UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF SELECTIVE BREEDING PRACTICES IN RHODE ISLAND OYSTER AQUACULTURE

Selective breeding is a common practice within oyster aquaculture and is used to improve growth rates as well as reduce the negative impacts of water temperature rise, ocean acidification and disease among oysters. What is lesser understood is the public perception of the use of selective breeding in oyster aquaculture. A total of 81 Rhode Island residents responded online concerning how they perceived selective breeding in Rhode Island as well as what types of oysters they preferred. Multiple 5-point Likert scale questions and discrete choice experiments were used to better understand these perceptions. A majority of those who responded view selective breeding as positive for Aquaculture, Coastal Waters, Public Health and the Economy in Rhode Island. When given a choice of a selectively bred oyster product and a wild strain seed oyster product, respondents choose the less expensive option most of the time. However, when prices were the same, a majority of residents choose the local wild strain oyster product. These findings (coupled with relationships between perception and preference) suggest that price is the dominating factor in consumers decision making. Increasing outreach programs to educate the public on the benefits of selective breeding as well as making sure all product is priced competitively can ensure success for the industry.

v LIST OF TABLES  Seafood is a component of Rhode Island cultural identity. With increased concern for wild catch fisheries ability to provide a sustainable source of seafood to the industry, Rhode Island's aquaculture industry has risen to meet the challenge. Narraganset Bay alone, which produces approximately half of the state's aquaculture biomass has increased from a $300,000 industry to one valued over $1,500,000 in a 6-year period (2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007) 5 . These are incredible numbers and shows that aquaculture is growing very quickly. However, aquaculture is by no means a recent development for the state of Rhode Island. In fact, aquaculture can be traced back to Rhode Island's colonial roots.

1.A. HISTORY
It was during the 17 th century that Rhode Island was harvesting very large quantities of oysters from the bay. However, at the turn of the 18 th century, while many people did eat oyster meat for sustenance as well as taste, a large majority of oyster takings were for the lime in their shells. Some operations harvested oysters exclusively for their lime 6 . "The seemingly endless oyster beds of the 17 th century were being depleted at an alarming rate … and were harvested with wagons and oxcarts like vegetables 7 ." The oyster shells were "burned to produce lime" and the act caused lawmakers to question the practice 8 . In 1734, the Rhode Island Colonial assembly outlawed the practice of harvesting oysters solely for lime on the grounds of it being an unacceptable waste of oyster meat 9 and the growing fear of a total stock collapse 10 . By the 5 Byron C, Link J., Costa-Pierce, B., Bengtson, D., Calculating ecological carrying capacity of shellfish aquaculture using mass-balance modeling: Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, Ecological Modelling, May 2011, Pg. 1743 6 Rice, M.A., A BriefHistory of Oyster Aquaculture in Rhode Island, 2006, Pg. 24 7 Christopher L. Pastore, Between Land and Sea, 2012, Pg. 133 8 Christopher L. Pastore, Between Land and Sea, 2012, Pg. 133 9 Rice, M.A., A Brief History of Oyster Aquaculture in Rhode Island, 2006, Pg. 24 10 Christopher L. Pastore, Between Land and Sea, 2012, Pg. 151 1730s, "lime production had become an important industry in Rhode Island 11 ." It was integral in the production of mortar, plaster, used to tan leather, refine sugar, produce iron and more 12 . Despite the pushback, a ban on harvesting oysters for lime was put in place and not soon after in 1798, a law was enacted that mandated a seasonal closure of the oyster beds, along with the first lease 13 . The grantees did not pay for this lease, and the exclusion of public fishing from this area was a point of concern 14 for other local fisherfolk.
While this could be seen as the first "aquaculture" lease in the state's history, the industry would not begin to take shape for another 50 years.
With amendments in 1864 came a new era of aquaculture in Rhode Island. "The number of submerged lands leased for aquaculture peaked in 1911 at around 21,000 acres; roughly 20 percent of the Narraganset Bay 15 .
The industry was now considered to be worth multiple millions of dollars.
Some of the larger leases were valued at over $100,000. During this peak production period, over 1 million bushels of oysters were landed and over 1 million gallons of oyster meat was sold 16 . At this point, aquaculture was providing the state with a good amount of capital via selling leases, and the owners of said leases were making good money as well. This furthered the development of the state and its residents. 11 Christopher L. Pastore, Between Land andSea, 2012, Pg. 159 12 Christopher L. Pastore, Between Land andSea, 2012, Pg. 159 Rice, M.A., A Brief History of Oyster Aquaculture in Rhode Island, 2006, Pg. 27 In the 1920s, the effects of pollution in Narragansett bay became impossible to overlook. These pollutants included tar from the gas companies, heavy metals from factories and sewage from the recently completed providence city sewer system 17 . Metals and tar can settle on the bottom of the bay where the oyster beds lie and smother the organisms. Thus, leading to extremely poor yields. Pollution was not the only concern, however. With increasing interstate shellfish trading occurring at around this time, disease and illness associated with raw shellfish was of growing concern 18 . In addition, sewage would nutrient load the bay and lead to algae blooms. This in turn can lead to low oxygen levels near the bottom of the bay and choke out any organisms that live there, including oysters. A similar problem came from the deforestation of upland areas intended to be farmed 19 . The great depression which began in 1929 and the hurricane of 1938 also played a part in the decline of aquaculture in Rhode Island, when widespread destruction took out much of the industries infrastructure. An already declining industry was accelerated to a crash.  Rice, M.A., A Brief History of Oyster Aquaculture in Rhode Island, 2006, Pg. 33 resources for Rhode Islanders 21 ." Among these duties, they also receive and process aquaculture leases. Five years later, Luther Blount, a local businessman, revived his family oyster business by leasing two oyster ponds off Prudence Island 22 . The main focus of this aquaculture operation however was not for financial gain. It was instead to teach the public about the potential for restoring shellfish aquaculture to Rhode Island 23 . This strategy worked and new interest in aquaculture had begun. However, there were some issues pertaining to the leasing system. Many quahoggers voiced concern that these leases of public land were done without formal public hearings 24 . It would be some time before the awkward system got a revamp. In 1996, legislation passed that "streamlined the permitting process and established CRMC as the coordinating agency 25 ." After this, the industry boomed once more. As of today, the "farm gate value of aquaculture products for consumption is $5,744,506 26 ." Rhode Island's aquaculture has had periods of major upheaval in the past, and today we are yet again facing new challenges to the industry. With so many threats to the future sustainability of aquaculture, various methods to mitigate these issues have been explored. One of the most promising ways to address most of these issues is the idea of selective breeding.

1.C. SELECTIVE BREEDING and PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The oyster species grown in Rhode Island is Crassostrea virginica, or the eastern oyster. This is the oyster that aquaculture farms all across Rhode Island grow and sell. Based on the area grown and methods of growth, these oysters can boast unique tastes. These oyster stocks are obtained from either an onsite hatchery or purchased from such a facility along the east coast to be grown into adult oysters and can vary based on the parent oyster stocks. This process can be altered through selective breeding.
Selectively breeding organisms for aquaculture is exactly as it sounds.
Taking two parent organisms with desired traits or phenotypes and reproducing offspring with these traits. "One of the first documented selection experiments for fish started as early as in 1919" and now, large scale "family breeding programs are now established as the industry standard for genetic improvement 33 ".
What is less understood about this process is how the public views selective breeding in the aquaculture industry. Public perception is a key aspect of any project that takes place in the public eye or has any impact on a population 34 . Understanding public perception of the topic will likely be key when implementing any sort of selective breeding operation or project in Rhode Island. Currently, there is a lack of understanding surrounding public perception of selective breeding in the aquaculture Industry.
Research into public perception is "required in order to anticipate and address future issues in a timely manner 35 . This research aims to answer the primary question of; what are Rhode Islanders' perceptions of selective breeding in local aquaculture operations? Aquaculture is an important industry in Rhode Island, so it is possible that a majority of people have a favorable view of the practice. In addition, we also want to see if It is possible that Individuals with more expertise on aquaculture practices have a more positive view of aquaculture 36 . Do individuals with higher education also have a more positive perception? It is also possible that people who do not consume shellfish hold a more negative view of selective breeding or aquaculture. In general, they miss out on some of the benefits that selective breeding provides. In addition to these perception questions, we are also interested in consumer preferences regarding selective breeding. Some studies show the public generally prefers wild products over farmed products. 37 We would like to extend this sentiment to this study and find out if Rhode Islanders prefer wild seed farmed oysters over selectively bred farmed oysters and why this may or may not have connections to an individual's perception of selective breeding. This is important because despite how consumers perceive selective breeding, if their perception is not reflected in purchasing behavior, future selectively bred stocks may not financially succeed.
The purpose for answering these questions is to better perceive the success of future large scale selective breeding programs in Rhode Island.
While selective breeding already exists in Rhode Island, a majority is done at the local or farm level and large scale regional selective breeding programs are still for test and scientific purposes, rather than producing large quantities of oysters for sales. The information could also explain consumer behavior when encountering some of these products at a restaurant or at a market. This can inform farm owners, policy makers, marketers and scientists on what purchasing behaviors state residents could make when comparing future oyster types.
The following section will take a closer look at selective breeding and go over studies that have looked into its effectiveness. It will also highlight studies that have dealt with consumer preferences and biotechnology. Following, the methodology section will outline the process of creating and administering the surveys. The Results chapter will outline key findings and the discussion chapter will connect these findings to our research questions.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Selective breeding is the process of artificially selecting two "parents" with beneficial or desirable phenotype traits to reproduce and yield offspring with the desired traits 38 such as growth speed, size and disease resistance. In order for selective breeding to be effective, a few factors must be present.
First, there must be genetic variation present in the population 39 . Second, "a way of identifying individuals for selection that are likely to transmit the desired properties to the descendants, and third, sufficient spare reproductive capacity so that the population can be bred from only the chosen individuals 40 ." In general, for many aquaculture species, the captive and structured style of aquaculture facilities along with the "high fecundity and short generation intervals 41 " make it feasible to preform selective breeding at scales that can address sustainability issues in the industry. These factors along with a relatively high heritability's rate can lead to high trait transferals among the population in many aquaculture breeding programs, up to 12.5% genetic gain per generation average 42 . It is also important to understand that this is a longterm solution that takes time. While many aquaculture stocks have relatively short generational intervals, these can still be as long as three to five years depending on the species. It will also likely take a few generational intervals to see the desired trait spread across a population.
In the case of this study, we are looking at selective breeding as it pertains Another is using selective breeding as a method to cultivate oysters that are resilient to the adverse effects of ocean acidification 46 and warming waters. Such technology would be valuable to Rhode Island's aquaculture industry, but little is understood when it comes to public perception of the matter.
It is important to understand public perception. Understanding can increase the success of current and future projects, risk communication and public awareness 47 . If public perception is ignored however, it "may result in the failure of technically good innovations 48 ." This is especially true when it comes to selective breeding and other biotechnologies or genetic engineering.
It should be noted when talking about biotechnology that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and selective breeding are different. The USDA defines selective breeding as "Making deliberate crosses or mating of organisms so the offspring will have particular desired characteristics derived from one or both of the parents 49 ", and GMOs as "an organism produced through genetic modification. 50 " Selective breeding can modify organisms, but not in the same way that GMOs can. Selective breeding does not change any of the genetic makeup of the organism, but rather highlights traits that are already found in nature. In addition, the domestication distance from a selectively bred oyster and a "wild" eastern oyster is quite small. This means that wild eastern oysters and selectively bred eastern oysters are extremely similar to one another. While biotechnology can play a role in selective breeding, it can be done without it as well.
Current literature shows that a majority of the public view biotechnology as risky 51 . In addition, the majority of the public "lacks knowledge of the aquaculture production processes and in spite of that lack of knowledge, those respondents hold a rather negative view of aquaculture 52 ." Past research has shown that the public can separate wild vs farmed fish when the information is provided and choose accordingly. More often than not, they choose wild fish 53 .In addition, past studies have conducted similar research involving public perception of GMOs 54 , and ecolabeling farmed seafood 55 , but not the more popular selective breeding.

3.A. DATA COLLECTION METHODS
In order to accurately assess the perceptions of Rhode Island residents, it was decided that a questionnaire survey administered and circulated online would be the best option. Surveys are a "widely used social research method that collects data about people 56 " and fits within the needs of this research.
Some of the benefits of using this type of model include a straightforward approach to the study, flexibility and adaptability, and high amounts of data standardization 57 . This research was conducted in accordance with URI IRB processes and requirements. The entire survey is available in the appendix.

3.B. SURVEY BUILDING and CONTENTS
Because selective breeding practices in aquaculture are a specific topic and many individuals might not have heard of the practice, there is a short description included in the survey before any questions about selective breeding appear. This description is as follows and is focused on selective breeding in Rhode Island aquaculture; "Selectively breeding oysters is a process where experts can breed oysters with useful but rare traits, so that they become more common across the population. Selectively bred oysters are found to have increased resistance to environmental pressures such as disease (Calvo et al. 2003). Selectively breeding oysters does not impact the Beyond this, a discrete choice experiment method was used to assess respondents' preferences of selectively bred and wild oyster products. A choice experiment is a type of contingent valuation stated preference technique, but with advantages over some willingness to pay techniques 61 .
Other direct stated preference methods such as customer surveys simply ask respondents what price they would be willing to pay for a product. This can cause customers to be unnaturally focused on price and provide misleading data 62 . In addition, respondents stated willingness to pay doesn't always translate into actual purchasing behaviors 63 . By asking respondents to choose between two products with varying attributes including price, we mitigate some of these biases.
We created three sets of oyster products with differing attributes. These attributes were price and wild / selectively bred seed. The respondents were then asked to choose one of the two options ( Figure 1).

Figure 1: Choice Experiment Images
In the first choice, the selectively bred oyster is the same price as the local wild strain counterpart, in the second, the selectively bred oyster is more expensive than its counterpart, and in the third and final choice, the wild strain 62  oyster is most expensive. The order of the choices is randomized for each respondent to cut down on biases. It is disclosed that both types of oysters are found at the same restaurant and farmed at the same facilities. This is to show that factors such as water quality and farming practices are the same, and that the only difference between the products are the two aforementioned attributes. A consumer would not be able to tell the difference between a selectively bred oyster and a local wild strain oyster by taste or sight, and it is unlikely this distinction would be made on a menu. It is still important to understand consumer preference as it directly relates to consumer perception and the success of any future widespread selective breeding programs in the state.

The main statistical analysis performed was crosstabulations along with
Freeman-Halton's extension of Fishers exact probability test to determine statistically significant relationships between variables found in the data. These tests determine how many different combinations of frequencies within the variable can be achieved, and then determine the probability that the cell configurations can be obtained by chance 64 . Fisher's test was also used due to its increased accuracy with small sample sizes 65 . The Freeman-Halton's extension was utilized because many of the variables used had more than two categories, resulting in three-by-three tables. We then compare column proportions so that we can find out what variables are in relation to others in each individual crosstabulation. We use the Bonferroni method along with this to adjust p values because of the increased risk of type one errors when making multiple statistic tests 66 . This is done by multiplying raw p values by the number of tests done 67 . These cross tabulations were used for Likert scale perception questions, key demographics, choice experiments and finally New Environmental Paradigm scale questions.
In addition to demographic questions and questions that ask the respondents some basic questions about their shellfish eating habits, the survey also has a set of NEP scale questions. This is a test that asks a set of questions that will offer insight on how environmentally conscious an individual is or not. There are many different forms of NEP scales. For this study, we used the 15-item set NEP that was self-reported via the questionnaire. The answers were measured using a 5-point Likert scale with an additional 6 th slot reading "I don't know" for those who felt unable to answer. This format (besides the 6 th Likert scale option) is optimal for data analysis 68 . This along with other demographic information is useful to test against the choice experiments and perception questions to get a picture of selective breeding perceptions in Rhode Island.
After the initial survey was drafted, one round of focus groups was conducted. Information of the time, date, and content for the focus group was circulated in university media as well as outside the university. Four participants took place. Despite the low turnout, the focus group offered some 66    The survey also includes descriptor data that takes place before the perception and choice experiment questions. These are used later in the analysis to test for relationships between these descriptors and perception.
Three major descriptor questions are as follows in and not a test we administered to determine their familiarity. shown in tables 4 and 5. The mean NEP score is 3.7. When broken down into High or Low scores, (High being anything above 3 which is neutral, and low being anything at 3 or below) we can see that 90% of the sample population falls in the high category.  Rhode Island's oyster aquaculture, coastal waters, public health and economy.
These are answered via a 5-point Likert scale (with the addition of an unsure option) to gauge respondents' perceptions as extremely beneficial, beneficial, no effect, detrimental or extremely detrimental. The results are shown in Table   6 and figure 3.
The data shows that in every question, a majority (over 50%) of the sample population views selective breeding as having a positive (either beneficial or extremely beneficial) effect on each of the four areas in question.
The highest of these being selective breeding's impact on Rhode Island's economy at 85.2% positive. The highest negative impact (responses noted as either detrimental or extremely detrimental) area we saw was in regard to selective breeding's impact on Rhode Island's coastal waters. That being said, this was only 6.2% of the sample population. The highest area that responders believed that selective breeding had no effect on was Rhode Island's public health at 23.5% of the sample population.  There is a statistically significant difference (p=.043) between respondents who were either unsure or thought Selective Breeding had no effect on RI Oyster Aquaculture, and if they were either democrat or republican (Table 7).
Statistically more unsure respondents were republican than were democrat.   Table 9 and figure 4 shows the results of the choice experiment section of the survey. As stated above, the respondents were asked to choose between two oyster products 3 separate times. The only difference in attributes between the two options were price and if the oyster was selectively bred or a wild strain. In one of the choices the prices are the same.

4.C. CHOICE EXPERIMENT RESPONSE DATA (Conjoint Analysis)
In the two choice experiments where the prices are different, a majority of the respondents chose the cheaper oyster product regardless of whether it was a selectively bred seed or a local wild seed. When the two prices were the same, more people chose to purchase the local wild strain oyster product. This example also had the lowest margin between the two oyster products at 11.1%. This data shows that price is an important factor in determining people's choice of oyster products. That being said, there are also other factors that help determine people's preferences to the products. The following significant relationships were found using the same Freeman-Halton's extension of Fishers exact probability test as described above.  There is a statistical difference in the number of respondents who chose selectively bred oyster products or local wild strain oyster products when they also were unsure about selective breeding's effect on Rhode Island oyster aquaculture. If they were unsure, they more often chose the local wild seed product.  (Table 12). More respondents who noted positive impacts were more likely to purchase the selectively bred product, and more respondents who noted unsure chose the local wild product. noted an unsure or no effect for selective breeding's impact on Rhode Island's economy (Table 13). More respondents who were unsure about the effect chose the local wild option over the selectively bred option.

Table 14: Consumer Preferences in Relation to Selective Breeding's Impacts on Rhode Island's Public Health When the Selectively Bred Option was More Expensive
There were also statistically significant relationships ( Figure 3). Positive can be categorized by selective breeding being either beneficial or highly beneficial to these aspects. This shows that a majority perceive selective breeding in Rhode Island aquaculture as a good thing. We also looked at relationships between perception and other demographic and descriptive variables to see if there was some sort of profile that would help inform aquaculture professionals on subsets of the population that view selective breeding a certain way. The only relationships found were among political party affiliation and familiarity with selective breeding in oyster aquaculture. More respondents who were somewhat familiar with selective breeding viewed it as positive, over respondents who were not familiar (Table   8). In addition, a statistically significant difference was found in the number of democrats who were unsure about selective breeding's impacts in Rhode Island's oyster aquaculture and republicans who were also unsure (Table 7). 72 Richards, D.J., Frosch R.A., The Industrial Green Game: Overview and Perspectives, 1997, Pg. 28-89 This difference while statistically significant, was minor. These are the only two statistically significant relationships between the four perception questions and the ten demographic/descriptive variables. a local wild strain oyster over a selectively bred one (Table 9, Figure 4). When prices are not equal, people will choose the cheaper option at a greater difference than when the prices are equal (Table 9). This information supports some of our hypothesis. We hypothesized that the general public would prefer wild products over farmed products. Our study speaks to this a bit differently because both products in our choice experiment have been farmed, but the sentiment of a "wilder" product over a cultivated one is shown through the firstchoice experiment (Table 9).
We have already determined that price is a major factor in determining  This coupled with the majority of respondents choosing the cheaper of the two oyster products in the second and third choice experiment (Table 9,   In reviewing relevant literature, we came across studies that concluded that in some cases, the public views GMOs as risky 74 . In our study, we can conclude that a majority of our sample does not find selective breeding in Rhode Island risky, but rather beneficial (Table 6). This might suggest that our sample can distinguish selective breeding from GMOs or similar biotechnology. In addition, some studies concluded that the public lacks knowledge of the aquaculture process and in spite of that, those people hold a negative view of aquaculture 75 . In this study, we found that over 50% of the sample population stated they believed they were familiar or somewhat familiar with selective breeding in regard to oyster aquaculture. It is difficult to say if all of these responses are accurate in this, but regardless, the data shows that our population views selective breeding in oyster aquaculture as positive.

5.A. LIMITATIONS
It should be understood that for various reasons, definitive conclusions should not be made, and more data collection is necessary before such conclusions can be made. These reasons will be outlined in detail below.
Because the sample size is lower than the proper representative sample, there are a few options in how the data can be interpreted. One option is to treat this sample as a self-selective sample. This would mean that out of the thousands who had the availability to take this survey, our respondents felt strongly enough about the subject that they chose to participate. They are also likely the people who would end up impacting aquaculture policy or programs in the area. Self-selection samples often come with some level of selfselection bias and can lead to bias results. They can, however, offer an accurate look into how an invested portion of the effected population can act.
Another option is to look at this data as a case study. Collecting data about multiple cases (our responders' perception of selective breeding in Rhode Island aquaculture) helps us better understand the overall phenomenon in question 76 .
Rhode Island has a population of just over 1,000,000 people, so 81 responses is certainly not a representative sample. We were attempting to reach 300 responses. In addition, there were some issues with our sampling methods. For starters, the areas that we got responses from are by and large more suburban or rural areas of the state. We did not gather information from the more urbanized areas in Rhode Island such as Cranston, Pawtucket or 76 Heale R, Twycross A. What is a case study? Evidence-Based Nursing, 2018, Pg. 7-8 Providence. This was not due to lack of trying. Community groups in these areas were contacted, but either did not want a survey such as this posted or did not respond at all. Another issue is with the medium that we used to circulate surveys. By primarily using Facebook community groups, we only received feedback from individuals who have access or an interest in these groups. This is backed up in our demographic data. Once again this is not without effort. Different listservs and community groups on other mediums were contacted for circulation, but nothing came from it.
Another limitation that should be addressed has to do with the respondents understanding of what is defined as a wild oyster, a selectively Another area that should be addressed is the respondent's familiarity with selective breeding. In the survey, before the short description of selective breeding, respondents were asked if they were familiar with selective breeding. They were to answer yes, somewhat or no. There were no controls for this section and all statements were self-reported. This sort of selfassessment can be dangerous as it invokes a Dunning-Kruger effect. This is essentially where a person with little knowledge of a subject believes they are very knowledgeable 77 . This can make an impact on this study, as relationships within the data pertaining to familiarity may show respondents believed familiarity over their actual familiarity. Either would be useful as data, but without some sort of control, we cannot say for certain which we are looking at.

5.B. COVID-19 IMPACT STATEMENT
It is important to remember that this study was done during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic with no funding available. It is quite possible that our low number of responses was in part due to people being too preoccupied to respond to a survey such as this. It is also worth noting that oysters for many is considered a luxury good. With the global pandemic, many people have made cuts to their budgets and luxury good such as oysters are no longer prioritized. This would affect our choice experiment data. It is difficult to say 77 Kruger, Dunning, Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing Ones Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self Assessments, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1990Pg. 1121-1134 what effect and what extent this may have had, and more data would be required to confirm these effects.

5.C. RECOMMENDED FUTURE RESEARCH
First and foremost, all of the limitations described in the previous selection should be accounted for before continuing a similar study. This research offers valuable information, but with such a small sample size it can be difficult to make more impactful conclusions. If a similar study were to be done, getting a larger sample size over a wider area would be incredibly useful. As it stands, most of the respondents in this survey are shellfish eaters.
It would be interesting to see a greater mix of shellfish eaters and non-shellfish eaters' perceptions.
This study could also be expanded to other aquaculture areas other than oyster aquaculture. Possibly doing a similar study focusing on the selective breeding of a product that is not already widely selectively bred would hold a greater amount of relevant information.

CONCLUSION
Aquaculture is an important industry in Rhode Island. Our states history is rich with the practice, it holds a value of over $6 million as of 2019  done at the farm level or purchased from a separate private hatchery. There are some larger regional programs 85 , but these are done primarily for research purposes and not for the circulation of seed for product. This research also displays consumer behavior when it comes to selectively bred oysters vs "wild" seed oysters as they are encountered at a restaurant or market. This information could be extended into decisions about labeling selectively bred oyster product and what types of consumer behavior could come from that.
Our results show that a sample of Rhode Islanders already view selective breeding in oyster aquaculture as beneficial which bodes well for future aquaculture practices. After asking about selective breeding's impact on Rhode Island's oyster aquaculture, coastal waters, public health, and economy, over 50% of respondents felt it had a positive impact in all four categories with some as high as 85% positivity (Table 6). However, when given the choice between a selectively bred oyster product and a local wild strain oyster product (both farmed), when prices are the same a majority of individuals opted for the wild seed which can be more susceptible to diseases depending on the situation. Consumers showing preference to a product that is easily susceptible to disease over a product that is resistant could be problematic for the future Rhode Island aquaculture industry. The research points out that an individual's familiarity with selective breeding impacts their choice. In addition, relationships were found between perception questions and choosing between two oyster products of the same price (Tables 11,12,and 13). This points to the conclusion that informing the public about the benefits of selectively bred oysters can impact the decisions of individuals.
When prices are not the same however, the majority of individuals chose the cheaper option (Table 9). The study concludes price is the driving factor when the consumer is judging these two products when prices were different.

Increasing public awareness of the benefits of selective breeding in Rhode
Island oyster aquaculture as well as lowering prices of selectively bred stock can better prepare Rhode Island for future environmental issues.
Understanding this information can better prepare Rhode Island's aquaculture industry for future challenges and successes and improve existing selective breeding programs by offering insight into public perception. All of the information that you disclose in this survey will be kept completely anonymous and will only be used for this research. In addition, you may choose to not answer any question or withdraw from the survey at any time. You may also request your information to be destroyed at any time. If you have any question or comments please feel free to contact: Richard Burroughs: Principal Investigator, at 401-874-4045 or rburroughs@uri.edu Nathan Brown: Secondary Investigator, at (401)-787-1130 or nathan_brown@uri.edu If you would like to keep a copy of this document for your records, please print or save this page now. You may also contact the researcher to request a copy. By clicking below to be taken to the survey, you indicate that you have read and understood the above and volunteer to participate in this study.

Start of Block: Selective Breeding in Oyster Aquaculture
Q28 Selective Breeding in Oyster Aquaculture: The following section will provide information on selective breeding in aquaculture as well as ask questions about the subject.
Q14 Are you familiar with selective breeding in oyster aquaculture? (3) Page Break Q16 Selectively breeding oysters is a process where experts can breed oysters with useful but rare traits, so that they become more common across the population. Selectively bred oysters are found to have increased resistance to environmental pressures such as disease (Calvo et al. 2003 Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Unsure (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. (1