## 4 Methodology  
The methodology is derived from a hybrid approach based on Fuzzy Set Theory (FST) and techniques for order preference by similarity of the ideal solution (TOPSIS). TOPSIS techniques are considered appropriate tools to handle different decision-making processes and they are especially attractive when respondents make choices with multiple attributes in consideration [52]. Moreover, the essence of the human ambiguity judgement when dealing with multidimensional attributes can be captured by fuzzy methods [53], which is an important task when using Likert scales based on linguistic terms. The hybrid fuzzy TOPSIS method developed in the study has demonstrated to be a more effective tool than other statistical methods based on averages and other multi-criteria methods not only to deal with the uncertainty associated to the Likert scales but also to provide synthetic indicators and elasticity values [54]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Categories** & **N** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Frequency \%**} \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Country} & Netherlands & 88 & 21.62 & \multirow{8}{*}{Country} & Netherlands & 88 & 21.62 \\  & Spain & 66 & 16.22 & \multirow{8}{*}{Country} & France & 37 & 9.09 \\  & Germany & 32 & 7.86 & \multirow{8}{*}{Country} & United Kingdom & 29 & 7.13 \\  & Belgium & 22 & 5.41 & \multirow{8}{*}{Stakeholder} & Italy & 22 & 5.41 \\  & Sweden & 20 & 4.91 & \multirow{8}{*}{Stakeholder} & Portugal & 13 & 3.19 \\  & Other & 78 & 19.16 & & 19.16 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Stakeholder} & Consumers & 181 & 44.47 & \multirow{8}{*}{Stakeholder} & \multirow{8}{*}{Stakeholder} & \multirow{8}{*}{Stakeholder} \\  & Ecolabel owner & 10 & 2.46 & \multirow{8}{*}{Stakeholder} & \multirow{8}{*}{Stakeholder} \\  & Producers & 62 & 15.23 & \multirow{8}{*}{Stakeholder} & \multirow{8}{*}{Stakeholder} \\  & Retailers or suppliers & 55 & 13.51 & \multirow{8}{*}{Stakeholder} \\  & Public/non- & & & & \\  & governmental/research & & & & \\  & organization & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Government} & No & 77 & 18.92 & \multirow{3}{*}{Stakeholder} \\  & Do not know & 59 & 14.50 & \multirow{3}{*}{Stakeholder} \\  & Yes & 271 & 66.58 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**If the EU Created Its Own Fisheries and Aquaculture Ecolabel, What Should the Scope of the Ecolabel Include (in Addition to Environmental Standards)? Please Indicate How Strongly You Agree or Disagree with the Following Statements:** & & & & & \\ \hline A1: An EU ecolabel should be limited to environmental issues only & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\ A2: An EU ecolabel should include social and ethical issues & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\ A3: An EU ecolabel should include food quality issues & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\ A4: An EU ecolabel should include health and safety issues & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\ A5: An EU ecolabel should include animal welfare issues & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\ \hline \hline
1. Strongly disagree. 2. Disagree. 3. Do not know. 4. Agree. 5 Strongly agree. & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Coverage of the EU ecolabel system in fishery and aquaculture products (FAPs). The dataset used for the methodology consists of the level of acceptance to include certain types of information in an EU ecolabel (environmental only, social and ethical, food quality, health and safety or animal welfare, apart from environmental). The answers to the level of acceptance expressed by respondents were based on a five-point Likert scale according to (I strongly disagree (1); I disagree (2); I do not know (3); I agree (4); I strongly agree (5)). Likert scales, as other qualitative semantic scales used in social sciences, provide uncertain and vague information which is not appropriate for quantitative analysis. For that reason, FST has become a good alternative to cope with this type of information--more than other traditional methods [55; 56].