IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00786112.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is aquaculture really an option?

Author

Listed:
  • Esther Regnier

    (CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Katheline Schubert

    (CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

This article analyzes the impact of the introduction of aquaculture on wild fish stocks and consumer utility, taking into account three key components: (1) the dependence of aquaculture on reduction fisheries for the feeding of the farmed species; (2) biological interactions between the wild edible species –the predator– and the wild feed species –the prey–; (3) consumer preferences for wild and farmed fish. Fisheries are in open access while the aquaculture sector is competitive. We show that when biological interactions are moderate, the introduction of aquaculture is beneficial in the long run; it improves consumer utility and alleviates the pressure on the edible fish stock. Results are deeply modified when biological interactions are strong: the stock of edible wild fish is reduced and the introduction of aquaculture may even cause a decrease in consumer utility. Finally, we explore the consequences of an improvement in aquaculture efficiency and of a sensitivity of consumer preferences to the farmed fish diet, in the case where biological interaction are absent.

Suggested Citation

  • Esther Regnier & Katheline Schubert, 2013. "Is aquaculture really an option?," Post-Print halshs-00786112, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00786112
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00786112v2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00786112v2/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin F. Quaas & Till Requate, 2013. "Sushi or Fish Fingers? Seafood Diversity, Collapsing Fish Stocks, and Multispecies Fishery Management," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 115(2), pages 381-422, April.
    2. Kristofersson, Dadi & Anderson, James L., 2006. "Is there a relationship between fisheries and farming? Interdependence of fisheries, animal production and aquaculture," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 721-725, November.
    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. repec:mse:cesdoc:13002r is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Esther Regnier & Katheline Schubert, 2013. "Consumer preferences, aquaculture technology and the sustainability of fisheries," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 13002, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    3. Richter, Andries & Dakos, Vasilis, 2015. "Profit fluctuations signal eroding resilience of natural resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 12-21.
    4. Erhardt, Tobias & Weder, Rolf, 2020. "Shark hunting: On the vulnerability of resources with heterogeneous species," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    5. Asche, Frank & Oglend, Atle, 2016. "The relationship between input-factor and output prices in commodity industries: The case of Norwegian salmon aquaculture," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 35-47.
    6. Kira Lancker & Julia Bronnmann, 2022. "Substitution Preferences for Fish in Senegal," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(4), pages 1015-1045, August.
    7. Da Rocha, José María & García-Cutrín, Javier & Gutiérrez Huerta, María José & Touza, Julia, 2015. "Reconciling yield stability with international fisheries agencies precautionary preferences: the role of non constant discount factors in age structured models," DFAEII Working Papers 1988-088X, University of the Basque Country - Department of Foundations of Economic Analysis II.
    8. L. Doyen & A. A. Cissé & N. Sanz & F. Blanchard & J.-C. Pereau, 2018. "The Tragedy of Open Ecosystems," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 117-140, March.
    9. Jaco P. Weideman & Roula Inglesi-Lotz, 2016. "Structural Breaks in Renewable Energy in South Africa: A Bai and Perron Break Test Application," Working Papers 201636, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    10. Lancker, Kira & Bronmann, Julia, 2020. "Quantifying consumers’ love for marine biodiversity," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304214, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Stein Ivar Steinshamn, 2017. "Predators in the market: implications of market interaction on optimal resource management," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 327-341, October.
    12. Da-Rocha, Jose-Maria & García-Cutrin, Javier & Gutierrez, Maria Jose & Touze, Julia, 2016. "A note on CES Preferences in Age-Structured Models," MPRA Paper 75298, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Weideman, J. & Inglesi-Lotz, R. & Van Heerden, J., 2017. "Structural breaks in renewable energy in South Africa: A Bai & Perron break test application," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 945-954.
    14. Blanca González-Mon & Emilie Lindkvist & Örjan Bodin & José Alberto Zepeda-Domínguez & Maja Schlüter, 2021. "Fish provision in a changing environment: The buffering effect of regional trade networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-26, December.
    15. N. Quérou & A. Tomini, 2018. "Marine Ecosystem Considerations and Second-Best Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(2), pages 381-401, June.
    16. David Ubilava, 2014. "El Niño Southern Oscillation and the fishmeal–soya bean meal price ratio: regime-dependent dynamics revisited," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(4), pages 583-604.
    17. Cissé, A.A. & Doyen, L. & Blanchard, F. & Béné, C. & Péreau, J.-C., 2015. "Ecoviability for small-scale fisheries in the context of food security constraints," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 39-52.
    18. Gars, Johan & Spiro, Daniel, 2014. "Uninsurance through Trade," Memorandum 13/2014, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    19. Cró, Susana & Martins, António Miguel, 2017. "Structural breaks in international tourism demand: Are they caused by crises or disasters?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 3-9.
    20. Brockmann, Stephanie & Finnoff, David C. & Mason, Doran M. & Rutherford, Edward S. & Zhang, Hongyan, 2024. "Consequences of ecological aggregation in general equilibrium analysis of perturbed ecosystems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    21. Christine Bertram & Martin F. Quaas, 2017. "Biodiversity and Optimal Multi-species Ecosystem Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(2), pages 321-350, June.

    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:hal:journl:halshs-00786112. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.