PL EN


2014 | 23 | 4-20
Article title

Exploring Ecopreneurship in the Blue Growth: A Grounded Theory Approach

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Fisheries and aquacultures, the farming of fish, provide people livelihoods in rural and coastal societies all over the world. Fish, mussels, crabs and seaweed are captured in wild seas, lakes, and rivers or farmed in ponds, raceways, and cage cultures. Simultaneously, the fisheries sector faces many challenges: Overfishing endangers biodiversity and the natural regeneration capacity of marine resources; inequality occurs in case of the distribution of fishing permissions and technologies; the skyrocketing economic growth of aquaculture (so called ‘Blue Growth’) can lead to high environmental risks. All these dynamics cause social changes for fishers and fish farmers and in consequence for the future of their enterprises. In particular, the imbalance between supply from overfished oceans and the increasing demand for seafood grows from year to year. Modernising the aquaculture sector and its intensification seem to be the only possibility to close this gap and is one of the most important aims of the current reform of the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Commission. Thus, to match the challenges for marine fisheries in the near future is closely related to the further development of marine and inland aquaculture. But, conventional aquacultures are often connected with environmental risks. One possibility to overcome the environmental challenges and to reduce the pollution output of aquacultures at the same time can be seen in an ecological modernisation of the sector. The central protagonist in an ecological modernisation is the ecological orientated entrepreneur (ecopreneur). In the last decades a few ecopreneurial inland fish farmers have started to adopt two very different ecological innovations: idea−based organic practices or technology−based recirculating aquaculture systems. Nowadays, it is not certain whether these both ‘green’ innovations will diffuse or not in the aquacultural sector. Using the Grounded Theory approach, biographical interviews with German fish farmers, both ecopreneurial pioneers and conventional farmers, were conducted and analysed to carry out the underlying reasons for or against the implementation of ecological innovations from the point of view of the adopting unit: the fish farmers. Building on empirical insights as well as sociologies of social change and diffusion of innovations, a middle−range theory of ecopreneurships in aquaculture was developed, which addressed the apparently simple question: Why do some fish farmers adopt an ecological innovation, and some do not? Basically, our results show, that fish farmers' decision−making−process towards an ecological innovation is not only guided by economic cost−benefit calculation, but by a complex of patterns, where economic perspectives meet ecological motives as well as social aspects. By trend, those fish farmers, who had a strong ecological motivation, were embedded into a ‘green−minded’ social network and had a high degree of identification with their innovative production method, were willing to take higher risks in the adaption process of an ecological innovation than their conventional colleagues. Furthermore, our article argues that there is a need for further sociological approaches in fisheries and aquaculture research to understand patterns of acting motivation among seafood protagonists in deep. Understanding the fish farmers’ perspectives, their construction of reality, can provide a sustainable fisheries and aquaculture management policy, which will be widely accepted by the individuals concerned.
Year
Volume
23
Pages
4-20
Physical description
Dates
published
2014
Contributors
author
  • Thünen−Institute of Fisheries Ecology, Hamburg
author
  • Department of Agricultural and Food Marketing, Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel
References
  • Abbott−Jamieson, S., Clay, P. M. (2010), “The long voyage to including sociocultural analysis in NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service”, Marine Fisheries Review, 72(2): 14−33.
  • Bauer, R. (2006), Gescheiterte Innovationen. Fehlschläge und technologischer Wandel, Campus, Frankfurt a. M.
  • Bartłomiejski, R. (2011), “Fisheries local action groups: a new theme for researching maritime communities”, Roczniki Socjologii Morskiej. Annuals of Marine Sociology, XX: 46−55.
  • Bergleiter, S., Censkowsky, U. (2010), “History of organic aquaculture” in: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements EU Group (ed) Organic aquaculture. EU regulations (EC) 834/2007,
  • (EC) 889/2008, (EC) 710/2009. Background, assessment, interpretation, IFOAM EU Group, Brussels.
  • Brämick, U. (2011), Jahresbericht zur Deutschen Binnenfischerei, Institut für Binnenfischerei, Potsdam−Sacrow.
  • Cohen, B., Winn, M. I. (2007), “Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing, 22: 29−49.
  • Commission Regulation (EC) N° 710/2009 of 5 August 2009.
  • Davidsson, P. (2004), Researching Entrepreneurship, Springer, New York.
  • Destatis (2013), Land und Forstwirtschaft, Fischerei. Erzeugung in Aquakulturbetrieben 2012, Statistisches Bundesamt, Fachserie 3, Reihe 4.6, Wiesbaden.
  • Dewees, C. M., Hawkes, G. R. (1988), “Technical innovation in the Pacific coast trawl fishery: the effects of fishermen´s characteristics and perceptions on adoption behaviour”, Human Organization, 47(3):
  • 224−234.
  • Diekmann, A., Preisendörfer, P. (2001), Umweltsoziologie, Rowohlt, Reinbek.
  • European Commission (2013), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture, COM (2013) 229 final, Publication Office of the European Union, Brussels.
  • FAO (2012), The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2012, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.
  • Fueglistaller, U., Müller, C., Volery, T. (2008), Entrepreneurship. Modelle − Umsetzung − Perspektiven. Mit Fallbeispielen aus Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz, Gabler, Wiesbaden.
  • Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L. (2008), The discovery of Grounded Theory: strategies for qualitative research, Adline, New Brunswick.
  • Hauschildt, J., Salomo, S. (2007), Innovationsmanagement, Vahlen, München.
  • Huntington, T. C. et al. (2006), Some aspects of the environmental impact of aquaculture in sensitive areas, final report to the DG Fish and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission, Poseidon Aquatic
  • Resource Management, Windrush.
  • Isaak, R. (1998), Green logic: ecopreneurship, theory and ethics, Greenleaf, Sheffield.
  • Jänicke, M. (1994), “Ökologische Strukturpolitik für Industrieländer − Defizite und Notwendigkeiten“, in:
  • Henze K. (ed.), Ökologie−Dialog. Umweltmanager und Umweltschützer im Gespräch, ECON, Düsseldorf.
  • Kiefer, K. (1967), Die Diffusion von Neuerungen. Kultursoziologische und kommunikationswissenschaftliche Aspekte der agrarsoziologischen Diffusionsforschung, Mohr, Tübingen.
  • Lasner, T., Hamm, U., Aas, M., Oberle, M. (2010), Marktanalyse für ökologische Aquakulturerzeugnisse, BLE Abschlussbericht, University of Kassel, Kassel.
  • Meinelt, T., Bartschat, P., Wichmann, T., Hiller, J. (2014), “Fortbildungsveranstaltung für Fischhaltung und Fischzucht, Institut für Fischerei (IFI) der Bayerischen Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft (LFL) vom 14.−15. Januar 2014 in Starnberg“, Fischerei & Fischmarkt in Mecklenburg−Vorpommern, 14(1): 49−54.
  • Mokhtar, Z. (2006), Akzeptanz von technologischen Innovationen aus wirtschaftssoziologischer Sicht. Ansätze zu einer Nutzertypologie des Internetbanking, Rainer Hampp, München.
  • OECD (2009), Measuring entrepreneurship. A collection of indicators, Organisation for Economic Co−operation and Development (OECD), OECD Publishing, Paris.
  • Ogburn, W. F. (1964), On culture and social change: selected papers, Chicago press, Chicago.
  • Padel, S. (2001), “Conversion to organic farming: a typical example of the diffusion of an innovation?”, Sociologia Ruralis, 41(1): 40−61.
  • Patzelt, H., Shepherd, D. A. (2011), “Recognizing opportunities for sustainable development”, Entrepreneurship − Theory and Practice, July: 631−625.
  • Pillay, T. V. R., Kutty, M. N. (2005), Aquaculture: principles and practices, Blackwell, Oxford.
  • Prein, M. et al. (2012), “Organic aquaculture: the future of expanding niche markets”, in: Subasinghe A. B., et. al. (eds.), Farming the waters for people and food, Global conference on aquaculture, Phuket, September 2010, FAO, NACA, Rome, Bangkok.
  • Rogers, E. M. (2003), Diffusion of innovations, Free Press, New York.
  • Rümmler, F. (2010), “Kreislauftechnik − Wasseraufbereitung und Wiederverwendung“, in: Schmidt−Puckhaber B. (ed.), Fisch vom Hof?! Fischerzeugung in standortunabhängigen Kreislaufanlagen, DLG, Frankfurt a. M.
  • Schaper, M. (2005), “Understanding the green entrepreneur”, in: Schaper M. (ed.), Making ecopreneurs: developing sustainable entrepreneurship, Ashgate, Aldershot.
  • Schmidt−Puckhaber, B. (2010), “Fischzucht − Einführung in die Nutztierhaltung in Wasser“, in: Schmidt−Puckhaber B. (ed.), Fisch vom Hof?! Fischerzeugung in standortunabhängigen Kreislaufanlagen, DLG, Frankfurt a. M.
  • Schultz, M. (2012), Marine aquaculture in the context of sustainable coastal development: what influences decision−making processes in Israel and Germany?, Dissertation, Christian−Albrecht−University, Kiel.
  • Strauss, A. L. (2004), “Methodologische Grundlagen der Grounded Theory“, in: Strübing J., Schnettler B. (eds.), Methodologie interpretativer Sozialforschung, UTB, Konstanz.
  • Tango−Lowy, T., Robertson, R. A. (2002), “Predisposition toward adoption of open ocean aquaculture by northern New England´s inshore, commercial fishermen”, Human Organization, 61(3): 240−251.
  • Wedekind, H. (2008), “Kreislauftechnologie: Was ist in Deutschland möglich?“, in: Deutscher Fischereiverband (ed.), Ressourcenschonende Fischproduktion, Arbeiten des Deutschen Fischereiverbandes, Hamburg.
  • Weiler, N. (2013), “Interview mit Tobias Lasner zur Marktsituation von Bio−Fisch“, FischMagazin, 2: 64−67.
  • Wienold, H. (2011), “Theorien mittlerer Reichweite“, in: Fuchs−Heinritz W., et al. (eds.), Lexikon zur Soziologie, VS, Wiesbaden.
  • Witzel, A. (2000), “The problem−centered interview”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), article 22.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
ISSN
0860-6552
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-40e73e54-109b-4275-96ac-1aedd22967d0
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.