IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/epolit/v33y2016i3d10.1007_s40888-016-0041-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fisheries, fish pollution and biodiversity: choice experiments with fishermen, traders and consumers

Author

Listed:
  • Camilo Andres Garzon

    (Universidad de los Andes)

  • Maria Catalina Rey

    (Universidad de los Andes Bogotá)

  • Paula Juliana Sarmiento

    (Universidad de los Andes)

  • Juan Camilo Cardenas

    (Universidad de los Andes)

Abstract

The increasing rates of per capita consumption of fish around the world should be a matter of concern for those interested in the threats to fishing stocks, aquatic biodiversity and human health. Fish consumption has positive health benefits but also brings higher risks of intake of heavy metals for humans. This increase in the demand for fish products has also been accompanied with fishing practices that threaten biodiversity. This article aims at evaluating from an economic perspective how important are these health and biodiversity components for those in the fish value chain, from fishermen to final consumers, using an experimental approach to estimate, through conjoint valuation techniques, the economic value of these aspects in the decision making of these agents. We find that final consumers place a significant economic value to the reduction of exposure to mercury contamination in fish; we also show that consumers respond positively to an education campaign showing the effects of mercury contained in fish, and that this money value could be used to create campaigns that transmit better price signals throughout the chain value. On the other extreme, the fishermen, we find that they place a positive economic value in a reduction of contamination in their fish as well, which could be aligned with the results for consumers, creating opportunities for Pareto improving measures in the regulations and prices which could translate into lower demand for more contaminated fish.

Suggested Citation

  • Camilo Andres Garzon & Maria Catalina Rey & Paula Juliana Sarmiento & Juan Camilo Cardenas, 2016. "Fisheries, fish pollution and biodiversity: choice experiments with fishermen, traders and consumers," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(3), pages 333-353, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:epolit:v:33:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s40888-016-0041-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40888-016-0041-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40888-016-0041-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40888-016-0041-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Mackenzie, 1993. "A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 593-603.
    2. Chiroleu-Assouline, Mireille & Fodha, Mouez, 2014. "From regressive pollution taxes to progressive environmental tax reforms," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 126-142.
    3. John A. List, 2011. "Why Economists Should Conduct Field Experiments and 14 Tips for Pulling One Off," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 3-16, Summer.
    4. Dennis Fok & Richard Paap & Bram Van Dijk, 2012. "A Rank‐Ordered Logit Model With Unobserved Heterogeneity In Ranking Capabilities," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 831-846, August.
    5. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2010. "Dealing with Ignored Attributes in Choice Experiments on Valuation of Sweden’s Environmental Quality Objectives," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 65-89, September.
    6. Green, Paul E, 1974. "On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 1(2), pages 61-68, Se.
    7. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.
    8. Sethi, Rajiv & Somanathan, E, 1996. "The Evolution of Social Norms in Common Property Resource Use," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(4), pages 766-788, September.
    9. repec:hal:pseose:hal-00974835 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Hanley, Nick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Wright, Robert E., 2005. "Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 227-234, October.
    11. repec:feb:artefa:0110 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Chennat Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, chapter 9, pages 178-203, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(2), pages 124-124.
    14. MacKenzie, John, 1990. "Conjoint Analysis Of Deer Hunting," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-9, October.
    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. Bischi, Gian Italo & Lamantia, Fabio, 2007. "Harvesting dynamics in protected and unprotected areas," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 348-370, March.
    2. Libois, François, 2022. "Success and failure of communities managing natural resources: Static and dynamic inefficiencies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    3. Kimbrough, Erik O. & Vostroknutov, Alexander, 2015. "The social and ecological determinants of common pool resource sustainability," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 38-53.
    4. Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2005. "Regulation and Evolution of Compliance in Common Pool Resources," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 107(3), pages 583-599, September.
    5. Sherzod B. Akhundjanov & Felix Muñoz-García, 2019. "Transboundary Natural Resources, Externalities, and Firm Preferences for Regulation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(1), pages 333-352, May.
    6. Lamantia, Fabio, 2006. "Variable effort management of renewable natural resources," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 771-782.
    7. Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2003. "Regulation and Evolution of Harvesting Rules and Compliance in Common Pool Resources," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2003/39, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    8. Elinor Ostrom, 2003. "How Types of Goods and Property Rights Jointly Affect Collective Action," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 239-270, July.
    9. Ansink, Erik & Bouma, Jetske, 2013. "Effective support for community resource management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 94-103.
    10. Jongwook Kim & Joseph T. Mahoney, 2002. "Resource-based and property rights perspectives on value creation: the case of oil field unitization," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4-5), pages 225-245.
    11. Edward J. Bird & Gert G. Wagner, 1997. "Sport as a Common Property Resource," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(6), pages 749-766, December.
    12. Ian Keay & Cherie Metcalf, 2004. "Aboriginal Rights, Customary Law and the Economics of Renewable Resource Exploitation," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 30(1), pages 1-27, March.
    13. Mekonnen, Alemu & Bluffstone, Ramdall, 2008. "Is There a Link between Common Property Forest Management and Private Tree Growing? Evidence of Behavioral Effects from Highland Ethiopia," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-29-efd, Resources for the Future.
    14. Schaap, Robbert & Richter, Andries, 2019. "Overcapitalization and social norms of cooperation in a small-scale fishery," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Salant, Stephen W., 2011. "A free lunch in the commons," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 245-253, May.
    16. Holland, Daniel S. & Herrera, Guillermo E., 2012. "The impact of age structure, uncertainty, and asymmetric spatial dynamics on regulatory performance in a fishery metapopulation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 207-218.
    17. McCloskey Deirdre Nansen, 2018. "The Two Movements in Economic Thought, 1700–2000: Empty Economic Boxes Revisited," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-20, December.
    18. Carlson, Ernest W., 1971. "The Biological and Economic Objectives of Fishery Management," File Manuscripts, United States National Marine Fisheries Service, Economic Research Division, number 233587, January.
    19. Coxhead, Ian A. & Jayasuriya, Sisira, 2003. "Trade, Liberalization, Resource Degradation and Industrial Pollution in Developing Countries: An Integrated Analysis," Staff Papers 12691, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    20. Busch, Jonah, 2008. "Gains from configuration: The transboundary protected area as a conservation tool," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 394-404, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fisheries; Fish chain value; Pollution; Choice experiments; Conjoint valuation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q22 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Fishery
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:epolit:v:33:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s40888-016-0041-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.