The Role of Environmental Communication in Advancing Sustainability in Fisheries and Aquaculture: A Case Study of Latvia

Abstract

Latvia has abundant water resources, but the aquaculture sector has been slow to adopt technological advances and innovations. To address this gap, the Latvian Aquaculture Development Plan for 2021–2027 aims to improve the competitiveness and sustainability of the sector. An essential component of this effort is the establishment of effective communication channels that bridge the knowledge gap between the general public, industry professionals and researchers. To promote consumer interest in sustainable aquaculture products, an environmental communication framework to assess their sustainability was used. This assessment utilised a multi-criteria analysis technique complemented by an online survey to formulate an effective communication strategy. According to the multi-criteria analysis, canned fish emerges as the most sustainable product, while fish oil, fish meal and spirulina show promise. The online survey identifies the most appropriate communication channels: social media, audio and video. To facilitate engagement and information sharing, we advocate for the practice of communication, which can effectively facilitate the sustainable use of biological resources and serve as a channel for knowledge sharing.

1. Introduction

Recognising climate change and its potential threats to the environment, economy and society, the European Union (EU) has set itself the goal of becoming the first climate-neutral part of the world in terms of net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 [1]. This goal is to be achieved gradually, starting with a 55% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels [1]. To achieve this objective, the EU has adopted a number of strategies and policy planning documents over time [2]. The European Bioeconomy Strategy “Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe” [3] and the updated version “A sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment” [4] are some of these policy documents. The bioeconomy is one of the cornerstones of the transition to climate neutrality. It promotes the application of sustainable practices in bio-based resource sectors such as agriculture, the forest sector and fisheries and aquaculture, maximises the use of extracted resources for the production of food and raw materials and reduces dependence on non-renewable energy sources [2,5,6]. The successful integration of the bioeconomy into the different sectors requires a specific approach to raise awareness in society and convince governments and companies to adopt new governance tools that contribute to building a sustainable-minded society [7].

A shift to more sustainable and environmentally friendly production of food, manufactured goods and energy is necessary to ensure that the current rate of global population growth does not deplete the regenerative capacity of the environment, threatening the existence of all living things and ecosystems [8,9]. Experts with a broad range of expertise are needed here to advocate for sustainable resource use in dialogue with society and the economy and to help achieve the goals of the bioeconomy and circular economy [7,8,10].

Diplomacy can be employed as a means to foster a shift in thinking among diverse stakeholders in the bioeconomy. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and the Cambridge Dictionary define the term “diplomacy” in two ways: (1) “the activity of managing relations between different countries; the skill in doing this” [11] and (2) “skill in dealing with people in difficult situations without upsetting or offending them” [11,12]. Science diplomacy, as defined in the scientific literature, refers to the application of knowledge-based decision-making to promote the alignment of local and international interests in order to achieve global sustainability [13,14,15]. The term is defined explicitly and also in different ways, but the literature review looks at the origins of the term and its use.

The origins of biodiplomacy lie in the concept of biopolitics, which is part of the “bios theory” developed in the late 1980s by A. Vlavianos-Arvanitis [16]. Bios is translated from the Greek meaning “life”, and the proposed theory is based on the belief that humans should be able to interact in harmony with the environment and all living beings [16]. However, the threat to this harmonious interaction is the impact of human activities on the environment, which is exacerbated by geopolitical conflicts [17]. The solution to the paradigm shift lies in proper education, interdisciplinary communication and concerted action by universities and government [17,18]. Although A. Vlavianos-Arvanitis does not provide a definition of “bio-diplomacy”, it is rather seen as a vision of the future: “[…] bio-diplomacy which will be involved in enhancing international co-operation on environmental issues and will actively support all efforts to protect and maintain biodiversity. At the same time, biodiplomacy will seek to improve human relations and attain the goal of world peace, by replacing current diplomatic attitudes with a complete international and intercultural perspective [18]”.

Nearly three decades later, the concept of biodiplomacy is regaining prominence [19,20] as a communication tool aimed at raising global public awareness of the concepts of the circular economy and the more sustainable use of bioresources [19,21]. In the context of the bioeconomy, biodiplomacy refers to a mode of communication and negotiation between many parties involved to advance the utilisation of bioresources in accordance with globally and nationally accepted norms that promote environmental sustainability and climate neutrality [19].

The concept of biodiplomacy is used internationally, and the previous paragraphs have given an overview of the use and meaning of the term, and that it is mainly used as a form of communication between parties. In this publication, a national case study has been carried out for Latvia, which may also be transferred internationally, but in the following, the term environmental communication will be used for communication between parties. This includes the type of communication, how easy or difficult it is to reach the social side (the consumer of the products), which are the best types of communication and what needs to be thought about in order to ensure a sustainable product chain in the economy in the future.

In this case, (to develop the concept) an attempt was made to develop a communication strategy for environmental communication at the national level. Methods were used that can also be applied internationally, such as a multi-criteria analysis of selected criteria and online surveys. Developing a communication strategy at the Latvian level is important because fish stocks in the Baltic Sea are declining [22,23] and the growth of aquaculture should be encouraged to be sustainable, while consumers and the industry lack confidence in the science and scientists [24,25], which hinders the necessary growth. Therefore, a Latvian case study was chosen to test the developed methodology and to disseminate it on a larger scale in future research. The United Nations Bruntland Commission is credited with providing one of the best-known definitions of sustainability [26]. The Bruntland Commission defined sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [27]. In public perception, however, sustainability is more often understood as “the capacity of human activities to persist in time while maintaining a healthy environment” [26]. The contemporary understanding of sustainability is sometimes ambiguous and therefore requires a close examination of what sustainability means in the economic, environmental and social domains.

The three domains or pillars of sustainability are economic sustainability, the ability of people to continue to earn a living from an activity; social sustainability, which is based on public acceptance of a particular activity; and environmental sustainability, the ability to engage in an activity without harming the environment while not compromising the extraction of necessary resources so that they can be used [26]. At the same time, it is imperative to comprehend that the three components of sustainability are intricately linked and indivisible [26,28]. Nevertheless, the increasing global demand for fish and other aquatic goods poses a challenge to achieving a balance between these three domains [26,29].

Environmental sustainability and policies that mitigate pollution or improve the natural environment have been on the EU agenda since the 1970s [30], while national governments have only recently recognised the importance of environmental challenges and the importance of environmental sustainability [31,32]. In the field of ecology, sustainable biological systems are characterised by their diversity, adaptability, resilience and productivity over extended periods of time [26]. In practice, this means the presence of thriving biological systems and ecosystems, such as seas, lakes, rivers and forests [26]. In contrast, this definition of environmental sustainability is difficult to apply to food production systems, including aquaculture [26]. In the case of aquaculture, environmental sustainability should be understood as the impact of its production processes on the specific place where it is located, in addition to the pressures on natural resources used in the production, handling and processing operations [26]. Environmentally sustainable production is essential to maintain the productivity and diversity of food resources and the ecosystems that support them and to ensure that food production does not compromise other ecosystem services [33,34]. The direct and indirect environmental impacts of production systems and supply channels, including those related to energy demand, threaten environmental sustainability [33,35].

The definition of sustainable development in economic theory explains sustainable economic development as an economic system in which the production base or total capital remains constant over time [26]. Capital in this case refers to the comprehensive wealth of a system, including its human, environmental and economic components [26]. The planet’s limited resources do not allow for unlimited growth, but at the same time, it is not possible to clearly define the limits of the system and to quantify the consequences for the elements that are not directly linked to it [26].

Social sustainability can be interpreted as enhancing or maintaining the well-being of the members of a community [26]. Social sustainability focuses on ensuring fair labour practices and efforts to reduce social inequalities, improve quality of life, protect human rights and prevent risks by promoting the adaptation of just and equitable social, economic and environmental policies [26,36]. Social sustainability in the context of aquaculture could also take the form of product accessibility to local communities, both in terms of the price and physical availability of the product [36]. Socially sustainable aquaculture would also contribute to the strategic objectives of the Farm to Fork Strategy [37]. Low financial profitability of production systems and a lack of resilience to disruption pose a threat to social and economic sustainability [33].

The EU Bioeconomy Strategy Progress Report “European Bioeconomy policy: stocktaking and future developments” (further: Progress Report), published in June 2022, states that all bioeconomy policies are interlinked and must be based on all three dimensions of sustainability mentioned above [38]. In this context, the sustainability dimensions mentioned in the Progress Report are defined as follows:

• Environment: management of land and biological resources within ecological limits;
• Economy: sustainable value chains and consumption;
• Society: social justice and fair transformation [38].

Examining the broad concept of sustainability in its three aspects provides a clearer understanding of the criteria against which aquaculture practices should be assessed and the variables that need to be considered. Given the strict environmental regulations of the European Union [30] and its ambitious goals for the future, it is essential that the assessment of sustainability focuses on the complex elements described in the Progress Report [38]. At the same time, it is important to avoid isolating one facet of sustainability from the other two but instead to look at the whole system as a multi-faceted concept [26].

Various stakeholders support the concept of sustainable aquaculture, but in practice, the concept of sustainability is often forgotten, resulting in the loss of one or more sustainability dimensions [26]. Sometimes one of the pillars of sustainability is placed above the others, leading to an imbalance in the development and maintenance of truly sustainable aquaculture [26].

Sustainability vs. Fisheries and Aquaculture

The European Bioeconomy Strategy “Innovating for Sustainable Growth: a Bioeconomy for Europe”, adopted in 2012, addresses the need to use biological resources sustainably and to try to produce “more from less” [3]. Promote the creation of higher added-value products in the aquaculture sector through a knowledge-based approach and by encouraging innovation [3]. The strategy identifies a number of measures that should be taken to improve the production of sustainable and healthy aquaculture products. These include better control of reproductive processes, innovative methods for selective breeding, optimisation of feed and industrial processing, monitoring of animal health and welfare, disease control and mitigation, and conservation and bioremediation of aquatic ecosystems [3]. Sustainability has gained importance not only as an ideological vision for future growth but also as a result of efforts to develop and implement sustainability assessments [39,40,41]. It argues that future bioeconomy development should focus more on sustainability assessment, including sustainable management and the use of biological resources [38]. The future development prospects and competitiveness of fisheries and aquaculture require the application of assessment techniques based on sustainability assessment. Sustainable food production is an inherently subjective concept that describes how the planet enables people to use raw materials from which a variety of goods and services are produced and to benefit from them in ways that are theoretically compatible with the continued provision of these environmental services [26]. Food industry stakeholders have recognized that the amount of food produced per unit of land must be increased to meet the protein needs of a growing world population [26]. Increasing intensification could be a solution, but it has already and will continue to have negative impacts on natural habitats and the ecosystem as a whole, which, combined with climate change, will have a long-term negative impact on food availability [26,42].

The bioeconomy, as discussed in the context of the European Bioeconomy Strategy, is innovative, knowledge-based and circular and conceptually departs from the principles of the conventional and resource-inefficient bioeconomy [6]. In contrast, in the case of inland aquaculture systems, conventional farming methods used historically may be considered more sustainable than modern intensified aquaculture systems [43]. This is because traditional aquaculture systems were deeply integrated into the functioning of the farm, and the by-products and residues were used to feed the farmed aquatic organisms [43]. Aquaculture should ideally mimic the natural conditions that aquatic organisms would find in the wild, but this approach is not always compatible with intensification and the expected increase in production [26]. Therefore, sustainable aquaculture practices should be able to provide a continuous supply of nutrients from aquatic organisms without damaging existing ecosystems and without exceeding the planet’s capacity to replenish the natural resources needed to cultivate aquatic organisms [26,33]. Especially since aquaculture production is no longer an insignificant market share compared to animal protein and has overtaken beef production over the last decade [26,33,44]. The increasing demand for sustainably produced protein has fuelled the rapid growth of aquaculture and encouraged its intensification [26]. However, increased intensification is not always compatible with the concept of sustainability [26].

The pathway for aquaculture to achieve its sustainability goal should be the same as for any other form of food production, namely limiting, preventing or isolating local pollution and accelerating the efficient use of natural resources, in a way that does not conflict with any of the dimensions of sustainability [26]. Consequently, a sustainability assessment for aquaculture should take into account the different perspectives of stakeholders and try to identify where they intersect, as well as draw red lines where these intersections of interests lie outside the dimensions of sustainability, in order to be able to address the problem.

This study employs a mixed-methods approach to analyse the sustainability of the fisheries and aquaculture sector and to determine the most communication channels for biodiplomacy. The methodology was used to identify sustainable fish and aquaculture products and assess the basic concepts on which to build an environmental communication strategy to send appropriate signals to both the public and the industry.

2. Materials and Methods

The study followed a two-part strategy (Figure 1). The main objective of the first part was to identify the best environmentally and economically sustainable approach to using fish or aquaculture products. To achieve this goal, a total of six different fishery and aquaculture products were selected. Of these, three were categorised as fish products, while the other three were algae products. A comprehensive comparison was made between these commodities using the TOPSIS multi-criteria analysis method based on specific criteria established for this study.

The second part of the methodology was to select the most appropriate method to communicate the sustainable use of fisheries and aquaculture production to the public. A questionnaire was chosen as the most appropriate means of collecting information to achieve the objective. In order to obtain the largest possible number of respondents and answers, the survey was conducted in electronic form. The questions were designed to best understand the communication channels, the patterns of use of the educational content and the public’s attitude towards environmental and climate change communication in general.

The findings facilitate the effective development of communication materials in terms of content, type and format that can effectively disseminate knowledge-based information to the general public. This will enable customers to make more informed decisions and choose sustainable goods or materials.

2.1. Aquaculture Products Selected for Comparison

The study compared six alternatives for the use of fisheries and aquaculture products. The algae products proposed were biogas, spirulina as a food supplement and algae fertiliser. The fish products selected were fish meal and oil, biodiesel from fish and canned fish. The study looked at both innovative and traditional alternatives, as the innovative alternatives offer the possibility to optimise existing processes and develop the sector, while the existing alternatives are more reliable and have more accurate data.

In order to compare the alternatives, the raw material quantities for the alternatives studied were set at 1 tonne of algae and 1 tonne of fish.

2.2. Selection of Sustainability Criteria

Assessing the sustainability of a product or process involves economic, social and environmental considerations and therefore requires the use of criteria related to these aspects. In order to achieve the most impartial results possible, a combination of quantitative criteria, which were subjected to quantification or calculation, and qualitative criteria, which were scored on a scale of one to five (with higher scores indicating greater sustainability of the chosen option), was established. The criteria were divided into four different categories, namely economic, environmental, technical and social.

Economic criteria have significance as they demonstrate the economic use of a specific product and its capacity to align with broader economic progress. Economic criteria include economic indicators assessed by experts and the selling price of the product.

The social factors examined in the study exhibit a strong correlation with the economic criteria. These elements encompass the perceptions and opinions held by the general public towards a certain product and exert a direct influence on consumer habits and behaviours. In addition to the other ethical aspects, possible employment opportunities were considered, since they are closely associated with economic growth and the long-term viability of the product.

The current state of the world’s climate, combined with a growing population and increasing resource consumption, has led to a need for sustainable products that have minimal impact on the environment. Consideration of environmental variables is crucial in assessing the sustainability of various goods. Research includes expert assessments of environmental and climate performance as well as analyses of their impact on biodiversity.

Finally, it is important to consider technological variables, as they provide information on the long-term viability and durability of the technology used in the production process. Technological elements include the degree of technological advancement as assessed by experts in the field and indicate the level of knowledge and expertise related to a particular technology. In addition, these variables include the energy consumption associated with the manufacturing or extraction processes of a particular product. The level of understanding of a particular technology correlates directly with its reliability and potential for optimisation to increase operational efficiency.

2.3. Qualitative Criteria

In the multi-criteria analysis, six of the eight criteria were determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of the experts’ ratings. A total of 28 experts were interviewed and rated the impact of each criterion on the alternative on a scale of one to five. The only exception was the criterion “impacts on biodiversity”. For this criterion, the rating scale ran in reverse order: the higher the numerical value, the more negative the rating. This can be justified by the fact that a sustainable alternative has the lowest possible impact on biodiversity. Of course, there can also be positive impacts on biodiversity, but the study concluded that, in this case, it would be more appropriate to rate the impact on biodiversity as negative. An analysis of the experts’ assessments shows that the results are similar, although the experts specialise in different areas.

2.4. Quantitative Criteria

The study examines two quantitative criteria, namely the price and the energy consumption of the selected products (

Table 1. Quantitative criteria.

	Biogas	Spirulina	Fertiliser	Fish Oil and Flour	Biodiesel	Food (Canned)
Selling price (EUR/t)	67 [45,46]	30,000 [47]	100 *	2350 [48]	57.21 [49]	4750 [50]
Energy consumption (kWh/t)	220 [51]	2180 [51]	350 [52]	32 ***	187.7 [53,54]	170 **

* For fertiliser, seaweed and algae washed from the sea are taken, and only transport costs are included. ** from BAT. *** calculations.

. Regarding the selected quantities of 1 tonne of algae and 1 tonne of fish, it is imperative to verify the units of measurement provided in the sources and perform any required conversions. The selling price was determined by calculating the average price of the product. To achieve this, data were collected from many online marketplaces, and the necessary conversions were made.

2.5. Evaluating Aquaculture Products Using TOPSIS

The Technique of Order Preference Similarity to the Ideal Situation (TOPSIS) method is used to find the solution that is closest to the ideal positive option [55]. This method uses the numerical values of the previously identified qualitative and quantitative criteria [55]. The TOPSIS multi-criteria analysis requires five sequential steps that can be used to determine the sustainability score of the indicators (Figure 2).

The first step is to create a matrix of values based on the previously mentioned criteria.

Table 2. Data collected for TOPSIS analysis.

	Biogas	Spirulina	Fertiliser	Fish Oil and Flour	Biodiesel	Food (Canned)
Economic indicators	3.39	3.82	2.75	3.64	3.38	3.36
Selling price (EUR/t)	67	30,000	100	2350	57.21	4750
Environmental and climate indicators	3.39	3.39	3.11	3.20	3.54	3.04
Impacts on biodiversity	2.96	3.29	3.04	3.43	3.32	3.29
Technology development level	3.54	3.32	3.43	3.57	2.98	4
Energy consumption (kWh/t)	220	2180	350	32	187.7	170
Potential number of jobs	2.93	3.54	2.74	3.54	3.18	4.07
Ethical aspects	3.6	4.3	3.6	2.67	2.08	2.85

shows the aggregated data used for the TOPSIS multi-criteria analysis method. To make the matrix transparent, the criteria are grouped according to their factors: economic, environmental, technological and social. The alternatives are also ordered by the type of aquaculture product concerned, with algae alternatives first, followed by fish alternatives.

Upon completion of the construction of the matrix of values, a normalised matrix is generated by calculating the values in accordance with Equation (1), whereby each value is divided by the sum of all square roots associated with the respective criterion.

$$r_{ai}=\frac{x_{ai}}{\sqrt{\left({{\displaystyle \sum }}_{a=1}^n{x}_{a{i}^2}\right)}}$$

(1)

where

a—alternative;

i—criterion;

r_ai—normalised value;

x_ai—indicator value.

The normalised matrix values are further used to create a weighted normalised matrix. The weighted normalised matrix values are obtained by multiplying each rai value by the weighting value w. The total weighting value for all criteria should be one. In the normalisation method of the TOPSIS multi-criteria analysis, all criteria have been given the same weight of 0.125. This value is obtained by dividing the number of all criteria, which is eight, by one.

After obtaining the weighted normalised matrix, the positive ideal and negative ideal solutions are determined. This is performed by taking the maximum and minimum values from the weighted normalised values obtained earlier. In all cases, except for the calculation of energy consumption its and impact on biodiversity criteria, the maximum numerical value from the weighted normalised matrix was taken as the positive ideal value and the minimum numerical value as the negative ideal value. In the case of energy consumption and its impact on biodiversity, it should be noted that the higher the energy consumption or biodiversity impacts, the more negative the impact on the sustainability rating of the product or process. Therefore, when determining the positive and negative ideal values for these two criteria, the minimum of the weighted normalised values was taken as the positive ideal value and the maximum of the weighted positive values as the negative ideal value.

Next, the distance of the numerical value of each alternative from the positive ideal solution and from the negative ideal solution is determined. Equation (2) was used to determine the distance from the positive ideal solution, and Equation (3) was used to determine the distance from the negative ideal solution.

$$da+=\sqrt{\left.\left({{\displaystyle \sum }}_{j=1}^n{( v_i^{+}-v_{ai} )}^2\right.\right)}$$

(2)

$$da-=\sqrt{\left.\left({{\displaystyle \sum }}_{j=1}^n{( v_i^{-}-v_{ai} )}^2\right.\right)}$$

(3)

where

$d_a^{+}$—distance to the positive ideal solution;

$d_a^{-}$—distance to the negative ideal solution;

$v_i^{+}$—positive ideal value;

$v_i^{-}$—negative ideal value;

$v_{ai}$—weighted value.

Once the distances to the positive and negative values have been determined, the relative proximity coefficient is calculated according to Formula (4):

$$C_a=\frac{d_a^{-}}{\left(d_a^{+}+d_a^{-}\right)}$$

(4)

where

C_a—coefficient of relative proximity.

The value of the relative proximity coefficient lies between zero and one, and the closer it is to one, the more favourable the alternative is and the more sustainable it can be evaluated as. Using the above equations, the calculations are carried out, and the values are presented in

Table 3. Normalised matrix.

	A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6
K1	0.4063	0.4579	0.3296	0.4363	0.4051	0.4027
K2	0.0022	0.9847	0.0033	0.0771	0.0019	0.1559
K3	0.4216	0.4216	0.3867	0.3979	0.4402	0.3780
K4	0.3753	0.4160	0.3844	0.4341	0.4205	0.4160
K5	0.4140	0.3889	0.4015	0.4182	0.3491	0.4684
K6	0.0985	0.9761	0.1567	0.0143	0.0840	0.0761
K7	0.3557	0.4295	0.3329	0.4295	0.3861	0.4946
K8	0.3910	0.4425	0.3832	0.4025	0.3794	0.4455

,

Table 4. Weighted normalised matrix.

	A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6
K1	0.0508	0.0572	0.0412	0.0545	0.0506	0.0503
K2	0.0003	0.1231	0.0004	0.0096	0.0002	0.0195
K3	0.0527	0.0527	0.0483	0.0497	0.0550	0.0473
K4	0.0469	0.0520	0.0480	0.0543	0.0526	0.0520
K5	0.0518	0.0486	0.0502	0.0523	0.0436	0.0585
K6	0.0123	0.1220	0.0196	0.0018	0.0105	0.0095
K7	0.0445	0.0537	0.0416	0.0537	0.0483	0.0618
K8	0.0489	0.0553	0.0479	0.0503	0.0474	0.0557

and

Table 5. Positive and negative ideal solutions.

	Positive Ideal Solution	Negative Ideal Solution
K1	0.0572	0.0412
K2	0.1231	0.0002
K3	0.0550	0.0473
K4	0.0469	0.0543
K5	0.0585	0.0436
K6	0.0018	0.1220
K7	0.0618	0.0416
K8	0.0557	0.0474

. In all tables, the alternatives are marked with the letter A, and the criteria are marked with K. The alternatives and criteria are arranged in the same order as in Table 2.

The values given in Table 5 are further used to determine positive and negative ideal values, which are then used to derive the relative proximity coefficient. To better analyse the results, the relative proximity coefficient is presented in a graph. A sensitivity analysis is then carried out to check which of the results obtained is the most consistent.

2.6. Sensitivity Analysis

To determine the stability of the given criteria, a sensitivity analysis was carried out after the TOPSIS multi-criteria analysis. The sensitivity analysis shows how much the results of each alternative in the TOPSIS analysis change when the weighting of the criterion is changed. For this purpose, a matrix was created for each criterion showing the values of the relative closeness coefficient of each alternative when the weighting of the criterion is changed. As mentioned earlier, the total value of the weighting of all criteria should be one. This means that by changing the weighting of a particular criterion, the remaining weighting value is evenly distributed among the other criteria. The weighting value of the criterion in question, i.e., the value of the weighting of the criterion in question, was changed in steps of 0.1 from 0.1 to 0.9. The weighting value of the remaining criteria was calculated according to formula 1.5 by subtracting the value of the criterion in question from one and then dividing by seven. The remaining weighting value thus obtained is distributed equally among the remaining seven criteria.

$$w=\frac{1-w_0}{7}$$

(5)

where

w—weight of each remaining criterion;

w₀—weight of sensitivity analysis criterion.

After the calculation, a diagram is created from the changed matrix of each criterion, which can be used to see how the results and the ranking of the alternatives, in terms of sustainability, change as a result of the change in a particular criterion. According to the sensitivity analysis, the most sustainable outcome is the one that adapts best to the changes in the criteria, i.e., the one with the most upward curves. To calculate this, the number of upward curves for each alternative was subtracted from the number of downward curves. The most sustainable alternative is the one with the highest numerical result.

2.7. Questionnaire

To determine public attitudes, information-gathering habits and the most appropriate form of biodiplomacy, a survey was conducted via Google Forms and disseminated through Facebook. By creating an electronic version of the survey and disseminating it through social media platforms, a wider population can be effectively targeted and included in the data collection. A total of 140 respondents of different ages were surveyed. Most of the respondents were between 18 and 55 years old.

The questionnaire included questions on the respondents’ regular communication patterns and information consumption habits, as well as their views on the concept of biodiplomacy.

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of TOPSIS Results

The results of the TOPSIS multi-criteria analysis calculations carried out to assess the six fisheries and aquaculture products against the stated sustainability criteria are shown in Figure 3.

It can be seen that, of the values obtained for the coefficient of relative proximity, canned fish comes closest to the ideal result, with a value of 0.56 according to the given criteria, which means that canned fish can be considered the most sustainable product among the given alternatives according to the given criteria. However, it should be noted that the relative coefficient values are similar for all alternatives. The value of fish meal and oil differs from canned fish by only 0.03, and spirulina comes in third, differing from canned fish by 0.04.

The results show that the alternatives or products whose values are closest to the ideal result (Ca: coefficient of relative proximity) are widely known and used. This means that they have a high level of technological development, high market demand and proven stability. However, it can be seen that the values for biodiesel from fish products and biogas from algae are relatively close to those for fishmeal, canned fish and spirulina, which means that the ranking of alternatives in the sustainability assessment may change over time as the technologies for producing biodiesel and biogas evolve.

3.2. Results of Sensitivity Analysis

To enhance the clarity of the sensitivity analysis findings, our team conducted criteria sensitivity analyses for distinct groupings of criterion components, including economic, environmental, technical and social aspects.

The graphs of the changes in the economic factor criteria are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Figure 4 shows the change in results when the weighting of the economic indicator criterion is changed, and Figure 5 shows when the weighting of the sales price criterion is changed. Although the change in the relative proximity coefficients between the two criteria is mostly different for all alternatives, it can be observed that the spirulina score increases for both criteria. This shows that spirulina is potentially the more economically viable alternative.

It can also be observed that the values for fishmeal and oil increase significantly as the weight of the economic performance criterion increases. The difference between the graphs of the two economic factor criteria could be explained by the fact that economic indicators can take into account several factors that could differ between alternatives, such as profit, payback period, production costs and others. In the case of the selling price, on the other hand, only the value of the selling price is taken into account, regardless of other costs.

Increasing the criterion weighting values for the group of environmental factors, Figure 6 and Figure 7 show that the value for biogas increases towards the ideal value, while the positions for canned fish and fish oil and meal decrease significantly. Fish biodiesel increases in value because it is a new, innovative product produced from fish by-products and is in line with the basic principles of the bioeconomy.

Figure 7 also shows that the relative proximity coefficients of all alternatives decrease as the weight of the biodiversity impact criterion increases, with the exception of algal biogas and fertiliser production. The absence of direct environmental impacts in biogas production due to anaerobic digestion and the use of algae and seaweed found on the coasts as fertilisers, which mitigates the risks of eutrophication and promotes biodiversity, are the reasons for these results.

In the technological criteria, the evaluation of canned fish is highest when the weight is changed. In Figure 8, increasing the weight of the level of technological development leads to a decrease in the scores of alternatives where the production technology is still underdeveloped, not widely used or may require an optimisation process. An example is biodiesel from fish, which is a relatively new, unexplored product for which the production technology is not yet developed. The spirulina curve for a food supplement is probably sloping downwards because the production process needs to be optimised and is currently not efficient enough.

The increase in energy consumption weight shows that the results of all alternatives increase, with the exception of spirulina, which can be explained by the fact that the production process of spirulina consumes significantly more energy than the other alternatives.

The impact of changes in the weighting of the social criteria on the alternatives is shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10. As can be seen, as the number of potential jobs increases, so does the number of alternatives whose production process requires more people either to perform the work manually or supervise the process. Biogas and biodiesel are produced through a biochemical process, while algae and seaweed for fertiliser are currently harvested for free by local coastal people, either manually or with simple machinery.

Changing the weight (Figure 11) of ethical aspects diminishes the value of alternatives to the use of fish products that can be associated with the process of harvesting and killing fish.

The sensitivity analysis depicted in the graphs demonstrates that alterations in the weight assigned to each criterion exert a substantial influence on the deviation of alternative values from the desired outcome. Notably, no scenario is observed where the value of the alternatives remains unaffected or exhibits negligible sensitivity to modifications in the criteria. The graphs illustrate that notable variations in the outcomes are attributed to criteria in which a certain alternative has a considerably superior performance. In the context of the cost of sales, it is seen that the selling price of the spirulina food supplement surpasses that of all other alternatives, indicating the substantial superiority of this particular option.

Table 6. Sensitivity analysis results.

	Biogas	Spirulina	Fertiliser	Fish Oil and Flour	Biodiesel	Food (Canned)
Number of upward curves	6	4	2	4	3	4
Number of downward curves	2	4	6	4	5	4
Margin	4	0	−4	0	−2	0

shows the calculations for the differences between the quantities of the positive and negative curves.

The alternative with the highest score is biogas. It is followed by canned food, spirulina and fishmeal and oil. Overall, the most favourable alternatives are canned fish, fishmeal and oil, food supplements (spirulina) and biogas.

3.3. Survey Results Analysis

The first step was to find out which sources of information the respondents prefer to use in their daily lives. Since most people use several sources of information for different purposes in their daily lives, there was more than one answer option. From the respondents’ answers, the three most popular sources of information they use on a daily basis are social networks, news portals and television. This is followed by radio, newspapers and others. It should be noted, however, that the survey was distributed via Facebook, which could be related to the fact that people prefer to obtain their information from social networks.

To understand which communication channel or platform builds trust and helps people absorb information more easily, it is necessary to find out how people communicate with each other and what kind of communication they prefer in everyday life. This question could be even more relevant for communication with industry or companies to develop a personalised approach and convince them as effectively as possible to reconsider the sustainability of the industry or company. Means of communication can vary depending on who you are communicating with, for example, in a work environment, information is often shared differently with colleagues than with friends or family members. For this reason, respondents were given the option to choose multiple answers at the same time. From the results, it appears that the majority prefer WhatsApp, Messenger, etc., and face-to-face meetings for interpersonal communication, suggesting that both written and verbal information is easily perceived.

However, despite the fact that the majority of respondents use various platforms on the internet, it is important to understand whether they also like to consume educational content and, if so, in what format. Almost 93% of the respondents answered that they consume educational content, preferring mostly visual and audiovisual material. This could be explained by the fact that they are easier to understand and usually do not take as long as reading blogs or scientific publications, for example. However, it should also be clear that there are several factors that influence this.

The most effective way to inform the public about the environment, sustainable development and climate change is through visual and audiovisual materials (34%). This is followed by environmental actions (20%), such as “The Great Cleanup” (Lielā talka), “Don’t Eat the Globe” (Neapēd zemeslodi), etc. A smaller number of respondents chose the following communication formats: 17% visual materials/infographics; 14% motivational speeches by public figures; 8% informative articles; 4% educational seminars and lectures; 3% other.

The function of biodiplomats is crucial in facilitating the efficient exchange of information. This must not only be someone with a broad knowledge of a particular sector or environmental issue but also someone who has credibility in the community. Public figures and influencers, despite their potential lack of technical or scientific expertise, possess the ability to effectively communicate information and demonstrate a greater receptiveness to alternative viewpoints. Promoting environmental awareness and sustainable development among public figures and influencers has the potential to enhance outreach efforts. Therefore, a survey was conducted to find out which communicators would be most likely to raise public awareness. A number of options were given, including public institutions, environmental organisations, scientific institutions, influencers, etc. The majority of respondents, 46%, chose local and international environmental organisations. Public figures and influencers came in second with 29%, followed by administrative authorities (ministries, EU authorities), who came in third with 19%. Interestingly, scientists and scientific organisations were found to have the lowest level of public trust, with just 3% of respondents expressing confidence in them. Similarly, other media sources also received a mere 3% of public trust.

However, the influence of the intended audience must also be taken into consideration. For instance, those engaged in scientific pursuits exhibit a higher propensity to place faith in the information and experts endorsed by scientific establishments. Perhaps better results can be achieved if all or at least some of the communicators work together, aligning the information conveyed and developing a coherent biodiplomacy communication strategy. By tailoring the information to the respective target audience without changing the content of the message conveyed, communicators have a better chance of gaining the trust of different social groups.

The portrayal of climate change, environmental challenges and sustainable development exhibits variation among different sources, mostly based on the assessment of advantages and possible drawbacks. These sources highlight the potential gains or losses that may arise if these aspects are not effectively addressed. There exist sources that emphasise the adverse aspects of climate change through the dissemination of diverse photographs or movies that elicit potent negative feelings, including dread, among individuals. These visual representations often depict natural disasters and the melting of glaciers, among other phenomena. But there are also sources that encourage people to change their daily habits and use renewable energy, with the idea of a beautiful, pollution-free future. Consequently, the questionnaire incorporated an inquiry on the optimal strategy, as seen by respondents, for promoting contemplation of the significance of climate change, environmental predicaments and sustainable modes of living. The results show that the majority of respondents, about 43%, still prefer to highlight the negative impacts of climate change, while almost 36% of respondents want to focus on the benefits of environmentally friendly measures. A total of 18.6% of respondents think that scientifically proven facts showing the impact of human activities on the environment would be the most appropriate content to raise awareness. As the results are relatively close, a coherent biodiplomacy should preferably include both the negative sides of climate change and the benefits of a sustainable lifestyle.

The questionnaire included a question on biodiplomacy as a concept for dialogue between society, industry and science to understand whether such communication on climate change could help raise awareness among the general public and industry. The results of the survey show that the majority of respondents, 95%, are positive about the idea of biodiplomacy and its importance in the context of sustainable development. This means that the concept of biodiplomacy has overall potential, and the results indicate that the public is willing to be educated. However, it is important to ensure that the information being distributed is presented in a clear and comprehensible manner in order to maintain public support and interest.

4. Discussion

Due to the decline of fish stock in the seas and oceans, aquaculture has been one of the fastest-growing sectors in recent decades [39,56]. Although the sector is developing rapidly in a global context, the level of development in Latvia in terms of technology and innovation is still low [57]. Given the high availability of water resources in Latvia, the current limited development of the sector suggests that there is still room for growth. The Latvian Aquaculture Development Plan 2021–2027, prepared in 2021, aims to “further develop competitive, growth-enhancing aquaculture through innovative, cost-effective and environmentally friendly solutions” [57]. This goal is positive in terms of both economic growth and sustainability. Nevertheless, concerns have arisen that the aquaculture sector and the broader bioeconomy policy planning framework in Latvia are not sufficiently integrated. This potential divergence could hinder the future development of the aquaculture sector. Therefore, an environmental communication approach was used to take a step towards the development of the sector by assessing the sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture products and finding the most appropriate communication channels and ways to communicate information about sustainable products to the public. There is still frustration in sustainable consumption research and practice that public (consumer) oriented impacts are not easily translated into action [58].

First, a multi-criteria analysis was conducted to find the most sustainable aquaculture and fisheries product. Multi-criteria analysis has been widely used to compare different alternatives [59,60]. TOPSIS showed that canned fish is the most sustainable product, but fish oil and flour and spirulina also have potential. The use of a multi-criteria analysis in the study enables the comparison and evaluation of alternatives against specific criteria [60]. In order to evaluate the alternatives in a multi-criteria analysis as objectively as possible, it would be necessary to introduce additional quantitative criteria, such as emissions (t/year), capital investment and payback period (EUR), for the alternatives after additional data have been collected.

The use of a multi-criteria approach and the evaluation of alternatives enable a valid assessment of the alternatives from the researcher’s point of view. The inclusion of an assessment of the alternative options by industry representatives in the research is a viable approach. However, it is currently difficult to gain access to the fisheries and aquaculture sector, resulting in limited information and data on these industries. This includes data that would allow for a proper assessment of the energy efficiency, resource efficiency and sustainability of the sector.

A multi-criteria analysis was used to derive results and identify products that then had potential for the future, but did the results align with the pillars of sustainability? The pillars of sustainability were labelled in the literature review as three sustainability domains—economic sustainability, social sustainability and environmental sustainability—and explained in the context of sustainability [26]. The link between economic growth and the analysis and results can be linked to the TOPSIS result that canned fish (0.56) has the highest score, so fish production is a product that will continue and has potential and people will continue to make a living in this activity. Statistics show that the canned food market was worth around EUR 28 billion in 2016 and will be worth around EUR 34 billion by 2021 [61]. The social sustainability pillar was well aligned with the ‘new’ products that are yet to be developed and will play an important role in people’s daily lives and economic growth. For example, the TOPSIS results showed that both fish oil and flour (0.53) and spirulina (0.52) have potential. The analysis and results on the sustainability of aquaculture and fishery products indicate the sectoral trend towards sustainability as well as the interactions between the pillars. Social sustainability, based on public acceptance of a particular activity, was in line with the environmental sustainability pillar. Whatever a person chooses to do with a particular product, environmental sustainability is often not a consideration; the products analysed, fish oil and flour and spirulina, are products that are produced in an environmentally friendly way without compromising the extraction of necessary resources. Linking the multi-criteria analysis to the sustainability pillars, it can be concluded that the results with sustainable aquaculture and fisheries products were in line with the economic sustainability pillar as well as the social and environmental pillars. At the moment, Latvia is on the way to developing the aquaculture sector, which can be justified by the development of new companies in Latvia (SpirulinaNord), the inclusion of new products on the market and the important scientific research (K. Spalvins et al. [62]) being carried out to think about the growing demand for easily obtainable proteins.

The pursuit of sustainability in a sector, in this case, aquaculture and fisheries, involves not only analysing products and justifying their sustainability but also transferring the results to society. To transfer knowledge to society, we need to work on it, both in terms of research, which approach works better, and financially, to make knowledge-driven societies [63]. In this study, a survey was conducted to find out what would be the most effective communication format and way to promote public preference for sustainable products and solutions. The public often does not receive information from researchers, and the survey showed a trend towards information from social media, audio and video. Currently, there is a “gap” between the public, industry and researchers [64]. To bridge this gap, it is necessary to promote the concept of biodiplomacy and develop its diplomatic action directed at industry and society, with the aim of using bioresources as efficiently, and as sustainably, as possible [21]. It is necessary to create a knowledge transfer bridge that forms a triple helix and can strengthen interaction and information transfer between society, industry and research. The public overwhelmingly prefers to obtain information from social networks. Summarising the results of the survey, it can be concluded that the most effective way to educate the public about climate change and sustainability would be through visual or audiovisual materials that include the benefits of a sustainable lifestyle. A common message across different media could be the most effective way to reach a wider audience and build trust among different groups in society. The main objective of further studies is to identify potential opportunities and risks in the aquaculture sector, taking into account existing challenges and aiming for sustainable practices.