Advertisement

Aquaculture International

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 1709–1723 | Cite as

Do concerns for the environmental credentials of salmon aquaculture translate into WTP a price premium for sustainably farmed fish? A contingent valuation study in Ireland and Norway

  • Stephen HynesEmail author
  • Elisa Ravagnan
  • Brita Gjerstad
Article
  • 167 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, Norwegian and Irish consumers’ willingness-to-pay for salmon that is produced under more sustainable aquaculture practices is examined using the contingent valuation method. A bivariate probit model is estimated where the consideration of environmentally friendly fish farming at time of purchase is jointly estimated with willingness-to-pay. The predicted joint probabilities of the bivariate probit model are calculated in order to examine if concerns for the environmental credentials of salmon aquaculture translate into willingness-to-pay a price premium for sustainably farmed fish. The results suggest that environmental concerns and attitudes are not the sole motivating factors influencing consumption behaviours.

Keywords

Salmon farming Aquaculture Contingent valuation method Bivariate probit WTP 

Notes

Funding information

This research was carried out as part of the AquaAccept project that was funded by the Norwegian Research Council, Research Program HAVBRUK2 (grant no. 244269E40).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Ankamah-Yeboah I, Nielsen M, Nielsen R (2016) Price premium of organic salmon in Danish retail sale. Ecol Econ 122:54–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asche F, Larsen T, Smith M, Sogn-Grundvåg G, Young J (2015) Pricing of eco-labels with retailer heterogeneity. Food Policy 53:82–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrington K, Ridler N, Chopin T, Robinson S, Robinson B (2010) Social aspects of the sustainability of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Aquac Int 18(2):201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carson R, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37(1):181–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feucht Y, Zander K (2015) Of earth ponds, flow-through and closed recirculation systems — German consumers’ understanding of sustainable aquaculture and its communication. Aquaculture 438:151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Froehlich H, Gentry R, Rust M, Grimm D, Halpern B (2017) Public perceptions of aquaculture: evaluating spatiotemporal patterns of sentiment around the world. PLoS One 12(1):e0169281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grunert K, Juhl H, Esbjerg L, Boutrup Jensen B, Bech-Larsen T, Brunsø K, Øland Madsen C (2009) Comparing methods for measuring consumer WTP for a basic and an improved ready made soup product. Food Qual Prefer 20:607–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hynes S, Norton D, Corless R (2014) Investigating societal attitudes towards the marine environment of Ireland. Mar Policy 47:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hynes S, Skoland K, Elisa Ravagnan E, Gjerstad B, Vatland Krøvel A (2018) Public attitudes toward aquaculture: an Irish and Norwegian comparative study. Mar Policy 96:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnston R, Roheim C, Joglekar D, Pomeroy R (2008) Estimating preferences for non-market attributes of aquaculture and sustainable seafood production: methods and empirical applications. Int J Environ Pollut 33(4):469–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kallas Z, Gil J (2012) Combining contingent valuation with the analytical hierarchy process to decompose the value of rabbit meat. Food Qual Prefer 24:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kalshoven K, Meijboom F (2013) Sustainability at the crossroads of fish consumption and production. Ethical dilemmas of fish buyers at retail organizations in The Netherlands. J Agric Environ Ethics 26:101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lavelle M, Fahy F (2012) ConsEnSus lifestyle survey - Environmental concern results. http://www.consensus.ie/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Environmental-Concern-survey-results.pdf. Accessed 3rd June 2017
  14. List J, Gallet C (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ Resour Econ 20:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lusk J, Schroeder T (2004) Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. Am J Agric Econ 86:467–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martinez-Espiñeira R, Chopin T, Robinson S, Noce A, Knowler D, Yip W (2016) A contingent valuation of the biomitigation benefits of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture in Canada. Aquac Econ Manag 20:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Olesen I, Alfnes F, Rora MB, Kolstad K (2010) Eliciting consumers’ WTP for organic and welfare-labelled salmon in a non-hypothetical choice experiment. Livest Sci 127:218–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Risius A, Janssen M, Hamm U (2017) Consumer preferences for sustainable aquaculture products: evidence from in-depth interviews, think aloud protocols and choice experiments. Appetite 113:246–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Osch S, Hynes S, O’Higgins T, Hanley N, Campbell D, Freeman S (2017) Estimating the Irish public’s WTP for more sustainable salmon produced by integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Mar Policy 84:220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Osch S, Hynes S, Freeman S, O’Higgins T (2019) Estimating the Public’s preferences for sustainable aquaculture: a cross country comparison. Sustainability 11:569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vanhonacke F, Van Loo E, Gellynck X, Verbeke W (2013) Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite 62:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vermeir I, Verbeke W (2006) Sustainable food consumption. Exploring the consumer attitude–behavioral intention gap. J Agric Environ Ethics 19:169–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Whitmarsh D, Palmieri M (2011) Consumer behaviour and environmental preferences: a case study of Scottish salmon aquaculture. Aquac Res 42:142–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Whitmarsh D, Wattage P (2006) Public attitudes towards the environmental impact of salmon aquaculture in Scotland. Eur Environ 16:108–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yip W (2012) Assessing the WTP in the Pacific northwest for salmon produced by integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture. Master’s thesis. Simon Fraser University. Retrieved from http://rem-main.rem.sfu.ca/theses/YipWinnie_2012_MRM530.pdf. Access 20 May 2019.
  26. Yip W, Knowler D, Haider W, Trenholm R (2017) Valuing the willingness-to-pay for sustainable seafood: integrated multi-trophic versus closed containment aquaculture. Can J Agric Econ 65(1):93–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Young J, Brugere C, Muir J (1999) Green grow the fishes-oh? Environmental attributes in marketing aquaculture products. Aquac Econ Manag 3:7–17Google Scholar
  28. Zander K, Feucht Y (2018) Consumers’ WTP for sustainable seafood made in Europe. J Int Food Agribus Mark 30(3):251–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Socio Economic Marine Research Unit, Whitaker InstituteNational University of Ireland GalwayGalwayIreland
  2. 2.NORCE EnvironmentStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations