Research on World Agricultural Economy

Consumers’ Awareness, Perception and Willingness-to-Pay for MyGAP-Compliant Farmed Fish Produce: Evidence from Malaysia

Roslina Kamaruddin

Economic and Financial Policy Institute (ECOFI), Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah 06010, Malaysia;  School of Economics, Finance and Banking, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah 06010, Malaysia

Jan‑Jan Soon

Economic and Financial Policy Institute (ECOFI), Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah 06010, Malaysia;  School of Economics, Finance and Banking, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah 06010, Malaysia

Rozana Samah

School of Economics, Finance and Banking, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah 06010, Malaysia

Rusmani Musa

School of Economics, Finance and Banking, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah 06010, Malaysia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v6i3.2192

Received: 21 May 2025 | Revised: 17 June 2025 | Accepted: 24 June 2025 | Published Online: 11 August 2025

---

Abstract

Aquaculture is essential for the global fish supply, but sustainable practices in Malaysia face significant challenges. MyGAP certification promotes safety and sustainability; however, its adoption is hindered by high costs, technical barriers, and limited consumer awareness, which hampers efforts to advance sustainable aquaculture practices. The main objective of this paper is to investigate consumers’ awareness, perceptions, and willingness to pay (WTP) for MyGAP-compliant farmed fish in a Malaysian context. A contingent valuation approach was employed to assess consumers’ WTP, while a binomial logit model was used to determine factors influencing this willingness. Findings reveal that awareness variables, including aquaculture knowledge, green consumer behavior, and MyGAP awareness, significantly influence WTP for MyGAP-compliant farmed fish. Over 73% of consumers expressed a willingness to pay a premium, reflecting favorable perceptions of MyGAP-compliant fish and a growing preference for high-quality, safe, and sustainable food. A labeling system to distinguish MyGAP-compliant products is crucial for justifying price differences and covering producers’ additional costs, such as pond renovations and adherence to quality input standards outlined in MyGAP guidelines. Public education on sustainable aquaculture, coupled with fair pricing strategies, effective MyGAP enforcement, and increased consumer awareness, can further encourage sustainable practices.

Keywords: Consumers’ Awareness; Consumers’ Perception; Willingness-to-Pay; MyGAP-Compliant Farmed Fish; Sustainable Aquaculture

---

References

[1] Boyd, C., Schmittou, H., 1999. Achievement of sustainable aquaculture through environmental management. Aquaculture Economics & Management. 3, 59–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13657309909380233

[2] FAO, 2011. Private standard and certification in fisheries and aquaculture: current practice and emerging issues. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 553, Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations.

[3] Vandergeest, P., 2007. Certification and communities: alternatives for regulating the environmental and social impacts of shrimp farming. World Development. 35, 1152–1171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.12.002

[4] MOA, 2020. MyGap Guidelines (in Malay). Ministry of Agriculture: Putrajaya, Malaysia.

[5] DOF, 2004. Malaysian Aquaculture Farm Certification Scheme (SPLAM). Department of Fisheries Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

[6] Kamaruddin, R., 2009. Aquaculture development in Kedah: analysis of economic, social and environmental impacts using sustainable livelihood approach [PhD thesis]. Selangor, Malaysia: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. pp. 1–320.

[7] Kamaruddin, R., Baharuddin, A.H., 2015. The importance of good aquaculture practices in improving fish farmer’s income. International Journal of Social Economics. 42, 1090–1105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-02-2014-0028

[8] Samah, R., Kamaruddin, R., 2015. The influence of socio-demographic factors in adopting good aquaculture practices: case of aquaculture farmers in Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Development. 8, 97–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v8n9p97

[9] Mustapha, N.H.N., Aziz, A.A., Hashim, N.M.H., 2013. Technical efficiency in aquaculture industry using data envelopment analysis (DEA) window: evidences from Malaysia. Journal of Sustainability Science and Management. 8(2), 137–149.

[10] Janssen, M., Hamm, U., 2012. Product labelling in the market for organic food: consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Quality and Preference. 25, 9–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.12.004

[11] Smetana, S., Melstrom, R.T., Malone, T., 2022. A meta-regression analysis of consumer willingness to pay for aquaculture products. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 54, 480–495. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2022.28

[12] Batte, M.T., Hooker, N.H., Haab, T.C., et al., 2007. Putting their money where their mouths are: consumer willingness to pay for multi-ingredient, processed organic food products. Food Policy. 32, 145–159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.05.003

[13] Lam, T.K., Heales, J., Hartley, N., et al., 2020. Consumer trust in food safety requires information transparency. Australasian Journal of Information Systems. 24, 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v24i0.2219

[14] Lagerkvist, C.J., Hess, S., Okello, J., et al., 2013. Food health risk perceptions among consumers, farmers, and traders of leafy vegetables in Nairobi. Food Policy. 38, 92–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.11.001

[15] Grunert, K.G., 2005. Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 32, 369–391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurrag/jbi011

[16] Hempel, C., Hamm, U., 2016. How important is local food to organic-minded consumers? Appetite. 96, 309–318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.036

[17] Thøgersen, J., Haugaard, P., Olesen, A., 2010. Consumer responses to ecolabels. European Journal of Marketing. 44, 1787–1810. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011079882

[18] Qu, R., Chen, J., Li, W., et al., 2023. Consumers’ preferences for apple production attributes: results of a choice experiment. Foods. 12, 1–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12091917

[19] Yadav, R., Pathak, G.S., 2016. Young consumers' intention towards buying green products in a developing nation: extending the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production. 135, 732–739. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.120

[20] Van Loo, E.J., Caputo, V., Nayga, R.M., et al., 2011. Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic chicken breast: evidence from choice experiment. Food Quality and Preference. 22, 603–613. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.02.003

[21] Wang, E., Gao, Z., Chen, X., 2022. Chinese consumer preference for processed food quality attributes and the impact of trust in information sources. British Food Journal. 124, 871–884. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2021-0041

[22] Saint-Eve, A., Irlinger, F., Pénicaud, C., et al., 2021. Consumer preferences for new fermented food products that mix animal and plant protein sources. Food Quality and Preference. 90, 104117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104117

[23] Le Gall-Ely, M., 2009. Definition, measurement and determinants of the consumer’s willingness to pay: a critical synthesis and avenues for further research. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition). 24, 91–111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/205157070902400205

[24] Alsubhi, M., Blake, M., Nguyen, T., et al., 2023. Consumer willingness to pay for healthier food products: A systematic review. Obesity Reviews. 24, 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13525

[25] Liu, C., Liu, X., Yao, L., et al., 2023. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for eco-labelled eggs: A discrete choice experiment from Chongqing in China. British Food Journal. 125, 1683–1697. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2021-1305

[26] de-Magistris, T., Gracia, A., 2016. Consumers' willingness to pay for light, organic and PDO cheese: an experimental auction approach. British Food Journal. 118, 560–571. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2015-0171

[27] Samah, R., Kamaruddin, R., 2015. The influence of socio-demographic factors in adopting good aquaculture practices: Case of aquaculture farmers in Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Development. 8, 97–105.

[28] Kamaruddin, R., Baharuddin, A.H., 2015. The importance of good aquaculture practices in improving fish farmer’s income: a case of Malaysia. International Journal of Social Economics. 42, 1090–1105.

[29] Tan, Q.L., Hashim, S., Abdullah, N.L., et al., 2025. Bibliometric insights into the impact of values on consumer sustainable environmental behavior: current trends and future directions. Sustainable Futures. 9, 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100582

[30] Mohamad, N.A., Kasan, N.A., Othman, R., et al., 2021. Impact of COVID-19 on aquaculture sector in Malaysia: findings from the first national survey. Aquaculture Reports. 19, 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2020.100568

[31] Sundram, L.K., Matthew, N.K., 2025. Klang consumer’s willingness to pay (WTP) for Malaysian Good Agricultural Practices (myGAP) certified vegetables. Sage Journals. 15, 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251318487

[32] Kamaruddin, R., Samah, R., Jan Jan, S., et al., 2023. Consumers’ preference and willingness-to-pay for GAqP-compliant farmed fish produce: evidence from Malaysia. Aquaculture. 568, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.739305

[33] Nasir, N.M., Alias, S., Rahim, A., 2021. Urban consumer perception and willingness to pay for antibiotic-free fish in Malaysia. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 45, 357–369.

[34] Goh, E.V., Azam-Ali, S., Mitra, S.R., et al., 2023. Consumer perception versus scientific evidence of farmed and wild fish: insights from Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Food and Energy. 11, 82–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36782/apjsafe.v11i2.226

[35] Caswell, J.A., Mojduszka, E.M., 1996. Using informational labeling to influence the market for quality in food products. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 78, 1248–1253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1243508

[36] Varian, H.R., 2010. Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach, 8th ed. W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA. pp. 1–500.

[37] Nicholson, W., Snyder, C., 2014. Microeconomic Theory: Basic Principles and Extensions, 11th ed. Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA. pp. 1–650.

[38] Lancaster, K.J., 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy. 74, 132–157.

[39] Schrobback, P., Zhang, A., Loechel, B., et al., 2023. Food credence attributes: a conceptual framework of supply chain stakeholders, their motives, and mechanisms to address information asymmetry. Foods. 12, 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12030538

[40] Ortega, D.L., Wang, H.H., Wu, L., et al., 2011. Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China. Food Policy. 36, 318–324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.030

[41] Zhang, L., Liu, Y., Wang, Y., 2025. Consumer willingness to pay for certified aquaculture products: evidence from urban China. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 48, 22–37.

[42] Mucha, M., 2024. The role of subjective knowledge in consumers’ sustainable food choices. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 23, 78–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2104

[43] Wibowo, A., 2024. Perceived behavioral control and label trust in predicting willingness to pay for certified foods in Southeast Asia. Food Quality and Preference. 110, 105953. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.105953

[44] Mashhad, M., 2022. Influence of socio-economic factors on consumer understanding of food labels. Journal of Food Policy and Health. 14, 88–96.

[45] Interis, M., Haab, T., 2014. Overheating willingness to pay: who gets warm glow and what it means for valuation. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 43, 266–278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.180418

[46] Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2022. Population and housing census. Ministry of Economy: Putrajaya, Malaysia.

[47] Krejcie, R.V., Morgan, D.W., 1970. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 30(3), 607–610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308

[48] Zander, K., Feucht, Y., 2017. Consumers’ willingness to pay for sustainable seafood made in Europe. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing. 30(3), 1–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2017.1413611

[49] Lusk, J.L., Schroeder, T.C., 2004. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 86(2), 467–482.

[50] Grunert, K.G., Hieke, S., Wills, J., 2014. Sustainability labels on food products: consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy. 44, 177–189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001

[51] Kallas, Z., Gil, J.M., 2012. A dual response choice experiments (DRCE) design to assess rabbit meat preference in Catalonia: a heteroscedastic extreme‐value model. British Food Journal. 114(10), 1394–1413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701211262984

[52] Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2019. Household expenditure survey report 2019. Available from: https://www.dosm.gov.my (cited 10 August 2021).

[53] Roberts, J.A., 1996. Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research. 36, 217–231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00150-6

[54] Nayga, R.M., Capps, O., 1994. Impact of socioeconomic and demographic factors on food away from home consumption: a tobit analysis. Journal of Consumer Affairs. 28(1), 53–70.

[55] Nguyen, M.H., Vu, H.V., Nguyen, T.L., 2019. Factors influencing consumer willingness to pay for safe vegetables in Vietnam. Sustainability. 11(15), 4143.

[56] Solgaard, H.S., Yingkui, Y., 2011. Consumers' perception of farmed fish and willingness to pay for fish welfare. British Food Journal. 113, 997–1010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701111153751

[57] Haghiri, M., 2014. An evaluation of consumers’ preferences for certified farmed Atlantic salmon. British Food Journal. 116(7), 1092–1105.

[58] Hjelmar, U., 2011. Consumers’ purchase of organic food products: a matter of convenience and reflexive practices. Appetite. 56, 336–344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.12.019

[59] Budak, F., Bostan, B.D., Kacira, O., et al., 2005. Turkish consumers' responses to organically farmed seafood. Journal of Applied Sciences. 5(7), 1192–1195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2005.1192.1195

[60] Teshome, B.T., 2019. Economic valuation of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in Lake Hawassa, southern Ethiopia. Academic Journal. 11(12), 225–238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5897/JAERD2019.1087

[61] Yi, S., 2019. Willingness-to-pay for sustainable aquaculture products: evidence from Korean red seabream aquaculture. Sustainability. 11(1577), 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061577

[62] Olesen, I., Alfnes, F., Røra, M.B., Kolstad, K., 2010. Eliciting consumers' willingness to pay for organic and welfare-labelled salmon in a non-hypothetical choice experiment. Livestock Science. 127(2–3), 218–226.

[63] Xuqi, X., Gao, Z., McFadden, B.R., 2020. Reveal preference reversal in consumer preference for sustainable food products. Food Quality and Preference. 79(103754), 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103754

[64] Mezgebo, A., Tessema, W., Asfaw, Z., 2013. Economic values of irrigation water in Wondo Genet district, Ethiopia: an application of contingent valuation method. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development. 4(2), 23–36.

[65] Mahirah, K., Khalid, A.R., Alias, R., et al., 2013. Consumer willingness to pay for domestic water services in Kelantan. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities. 21, 1–12.

[66] Vitale, S., Biondo, F., Giosuè, C., et al., 2020. Consumers’ perception and willingness to pay for eco-labeled seafood in Italian hypermarkets. Sustainability. 12(4), 1434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041434

[67] Kole, A., 2003. Consumer Opinions Towards Farmed Fish, Accounting for Relevance and Individual Knowledge. In: Luten, J.B., Oehlenschlager, J., Olafsdottir, A.S. (eds.). Quality of Fish from Catch to Consumer. Wageningen Academic Publisher: Wageningen, Netherlands. pp. 393–400.

[68] Brunsø, K., Verbeke, W., Olsen, S.O., et al., 2009. Motives, barriers and quality evaluation in fish consumption situations: exploring and comparing heavy and light users in Spain and Belgium. British Food Journal. 111(7), 699–716.

[69] Pieniak, Z., Aertsens, J., Verbeke, W., 2010. Subjective and objective knowledge as determinants of organic vegetables consumption. Food Quality and Preference. 21, 581–588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.03.004

[70] Pieniak, Z., Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., 2013. Consumer knowledge and use of information about fish and aquaculture. Food Policy. 40, 25–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.01.005

[71] Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Sioen, I., et al., 2007. Perceived importance of sustainability and ethics related to fish: a consumer behavior perspective. Ambio. 36, 580–585.