Role of Lexicographic Properties on Fish Consumers Regarding Development and Commercialization of New Fish Products

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Abstract

This study investigated the feasibility of new markets such as Surimi, Comobaco, fish Sausage based on lexicographic preferences in the provinces of Mazandaran and Tehran, with use of 600 questionnaire and applying logit model in the year of 2015. The results showed that willingness to pay of deontologist people in Tehran was 193240 Rial and for consequentialist was 178130 Rial while willingness to pay of deontologist people in Mazandran was 186350 Rial and for consequentialist was 151490 Rial. So, deontologists tended to pay more for these products compared with consequentialists. In Tehran province all the products had ability to enter the market. In Mazandran province Surimi product in both groups and Comobaco and fish sausage only in deontologist groups could enter to the market. 

Keywords

References

  1. Amirnezhad, H. & Khalilian, S. (2005). Calculate of economic value of north of Iran forests emphasis on environmental, ecological protection values. Ph.D. Dissertation. university of Tarbiat modaress, retrieved June 2007 (In Farsi).
  2. Anjello, R. (1989). Economic potential for utilizing minced fish in cooked sausage products. National Mari ne Fisheries Service, NOAA, Washington, 32(2), 64-86.
  3. Batte, T.M. & Beaverson, J. (2004). Customer willingness to pay for multi-ingredient processed organic food products.American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado.
  4. Bishop, R. C. & Heberlein, T. A. (1979). Measuring values of extra–market goods: are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(2), 926–30.
  5. Boyle, K., Walsh, M., & Bishop. M. (1988). Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: comment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 25(1), 80-99.
  6. Cooper, J.C., Hanemann.G., & Signorello, M. (2002). One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous- Choice ContingentValuation. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(4), 742-750.
  7. Cox, M.A. (2009). Multidimensional scaling as an aid for the analytic network and analytic hierarchy processes. Journal of data science, 7(3), 381-396.
  8. Esmaeli, A. & Ghazali, S. (2009). Calculate the protection value of Kor lake in Fars province using of willingness to pay. Journal of Iranian Agricultural Economic, (3), 107-120 (In Farsi).
  9. Fishery ministry of Iran.Shilat. (2014). Planning and enveloping management. Budget and planning office (In Farsi).

10. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2014). Fishery: Agricultural fishery in FAO. Retrieved January 12, 2014, from http://www.fao.org/ fishery.

11. Haixiao, H. & Miller, Y. (2003). Evaluation of swine odor management strategies in a fuzzy multi-criteria decision environment. American Agricultural Economics. Association annual meeting. Montreal. Canada.

12. .Hanemann, M. (1984). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 332-341

13. Holmes, T.P., Bergstromb, J. C., Huszarc, E. Kaskd, S.B. & Orr, F. (2004). Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecological Economics 49(1), 19-30.

14. Hung, H.C., Kang, C.F. & Lee, A.H. (2009). A green supplier selection model for high-tech industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (4), 7917-7927.

15. James, B. (1984). An efficient R-Estimator for the ED50. Journal of American Statistical Association, 79(2), 73-167.

16. Larkin, S. & Gilbert, S. (2008).Firm-level hedonic analysis of U.S. produced surimi: implications for processors and resource managers. Annual meeting of the American agricultural economics association Salt Lake City, Utah.

17. Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K., & Covich, A. (2000). Measuring the total economic value of restoring Eco system services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics, 33(1), 103-117.

18. Mazroei, L. (2008). Consumer behavior in Omman Sea for fishery product. Ecological Economics, 44(3), 54-76.

19. Mitchell, R. & Carson, R. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, Washington DC.

20. Raizin, M. & Regier, L. (1989). Economic aspects of the Japanese kamaboko industry. Ecological Economics, 21(2), 23-41.

21. Rosenberger, R.S., Peterson, G.L., Clarke, A. & Brown, T.C. (2009). Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics, psychology and ethics. Ecological Economics, 44(1), 63-76.

22. Salami, H. & Rafiee, H. (2011). Willingness to pay of international Anzali lake base on lexicographic preferences. Journal of Iran's natural resource, 64(2), 89-100 (In Farsi).

23. Spash, C.L. & Hanley, N. (2001). Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecological Economics, 12(4), 191-208

24. Venkatachalam, L. (2009). The contingent valuation Method: A review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(3), 89-124.

Weber, M. A. & Stewart, S. (2009). Public values for river restoration options on the Middle Rio Grande. Restoration Ecology, 17(6), 762-771.

Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research
Volume 48, Issue 3
November 2017
Pages 399-414

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics