Valuation of Ecosystem Services to promote sustainable aquaculture practices

Abstract

Conceptual frameworks to assess and valuate Ecosystem Services (ES) are rapidly becoming important tools for ecosystem‐based management, as they support transdisciplinary approaches to ecological economics and expand current asset boundaries to include natural and social capital. An important area where such ES assessment frameworks could become relevant management tools is aquaculture. Aquaculture activities are an interconnected part of the ecosystem in which they exist and, under certain circumstances, can support many of the same fundamental ES provided by nature. But, in most cases, aquaculture typically increases provisioning services at the expense of the other services (regulation & maintenance and cultural services). To understand the capacity of ES valuation methods to expose existing ES trade‐offs in areas under aquaculture development, this study provides a literature review of publications that assessed and valuated ES delivered and/or impacted by aquaculture. In general, it seems that certain types of aquaculture do negatively impact overall ES delivery (e.g. intensive mangrove shrimp farming in Asia), yet certain modes of production (e.g. integrated multi‐trophic aquaculture) and cultured species (e.g. algae and certain bivalves) can have a positive impact on ES, not only improving provisioning services but also regulation and maintenance services and, potentially, cultural services. ES valuation methods provide important data that facilitate discussion among stakeholders and policymakers and should be included in marine and coastal management planning processes to foster a more sustainable aquaculture.

Emergy synthesis for aquaculture: A review on its constraints and potentials

“…2019; Custódio et al . 2020). These production systems are managed mainly to provide food, fibre, and energy.…”

“…Systems that provide ecosystem services should receive some support, while those that cause disservices should be responsible for the damage caused (Custódio et al . 2020).…”

“…Another aspect that deserves attention in sustainability assessments is the ecosystem services and disservices (ES&D) (MEA 2005;Shah et al 2019). This concept has become popular in the field of environmental research and policymaking in the past 20 years, since it was realized that food production systems can provide benefits beyond food (Aubin et al 2019;Cust odio et al 2020). These production systems are managed mainly to provide food, fibre, and energy.…”

Effects of outplanting time on growth, shedding and quality of Saccharina latissima (Phaeophyceae) in its northern distribution range

“…Due to a steadily increasing food and energy demand, the UN have declared 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) for 2030. Seaweed aquaculture can contribute to several of these (SDG 2zero hunger; SDG 3good health and well-being, SDG 12 -Responsible consumption and production; SDG 13 climate action; SDG 14 -life below water) (Custódio et al 2020;FAO 2020), by producing nutritional and healthy biomass (García-Poza et al 2020) and supporting ecosystem services such as removal of dissolved inorganic nutrients and carbon dioxide, decreasing eutrophication and acidification of coastal waters (Jiang et al 2020), and habitat provision (Visch et al 2020a(Visch et al , 2020b. In 2018, seaweed aquaculture (red, green and brown algae) accounted for 32.4 million of 114.5 million tonnes of biomass from aquaculture and 13.3 billion of 263.6 billion US$ (FAO 2018(FAO , 2020.…”

Global stakeholder vision for ecosystem‐based marine aquaculture expansion from coastal to offshore areas

“…In addition, the Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture (EAA; Soto et al 2008; FAO 2010) is intended to achieve the sustainable development of aquaculture. This approach requires aquaculture to (i) be developed in the context of ecosystem functions and services (including biodiversity) (Custódio et al 2019), with no degradation beyond resilience; (ii) improve human well‐being with equity for all relevant stakeholders (e.g. access rights and fair share of income); and (iii) be developed in the context of other sectors, policies and goals, as appropriate (Aguilar‐Manjarrez et al 2017).…”