing SL. Using public comments to gauge social licence to operate for finfish aquaculture: lessons from Scotland. *Ocean Coast Manag*. 2018;165:401-415. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.09.011

79. Black K, Hughes A. *Future of the Sea: Trends in Aquaculture*. Government Office for Science; 2017:40. Accessed January 12, 2023. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/635209/Future_of_the_sea_-_trends_in_aquaculture_FINAL_NEW.pdf

80. Baporikar N. Perceptions re community-based projects for economic and societal development. *Int J Appl Behav Econ*. 2019;8(4):35-60. doi:10.4018/IJABE.2019100103

81. Krause G, Mikkelsen E. The socio-economic dimensions of offshore aquaculture in a multi-use setting. In: Buck BH, Langan R, eds. *Aquaculture Perspective Multi-Use Sites in the Open Ocean*. Springer International Publishing; 2017:163-186. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-51159-7_8

82. Schupp MF, Krause G, Onyango V, Buck BH. Dissecting the offshore wind and mariculture multi-use discourse: a new approach using targeted SWOT analysis. *Marit Stud*. 2021;20(2):127-140. doi:10.1007/s40152-021-00218-1

83. Kelly R, Pecl GT, Fleming A. Social licence in the marine sector: a review of understanding and application. *Mar Policy*. 2017;81:21-28. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.005

84. Le Gouvello R, Hochart LE, Laffoley D, et al. Aquaculture and marine protected areas: potential opportunities and synergies. *Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst*. 2017;27:138-150. doi:10.1002/aqc.2821

85. Bailey JL, Eggereide SS. Mapping actors and arguments in the Norwegian aquaculture debate. *Mar Policy*. 2020;115:103898. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103898

86. Siddiki S, Goel S. A stakeholder analysis of U.S. marine aquaculture partnerships. *Mar Policy*. 2015;57:93-102. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.006

87. Young N, Brattland C, Digiovanni C, et al. Limitations to growth: social-ecological challenges to aquaculture development in five wealthy nations. *Mar Policy*. 2019;104:216-224. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.022

88. Alexander KA, Angel D, Freeman S, et al. Improving sustainability of aquaculture in Europe: stakeholder dialogues on integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). *Environ Sci Policy*. 2016;55:96-106. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.09.006

89. Billing SL, Charalambides G, Tett P, et al. Combining wind power and farmed fish: coastal community perceptions of multi-use offshore renewable energy installations in Europe. *Energy Res Soc Sci*. 2022; 85:85. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102421

90. Perdikaris C, Chrysafi A, Ganas K. Environmentally friendly practices and perceptions in aquaculture: a sectoral case-study from a Mediterranean-based industry. *Rev Fish Sci Aquac*. 2016;24(2):113-125. doi:10.1080/23308249.2015.1112358

91. Salas-Leiton E, Vieira LR, Guilhermino L. Sustainable fishing and aquaculture activities in the Atlantic coast of the Portuguese north region: multi-stakeholder views as a tool for maritime spatial planning. *Sustainability*. 2021;13(2):663. doi:10.3390/su13020663

92. Watson L, Falconer L, Dale T, Telfer TC. 'Offshore' salmon aquaculture and identifying the needs for environmental regulation. *Aquaculture*. 2022;546:737342. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737342

93. Fairbanks L. Moving mussels offshore? Perceptions of offshore aquaculture policy and expansion in New England. *Ocean Coast Manag*. 2016;130:1-12. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.05.004

94. Feucht Y, Zander K. Aquaculture in the German print media. *Aquac Int*. 2017;25(1):177-195. doi:10.1007/s10499-016-0021-1

95. Olsen MS, Osmundsen TC. Media framing of aquaculture. *Mar Policy*. 2017;76:19-27. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.11.013

96. Weitzman J, Bailey M. Communicating a risk-controversy: exploring the public discourse on net-pen aquaculture within the Canadian media. *Aquaculture*. 2019;507:172-182. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.04.025

97. Condie CM, Vince J, Alexander KA. The long-term evolution of news media in defining socio-ecological conflict: a case study of expanding aquaculture. *Mar Policy*. 2022;138:104988. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2022.104988

98. Govaerts F. Media representation of salmon aquaculture in France. *Aquaculture*. 2021;540:736679. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736679

99. Cullen-Knox C, Fleming A, Lester L, Ogier E. Perceiving environmental science, risk and industry regulation in the mediatised vicious cycles of the Tasmanian Salmon aquaculture industry. *Soc Epistemol*. 2021;35(5):441-460. doi:10.1080/02691728.2021.1913661

100. Kraly P, Weitzman J, Filgueira R. Understanding factors influencing social acceptability: insights from media portrayal of salmon aquaculture in Atlantic Canada. *Aquaculture*. 2022;547:737497. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737497

101. Rickard LN, Feldpausch-Parker AM. Of sea lice and superfood: a comparison of regional and national news media coverage of aquaculture. *Front Commun*. 2016;1:14. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2016.00014

102. Van Holt T, Weisman W, Kall S, Crona B, Vergara R. What does popular media have to tell us about the future of seafood? *Ann N Y Acad Sci*. 2018;1421(1):46-61. doi:10.1111/nyas.13613

103. Rickard LN, Noblet CL, Duffy K, Christian BW. Cultivating benefit and risk: aquaculture representation and interpretation in New England. *Soc Nat Resour*. 2018;31(12):1358-1378. doi:10.1080/08941920.2018.1480821

104. Osmundsen TC, Olsen MS. The imperishable controversy over aquaculture. *Mar Policy*. 2017;76:136-142. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.11.022

105. Papacek K, Leong K, Winter JS. *The Media's Portrayal of Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific and how it Accts the Public Perception of the Aquaculture Industry*. University of Hawai'i at Manoa; 2018. Accessed January 12, 2023. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/69389

106. Bachmann-Vargas P, van Koppen CSA(K), Lamers M. Re-framing salmon aquaculture in the aftermath of the ISAV crisis in Chile. *Mar Policy*. 2021;124:104358. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104358

107. Condie CM, Vince J, Alexander KA. Increasing polarisation in attitudes to aquaculture: evidence from sequential government inquiries. *Mar Policy*. 2022;136:104867. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104867

108. Cullen-Knox C, Fleming A, Lester L, Ogier E. Publicised scrutiny and mediatised environmental conflict: the case of Tasmanian salmon aquaculture. *Mar Policy*. 2019;100:307-315. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.040

109. Ertör I. 'We are the oceans, we are the people!': fisher people's struggles for blue justice. *J Peasant Stud*. 2021;50(3):1157-1186. doi:10.1080/03066150.2021.1999932

110. Fløysand A, Håland K, Jakobsen SE. Discourses, risk perceptions and the "green" profile of the New Zealand salmon farming industry. *Mar Policy*. 2016;74:230-235. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.034

111. Lebel L, Lebel P, Chuah CJ. Water use by inland aquaculture in Thailand: stakeholder perceptions, scientific evidence, and public
policy. *Environ Manag.* 2019;63(4):554-563. doi:10.1007/s00267-019-01143-0

112. Glutting L. *Using Sentiment Analysis of Twitter Discourse to Understand Sentiment Towards Salmon Aquaculture Among Stakeholders Over Time*. 2022. doi:10.20381/RUOR-27938

113. Cinelli M, De Francisci MG, Galeazzi A, Quattrociocchi W, Starnini M. The echo chamber effect on social media. *Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.* 2021;118(9):e2023301118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2023301118

114. Oyebola OO, Olatunde OM. Climate change adaptation through aquaculture: ecological considerations and regulatory requirements for tropical Africa. In: Bamutaze Y, Kyamanywa S, Singh B, Nabanoga G, Lal R, eds. *Agriculture and Ecosystem Resilience in Sub Saharan Africa: Livelihood Pathways Under Changing Climate*. Springer; 2019:435-472. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-12974-3_20

115. Mather C, Fanning L. Social licence and aquaculture: towards a research agenda. *Mar Policy*. 2019;99:275-282. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2018.10.049

116. Xuan BB, Sandorf ED, Ngoc QTK. Stakeholder perceptions towards sustainable shrimp aquaculture in Vietnam. *J Environ Manage*. 2021; 290:112585. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112585

117. Spillias S, Cottrell RS, Kelly R, et al. Expert perceptions of seaweed farming for sustainable development. *J Clean Prod.* 2022;368: 133052. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133052

118. Alexander KA, Freeman S, Potts T. Navigating uncertain waters: European public perceptions of integrated multi trophic aquaculture (IMTA). *Environ Sci Policy*. 2016;61:230-237. doi:10.1016/j.envsci. 2016.04.020

119. Kleitou P, Kletou D, David J. Is Europe ready for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture? A survey on the perspectives of European farmers and scientists with IMTA experience. *Aquaculture*. 2018; 490:136-148. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.02.035

120. Gambelli D, Vairo D, Solfanelli F, Zanoli R. Economic performance of organic aquaculture: a systematic review. *Mar Policy*. 2019;108: 103542. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103542

121. Lembo G, Jokumsen A, Spedicato MT, Facchini MT, Bitetto I. Asses- sing stakeholder's experience and sensitivity on key issues for the economic growth of organic aquaculture production. *Mar Policy*. 2018;87:84-93. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.005

122. Tran N, Cao QL, Shikuku KM, Phan TP, Banks LK. Profitability and perceived resilience benefits of integrated shrimp-tilapia-seaweed aquaculture in North Central Coast, Vietnam. *Mar Policy*. 2020;120: 104153. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104153

123. Fleming AE, Petheram L, Stacey N. Australian indigenous women's seafood harvesting practices and prospects for integrating aquacul- ture. *J Enterp Commun People Places Glob Econ*. 2015;9(2):156-181. doi:10.1108/JEC-08-2014-0013

124. Ray S, Mondal P, Paul AK, et al. Role of shrimp farming in socio- economic elevation and professional satisfaction in coastal commu- nities of southern Bangladesh. *Aquac Rep*. 2021;20:100708. doi:10. 1016/j.aqrep.2021.100708

125. Ton Nu Hai A, Speelman S. Involving stakeholders to support sus- tainable development of the marine lobster aquaculture sector in Vietnam. *Mar Policy*. 2020;113:103799. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2019. 103799

126. Kinney H. *Aquaculturists' Perceptions of Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA).* University of Rhode Island; 2017. doi:10.23860/ thesis-kinney-heather-2017

127. Richardson RB, Suvedi M. Assessing the potential for small-scale aquaculture in Cambodia. *Environments*. 2018;5(7):76. doi:10.3390/ environments5070076

128. Bello SD, Salin KR, Kuwornu JK.M. Willingness to adopt aquaculture as an alternative livelihood option—a case study of the fishers and livestock farmers of Adamawa state, Nigeria. *Int J Value Chain Manag*. 2021;12(1):28-44. doi:10.1504/IJVCM.2021.112842

129. Apriliani T, Yuliati C, Yusuf R, Triyanti R, Zulham A. Lobster aquacul- ture business in East Lombok regency: challenges and prospects. *IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci*. 2021;674(1):012052. doi:10.1088/ 1755-1315/674/1/012052

130. Hambrey J, Evans S. *Aquaculture in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: An Analysis of the Economic Contribution and Value of the Major Sub-Sectors and the Most Important Farmed Species*; 2016:162. file://C:/Users/au709710/Downloads/Aquaculture%20in%20Eng land,%20Wales%20and%20Northern%20Ireland_%20An%20Analys is%20of%20the%20Economic%20Contribution%20and%20Value% 20of%20the%20Major%20Sub-Sectors%20and%20the%20Most% 20Important%20Farmed%20Species.pdf.

131. Lindland KM, Gjerstad B, Krøvel AV, Ravagnan E. Governing for sus- tainability in the Norwegian aquaculture industry. *Ocean Coast Manag*. 2019;179:104827. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104827

132. Francisco HA, Carmelita BM, Hopanda J, Predo C, Ferrer AJG. Gen- der differences in participation, roles, and attitude towards maricul- ture operation: a case study in the Philippines. *Asian Fish Sci*. 2017; 30(Special Issue):83-102. doi:10.33997/j.afs.2017.30.S1.004

133. Altintzoglou T, Cordeiro CM, Honkanen P, Onozaka Y. "It gives me peace of mind." A new perspective on the identification of quality cues on salmon fillet products in Japan and the USA. *Aquaculture*. 2022;554:738112. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738112

134. Budhathoki M, Zolner A, Nielsen T, Reinbach HC. The role of pro- duction method information on sensory perception of smoked salmon—a mixed-method study from Denmark. *Food Qual Prefer*. 2021;94:104325. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104325

135. Carlucci D, Nocella G, De Devitiis B, Viscecchia R, Bimbo F, Nardone G. Consumer purchasing behaviour towards fish and sea- food products. Patterns and insights from a sample of international studies. *Appetite*. 2015;84:212-227. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014. 10.008

136. Güney Ol. Consumers' perceived differences between wild and farmed fish: a survey study in Turkey. *J Aquat Food Prod Technol*. 2019;28(2):210-220. doi:10.1080/10498850.2019.1572684

137. Hoerterer C, Petereit J, Krause G. Informed choice: the role of knowledge in the willingness to consume aquaculture products of different groups in Germany. *Aquaculture*. 2022;556:738319. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738319

138. Krešić G, Dujmić E, Lončarić D, Zrnčić S, Liović N, Pleadin J. Profiling of Croatian consumers based on their intention to consume farmed fish. *Foods*. 2022;11(14):2158. doi:10.3390/foods11142158

139. Krešić G, Pleadin J, Zrnčić S, et al. Factors affecting consumers' pref- erences for products from aquaculture. *Croat J Food Sci Technol*. 2020;12(2):287-295. doi:10.17508/CJFST.2020.12.2.17

140. Lang MF, Rodrigues AC. How the structure of benefits for sustain- ably raised seafood may differ in the USA: implications for wider market adoption. *J Int Food Agribus Market*. 2021;33(1):84-103. doi: 10.1080/08974438.2020.1860856

141. Polymeros K, Kaimakoudi E, Schinaraki M, Batzios C. Analysing con- sumers' perceived differences in wild and farmed fish. *Br Food J*. 2015;117(3):1007-1016. doi:10.1108/BFJ-12-2013-0362

142. Pulcini D, Franceschini S, Buttazzoni L, Giannetti C, Capoccioni F. Consumer preferences for farmed seafood: an Italian case study. *J Aquat Food Prod Technol*. 2020;29(5):445-460. doi:10.1080/ 10498850.2020.1749201

143. Rickertsen K, Alfnes F, Combris P, Enderli G, Issanchou S, Shogren JF. French consumers' attitudes and preferences toward wild and farmed fish. *Mar Resour Econ*. 2017;32(1):59-81. doi:10. 1086/689202

144. Tomic M, Kovacicek T, Matulic D. Attitudes as basis for segmenting Croatian fresh fish consumers. *New Medit*. 2016;15(4):63-71.

145. Tomić M, Lucević Z, Tomljanović T, Matulić D. Wild-caught versus farmed fish—consumer perception. *Croat J Fish*. 2017;75(2):41-50. doi:10.1515/cjf-2017-0007
146. Bronnmann J, Asche F. Sustainable seafood from aquaculture and wild fisheries: insights from a discrete choice experiment in Germany. *Ecol Econ*. 2017;142:113-119. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2017.06.005

147. Wongprawmas R, Sogari G, Gai F, Parisi G, Menozzi D, Mora C. How information influences consumers' perception and purchasing intention for farmed and wild fish. *Aquaculture*. 2022;547:737504. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737504

148. Claret A, Guerrero L, Gartzia I, Garcia-Quiroga M, Ginés R. Does information affect consumer liking of farmed and wild fish? *Aquaculture*. 2016;454:157-162. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.12.024

149. Carrassón M, Soler-Membrives A, Constenla M, et al. Information impact on consumers' perceptions towards aquaculture: dismantling the myth about feeds for farmed fish. *Aquaculture*. 2021;544: 737137. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737137

150. Loncaric D, Dujmic E, Kresic G. Assessment of the intention to consume farmed fish using the theory of planned behaviour—scale validation. *J Polytech Rijeka*. 2021;9(1):1-17. doi:10.31784/zvr.9.1.1

151. Nguyen L, Gao Z, Anderson JL. Perception shifts in seafood consumption in the United States. *Mar Policy*. 2023;148:105438. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105438

152. Runge KK, Shaw BR, Witzling L, Hartleb C, Yang S, Peroff DM. Social license and consumer perceptions of farm-raised fish. *Aquaculture*. 2021;530:735920. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735920

153. Stancu V, Brunso K, Krystallis A, Guerrero L, Santa Cruz E, Peral I. European consumer segments with a high potential for accepting new innovative fish products based on their food-related lifestyle. *Food Qual Prefer*. 2022;99:104560. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2022. 104560

154. Flos R, Reig L. Can Good Communication Change Consumer Perception About Aquaculture? Aquaculture Europe Newsletter. Accessed May 20, 2023. http://hdl.handle.net/2117/130011; 2017.

155. Risius A, Janssen M, Hamm U. Consumer preferences for sustainable aquaculture products: evidence from in-depth interviews, think aloud protocols and choice experiments. *Appetite*. 2017;113:246- 254. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.021

156. van Osch S, Hynes S, Freeman S, O'Higgins T. Estimating the Public's preferences for sustainable aquaculture: a country comparison. *Sustainability*. 2019;11(3):569. doi:10.3390/su11030569

157. van Osch S, Hynes S, O'Higgins T, Hanley N, Campbell D, Freeman S. Estimating the Irish public's willingness to pay for more sustainable salmon produced by integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. *Mar Policy*. 2017;84:220-227. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017. 07.005

158. Yip W, Knowler D, Haider W, Trenholm R. Valuing the willingness-to-pay for sustainable seafood: integrated multitrophic versus closed containment aquaculture: valuing the willingness-to-pay for sustainable seafood. *Can J Agric Econ*. 2017;65(1):93-117. doi:10.1111/cjag.12102

159. Milićić V, Thorarinsdottir R, Santos M, Hančič M. Commercial aquaponics approaching the European market: to consumers' perceptions of aquaponics products in Europe. *Water*. 2017;9(2):80. doi:10. 3390/w9020080

160. Budhathoki M, Zølner A, Nielsen T, Rasmussen MA, Reinbach HC. Intention to buy organic fish among Danish consumers: application of the segmentation approach and the theory of planned behaviour. *Aquaculture*. 2022;549:737798. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021. 737798

161. Ferfolja M, Cerjak M, Matulić D, Maksan MT. Consumer knowledge and perception about fresh fish from organic farming in Croatia. *Croat J Fish*. 2022;80(1):7-16. doi:10.2478/cjf-2022-0002

162. Feucht Y, Zander K. Of earth ponds, flow-through and closed recirculation systems—German consumers' understanding of sustainable aquaculture and its communication. *Aquaculture*. 2015;438:151- 158. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.01.005

163. Osmond ATY, Charlebois S, Colombo SM. Exploratory analysis on Canadian consumer perceptions, habits, and opinions on salmon consumption and production in Canada. *Aquac Int*. 2022;31(1):179- 193. doi:10.1007/s10499-022-00972-x

164. Banovic M, Reinders MJ, Claret A, Guerrero L, Krystallis A. A cross-cultural perspective on impact of health and nutrition claims, country-of-origin and eco-label on consumer choice of new aquaculture products. *Food Res Int*. 2019;123:36-47. doi:10.1016/j.foodres. 2019.04.031

165. Banovic M, Reinders MJ, Claret A, Guerrero L, Krystallis A. "One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish": how ethical beliefs influence consumer perceptions of "blue" aquaculture products? *Food Qual Prefer*. 2019;77:147-158. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.05.013

166. Cantillo J, Martín JC, Román C. Understanding consumers' perceptions of aquaculture and its products in gran Canaria Island: does the influence of positive or negative wording matter? *Aquaculture*. 2023;562:738754. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738754

167. Reinders MJ, Banović M, Guerrero L, Krystallis A. Consumer perceptions of farmed fish: a cross-national segmentation in five European countries. *BFJ*. 2016;118(10):2581-2597. doi:10.1108/BFJ-03- 2016-0097

168. Ritchie H, Rosado P, Roser M. Environmental Impacts of Food Production. OurWorldInData.org; 2022. Accessed August 28, 2023. https:// ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food

169. Varvasovszky Z. A stakeholder analysis. *Health Policy Plan*. 2000; 15(3):338-345. doi:10.1093/heapol/15.3.338

170. Powershift. *Spectrum of Allies*. Accessed March 21, 2023. https:// www.powershift.org/resources/spectrum-allies

171. Chatterton. Farming the fish farmers: the impact of activists on media and public opinion about the aquaculture industry. *How to Farm the Seas*. Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, Canadian Aquaculture Institute; 2004.

172. Botterill L, Mazur N. Risk & Risk Perception: A Literature Review: A Report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation; 2004.

173. Swinburn B. Power dynamics in 21st-century food systems. *Nutrients*. 2019;11(10):2544. doi:10.3390/nu11102544

174. Global Salmon Initiative. 2023. Accessed March 21, 2023. https:// globalsalmoninitiative.org/en/

175. Global Salmon Initiative. The 2021 Sustainability Report. 2021. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://globalsalmoninitiative.org/en/ sustainability-report/executive-summary/

176. Casadesus-Masanell R, Mitchell J, Sastre Boquet I, Vroom G. WWF and Greenpeace: Two Strategies to Save the Artic Ocean—Teaching Note. IESE Publishing; 2019.

177. Allsopp M, Johnston P, Santillo D. Challenging the Aquaculture Industry on Sustainability. Greenpeace Research Laboratories, University of Exeter; 2008.

178. Volpe J, Gee J, Ethier V, Beck M, Wilson A, Stoner J. Global aquaculture performance index (GAPI): the first global environmental assessment of marine fish farming. *Sustainability*. 2013;5(9):3976- 3991. doi:10.3390/su5093976

179. Partelow S, Schlüter AO, Manlosa A, Nagel B, Octa Paramita A. Government aquaculture commons. *Rev Aquac*. 2022;14(2):729-750. doi: 10.1111/raq.12622

180. Aquaculture Governance Indicators: A Comprehensive Framework Supporting the Evolution Towards Responsible Aquaculture Management. Accessed December 18, 2023. https://www.aquaculturegover nance.org/

181. Waite R, Beveridge M, Brummett R, et al. Improving Productivity and Environmental Performance of Aquaculture. WorldFish; 2014. Accessed January 12, 2023. https://books.google.dk/books?id=eOeqCAAAQBAJ

182. Belton B, Haque MM, Little DC, Sinh LX. Certifying catfish in Vietnam and Bangladesh: who will make the grade and will it
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

matter? *Food Policy*. 2011;36(2):289-299. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol. 2010.11.027

183. Bush SR, Belton B, Hall D, et al. Certify sustainable aquaculture? *Science*. 2013;341(6150):1067-1068. doi:10.1126/science.1237314

184. Kaczorowska J, Rejman K, Halicka E, Szczebyło A, Górskawarsewicz H. Impact of food sustainability labels on the perceived product value and price expectations of urban consumers. *Sustainability*. 2019;11(24):7240. doi:10.3390/su11247240

185. Green R, Cornelsen L, Dangour AD, et al. The effect of rising food prices on food consumption: systematic review with meta-regression. *BMJ*. 2013;346(1):f3703. doi:10.1136/bmj.f3703

186. Bush SR, Belton B, Little DC, Islam MS. Emerging trends in aquaculture value chain research. *Aquaculture*. 2019;498:428-434. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.08.077

187. Grunert KG, Hieke S, Wills J. Sustainability labels on food products: consumer motivation, understanding and use. *Food Policy*. 2014;44:177-189. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001

188. Budhathoki M, Campbell D, Belton B, et al. Factors influencing consumption behaviour towards aquatic food among Asian consumers: a systematic scoping review. *Foods*. 2022;11(24):4043. doi:10.3390/foods11244043

189. White K, Habib R, Hardisty DJ. How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: a literature review and guiding framework. *J Market*. 2019;83(3):22-49. doi:10.1177/0022242919825649

190. Couldry N, Hepp A. *The Mediated Construction of Reality*. John Wiley & Sons; 2018.

191. McQuail D. *McQuail's Mass Communication Theory*. Sage Publications; 2010.

## SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.

**How to cite this article:** Budhathoki M, Tunca S, Martinez RL, et al. Societal perceptions of aquaculture: Combining scoping review and media analysis. *Rev Aquac*. 2024;16(4):1879-1900. doi:10.1111/raq.12927