Next Article in Journal
Unveiling Environmental Potential in Smartphone Repair Practices in Vientiane Capital, Laos
Next Article in Special Issue
Characterization of Sustainable Food Initiatives: Preliminary Study
Previous Article in Journal
Heavy Metal Pollution in Coastal Environments: Ecological Implications and Management Strategies: A Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Indulging in Tempting Yet Unhealthy Delights: Exploring the Moderating Influence of Gender and Motivation for Healthy and Sustainable Eating
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 2
10.3390/su17020710
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mariculture in Natural Environments: Tourists’ Attitudes Towards Aquaculture During Marine Tours in Oban, Scotland

by
Mausam Budhathoki
1,2,*,
Alexandra Pounds
1,
Jad Abi Younes
1,
Anastasios Baltadakis
3 and
David C. Little
1
1
Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK
2
Department of Food Science, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 26, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
3
LAMAR S.A., 851 01 Sgourou, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(2), 710; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020710
Submission received: 21 November 2024 / Revised: 13 January 2025 / Accepted: 16 January 2025 / Published: 17 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Choice and Environmental Concerns—2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Aquaculture and tourism can both be important industries for economic development, particularly in isolated geographies endowed with natural beauty. However, spatial conflict can arise, particularly along scenic coastlines, such as that in Oban, Scotland. This area is notable for the frequent overlap between marine tours and cage culture sites, with tours passing by or near these aquaculture locations. This study aims to understand whether tourists who encounter aquaculture operations during these tours have positive attitudes toward aquaculture–tourism integration, which refers to the favourable perception and acceptance of the coexistence of aquaculture and tourism activities, and whether this exposure influences their intention to consume locally farmed aquatic products. A face-to-face survey was conducted to recruit 200 tourists who experienced marine tours in Oban, Scotland. Hierarchical cluster analysis identified three types of tourists based on tourism motivation: (1) Multiple motivations, (2) “Relaxers”, and (3) “Outgoing nature enthusiasts”. Among the three tourist segments, the “Relaxers” were particularly unfamiliar with the concept of farming aquatic food. In general, the majority of tourists were positive about being exposed to aquaculture during marine tours. The results of the structural equation modelling analysis indicated that attitudes towards being exposed to aquaculture during marine tours mediate the relationship between attitudes towards aquaculture and the intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food. Motivational tourism factors, socialisation, and learning positively and significantly influenced attitudes towards being exposed to aquaculture during marine tours. Compared to age, gender, education, income, and travel frequency, only tourists’ dietary patterns significantly influenced behavioural intention. The findings suggest that aquaculture might serve as a potential site for social knowledge exchange, which might be crucial not only for tourism to be successful but also for promoting aquaculture’s social acceptability. The results can be used to inform policymakers, marketers, and aquaculture/tourism practitioners to promote sustainable aquaculture tourism in Scotland or similar sites where tourism and aquaculture coexist.

1. Introduction

Aquaculture production in Europe accounts for less than 3% of global farmed aquatic food production, and according to Costa-Pierce and Chopin [1], the growth of this sector has been slow or even declining in most of the region. Aquaculture production was rapid during the 1980s and 1990s, but it has since stagnated, with varying levels of production across different species [2]. For instance, Atlantic salmon production has increased by over 33% and sea bass production by 29%, while mussel production declined by 5% between 2011 and 2021 [3]. A prime reason for this stagnation is the regulatory restrictions on aquaculture sites [4]. Strategic coastal locations, which are attractive for diverse marine and inland activities, face pressure from local communities to preserve environmental and cultural assets. Beyond marine aquaculture, these coastal locations also host various businesses, including those linked to tourism. The potential conflict of interest between these sectors results in increasing governance and regulatory challenges for starting new aquaculture operations in Europe, as securing social licences from local communities becomes paramount [5].
Although industrial-scale aquaculture can potentially conflict with tourism, both sectors can have significant societal importance locally and further afield [6]. A promising solution lies in the concept of multi-use ocean space, which advocates for the efficient and sustainable sharing of marine environments by different sectors. Some operators involved in shellfish aquaculture, such as those in South Carolina and Florida, have successfully integrated aquaculture and tourism by offering tourists educational, culinary, and recreational experiences. This approach allows visitors to gain a more informed perspective on aquaculture management and a genuine understanding of farm operations [7].
Scotland is renowned for its salmon farming industry and coastal tourism attractions [8], and there have been continuous efforts to implement sustainable approaches to aquaculture and tourism sectors from various stakeholders. For instance, the Scottish salmon farming industry, the British Trout Association, and marine flatfish producers are accredited under the Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture, which promotes environmentally responsible aquaculture practices through its 500 check points [9]. Further, sustainable tourism certifications like Green Tourism encourage tourism operators to minimise their environmental impact while enhancing visitor experiences [10]. Socio-economic factors, aquaculture, and tourism play significant roles in the Scottish rural economy, offering employment opportunities and investments mainly in remote coastal communities [11,12]. For instance, aquaculture employed 3200 people in 2023, with the total UK revenue from the sector reaching GBP 1.45 billion from 2024 to 2025 [13]. Meanwhile, tourism provides employment for 229,000 people in Scotland, and in 2022, international visitors spent over GBP 3 billion [14]. However, the two sectors, aquaculture and tourism, often conflict in coastal areas due to perceptions in the tourism sector that aquaculture may negatively impact coastal aesthetics and contribute to overcrowding and competition for marine space, affecting local communities, workers, and the infrastructure that supports both industries [5,15,16]. Coastal aesthetics refer to the visual appeal and scenic quality of coastal environments, which can be affected by factors such as infrastructure and water quality.
Oban is a coastal town on the west coast of Scotland, offering tourism activities ranging from exploring historical landmarks and savouring fresh seafood to engaging in marine adventures, notably, the “marine boat tour”. This popular attraction in Scotland allows tourists to embark on boat trips to nearby islands for wildlife and historical site observation [8]. Oban’s marine environment includes existing salmon farms and is in the process of developing shellfish cultivation, including mussels and oysters, along with some emerging seaweed farming, which could add a unique dimension to the marine boat journey.
Previous studies have collected data on attitudes toward aquaculture [7,15,17], but to our knowledge, no research has specifically investigated tourists’ attitudes to aquaculture–tourism integration. Existing studies have primarily focused on the relationship between attitudes toward aquaculture and the intention to consume aquaculture products. Therefore, this study aims to explore whether tourists who are exposed to aquaculture during marine tours have positive attitudes towards aquaculture–tourism integration and if it influences their intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food. Also, tourist segmentation was conducted through motivational travel factors and their relationship with attitudes towards aquaculture–tourism integration was investigated. The findings from this study are crucial for developing strategies that balance the diverse needs and aspirations of the various stakeholders involved in aquaculture–tourism integration. Additionally, they will provide valuable insights for policymakers concerning aquaculture’s Social Licence to Operate (SLO) decisions, helping to balance both environmental and economic objectives. The concept of an SLO refers to the level of acceptance or approval that a community grants to an industry, such as aquaculture, to operate in a specific area [18]. This informal, yet crucial, “licence” is based on the public’s trust, perceptions, and approval of the industry’s practises. It is increasingly recognised as essential for ensuring the long-term sustainability and success of aquaculture projects. While the integration of aquaculture and tourism offers significant economic and educational benefits, it is also important to recognise the potential risks associated with tourism in mariculture areas. These risks include environmental impacts, such as pollution and disturbances to marine ecosystems, as well as social challenges like strain on local infrastructure and conflicts over resource use [19,20]. These considerations highlight the need for careful planning and management to ensure that aquaculture–tourism integration remains sustainable and beneficial to both the local environment and communities.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Attitude is considered the first and most important factor influencing consumers’ behavioural intention, which refers to the beliefs of a person regarding the likely consequences of performing the behaviour. Similarly, tourists’ attitudes are strongly tied to their values and motivations, influencing their decision-making intentions, preferences, and experiences [21,22]. Many businesses use modelling tools to study the customers’ attitudes and perceptions and to understand the cognitive, emotional, and sociocultural factors affecting their business [23]. In addition, behavioural theories such as the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) have been very useful in predicting behavioural intention in a wide range of fields [24,25]. According to the TRA, intention is shaped by attitudes towards behaviour and subjective norms, representing the individual’s readiness to perform a specific behaviour. The TPB builds on this by incorporating perceived behavioural control, which accounts for the influence of external factors on an individual’s ability to carry out the behaviour. Both theories posit that attitudes are crucial antecedents of behaviour, providing a framework for understanding how attitudes guide action [26]. The current literature on marketing and consumer research indicates that consumers’ attitudes are important factors that influence aquatic food consumption intentions [27,28,29]. Similarly, previous studies found that tourists’ attitudes towards aquaculture influenced their intentions to participate in culinary aquaculture tourism [7] as well as their intention to engage in related tourism opportunities [30]. Previous studies have indicated that tourists’ attitudes towards aquaculture influence their attitudes towards aquaculture–tourism integration [20,31,32], while tourists are interested in combining marine farming through culinary opportunities and tours in the United States [33]. Based on this, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. 
A positive attitude toward aquaculture positively influences intentions to eat locally farmed aquatic food.
H2–H3. 
Tourists’ attitudes towards aquaculture–tourism integration mediate the relationship between attitudes towards aquaculture and behavioural intention.
Tourists’ motivation has been a significant area of study in the tourism literature since the 1960s, influencing travel decision-making. Lundberg [34] identified eighteen motivational factors, while Crompton [35] narrowed these down to nine, categorising them into socio-psychological motives—such as escape, relaxation, and social integration—and cultural motives—novelty and education. Pearce and Lee [36] emphasised core motivations such as escape, relaxation, and self-development, with nature-related motivation (e.g., being close to nature) being particularly important for experienced travellers. Previous studies indicates that these motivational factors significantly influence tourists’ attitudes towards tourism practices [37,38,39,40]. For instance, Pearce and Lee [39] found that knowledge of and familiarity with destinations are key predictors of destination image.
Based on the findings, this study attempts to include four travel motivational factors (nature, socialisation, relaxation, and learning) in the proposed model and will examine the following hypotheses:
H4 (a–d). 
The reasons behind visitors’ motivation to participate in tourism (to be in nature, socialisation, relaxation, and learning) influence tourists’ attitudes towards aquaculture–tourism integration.
Tourists’ intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food may not convert into actual eating behaviour. The intention–behaviour gap has been noted in previous studies [41,42], and for this reason, researchers have explored the impact of sociodemographic and lifestyle factors on behavioural intention. Evidence from the tourism literature indicates that tourist food consumption can be influenced by sociodemographic and lifestyle factors [43,44,45,46]. The authors of [44] found that age, gender, and education influence tourists’ local food consumption. In particular, females were found to have a higher intention to taste local food on holiday. Further, older adults (over 55 years old) and those with higher education levels (undergraduate and above) were found to be more health conscious and have a higher intention to understand and experience foreign cultures through local food consumption. The authors of [45] found that monthly income had a negative influence on visitors’ intentions to recommend local food products to friends and relatives. Hence, this study examines the following hypotheses:
H5 (a–f). 
Sociodemographic and lifestyle factors (age, gender, education, income, dietary pattern, and travel frequency) influence tourists’ intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food.
Based on the extant literature, this study proposes a model (Figure 1) to examine whether exposure to aquaculture during marine tours fosters positive attitudes towards aquaculture–tourism integration and influences tourists’ intention to consume locally farmed aquatic food.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Collection

A face-to-face survey was conducted to gather data from both international and national tourists visiting Oban, Scotland, during the peak tourist season. A purposive sampling technique was employed to recruit 200 participants, who were approached at the quayside after purchasing tickets for Oban marine boat tours and were invited to participate in the survey. They accessed the questionnaire through either a QR code or a link generated via the Survey-Xact platform. Data collection occurred over a three-week period, from 20 July 2023 to 10 August 2023, during the peak tourist season to ensure that the sample represented a typical visitor demographic. To manage potential language barriers, the survey was available in English, and participants who were not fluent in English were encouraged to seek assistance from tour operators or staff at the quayside, ensuring inclusivity for non-English speakers when possible.
Informed consent was taken from all participants before participating in the survey. The respondents who did not provide informed consent were automatically excluded from the study. All participants were informed in advance that the survey would take approximately 5 to 6 min to complete. Inclusion criteria for participation include tourists who were currently visiting Oban for tourism purposes, those who experienced Oban marine boat tours during their visit, tourists aged 18 and above, and those who were voluntarily willing to participate in the survey. Tourists younger than 18 years and those who had not previously experienced an Oban marine boat trip or were not willing to participate were excluded from the survey. The study followed the Declaration of Helsinki and obtained approval from the General University Ethics Panel, University of Stirling (Journal number 14320).

3.2. Questionnaire and Measurement Scale

The questionnaire was developed and distributed in the English language, and was pilot tested among 20 tourists to ensure clarity, consistency, and ease of understanding. Feedback from the pilot test led to minor adjustments, including improving the logical flow of the questions and refining the layout for better readability. No major changes to the content or structure were necessary, as the pilot test confirmed the overall clarity and appropriateness of the questionnaire. The final questionnaire consisted of three sections and included 35 variables: Section 1, focused on travel motivation, containing 11 motivational questions (see Table 1) that were adopted from previous studies [47,48]. The second section consisted of questions measuring tourism satisfaction with Oban boat trips, adopted from [49], and questions assessing their attitudes towards aquaculture were modified from the Refs [50,51] and merging of aquaculture and tourism statement was inspired from the Ref [52]. One item measuring intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food was adapted from Refs [53,54]. Section 3 included the sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics of participants, such as age, gender, education, income, and frequency of travel (Table 2). Questions in the first and second sections were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”. The measurement scale for sociodemographic and lifestyle information is detailed in Table 2.
The questionnaire items for satisfaction with the Oban boat trip, attitudes towards aquaculture, attitudes towards tourism–aquaculture integration, and intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food are provided in Table 3.

3.3. Data Analysis

The statistical analysis was performed in IBM SPSS version 28.0. [55], with data transferred from the Survey-Xact platform. Firstly, exploratory factor analysis (using principal component analysis) was performed between the tourism motivational constructs: nature, relaxation, socialisation, and learning. Eigenvalues greater than 1 and Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation were employed to generate the factor loadings. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin and Bartlett’s tests of sphericity value determined the suitability of the data for factor analysis. Cluster analysis was performed using hierarchical cluster analysis to estimate the number of segments. The similarity between the objects was measured with a squared Euclidean distance, and the segments were yielded by aggregating the objects using Ward’s method [56]. Further, depending on the scale types of variables, ANOVA, Chi-square, Fisher’s Exact, and Kruskal–Wallis H tests were applied to compare the segments’ attitudes, satisfaction, and sociodemographic and lifestyle factors.
Secondly, partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was employed to explain complex relationships between the constructs using WarpPLS software version 8.0. [57] The validity, reliability, and multicollinearity of the constructs were evaluated in conjunction with WarpPLS software [57]. The hypothesis was tested using an outer model analysis algorithm Robust Path Analysis with a default inner model analysis (Warp 3 analysis algorithm) and the bootstrapping resampling method (number of data resamples = 999). Lastly, to evaluate the model fit, the eight most commonly used measures of goodness-of-fit (GoF) were selected: (1) average path coefficient (APC), (2) average r-squared (ARS), (3) average variance inflation factors (AVIF), (4) average full collinearity (AFVIF), (5) Tenenhaus GoF, (6) Sympson’s paradox ratio, (7) R-squared contribution ratio, and (8) nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio [57,58].

4. Results

The results from the exploratory factor analysis revealed three distinct dimensions representing the motivational constructs of tourism: (1) nature and socialisation, (2) relaxation, and (3) learning (Table 1). The emerged factors together accounted for 61.17% of the variance in items. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was 0.764, p < 0.001, demonstrating the data’s appropriateness for factor analysis [59].

4.1. Tourists’ Segments and Their Characteristics

Factor scores of the three identified motivational factors were used for the hierarchal cluster analysis. The factor loadings of the segment are shown in Figure 2. Three tourist segments were identified based on different motivations for tourism. The tourists’ motivation in cluster 1 was influenced by all components (nature/socialisation, learning, and relaxation) and they were therefore described as having “Multiple motivators”. The tourists in cluster 2 were motivated primarily by relaxation, while nature/socialisation and learning were unimportant. Cluster 2 was called “Relaxers”. Tourists in cluster 3 were motivated by connecting with nature and socialising, whereas relaxation and learning were unimportant. Thus, cluster 3 was called “Outgoing nature enthusiasts”. Notably, in our factor analysis, the nature and social items were loaded onto a single factor, suggesting a strong relationship between sociability and a love of nature. This raises the question of whether these traits often coexist in certain tourists, though it is important to recognise that nature lovers can also be solitary. Cluster 1 was the largest group identified in the study, including 39% of the participants, followed by cluster 2 (27%), and cluster 3 (34%). Furthermore, ANOVA (Turkey b test) indicated that the clusters differed significantly from each other.
The sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics of the tourist segments are shown in Table 2. A total of 200 tourists who experienced marine boat trips were included in the analysis, with a median age of 33 years (IQR: 16 to 43 years). Over half the participants were male (54.5%). Most of the participants had received higher education (bachelor’s and above), and 78% had an annual income of GBP 15,001 to GBP 30,000 and followed an omnivore dietary pattern (69%). Further, most of the participants heard about Oban from their local society such as local clubs, community organisations, or social groups (44%). Among the participants, 79.5% were international tourists travelling from outside the United Kingdom, indicating that nearly four-fifths of the respondents were from abroad, which highlights the importance of understanding the perspectives and behaviours of this demographic. Further, the participants were accompanied by their family members (33%). 47.5% of participants reported travelling as tourists three to four times annually, reflecting their general travel frequency rather than specific destinations such as Scotland or Oban. The results from the analyses (ANOVA, Chi-square, Fisher’s Exact, and Kruskal–Wallis H test, depending on the types of variables) indicate that the sociodemographic and lifestyle factors considered in the survey were not significantly different between the three tourist segments (Table 2).

4.2. Descriptive Statistics

In general, tourists expressed positive sentiments about all the items measuring their enjoyment of the Oban boat trip (median score = ‘agree’ to ‘strongly agree’), indicating overall satisfaction with the trip (Table 3). In particular, the “Multiple motivators” tourist segment had a higher median score of “strongly agreed” on all the items measuring their satisfaction with the Oban boat trip. Except for the item measuring the value for money of the Oban boat trip, all other items were significantly different between the identified tourist segments.
Tourists had positive attitudes towards aquaculture being a sustainable food production system, which has a positive impact on local socioeconomic. Overall, the tourists both somewhat agreed and disagreed about being familiar with the concept of farming aquatic food and its impact on the environment (median score = ‘neither disagree nor agree’). Among the three tourist segments, the “Relaxers” segment had a lower median score (disagree) for the item measuring familiarity with the concept of farming aquatic food.
Furthermore, the results indicated that tourists held favourable attitudes towards aquaculture–tourism integration, as evidenced by a higher median score for both ‘attitudes towards aquaculture–tourism integration’ and ‘intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food’, with a median score reflecting overall agreement.

4.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Validity, Reliability, and Multicollinearity Tests

The results indicated that the factor loadings of items measuring the constructs were above 0.70, indicating acceptable convergent validity. The value of Cronbach’s α was above 0.56 and composite reliability (CRC) was above 0.76 indicating acceptable reliability among the items of the constructs. The average variance extracted (AVE) was above 0.50, except for attitude, and based on the other indices we retained the value for convergent validity. The value of the variance inflation factor (VIF) was less than 1.758 indicating no multicollinearity. Further, the square root of the AVE of the constructs was greater than the correlation coefficient among the constructs, indicating the discriminant validity of the constructs. Table 4 shows the factor loadings, validity, reliability, and multicollinearity, while Table 5 shows the correlation among the constructs and the discriminant validity of the constructs.

4.4. Assessment of the Relationship Between the Constructs

The goodness-of-fit statistical tests were conducted in conjunction with the PLS-SEM analysis that indicated that the proposed model has an acceptable predictive power of intention (Adjusted R2 = 0.25) and attitude (Adjusted R2 = 0.35), while the reported average block variance inflation factor (AVIF) equals 1.254, Simpson’s paradox ratio equals 0.983, the statistical suppression ratio equals 1.000, and the nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio equals 1.000, representing a good model fit. The result from the PLS-SEM is shown in Figure 3. The result indicated that the attitudes towards aquaculture positively influence the intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food, thus supporting hypothesis H1. Further, the attitude towards aquaculture–tourism integration mediates the relationship between the attitudes towards aquaculture and the intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food, supporting hypotheses H2 and H3. Tourism-motivating factors, socialisation, and learning had a positive and significant influence on the tourists’ attitudes towards aquaculture–tourism integration, supporting hypotheses H4b and H4d, while nature and relaxation had no influence on their attitude towards aquaculture–tourism integration, rejecting hypotheses H4a and H4c. Among the sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics considered, omnivore dietary patterns had a positive and significant influence on intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food, supporting hypothesis H5e, while rejecting H5a–d,f.

5. Discussion and Practical Implications

This study explored the relationship between tourists’ motivations, their attitudes towards aquaculture, and their intention to consume locally farmed aquatic food, identifying three tourist segments: 1. the ‘Multiple motivations’, 2. the ‘Relaxers’, and 3. the ‘Outgoing nature enthusiasts’. A key finding was that attitudes towards aquaculture–tourism integration mediate the relationship between attitudes towards aquaculture and the intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food. Motivational factors, particularly socialisation and learning, significantly influenced these attitudes and behavioural intentions.
The results from this study indicate that tourists generally had positive attitudes towards aquaculture and were positive about being exposed to aquaculture on tours. Similarly, a previous study by Nimmo et al. [8] found that tourists were generally positive towards fish farms in Scotland and most of the respondents (94 out of 120) would like to re-visit places in Scotland where fish farms are sited. In the United States, there was moderate support and agreement among tourists with positive beliefs about marine farming [33]. Further, the study found that positive beliefs, knowledge, and awareness positively influenced tourists’ support for marine farming in the primary tourist destination. The authors of [30] argue that positive attitudes towards aquaculture can lead to additional behaviours such as aquaculture-based tourism activities. This might explain the mediating effect between attitude towards being exposed to aquaculture on tours and tourists’ intentions.
Tourists’ positive attitudes towards aquaculture–tourism integration imply a potential for developing linkages between aquaculture and tourism in Oban and similar coastal regions. This could lead to alternative income streams for aquaculture farmers, particularly for small-scale farmers, especially those involved in mollusc and seaweed production, while also increasing tourism engagement and contributing to sustainable tourism development. However, future research is needed to explore the perspectives of fish farmers on integrating tourism, including any changes in husbandry or management practices, such as minimising visible floating mortalities, to accommodate tourists. Understanding whether farmers perceive financial or non-financial incentives from such an integration would provide a more comprehensive view of the viability and challenges of these linkages. Agritourism initiatives such as farm-to-table experiences, culinary classes, nature trails, and outdoor recreation might enhance positive attitudes towards aquaculture–tourism integration, eventually resulting in a higher intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food [60,61]. In Norway and Greece, initiatives such as the Norwegian Salmon Adventure and Blutopia—LAMAR S.A.’s excursions are providing tourists with opportunities to learn about aquaculture and its products [62,63]. These initiatives might serve as inspirations for Oban. These initiatives not only promote aquaculture–tourism integration but also ensure good practices are maintained in the industry, which can enhance public trust and positive attitudes toward aquaculture.
Aside from attitudes towards aquaculture, the results from this study indicated that motivational factors such as socialisation and learning were significant predictors of attitudes towards being exposed to aquaculture on tours. However, this does not imply that the Multiple motivations tourist segment has more positive attitudes towards being exposed to aquaculture on tours. Thus, farmer–tourist interaction is recommended and may be enhanced through the promotion of a truly aquaculture-focused tourism experience. It is important to note that none of the tours provided advanced notice about visiting the fish farm, instead emphasising wildlife. This lack of promotion may have influenced tourist’s attraction to the tours. By emphasising aquaculture experiences in advance, such as co-creative activities where farmers share their knowledge and expertise (e.g., fishing, fish preparing and handling, aquaculture workshops), the length of stay could be prolonged, leading to greater economic benefits and sustainable tourism development. Studies have indicated that interaction with farmers offers visitors a deeper, more ‘authentic’, and more meaningful experience that is more memorable [64,65,66]; it is important to note that such interactions were not a feature of the excursions examined in this study. Future tour designs could benefit from incorporating opportunities for direct engagement with farmers to enhance the overall tourist experience as all kinds of interaction contribute to more positive experiences, rich in learning opportunities, and sensorial and emotional content [67].
This study found that attitudes towards aquaculture are significant predictors of intention to eat locally produced aquatic food. In line with these findings, previous studies found a significant positive relationship between attitudes towards aquaculture and intention to participate in culinary aquaculture tourism [7,30]. The social, economic, and environmental effects of aquaculture are often considered by consumers, which influence their aquatic food consumption in a market [28,68,69,70]. Therefore, the more sustainable a food product is, the more value it provides, and in turn, the tourist destination promoting such food products will become more competitive in the market of responsible tourism. Previous sustainable tourism studies have shown that tourists can satiate their desire to use their purchasing power to bring about social change by travelling to such ethical tourist locations [71,72,73]. As Leslie [74], argues responsible tourism can be achieved when both tourism service providers and tourists consider “moral accountability for one’s actions and the impacts of those actions” (p. 1).
Overall, the findings hold significant implications. They suggest that aquaculture sites have the potential to become key centres for social knowledge exchange, enriching tourism experiences while increasing the social acceptance of aquaculture practices. This perspective presents exciting opportunities for sustainable development in coastal communities, where achieving a balance between economic growth and environmental conservation is often a complex challenge.

Limitations and Future Research

The study is cross-sectional, which limits the external validity of the results and in future, it will be necessary to investigate this topic longitudinally. A purposive sampling technique has been employed in the study, wherein tourists who had experience with Oban boat trips were included in the study. Future studies should employ probabilistic sampling techniques among general Oban tourists. While the survey provided valuable insights, it is acknowledged that data collection during a limited time frame (20 July to 10 August) may not fully capture year-round tourism patterns. Additionally, the survey being conducted in English may have limited participation and responses from non-English-speaking tourists, potentially skewing the results towards certain demographic groups. This limitation should be considered when interpreting the findings. Future research could address this by conducting data collection across multiple seasons or over an extended period, offering a more comprehensive understanding of tourism dynamics in Oban. The study included four motivational factors (nature, relaxation, socialisation, and learning) and two psychosocial constructs (attitudes and intention); other relevant motivational factors such as relationship, safety, and image as well as psychosocial constructs such as subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, and health consciousness should be considered in a similar context in future studies. Furthermore, our study is geographically limited to Oban, Scotland, and it would be interesting for future research to consider other tourists destinations. Given the focus on Oban, it is important to consider how the geographic and cultural uniqueness of this area may influence the research outcomes. As a popular tourist destination with a strong connection to marine activities and local aquaculture, Oban may present specific factors that may not apply to other regions. The local cultural context, including residents’ attitudes toward aquaculture and the prominence of marine tourism, could shape tourists’ experiences and perceptions in ways that are unique to this area. Therefore, the findings of this study may not be directly transferable to other regions with different cultural or geographic characteristics. Future research could expand upon these findings by exploring their transferability to other coastal regions with varied cultural and economic contexts. This would provide a deeper understanding of how aquaculture–tourism integration might differ across diverse settings. Additionally, incorporating the perspectives of aquaculture farmers would offer valuable insights into their attitudes toward tourism integration, the challenges they encounter, and their influence on shaping tourists’ perceptions of aquaculture. By investigating these factors, a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics at play can be achieved, allowing for the development of strategies that benefit both farmers and tourists. This, in turn, would contribute to the sustainable development of both sectors.
The study focused on quantitative survey data and did not include qualitative observations or specific data regarding tourists’ initial expectations or reactions to the aquaculture component of the wildlife tours. As such, we do not have data on how many tourists were surprised, disappointed, or interested in this aspect of the tour, nor do we have insights into whether some regretted the time spent on aquaculture instead of wildlife viewing. While these elements were not part of the current analysis, incorporating qualitative data in future research could provide valuable context and interpret tourists’ experiences in greater detail. Such data could triangulate the findings, offering a richer and more nuanced understanding of tourists’ reactions and their impact on overall satisfaction. Although the study provides valuable insights, it is important to note its limitations. The focus on Oban, Scotland, while offering a detailed case study, may limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions. Additionally, the sample size of 200 tourists, while substantial, could be expanded in future research to strengthen the robustness of the conclusions. This study identifies correlations between aquaculture and tourism, but the causal relationship between these two sectors requires further investigation. Future research could include longitudinal studies to better understand how tourism influences aquaculture practices over time and vice versa. Exploring different geographic regions and aquaculture models could also uncover broader trends and variations in aquaculture–tourism integration. Finally, while the study focuses on attitudes and intentions, it is important to note that attitudes may not always predict intentions due to other relevant influencing factors like external constraints, social influences, economic limitations, personal preferences, and resource availability. For example, social pressures, competing motivations, and psychological factors like self-efficacy may also impact whether intentions are realised. Future research could explore these factors to better understand the gap between intention and behaviour in aquaculture–tourism integration.

6. Conclusions

This study contributes to understanding the intersection of tourism and aquaculture, emphasising the role of travel motivations and attitudes in shaping tourists’ intentions to consume locally farmed aquatic food. Utilising hierarchical cluster analysis identified three segments of tourists based on tourism motivation, (1) Multiple motivations, (2) Relaxers, and (3) Outgoing nature enthusiasts. Among the three tourist segments, the Relaxers were particularly unfamiliar with the concept of farming aquatic food. Further, tourists’ motivations, such as socialisation and learning, influence their attitudes toward aquaculture on tours, which, in turn, mediate their intention to eat locally produced aquatic food. Sociodemographic factors, particularly dietary patterns, were found to influence these intentions.
The integration of aquaculture and tourism offers significant potential for fostering sustainable practises by leveraging tourists’ interest in local food sources and environmental conservation. By strategically promoting aquaculture–tourism synergy, stakeholders can not only enhance tourists’ experiences and motivations but also contribute to the economic growth of coastal regions and raise awareness about sustainable food production. The findings provide a practical framework for policymakers, researchers, and tourism operators to design initiatives that bridge the gap between tourism and sustainable aquaculture, encouraging the consumption of locally farmed aquatic food. On a global scale, the insights derived from this study can serve as a model for other coastal regions seeking to integrate sustainable food production with tourism. By applying these strategies, regions can improve sustainability, stimulate local economies, and promote environmental stewardship, offering a replicable blueprint for achieving sustainable development in similar contexts worldwide.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B., A.P., J.A.Y., A.B. and D.C.L.; methodology, M.B., J.A.Y., A.P. and D.C.L.; software, M.B.; validation, M.B., A.P., A.B. and D.C.L.; formal analysis, M.B.; investigation, M.B. and J.A.Y.; resources, D.C.L.; data curation, J.A.Y. and M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.; writing—review and editing, A.P., A.B., J.A.Y., M.B. and D.C.L.; visualisation, M.B.; supervision, D.C.L.; project administration, J.A.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the General University Ethics Panel, University of Stirling (protocol code 14320 and July 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Anastasios Baltadakis was employed by the company LAMAR S.A. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Costa-Pierce, B.A.; Chopin, T. The Hype, Fantasies and Realities of Aquaculture Development Globally and in Its New Geographies. World Aquac. 2021, 52, 23–35. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bostock, J.; McAndrew, B.; Richards, R.; Jauncey, K.; Telfer, T.; Lorenzen, K.; Little, D.; Ross, L.; Handisyde, N.; Gatward, I.; et al. Aquaculture: Global Status and Trends. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010, 365, 2897–2912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Food and Agriculture Organization. FishStatJ. 2024. Available online: https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/topic/166235/en (accessed on 30 June 2024).
  4. Bostock, J.; Murray, F.; Muir, J.; Telfer, T.; Papanikos, N.; Papegeorous, P. European Aquaculture Competitiveness: Limitations and Possible Strategies; PE 431.569; EU Parliament, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  5. Budhathoki, M.; Tunca, S.; Martinez, R.L.; Zhang, W.; Li, S.; Le Gallic, B.; Brunsø, K.; Sharma, P.; Eljasik, P.; Gyalog, G.; et al. Societal Perceptions of Aquaculture: Combining Scoping Review and Media Analysis. Rev. Aquac. 2024, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alexander, K.; Gatward, I.; Parker, A.; Black, K.; Boardman, A.; Potts, T.; Thompson, E. An Assessment of the Benefits to Scotland of Aquaculture; Marine Scotland: Edinburgh, UK, 2014; Available online: https://www.inclusivebusiness.net/sites/default/files/wp/00450798.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2024).
  7. Kim, G.; Duffy, L.N.; Jodice, L.W.; Norman, W.C. Coastal Tourist Interest in Value-Added, Aquaculture-Based, Culinary Tourism Opportunities. Coast. Manag. 2017, 45, 310–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nimmo, F.; Cappell, R.; Huntington, T.; Grant, A. Does Fish Farming Impact on Tourism in Scotland? Aquac. Res. 2011, 42 (Suppl. 1), 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Code of Good Practice Scottish Finfish Aquaculture. Code of Good Practice Scottish Finfish Aquaculture; Salmon Scotland Producers Organisation: Edinburgh, UK, 2015; Available online: https://thecodeofgoodpractice.co.uk/documents/code-introduction.pdf (accessed on 24 August 2024).
  10. Green Tourism. Sustainability Certification That Works for Your Business. 2021. Available online: https://www.green-tourism.com/ (accessed on 25 August 2024).
  11. Tourism in Scotland: The Economic Contribution of the Sector: A Report Commissioned by the Tourism Leadership Group; Schottland, Ed.; The Scottish Government: Edinburgh, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  12. Scottish Government. Aquaculture Vital for Coastal Communities. 2020. Available online: https://www.gov.scot/news/aquaculture-vital-for-coastal-communities/ (accessed on 31 October 2024).
  13. IBIS World. Aquaculture in the UK—Market Research Report (2014–2019); Industry Benchmark Information Services World: London, UK, 2024; Available online: https://www.ibisworld.com/united-kingdom/market-research-reports/aquaculture-industry/ (accessed on 31 October 2024).
  14. www.visitscotland.org. Tourism Employment in Scotland. 2023. Available online: https://www.visitscotland.org/research-insights/about-our-industry/tourism-employment (accessed on 31 October 2024).
  15. Armbrecht, J.; Skallerud, K. Attitudes and Intentional Reactions towards Mariculture Development –Local Residents’ Perspective. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 174, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Deniz, H. Environmental Impact of Aquaculture in Turkey and Its Relationship to Tourism, Recreation and Sites of Special Protection. Cah. Options Méditerr. 2001, 55, 159–171. [Google Scholar]
  17. Albasri, H.; Sammut, J. A Comparative Study of Sustainability Profiles between Small-Scale Mariculture, Capture Fisheries and Tourism Communities within the Anambas Archipelago Small Island MPA, Indonesia. Aquaculture 2022, 551, 737906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gunningham, N.; Kagan, R.A.; Thornton, D. Social License and Environmental Protection: Why Businesses Go beyond Compliance. Law Soc. Inq. 2004, 29, 307–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Perles-Ribes, J.F.; Rámon-Rodríguez, A.; Jiménez, M.S.; Such-Devesa, M.J.; Aranda-Cuellar, P. Aquaculture in Tourist Destinations: The Need to Consider Economic Aspects in Environmental Impact Studies. Curr. Issues Tour. 2023, 26, 3671–3685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Outeiro, L.; Villasante, S.; Oyarzo, H. The Interplay between Fish Farming and Nature Based Recreation-Tourism in Southern Chile: A Perception Approach. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 32, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cajiao, D.; Leung, Y.-F.; Larson, L.R.; Tejedo, P.; Benayas, J. Tourists’ Motivations, Learning, and Trip Satisfaction Facilitate pro-Environmental Outcomes of the Antarctic Tourist Experience. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2022, 37, 100454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hindley, A.; Font, X. Values and Motivations in Tourist Perceptions of Last-Chance Tourism. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2018, 18, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vainikka, B. Psychological Factors Influencing Consumer Behaviour. Bachelor’s Thesis, Centria University of Applied Sciences, Kokkola, Finland, 2015. Available online: https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/96405 (accessed on 24 September 2024).
  24. Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta-analytic Review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40, 471–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ulker-Demirel, E.; Ciftci, G. A Systematic Literature Review of the Theory of Planned Behavior in Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management Research. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 43, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Aminizadeh, M.; Mohammadi, H.; Karbasi, A.; Rafiee, H. Predicting Consumers’ Intention towards Seafood Products: An Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. Food Qual. Prefer. 2024, 113, 105061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Budhathoki, M.; Campbell, D.; Belton, B.; Newton, R.; Li, S.; Zhang, W.; Little, D. Factors Influencing Consumption Behaviour towards Aquatic Food among Asian Consumers: A Systematic Scoping Review. Foods 2022, 11, 4043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Menozzi, D.; Sogari, G.; Simeone, C.; Czajkowski, M.; Zawadzki, W.; Bazoche, P.; Lucas, S.; Mora, C.; Aanesen, M. Positive versus Negative Information: What Is Really Shifting Consumers’ Intention to Eat Norwegian Salmon? Evidence from Three European Countries. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 108, 104871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, G.; Jodice, L.W.; Duffy, L.N.; Norman, W.C. Tourists’ Attitudes toward the Benefits of Mariculture: A Case of Decision-Making in Marine Tourism in Southeast USA. Tour. Mar. Environ. 2020, 15, 29–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Katranidis, S.; Nitsi, E.; Vakrou, A. Social Acceptability of Aquaculture Development in Coastal Areas: The Case of Two Greek Islands. Coast. Manag. 2003, 31, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Murray, G.; D’Anna, L. Seeing Shellfish from the Seashore: The Importance of Values and Place in Perceptions of Aquaculture and Marine Social–Ecological System Interactions. Mar. Policy 2015, 62, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jodice, L.W.; Norman, W.C.; Davis, J.; Coskun, G.; Kang, S. Perceptions of Marine Aquaculture in Coastal Tourist Destinations in the US Southeastern Region, Clemson University. 2015. Available online: http://media.clemson.edu/cbshs/prtm/research/Mariculture.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2024).
  34. Lundberg, D.E. Why Tourists Travel. Cornell Hotel. Restaur. Adm. Q. 1971, 11, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Crompton, J.L. Motivations for pleasure vacation. Ann. Tour. Res. 1979, 6, 408–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pearce, P.L.; Lee, U.-I. Developing the Travel Career Approach to Tourist Motivation. J. Travel Res. 2005, 43, 226–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hsu, C.H.C.; Cai, L.A.; Li, M. Expectation, Motivation, and Attitude: A Tourist Behavioral Model. J. Travel Res. 2010, 49, 282–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Huang, S.; Hsu, C.H.C. Effects of Travel Motivation, Past Experience, Perceived Constraint, and Attitude on Revisit Intention. J. Travel Res. 2009, 48, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pereira, V.; Gupta, J.J.; Hussain, S. Impact of Travel Motivation on Tourist’s Attitude Toward Destination: Evidence of Mediating Effect of Destination Image. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2022, 46, 946–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wong, M. A Study on Traveler Expectation, Motivation and Attitude. CMR 2013, 9, 169–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Birch, D.; Memery, J. Tourists, Local Food and the Intention-Behaviour Gap. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 43, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Viglia, G.; Acuti, D. How to Overcome the Intention–Behavior Gap in Sustainable Tourism: Tourism Agenda 2030 Perspective Article. TR 2023, 78, 321–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ilak Peršurić, A.S.; Tezak, A. The Influence of Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Tourists on Their Interest for Organic Food in Istria, Croatia. Agric. Econ. 2009, 55, 296–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kim, Y.G.; Eves, A.; Scarles, C. Building a Model of Local Food Consumption on Trips and Holidays: A Grounded Theory Approach. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 423–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Madaleno, A.; Eusébio, C.; Varum, C. Determinants of Visitors’ Intentions to Consume and Recommend Local Agro-Food Products. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2019, 25, 159–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mak, A.H.N.; Lumbers, M.; Eves, A.; Chang, R.C.Y. Factors Influencing Tourist Food Consumption. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 928–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Frochot, I. A Benefit Segmentation of Tourists in Rural Areas: A Scottish Perspective. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 335–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Park, D.-B.; Yoon, Y.-S. Segmentation by Motivation in Rural Tourism: A Korean Case Study. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mehran, J.; GT. Olya, H. Canal Boat Tourism: Application of Complexity Theory. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 101954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fernández-Polanco, J.; Luna, L. Factors Affecting Consumers’ Beliefs about Aquaculture. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2012, 16, 22–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hynes, S.; Skoland, K.; Ravagnan, E.; Gjerstad, B.; Krøvel, A.V. Public Attitudes toward Aquaculture: An Irish and Norwegian Comparative Study. Mar. Policy 2018, 96, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cavallo, M.; Frangoudes, K.; Pérez Agúndez, J.; Raux, P. Exploring Troubles, Attitudes, and Strategies Related to Integrated Aquaculture. A Case of the Andalusia Region (South of Spain). JMSE 2020, 8, 684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Budhathoki, M.; Zølner, A.; Nielsen, T.; Rasmussen, M.A.; Reinbach, H.C. Intention to Buy Organic Fish among Danish Consumers: Application of the Segmentation Approach and the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Aquaculture 2022, 549, 737798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tunca, S.; Budhathoki, M.; Brunsø, K. European Consumers’ Intention to Buy Sustainable Aquaculture Products: An Exploratory Study. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024, 50, 20–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 28.0.; IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2021.
  56. Pandey, S.; Budhathoki, M.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Thomsen, M. Factors Influencing Consumers’ Food Waste Reduction Behaviour at University Canteens. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 111, 104991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kock, N. WarpPLS User Manual. 2022. Available online: https://scriptwarp.com/warppls/UserManual_v_8_0.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2024).
  58. Kock, N. Using Causality Assessment Indices in PLS-SEM. Data Anal. Perspect. J. 2022, 3, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  59. Malhotra, N.K. Marketing Research, 7th ed.; Pearson Education, Limited: Harlow, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  60. Brune, S.; Knollenberg, W.; Stevenson, K.T.; Barbieri, C.; Schroeder-Moreno, M. The Influence of Agritourism Experiences on Consumer Behavior toward Local Food. J. Travel Res. 2021, 60, 1318–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kline, C.; Barbieri, C.; LaPan, C. The Influence of Agritourism on Niche Meats Loyalty and Purchasing. J. Travel Res. 2016, 55, 643–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Global Seafood Alliance. Aquaculture Tourism: An Unexpected Synergy for the Blue Economy. 2023. Available online: https://www.globalseafood.org/advocate/aquaculture-tourism-an-unexpected-synergy-for-the-blue-economy/ (accessed on 18 January 2024).
  63. Havila Voyages. The Norwegian Salmon Adventure, 2024. Available online: https://www.havilavoyages.com/excursions/the-norwegian-salmon-adventure (accessed on 18 January 2024).
  64. Di Domenico, M.; Miller, G. Farming and Tourism Enterprise: Experiential Authenticity in the Diversification of Independent Small-Scale Family Farming. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Morgan, M.; Xu, F. Student Travel Experiences: Memories and Dreams. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2009, 18, 216–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yeoman, I.; Brass, D.; McMahon-Beattie, U. Current Issue in Tourism: The Authentic Tourist. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 1128–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kastenholz, E.; Carneiro, M.J.; Eusébio, C. Diverse Socializing Patterns in Rural Tourist Experiences—A Segmentation Analysis. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 21, 401–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Budhathoki, M.; Zolner, A.; Nielsen, T.; Reinbach, H.C. The Role of Production Method Information on Sensory Perception of Smoked Salmon-A Mixed-Method Study from Denmark. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chu, J.; Anderson, J.L.; Asche, F.; Tudur, L. Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Aquaculture and Implications for Its Future: A Comparison of the U.S.A. and Norway. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2010, 25, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mazur, N.A.; Curtis, A.L. Risk Perceptions, Aquaculture, and Issues of Trust: Lessons from Australia. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2006, 19, 791–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hyman, L.; Tohill, J. (Eds.) Shopping for Change: Consumer Activism and the Possibilities of Purchasing Power; ILR Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  72. Roberts, J.A. Green Consumers in the 1990s: Profile and Implications for Advertising. J. Bus. Res. 1996, 36, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zgolli, S.; Zaiem, I. The Responsible Behavior of Tourist: The Role of Personnel Factors and Public Power and Effect on the Choice of Destination. Arab Econ. Bus. J. 2018, 13, 168–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Leslie, D. (Ed.) Responsible Turism: Concepts, Theory and Practice; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 00710 g001
Figure 1. Proposed model of the study.
Figure 1. Proposed model of the study.
Sustainability 17 00710 g001
Sustainability 17 00710 g002
Figure 2. Visualisation of the factor loadings of the clusters, with ANOVA indicated significant differences among identified tourist segments.
Figure 2. Visualisation of the factor loadings of the clusters, with ANOVA indicated significant differences among identified tourist segments.
Sustainability 17 00710 g002
Sustainability 17 00710 g003
Figure 3. Structural relations between the constructs of the proposed model. In this figure, N = 200; *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; average block VIF = 1.254; Tenenhaus GoF = 0.528; Simpson’s paradox ratio (RSCR) = 0.983; Statistical suppression ratio (SSR) = 1.000; Nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio = 1.000. Adjusted R-squared for attitudes towards aquaculture–tourism integration = 0.359; Adjusted R-squared for intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food = 0.250.
Figure 3. Structural relations between the constructs of the proposed model. In this figure, N = 200; *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; average block VIF = 1.254; Tenenhaus GoF = 0.528; Simpson’s paradox ratio (RSCR) = 0.983; Statistical suppression ratio (SSR) = 1.000; Nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio = 1.000. Adjusted R-squared for attitudes towards aquaculture–tourism integration = 0.359; Adjusted R-squared for intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food = 0.250.
Sustainability 17 00710 g003
Table 1. The interrelationship between the motivation for tourism a.
Table 1. The interrelationship between the motivation for tourism a.
ConstructsItemsFactor 1Factor 2Factor 3
Nature
  • To be in contact with nature.
0.877
2.
Observe animals that are not living in the town I came from.
0.833
Relaxation
  • …makes me refreshed.
 0.512
2.
…escape from a busy job.
 0.761
3.
…relaxing away from ordinary
 0.779
Socialisation
  • I value spending time on my own. (R)
0.607
2. I am willing to share previous tourism experiences with others.
3.
I am willing to join local activities.
0.672
Learning
  • Learning about new historical destinations.
 0.799
2.
Learning about wildlife and ecosystems.
 0.718
3.
Learn new things and increase my knowledge.
 0.736
a Matrix of Varimax-rotated component loadings from principal component analysis.
Table 2. Sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics of the segments and their differences.
Table 2. Sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics of the segments and their differences.
Sociodemographic CharacteristicsCategoriesMultiple Motivators
N = 78		Relaxers
N = 54		Outgoing Nature Enthusiasts
N = 68		Total
N = 200		p-Value
Age, y, median (IQR) 33 (44–27.75)32 (39.50–26)35 (47–29)33 (43–16)0.180 a
Gender, % (n)Male57.7 (45)51.9 (28)52.9 (36)54.5 (109)0.763 b
Female42.3 (33)48.1 (26)47.1 (32)45.5 (91)
Education, % (n)Primary School 1.5 (1)0.5 (1)0.207 c
High School11.5 (9)18.5 (10)16.2 (11)15 (30)
Bachelor34.6 (27)40.7 (22)39.7 (27)38 (76)
Master or higher46.2 (36)35.2 (19)36.88 (25)40 (80)
Others7.7 (6)5.6 (3)5.9 (4)6.5 (13)
Income (annual), % (n)Less than GBP 15,00011.5 (9)13 (7)13.2 (9)12.5 (25)0.252 c
GBP 15,001–GBP 30,00041 (32)31.5 (17)29.4 (20)34.5 (69)
GBP 30,001–GBP 50,00034.6 (27)31.5 (17)27.9 (19)31.5 (63)
GBP 50,001–GBP 75,0003.8 (3)9.3 (5)8.8 (6)7 (14)
More than GBP 75,0002.6 (2)5.6 (3)2.9 (2)3.5 (7)
I prefer not to answer6.4 (5)9.3 (5)17.6 (12)11 (22)
Tourist, % (n) Domestic21.8 (17)25.9 (14)14.7 (10)20.5 (41)0.293 b
International78.2 (61)74.1 (40)85.3 (58)79.5 (159)
Dietary pattern, % (n)Omnivore66.7 (52)66.7 (36)73.5 (50)69 (138)0.203 b
Vegetarian7.7 (6)7.4 (4) 5 (10)
Pescetarian14.1 (11)7.4 (4)10.3 (7)11 (22)
Flexitarian 2.6 (2)3.7 (2)5.9 (4)4 (8)
Vegan9 (7)11.1 (6)10.3 (7)10 (20)
Others 3.7 (2) 1 (2)
Accompanied, % (n) Alone1.3 (1)11.1 (6)7.4 (5)6 (12)0.160 b
Partner34.6 (27)16.7 (9)20.6 (14)25 (50)
Family35.9 (28)33.3 (18)29.4 (20)33 (66)
Children5.1 (4)3.7 (2)4.4 (3)4.5 (9)
Parent 2.6 (2)1.9 (1)7.4 (5)4 (8)
Friend16.7 (13)29.6 (16)22.1 (15)22 (44)
Work colleagues2.6 (2)3.7 (2)5.9 (4)4 (8)
Others1.3 (1) 2.9 (2)1.5 (3)
Hear about Oban, % (n)Local society43.6 (34)48.1 (26)41.2 (28)44 (88)0.706 b
Internet24.4 (19)24.1 (13)27.9 (19)25.5 (51)
Agency11.5 (9)18.5 (10)16.2 (11)15 (30)
Closed ones (friends/family/etc.)10.3 (8)5.6 (3)10.3 (7)9 (18)
Guidebook 7.7 (6)1.9 (1)1.5 (1)4 (8)
Others2.6 (2)1.9 (1)2.9 (2)2.5 (5)
Frequency of travel, % (n)1–2 trips 23.1 (18)33.3 (18)29.4 (20)28 (56)0.638 c
3–4 trips51.3 (40)37 (20)51.5 (35)47.5 (95)
5–6 trips21.8 (17)18.5 (10)13.2 (9)18 (36)
7–8 trips2.6 (2)3.7 (2)1.5 (1)2.5 (5)
More than 8 trips1.3 (1)7.4 (4)4.4 (3)4 (8)
a ANOVA; b Chi square; c Fisher’s Exact; IQR = Interquartile range.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for items measuring their satisfaction with the Oban boat trip, their attitude towards aquaculture, their attitude towards tourism–aquaculture integration, and their intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for items measuring their satisfaction with the Oban boat trip, their attitude towards aquaculture, their attitude towards tourism–aquaculture integration, and their intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food.
ItemsMultiple MotivatorsRelaxersOutgoing Nature EnthusiastsTotalp-Value a
Oban boat tripI am very satisfied with the trip.5 (1)4 (1)4 (1)4 (1)0.005
I will recommend the trip to others.5 (1)4 (1)4 (1)4 (1)0.009
The trip is considered value for money.5 (1)4 (1)4.5 (1)5 (1)0.132
The quality of the staff management on this trip was excellent.5 (1)4 (1)5 (1)5 (1)0.029
Because of the trip, I had the opportunity to explore wildlife.5 (1)4 (1)4 (1)4 (1)0.003
The tour positively influenced my cultural values.5 (1)4 (1.25)4 (1)4 (1)0.001
Attitudes towards aquaculture I am familiar with the concept of farming aquatic food.3 (2)2 (1)3 (1)3 (2)0.001
I perceived farmed aquatic food as a sustainable production system.4 (1)3 (1)4 (1)4 (1)0.179
Aquaculture has a positive environmental impact.3 (1)3 (1)4 (1)3 (1)0.176
Aquaculture has a negative impact on the local socio-economy. (R)4 (2)4 (2)4 (1)4 (2)0.664
Attitude towards aquaculture–tourism integrationLearning more about the fish farm during the trip would be interesting.5 (1)4 (0)5 (1)4 (1)<0.001
I support participating in aquaculture-related activities during the trip.4 (1)4 (1)4 (1.75)4 (1)0.030
The presence of aquaculture in the marine environment enhances the tour’s quality.4 (1)4 (1)4 (1)4 (1)0.004
I support merging aquaculture and tourism.5 (1)4 (1)5 (1)5 (1)0.069
Intention to eat locally farmed aquatic foodI am willing to eat locally farmed aquatic food. 4 (2)4 (2)4 (1)4 (2)0.209
a Kruskal–Wallis H test; R represents reverse scale; items scored in 5—a point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”.
Table 4. Factor loadings, validity, reliability, and multicollinearity.
Table 4. Factor loadings, validity, reliability, and multicollinearity.
ConstructsItemsFactor LoadingAVECronbach’c AlphaCRCVIF
Nature (NAT)NAT10.7800.8780.8610.9351.553
NAT20.770
Socialisation (SOC)SOC10.7750.7960.7440.8871.682
SOC20.734
Relaxation (REX) REX10.7690.5510.5870.7861.329
REX20.888
REX30.826
Learning (LEA)LEA10.8890.5980.6630.8171.211
LEA20.778
LEA30.841
Attitudes (ATT)ATT10.7260.4530.5650.7601.518
ATT20.707
ATT30.772
ATT40.819
Attitude towards aquaculture–tourism integration (MER)MER10.7490.7760.9030.9331.758
MER20.738
MER30.740
MER40.762
Intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food (ITE)ITE10.8271111.413
AVE represents average variance extracted, CRC represents composite reliability, and VIF represents variance inflation factor.
Table 5. Correlation among the constructs of the proposed model.
Table 5. Correlation among the constructs of the proposed model.
NatureSocialisationRelaxationLearningAttitudes Towards AquacultureAttitude Towards Aquaculture–Tourism IntegrationIntention to Eat
Nature0.937
Socialisation0.509 ***0.892
Relaxation0.361 ***0.427 ***0.742
Learning 0.322 ***0.347 ***0.222 **0.773
Attitudes towards aquaculture0.239 ***0.196 **0.0010.147 *0.673
Attitude towards aquaculture–tourism integration 0.256 ***0.321 ***0.158 *0.236 **0.529 ***0.881
Intention to eat locally farmed aquatic food0.0660.054−0.0570.0000.396 ***0.435 ***1
Bold numbers are the square root values of average variance extracted. * Significant at p < 0.05, ** significant at p < 0.01, *** significant at p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Budhathoki, M.; Pounds, A.; Younes, J.A.; Baltadakis, A.; Little, D.C. Mariculture in Natural Environments: Tourists’ Attitudes Towards Aquaculture During Marine Tours in Oban, Scotland. Sustainability 2025, 17, 710. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020710

AMA Style

Budhathoki M, Pounds A, Younes JA, Baltadakis A, Little DC. Mariculture in Natural Environments: Tourists’ Attitudes Towards Aquaculture During Marine Tours in Oban, Scotland. Sustainability. 2025; 17(2):710. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020710

Chicago/Turabian Style

Budhathoki, Mausam, Alexandra Pounds, Jad Abi Younes, Anastasios Baltadakis, and David C. Little. 2025. "Mariculture in Natural Environments: Tourists’ Attitudes Towards Aquaculture During Marine Tours in Oban, Scotland" Sustainability 17, no. 2: 710. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020710

APA Style

Budhathoki, M., Pounds, A., Younes, J. A., Baltadakis, A., & Little, D. C. (2025). Mariculture in Natural Environments: Tourists’ Attitudes Towards Aquaculture During Marine Tours in Oban, Scotland. Sustainability, 17(2), 710. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020710

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop