Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
One of the key underlying principles of sustainable food and agriculture systems is to enhance the resilience of people, communities, and ecosystems. This paper discusses broadly the intersection of community resiliency and sustainability of our food system through the lens of positive and negative contributions of aquaculture within the context of the underlying environmental, economic, social, and governance dimensions. Aquaculture has been part of the food supply system for humans for millennia, and its contributions to the resiliency of communities and to sustainability is critical to meet the nutritional, economic, and ecological challenges of the world. Aquaculture, as any human endeavor, can result in negative impacts on the environment, economy, social structure, and resilience of communities. Recent work has reported continued progress in the sustainability of aquaculture and dispelled myths that have proliferated in public media. As a result, aquaculture is increasingly viewed as a potential solution to global challenges of supplying a sustainably raised protein source, complementing fishing and other activities in communities, improving water quality, and responding to climate change, among others. Communities face ever more complex pressures that affect their resiliency when confronted with an array of environmental, social, and economic challenges. Whether aquaculture enhances or decreases the resilience of communities depends largely on the regulatory framework and associated public governance policies at local, state/provincial and national levels. In locales where aquaculture is under-regulated, communities can be affected negatively from resulting environmental, economic, and social problems. Over-regulation of aquaculture can stifle aquaculture activities that enhance ecosystem services and provide social and economic benefits. Greater attention is needed to aquaculture governance and regulatory processes to ensure that rulemaking, implementation, and enforcement provide adequate oversight, but avoid unintended negative consequences to the environment, social networks, and local economies. Participatory approaches that entail effective engagement among regulatory agency staff, aquaculture producers, local citizens, and other stakeholders are more effective than command-and-control regulatory approaches. Aquaculture, when practiced responsibly and sustainably by farmers and when appropriate science-based regulations are implemented rationally and efficiently, can enhance the resiliency of communities.
One of the key underlying principles of sustainable food and agriculture systems is to enhance the resilience of people, communities, and ecosystems. This paper discusses broadly the intersection of community resiliency and sustainability of our food system through the lens of positive and negative contributions of aquaculture within the context of the underlying environmental, economic, social, and governance dimensions. Aquaculture has been part of the food supply system for humans for millennia, and its contributions to the resiliency of communities and to sustainability is critical to meet the nutritional, economic, and ecological challenges of the world. Aquaculture, as any human endeavor, can result in negative impacts on the environment, economy, social structure, and resilience of communities. Recent work has reported continued progress in the sustainability of aquaculture and dispelled myths that have proliferated in public media. As a result, aquaculture is increasingly viewed as a potential solution to global challenges of supplying a sustainably raised protein source, complementing fishing and other activities in communities, improving water quality, and responding to climate change, among others. Communities face ever more complex pressures that affect their resiliency when confronted with an array of environmental, social, and economic challenges. Whether aquaculture enhances or decreases the resilience of communities depends largely on the regulatory framework and associated public governance policies at local, state/provincial and national levels. In locales where aquaculture is under-regulated, communities can be affected negatively from resulting environmental, economic, and social problems. Over-regulation of aquaculture can stifle aquaculture activities that enhance ecosystem services and provide social and economic benefits. Greater attention is needed to aquaculture governance and regulatory processes to ensure that rulemaking, implementation, and enforcement provide adequate oversight, but avoid unintended negative consequences to the environment, social networks, and local economies. Participatory approaches that entail effective engagement among regulatory agency staff, aquaculture producers, local citizens, and other stakeholders are more effective than command-and-control regulatory approaches. Aquaculture, when practiced responsibly and sustainably by farmers and when appropriate science-based regulations are implemented rationally and efficiently, can enhance the resiliency of communities.
Emerging research on aquaculture governance has pointed to the conundrum of negative global environmental effects from economic incentives for aquaculture production to shift from more highly regulated to less regulated countries. This study has focused on examining whether regulatory costs on U.S. tilapia farms may have contributed to their contraction in contrast to the growth of global tilapia production that contributes to the volume of seafood imports into the U.S. A national survey (coverage rate = 75% of tilapia sold; response rate = 18%) found that on-farm regulatory costs accounted for 15% of total production costs on U.S. tilapia farms, the fifth-highest cost of production. The total direct regulatory costs nationally were $4.4 million, averaging $137,611/farm. Most problematic were regulations of effluent discharge, predatory bird control, international export, and water and energy policies. Manpower costs for monitoring and reporting were the greatest cost of regulatory compliance. The lost sales revenue resulting from regulations was $32 million a year, or 82% of total annual sales, indicating that the regulatory framework has constrained the growth of U.S. tilapia farming. The smallest tilapia farms had the greatest regulatory cost per kg. This study provides evidence that regulatory costs, along with other challenges related to live fish markets, have contributed to the decline in U.S. tilapia production. Increased competitiveness of the U.S. tilapia industry will require a combination of: (1) improved regulatory efficiency that reduces on-farm cost burdens without reducing societal benefits; (2) research and on-farm extension assistance to evaluate new tilapia fillet equipment; and (3) research on changing consumer preferences to provide guidance on effective strategies to penetrate the large U.S. fillet market.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.