Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Sustainable Food Production pp 206–222Cite as

Aquaculture , Sustainability Science in

  • Reference work entry

Definition

There is no one definition of “sustainability ” as the concept applies to aquaculture. Most aquaculture scientists define sustainability as synonymous with “environmental sustainability .” Sustainable aquaculture is however a concept broader than determinations of site-specific environmental impacts since it embodies a scientific knowledge of systematic impacts of aquaculture off-site, and impacts to combined human-environmental systems. Sustainable aquaculture incorporates the concepts of “stewardship,” “design with nature,” the “precautionary principle,” “risk analysis,” and “carrying capacity.” Sustainability science in aquaculture is used to undertake more comprehensive planning for multiple impacts on multiple time and spatial scales to better understand and plan for the consequences of aquaculture development options.

Introduction

“The changes taking place [on planet Earth] are, in fact, changes in the human-nature relationship. They are recent, they are profound, and...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   799.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

Stewardship:

Ecosystem stewardship is an ethic practiced by aquaculture practitioners, organizations, communities, and societies who strive to sustain the qualities of healthy and resilient ecosystems and their associated human communities. Stewardship takes the long-term view and promotes activities that provide for the well-being of both the present and future generations.

Nested systems of governance:

Environmental and societal issues relating to sustainable aquaculture impact, and are influenced by, conditions and actions (at both higher and lower levels) in an ecosystem governance hierarchy. Some issues can be addressed more effectively at one level, and less effectively at another. The choice of the issue or set of issues to be addressed within a given site must therefore be made in full knowledge of how responsibility and decision-making authority are distributed within a layered governance system. Planning and decision-making for aquaculture at one scale, for example, within a municipality or province, should not contradict or conflict with planning and management at another scale, for example, planning for large-scale aquaculture at the nation-state scale. The reality is that such contradictions and conflicts are common. A major challenge for the aquaculture practitioner is to recognize these differences and work to either change them or select goals and strategies that recognize that such contradictions must be accommodated or resolved. In practical terms, this means that a central feature of ecosystem-based aquaculture is that all planning and decision-making must recognize and analyze conditions, issues, and goals in respect to the next higher level in a governance system. Thus, ecosystem-based aquaculture at the municipal scale must – at a minimum – be placed within the context of governance at the scale of the province.

Participation:

One of the defining characteristics of the practice of the ecosystem approach to aquaculture is its emphasis on participation and its relevance to the people affected. The emphasis upon participation recognizes that if an aquaculture program is to be successful, those whose collaboration and support is needed must be involved in the processes of defining the issues that the program will address, and in selecting the means by which goals and objectives will be achieved. Both individuals and members of communities and institutions are more likely to comply with a management program when they feel that it is consistent with their values, responds to their needs, and to their beliefs of how human society should function. Voluntary compliance by a supportive population lies at the heart of the successful implementation of a program. A participatory approach helps stakeholders and the public to see the efforts of an aquaculture program as a whole.

Area of focus:

The area of focus (AoF) is the geographically defined area that an ecosystem-based aquaculture project or program has decided to address and that therefore is the focal point for a baseline. The term “area of focus” is a geographic limit set to model the choices available to the aquaculture practitioner and allows for a dialogue between stakeholders as to the influence of the production. The AoF is a simplification of the far more complex concept of an “action arena” put forward by Ostrom [1] to model the choices of individuals when studying the behavior of institutions.

Adaptive management:

A central feature of the practice of any form of ecosystem-based aquaculture is that it must respond positively to changing conditions within its AoF (and to its own experience). In other words, the practice of aquaculture must be grounded in a process of learning and adaptation (the “evolution of the blue revolution” [2]). Adaptive management is not reactive management, but proactive thinking and acting. This does mean that the aquaculture practitioner simply responds to the unexpected. Adaptive management in aquaculture is a conscious process of examining the course of events as these events are revealed by preselected indicators of changes in an aquaculture ecosystem (both its social and environmental components), and by events occurring at differing spatial scales.

Capacity building:

There is growing international recognition that the lack of human capacity to practice an ecosystem approach to aquaculture is a key factor in limiting forward progress in the conservation and sustainable use of aquatic systems [3, 4]. To date, however, no accepted performance standards have been developed for assessing the effectiveness and impacts of aquaculture projects and programs that have adopted the ecosystem approach. Conceptual frameworks and methods for assessing the maturity of aquaculture development and management initiatives, and gauging their impacts upon the condition of coastal ecosystems are offered herein. These are the core ingredients for an ecosystem’s approach to aquaculture that builds the capacity of local populations and leaders to identify forces that shape the coastal ecosystems of which they are a part, and to select the actions that can maintain and enhance qualities that are critical to a desirable future.

Carrying capacity:

The carrying capacity is the number of organisms or farming operations that the environment can sustain indefinitely without environmental harm, given the food, habitat, space, water, and other requirements from the environment.

Precautionary principle:

A principle that states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment that in the absence of scientific consensus the burden of proof rests on those who advocate taking the action.

Sustainable development:

The management and conservation of the natural resource base and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Sustainable development conserves resources, is environmentally non-degrading, and is technically appropriate, economically viable, and socially acceptable [5].

Transdisciplinary:

A modern research strategy that crosses many disciplinary boundaries to create a holistic approach. Transdisciplinary research efforts are focused on problems that cross the boundaries of two or more disciplines, and develop new or reframe old concepts, methods, and findings that were originally developed by one discipline, but are now used by several others.

Bibliography

Primary Literature

  1. Ostrom E (1986) An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice 48(1):3–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Costa-Pierce B (2002) Ecological aquaculture. Blackwell, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Costa-Pierce B (2008) An ecosystem approach to marine aquaculture: a global review. In: Soto D (ed) Building an ecosystem approach to aquaculture, pp 81–116. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings 14, FAO, Rome, 221p

    Google Scholar 

  4. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2009) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2008. Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  5. FAO (1995) Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. FAO, Rome, 41 pp. Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/003/W4493e/W4493e00.pdf

  6. Moore B III, Underdal A, Lemke P, Loreau M (2002) The Amsterdam declaration on global change. In: Steffen W, Jäger J, Carson DJ, Bradshaw C (eds) Challenges of a changing earth. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gliessman S (1998) Agroecology: ecological processes in sustainable agriculture. Ann Arbor Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  8. Altieri M (2002) Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agr Ecosyst Environ 93:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kates R, Clark W, Corell R (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wurts W (2000) Sustainable aquaculture in the twenty-first century. Rev Fish Sci 8:141–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Olsen S, Sutinen J, Juda L, Hennessey T, Grigalunas T (2006) A handbook on governance and socioeconomics of large marine ecosystems. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett

    Google Scholar 

  12. Olsen S (2003) Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal management initiatives. Ocean Coast Manage 46(3–4):347–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Olsen S, Page G, Ochoa E (2009) The analysis of governance responses to ecosystem change: a handbook for assembling a baseline. LOICZ Reports & Studies No. 34. GKSS Research Center, Geesthacht, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  14. GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) (2008) Assessment and communication of environmental risks in coastal aquaculture. FAO, Reports and Studies GESAMP No. 76, Rome, 198 pp

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tucker C, Hargreaves J (2008) Environmental best management practices for aquaculture. Wiley-Backwell, Ames, IA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. National Research Council (2010) Ecosystem concepts for sustainable bivalve mariculture. National Academies Press, Research Council, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  17. Boyd C, Tucker C, McNevin A, Bostick K, Clay J (2007) Indicators of resource use efficiency and environmental performance in fish and crustacean aquaculture. Rev Fish Sci 15:327–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Daly HE (1996) Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development. Beacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pullin R (1993) Discussion and recommendations on aquaculture and the environment in developing countries. In: Pullin R, Rosenthal H, Maclean J (eds) Environment and aquaculture in developing countries. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 31, pp 312–338

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hepher B (1985) Aquaculture intensification under land and water limitations. GeoJournal 10:253–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mires D (2009) Development of inland aquaculture in arid climates: water utilization strategies applied in Israel. Fisheries Manag Ecol 7:189–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Neori A, Shpigel M, Ben-Ezra D (2000) A sustainable integrated system for culture of fish, seaweed and abalone. Aquaculture 186:279–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pimentel D, Pimentel M (2003) Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. Am J Clin Nut 78(3):660–663

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fletcher W, Chesson J, Fisher M, Sainsbury K, Hundloe T (2004) National ESD reporting framework: the ‘how to’ guide for aquaculture. FRDC Project 2000/145.1, Canberra, 88 pp

    Google Scholar 

  25. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department (2006) State of the world’s fisheries and aquaculture. FAO Italy, Rome, 162 p. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/A0699e/A0699E00.htm#Contents

  26. Cadenasso M, Pickett S, Grove M (2006) Integrative approaches to investigating human-natural systems: the Baltimore ecosystem study. Nat Sci Soc 14:4–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Roheim C (2009) An evaluation of sustainable seafood guides: implications for environmental groups and the seafood industry. Mar Resour Econ 24:301–310

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jacquet J, Hocevar J, Lai S, Majluf P, Pelletier N, Pitcher T, Sala S, Sumaila R, Pauly D (2009) Conserving wild fish in a sea of market-based efforts. Oryx, The Int J Cons. doi:10.1017/S0030605309990470

    Google Scholar 

  29. Roheim C (2001) Product certification and ecolabelling for fisheries sustainability FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 422. FAO, Rome, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wessells C, Johnston R, Donath H (1999) Assessing consumer preferences for ecolabelled seafood: the influence of species, certifier, and household attributes. Am J Agr Econ 5:1084–1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Costa-Pierce B, Bridger C (2002) The role of marine aquaculture facilities as habitats and ecosystems. In: Stickney R, McVey J (eds) Responsible marine aquaculture. CABI, Wallingford, pp 105–144

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Tacon A, Metian M (2008) Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: trends and future prospects. Aquaculture 285:146–158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bell J, Waagbo R (2002) Safe and nutritious aquaculture produce: benefits and risks of alternative sustainable aquafeeds. In: Holmer M, Black K, Duarte C, Marba N, Karqakasis I (eds) Aquaculture in the ecosystem. Springer, New York, pp 185–226

    Google Scholar 

  34. Costa M, Yanagi S, Souza P, Ribeiro A, Rocha E (2007) Climate change in Amazonia caused by soybean cropland expansion, as compared to caused by pastureland expansion. Geophys Res Lett 34(L07706). doi:10.1029/2007GL029271

    Google Scholar 

  35. Allison E, Beveridge M, van Brakel (2009) Climate change, small-scale fisheries and smallholder aquaculture. In: Culberg M (ed) Fish, trade and development. Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry, Stockholm, pp 73–87

    Google Scholar 

  36. Goldburg R, Naylor R (2005) Future seascapes, fishing, and fish farming. Front Ecol Environ 3(1):21–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Alder J, Campbell B, Karpouzi V, Kaschner K, Pauly D (2008) Forage fish: from ecosystems to markets. Ann Rev Environ Res 33:71–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Naylor R, Hardy R, Bureau D, Chiu A, Elliott M, Farrell A, Forster I, Gatlin D, Goldburg R, Hua K, Nichols P (2009) Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources. Proc Nat Acad Sci 106(36):15103–15110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Soto D, 21 co-authors (2008) Applying an ecosystem-based approach to aquaculture: principles, scales and some management measures. In: Soto D, Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Hishamunda N (eds) Building an ecosystem approach to aquaculture. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings 14. FAO, Rome, 221 pp

    Google Scholar 

  40. Skretting Aquaculture Research Centre (2009) Revealing the essential functions of vital feed ingredients. Accessed at http://www.skretting.com/Internet/SkrettingGlobal/webInternet.nsf/wPrId/D30B62DD93F65CFEC1257663004DA962!OpenDocument

  41. Watanabe T (2002) Strategies for further development of aquatic feeds. Fish Sci 68:242–252

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Opstvedt J, Aksnes A, Hope B, Pike I (2003) Efficiency of feed utilization in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) fed diets with increasing substitution of fish meal with vegetable proteins. Aquaculture 221:365–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Turchini G, Bente E, Torstensen E, Ng W (2009) Fish oil replacement in finfish nutrition. Rev Aquacult 1(1):10–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Naing A, Satoh S, Tsuchida N (2007) Effect of replacements of fishmeal and fish oil on growth and dioxin contents of rainbow trout. Fish Sci 73:750–759

    Google Scholar 

  45. Crutzen P, Stoermer E (2000) The “Anthropocene”. Glob Change Newslett 41:17–18

    Google Scholar 

  46. Fletcher A (2003) Mapping stakeholder perceptions for a third sector organization. J Intell Cap 4(4):505–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Savage G, Nix T, Whitehead B (1991) Strategies for assessing and managing orgnaizational stakeholders. Acad Manage Exec 5(2):61–75

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hemmati M, Dodds F, Enayti J, McHarry J (2002) Multistakeholder procesess on governance and sustainability. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  49. Dalton T (2005) Beyond biogeography: a framework for involving the public in planning of U.S. Marine Protected Areas. Conserv Biol 19:1392–1401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Dalton T (2006) Exploring participants’ views of participatory coastal and marine resource management processes. Coast Manage 34:351–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. ISSD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) (2004) ISO social responsibility standardization. An outline of the issues. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2004/standards_iso_srs.pdf

  52. http://www.iclei.org

  53. American Center for Life Cycle Assessment. http://www.lcacenter.org

  54. Bartley D, Brugère C, Soto D, Gerber P, Harvey B (2007) Comparative assessment of the environmental costs of aquaculture and other food production sectors: methods for meaningful comparisons. FAO/WFT Expert Workshop, 24–28 April 2006, Vancouver, Canada. FAO Fisheries Proceedings. No. 10. FAO, Rome, 241p

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ayer N, Tyedmers P (2009) Assessing alternative aquaculture technologies: life cycle assessment of salmonid culture systems in Canada. J Cleaner Prod 17:362–373

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_14000_essentials

  57. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505718/description#description

  58. IAIA (International Association for Impact Assessment) (1999) Principles of environmental impact assessment best practices. IAIA, Fargo, ND, USA. http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/Principles%20of%20IA_web.pdf

  59. US Department of Transportation. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/toolbox/costbenefit_forecasting.htm

  60. Savitz A (2006) The triple bottom line: how today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success – and how you can too. Jossey-Bass/Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  61. McCandless M, Venema H, Barg S, Oborne B (2008) Full cost accounting for agriculture – final report. Valuing public benefits accruing from agricultural beneficial management practices: an impact pathway analysis for Tobacco Creek, Manitoba. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2008/measure_fca_2008.pdf

  62. Gibson R, Hassan S, Holtz S, Tansey J, Whitelaw G (2005) Sustainability assessment: criteria and processes. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

Books and Reviews

  • Pullin R (1993) Environment and aquaculture in developing countries. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila

    Google Scholar 

  • Smil V (2000) Feeding the world: a challenge for the twenty-first century. MIT Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Tacon A, Hasan MR, Subasinghe RP (2006) Use of fishery resources as feed inputs for aquaculture development: trends and policy implications. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1018. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of New England, Marine Science Center, Biddeford, ME, USA

    Barry A. Costa-Pierce

  2. SustainaMetrix, LLC, Johns Hopkins University, @ Eastern Suite B302, 1101 E. 33rd Street, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA

    Glenn G. Page

Authors
  1. Barry A. Costa-Pierce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Glenn G. Page
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barry A. Costa-Pierce .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department de Produccio Vegetal i Ciencia Forestal, Universitat de Lleida/ICREA, Lleida, Spain

    Paul Christou

  2. Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain

    Paul Christou

  3. Department of Crop and Forest Sciences, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain

    Roxana Savin

  4. University of New England, Marine Science Center, Biddeford, ME, USA

    Barry A. Costa-Pierce

  5. Department of Animal and Dairy Science Breeding and Genetics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    Ignacy Misztal

  6. The Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Division of Developmental Biology, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland, UK

    C. Bruce A. Whitelaw

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry

Costa-Pierce, B.A., Page, G.G. (2013). Aquaculture , Sustainability Science in. In: Christou, P., Savin, R., Costa-Pierce, B.A., Misztal, I., Whitelaw, C.B.A. (eds) Sustainable Food Production. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5797-8_175

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation