physical, and chemical). These aspects will, however, affect some of the social
dimensions, like the number of jobs provided by aquaculture, the economic benefits
to society, and possible conflicts with other stakeholders. Further, the different
social dimensions (a)–(f) will typically interact. In the following sub-chapters, we
elaborate in more detail on the suggested typology and their implications especially
for offshore aquaculture.
8.2.1 Attitudes to and Perceptions of Aquaculture
How attitudes to aquaculture vary and correspond between social groups must be
taken into account by planning authorities. However, capturing these varying
stakeholder attitudes are also of relevance for businesses, NGOs and other stakeholders (Mazur and Curtis 2008; Freeman et al. 2012; Ladenburg and Krause
2011). Studies from different countries have explored groups’ views on how
aquaculture impacts, i.e. on the environment (e.g. by chemical pollution, effecting
local fish stocks and wildlife, visual pollution of coastal landscape), on possible
job-creation and economic benefits of mostly rural marginal areas, how it interferes
with tourism, fishing or recreation, how it contributes to food security, and how the
regulation of aquaculture should be.
This has been done for a number of countries, including Australia (Mazur and
Curtis 2006, 2008), Spain (Bacher et al. 2014), Thailand (Schmitt and Brugere
2013), US and Norway (Chu et al. 2010), Greece (Katranidis et al. 2003), New
Zealand (Shafer et al. 2010), Germany (Krause et al. 2011; Wever et al. 2015),
Israel (Freeman et al. 2012), and Scotland (Whitmarsh and Palmieri 2009). Many of
the studies concentrate on local stakeholder groups related to aquaculture (e.g.
Bacher et al. 2014), several include tourists (e.g. Katranidis et al. 2003), some
consider the general public (e.g. Mazur and Curtis 2008), and some also try to
consider how the attitudes and risk perceptions expressed correlate with personal
characteristics (e.g. lifestyle behaviour, Freeman et al. 2012), or even with community situation (e.g. employment or income deprivation, Whitmarsh and Palmieri
2009).
Bergfjord (2009) asked fish farmers in Norway what they see as the greatest
risks to their business. The majority of respondents raised biggest concerns pertaining to market conditions for their product and towards the outbreak of diseases.
Socially related dimensions do, however, also appear on their list, including sea
area access, changes to the license system and of environmental regulations, which
are all relatively high up on the list, while public repugnance to fish farms (aesthetics, environment) is ranked lower.
Slater et al. (2013), investigate how personal characteristics correlate with willingness towards choosing aquaculture as a livelihood in a developing country setting.
Their model allows policy makers to consider the influence of socio-economic factors
on the success of introducing aquaculture in different local contexts.
168
G. Krause and E. Mikkelsen
dimensions, like the number of jobs provided by aquaculture, the economic benefits
to society, and possible conflicts with other stakeholders. Further, the different
social dimensions (a)–(f) will typically interact. In the following sub-chapters, we
elaborate in more detail on the suggested typology and their implications especially
for offshore aquaculture.
8.2.1 Attitudes to and Perceptions of Aquaculture
How attitudes to aquaculture vary and correspond between social groups must be
taken into account by planning authorities. However, capturing these varying
stakeholder attitudes are also of relevance for businesses, NGOs and other stakeholders (Mazur and Curtis 2008; Freeman et al. 2012; Ladenburg and Krause
2011). Studies from different countries have explored groups’ views on how
aquaculture impacts, i.e. on the environment (e.g. by chemical pollution, effecting
local fish stocks and wildlife, visual pollution of coastal landscape), on possible
job-creation and economic benefits of mostly rural marginal areas, how it interferes
with tourism, fishing or recreation, how it contributes to food security, and how the
regulation of aquaculture should be.
This has been done for a number of countries, including Australia (Mazur and
Curtis 2006, 2008), Spain (Bacher et al. 2014), Thailand (Schmitt and Brugere
2013), US and Norway (Chu et al. 2010), Greece (Katranidis et al. 2003), New
Zealand (Shafer et al. 2010), Germany (Krause et al. 2011; Wever et al. 2015),
Israel (Freeman et al. 2012), and Scotland (Whitmarsh and Palmieri 2009). Many of
the studies concentrate on local stakeholder groups related to aquaculture (e.g.
Bacher et al. 2014), several include tourists (e.g. Katranidis et al. 2003), some
consider the general public (e.g. Mazur and Curtis 2008), and some also try to
consider how the attitudes and risk perceptions expressed correlate with personal
characteristics (e.g. lifestyle behaviour, Freeman et al. 2012), or even with community situation (e.g. employment or income deprivation, Whitmarsh and Palmieri
2009).
Bergfjord (2009) asked fish farmers in Norway what they see as the greatest
risks to their business. The majority of respondents raised biggest concerns pertaining to market conditions for their product and towards the outbreak of diseases.
Socially related dimensions do, however, also appear on their list, including sea
area access, changes to the license system and of environmental regulations, which
are all relatively high up on the list, while public repugnance to fish farms (aesthetics, environment) is ranked lower.
Slater et al. (2013), investigate how personal characteristics correlate with willingness towards choosing aquaculture as a livelihood in a developing country setting.
Their model allows policy makers to consider the influence of socio-economic factors
on the success of introducing aquaculture in different local contexts.
168
G. Krause and E. Mikkelsen