Abstract
Arctic food industries offer promising potential for sustainable economic development; however, no certification system currently exists to assure Arctic origin and unique product qualities. We survey 1,602 Canadian consumers to explore attitudes to sustainability, authenticity, and origin in the context of Arctic foods, and assess their use of sustainability labels and trust in different certifiers. A latent class analysis reveals considerable heterogeneity regarding whom consumers trust to certify Arctic foods. While ‘government’ is the most trustworthy certifier, Arctic region-based and Inuit-owned organizations have strong appeal for certain consumer segments. Policy implications for developing an Arctic regional certification system are discussed.
1. Introduction
The Arctic covers a vast region differentiated by climate, cultures, and economies. Despite these differences, regions within the Arctic share great potential for sustainable growth in food industries (Natcher and Koivurova, 2021). Whereas traditional capture fisheries will likely continue to be the most significant Arctic food industry, new food products are being derived from reindeer, muskox, and seaweed, along with novel advances in animal feed, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and CO2 sequestration technologies (Natcher and Koivurova, 2021). These new industries are providing food and other valuable bioresources, while generating sustainable employment for rural and remote regions (Björnsdóttir et al., 2021). For these reasons, the future economic potential for Arctic food industries is considerable (Laurence et al., 2019).
Despite the advances being made in these sectors, and the economic promise they hold, Nøstvold et al. (2021) suggests that the future growth of Arctic food industries may be limited by consumer confidence and product knowledge. Arctic foods are associated with the unique pristine environment of the Arctic region and are strongly aligned with local Indigenous cultures and traditional ways of production and harvesting. Whereas consumers have expressed a preference for foods originating from the Arctic and are willing to pay premiums for the unique qualities of Arctic foods (Yang et al., 2020a,b), no certification system currently exists to assure the ‘place of origin’ or other quality attributes. Jennifer Miller, the Director of Canada’s Innovation Supercluster Initiative suggests that Arctic food industries could benefit from a ‘Made in the Arctic’ branding that denotes the unique, sustainable, and clean product qualities (Laurence et al., 2019: 24). According to Luceri et al. (2016), emphasizing the geographic origin of a product is one way to promote the authenticity and food quality to consumers, and hence, a potential marketing strategy for added value. van Ittersum et al. (2003, 2007) and Kuznesof et al. (1997) have also shown that regional branding positively influences consumers’ trust in food quality. While labelling and certification standards are available for ecological and fair-trade products, there are no equivalent labels for the Arctic origin or qualities. Thus, while consumers view these unique Arctic food attributes positively, certification schemes (assurances about the geographic origin, sustainability, and authenticity of Arctic food products) may help build consumers’ confidence in these quality claims (Yang et al., 2020a,b).
Consumers are highly heterogeneous with respect to how they respond to and the extent to which they trust certification (Hobbs, 2019). Therefore, the successful use of Arctic origin in the branding of food products requires insights into what consumers perceive as ‘authentic Arctic food products’ and the characteristics of such products. Drawing upon survey data from a sample of Canadian consumers, we examine attitudes to sustainability, authenticity, and origin in the context of Arctic foods, and the potential for an Arctic region food certification system. The question of whom consumers trust to certify Arctic foods is a central consideration. Using latent class analysis, we assess heterogeneity in consumers’ trust in four different certifying agencies (government, Indigenous community organization, regional organization, international organization).1
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: the next section places our research in the context of existing literature on certification of sustainability, authenticity, and consumer trust. We then outline our empirical approach, describing the survey data collection and the latent class model. The empirical results section assesses the use of sustainability labels and trust in certifiers and presents the latent class analysis. The paper concludes with a discussion of policy implications.
2. Sustainability, authenticity, and trust in certification
Certification of credence attributes such as sustainability, authenticity, and origin can counteract misleading quality claims (food fraud) as well as facilitate product differentiation. Consumers face a noisy food quality certification information environment characterized by multiple certification labels. The extent to which sustainability, authenticity, and origin resonate with consumers as elements of a potential Arctic foods certification system is a relevant policy consideration, as is consumer trust in different organizations as certifiers of Arctic foods.
Existing literature has examined consumer trust in sustainability certification across several dimensions. Grunert et al. (2014) examine the relationship between consumer motivation, understanding and use of sustainability labels on food products among consumers across six European countries. Their analysis suggests relatively low levels of understanding of the concept of sustainability in general, although stronger awareness of four specific labels related to ethical issues (animal welfare, fair trade) and environmental issues (Rainforest Alliance and carbon footprint labels). Some of the earliest examples of sustainability certification arose in the fish and seafood sector, driven by concerns over resource depletion in capture fisheries. Ponte (2012) documents the development of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification system for sustainable fish, suggesting that the market for sustainable fish is dominated by the fisheries located in the global North. Foley (2012) examines the adoption of the MSC standard within the shrimp fishery in Northern Canada through a political economy lens, with a focus on how MSC certification influenced entry into the sector and access to resources. Studies from various countries find that consumers respond positively to sustainability certification in seafood or meat products (see for example, Asche et al., 2021; Blomquist et al., 2015; Jaffry et al., 2004; Katare et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2016; Roheim et al., 2012; Salladarré et al., 2010).
While sustainability certifications in fish and seafood sector have tended to focus on environmental goals and prevention of further resource depletion, sustainability is a broad concept, also encapsulating ethical, economic, and social goals. Noting that a plethora of different sustainability labels exist in the European food market, Van Loo et al. (2014) compare Belgian consumers’ preferences for four types of sustainability claims on meat products related to environmental and ethical goals: animal welfare, carbon footprint, free range, and organic meat. The type of sustainability claim matters, as well as who verifies the sustainability claim. In a Canadian study, Innes and Hobbs (2011) find that consumers with stronger preferences for sustainability attributes prefer government verification over retailer or third-party verification.
The authenticity in food markets Is a multifaceted concept, variously encompassing the origin of food products (e.g. whether country or region of origin is correctly identified), the species (e.g. whether the seafood or animal species are correctly identified), or the use of traditional production practices associated with a specific region or culture (Chousou and Mattas, 2021; Laura Sidali and Hemmerling, 2014). Authenticity arises in the context of food fraud (preventing deliberate substitution and mislabelling) and product differentiation (Ugochukwu et al., 2015). Following widespread fraudulent mislabelling of grouper at restaurants in Florida, Ropicki et al. (2010) find a relatively high consumer awareness of reported substitution and a positive willingness to pay for a product integrity labelling program guaranteeing ‘fresh Florida-caught grouper’. A large literature has examined consumer responses to the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) labels in EU and other markets (see for example, Boncinelli et al., 2017; Garavaglia and Mariani, 2017; Menapace et al., 2011; Vecchio and Annunziata, 2011; Verbeke et al., 2012). The evidence suggests that certification of authenticity and origin helps build consumer confidence when a specific geographical origin is associated with specific food quality attributes.
3. Data and empirical approach
This section describes the consumer survey data collection process and the econometric model. A central aim of this study is to explore what types of certifying organizations garner higher trust among consumers and why, in the context of Arctic foods. The latent class analysis allows us to explore heterogeneity in consumer preferences, identifying segments of consumers who exhibit unique preferences for the potential organizations providing assurances with respect to Arctic foods.
3.1 Consumer survey data
Data were collected from an internet survey administrated to 1,602 Canadian adults in 2018. Respondents were recruited through EKOS, a research vendor contracted by the Canadian Hub for Applied and Social Research (CHASR) at the University of Saskatchewan.2 Quotas on province and age were imposed to ensure the representativeness of the sample. Most Arctic foods featured in the survey comprised meat or seafood, hence only consumers who had purchased fish, seafood, or meat products in the past six months completed the survey. About 19% respondents completed the survey in French and the remaining in English. Table 1 displays the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample, which is fairly representative, although leans towards an older and better educated population. This may be a result of different levels of Internet access and literacy across demographic groups.
The survey measured respondents’ attitudes towards the Canadian Arctic as a food-producing region, trust in potential certifiers of Arctic foods, willingness to pay (WTP) for Arctic foods, as well as socio-demographics.3 In this paper, we assess respondents’ experience with and knowledge with existing sustainable food labels (e.g. Certified Sustainable Seafood (MSC), Ocean Wise, SeaChoice, Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance Certified, as well as organic and animal welfare certifications), and the extent to which they trust these sustainability assurances. We then focus on the Arctic region, examining its sustainability dimensions, and especially consumers’ trust in potential organizations that can provide assurances with respect to the Arctic origin of foods.
Sample characteristics.
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 26, 4 (2023) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0111
3.2 Latent class analysis
Trust in four types of organization – government, international, Indigenous (Inuit), and Arctic regional organizations – to certify Arctic origin is measured with a five-point Likert scale (1 = no trust at all, 2 = low trust, 3 = medium trust, 4 = high trust, and 5 = complete trust). Latent class analysis is used to investigate trust in these organizational types as sources of Arctic food certification, identify consumer segments, and explore the drivers of different trust patterns.
The intent of latent class modelling is to construct clustering based on a set of observed indicator variables – in this study, trust in four potential certifying organizations. Clusters (classes or segments) are ‘latent’ in that the number of classes and who belongs to which class is unknown. Respondents within the same cluster are homogeneous, exhibiting similar behavioural patterns when responding to indicator variables (Goodman, 1974; McCutcheon, 1987; Vermunt and Magidson, 2004). We aim to identify consumer segments with unique patterns of trust in the four potential Arctic food certifiers.
Our estimation of the latent class model follows the bias-adjusted three-step approach proposed by Vermunt (2010) and Bakk et al. (2013) (Supplementary Materials and methods S1 at 10.6084/m9.figshare.24441970 provides a comparison between the three-step and one-step latent class analysis). In brief, we first explore heterogenous trust patterns based on consumers’ responses to a set of indicator variables ( yi) – trust in Government, International independent organization, Inuit-owned organization, and Arctic region-based independent organization. The probability of observing a particular response pattern, P( yi), is defined as:
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 26, 4 (2023) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0111
Where P(x = k) is the probability an individual belongs to latent class k, and P( yi|x = k) is the conditional probability of observing a particular response pattern given that an individual belongs to latent class k. The optimal number of latent classes K is decided by statistical criteria including the BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion), AIC (Akaike Information Criterion), and interpretability.
The second step involves assigning individuals to a latent class based on their observed responses.
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 26, 4 (2023) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0111
Where P(x = k|yi) is the posterior class membership probability of belonging to class k given individual ’s observed responses yi. The last step is to explore the connection between the assigned class memberships (x = k) and individuals’ characteristics (zi), using a multinomial logistic regression.
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 26, 4 (2023) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0111
Where ziq is one of the Q covariates affecting individual i’s class membership x. The covariates of interest are consumers’ general perceptions of food sustainability and certification (Origin, Sustainability, Authenticity, Confidence, Label Use), attitudes toward Arctic foods (Buy Arctic, Quality Perceptions (PC1), Negative Environmental and Social Impacts (PC2), Indigenous Cultural Origin (PC3), Health, Moral and Price Concerns (PC4)), and socio-economic characteristics (Age, Gender, Bachelor’s Degree, Kid, Income, Province) (Table 2).
Summary of variables.1
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 26, 4 (2023) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0111
The latent class analysis enables us to identify different patterns of trust in potential sources of Arctic food certification, and more importantly, it provides insights on the question of who is more likely to exhibit which pattern of trust. Table 2 summarizes the four indicator variables (yi) and covariates (zi) included in the latent class analysis.
4. Empirical results
4.1 Sustainability in food choices and labels
How important are origin, authenticity, and sustainability to Canadian consumers? We asked respondents to select the three most and three least important food issues (Lusk and Briggeman, 2009), finding that price, taste, safety, and nutrition are the most important to consumers, followed by origin, authenticity, and sustainability (Supplementary Materials and methods S2 and Table S1 at 10.6084/m9.figshare.24441970 show the calculation of relative importance rankings for a list of food issues).
Concern with food fraud, particularly with respect to the mislabelling of origin or species in products such as seafood, honey, and pork, has been rising among Canadian consumers (Chiasson, 2019; Leahy, 2021), and is often attributed to a lack of robust food labelling regulations. In the case of seafood labelling, currently the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) requires labels to identify the common name of seafood species and the country of origin where the seafood was last processed rather than where it was caught or farmed (Roebuck et al., 2017). Confidence in the accuracy of seafood labels among Canadian consumers is relatively low: on average, respondents felt that seafood labels are misleading or fraudulent 45.5% of the time, while Shehata et al. (2019) finds a mislabelling rate of 32.3% for seafood products in the Canadian market.
There exist a large number of certification programs for food products, including a variety of sustainability labels. For Arctic foods in particular, Yang et al. (2020a) find consumers were willing to pay a price premium for a sustainability label. Despite the potential benefits offered by food certification programs, the use of sustainable food labels by respondents is relatively low, with 40.3% reporting ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ taking sustainable food labels into account when purchasing foods, 37.0% ‘sometimes’ and only 22.7% ‘often’ or ‘always’ using sustainability labels to inform food purchase decisions.
The low level of sustainability labels usage may be attributed to consumers’ limited experience with, understanding, and trust in these labels (Grunert et al., 2014). We probed Canadian consumers’ experience, knowledge, and trust in 10 sustainability labels available in Canada, with applications to diverse food products, including meat, fruits, seafood, coffee, beverages, and dairy products (Table 3). If respondents reported having seen a specific sustainability label, they were then asked to rate their knowledge of the label and the extent to which they trust the label. ‘Canada Organic’, ‘Fairtrade’ and ‘Rainforest Alliance Certified’ are among the most familiar sustainability labels, with more than half of respondents indicating they had seen them before. They are also among the most trusted labels (roughly two-thirds of respondents had a ‘medium’, ‘high’, or ‘complete’ trust in these labels), although fewer consumers claimed to be knowledgeable about these labels (only one-third reported knowing ‘some’, ‘quite a bit’, or ‘a lot’ about these labels). Consumers have a lower awareness of labels related to animal welfare, such as ‘Certified Humane’ and ‘Animal Welfare Approved’, and are less knowledgeable about these labels. Three fish and seafood sustainability labels, ‘Certified Sustainable Seafood (MSC)’, ‘Ocean Wise’, and ‘SeaChoice’ received moderate awareness and trust from consumers. Overall, consumers have limited knowledge of sustainable food labels.
Experience, knowledge, and trust about sustainable food labels.
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 26, 4 (2023) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0111
Our survey data reveal that consumers are concerned about the origin, authenticity, and sustainability of food products in general. These findings are consistent with previous studies that suggested consumers’ preferences for foods that are locally produced, sustainably harvested, and certified by some third parties (Brayden et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020). Arctic foods are no exception in that consumers’ enthusiasm and willingness to pay are driven by the distinct geographic origin, relational tie with Indigenous cultures and traditions, as well as the perceptions regarding sustainable harvesting methods (Yang et al., 2020a,b). Over 85% of respondents indicated they ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ would buy foods sourced from the Canadian Arctic region if available. Arctic foods represent a unique niche market with rising demand in both domestic and international markets (Natcher et al., 2019); however, the scope for a certification system to verify the authenticity and sustainability dimensions of Arctic foods is currently unknown. The next section explores whether the organization behind a certification program matters; that is, whom do consumers trust to certify Arctic foods?
4.2 Trust in Arctic food certifiers
Respondents were asked to indicate their levels of trust in four potential types of Arctic food certifiers, including ‘government (e.g. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO))’, ‘international independent organization (e.g. Marine Stewardship Council)’, ‘Inuit-owned organization (e.g. Hunters and Trappers Association)’, and ‘Arctic region-based independent organization (e.g. Arctic Economic Council)’. The four trust indicator variables were measured with a five-point Likert scale. For brevity and interpretability, we reduce the number of categories by grouping responses into three levels (1 = no/low trust, 2 = medium trust, 3 = high/complete trust, Figure 1).
Level of trust in Arctic food certifying bodies.
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 26, 4 (2023) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0111
On average across respondents, trust in ‘Government’ was the highest, with nearly half of respondents (48.5%) indicating a ‘high trust’ or ‘complete trust’, followed by an ‘Inuit-owned organization’ (30.1%), ‘Arctic region-based independent organization’ (27.5%), and ‘International independent organization’ (24.5%).
A latent class analysis reveals heterogeneity in the patterns of trust among consumers. We performed a bias-adjusted three-step latent class analysis using LatentGold 6.0 (Vermunt and Magidson, 2016). We ran models with one to seven classes, with the 4-class model determined to be more appropriate after considering the statistical information criteria, bivariate residuals, and model interpretability. The trust profile of classes is depicted in Table 4 and Figure 2 (details on model selection and parameter estimates are shown in Supplementary Materials and methods S3 and Table S2 and S3 at 10.6084/m9.figshare.24441970).
The third step of the latent class analysis allows us to further distinguish respondents by exploring the effect of covariates on latent class membership. Our next step is thus to profile the clusters with information on covariates, including perceptions of food sustainability and certification, attitudes toward Arctic foods, and socio-economic characteristics (Table 5).
Latent class analysis: trust profiles (n=1,602).1
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 26, 4 (2023) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0111
Trust profile plot.
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 26, 4 (2023) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0111
Latent class analysis: covariate effects (n=1,602).1
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 26, 4 (2023) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0111
■ LC1 (Cluster 1: medium trusters)
This class includes slightly more than half of respondents (56.4%) and sits in the middle of the clusters with respect to trust in each of the four potential certifying organizations (Figure 2). Consumers in LC1 do not have strong beliefs about trust. Among the four clusters, consumers in LC1 are most likely to report a ‘medium’ level of trust in four certifiers (Table 4). This cluster features consumers who have medium levels for almost all the characteristics (Table 5) except they are the least concerned with quality perceptions (PC1) pertaining Arctic foods (see Table 2 for a definition).
■ LC2 (Cluster 2: high and regional certifier trusters)
This class, representing roughly one fifth of the sample (20.7%), displays the highest level of trust in the four certifying organizations, hence locating at the top in Figure 2. Among the clusters, consumers in LC2 are most likely to report a ‘high’ or ‘complete’ trust in the certifying organizations. Consumers belonging to this cluster tend to have a higher level of trust in certifiers with a regional focus – they believe an Arctic region-based organization is the most trustworthy certifier, followed by an Inuit-owned organization, and then the government and international independent organization.
Respondents in this cluster tend to have the highest level of confidence in the accuracy of seafood labels (34.6% reported being ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ confident, the highest share among the clusters), use sustainable food labels most frequently (34.1% reported ‘often’ or ‘always’ use sustainable labels, highest share among the clusters), are the most enthusiastic about Arctic foods (90.2% indicated they ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ would buy Arctic foods if available, the highest share among the clusters), are most likely to value the Indigenous Cultural Origin (PC3) aspects of Arctic foods, are the least concerned with potential Negative Environmental and Social Impacts (PC2) from Arctic foods, and the least likely to have Health, Moral and Price Concerns (PC4) with respect to these foods. LC2 also features younger respondents (20.0% are aged 18–34, the highest percentage among clusters).
■ LC3 (Cluster 3: low trusters)
This cluster contains 13.4% of respondents and tend to distrust all certifiers (sitting at the bottom in Figure 2). The vast majority of individuals in LC3 reported ‘no trust at all’ or ‘low trust’ in the four potential certifiers (the highest share among the four clusters). This cluster is associated with the lowest confidence in seafood labelling (the highest share of consumers, 48.3%, reported being ‘not at all’ or only ‘slightly’ confident). Respondents in this cluster are the most hesitant to purchase Arctic foods (18.3% are undecided and 15.1% ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ wouldn’t buy Arctic foods, the highest share among the clusters), and are more likely to associate Arctic foods with Negative Environmental and Social Impacts (PC2) and Health, Moral and Price Concerns (PC4). Relative to the other clusters, respondents in LC3 are most likely to be middle-aged (48.8% aged 35–54, the highest percentage among clusters).
■ LC4 (Cluster 4: government certifier trusters)
This cluster represents 9.5% of respondents. LC4 heavily discounts certification from international independent organizations (92.7% exhibiting ‘no trust at all’ or ‘low trust’, highest share among clusters). Instead, this group have markedly higher levels of trust in government as a certifier of Arctic food (60.8% reported a ‘high’ or ‘complete’ trust in government, the second highest among the clusters). Respondents in LC4 tend to be most concerned with the quality of Arctic foods (PC1), while they are the least motivated by Indigenous Cultural Origin (PC3) as an aspect of Arctic foods. LC4 is associated with the highest share of older respondents (45.3% are aged 55 and above), and they are the least likely to use sustainable food labels (60.9%, the highest share among the clusters, reporting ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ use these labels).
5. Conclusions and policy implications
The potential for sustainable economic development of the food sector in the Arctic region has been recognized by Arctic regional organizations and governments. The market for food products from the Arctic lies in southern (non-Arctic) communities. There is a need to understand how consumers in these communities respond to assurances about the origin, authenticity, and sustainability of Arctic foods, and the types of organizations trusted to provide Arctic food certification. This research sets out to build a more complete picture of how Canadian consumers respond to sustainability, authenticity, and origin attributes in their food purchasing decisions, and the role of certification in verifying these attributes in the context of Arctic foods.
Our results point to a number of pertinent insights for the development of Arctic regional food certification systems. First, the origin, authenticity, and sustainability of food products resonates with many consumers, with a relatively high degree of openness to trying Arctic foods. Current use of sustainability labels to inform food purchase decisions is relatively low, although mainstream labels (e.g. Canada Organic) are fairly familiar to consumers. There is evidence that an Arctic food certification system would resonate with consumers, and that the types of attributes most often associated with Arctic foods (authenticity, sustainability, unique geographic origin) appeal to many consumers.
A central theme of the paper is heterogeneity in consumer preferences, which is most clearly demonstrated by the latent class cluster analysis. The analysis shows that, while many consumers respond positively to the notion of certification, there is considerable heterogeneity with respect to whom consumers trust for certification, and why. The results confirm that ‘government’ engenders a high degree of trust across most Canadian consumers, while Arctic region-based and Inuit-owned organizations have strong appeal for certain consumer segments. From a policy perspective, this suggests that an Arctic regional certification system developed as a collaborative initiative across these types of organizations may be a fruitful strategic approach.
Consumers indicate that sustainability, origin, and authenticity are important to them, albeit to differing degrees, yet they may not necessarily utilize existing sustainability labels in food purchase decisions. Indeed, consumers already face a crowded information environment with respect to food certification, therefore, any new certification system focused on the Arctic region needs to be credible, utilizing clear and consistent messaging about the distinguishing characteristics of Arctic foods. Further work is needed to determine the economic impact and viability of implementing Arctic food certification. Nevertheless, identifying consumer clusters with distinct attitudes toward Arctic food certification represents an important first step in assessing the potential for an Arctic food certification system.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material can be found online at 10.6084/m9.figshare.24441970.
Materials and methods S1. One-step vs three-step latent class analysis.
Materials and methods S2. Food values’ scale of importance.
Materials and methods S3. Model selection and parameter estimates for latent class analysis.
Figure S1. Importance of food issues.
Table S1. Summary of survey respondents’ food values (n=1,602).
Table S2. Summary statistics for model selection.
Table S3. Parameter estimates for latent class analysis (n=1,602).
Acknowledgements
This research was made possible by the funding support of Circumpolar Affairs, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Canada. We gratefully acknowledge the support of Sarah Cox, Anthony McDermott, and members of the Arctic Council’s Sustainable Development Working Group.
References
Asche, F., J. Bronnmann and A.L. Cojocaru. 2021. The value of responsibly farmed fish: a hedonic price study of ASC-certified whitefish. Ecological Economics 188(107135). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107135
Bakk, Z., F.B. Tekle and J.K. Vermunt. 2013. Estimating the association between latent class membership and external variables using bias-adjusted three-step approaches. Sociological Methodology 43(1): 272-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175012470644
Björnsdóttir, B., Ó. Reykdal, G. Þórðarson, Þ. Valsdóttir, R. Jónsdóttir, I. Kvalvik, M. Svorken, I. Eskildsen Pleym, D.C. Natcher and M. Dalton. 2021. Blue bioeconomy in the Arctic. Available at: https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/2613
Blomquist, J., V. Bartolino and S. Waldo. 2015. Price premiums for providing eco-labelled seafood: evidence from MSC-certified cod in Sweden. Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(3): 690-704. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12106
Boncinelli, F., C. Contini, C. Romano, G. Scozzafava and L. Casini. 2017. Territory, environment, and healthiness in traditional food choices: insights into consumer heterogeneity. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 20(1): 143-157. https://doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2015.0177
Brayden, W.C., C.L. Noblet, K.S. Evans and L. Rickard. 2018. Consumer preferences for seafood attributes of wild-harvested and farm-raised products. Aquaculture Economics & Management 22(3): 362-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2018.1449270
Chiasson, A. 2019. Fake honey still pouring into Canada, and local beekeepers are feeling the sting. CBC News, July 25. Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/food-fraud-fake-honey-cfiacrackdown-1.5222486
Chousou, C. and K. Mattas. 2021. Assessing consumer attitudes and perceptions towards food authenticity. British Food Journal 123(5): 1947-1961. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2019-0177
Foley, P. 2012. The political economy of marine stewardship council certification: processors and access in Newfoundland and Labrador’s inshore shrimp industry. Journal of Agrarian Change 12(2 and 3): 436-457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2011.00344.x
Garavaglia, C. and P. Mariani. 2017. How much do consumers value protected designation of origin certifications? Estimates of willingness to pay for PDO dry-cured ham in Italy. Agribusiness 33(3): 403-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21494
Goodman, L.A. 1974. Exploratory latent structure analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika 61(2): 215-231. https://doi.org/10.2307/2334349
Grunert, K.G., S. Hieke and J. Wills. 2014. Sustainability labels on food products: consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy 44: 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001
Hobbs, J.E. 2019. Heterogeneous consumers and differentiated food markets: implications for quality signaling in food supply chains. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 67(3): 237-249. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12202
Innes, B.G. and J.E. Hobbs. 2011. Does it matter who verifies production-derived quality? Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 59(1): 87-107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2010.01194.x
Jaffry, S., H. Pickering, Y. Ghulam, D. Whitmarsh and P. Wattage. 2004. consumer choices for quality and sustainability labelled seafood products in the UK. Food Policy 29(3): 215-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.04.001
Katare, B., H. Yim, A. Byrne, H.H. Wang and M. Wetzstein. 2022. Consumer willingness to pay for environmentally sustainable meat and a plant-based meat substitute. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13285
Kim, H., L.A. House and T.-K. Kim. 2016. Consumer perceptions of climate change and willingness to pay for mandatory implementation of low carbon labels: the case of South Korea. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 19(4): 129-144. https://doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2015.0095
Kuznesof, S., A. Tregear and A. Moxey. 1997. Regional foods: a consumer perspective. British Food Journal 99(6): 199-206. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070709710181531
Laura Sidali, K. and S. Hemmerling. 2014. Developing an authenticity model of traditional food specialties: Does the self-concept of consumers matter? British Food Journal 116(11): 1692-1709. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2014-0056
Laurence, A., G. Chabot, J. Valmary, M. Lyons and P. Kusmu. 2019. Food innovation in Canada’s north: the case for a social enterprise cluster. Action Canada 2018/2019 Task Force Report. Available at: https://ppforum.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/AC-Report-TF2-EN-FINAL_40copies.pdf
Leahy, S. 2021. Canada declares fish fraud crackdown but leaves out restaurants. The Guardian, March 30. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/30/canada-declares-fishcrackdown-but-leaves-out-restaurants
Luceri, B., S. Latusi and C. Zerbini. 2016. Product versus region of origin: which wins in consumer persuasion? British Food Journal 118(9): 2157-2170. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2016-0035
Lusk, J.L. and B.C. Briggeman. 2009. Food values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(1): 184-196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01175.x
McCutcheon, A.L. 1987. Latent class analysis. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, CA, USA.
Menapace, L., G. Colson, C. Grebitus and M. Facendola. 2011. Consumers’ preferences for geographical origin labels: evidence from the Canadian olive oil market. European Review of Agricultural Economics 38(2): 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq051
Natcher, D.C. and T. Koivurova. 2021. Renewable economies in the Arctic. Routledge, London, UK.
Natcher, D.C., Y. Yang, J.E. Hobbs, K. Hansen, F. Govaerts, S. Elde, I. Kvalvik, B.H. Nøstvold, R. Rødbotten, S. Dalmannsdottir, H. Halland, E. Uleberg, Ó. Reykdal, J. Árnason, P.G. Pálsson, R. Halldórsdóttir, Ó.Þ. Hilmarsson, G. Þórðarson and Þ. Valsdóttir. 2019. The Arctic as a food producing region. Available at: https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/bitstream/handle/11374/2375/AFPR-Final-Report-1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Nøstvold, B.H., I. Kvalvik and M. Heide. 2021. Adding value from marketing origin of food from the Arctic Norway. In: D. Natcher and T. Koivurova (eds.) Renewable economies in the Arctic. Routledge, London, UK, pp. 203-223.
Ponte, S. 2012. The marine stewardship council (MSC) and the making of a market for ‘sustainable fish.’ Journal of Agrarian Change 12(2 and 3): 300-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2011.00345.x
Roebuck, K., C. Turlo, S.D. Fuller and S. Wallace. 2017. Canadians eating in the dark: a report card of international seafood labelling requirements. Available at: https://www.seachoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Seafood-Labelling-Report-Online.pdf
Roheim, C.A., P.O. Sudhakaran and C.A. Durham. 2012. Certification of shrimp and salmon for best aquaculture practices: assessing consumer preferences in Rhode Island. Aquaculture Economics and Management 16: 266-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2012.713075
Ropicki, A.J., S.L. Larkin and C.M. Adams. 2010. Seafood substitution and mislabeling: WTP for a locally caught grouper labeling program in Florida. Marine Resource Economics 25: 77-92. https://doi.org/10.5950/0738-1360-25.1.77
Salladarré, F., P. Guillotreau, Y. Perraudeau and M.C. Monfort. 2010. The demand for seafood eco-labels in France. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 8(1): Article 10. https://doi.org/10.2202/1542-0485.1308
Shehata, H.R., D. Bourque, D. Steinke, S. Chen and R. Hanner. 2019. Survey of mislabelling across finfish supply chain reveals mislabelling both outside and within Canada. Food Research International 121: 723-729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.12.047
Ugochukwu, A.I., J.E. Hobbs, P.W.B. Phillips and R. Gray. 2015. An economic analysis of private incentives to adopt DNA barcoding technology for fish species authentication in Canada. Genome 58(12): 559-567. https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2015-0033
Van Ittersum, K., M.J.J.M. Candel and M.T.G. Meulenberg. 2003. The influence of the image of a product’s region of origin on product evaluation. Journal of Business Research 56(3): 215-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00223-5
Van Ittersum, K., M.T.G. Meulenberg, H.C.M. Van Trijp and M.J.J.M. Candel. 2007. Consumers’ appreciation of regional certification labels: a pan-European study. Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(1): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00080.x
Van Loo, E.J., V. Caputo, R.M. Nayga and W. Verbeke. 2014. Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat. Food Policy 49(Part 1): 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.07.002
Vecchio, R. and A. Annunziata. 2011. The role of PDO/PGI labelling in Italian consumers’ food choices. Agricultural Economics Review 12(2): 80-98. 10.22004/ag.econ.178224
Verbeke, W., Z. Pieniak, L. Guerrero and M. Hersleth. 2012. Consumers’ awareness and attitudinal determinants of European Union quality label use on traditional foods. Bio-Based and Applied Economics 1: 213-229. https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-10558
Vermunt, J.K. 2010. Latent Class Modeling with Covariates: Two Improved Three-Step Approaches. Political Analysis 18(4): 450-469. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpq025
Vermunt, J.K. and J. Magidson. 2004. Latent Class Analysis. In: M.S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman and T.F. Liao (ed.) Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Sage Publications, NewBury Park, CA, USA, pp. 549-553.
Vermunt, J.K. and J. Magidson. 2016. Technical guide for latent GOLD 5.1: basic, advanced, and syntax. Available at: https://www.statisticalinnovations.com/wp-content/uploads/LGtechnical.pdf
Yang, Y., J.E. Hobbs and D.C. Natcher. 2020a. Assessing consumer willingness to pay for Arctic food products. Food Policy 92(101846). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101846
Yang, Y., J.E. Hobbs and D.C. Natcher. 2020b. The Arctic as a food producing region: consumer perceptions and market segments. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 68(4): 387-410. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12255
Zhang, X., Fang, Y. and Z. Gao. 2020. Accounting for attribute non-attendance (ANA) in Chinese consumers’ away-from-home sustainable salmon consumption. Marine Resource Economics 35(3): 263-284. https://doi.org/10.1086/709458
Corresponding author
This research was conducted in partnership with the Arctic Council’s Sustainable Development Working Group and the Arctic Economic Council, where we examined consumer trust in existing certification programs and whether an Arctic origin labeling system can be used to garner consumer confidence in Arctic foods.
This study received ethics approval (BEH#100) from the University of Saskatchewan Behavioural Research Ethics Board in June 2018.
Willingness to pay (WTP) values were derived from a choice experiment featuring one-pound packages of Arctic char fillets that varied in five attributes: geographic origin, production method, producer, certification scheme, and price. See Yang et al. (2020a,b) for a detailed description of the choice experiment and analysis of respondents’ choice behaviours and WTP values for Arctic foods.
