3.7 Household consumers

Family household characteristics and effects on fish consumption

The total population of Viet Nam is around 80 million (2002) and the total number of family households is estimated at about 17 million. According to a census by GSO in October 2001, the total number of rural households was 13 909 million, and the total rural population was more than 62 315 million, accounting for about 77 percent of the total population. This means that the majority of consumers are presently living in rural areas.

Regarding the ethnological and religious aspects, the survey shows that there was no barrier or constraint to fish consumption (Table 43). The majority of the population belong to the Kinh ethnic majority and the Buddhist religion or undeclared religion as presented in Table 44. All of these aspects provide a good basis for fish consumption by the population.

TABLE 43
Religious groups of respondents by regions

TABLE 44
Ethnic groups of respondents by region

The fish consumption survey was carried out in various geographical areas in order to gather representative results for different patterns of fish consumption, therefore, sub samples were drawn from both rural and urban areas, but specific attention was paid to urban areas. Table 45 presents the distribution of family households surveyed by locations; 57 percent of the household respondents were located in cities or urban areas, the remaining in suburban and rural communities.

TABLE 45
Residential areas of the respondents by region

Types of occupation or income sources of family households varied. In general, household labourers may engage in any occupation ranging from primary production to the tertiary sector. Table 46 shows that the just over half (53 percent) of rural households work in the agriculture sector, some (6 percent) engaged in aquaculture or capture fisheries, however, this distribution did not affect the pattern of fish consumption. Notably, the majority (91 percent) of households in urban areas live on income from wage labour, trading and services, or salary from the government. The fish consumption pattern of this group was mostly based on market supply and fishery products are preferred.

TABLE 46
Main income sources of family households by residential areas

Examining the average income of groups of consumers Table 47 shows that the average income of urban consumers was significantly higher than that of the rural consumers. This indicates that the urban consumer has greater purchasing power than the rural consumer. Thus, targeting of urban consumers and responding to their increasing demand constitutes a priority for a market development strategy.

TABLE 47
Per capita income of consumers

By using the World Bank poverty line to classify a population based on the average income, it was found that rural consumers are below the poverty line, while those in suburban and urban areas are above the poverty line. This again confirms the higher purchasing power of urban consumers.

Fish consumption patterns

· Eating habits of consumers

The household was perceived as the basic unit of consumption, in which most of the family members have meals at home. In Viet Nam, people usually have three meals daily: breakfast, lunch and dinner. Table 48 shows that more than 95 percent of the family members had dinner at home, the figures for lunch and breakfast were slightly lower. However, dinner was the main meal of the day, while, dinner and lunch represent the main consumption pattern in the household.

TABLE 48
Number of family member having meals at home by areas of residence

In addition to having meals at home, the respondents may have meals elsewhere. Table 49 shows that 34 percent of the respondents often go to popular restaurants for eating, less than 20 percent reported visiting restaurants or canteens for meals. The table also shows that the majority of respondents who often went out for meals were those living in cities or urban areas, while below 10 percent of rural respondents did so.

TABLE 49
Frequency and place of eating-out by areas of residence

When eating out, the most frequent meal eaten was breakfast, then dinner and lunch. Table 50 shows that 26 percent of the respondents in cities reported that they ate out for lunch more than 22 days per month out for lunch; this coincides with the 22 working days per month. For dinner, more than 90 percent of the respondents indicated eating out for dinner on less than 10 days per month. Dinner was generally perceived as an important event when family members interact with one another after working hours. Fish was an important part of lunch. Of the average monthly lunch eaten out (12 meals/month), 65 percent (8 meals/month) were served with fish products. Similarly for dinner meals 76 percent were served with fish products (Table 52). This indicates that fish is more accepted in important events like dinner.

TABLE 50
Frequency of having lunch outside per month by customers by areas of residence

TABLE 51
Frequency of having dinner outside per month by customers by areas of residence

TABLE 52
Frequency of fish meals when eating-out

· Consumer preferences for fishery products

The majority (80 percent) of consumers like to eat fish irrespective of location or residential living area of consumers. Less than 20 percent seemed to be neutral to fish, while only a few respondents said that they did not like fish (Table 53).

TABLE 53
Consumers opinions on fish products by areas of residence

There are a variety of reasons why people enjoy eating fish, e.g. the benefits may be seen as economic, nutritional or related to health (Table 54). Nutrition was perceived as the dominant benefit of eating fish as reported by half of the respondents. Ease of digestion, cheapness and safety of the product were the other main benefits indicated. The cheapness of the product was a benefit considered to be one of the more important reasons for fish consumption reported by rural consumers, perhaps because of income limitation in rural areas.

TABLE 54
Benefits of fish products perceived by customers by areas of residence

Around 20 percent of the respondents said that within their family there was often a person not enjoying eating fish (Table 55), mostly children. Probably, children dislike fish bones and smell.

TABLE 55
Family members that dislike eating fish by areas of residence

Besides fish, consumers may eat various kinds of meat such as, beef, pork and chicken. A comparison of fish consumption with meat was presented in Table 56. In general, many benefits of consuming fish products were clearly perceived. Prices of fish products were seen as equal or lower than those of other meats. Nutritional value, taste and safety, of fish were rated higher than other meats. The availability, freshness, ease of cooking and diversity of the products were also perceived as higher than for meat. However, a weakness of fish was seen in the higher degree of perishability. Therefore, it was necessary to pay attention to the preservation of fish products to better respond to consumer requirements.

TABLE 56
Benefits of fish products compared to other common kinds of meat