Advertisement

Economia Politica

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 333–353 | Cite as

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

  • Camilo Andres Garzon
  • Maria Catalina Rey
  • Paula Juliana Sarmiento
  • Juan Camilo Cardenas
Article

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.

Keywords

Fisheries Fish chain value Pollution Choice experiments Conjoint valuation 

JEL Classification

Q22 Q51 Q52 C93 

Supplementary material

40888_2016_41_MOESM1_ESM.docx (85 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 85 kb)

References

  1. Banco de la República (2016) Datos diarios de tasa de cambio (TRM). http://www.banrep.gov.co/es/trm
  2. Can, O., & Alp, E. (2012). Valuation of environmental improvements in a specially protected marine area: A choice experiment approach in Göcek Bay, Turkey. Science of the Total Environment, 439, 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cárdenas, J. C. (2009). Dilemas de lo colectivo: Instituciones, pobreza y cooperación en el manejo local de los recursos de uso común. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE, Ediciones Uniandes.Google Scholar
  4. Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., & Lampi, E. (2010). Dealing with ignored attributes in choice experiments on valuation of Sweden’s Environmental Quality objectives. Environmental and Resource Economics, 47, 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cerda, C., et al. (2013). Using choice experiments to understand public demand for the conservation of nature: A case study in a protected area of Chile. Journal for Nature Conservation, 21(3), 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Champ, P. (2003). Collecting survey data for nonmarket valuation. In P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, & T. C. Brown (Eds.), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation (págs (pp. 59–98). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiroleu, M., & Fodha, M. (2014). From regressive pollution taxes to progressive environmental tax reforms. European Economic Review, 69, 126–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FAO. (2014). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2014: Opportunities and challenges (p. 2014). Rome: Food And Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  9. Fok, D., Paap, R., & Van Dijk, B. (2012). A rank-ordered logit model with unobserved heterogeneity in ranking capabilities. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 27(5), 831–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garzón, C. (2016). Valoración económica de las comunidades sobre la contaminación en el pescado y optimización de los recursos pesqueros: Un análisis para Cartagena. Tesis de Maestría en Economía, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá.Google Scholar
  11. Gómez, L. (2015). Sustitutos de capaceta: Caso de los distribuidores de pescado en Bogotá. Tesis de pregrado en la Facultad de Economía de la Universidad de los Andes.Google Scholar
  12. Gordon, H. (1954). The economic theory of a common property resource: The fishery. The Journal of Political Economy, 62(2), 124–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Green, P. (1974). On the design of choice experiments involving multifactor alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(2), 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guzmán, J. (2006). Pesca artesanal y condiciones ambientales. Estudio de caso: Bahía de Cartagena. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Tesis de grado en Ecología.Google Scholar
  15. Hanley, N., Adamowicz, W., & Wright, R. (2005). Price vector effects in choice experiments: An empirical test. Resource and Energy Economics, 27(3), 227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. He, K., Song, Y., et al. (2004). Accumulated evidence on fish consumption and coronary heart disease mortality: A meta-analysis of cohort studies. Circulation, 109(22), 2705–2711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Järup, L. (2003). Hazards of heavy metal contamination. British Medical Bulletin, 68(1), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. List, J. (2011). Why economists should conduct field experiments and 14 tips for pulling one off. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(3), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. López, L. M. (2015). Efecto de las preferencias por la biodiversidad sobre el consumo de pescado en el mercado bogotano. Tesis de pregado de la Facultad de Economía de la Universidad de los Andes.Google Scholar
  21. Mackenzie, J. (1990). Conjoint analysis of deer hunting. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 19(21), 109–117.Google Scholar
  22. Mackenzie, J. (1993). A comparison of contingent preference models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(3), 593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marden, J. I. (1995). Analyzing and modeling rank data. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Mendoza, S., Maldonado, J. H., & Moreno, R. (2008). Pescando futuro: La participación de las comunidades en la exploración de escenarios de conservación (p. 48p). Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes.Google Scholar
  25. Mozaffarian, D., & Rimm, E. B. (2006). Fish intake, contaminants, and human health: Evaluating the risks and the benefits. Journal of the American Medical Association, 296(15), 1885–1899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olivero, J.n., & Johnson, B. (2002). El lado gris de la minería del oro: La contaminación con mercurio en el Norte de Colombia. Facultad de Ciencias Químicas y Farmacéuticas, Universidad de Cartagena.Google Scholar
  27. Rey, C. (2016). “Cuando el río suena… mota lleva”: Un análisis experimental y participativo sobre la pesca y comercialización de Calophysus macropterus en LeticiaTesis de Maestría de la Facultad de Economía de la Universidad de los Andes.Google Scholar
  28. Sarmiento, P. (2016). Externalidades en la salud pública y la biodiversidad derivadas de la cadena de valor de la Mota: Valoración económica en un experimento de elección. Tesis de Maestría de la Facultad de Economía de la Universidad de los Andes.Google Scholar
  29. Sethi, R., & Somanathan, E. (1996). The evolution of social norms in common property resource use. The American Economic Review, 86(4), 766–788.Google Scholar
  30. Viloria E., Rueda, M., & Pardo, E. R. (2014). Evaluación de la pesca artesanal antes, durante y después del proyecto de actividades de mantenimiento y relimpia del canal del Dique, en el área de influencia de la bahía de Cartagena, Bolívar. Informe Técnico Final Convenio 1-0008-2012. CORMAGDALENA-INVEMAR. Santa Marta, 50 p. + Anexos.Google Scholar
  31. Worm, B., Barbier, E. B., et al. (2006). Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science, 314(5800), 787–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang, Y., Collins, A. L., Murdoch, N., Lee, D., & Naden, P. S. (2014). Cross sector contributions to river pollution in England and Wales: Updating waterbody scale information to support policy delivery for the Water Framework Directive. Environmental Science and Policy, 42, 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maestría en Economía y en Escuela de Gobierno Alberto Lleras CamargoUniversidad de los AndesBogotáColombia
  2. 2.Maestría Escuela de Gobierno Alberto Lleras CamargoUniversidad de los Andes BogotáBogotáColombia
  3. 3.Maestría en EconomíaUniversidad de los AndesBogotáColombia
  4. 4.Facultad de EconomíaUniversidad de los AndesBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations