Linking social preferences and ocean acidification impacts in mussel aquaculture

Abstract

Ocean Acidification (OA) has become one of the most studied global stressors in marine science during the last fifteen years. Despite the variety of studies on the biological effects of OA with marine commercial species, estimations of these impacts over consumers’ preferences have not been studied in detail, compromising our ability to undertake an assessment of market and economic impacts resulting from OA at local scales. Here, we use a novel and interdisciplinary approach to fill this gap. We experimentally test the impact of OA on commercially relevant physical and nutritional attributes of mussels, and then we use economic discrete choice models to assess the marginal effects of these impacts over consumers’ preferences and wellbeing. Results showed that attributes, which were significantly affected by OA, are also those preferred by consumers. Consumers are willing to pay on average 52% less for mussels with evidences of OA and are willing to increase the price they pay to avoid negative changes in attributes due to OA. The interdisciplinary approach developed here, complements research conducted on OA by effectively informing how OA economic impacts can be analyzed under the lens of marginal changes in market price and consumer’ welfare. Thereby, linking global phenomena to consumers’ wellbeing, and shifting the focus of OA impacts to assess the effects of local vulnerabilities in a wider context of people and businesses.

Experimental Studies on the Impact of the Projected Ocean Acidification on Fish Survival, Health, Growth, and Meat Quality; Black Sea Bream (Acanthopagrus schlegelii), Physiological and Histological Studies

“…Consequently, there may be the risk of a significant decrease in the meat quality of black sea bream from the end of the 21st century. Studying the impact of OA on mussels, Martin et al [ 57 ] reported a negative effect on meat quality. Furthermore, the studies of Rossoll et al [ 58 ] and Jin et al [ 59 ] also reported a decrease in fish samples’ meat quality due to OA.…”

Exposure of commercially exploited shellfish to changing pH levels: how to scale-up experimental evidence to regional impacts

“…When it comes to ocean acidification effects, molluscs and crustaceans are of particular interest, as their likely responses are relevant to human nutrition, food security, and livelihoods (San Martin et al, 2019). The level of understanding has greatly improved across these commercially important shellfish groups (Browman, 2016), and evidence is strong that marine calcifiers, dependent upon calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ) to create shells or skeletons, are under direct threat from ocean acidification across all life stages (e.g.…”

The effects of low pH on the taste and amino acid composition of tiger shrimp

“…A large body of evidence is available on the negative impacts of projected OA on the survival, growth, calcification, immune responses, and reproduction of marine organisms. Only recently, however, have a very small number of experimental studies attempted to estimate the possible socio-economic consequences of OA acidification due to the altered quality of seafood 5 – 7 . One notable such study revealed that culturing shrimp in acidified seawater negatively affected their flavor 5 .…”

“…As such, the concentrations and relative proportions of amino acids in shrimp and other seafood can have important repercussions for consumers and seafood producers. San Martin et al 7 developed a model to test how OA could impact on the taste of seafood and its appeal to consumers. They found that the attributes of mussels that are affected by OA also tend to determine consumers’ preferences and that people would only be prepared to buy mussels affected by OA if they were 52% cheaper than they are at present.…”

“…Globally, seafood from capture fisheries and marine aquaculture contribute to 16% of animal protein consumed by humans 7 . Seafood consumption per capita doubled between 1960 (≈ 10 kg) and 2014 (≈ 20 kg) 10 , 11 .…”