Existing legal frameworks, however, focus on the management of “goods” (i.e.,
products obtained from services) rather than “ecosystem services.” The United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) focuses on the management
of living resources. UNCLOS specifically mentions “The coastal State shall determine the allowable catch of the living resources in its exclusive economic zone
(Article 61.1)” and “The coastal State shall promote the objective of optimum
utilization of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone without prejudice
to article 61 (Article 62.1)” but does not deal with ecosystem services. Likewise, the
five criteria defined by FAO as relevant to the identification of vulnerable marine
ecosystems (VMEs) and the seven criteria for ecologically or biologically significant
marine areas (EBSAs) under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) do not
specifically mention ecosystem services.
Two reasons can be suggested to explain the slow pace of action by the international community toward the conservation and management of ecosystem services in
the ocean. Difficulties exist in understanding accurate picture on any degradation of
the ocean ecosystem and its services because ocean area is vast, and the cost of
scientific research is enormous. Difficulties also exist in identifying potential stakeholders to address the problem. This is especially true when the issues are nonfishery
ones. No specific stakeholder groups can be identified for nonfishing threats to ocean
ecosystems, such as ocean plastics or other land-based pollutions, as opposed to the
situation on fisheries, where fishers (and related sections of the governments) can be
easily identified as the person directly responsible to manage the pressures to
fisheries resources and handle the threats.
At the same time, it is possible for consumers of fish and fisheries products to play
an important role in promoting conservation for ecosystem and its services. Consumer behaviors in megacities have an impact on ocean ecosystems and ecosystem
services (which often share the strongest linkages with rural areas where fishing
villages are located). The purpose of this study is to identify the food preferences of
urban consumers and to discuss the implications for urban–rural partnerships toward
the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystem services. The focus has been
placed on fishery products in this study.
7.2 Food Preferences of Urban Consumers
An online survey was conducted in March 2014 to identify consumer preferences.
The questionnaire was developed by the authors, and the survey was conducted by
Macromill, a Japanese survey company, through a contract between the company
and the University of Tokyo.
The findings of the survey are presented in Fig. 7.1. A total number of 3332
respondents were selected in a proportional sample to match the population of seven
major consumer markets in Japan (Hokkaido, Miyagi, Tokyo, Aichi, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Fukuoka). Age classes of respondents were selected so that they are also
representative of demographics. Specifically, 6.3% of respondents were aged 20–24,
128
N. Yagi and K. Wakita
products obtained from services) rather than “ecosystem services.” The United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) focuses on the management
of living resources. UNCLOS specifically mentions “The coastal State shall determine the allowable catch of the living resources in its exclusive economic zone
(Article 61.1)” and “The coastal State shall promote the objective of optimum
utilization of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone without prejudice
to article 61 (Article 62.1)” but does not deal with ecosystem services. Likewise, the
five criteria defined by FAO as relevant to the identification of vulnerable marine
ecosystems (VMEs) and the seven criteria for ecologically or biologically significant
marine areas (EBSAs) under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) do not
specifically mention ecosystem services.
Two reasons can be suggested to explain the slow pace of action by the international community toward the conservation and management of ecosystem services in
the ocean. Difficulties exist in understanding accurate picture on any degradation of
the ocean ecosystem and its services because ocean area is vast, and the cost of
scientific research is enormous. Difficulties also exist in identifying potential stakeholders to address the problem. This is especially true when the issues are nonfishery
ones. No specific stakeholder groups can be identified for nonfishing threats to ocean
ecosystems, such as ocean plastics or other land-based pollutions, as opposed to the
situation on fisheries, where fishers (and related sections of the governments) can be
easily identified as the person directly responsible to manage the pressures to
fisheries resources and handle the threats.
At the same time, it is possible for consumers of fish and fisheries products to play
an important role in promoting conservation for ecosystem and its services. Consumer behaviors in megacities have an impact on ocean ecosystems and ecosystem
services (which often share the strongest linkages with rural areas where fishing
villages are located). The purpose of this study is to identify the food preferences of
urban consumers and to discuss the implications for urban–rural partnerships toward
the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystem services. The focus has been
placed on fishery products in this study.
7.2 Food Preferences of Urban Consumers
An online survey was conducted in March 2014 to identify consumer preferences.
The questionnaire was developed by the authors, and the survey was conducted by
Macromill, a Japanese survey company, through a contract between the company
and the University of Tokyo.
The findings of the survey are presented in Fig. 7.1. A total number of 3332
respondents were selected in a proportional sample to match the population of seven
major consumer markets in Japan (Hokkaido, Miyagi, Tokyo, Aichi, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Fukuoka). Age classes of respondents were selected so that they are also
representative of demographics. Specifically, 6.3% of respondents were aged 20–24,
128
N. Yagi and K. Wakita