There is a need for further research on attitudes towards aquaculture and their
formation, both for inshore and offshore aquaculture. The central theme to date on
attitudes is how aquaculture under different settings and circumstances leads to
conflicts. Questions that remain to be covered are whether the large increase in
aquaculture production will reduce social acceptance, and if attitudes depend on the
degree of exposure to prior experience of inshore aquaculture, as a study by
Ladenburg and Krause (2011) has indicated for the expansion of wind turbines.
They could show that prior experience plays an important role in affecting positive
or negative perceptions of renewable energy systems. It can be assumed that this
effect may also be relevant for offshore aquaculture development.
8.2.2 Organization of and Participation in Planning
for Aquaculture
The omission of relevant stakeholders and social concerns in aquaculture development projects has, more often than not, contributed to inequity, social conflicts
and violence (Krause et al. 2015). Therefore, the analysis and documentation of
who the relevant stakeholder groups are is important for achieving a good planning
process. This may include assessment of their legitimacy and power (Buanes et al.
2004). The design and execution of the planning process for aquaculture, or for the
broader MSP process, is important both for the efficiency of the process and for the
social sustainability of the outcomes. Qualities like transparency, representativeness
and fairness matter for i.e. the legitimacy and support for the outcome (Buanes et al.
2004), for the wider trust in authorities, for development/maintenance of democracy, and for sustainable development (Krause et al. 2015).
Who to include in the planning process, and how, can be difficult to decide upon,
balancing the ideals above with the ambition for an effective planning process,
which typically also is embedded in a larger governance system. Whilst addressing
the interactions and feedbacks between issues (e.g. economic, social and environmental consequences) in a MSP context, it becomes evident that many of these play
out over time (i.e. in past, present and future contexts) and space (i.e. at local,
regional and ecosystem/global scale)—these are referred to as ‘cross-scale’ or
‘multi-scale’ processes (Krause et al. 2015). What time-scale to consider in the
planning process, and thus also what geographical scale, is also something that
must be decided.
Discussions of the availability, usefulness and ease of use of knowledge is also
important, e.g. on aquaculture’s value creation and its distribution (Isaksen and
Mikkelsen 2012). For example, with the development of feed-aquaculture turning to
more land-based production of feeds, agriculture can also be seen as a new
emerging stakeholder in aquaculture production (Costa-Pierce 2010). Indeed, when
new groups of stakeholders are included in planning processes they may often bring
8 The Socio-economic Dimensions of Offshore …
169
formation, both for inshore and offshore aquaculture. The central theme to date on
attitudes is how aquaculture under different settings and circumstances leads to
conflicts. Questions that remain to be covered are whether the large increase in
aquaculture production will reduce social acceptance, and if attitudes depend on the
degree of exposure to prior experience of inshore aquaculture, as a study by
Ladenburg and Krause (2011) has indicated for the expansion of wind turbines.
They could show that prior experience plays an important role in affecting positive
or negative perceptions of renewable energy systems. It can be assumed that this
effect may also be relevant for offshore aquaculture development.
8.2.2 Organization of and Participation in Planning
for Aquaculture
The omission of relevant stakeholders and social concerns in aquaculture development projects has, more often than not, contributed to inequity, social conflicts
and violence (Krause et al. 2015). Therefore, the analysis and documentation of
who the relevant stakeholder groups are is important for achieving a good planning
process. This may include assessment of their legitimacy and power (Buanes et al.
2004). The design and execution of the planning process for aquaculture, or for the
broader MSP process, is important both for the efficiency of the process and for the
social sustainability of the outcomes. Qualities like transparency, representativeness
and fairness matter for i.e. the legitimacy and support for the outcome (Buanes et al.
2004), for the wider trust in authorities, for development/maintenance of democracy, and for sustainable development (Krause et al. 2015).
Who to include in the planning process, and how, can be difficult to decide upon,
balancing the ideals above with the ambition for an effective planning process,
which typically also is embedded in a larger governance system. Whilst addressing
the interactions and feedbacks between issues (e.g. economic, social and environmental consequences) in a MSP context, it becomes evident that many of these play
out over time (i.e. in past, present and future contexts) and space (i.e. at local,
regional and ecosystem/global scale)—these are referred to as ‘cross-scale’ or
‘multi-scale’ processes (Krause et al. 2015). What time-scale to consider in the
planning process, and thus also what geographical scale, is also something that
must be decided.
Discussions of the availability, usefulness and ease of use of knowledge is also
important, e.g. on aquaculture’s value creation and its distribution (Isaksen and
Mikkelsen 2012). For example, with the development of feed-aquaculture turning to
more land-based production of feeds, agriculture can also be seen as a new
emerging stakeholder in aquaculture production (Costa-Pierce 2010). Indeed, when
new groups of stakeholders are included in planning processes they may often bring
8 The Socio-economic Dimensions of Offshore …
169