journal article·2020-12-24Open access

A Hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS Method to Analyze the Coverage of a Hypothetical EU Ecolabel for Fishery and Aquaculture Products (FAPs)

Javier Cantillo, Juan Carlos Martín, Concepción Román

Applied Sciences· Volume 11· Issue 1

Abstract

This study presents a hybrid fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity of the ideal solution (TOPSIS) method (FTOPSIS) to analyze the coverage of a hypothetical EU ecolabel for fishery and aquaculture products (FAPs) by integrating a synthetic indicator to determine the level of acceptance for the inclusion of different types of information apart from environmental issues, considering different stakeholders and other segments of analysis. Data were obtained from a public consultation of the EU on “ecolabels for FAPs”. The results indicate that ecolabels should not only include environmental issues but also other types of information, with social and ethical issues being the most relevant, followed by animal welfare issues, health and safety issues and food quality issues. The findings also show that consumers, producers and stakeholders who are more interventionist and support the fact that public bodies and governments should be involved in the control of eco-labeling are more accepting of including additional information apart from environmental issues. Synthetic indicators (SIs) have also been found to be mostly inelastic, except for the owners of ecolabels on social and ethical issues. The implications of the future implementation of the EU ecolabel for FAPs are discussed based on the findings.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Environmental Sustainability in Business · Economic and Environmental Valuation · Sustainable Supply Chain Management

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Institute of Tourism and Sustainable Economic Development, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35017 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain

Funding

Marie Skłodowska-Curie H2020 Actions

References (67)

Show source-provided references
1. FAO (2018). FAO Yearbook. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2016, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
2. European Union (2018). Special Eurobarometer 475: EU Consumer Habits Regarding Fishery and Aquaculture Products, Kantar Public.
3. New Provisions for the Labelling of Fishery and Aquaculture Products: Difficulties in the Implementation of Regulation (EU) n. 1379/201310.1016/j.marpol.2016.05.026 ↗
4. (2020, October 28). European Commission Market Organisation. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/market_en.
5. European Parliament Regulation (EU) (2013). No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Organisation of the Markets in Fishery and Aquaculture Products, Amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and Repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000. Off. J. Eur. Union, 354, 1–21.
6. (2020, October 25). European Commission Summary of the Public Consultation on an EU Ecolabel for Fishery and Aquaculture Products. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/consultation-eu-ecolabel-for-fishery-aquaculture-products-summary_en_0.pdf.
7. Conte, F., Passantino, A., Longo, S., and Voslářová, E. (2014). Consumers’ Attitude Towards Fish Meat. Ital. J. Food Saf., 3.10.4081/ijfs.2014.1983 ↗
8. Salzman, J. (1991). Environmental Labelling in OECD Countries, OECD.
9. Pricing of Eco-Labels with Retailer Heterogeneity10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.04.004 ↗
10. UNCTAD (1994, January 28). Secretariat Eco-labelling and market opportunities for environmentally friendly products. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Eco-Labelling and Eco-Certification Programmes and Market Opportunities for Environmentally Friendly Products, Available online: http://digitallibrary.un.org/record/226746.
11. Assessment of Eco-Labelling Schemes for Pacific Tuna Fisheries10.1016/j.marpol.2013.05.004 ↗
12. Washington, S., and Ababouch, L. (2011). Private Standards and Certification in Fisheries and Aquaculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
13. Why Should Imperfect Competition Matter to Agricultural Economists?10.1093/eurrag/29.3.349 ↗
14. A Review of Formal Objections to Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Certifications10.1016/j.biocon.2013.01.002 ↗
15. Eco-Certification of Farmed Seafood: Will It Make a Difference?10.1007/s13280-013-0409-3 ↗
16. European Commission (2016). Feasibility Report on Options for an EU Ecolabel Scheme for Fishery and Aquaculture Products, MRAG. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/feasibility-report-eu-ecolabel-scheme-for-fishery-and-aquaculture-products_en.pdf.
17. Europeans and Aquaculture: Perceived Differences between Wild and Farmed Fish10.1108/00070701311302195 ↗
18. Consumer Preferences for Farmed and Ecolabeled Turbot: A North German Perspective10.1080/13657305.2018.1398788 ↗
19. On Consumption Patterns in Oyster Markets: The Role of Attitudes10.1016/j.marpol.2017.02.005 ↗
20. Consumer Behaviour and Environmental Preferences: A Case Study of Scottish Salmon Aquaculture10.1111/j.1365-2109.2010.02672.x ↗
21. Willingness to Pay for Multiple Seafood Labels in a Niche Market10.1086/679466 ↗
22. 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 Norway10.1007/s10499-019-00425-y ↗
23. Is Marine Stewardship Council’s Ecolabel a Rising Tide for All? Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Origin-Differentiated Ecolabeled Canned Tuna10.1016/j.marpol.2018.07.015 ↗
24. Eliciting Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic and Welfare-Labelled Salmon in a Non-Hypothetical Choice Experiment10.1016/j.livsci.2009.10.001 ↗
25. Olesen, I., Alfnes, F., Rørå, M.B., Navrud, S., and Kolstad, K. (2006). Economic values of fish welfare and application of market experiments. Ethics and the Politics of Food: Preprints of the 6th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, Wageningen Academic Publishers.10.3920/9789086865758_077 ↗
26. Preferences for Health and Environmental Attributes of Farmed Salmon amongst Southern Ontario Salmon Consumers10.1080/13657305.2011.549405 ↗
27. Van Osch, S., Hynes, S., Freeman, S., and O’Higgins, T. (2019). Estimating the Public’s Preferences for Sustainable Aquaculture: A Country Comparison. Sustainability, 11.10.3390/su11030569 ↗
28. Estimating the Irish Public’s Willingness to Pay for More Sustainable Salmon Produced by Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture10.1016/j.marpol.2017.07.005 ↗
29. The Science of Animal Suffering10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01557.x ↗
30. Lam, M.E. (2019). Reconciling human well-being with fish welfare. The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics, Routledge.
31. Welfare in Wild-Capture Marine Fisheries10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02462.x ↗
32. The Impact of Animal Welfare and Environmental Information on the Choice of Organic Fish: An Empirical Investigation of German Trout Consumers
33. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Seafood Made in Europe10.1080/08974438.2017.1413611 ↗
34. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Aquaculture Fish Products Vs. Wild-Caught Seafood – a Case Study in Hawaii10.1080/13657305.2012.678554 ↗
35. Determinantes en el consumo de atún en México aplicando modelos de elección ordenada
36. Mark of Sustainability? Challenges for Fishery and Forestry Eco-Labeling10.3200/ENVT.47.5.8-23 ↗
37. Why Eat Fish? Factors Influencing Seafood Consumer Choices in British Columbia, Canada10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.04.007 ↗
38. A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Impact of Health and Nutrition Claims, Country-of-Origin and Eco-Label on Consumer Choice of New Aquaculture Products10.1016/j.foodres.2019.04.031 ↗
39. Are Retailers’ Preferences for Seafood Attributes Predictive for Consumer Wants? Results from a Choice Experiment for Seabream (Sparus Aurata)10.1080/13657305.2013.772262 ↗
40. Impacts of Nutrition Information on Choices of Fresh Seafood Among Parents10.1086/686714 ↗
41. The Determinants of Live Fish Consumption Frequency in South Korea10.1016/j.foodres.2019.03.005 ↗
42. An Evaluation of Consumers’ Preferences for Certified Farmed Atlantic Salmon10.1108/BFJ-11-2012-0289 ↗
43. Aquaculture Imports from Asia: An Analysis of U.S. Consumer Demand for Select Food Quality Attributes10.1111/agec.12111 ↗
44. Consumer Choices for Quality and Sustainability Labelled Seafood Products in the UK10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.04.001 ↗
45. Consumer’s Food Motives and Seafood Consumption10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.10.008 ↗
46. Individual Determinants of Fish Consumption: Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour10.1016/j.appet.2004.08.006 ↗
47. Fair Trade Fish: Consumer Support for Broader Seafood Sustainability10.1111/faf.12148 ↗
48. Consumer Attitudes and Preferences towards Pangasius and Tilapia: The Role of Sustainability Certification and the Country of Origin10.1016/j.appet.2018.05.001 ↗
49. Do Fair Trade and Eco-Labels in Coffee Wake up the Consumer Conscience?10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.11.002 ↗
50. Perceived Importance of Sustainability and Ethics Related to Fish: A Consumer Behavior Perspective10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[580:PIOSAE]2.0.CO;2 ↗
51. European Commission Consultation—EU (2020, October 25). Ecolabel for Fishery and Aquaculture Products. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/eu-ecolabel-fishery-and-aquaculture-products_en.
52. Martín, J.C., Rudchenko, V., and Sánchez-Rebull, M.-V. (2020). The Role of Nationality and Hotel Class on Guests’ Satisfaction. A Fuzzy-TOPSIS Approach Applied in Saint Petersburg. Adm. Sci., 10.10.3390/admsci10030068 ↗
53. Applications of the Extent Analysis Method on Fuzzy AHP10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2 ↗
54. Determining Satisfaction of International Tourist: A Different Approach10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.04.005 ↗
55. Fuzzy Segmentation of Postmodern Tourists10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.018 ↗
56. Martín, J.C., Román, C., and Viñán, C. (2020). An Institutional Trust Indicator Based on Fuzzy Logic and Ideal Solutions. Mathematics, 8.10.3390/math8050807 ↗
57. Evaluating Weapon Systems Using Fuzzy Arithmetic Operations10.1016/0165-0114(95)00096-8 ↗
58. Macfadyen, G. (2004). Policy Research-Implications of Liberalization of Fish Trade for Developing Countries. Trade Issues Background Paper: Ethical/Social/Eco Certification, Labelling and Guidelines, Poseidon.
59. The Social in Assessing for Sustainability. Fisheries in Australia
60. Farm Animal Welfare Council (2009). Farm Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future, Farm Animal Welfare Council.
61. Assessing Stakeholder’s Experience and Sensitivity on Key Issues for the Economic Growth of Organic Aquaculture Production10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.005 ↗
62. Barker, M.E., Wong, F., Jones, C.R., and Russell, J.M. (2019). Food Purchasing Decisions and Environmental Ideology: An Exploratory Survey of UK Shoppers. Sustainability, 11.10.3390/su11226279 ↗
63. Tobi, R.C.A., Harris, F., Rana, R., Brown, K.A., Quaife, M., and Green, R. (2019). Sustainable Diet Dimensions. Comparing Consumer Preference for Nutrition, Environmental and Social Responsibility Food Labelling: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 11.10.3390/su11236575 ↗
64. (2007). European Parliament Council Regulation
65. (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on Organic Production and Labelling of Organic Products and Repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Off. J. Eur. Union, 189, 1-23.
66. The Reliability of Product-Specific Eco-Labels as an Agrobiodiversity Management Instrument10.1007/s10531-007-9210-6 ↗
67. Competing Eco-Labels and Product Market Competition10.1016/j.reseneeco.2020.101149 ↗