Small-Scale Coastal Fisheries in the Midst of Adaptation and Diversification: Insights from Southern Italy
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. An Overview of Fishing in Italy: Boats, Catches and Consumption
3. Consumers’ Attitude towards Fresh Fish Products
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Fishing Communities in the Survey Areas: Data Collection
4.2. Consumers Interviewed in the Survey Areas: Data Collection and Method
5. Results
5.1. Fish Companies
- the adoption of an ethical code of conduct for sustainable fishing, which embodies the founding principles of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing adopted in 1995 worldwide by the FAO Conference;
- the undertaking to promptly notify the FLAG of any sightings of protected species (for example, monk seals, sea turtles) and to report any abuse or violation of current legislation to the maritime authority.
5.2. The Survey of Consumers of Local Fish Products
6. Discussion
- the endowment of natural and historical-cultural resources;
- the new, quality tourism trends;
- the high quality of some typical and niche agri-food products;
- the presence of a fishing activity, which is an element of integration with sports, environmental and food and wine tourism.
- greater visibility and strengthening of the position in the territory;
- greater possibility of guaranteeing the origin of the product;
- enhancement of the product due to the possibility of selling at a more advantageous price for oneself and for the consumer;
- promotion of local products, lesser-known fish species and seasonality;
- development of a new market and job creation, involving family and friends in managing sales and customer relations.
7. Conclusions
- increase employment and improve the quality of life of the local community;
- experiment with new solutions and methods of managing the territory;
- develop a growth model based on innovation.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Sample | Cluster 1 Profil 1 | Cluster 2 Profil 2 | Cluster 3 Profil 3 | ANOVA p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | |||||
Male | 48.9 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 48.2 | 0.480 |
Female | 51.1 | 54.5 | 51.8 | 51.8 | |
Age group | |||||
18–24 | 9.9 | 3.0 | 14.9 | 18.5 | 0.035 |
25–34 | 12.1 | 16.8 | 13.2 | 13.1 | |
35–49 | 20.8 | 30.5 | 24.8 | 19.6 | |
50–64 | 21.9 | 25.1 | 24.8 | 28.6 | |
>65 | 18.6 | 24.6 | 22.3 | 20.2 | |
Education | 0.921 | ||||
Degree/master | 3.9 | 0.6 | 2.5 | 8.3 | |
Bachelor degree | 28.7 | 34.1 | 24.0 | 26.8 | |
High school | 50.4 | 56.3 | 50.4 | 44.6 | |
Middle school | 16.9 | 9.0 | 23.1 | 20.2 | |
Monthly household income (€) | 0.000 | ||||
<1000 (low) | 10.1 | 3.6 | 11.6 | 15.5 | |
1001–2000 (medium low) | 29.6 | 26.3 | 28.1 | 33.9 | |
2002–3000 (medium high) | 37.1 | 46.7 | 31.4 | 37.1 | |
>3000 (high) | 6.4 | 3.0 | 6.6 | 9.5 | |
Not answer | 16.9 | 20.4 | 22.3 | 9.5 | |
Purhase frequency | 0.000 | ||||
Once or twice a week | 27.8 | 32.3 | 36.4 | 17.3 | |
Once or twice a month | 36.2 | 46.1 | 25.6 | 33.9 | |
Once every 2 or 3 months | 36.0 | 21.6 | 38.0 | 48.8 | |
Local bluefish LBF + | 72.4 | 100.0 | 98.3 | 26.2 | 0.000 |
Local bluefish LBF - | 27.6 | 0 | 1.7 | 73.8 | |
Sea Sustainability S + | 84.4 | 100.0 | 71.1 | 78.6 | 0.000 |
Sea Sustainability S - | 15.6 | 0 | 28.6 | 21.4 | |
On boats B + | 15.1 | 0 | 56.2 | 0.6 | 0.000 |
On boats B - | 84.9 | 100 | 43.8 | 99.4 | |
City Market CMk + | 16.2 | 0 | 22.3 | 28.0 | 0.001 |
City Market CMk - | 83.8 | 100 | 77.7 | 72.0 | |
Fishmonger FS + | 69.1 | 100 | 72.7 | 35.7 | 0.000 |
Fishmonger FS - | 30.9 | 0 | 27.3 | 64.3 | |
Hypermarket H + | 38.2 | 51.5 | 19.8 | 38.1 | 0.803 |
Hypermarket H - | 61.8 | 48.5 | 80.2 | 61.9 | |
Price P + | 73.5 | 91.0 | 43.8 | 77.4 | 0.140 |
Price P - | 26.5 | 9.0 | 56.2 | 22.6 |
Appendix B
Discrimination Measure | Centroid Coordinates | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Dimension 1 | Dimension 2 | Dimension 1 | Dimension 2 | |
Bluefish Consumption BFC | 0.645 | 0.062 | ||
BFC + | 0.461 | 0.143 | ||
BFC - | −1.399 | −0.433 | ||
Local bluefish LBF | 0.523 | 0.120 | ||
LBF + | 0.447 | 0.214 | ||
LBF - | −1.170 | −0.560 | ||
Sea Sustainability S | 0.187 | 0.124 | ||
S + | 0.186 | −0.151 | ||
S - | −1.007 | 0.821 | ||
On boats B | 0.033 | 0.472 | ||
B + | 0.433 | 1.627 | ||
B - | −0.077 | −0.290 | ||
City Market CMk | 0.241 | 0.194 | ||
CMk + | −1.115 | 1.000 | ||
CMk - | 0.216 | −0.194 | ||
Fishmonger FS | 0.583 | 0.015 | ||
FS + | 0.511 | −0.083 | ||
FS - | −1.141 | 0.186 | ||
Hypermarket H | 0.004 | 0.192 | ||
H + | 0.078 | −0.558 | ||
H - | −0.048 | 0.344 | ||
Price P | 0.039 | 0.188 | ||
P + | 0.118 | −0.261 | ||
P - | −0.328 | 0.721 | ||
Age a | 0.041 | 0.019 | ||
18–24 | −0.513 | 0.289 | ||
25–34 | 0.111 | −0.219 | ||
35–49 | 0.176 | −0.077 | ||
50–64 | 0.003 | 0.025 | ||
>65 | −0.001 | 0.046 | ||
Purchase frequency a | 0.184 | 0.020 | ||
Once or twice a week | 0.488 | 0.124 | ||
Once or twice a month | 0.168 | −0.185 | ||
Once every 2 or 3 months | −0.547 | 0.091 | ||
Cluster a | 0.562 | 0.573 | ||
Cluster 1 | 0.771 | −0.502 | ||
Cluster 2 | 0.246 | 1.257 | ||
Cluster 3 | −0.944 | −0.407 |
References
- EU. Blue Growth Opportunities for Marine and Maritime Sustainable Growth; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- EU. EU Focus on Coastal Zones; European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- EEA. State of Europe’s Seas; European Environment Agency: Belgium, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Geraldini, S.; Bruschi, A.; Bellotti, G.; Taramelli, A. User Needs Analysis for the Definition of Operational Coastal Services. Water 2021, 13, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EEA. State and Pressures of the Marine and Coastal Mediterranean Environment; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- UNEP. The Mediterranean Sea Biodiversity: State of the Ecosystems, Pressures, Impacts and Future Priorities; RAC/SPA: Tunis, Tunisia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Maynou, G.S. Economic, sociocultural and ecological dimensions of fishing capacity in NW Mediterranean fisheries. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2020, 197, 105323. [Google Scholar]
- EC. EU Budget: Commission Proposes a New Fund to Invest. In The Maritime Economy and Support Fishing Communities; European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Budzich-Tabor, U.; Vercruysse, J.; van de Walle, G.; Rigaud, A.; Veronesi Burch, M. Forward-Looking Strategies for Fisheries Areas. Guide Farnet. 7 July 2020. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/cms/farnet2/sites/farnet/files/publication/en_farnetguide_20-fin.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2021).
- FARNET Guide #21: Nurturing Quality Projects: A Guide for FLAGs. 4 March 2021. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/cms/farnet2/library/guide/farnet-guide-21-nurturing-quality-projects-guide-flags_en (accessed on 30 March 2021).
- Fisheries Group CLS. 21 January 2021. Available online: https://fisheries.groupcls.com/small-scale-fisheries-undercurrent-news/ (accessed on 10 February 2021).
- Symes, D.; Phillipson, J. Whatever became of social objectives in fisheries policy? Fish. Res. 2009, 95, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillipson, J.; Symes, D.; Salmi, P. Europe’s Coastal Fisheries: Instability and the Impacts of Fisheries Policy. Sociol. Rural. 2015, 55, 245–257. [Google Scholar]
- Lloret, J.; Cowx, I.G.; Cabral, H.; Castro, M.; Font, T.; Gonçalves, J.M.S.; Gordoa, A.; Matić-Skoko, S.; Mikkelsen, E.; Morales-Nin, B.; et al. Small-scale coastal fisheries in European Seas are not what they were: Ecological, social and economic changes. Mar. Policy 2018, 98, 176–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. State of Mediterranean and Black Sea Fisheries 2016; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Sangün, L.; Güney, O.I.; Berk, A. Economic efficiency performance of small-scale fisheries in the East Mediterranean coast of Turkey. New Medit 2018, 4, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miret-Pastor, L.; Freeman, R.S. Towards territorial development in fisheries areas: A typology of projects funded by Fisheries Local Action Groups. Mar. Policy 2020, 119, 1104111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellowe, K.E.; Leslie, H.M. Ecosystem service lens reveals diverse community values of small-scale fisheries. Ambio 2021, 50, 586–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liontakis, A.; Tzouramani, I.; Mantziaris, S.; Sintori, A. Unraveling the Role of Gender in Fisheries ‘Socio-Economic Perfor-mance: The Case of Greek Small-Scale Fisheries. Sustainability 2021, 12, 5304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, M. Why look at fisheries through a gender lens? Development 2008, 51, 180–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleiber, D.; Frangoudes, K.; Snyder, H.; Choudhury, A.; Cole, S.; Soejima, K.; Pita, C.; Santos, A.; McDougall, C.; Petrics, H. Promoting Gender Equity and Equality Through the Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines: Experiences from Multiple Case Studies. In The Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 14, pp. 737–759. [Google Scholar]
- Harper, S.; Zeller, D.; Hauzer, M.; Pauly, D.; Sumaila, U. Women and fisheries: Contribution to food security and local economies. Mar. Policy 2013, 39, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sica, E.; Sisto, R.; Bianchi, P.; Cappelletti, G. Inclusivity and Responsible Tourism: Designing a Trademark for a National Park Area. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madau, F.; Idda, L.; Pulina, P. Capacity and economic efficiency in small-scale fisheries: Evidence from the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Policy 2009, 33, 860–867. [Google Scholar]
- Madau, F.; Furesi, R.; Pulina, P. The technical efficiency in Sardinian fisheries cooperatives. Mar. Policy 2018, 95, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dugan, P.; Barlow, C.; Agostinho, A. Fish Migration, Dams, and Loss of Ecosystem Services in the Mekong Basi. Ambio 2010, 39, 344–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chang, T.; Iseppi, L. Specialization Versus Diversification in EU Economies: A Challenge for Agro-Food? Transit. Stud. Rev. 2011, 18, 16–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linke, S.; Bruckmeier, K. Co-management in fisheries—Experiences and changing approaches in Europe. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2015, 104, 170–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EP. Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies; Characteristics of Small-Scale Coastal Fisheries in Europe Study; European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Stoll, J.S.; Dubik, B.A.; Campbell, L.M. Local seafood: Rethinking the direct marketing paradigm. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISTAT Report 2019. Statistiche Andamento dell’Economia Agricola. Available online: https://www.istat.it (accessed on 23 January 2021).
- BMTI Annuario Sul Settore Ittico. 2019. Available online: http://www.ittico.it (accessed on 23 January 2021).
- Zhou, L.; Jin, B.; Cheng, G.; Zeng, Q.; Wang, D. Determinants of fish consumption by household type in China. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 1273–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altintzoglou, T.; Heide, M. Fish quality and consumers: How do consumers’ knowledge about and involvement in fish quality define factors that influence fish buying behavior. J. Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 2016, 25, 885–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demartini, E.; Gaviglio, A.; La Sala, P.; Fiore, M. Impact of information and Food Technology Neophobia in consumers’ acceptance of shelf-life extension in packaged fresh fish fillets. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 17, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castellini, A.; Disegna, M.; Mauracher, C.; Procidano, I. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Quality and Safety in Clams. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2014, 26, 189–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Samoggia, A.; Castellini, A. Health-Orientation and Socio-Demographic Characteristics as Determinants of Fish Consumption. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2014, 30, 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santeramo, F.; Carlucci, D.; Seccia, A.; Stasi, A.; Viscecchia, R.; Nardone, G. Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry. Food Res. Int. 2018, 104, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- De Devitiis, B.; Carlucci, D.; Nocella, G.; Viscecchia, R.; Bimbo, F.; Nardone, G. Insights for the Development of a Functional Fish Product: Drivers and Barriers, Acceptance, and Communication of Health Benefits. J. Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 2018, 27, 430–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borrello, M.; Pascucci, S.; Caracciolo, F.; Lombardi, A.; Cembalo, L. Consumers are willing to participate in circular business models: A practice theory perspective to food provisioning. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 121013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cortese, L.; Nicolosi, A.; Petullà, M.; Laganà, V.; Di Gregorio, D.; Marcianò, C. Local Seafood Products: Consumers and Territory for a Rural Development Strategy in the South of Italy. Smart Innov. Syst. Technol. 2021, 178, 219–227. [Google Scholar]
- Neori, V.; Troell, M.; Chopin, T.; Yarish, C.; Critchley, A.; Buschmann, A. The need for a balanced ecosystem approach to blue revolution aquaculture. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2007, 49, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banovic, M.; Reinders, M.; Claret, A.; Guerrero, L.; Krystallis, A. One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish: How ethical beliefs influence consumer perceptions of “blue” aquaculture products? Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 77, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atkinson, L.; Rosenthal, S. The Influence of Eco-Label Source, Argument Specificity, and Product Involvement on Consumer Trust. J. Advert. 2014, 43, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parmawati, R.; Kurnianto, A.S. Features, Innovation, and Environmental Sustainability of Mayangan Fish Port, Probolinggo, Indonesia: An analysis of MDS. In Proceedings of the 12th International Interdisciplinary Studies Seminar—Environmental Conservation and Education for Sustainable Development, Malang, Indonesia, 14–15 November 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaďuďová, J.; Badida, M.; Badidová, A.; Marková, I.; Ťahúňová, M.; Hroncová, E. Consumer Behavior towards Regional Eco-Labels in Slovakia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, J.; Keum, H.; Shah, D. News Consumers, Opinion Leaders, and Citizen Consumers: Moderators of the Consumption–Participation Link. J. Mass Commun. Q. 2015, 92, 161–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nuttavuthisit, K.; Thøgersen, J. The Importance of Consumer Trust for the Emergence of a Market for Green Products: The Case of Organic Food. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 323–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caputo, V.; Scarpa, R.; Nayga, J. Cue versus independent food attributes: The effect of add attributes in choice experiment. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2017, 44, 211–230, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cosmina, M.; Demartini, E.; Gaviglio, A.; Mauracher, C.; Prestamburgo, S.; Trevisan, G.; Cosmina, M.; Demartini, E.; Gaviglio, A.; Mauracher, C.; et al. Italian consumers’ attitudes towards small pelagic fish. New Medit 2012, 1, 52–57. [Google Scholar]
- La Barbera, F.; Verneau, F.; Amato, M.; Grunert, K. Understanding westerners’ disgust for the eating of insects: The role of food neophobia and implicit associations. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 64, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stranieri, S.; Ricci, E.C.; Banterle, A. Convenience food with environmentally-sustainable at-tributes: A consumer perspective. Appetite 2017, 116, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Del Giudice, T.; Stranieri, S.; Caracciolo, F.; Ricci, E.C.; Cembalo, L.; Banterle, A.; Cicia, G. Corporate social responsibility certifications influence consumer preferences and seafood market price. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 526–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sogn-Grundvåg, G.; Larsen, T.A.; Young, J.A. The value of line-caught and other attributes: An exploration of price premiums for chilled fish in UK supermarkets. Mar. Policy 2013, 38, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sogn-Grundvåg, G.; Larsen, T.A.; Young, J.A. Product differentiation with credence attributes and private labels: The case of whitefish in UK supermarkets. J. Agric. Econ. 2014, 65, 368–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazzaro, C.; Lerro, M.; Marotta, G. Assessing parental traits affecting children’s food habits: An analysis of the determinants of responsible consumption. Agric. Econ. 2018, 6, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claret, A.; Guerrero, L.; Aguirre, E.; Rincón, L.; Hernández, M.D.; Martínez, I.; Peleteiro, J.B.; Grau, A.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C. Consumer preferences for sea fish using conjoint analysis: Exploratory study of the importance of country of origin, obtaining method, storage conditions and purchasing price. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 26, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maisano, G.; Di Vita, G.; Chinnici, G.; Pappalardo, G.; D’Amico, M. The Role of Credence Attributes in Consumer Choices of Sustainable Fish Products: A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GREENPEACE. Una Pesca Sostenibile per il Futuro del Mare. La Pesca Artigianale in Italia e il Caso-Studio della Sicilia. 2013. Available online: https://www.greenpeace.org/italy/rapporto/1286/una-pesca-sostenibile/ (accessed on 10 February 2021).
- Noy, C. Sampling Knowledge: The Hermeneutics of Snowball Sampling in Qualitative Research. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2008, 11, 327–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, M. Snowball Subject Recruitment; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Nowell, L.S.; Norris, J.M.; White, D.E.; Moules, N.J. Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2017, 16, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Thematic Analysis. Encycl. Crit. Psychol. 2014, 9, 26152. [Google Scholar]
- Sillani, S.; Miccoli, A.; Nassivera, F. Different preferences for wine communication. Wine Econ. Policy 2017, 6, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hailu, G.; Boecker, A.; Henson, S.E. Consumer valuation of functional foods and nutraceuticals in Canada. A conjoint study using probiotics. Appetite 2009, 52, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Annunziata, A.; Vecchio, R. Consumer perception of functional foods: A conjoint analysis with probiotics. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 348–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annunziata, A.; Scarpato, D. Factors affecting consumer attitudes towards food products with sustainable attributes. Agric. Econ. 2014, 60, 353–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saba, A.; Vassallo, M.; Shepherd, R.; Lampila, P.; Arvola, A.; Dean, M.; Winkelmann, M.; Claupein, E.; Lahteenmak, L. Country-wise differences in perception of health-related messages in cereal-based food products. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graca, J.; Oliveira, A.; Calheiros, M.M. Meat, beyond the plate. Data-driven hypotheses for understanding consumer willingness to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite 2015, 90, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenacre, M. Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis; Academic Press: London, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Guinot, C.; Latreille, J.; Malvy, D.; Preziosi, P. Use of multiple correspondence analysis and cluster analysis to study dietary behaviour: Food consumption questionnaire in the SU.VI.MAX. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2001, 17, 505–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Idda, L.; Madau, F.; Pulina, P. The Motivational Profile of Organic Food Consumers: A Survey of Specialized Stores Customers in Italy; Congress EAAE: Ghent, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Rodriguez, J.; Rodriguez, E.; Lupin, B. Consumers’ assessment of labelled and packaged fresh potato: Evidence from Experimental Auctions. Econ. Agro-Aliment. Food Econ. 2020, 22, 3. [Google Scholar]
- CREA. L’Emergenza COVID-19 e il Settore Ittico Italiano: Impatto e Risposte. 31 January 2021. Available online: www.crea.gov.it/documents/68457 (accessed on 23 March 2021).
- FARNET Lab. Marketing the Local Catch. 3–5 June 2013, 8th FARNET transnational seminar Stockholm, Sweden. Available online: http://thekey.farnet.eu/library/magazines/FARNET_Magazine_08_EN_Marketing-the-local-catch.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2021).
- European Commision. Facts and Figures on the Common Fisheries Policy; European Commision: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Geographical Subareas (GSAs) | Catches | Value 0.00 € | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2011 | 2019 | Variation % 2011−19 | 2011 | 2019 | Variation % 2011–19 | |||||
T. | % | T. | % | Million € | % | Million € | % | |||
Ligurian Sea and Northern Tyrrhenian Sea (GSA 9) | 19,259 | 9.2 | 17,321 | 9.9 | −10.1 | 131.5 | 12.1 | 102.6 | 11.6 | −22.0 |
Southern and Central Tyrrhenian Sea (GSA 10) | 27,129 | 12.9 | 19,393 | 11.1 | −28.5 | 143.4 | 13.2 | 112.5 | 12.7 | −21.6 |
Western and Eastern Sardinia (GSA 11) | 9573 | 4.6 | 8277 | 4.7 | −13.5 | 70.1 | 6.4 | 64.3 | 7.2 | −8.3 |
Southern Sicily (GSA 16) | 29,015 | 13.8 | 20,221 | 11.6 | −30.3 | 190.5 | 17.5 | 145.7 | 16.4 | −23.5 |
Northern Adriatic Sea (GSA 17) | 79,945 | 38.0 | 80,065 | 45.9 | 0.2 | 307.4 | 28.2 | 298.1 | 33.6 | −3.0 |
Southern Adriatic Sea (GSA 18) | 27,329 | 13.0 | 18,675 | 10.7 | −31.7 | 128.8 | 11.8 | 91.8 | 10.3 | −28.7 |
Western Ionian Sea (GSA 19) | 18,075 | 8.6 | 10,375 | 6.0 | −42.6 | 118.5 | 10.9 | 72.4 | 8.2 | −38.9 |
Total | 210,324 | 100.0 | 174,327 | 100.0 | −17.12 | 1090.3 | 100.0 | 887.4 | 100.0 | −18.6 |
Marine—Fleet | Fleet Unit n. | Sample Ships Intercepted | |
---|---|---|---|
n. | % | ||
| 6 | 1 | 16.7 |
| 14 | 11 | 78.6 |
| 55 | 6 | 10.9 |
| 30 | - | - |
Total Costa Viola | 105 | 18 | 17.1 |
| 129 | 9 | 6.3 |
TOTAL | 234 | 27 | 11.5 |
How Much Do the Following Factors Influence Your Bluefish Purchase Choice? | Answer Mode | Variables |
---|---|---|
PERCEPTION AND MOTIVATIONS | ||
Consumption of blue fish | Yes; No | BFC |
Perception of greater benefit to my health | Yes; No | Health |
Taste | 1—not relevant; 5—very relevant | Taste |
Versatility and different consumption occasions | 1—not relevant; 5—very relevant | Versatility |
Local capture/short supply chain | 1—not relevant; 5—very relevant | LBF |
Sustainable capture method | 1—not relevant; 5—very relevant | S |
Geographical area of capture | 1—not relevant; 5—very relevant | GSA |
Reduced and easily-differentiated packaging | 1—not relevant; 5—very relevant | PK |
MSC ecolabel | 1—not relevant; 5—very relevant | MSC |
Appropriate price | 1—not relevant; 5—very relevant | P |
Seller’s advice | 1—not relevant; 5—very relevant | Loyalty |
Possibility to buy online | 1—not relevant; 5—very relevant | Online |
I like to cook it | 1—not relevant; 5—very relevant | Like to cook |
Perception of contributing to the protection of the sea in my area | 1—not relevant; 5—very relevant | Sea Sustainability |
Support for the local economy and fishermen | 1 not relevant, 6 very relevant | Helping Fisherman |
PLACES OF PURCHASE PREFERENCE | ||
Fishmonger | Yes, No | FS |
Hypermarket | Yes, No | H |
City Market | Yes, No | CMk |
Directly from the fisherman (on boats) | Yes, No | B |
PURCHASE FREQUENCY | ||
Once or twice a week | Yes, No | Once/twice a week |
Once or twice a month | Yes, No | Once/twice a month |
Once every 2 or 3 months | Yes, No | Once every 2/3 months |
Few times/never | Yes, No |
Attributes | Attribute Levels |
---|---|
Fish caught |
|
Place of purchase |
|
Sustainability of the capture method |
|
Purchase price of blue fish |
|
Option | Local Catch | Place of Purchase | Sustainable Fishing | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | YES | Detail (fishmonger, supermarket) | NO | 7 €/kg |
2 | YES | Detail (fishmonger, supermarket) | YES | 7 €/kg |
3 | NO | Directly from the fisherman | YES | 7 €/kg |
4 | YES | Directly from the fisherman | NO | 15 €/kg |
5 | NO | Detail (fishmonger, supermarket) | NO | 15 €/kg |
6 | YES | Market | YES | 15 €/kg |
7 | NO | Detail (fishmonger, supermarket) | YES | 15 €/kg |
8 | NO | Market | NO | 7 €/kg |
9 a | YES | Directly from the fisherman | YES | 15 €/kg |
10 a | NO | Directly from the fisherman | NO | 7 €/kg |
Characteristics | Classes | % |
---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 100% |
Age | 25–35 | 7.4 |
36–50 | 25.9 | |
51–65 | 51.9 | |
>65 | 14.8 | |
Education | Secondary school | 63.0 |
High school | 37.0 |
Characteristics | Classes | % |
---|---|---|
Dimension | Between 5–10 m | 85.2 |
>10 m | 14.8 | |
Type of company | Individual company | 59.3 |
Cooperative member | 40.7 | |
Year of construction of the boat | 1964–1999 | 77.8 |
2000–2010 | 22.2 | |
Crew | 1–2 units | 51.9 |
3 units | 40.7 | |
>3 units | 7.4 | |
Type of fishing | Multipurpose fishing | 100% |
Diversification | None | 77.8 |
Fishing tourism—Fish tourism | 22.2 | |
Fishing area | Costa Viola (Calabrian fishermen) | 70.0 |
North Sicily (Sicilian fishermen) | 95.0 | |
Costa dei Gelsomini (Calabrian fishermen) | 10.0 | |
Calabria Tyrrhenian (Calabrian fishermen) | 15.0 | |
Other areas of the Mediterranean | 5.0 | |
Production sales area | Local (Costa Viola, Aeolian, neighboring areas) | 80.0 |
Other areas | 20.0 | |
Distribution channel | Wholesale market | 20.0 |
Fishmonger | 30.0 | |
Restaurants | 20.0 | |
Street vendor | 5.0 | |
Directly to the consumer | 20.0 | |
Other * | 5.0 |
Sample | Population % | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
n. | % | Sicily a | Calabria a | |
Gender | ||||
Under 18 | - | - | 14.6 | 14.3 |
Male | 223 | 48.9 | 48.6 | 49.0 |
Female | 233 | 51.1 | 51.4 | 51.0 |
Age group | ||||
18–24 | 54 | 9.9 | 9.8 | 9.4 |
25–34 | 66 | 12.1 | 11.8 | 12.1 |
35–49 | 114 | 20.8 | 20.5 | 20.3 |
50–64 | 120 | 21.9 | 21.6 | 21.8 |
>65 | 102 | 18.6 | 21.7 | 22.1 |
Indication | n. | % |
---|---|---|
Education | ||
Degree/master | 18 | 3.9 |
Bachelor degree | 131 | 28.7 |
High school | 230 | 50.4 |
Middle school | 77 | 16.9 |
Family members | ||
n. 1–2 | 147 | 32.2 |
n. 3 | 112 | 24.6 |
n. 4 | 108 | 23.7 |
Over 5 | 89 | 19.5 |
Monthly household income (€) | ||
<1000 (basso) | 46 | 10.1 |
1001–2000 (medium–low) | 135 | 29.6 |
2002–3000 (medium–high) | 169 | 37.1 |
>3000 (high) | 29 | 6.4 |
Not answer | 77 | 16.9 |
Occupation | ||
Employee | 142 | 31.1 |
Self-employed/ | 117 | 25.7 |
Retired | 51 | 11.2 |
Unemployed | 41 | 9.0 |
Students, housewives, other | 105 | 23.0 |
Utility Estimate | Averaged Importance Score | ||
---|---|---|---|
Place of purchase | Retailer ** | −0.600 | 30.107 |
City Market | 0.950 | ||
Fisherman | −0.350 | ||
Local catch | Yes | 1.400 | 19.608 |
No | 2.800 | ||
Sustainable fishing method | Yes | −0.700 | 16.685 |
No | −1.400 | ||
Price | 7 €/kg | −2.300 | 33.600 |
15 €/kg | −4.600 | ||
(Constant) | 7.050 |
Dimension | Cronbach’s Alpha | Variance Accounted for | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Total (Eigenvalue) | Inertia | % of Variance | ||
1 | 0.636 | 2.255 | 0.282 | 28.182 |
2 | 0.307 | 1.367 | 0.171 | 17.086 |
Total | 3.621 | 0.453 | ||
Mean | 0.512 a | 1.811 | 0.226 | 22.634 |
Profile 1 (167–36.6%)—Consumers of the middle class who care about quality and price Age: 25–34 years and 35–49 years Level: Bachelor degree Purchase frequency: Once or twice a month Consume blue fish (BFC +) They buy from the fishmonger and the supermarket (FS + and H +) They are very price conscious (P +) They declare that the sustainable capture method (S +) is important to them They declare that local fish is important to them (LBF +) Income: medium to high |
Profile 2 (121–26.5%)—Habitual and demanding consumers Age: 50–64 years and >64 years Level: High school Purchase frequency: Once or twice a week Consume blue fish (BFC +) They buy when they can directly from the fisherman (B +) Price is not important (P-) They declare that local fish is important to them (LBF +) Average income |
Profile 3 (168–36.8%)—Young consumers little attracted to fish products Age: 25–34 years and 18–24 years Level: Middle school Purchase frequency: Once every 2 or 3 months They shop at the City Market (CMk +) They declare that local fish is not important to them (LBF-) They declare that the sustainable method of capture is not important to them (S-) Average income |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nicolosi, A.; Di Gregorio, D.; Arena, G.; Laganà, V.R.; Privitera, D. Small-Scale Coastal Fisheries in the Midst of Adaptation and Diversification: Insights from Southern Italy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7393. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137393
Nicolosi A, Di Gregorio D, Arena G, Laganà VR, Privitera D. Small-Scale Coastal Fisheries in the Midst of Adaptation and Diversification: Insights from Southern Italy. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7393. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137393
Chicago/Turabian StyleNicolosi, Agata, Donatella Di Gregorio, Giuseppe Arena, Valentina Rosa Laganà, and Donatella Privitera. 2021. "Small-Scale Coastal Fisheries in the Midst of Adaptation and Diversification: Insights from Southern Italy" Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7393. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137393
APA StyleNicolosi, A., Di Gregorio, D., Arena, G., Laganà, V. R., & Privitera, D. (2021). Small-Scale Coastal Fisheries in the Midst of Adaptation and Diversification: Insights from Southern Italy. Sustainability, 13(13), 7393. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137393