to enable private farming in marine public lands?” with the USA as the empirical
reference. Cha et al. (2009) studied legislation and planning for offshore aquaculture in Korea (see footnote 1).
It seems common to assume that moving aquaculture further offshore will reduce
the conflicts with other users. Some papers have tried to investigate this, in particular to fisheries. These papers consider many more interactions than just competition over ocean space. Knapp (2008b) considers, for the USA only, potential
impacts of market-driven changes from offshore aquaculture prices and production
volumes of wild and farmed fish, and the subsequent changes in net economic
benefits to fishermen, and also fish farmers and consumers.
Valderrama and Anderson (2008) include several other mechanisms for interaction,
and point to a number of ways that modern coastal aquaculture has affected fisheries,
and through which also offshore aquaculture could make an impact. They believe that
the largest influence of aquaculture on wild fisheries has probably occurred through
international trade and the market, having: “(a) influenced prices negatively through
increased supply and positively through the development of new markets; (b) changed
consumer behavior; (c) accelerated globalization of the industry; (d) increased concentration and vertical integration in the seafood sector; (e) resulted in the introduction
of new product forms; and (f) significantly changed the way seafood providers conduct
business.” They find that the growth of aquaculture has stimulated the traditional wild
fisheries sector to improve product quality, and in some cases also wild fisheries
management to improve. But the success of the aquaculture sector has also lead to
attacks from the fisheries sector—and environmental organizations—which
Valderrama and Anderson (2008) link to the establishment of international trade
restrictions, for example for salmon, shrimp and catfish. While some of the interactions
and effects fit into the social typology category of Negative effects of aquaculture
production activities and conflicts with other interests, some also relate to Effects on the
wider economic and innovation system.
Valderrama and Anderson (2008) also consider environmental interactions.
They sum up that “aquaculture has: (a) directly influenced fish stocks through its
use of wild fish stocks for inputs, such as feed and juveniles; (b) influenced fish
stocks through intentional releases (salmon stock enhancement) or through unintentional escapes; (c) displaced wild fish through its use of habitat and, in some
cases, enhanced fisheries habitat (e.g., some oyster operations); and (d) influenced
and been influenced by wild fish stocks through transmission of diseases and
parasites.” This mainly fits into the social typology categories of Negative effects of
aquaculture production activities and conflicts with other interests.
In a recent study, Tiller et al. (2013) used systems thinking and Bayesian-belief
networks approach to investigate how offshore aquaculture developments in
California can impact commercial fishermen. The scientists arranged a workshop
with 10 commercial fishermen where they presented 7 pre-selected drivers for how
offshore aquaculture could affect the fishermen. These drivers, e.g. such as “the
quantity of farmed seafood released to the market”, were defined as “variables that
influence other variables, but are typically not affected themselves, within the
176
G. Krause and E. Mikkelsen
reference. Cha et al. (2009) studied legislation and planning for offshore aquaculture in Korea (see footnote 1).
It seems common to assume that moving aquaculture further offshore will reduce
the conflicts with other users. Some papers have tried to investigate this, in particular to fisheries. These papers consider many more interactions than just competition over ocean space. Knapp (2008b) considers, for the USA only, potential
impacts of market-driven changes from offshore aquaculture prices and production
volumes of wild and farmed fish, and the subsequent changes in net economic
benefits to fishermen, and also fish farmers and consumers.
Valderrama and Anderson (2008) include several other mechanisms for interaction,
and point to a number of ways that modern coastal aquaculture has affected fisheries,
and through which also offshore aquaculture could make an impact. They believe that
the largest influence of aquaculture on wild fisheries has probably occurred through
international trade and the market, having: “(a) influenced prices negatively through
increased supply and positively through the development of new markets; (b) changed
consumer behavior; (c) accelerated globalization of the industry; (d) increased concentration and vertical integration in the seafood sector; (e) resulted in the introduction
of new product forms; and (f) significantly changed the way seafood providers conduct
business.” They find that the growth of aquaculture has stimulated the traditional wild
fisheries sector to improve product quality, and in some cases also wild fisheries
management to improve. But the success of the aquaculture sector has also lead to
attacks from the fisheries sector—and environmental organizations—which
Valderrama and Anderson (2008) link to the establishment of international trade
restrictions, for example for salmon, shrimp and catfish. While some of the interactions
and effects fit into the social typology category of Negative effects of aquaculture
production activities and conflicts with other interests, some also relate to Effects on the
wider economic and innovation system.
Valderrama and Anderson (2008) also consider environmental interactions.
They sum up that “aquaculture has: (a) directly influenced fish stocks through its
use of wild fish stocks for inputs, such as feed and juveniles; (b) influenced fish
stocks through intentional releases (salmon stock enhancement) or through unintentional escapes; (c) displaced wild fish through its use of habitat and, in some
cases, enhanced fisheries habitat (e.g., some oyster operations); and (d) influenced
and been influenced by wild fish stocks through transmission of diseases and
parasites.” This mainly fits into the social typology categories of Negative effects of
aquaculture production activities and conflicts with other interests.
In a recent study, Tiller et al. (2013) used systems thinking and Bayesian-belief
networks approach to investigate how offshore aquaculture developments in
California can impact commercial fishermen. The scientists arranged a workshop
with 10 commercial fishermen where they presented 7 pre-selected drivers for how
offshore aquaculture could affect the fishermen. These drivers, e.g. such as “the
quantity of farmed seafood released to the market”, were defined as “variables that
influence other variables, but are typically not affected themselves, within the
176
G. Krause and E. Mikkelsen