Research on Public Perceptions of Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management: In Brief
A core aspect of EcoScope’s research aimed to understand public perceptions, preferences, and values regarding Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM).
Three key issues were addressed:
1. Fish consumption and food security
2. Public perceptions of fishery impacts and policy expectations
3. The impact of EBFM on societal well-being.
The study used advanced techniques, including a discrete choice experiment and a survey-based video experiment. Data was collected online from over 500 respondents in each of the three countries (the UK, Bulgaria, and Malta), ensuring a representative sample with a diverse range of educational backgrounds.
United Kingdom
Bulgaria
Malta
The full report is now available to all EcoScope partners. A few of the research findings are highlighted below:
Survey Findings
In all three countries, most people:
Fish Consumption Habits
The vast majority of people eat fish and fishery products at least once a week, at home. Older respondents tend to eat fish and fishery products at home more regularly than others while younger respondents eat fish more frequently outside the home.
Among the small minority who rarely/never eat fish or fishery products, sensory issues (sight/taste/smell) are the main deterrents, followed by vegan/vegetarianism. Among those who buy fish or fishery products regularly, the main considerations are the appearance of the product and price.
Concerns about food scarcity occur among a non-trivial portion of households. They tend to occur more frequently among younger households, low-income households, among households with more children and among those who also face job-security concerns.
Fish and fishery products can be a relatively cheap source of protein and individuals reporting a higher frequency of food scarcity concern (affordability or availability) tend to eat fish or fishery products more frequently than others.
Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) Awareness
In all contexts surveyed, only a very small minority of people have heard about EBFM and even fewer knew what it meant. Nonetheless, in general, people demonstrated a willingness to pay a premium for fish that carry labels which signal EBFM attributes. In hypothetical shopping scenarios, we witnessed conscious customer choice as participants chose a more expensive labelled fish over an unlabelled one 4 times out of 5. These labels stated that the fishery maintained a sustainable fish stock, or that the fishery protected other marine life, or had a low carbon footprint or practised inclusive management.
Perception of Fisheries
People perceive fisheries as having both positive and negative impacts. In general, Europeans surveyed tend to perceive a negative effect of fisheries on fish stocks and other marine life. However the impacts of fisheries on coastal communities and the economy are seen in a more positive light. The public is unsure about the climate impacts of fisheries. In general, trust in government and pro-growth attitudes align with positive perceptions of the fisheries industry.
Views on Fisheries Policy
The public supports the use of tax-payer money for pro-environmental fisheries management. There exists vast societal support for fisheries interventions linked to safeguarding of stocks and the protection of marine life. Policies aimed at reducing fish discards receive particularly strong support. There is a tendency to prefer actions that target environmental impacts over those that target economic/social impact of fisheries. Pro-environmental sentiment is a strong predictor of support for fisheries regulation. Europeans who are concerned about climate change favour interventions aimed at curtailing the climatic impact of fisheries more strongly.
People are also willing to cooperate in fisheries management. The majority of those interviewed stated they would be willing to report illegal activity on the coast using a digital app. Among some communities (e.g. small island), anonymity in reporting would enhance cooperation significantly. People are also willing to donate money to support Voluntary Organisations working for EBFM-related goals. There is considerable variation in the amount people are willing to donate and considerable variation among the three countries surveyed as to the percentage of people that would be willing to donate. In all instances, however, the strongest predictor of cooperation is pro-environmental sentiment.
Marine Ecosystem Services and Wellbeing
The data reveals that exposure to Marine Ecosystems Services varies considerably in the diverse contexts surveyed. Visiting the sea affects people’s emotions positively. Moreoever, positive relationships are observed between life satisfaction/happiness and respondent exposure to tangible marine ecosystems services (consumption of fish), intangible services (such as visits to the sea) and indirect marine ecosystems services (such as knowledge), even though the direct effects of MES on wellbeing are small relative to those of key determinants like relative income, health and lifestyle.
Summary
The combined insights from the Ecoscope large-scale societal surveys suggest that fish and fisheries products occupy an important space in the diets of the Europeans interviewed, including of those with food scarcity concerns, and that exposure to both this (tangible) marine ecosystem service as well as other less tangible or indirect Marine Ecosystems Services are associated with higher levels of wellbeing.
While the term “Ecosystems Based Fisheries Management” (EBFM) holds little resonance among Europeans (including native English speakers), there is societal support for policies which promote this in substance. This is evidenced by people’s willingess to support the use of tax payer money for various forms of fishery regulation, their willingess to cooperate by voluntary reporting of illegal coastal activity and their willingess to donate some money to causes that promote EBFM. It is also evidenced by people’s behaviour in hypothetical markets: as consumers, they are willing to pay more for fish which carries attributes assocated with EBFM.
These findings cut across the three different contexts surveyed, but there is much to suggest that societal preferences are heterogenous (even within each country sample) and that the acceptance or otherwise of fisheries policies can vary among and within populations.