Consumers willing to pay more for sustainable fish, EcoScope survey reveals
People are willing to pay a premium to buy fish sourced from fisheries that minimise harm to other marine life and embrace other principles of ecosystems-based fisheries management (EBFM), according to a recent survey conducted as part of the EU-funded EcoScope Project.
“That’s the one thing that really spoke to us – people claim they are willing to back up their words with money”, said Prof. Marie Briguglio of the University of Malta, summarizing an EcoScope survey conducted among representative samples of some 500 respondents each in three different European countries, the UK, Bulgaria and Malta.
In hypothetical shopping scenarios, the survey found that participants consciously chose a more expensive EBFM-labelled fish over an unlabeled one four times out of five. These labels stated either that the fishery maintained a sustainable fish stock, that its operations protected other marine life, that the fishery had a low carbon footprint or that it practiced inclusive management.
“What also emerged from respondents in all three countries is that the aspect that they care most about, and that they are willing to pay the most for, is the protection of other marine life,” Briguglio continued. “Even when presented with fish of equal price and different labels, very few people went for the unlabelled fish, with most people again preferring a label that said ‘protects marine life’ or ‘retains a sustainable stock’. We therefore get quite a clear idea of the kinds of messages that could resonate with people.”
Briguglio also reflected on the gap between survey responses and real-world behavior, or the ‘intention-action gap’ as it is referred to in behavioral science. "Will this willingness translate to real-life? When people are shopping at a supermarket, with a list of things to do, will they stop looking at a label? Our findings suggest that when purchasing fish, consumers prioritize appearance and price above other considerations. Labels highlighting sustainability or marine protection are likely to play a secondary role. However, when prices are similar, and the label conveys the right message, consumers may be more inclined to pay attention to it and choose accordingly."
“Another area of focus for our study was respondents’ exposure to the marine environment. If we do manage to regulate better, then ultimately what we would have is a better marine environment, which would presumably translate into better wellbeing for citizens,” Briguglio added. In terms of the relationship between marine resources and wellbeing, the survey found that, while people who live or work closer to the sea often have a higher level of wellbeing, people who eat no fish at all tend to have a lower level of wellbeing. “We’re exploring this to try to untangle where that’s coming from,” Briguglio commented.
In all three countries, the survey found that most people eat fish at least once a week. And presumably because fish and fishery products can be a relatively cheap source of protein, the survey found that individuals reporting a higher frequency of food scarcity concern (affordability or availability) tend to eat fish or fishery products more frequently than others.
Respondents tend to perceive fisheries as having negative effects 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. In terms of the impact of fisheries on climate, meanwhile, Europeans seem to be ambivalent. “One thing that I wasn’t expecting, and that emerged as a finding, is that people are quite confused as to whether fisheries have climate impact or not,” Briguglio noted. Yet respondents who are concerned about climate change favour interventions aimed at curtailing the climatic impact of fisheries more strongly.
In all three countries the survey found that most of the respondents have never heard of Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM). Nevertheless, people favour regulation which improves fishery management. Respondents support the use of tax-payer money for pro-environmental fisheries management, the survey found, concluding that there is “vast societal support” for interventions aiming to safeguard fishery stocks and protect marine life. Policies aimed at reducing fish discards receive particularly strong support. Respondents largely prefer actions targeting environmental impacts over those targeting economic/social impact of fisheries. Pro-environmental sentiment is a strong predictor of support for fisheries regulation.
The survey also found that citizens are largely 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. a small island context), anonymity in reporting would enhance cooperation significantly. People are also willing to donate money to support voluntary organisations working for EBFM-related goals, through the percentage of respondents willing to donate and amounts they are willing to donate vary considerably. “The strongest predictor of cooperation is pro-environmental sentiment,” the researchers said.
In conclusion, while the term “Ecosystems-Based Fisheries Management” (EBFM) holds little resonance among Europeans thus far, and much remains to be done to broaden awareness and knowledge, there is robust support for policies which promote this principle in substance.
