IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i6p2530-d1359898.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Preference for Fisheries Improvement Project: Case of Bigeye Tuna in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Hiroki Wakamatsu

    (Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 3-1-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda, Tokyo 100-0013, Japan)

  • Yuki Maruyama

    (Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 3-1-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda, Tokyo 100-0013, Japan)

Abstract

In recent years, demand for sustainable fisheries certification, also known as seafood ecolabeling, has grown worldwide, with retailers actively promoting ecolabeled seafood, mainly in Europe and the United States. However, the costs associated with assessment and maintenance are typically incurred before certification, and the potential benefits are uncertain, which deters many fisheries from entering the certification process. The Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) is a market-driven mechanism that allows a fishery to gain recognition for its sustainable management efforts aimed at achieving sustainable certification. Market differentiation of FIP-participating fisheries from conventional fisheries has the potential to generate additional benefits that may offset some of the certification costs. However, successful differentiation efforts require consumer awareness, willingness to pay a premium, and effective communication strategies. This study investigates consumer preferences for bigeye tuna sashimi in Japan using a discrete choice experiment to determine if Japanese consumers are willing to pay a price premium for FIP-participating fisheries. The analysis resulted in a significant price premium for FIP and domestic certification valued more than international brands. These findings suggest that FIP-participating fisheries have the potential for cost recovery, even during the certification process.

Suggested Citation

  • Hiroki Wakamatsu & Yuki Maruyama, 2024. "Consumer Preference for Fisheries Improvement Project: Case of Bigeye Tuna in Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-11, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:6:p:2530-:d:1359898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2530/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2530/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cathy A. Roheim & Frank Asche & Julie Insignares Santos, 2011. "The Elusive Price Premium for Ecolabelled Products: Evidence from Seafood in the UK Market," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 655-668, September.
    2. Stevens, Thomas H., 2005. "Can Stated Preference Valuations Help Improve Environmental Decision Making?," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 20(3), pages 1-5.
    3. Mandy Ryan & Nicolas Krucien & Frouke Hermens, 2018. "The eyes have it: Using eye tracking to inform information processing strategies in multi‐attributes choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 709-721, April.
    4. McFadden, Daniel, 1980. "Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice among Products," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 13-29, July.
    5. James Murphy & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Hypothetical Bias in a Provision Point Mechanism?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 327-343, March.
    6. Sogn-Grundvåg, Geir & Larsen, Thomas A. & Young, James A., 2013. "The value of line-caught and other attributes: An exploration of price premiums for chilled fish in UK supermarkets," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 41-44.
    7. Stephen K. Swallow & Thomas Weaver & James J. Opaluch & Thomas S. Michelman, 1994. "Heterogeneous Preferences and Aggregation in Environmental Policy Analysis: A Landfill Siting Case," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(3), pages 431-443.
    8. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    9. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    10. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    11. Johan Blomquist & Valerio Bartolino & Staffan Waldo, 2015. "Price Premiums for Providing Eco‐labelled Seafood: Evidence from MSC‐certified Cod in Sweden," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 690-704, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Domenico Carlucci & Biagia De Devitiis & Gianluca Nardone & Fabio Gaetano Santeramo, 2017. "Certification Labels Versus Convenience Formats: What Drives the Market in Aquaculture Products?," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(3), pages 295-310.
    2. Carlucci, Domenico & Dedevitiis, Biagia & Nardone, Gianluca & Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano, 2016. "Certification Labels Vs Convenience Formats: What drives the market in aquaculture products?," MPRA Paper 75448, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. James Hilger & Eric Hallstein & Andrew W. Stevens & Sofia B. Villas-Boas, 2019. "Measuring Willingness to Pay for Environmental Attributes in Seafood," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(1), pages 307-332, May.
    4. Chen, Xianwen & Alfnes, Frode & Rickertsen, Kyrre, 2014. "Consumer Preferences, Ecolabels, and the Effects of Negative Environmental Information," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 168094, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Johannes Geyer & Thorben Korfhage, 2015. "Long‐term Care Insurance and Carers' Labor Supply – A Structural Model," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1178-1191, September.
    6. Wakamatsu, Mihoko & Shin, Kong Joo & Wilson, Clevo & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Exploring a Gap between Australia and Japan in the Economic Valuation of Whale Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 397-407.
    7. Chhandita Das & Christopher M. Anderson & Stephen K. Swallow, 2009. "Estimating Distributions of Willingness to Pay for Heterogeneous Populations," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 593-610, January.
    8. Hanna Ihli & Ronja Seegers & Etti Winter & Brian Chiputwa & Anja Gassner, 2022. "Preferences for tree fruit market attributes among smallholder farmers in Eastern Rwanda," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(1), pages 5-21, January.
    9. Zhang, Tong & Hu, Wuyang & Zhu, Zhanguo & Penn, Jerrod, 2023. "Consumer preference for food products addressing multiple dimensions of poverty: Evidence from China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    10. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    11. Bronnmann, Julia & Asche, Frank, 2017. "Sustainable Seafood From Aquaculture and Wild Fisheries: Insights From a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 113-119.
    12. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    13. Ingrid van Putten & Catherine Longo & Ashleigh Arton & Matt Watson & Christopher M Anderson & Amber Himes-Cornell & Clara Obregón & Lucy Robinson & Tatiana van Steveninck, 2020. "Shifting focus: The impacts of sustainable seafood certification," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-24, May.
    14. Heng, Yan & Lu, Chao-Lin & Yu, Luqing & Gao, Zhifeng, 2020. "The heterogeneous preferences for solar energy policies among US households," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    15. Janmaat, Johannus & Geleta, Solomon & Loomis, John, 2019. "Detecting social network effects on willingness to pay for environmental improvements using egocentric network measures," MPRA Paper 96675, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Hirotsugu Uchida & Cathy A. Roheim & Robert J. Johnston, 2017. "Balancing the Health Risks and Benefits of Seafood: How Does Available Guidance Affect Consumer Choices?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1056-1077.
    17. Roheim, Cathy A. & Zhang, Dengjun, 2018. "Sustainability certification and product substitutability: Evidence from the seafood market," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 92-100.
    18. Mónica Pérez-Ramírez & Marco A. Almendarez-Hernández & Gerzaín Avilés-Polanco & Luis F. Beltrán-Morales, 2015. "Consumer Acceptance of Eco-Labeled Fish: A Mexican Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-18, April.
    19. Hole, Arne Risa, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1078-1094, July.
    20. Ankamah-Yeboah, Isaac & Nielsen, Max & Nielsen, Rasmus, 2016. "Price premium of organic salmon in Danish retail sale," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 54-60.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:6:p:2530-:d:1359898. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.