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. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    10. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    11. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    12. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    13. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    14. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    15. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    16. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    17. Liu, Ruifeng & ,, 2021. "What We Can Learn from the Interactions of Food Traceable Attributes? a Case Study of Fuji Apple in China," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315916, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    19. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    20. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.

    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.