Gesche Krause1
Jenny Weitzman2
Megan E. Rector3,4
Ramon Filgueira3,5*
Sander van den Burg6
Dorothy Jane Dankel7
Marit Schei Olsen8
Tonje C. Osmundsen8- 1Science and Society, Alfred-Wegener-Institute Helmholtz Center for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany
- 2Centre for Marine Applied Research, Dartmouth, NS, Canada
- 3Marine Affairs Program, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
- 4Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom
- 5Benthic Resources and Processes, Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway
- 6Wageningen Economic Research, The Hague, Netherlands
- 7SINTEF Ocean, Climate and Sustainability, Bergen, Norway
- 8NTNU Social Research, Trondheim, Norway
Aquaculture technology is on the move, enabling production in more open and exposed ocean environments around the world. These new systems offer solutions to environmental challenges facing conventional aquaculture, yet new technologies also create new social challenges while potentially exacerbating, or at minimum recreating, others. Offshore aquaculture research and governance are still in early stages, as is our understanding of the social repercussions and challenges associated with development. This paper provides an evaluation and reflection on offshore aquaculture from a social science perspective and is based on findings from a modified World Café group discussion method including the thoughts and experiences of social science experts. Key challenges and uncertainties including a lack of an appropriate regulatory framework, societal perceptions of offshore aquaculture, and offshore aquaculture’s contribution to society were identified. The governance implications of these challenges are discussed as well as the need for social sciences to address these challenges through transformative and transdisciplinary approaches that bridge science and society.
Introduction
In recent years, “offshore” aquaculture has gained increased attention as a major avenue for the expansion of aquaculture, especially for commercially important finfish species such as Atlantic salmon (Morro et al., 2022), but also for various species of shellfish (Barillé et al., 2020; Heasman et al., 2020). We hereby follow the definition given in Buck et al., 2024, in which it is suggest that the definition of “offshore” versus “nearshore” and “exposed” versus “sheltered” be defined exclusively according to the distance from shore based on visibility and the wave and current conditions respectively, creating discrete categories for each term. By and large, the discourses on offshore aquaculture have been driven mainly by biological and technological considerations. In contrast, social science perspectives are, as of yet, rather under-researched areas that require more attention (Krause et al., 2015), a trend that is present throughout ocean sustainability research (Partelow et al., 2023). Indeed, while there has been a recent proliferation of social science research on aquaculture (Budhathoki et al., 2024), most has been focused on near-shore coastal aquaculture contexts; thus, nuanced understandings of societal concerns about offshore aquaculture is greatly lacking in the aquaculture literature. This is however urgently needed, as climate change, biodiversity loss and food security are central challenges humanity is facing (Krause et al., 2022; FAO, 2021). These challenges call for novel research approaches that lead to interventions, actions and change to encourage more sustainable pathways. For instance, to limit compromising the integrity of the planet, a shift is needed toward marine food production with low environmental impacts and low carbon footprint (Krause et al., 2022). Hence, while knowledge-oriented basic research is required for the development of long-term innovations, research should also adopt a more immediate and solution-oriented focus directed at the most vulnerable and support associated regulatory and policy needs (Drakvik et al., 2020).
The management of aquaculture has previously been described as a “wicked problem” due to uncertainty around its impacts on the environment and society and the rapidly changing nature of the industry (Osmundsen et al., 2017). Wicked problems are characterized by being difficult to solve due to their complexity and interdependencies including linkages between social, economic, and policy issues and outcomes (Weber and Khademian, 2008). Understanding these issues and outcomes as well as their implications for policy and regulation have been approached through the social sciences, their subfields, and associated methodologies including economics (e.g. Anderson et al., 2019; Asche et al., 2022), geography (e.g. Belton and Bush, 2014; Vandergeest and Unno, 2012), sociology (e.g. Safford et al., 2019), and political science (e.g. Young et al., 2019; Martin et al., 2021; Wiber et al., 2021). Many of these approaches highlight the need for a place-based and spatial understanding of the impacts and outcomes of aquaculture, and the interactions between them. Therefore, the wicked problem of aquaculture management, policy, and governance can be expected to be replicated, accentuated, and changed as aquaculture moves offshore, creating new linkages between social and ecological systems while changing the nature of others. Managing these emerging challenges will necessitate new and evolving policies and regulations. Social science research approaches, like those already employed toward understanding the current and previous state of aquaculture systems, need to be expanded. In addition, the integration of these approaches and emerging transdisciplinary research will be needed to understand changing aquaculture social-ecological systems and inform policy and regulation as infrastructure moves offshore.
In this pursuit, we argue that there is a risk that offshore aquaculture is treated as a “one-type-only” type of aquaculture, disregarding the different modes of offshore aquaculture operations that entail discriminating uncertainties and challenges. Next to the type of species cultivated, the interplay between water depth, distance from dock, people time, vessel efficiency and sea conditions all play an important role to the commercial viability of an offshore aquaculture farm (Buck et al., 2024). Furthermore, governance issues range from fish welfare, security of workforce, liability of technical structures as well as ownership issues pertaining the offshore aquaculture structure as such, as well as on the fish production therein. From a social science stance, these result in different types of societal concerns and related governance needs, where governance includes the policies, processes, and practices that are used to manage coastal and ocean resources in ways that reflect societal expectations (Jolly et al., 2023). Accordingly, an informed differentiation between different types of offshore aquaculture is crucial (see Froehlich et al., 2017; Buck et al., 2024). In recognition of the need to clarify definitions related to the term “offshore” (Watson et al., 2022), which are also described through terms such as “exposed”, and “open ocean” aquaculture (Buck et al., 2024), this paper deals primarily with definitions distinguished by distance, since most of the social implications and considerations resonate around the challenges and uncertainties of moving operations further from shore. Accordingly, the discussions around the challenges and considerations will focus on offshore aquaculture, as this term better represents the farm’s geographical distance from the shore.
Based on summarizing key insights of experts, the objective of this paper is to reflect on the state of current knowledge in understanding anticipated social repercussions and challenges of entering a new aquaculture landscape. Thus, this paper offers a critical social science examination of the current state of offshore aquaculture research. In addition, it discusses the opportunities for social science to increase solution-oriented governance that addresses in an adequate manner the pivotal role that societal concerns play in the decision for, and development of, sustainable offshore aquaculture systems. Therefore, this reflection on the state of knowledge regarding the social implications of offshore aquaculture and opportunities for social science also serves as a call to natural scientists and policymakers to more strongly engage social scientists and social science methodologies in addressing the challenges that lie ahead.
Methodological approach
To endorse the topic of offshore aquaculture from a social science perspective, this paper presents reflections that emerged through discussions by social science experts. These discussions follow from evidence that the sustainability outcomes of offshore aquaculture differ across social dimensions and scale, and are dependent on farm scale and location (Krause et al., 2020). To this end, and working under the assumption that offshore aquaculture and its social dimensions are highly site-specific, we collated the findings of a modified World Café session during the annual European Aquaculture Society (EAS) meeting in Rimini, Italy in September 2022. Generally, the World Café is a large group method, which contains a sequence of discussions at tables with 4 to 7 people seated at each table (Brown and Isaacs, 2005). Such sessions can last from a couple of hours up to one to two days. In our case, an adapted version of the World Café method took place during one full-day at the EAS conference that focused on “Socio-economic challenges for sustainable aquaculture in a changing environment”. Participants included 14 expert presenters from European and North American institutions who provided in-depth research talks, as well as an audience of approximately 50 conference attendees with a diverse background, ranging from natural to social sciences. Since most of the experts and participants were from countries from the Global North, the focus of the deliberations were biased toward high-tech offshore salmon aquaculture systems. That said, the following sections recognize this potential bias by carving out the very central issues of social science engagements in this research field in a more generic manner. To foster social science perspectives on the challenges and opportunities for offshore aquaculture, experts were asked to provide their thoughts and experiences on the following research questions:
(1) What emerging trajectories and related uncertainties can be observed that need to be considered from a social science perspective to foster innovative solutions of sustainable offshore aquaculture?
(2) What challenges or constraints can be identified that relate to the broader context of this development?
(3) What other thematic areas can be identified that need to be addressed to foster solution-oriented governance outcomes?
Given the venue and conference format constraints prevented a typical World Café with multiple tables, we organized the conference session into different thematic sub-sections. These were (a) emerging trajectories, (b) approaches and tools, and (c) governance. Under each of these thematic headings, presenters provided an overview of their cutting-edge research and provided their thoughts on the three questions listed above. During the three subsequent World Café breakout sessions (~25 min each) the thoughts and personal experiences of experts and audience on the three questions were discussed in plenary. One central focus of this exercise concerned the main uncertainties, challenges and the identification of under-researched topics that relate specifically to offshore aquaculture from a social science epistemology.
In the following sections, we present central themes and findings that emerged in the discussions. These results reflect themes emerging from experts present at the World Café session, and further reflections and references to the social science literature. The first section describes the key challenges and uncertainties identified by experts. The next section provides a reflection on the governance implications of these challenges. In the final section, these are synthesized to identify opportunities for social science research to contribute knowledge and inform governance of offshore aquaculture. Given this approach and the diversity of expertise, theoretical foundations, and methodological approaches of experts who participated in the World Café, this discussion focuses on broad thematic points of discussion. Although this approach may neglect some of the nuance of the discussion that took place among experts, we hope that this broader perspective provides a practical overview for natural scientists and policymakers, and that it may inspire social scientists to address the challenges of offshore aquaculture from specific theoretical perspectives and methodologies.
Challenges and uncertainties to offshore aquaculture governance
New production systems such as offshore aquaculture have their own challenges and uncertainties that warrant attention e.g., infrastructure, financial needs and risks, fish welfare, and societal/consumer perceptions, among others. The following section describes participants’ insights into key social challenges and uncertainties related to offshore aquaculture, and the repercussions they might have on society and governance. Many of the identified challenges and uncertainties coincide with long-standing challenges of conventional aquaculture. This section describes the additional challenges, highlighting that often those existing challenges are exacerbated due to distance and/or exposure.
Unfolding regulatory frameworks
As of today, ongoing processes for developing technology for offshore aquaculture are in motion (Moe Føre et al., 2022). Yet, participants regularly discussed that a major obstacle in establishing offshore aquaculture has been the difficulty of navigating present regulatory frameworks (Watson et al., 2022). There is a lack of streamlined, consistent and predictable policy frameworks that support permitting processes for offshore aquaculture (Morro et al., 2022). In recent years, few jurisdictions have begun to explore and implement offshore aquaculture policies, including the United States of America (NOAA, 2016; Upton, 2019), New Zealand (The New Zealand Government, 2019), Panama1 and Norway2. Beyond these notable exceptions, many aquaculture jurisdictions lack dedicated regulatory frameworks for offshore aquaculture (Davies et al., 2019), often taking a largely “one size fits all” approach to culture practices. For instance, although there is an Aquaculture Act regulating all aquaculture activities in Norway (Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, 2005), there is a need for additions and adjustments to adequately address aspects of offshore aquaculture. For example, tax regulations are only valid in certain (nearshore) areas, creating a need for more specific tax regulations for offshore aquaculture. Public authorities may have jurisdiction only within specific distances from the coast, prompting decisions to be made for new jurisdictional areas, or the substitution of other regulatory bodies to oversee aquaculture production. While jurisdictions are working to accommodate offshore aquaculture, the frameworks are not expedient and are complicated by existing fragmented and complex regulatory frameworks that are often composed of regulations across various agencies and spatial scales (Osmundsen et al., 2022). Based on these insights, the participants of the World Café discussed how the complexity of existing frameworks and uncertainty of creating effective governance structures designed to meet the unique challenges of offshore aquaculture are not only challenging for government, but may also hinder the willingness of investors to develop offshore aquaculture in jurisdictions that lack clear regulatory regimes (Knapp and Rubino, 2016).
Offshore aquaculture production systems are driven by a plethora of diverging considerations and decision-making aspects that have implications for effective planning, licensing and management decisions. From our discussions, participants reflected on shared experiences that current governance mechanisms, management approaches and monitoring requirements in many areas are designed to account for environmental and production features of the nearshore environment. However, offshore systems have variable considerations that can range from decisions on infrastructure in relation to the type of product produced, the variable welfare and disease aspects, and potentially drastically different environmental conditions, all of which experts felt would have repercussions on the respective probable governance regime. Additionally, decisions on technology are also interlinked with site specifications and the needs for operational safety, manpower/presence of staff, emergency preparedness, energy needs, equipment liability needs, etc. For example, environmental conditions in more exposed, offshore areas means workers are likely more susceptible to high wind and waves, having important considerations for worker health and safety (Holmen, 2022; Neis et al., 2023). As a result, these needs require tailoring the respective technological designs for specific sites and conditions to a larger extent than is common for conventional aquaculture technologies in nearshore sheltered areas. Therefore, participants reflected that siting and planning considerations and criteria would likely be variable, given the variable underlying biophysical and social considerations of more offshore and exposed aquaculture. In sum, contextual differences between offshore and nearshore aquaculture, as well as the site-specific context of offshore developments will affect strategic decisions related to licensing, site and technology use, and tactical planning and operational decisions that consider type of system and key decision makers.
Understanding societal perceptions
Underlying much of the discussion in breakout sessions were the influence and repercussions of societal perceptions, and how the introduction of an emerging technology may influence the space of public trust and legitimacy. Experts reflected on how in many areas, public perceptions of aquaculture and its regulations are a factor driving regulatory change, and have been recognized as a barrier to effective governance and growth of aquaculture worldwide (Young et al., 2019). Societal concerns are affected by the relationship between nature and humans, and specific contextual societal values, perceptions and priorities evolve and can rapidly change, all of which can affect the social license to operate offshore aquaculture (Mather and Fanning, 2019; Krause et al., 2020). Participants felt that these considerations are particularly relevant in new production systems as technologies and practices are still evolving, which could trigger unexpected sustainability challenges. More often than not, societal interests and values concerning offshore aquaculture are anticipated to be linked with prior experience with, and expectations toward conventional nearshore aquaculture, even if new production methods arise. As an emerging sector in aquaculture, offshore aquaculture may also have unique characteristics that mediate public opinion and acceptance of the technologies.
Participants also discussed how existing conflicts related to aquaculture and societal expectations may become emphasized as industry production enters new areas further away from coastal communities and uncertainties concerning potential conflicts with societal actors/communities increase. That said, the utilization of novel offshore areas for aquaculture hosts the creation of new conflicts, e.g. related to other industries, diverging power-relations and interests, demanding authorities to handle potential conflicts and trade-offs previously unknown. For example, offshore aquaculture may occur in areas of interest for offshore wind development, which may create new conflicts, or conversely identify new opportunities for synergies (Billing et al., 2022).
Furthermore, the current trajectories toward offshore aquaculture face the challenge that social equity outcomes are not yet well understood. Next to the unresolved issue of the ocean as a common to all, this also relates to legitimacy beyond the aquaculture sector as conflicts and concerns about aquaculture span multiple time and space scales. Experiences from sectors beyond aquaculture that have recent technological shifts, such as offshore wind and renewable energy, illustrate that society can exhibit a renewed sense of uncertainty and caution toward new technology sectors (Kermagoret et al., 2016; Batel, 2020). The public may be, to greater degrees, uncertain about accepting a new technology, regardless of site or design specific considerations. However, exploring how the public may respond to emerging offshore technologies has yet to be realized (Guthrie et al., 2024).
Offshore aquaculture’s contribution to society
Recent experience has been gained in understanding how offshore aquaculture relates to the larger themes of sustainable development. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted in 2016, but to date there is little sector-specific work done to link offshore aquaculture to the broad social, political and ecological expectations of the SDGs. However, marine aquaculture is clearly linked to SDGs: In a pilot project financed by the Research Council of Norway in 20213, the Norwegian organization representing over 40 small- and medium-sized salmon farms, Salmon Group AS (https://salmongroup.no/), worked with interdisciplinary social scientists at the University of Bergen to assess which of the 169 targets of the UN SDGs were relevant to salmon aquaculture in Norway. The result was that 103 targets over all of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals were deemed either directly or indirectly relevant for salmon production in Norway. These surprising results revealed the power of understanding the underlying value chains of marine aquaculture, and that the sourcing of ingredients for salmon feed, for example, have direct links to labor rights, gender equality, data access, political representation and ecological preservation that reflect the complexities of the social-ecological system. These value chain components and linkages to SDGs can also be expected for offshore aquaculture; therefore, the role of social science in sustainable development of offshore aquaculture is crystal clear, considering the direct social and political links of offshore aquaculture to the global normative guidance toward sustainability.
All of these potential contributions need to be assessed to determine whether emerging offshore aquaculture systems can provide sustainable production by advancing the analysis of the social effects of different types of resource management regimes, supply chains and logistics. Furthermore, the uncertainties of new production systems are exacerbated by the anticipated potential mitigation of environmental impacts, which is one of the most prominent aspects driving public opinion in traditional nearshore aquaculture (Olsen et al., 2023). This is strongly linked to trade-offs of sustainability outcomes that can be further differentiated between long- and short term effects (Krause et al., under review)4.
In addition, new technologies often require substantial capital investment and incur financial uncertainty and risks to producers. The cost factor in offshore aquaculture is an essential uncertainty in this regard. Most operational costs will increase (related to investments, operations, transports etc.), the structures are expected to be replaced more often than traditional farms, and license costs are still highly uncertain since there are to date few examples of governments with established license regimes for offshore aquaculture (Morro et al., 2022). Furthermore, higher costs and uncertainties regarding production will also affect the possible economic gains for society at large and thus the distribution of these. Combined, the increased costs and risks to establish offshore operations create a form of barrier to entry for small-scale producers, as those establishing these technologies are likely well-funded large corporations. Indeed, there is already a high degree of horizontal integration and increasing firm size in salmon aquaculture (Asche et al., 2013) and the potential dominance of the offshore sector by large multinational corporations could have distributive justice implications and considerations for equitable distribution of benefits to hosting areas and jurisdictions.
It may be tempting to address these challenges and uncertainties on a case-by-case basis, with new research and development, new assessments and public campaigns and the like. However, we believe these are short-term and temporary fixes. Instead, we argue that taking a systematic social science perspective on offshore aquaculture is needed to understand these challenges and uncertainties in their societal context and identify long-lasting sustainable pathways to societal change.
A social science reflection on offshore aquaculture governance
Reflecting on the challenges and uncertainties that accompany offshore aquaculture systems and technologies reinforces critical opportunities for social science perspectives to advance effective governance of the emerging sector. Yet, the question of how we can integrate the social perspective in the current development toward offshore aquaculture is not an “easy fit”. Indeed, it is challenging to integrate the (often not easily measurable) social perspectives, since it requires consideration of a very diverse public. In addition, there are many remaining uncertainties in the operation, maintenance, and interconnectedness of production within the respective social-ecological system at large. These challenges are exacerbated by the largely ineffective ways that social perspectives are incorporated for conventional aquaculture, thus highlighting a lack of effective frameworks from which to model (Osmundsen et al., 2020a). The following section reflects on the thematic points of World Café discussions surrounding the considerations of incorporating a social perspective to offshore aquaculture governance, and the critical discourses and issues that social sciences can help inform. These key themes set the boundaries around which a social science agenda for offshore aquaculture can be discussed.
Governing public and private interests
Any kind of governance regime needs to consider the role of access to capital, cross-sectional dialogue forms and collaboration arenas between private and public stakeholders, all of which need to be tailored to novel licensing regimes of offshore aquaculture. In conventional aquaculture, emergency preparedness based on collaboration between private and public stakeholders from multiple sectors in the coastal zone still have potential for improvement (Osmundsen et al., 2020b). This aspect of collaboration is also highly relevant for offshore sites. Regulating a multi-technology aquaculture sector requires fundamental changes in current regulatory frameworks and must avoid merely adapting and extending current regulatory designs to include new production concepts. Layered, complex and fragmented regulatory frameworks for aquaculture already exist in many aquaculture producing countries due to continuous adaptation of existing frameworks (McDaniels et al., 2005; Osmundsen et al., 2022; Sandersen and Kvalvik, 2014). New offshore production areas entail different characteristics than coastal areas where farms are already established, thus existing regulations may not be appropriate but must be made relevant for species, environment and production methods (Morro et al., 2022; Watson et al., 2022). For example, licenses for offshore production in Norway represent a new form of regulation of aquaculture, connecting site (geographical location), installation (production technology) and volume (allowable biomass) per each license. In the case of Norway, offshore aquaculture is defined by the Norwegian government beingoutside the existing geographical jurisdictional areas for existing regulations as well as beyond the sectoral authorities’ responsibility in terms of control and management of the industry. Consequently, development of new licenses must be accompanied by processes and establishment of jurisdictions, collaborations, and clarifications of roles and responsibilities of the involved public authorities. Adherent to this, governments must make decisions upon which public authorities are relevant and what possible new roles and laws are needed in securing good governance of offshore aquaculture production.
The Norwegian example demonstrates a central mainstay of research needs for offshore aquaculture: How to tackle current licensing schemes under adaptive and cross-sectional governance regimes. To date, licensing procedures are commonly customized for conventional aquaculture, not for new production systems such as offshore aquaculture (Davies et al., 2019), but even sector-specific approaches may disregard the many attitudes toward the legitimacy of offshore aquaculture that are beyond the aquaculture sector and revolve around broader environmental, social, and governance issues. As such, governance structures need to involve many actors, who are all responsible for “different pieces of the same pie” and range from local, regional, national as well as international institutions.
Acknowledging the complexity of production and political interests
The complexities of aquaculture production and political interests and values that range from nation specific interests to the current global economic and political environment all shape the potential governance of emerging technologies on a site-specific scale. This is extremely challenging, as there are yet manifold knowledge gaps and uncertainties related to causal effects in offshore aquaculture operations. However, it is clear that policy design will have different impacts on industry development as well as repercussions for society at large. From this stance, the World Café highlighted the need to include assessments of societal impact, e.g. changes in value creation, economic benefits and distribution, and if/how these are sought and accounted for in governance measures during the process of developing new regulatory frameworks for offshore aquaculture. This would be an important factor which should be included in the debate about licenses and their costs, representing a possible trade-off in balancing necessary risk relief for industry on one hand and important revenues for society/communities on the other hand.
First research results show that geographical conditions, to a limited extent, determine the importance of various social impacts and involvement of different stakeholders. Operations further offshore imply that the production has relevance for multiple adjacent communities, stakeholders, and interests. Perceived benefits and impacts are beyond direct visual impacts as stakeholders are equally concerned about indirect impacts including equity, collective choice rights, and the distribution of impacts (Suryanata and Umemoto, 2005). In this sense, a shift in focus to community wellbeing is necessary to realize the potential social benefits of marine aquaculture expansion (Campbell et al., 2021). The classification of various types of offshore aquaculture can shed some light on the differences in social acceptance. However, as pointed out in the discussion among the participants of the World Café, this should not be used in a deterministic manner as some social impacts, and concerns, transcend the boundaries of geographical distance. Ultimately, the question remains however, who should make the choice?
Social supply-chain perspective
Offshore aquaculture can be viewed as new production systems that offer solutions for more sustainable development of the industry. However, new production systems also have their own challenges in terms of infrastructure needs, risks, and fish welfare and societal/consumer perceptions (Wever et al., 2015, Morro et al., 2022). New farming technologies for offshore aquaculture necessitate larger and more expensive structures which will rely on the labor supply and competence of supplier industries, hence different ripple effects from aquaculture can be expected. The discussants agreed that additionally, the development of new value chains for new production systems that include offshore aquaculture are in nascent stages and thus much still needs to be researched. Under this light, the whole supply chain must be considered. This includes production costs and benefits, infrastructure and competence needs, enabling environment and management, and environmental and social risks and resilience. For example, vulnerabilities and resilience to supply chain disruption that will have implications for sustainable livelihoods are untested. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is needed to demonstrate sustainable production, vis à vis the real-world application of spatial scale modeling will be needed to understand trade-offs across geographic scales associated with emerging value chains. Further, social acceptance and consumer receptivity in aquaculture are intertwined and engage with broader social change movements reflecting a discourse extending beyond sole aquaculture issues and its local governance.
New policies and regulations as well as existing market-driven governance schemes will need to account for new production systems for offshore aquaculture while also considering cascading impacts, vulnerabilities, and risks across the supply chain. Novel policy design and the shaping of regulatory frameworks need to acknowledge their impact on industry development. This relates to the direct production volumes, number of jobs, but also to the rather indirect societal development that relate to the questions of where should people live, and who should live there. Furthermore social norms that revolve around the relationship between nature and humans, i.e.how do we interact with nature, and what are the limits for human actions, need to be considered.
Legitimacy and democratic decision-making
A key under-researched theme identified in the discussions of the World Café in the context of social science engagement with offshore aquaculture relate to the questions of the limits of democratic processes in decision-making, addressing societal expectations, and regulatory needs for securing social acceptance and sustainable outcomes of new production methods and areas for offshore aquaculture. By virtue, democratic decision-making infers the need for decisions that affect society to reflect those societal values, priorities, and expectations. Those decisions, and the subsequent outcomes (e.g. industry development) should ideally be viewed as fair and legitimate. Recently, the legitimacy of aquaculture has been a key factor in understanding the societal acceptance of aquaculture (Bjørkan and Eilertsen, 2020; Sønvisen and Vik, 2021; Olsen et al., 2023; Weitzman et al., 2023). These findings emphasize the need to understand societal perceptions and expectations and how aquaculture aligns with them. Despite the recent advances in this area, participants discussed the challenge of what is felt to be a substantial knowledge gap in social perceptions, attitudes, and understanding the factors that drive them. Indeed, only recently these have begun to be investigated in conventional aquaculture systems in nearshore environments. These challenges become exacerbated due to the noteworthy limit of social science research on the specific needs and considerations for governance of offshore aquaculture.
Although offshore aquaculture involves major changes in production, participants reflected on how it could be anticipated that the expectations from society may still be positive in terms of sustainability, industry contributions to society, and regulatory demands. Offshore aquaculture systems may offer solutions to current environmental challenges facing nearshore aquaculture (Fairbanks, 2016; Jansen et al., 2016; Lester et al., 2018), which are often viewed as a key element for a sustainable development of the industry and a recurring societal concern. Yet, participants also acknowledged that there may also be trade-offs in the environmental and social costs of offshore production systems, and reinforced the importance of understanding the specific societal perceptions and responses to offshore aquaculture for specific areas, species, and policy contexts.
Ensuring legitimacy for offshore aquaculture production is dependent on societal expectations being met by industry proceedings and governmental regulation. Recent evidence from nearshore aquaculture systems illustrates that public trust in government and transparency of regulatory processes as a key component in the legitimacy of aquaculture within communities (Weitzman et al., 2023). As such, governments’ arguments and policies supporting offshore aquaculture as a solution for targeting sustainability goals must be deemed acceptable from societal stakeholders as well. For conventional aquaculture and industry activities in general, an important factor for acceptance is the distribution of economic benefits from industry, or distributive justice that pertain to industry contributions in local communities and for the wider public (Ertör and Ortega-Cerdà, 2015; Misund et al., 2023). With offshore aquaculture however, there is great uncertainty to how such production and adherent regulations will affect the benefits and distribution of these to society, and therefore the legitimacy of offshore aquaculture.
Adding to calamity, participants highlighted that social acceptance in aquaculture is always embedded in broader social change movements. Politics, perceptions and social expectations can change rapidly and often. Moreover, the relationships between nature and humans are fluid. Appropriately presenting and accounting for this fluidity and dynamic state of these considerations is an enduring challenge for effective coastal governance and MSP (Jones et al., 2016). This may be especially notable with the accompaniment of the rapid technological and governance changes of an emerging offshore aquaculture sector. This underlines the importance of not only continued, up to date co-produced social science knowledge generation on these aspects, but also that governance responses to the emergence of this novel sector need to be adaptive and flexible to effectively ensure legitimacy of policies and practices.
A social science agenda for offshore aquaculture governance
Capturing social dimensions of offshore aquaculture in support for solution-oriented research approaches can be viewed as “wicked problems” in that all parameters cannot be specified, there is no single optimum to be attained and “…there is no criterion system nor rule which would tell you what is correct or false” (Rittel, 1977; Osmundsen et al., 2017). Indeed, the above compilation of under-researched trajectories, challenges and solution-oriented governance needs that were identified by the participants of the World Café exercise and mirrored by literature review leads to asking two questions at once: What should social science do? And what should be done with the social science knowledge created? In other words, how should the scientific arena shift toward urgently needed solution-oriented research outcomes and what are the identified specific under-researched social science arenas therein? In this section, we highlight that there are significant opportunities for social science to provide co-produced knowledge and insights to better understand the social repercussions and considerations of offshore aquaculture systems. This knowledge could ultimately inform more legitimate and effective governance to promote an emerging sector sustainably.
What can social science do?
We have identified several topical areas of concern that can be addressed by social science approaches (Figure 1). These include, among others, the need to identify areas of conflict between marine users, understanding the social impacts of offshore aquaculture, and assessing the economic costs and risks thereof. Successful and sustainable governance processes and practices that lead to appropriate regulatory frameworks will only be possible via understanding of societal concerns as they intersect across the offshore aquaculture value chain. Recent social science research efforts have sought to understand, quantify, and explore social repercussions and perceptions of aquaculture. This demonstrates the value of social science methods and knowledge for the aquaculture industry and society. For example, Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) has been suggested by several authors (Ehler and Douvere, 2009; Foley et al., 2010; White et al., 2012) as a suitable tool for reducing conflicts and fostering synergies between maritime uses under a sustainability lens. Public surveys, media analysis, and ethnographic methods have been used to improve understanding of social acceptance of aquaculture (e.g. Kraly et al., 2022; Aanesen et al., 2023; Olsen et al., 2023; Weitzman et al., 2023). Critical analyses of policy, regulations, and other governance practices have been applied to better understand governance processes and outcomes, and reveal the limitations of current public and private governance (Anderson et al., 2019; Falconer et al., 2023; Osmundsen et al., 2022; Jonell et al., 2013; Rector et al., 2024). Economic modeling has been used to understand the impacts of aquaculture in rural and developing economies (Filipski and Belton, 2018; Grealis et al., 2017). Each of these social science approaches will be valuable in developing an improved social understanding of offshore aquaculture that can inform governance and associated regulatory frameworks. However, the integration of social and ecological knowledge and research that engages with industry and citizen tacit knowledge and perspectives via co-productive research methods is urgently needed. Such transdisciplinary engagements hold the promise to deliver feasible and effective pathways beneficial for societal well-being and the sustainability of offshore aquaculture production.
Figure 1. What can social science do? Orange boxes represent challenges and areas of uncertainty related to offshore aquaculture. These competing and overlapping challenges create what is known as a “wicked problem”. Green boxes represent some of what social science can do to understand and address these challenges. Integration of these approaches through interdisciplinary research, and the inclusion of industry and societal knowledge and experience through transdisciplinary research is needed to address this wicked problem in ways that benefit society through the equitable distribution of benefits and the legitimacy of policy that governs offshore aquaculture.
The case for inter- and transdisciplinarity
We have identified several areas of concern that warrant concerted inter- and transdisciplinary research approaches. Interdisciplinarity describes the integration of disciplines toward a common goal and shared research question, while transdisciplinarity describes the integration of both disciplines and non-academic participants toward shared processes that results in actionable knowledge that benefits society (Tress et al., 2005). As a general principle, most of the identified under-researched topics are related to processes and therefore require novel transdisciplinary approaches to tackle these complex questions. However, the current composition of research in offshore aquaculture is yet in nascent stages in terms of how and in what ways to combine the different knowledge realms and evidence from cross-cutting disciplines and experts in the field. By and large, the identification of “who holds a stake” in the system is the mainstay of most of social science research on offshore aquaculture, while being at the same time the principal stage in any solution-oriented governance initiative (Reed et al., 2009; Prell, 2012; Krause et al., 2015).
In the case of offshore aquaculture, it is evident that industry actors and coastal communities are stakeholders, though interests likely extend to additional groups and institutions. Industrial actors aiming for the offshores do so because these geographical areas offer benefits not attainable in coastal waters. These relate to e.g. access to production sites that are scarce closer to shore, economies of scale since production may be largely increased, longer distance to nearby sites and greater water exchange protecting against sea lice and infection pressures, and perhaps closer distance to markets. Also, exemptions from local and regional jurisdictions and taxation regimes may, in theory, be a motivation to move further from the coast. For coastal communities, reduced geographical presence of aquaculture may allow for increased activities in other sectors, but may also very likely reduce access to direct employment benefits, ripple effects from aquaculture operations, and revenues. In contrast for societies at large, offshore aquaculture may positively contribute to global food security issues. However, it must be acknowledged that it relies on shared resources resulting in governance problems that require institutional solutions aligned with collective interests (Partelow, et al., 2022; Krause et al., under review)4.
That said, the management of human activities is complex and broad touching on many facets of wellbeing and affecting multiple actors and institutions (Reed, 2008). Hence, from a planning perspective of offshore aquaculture, it is crucial to have a full understanding of the stakeholders and their relations and characteristics that may influence decisions through their power, or support the initiative promoting cooperation and knowledge exchange during engagement (Prell et al., 2008). This makes the decision-making process transparent and contributes to democratic and holistic decision-making process (Reed, 2008), while acknowledging social processes such as knowledge transfer, information sharing and power relations. It is essential to identify the key actors or stakeholders in a respective offshore aquaculture system arrangement and to understand their behavior, intentions, interrelations and interests, as well as their respective sustainability outcomes (Krause et al., under review)4. The assessment of influence and resources they bring for implementation of the process is important (Grimble and Wellard, 1997; Brugha and Varvasovszky, 2000). However, societal values, perceptions, and priorities are constantly changing and evolving. As thus politics and perceptions (and social expectations) can change rapidly and often, these uncertainties and their impact are not easy to measure or specify. As of yet, there remains a substantial knowledge gap in social perceptions, attitudes, and understanding the factors that drive them.
Methodological challenges to a holistic social perspective
In a holistic approach, the social science perspective will point out contradictions and inherent trade-offs, even though this view alone will rarely provide applicable solutions for this. Thus, the challenge remains of how to integrate societal perspectives that cover the need to recognize the tension between individual expression and longing for social recognition for particular communities (Fukuyama, 2018). Methods in transdisciplinary research are still emerging. For instance, Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping is a well-known method for mapping inherent interactions of the social-ecological system in smaller diverse groups (Tiller et al., 2016), but there is no experience of up-scaling this method to larger groups. Next, on a global scale the sustainable development of offshore aquaculture is constrained by nation specific interests, but also by the current unsettled global economic and political environments of our time. Contextual changes can lead to shifting priorities and conflictual goals, increasing the necessity of trade-offs. All of this influences the respective social license to operate offshore aquaculture. As the latter spans across multiple time and space scales, it is challenging to create effective transdisciplinary research methods that foster sustainable responses for societally acceptable aquaculture.
Despite these difficulties, there are potential solutions within reach. For example, social licenses depend on authentic dialogues among the public, industry, and authorities. Dialogues that respond to concerns of a diverse public, and which are perceived as genuine, trustworthy and transparent, may move public sentiments in a positive direction. Experiences from virtual round tables in Scotland demonstrate that the inclusion of a diverse public with industry representatives, researchers and authorities in a transdisciplinary research setting are capable of fostering such dialogue, even though such events include a fairly large number of participants (SSAC, 2023). Other approaches to investigate community concerns and possible measures for reducing conflicts and establish social license is exemplified by Condie et al. (2022). By looking into submissions to two governmental inquiries in Tasmania, they identified stakeholder groups, and co-explored prominent issues of concern by the community, such as environmental sustainability, regional economic growth, governance, communication, and the role of science. Similar approaches could be useful for other governments and science as well, and could provide important knowledge related to emerging issues concerning offshore aquaculture and its possible implications.
When it comes to governance complexities, e.g., overlapping regulations and/or regulatory gaps, the optimal approaches for social-ecological data collection remains a challenge as input and output data are limited by location and time. In addition, the systems being analyzed are dynamic, as well as time and resource dependent while being driven by system uncertainty. The development of new offshore aquaculture provides opportunities to both study social dimensions and incorporate social perspectives in the development of the industry and governance approaches. Integration experts and methods will be needed to facilitate inter- and transdisciplinary approaches, but these experts and the costs of truly integrative solutions-oriented research are not well-supported or facilitated by institutional and academic structures (Hoffmann et al., 2017, 2022). The challenge remains to work cost- and time-efficiently while also producing thorough in-depth data and analyses of social-ecological systems in order to create knowledge that can be harnessed for sustainable development pathways of further offshore aquaculture expansion.
Conclusion
This paper offers a critical social science reflection on an emerging offshore aquaculture sector, based on discussions among aquaculture experts and researchers raised in a one-day World Café session. The discussion revolves around the most salient social challenges and risks that offshore aquaculture could face and the role of social science in mediating those challenges (Table 1). While many of the observations and discussions draw on experiences and research from nearshore aquaculture environments, this reflection offers a renewed perspective that can be valuable for industry and decision-makers to foster an equitable, sustainable offshore aquaculture sector. While this paper offers general reflections on the social repercussions and policy implications of offshore aquaculture, specific societal consequences, perceptions, and policy strategies warrant more contextualized research and discussions to consider the needs and implications for different areas, species, and production systems.
Table 1. The most salient challenges, risks, and solutions for offshore aquaculture development.
Based on our discussions, we observe that the technological changes in offshore aquaculture challenge conventional governance and require transformed and disrupted solutions that intersect not only science and society, but also different scientific bodies and disciplines. Indeed, many of the solutions, challenges, and social science reflections on governance for offshore aquaculture revolve around resolving aspects of legitimacy. This highlights the need to consider aspects of procedural justice, equity, and well-being in aquaculture. These dimensions reinforce the need to “humanize” aquaculture governance (Brugere et al., 2023) through an emphasized social framing of challenges (Krause et al., 2015) that embraces intersectionality and promotes cross-disciplinary knowledge systems. The development of offshore aquaculture is both a challenge and an opportunity for the application of this transformed mode of research and knowledge generation. In this regard, transdisciplinary research approaches are warranted. However, how to put such transformative change toward sustainable food production while ensuring food security into practice remains a challenge and will require transdisciplinary approaches to find societal appropriate solutions (Markus et al., 2017; Krause et al., 2020; Franke et al., 2022; Krause et al., 2022; Partelow et al., 2023). These solutions need to be implemented, and this may require profound changes, including ethical and philosophical considerations regarding the relationship and responsibility of humans to nature (Huss et al., 2022). It implies a different orientation of science and its role in governance in the 21st century. The character of this new (transformative) orientation of science is only now beginning to emerge, but will need to accommodate new opportunities for science in tandem with society. Only then can we forge a collective meaning on how to manage the complex challenges for offshore aquaculture.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
GK: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JW: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MR: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RF: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SB: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DD: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MO: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TO: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. RF was supported by the Ocean Frontier Institute through Module M “Social Licence and Planning in Coastal Communities” and by the sabbatical support grant from Dalhousie University (Canada) and Institute of Marine Research (Norway). SB was supported by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and Nature (BO-43-119.02-004). TO and MO were supported by the project “A unified framework for regulation of multi-technology salmon aquaculture (Multi-tech Aqua)” (project no. 320612) funded by The Research Council of Norway.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the experts and attendees of the World Café session “socio-economic challenges for sustainable aquaculture in a changing environment” conducted in September 2022 at the European Aquaculture Society Conference in Rimini, Italy. Without their willingness to engage and share their experiences and thoughts this publication would not have been possible. This publication was prepared under the auspices of the WGSEDA (Working Group on Social and Economic Dimensions of Aquaculture) and within the scope of the WGOOA (Working Group on Open Ocean Aquaculture) of the intergovernmental science organization ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea - Copenhagen/Denmark).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
- ^ https://thefishsite.com/articles/offshore-farmer-reveals-global-seafood-ambitions-forever-oceans-bill-bien-
- ^ https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/norway-updates-rules-for-offshore-aquaculture-but-plenty-of-work-still-lies-ahead/2-1-1347935
- ^ https://prosjektbanken.forskningsradet.no/en/project/FORISS/323913?Kilde=FORISS&distribution=Ar&chart=bar&calcType=funding&Sprak=no&sortBy=score&sortOrder=desc&resultCount=30&offset=0&Fritekst=sdg+wizard
- ^ Krause, G., Filgueira, R., Ahmed, N., Alexander, K., Fanning, L., Ferse, S., et al. (under review). Regionalisation alone will not make marine aquaculture more sustainable. Rev. Aquaculture.
References
Aanesen M., Czajkowski M., Lindhjem H., Navrud S. (2023). Trade-offs in the transition to a blue economy-Mapping social acceptance of aquaculture expansion in Norway. Sci. Total Environ. 859, 160199. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160199
Anderson J. L., Asche F., Garlock T. (2019). Economics of aquaculture policy and regulation. Annu. Rev. Res. Economics 11, 101–123. doi: 10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-093750
Asche F., Eggert H., Oglend A., Roheim C. A., Smith M. D. (2022). Aquaculture: Externalities and policy options. Rev. Environ. Economics Policy 16, 282–305. doi: 10.1086/721055
Asche F., Roll K. H., Sandvold H. N., Sørvig A., Zhang D. (2013). Salmon aquaculture: Larger companies and increased production. Aquacult. Economics Manage. 17, 322–339. doi: 10.1080/13657305.2013.812156
Barillé L., Le Bris A., Goulletquer P., Thomas Y., Glize P., Kane F., et al. (2020). Biological, socio-economic, and administrative opportunities and challenges to moving aquaculture offshore for small French oyster-farming companies. Aquaculture 521, 735045. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735045
Batel S. (2020). Research on the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies: Past, present and future. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 68, 101544. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101544
Belton B., Bush S. R. (2014). Beyond net deficits: new priorities for an aquacultural geography. Geograph. J. 180, 3–14. doi: 10.1111/geoj.12035
Billing S. L., Charalambides G., Tett P., Giordano M., Ruzzo C., Arena F., et al. (2022). Combining wind power and farmed fish: Coastal community perceptions of multi-use offshore renewable energy installations in Europe. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 85, 102421. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102421
Bjørkan M., Eilertsen S. M. (2020). Local perceptions of aquaculture: A case study on legitimacy from northern Norway. Ocean Coast. Manage. 195, 105276. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105276
Brown J., Isaacs D. (2005). The World Café: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.).
Brugere C., Bansal T., Kruijssen F., Williams M. (2023). Humanizing aquaculture development: Putting social and human concerns at the center of future aquaculture development. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 54, 482–526. doi: 10.1111/jwas.12959
Brugha R., Varvasovszky Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plann. 15, 239–246. doi: 10.1093/heapol/15.3.239
Buck B. H., Bjelland H., Bockus A., Chambers M., Costa-Pierce B. A., Dewhurst T., et al. (2024). Resolving the term “offshore aquaculture”: the importance of decoupling it from “exposed” and “distance from the coast. Front. Aquac. 3. doi: 10.3389/faquc.2024.1428056
Budhathoki M., Tunca S., Martinez R. L., Zhang W., Li S., Le Gallic B., et al. (2024). Societal perceptions of aquaculture: Combining scoping review and media analysis. Rev. Aquacult. doi: 10.1111/raq.12927
Campbell L. M., Fairbanks L., Murray G., Stoll J. S., D’Anna L., Bingham J. (2021). From Blue Economy to Blue Communities: reorienting aquaculture expansion for community wellbeing. Mar. Policy 124, 104361. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104361
Condie C. M., Vince J., Alexander K. A. (2022). Increasing polarisation in attitudes to aquaculture: Evidence from sequential government inquiries. Mar. Policy 136, 104867. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104867
Davies I. P., Carranza V., Froehlich H. E., Gentry R. R., Kareiva P., Halpern B. S. (2019). Governance of marine aquaculture: Pitfalls, potential, and pathways forward. Mar. Policy 104, 29–36. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.054
Drakvik E., Altenburger R., Aoki Y., Backhaus T., Bahadori T., Barouki R., et al. (2020). Statement on advancing the assessment of chemical mixtures and their risks for human health and the environment. Environ. Int. 134, 105267. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105267
Ehler C., Douvere F. (2009). Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. (Paris: UNESCO).
Ertör I., Ortega-Cerdà M. (2015). Political lessons from early warnings: Marine finfish aquaculture conflicts in Europe. Mar. Policy 51, 202–210. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.018
Fairbanks L. (2016). Moving mussels offshore? Perceptions of offshore aquaculture policy and expansion in New England. Ocean Coast. Manage. 130, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.05.004
Falconer L., Cutajar K., Krupandan A., Capuzzo E., Corner R. A., Ellis T., et al. (2023). Planning and licensing for marine aquaculture. Rev. Aquaculture 15 (4), 1374–1404. doi: 10.1111/raq.12783
FAO (2021). FAO’s work on climate change – Fisheries and aquaculture 2020 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome). doi: 10.4060/cb3414en
Filipski M., Belton B. (2018). Give a man a fishpond: modeling the impacts of aquaculture in the rural economy. World Dev. 110, 205–223. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.023
Foley M. M., Halpern B. S., Micheli F., Armsby M. H., Caldwell M. R., Crain C. M., et al. (2010). Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 34, 955–966. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.001
Franke A., Peters K., Hinkel J., Hornige A., Schlüter A., Zielinski O., et al. (2022). Making the UN Ocean Decade work? The potential for, and challenges of, transdisciplinary research & real-world laboratories for building towards ocean solutions. People Nat. 5 (1), 21–33. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10412
Froehlich H. E., Smith A., Gentry R., Halpern B. S. (2017). Offshore aquaculture: I know it when I see it. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 154. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2017.00154
Fukuyama F. (2018). Identity: Contemporary identity politics and the struggle for recognition (London: Profile books).
Grealis E., Hynes S., O’Donoghue C., Vega A., Van Osch S., Twomey C. (2017). The economic impact of aquaculture expansion: An input-output approach. Mar. Policy 81, 29–36. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.014
Grimble R., Wellard K. (1997). Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agric. Syst. 55, 173–193. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(97)00006-1
Guthrie A. G., Barbour N., Cannon S. E., Marriott S. E., Racine P., Young R., et al. (2024). Assessing socio-environmental suitability and social license of proposed offshore aquaculture development: A Florida case study. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 55, 40–61. doi: 10.1111/jwas.13031
Heasman K. G., Scott N., Ericson J. A., Taylor D. I., Buck B. H. (2020). Extending new zealand’s marine shellfish aquaculture into exposed environments–adapting to modern anthropogenic challenges. Front. Mar. Sci. 7. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.565686
Hoffmann S., Deutsch L., Klein J. T., O’Rourke M. (2022). Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts. Human. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9 (1), 1–10. doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01138-z
Hoffmann S., Pohl C., Hering J. G. (2017). Methods and procedures of transdisciplinary knowledge integration: empirical insights from four thematic synthesis processes. Ecol. Soc. 22. doi: 10.5751/ES-08955-220127
Holmen I. (2022). Safety in Exposed Aquaculture Operations. Strategies and methods for reducing risk. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science of Technology.
Huss A., Peters A., Zhao T., Barouki R., Kogevinas M., Vermeulen R., et al. (2022). Setting the European environment and health research agenda–under-researched areas and solution-oriented research. Environ. Int. 163, 107202. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107202
Jansen H. M., Van Den Burg S., Bolman B., Jak R. G., Kamermans P., Poelman M., et al. (2016). The feasibility of offshore aquaculture and its potential for multi-use in the North Sea. Aquacult. Int. 24, 735–756. doi: 10.1007/s10499-016-9987-y
Jolly C. M., Nyandat B., Yang Z., Ridler N., Matias F., Zhang Z., et al. (2023). Dynamics of aquaculture governance. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 54, 427–481. doi: 10.1111/jwas.12967
Jones P. J., Lieberknecht L. M., Qiu W. (2016). Marine spatial planning in reality: Introduction to case studies and discussion of findings. Mar. Policy 71, 256–264. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.026
Jonell M., Phillips M., Rönnbäck P., Troell M. (2013). Eco-certification of farmed seafood: will it make a difference? Ambio 42, 659–674. doi: 10.1007/Fs13280-013-0409-3
Kermagoret C., Levrel H., Carlier A., Ponsero A. (2016). Stakeholder perceptions of offshore wind power: A fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Soc. Natural Resour. 29, 916–931. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1122134
Knapp G., Rubino M. C. (2016). The political economics of marine aquaculture in the united states. Rev. Fisheries Sci. Aquaculture 24 (3), 213–229. doi: 10.1080/23308249.2015.1121202
Kraly P., Weitzman J., Filgueira R. (2022). Understanding factors influencing social acceptability: Insights from media portrayal of salmon aquaculture in Atlantic Canada. Aquaculture 547, 737497. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737497
Krause G., Billing S.-L., Dennis J., Grant J., Fanning L., Filgueira R., et al. (2020). Visualizing the social in aquaculture: how social dimension components illustrate the effects of aquaculture across geographic scales. Mar. Policy 118. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103985
Krause G., Brugere C., Diedrich A., Ebeling M. W., Ferse S. C., Mikkelsen E., et al. (2015). A revolution without people? Closing the people-policy gap in aquaculture development. Aquaculture 447, 44–55. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.02.009
Krause G., Le Vay L., Buck B. H., Costa-Pierce B. A., Dewhurst T., Heasman K. G., et al. (2022). Prospects of low trophic marine aquaculture contributing to food security in a net zero-carbon world. Front. Sustain. Food Sys. 6, 875509. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.875509
Lester S. E., Gentry R. R., Kappel C. V., White C., Gaines S. D. (2018). Offshore aquaculture in the United States: Untapped potential in need of smart policy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 7162–7165. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1808737115
Markus T., Hillebrand H., Hornidge A. K., Krause G., Schlüter A. (2017). Disciplinary diversity in marine sciences: the urgent case for an integration of research. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 75, 502–509. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsx201
Martin S. J., Mather C., Knott C., Bavington D. (2021). ‘Landing’ salmon aquaculture: Ecologies, infrastructures and the promise of sustainability. Geoforum. 123, 47–55. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.04.025
Mather C., Fanning L. (2019). Is social licence “going rogue”? Geogr. J. 185, 498–504. doi: 10.1111/geoj.12322
McDaniels T. L., Dowlatabadi H., Stevens S. (2005). Multiple scales and regulatory gaps in environmental change: the case of salmon aquaculture. Global Environ. Change 15, 9–21. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.007
Misund B., Olsen M. S., Osmundsen T. C., Tveterås R. (2023). The political economy of salmon aquaculture: Value sharing and societal support for aquaculture in Norway. Mar. Res. Economics 38, 365–390. doi: 10.1086/726242
Moe Føre H., Thorvaldsen T., Osmundsen T. C., Asche F., Tveterås, Fagertun J. T., et al. (2022). Technological innovations promoting sustainable salmon (Salmo salar) aquaculture in Norway. Aquacult. Rep. 24, 101115. doi: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2022.101115
Morro B., Davidson K., Adams T. P., Falconer L., Holloway M., Dale A., et al. (2022). Offshore aquaculture of finfish: Big expectations at sea. Rev. Aquacult. 14, 791–815. doi: 10.1111/raq.12625
Neis B., Gao W., Cavalli L., Thorvaldsen T., Holmen I. M., Jeebhay M. F., et al. (2023). Mass mortality events in marine salmon aquaculture and their influence on occupational health and safety hazards and risk of injury. Aquaculture 566, 739225. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.739225
NOAA (2016). Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic; Aquaculture (Washington, DC: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Department of Commerce).
Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (2005). The Norwegian Aquaculture Act. Available online at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/the-norwegian-aquaculture-act/id430160/. (Accessed August 22, 2024).
Olsen M. S., Amundsen V. S., Osmundsen T. C. (2023). Exploring public perceptions and expectations of the salmon aquaculture industry in Norway: A social license to operate? Aquaculture 574, 739632. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.739632
Osmundsen T. C., Almklov P., Tveterås R. (2017). Fish farmers and regulators coping with the wickedness of aquaculture. Aquacult. Economics Manage. 21 (1), 163–183. doi: 10.1080/13657305.2017.1262476
Osmundsen T. C., Amundsen V. S., Alexander K. A., Asche F., Bailey J., Finstad B., et al. (2020a). The Operationalisation of Sustainability: Sustainable aquaculture production as defined by certification schemes. Global Environ. Change 60, 102025. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102025
Osmundsen T. C., Karlsen K. M., Robertsen R., Hersoug B. (2020b). Shared waters—shared problems: The role of self-governance in managing common pool resources. Aquacult. Economics Manage. 24, 4. doi: 10.1080/13657305.2020.1857468
Osmundsen T. C., Olsen M. S., Gauteplass A., Asche F. (2022). Aquaculture Policy: designing licenses for environmental regulation. Mar. Policy 138, 104978. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.104978
Partelow S., Schlüter A., Ban N. C., Batterbury S., Bavinck M., Bennett N. J., et al. (2023). Five social science intervention areas for ocean sustainability initiatives. NPJ Ocean Sustainabil. 2, 24. doi: 10.1038/s44183-023-00032-8
Partelow S., Schlüter A., O Manlosa A., Nagel B., Octa Paramita A. (2022). Governing aquaculture commons. Rev. Aquacult. 14, 729–750. doi: 10.1111/raq.12622
Prell C., Hubacek K., Quinn C., Reed M. (2008). ‘Who’s in the network?’ when stakeholders influence data analysis. Systemic Pract. Action Res. 21, 443–458. doi: 10.1007/s11213-008-9105-9
Rector M. E., Filgueira R., Grant J. (2024). The role of salmon aquaculture eco-certification in corporate social responsibility and the delivery of ecosystem services and disservices. Mar. Policy 160, 105948. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105948
Reed M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2417–2431. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014
Reed M. S., Graves A., Dandy N., Posthumus H., Hubacek K., Morris J., et al. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 1933–1949. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001
Rittel H. W. (1977). On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the” first and Second Generations.” (Stuttgart, Germany: Institut für Grundlagen der Planung IA, Universität Stuttgart).
Safford T. G., Vieira P. F., Polette M. (2019). Scientific engagement and the development of marine aquaculture in Santa Catarina, southern Brazil. Ocean & Coastal Management. 178, 104840. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104840
Sandersen H. T., Kvalvik I. (2014). Sustainable governance of Norwegian aquaculture and the administrative reform: dilemmas and challenges. Coast. Manage. 42, 447–463. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2014.942028
Sønvisen S. A., Vik C. (2021). Shaping aquaculture management—An interest Tug O’War. Sustainability 13, 8853. doi: 10.3390/su13168853
SSAC (2023) Scottish science advisory council report “Use of science and evidence in aquaculture consenting and the sustainable development of scottish aquaculture. Available at: https://scottishscience.org.uk/publications/use-of-science-and-evidence-in-aquaculture-consenting (Accessed 20 aug. 2024).
Suryanata K., Umemoto K. (2005). Beyond environmental impact: articulating the “intangibles” in resource conflict. Geoforum 36, 750–760. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.11.007
The New Zealand Government (2019). Aquaculture Strategy. Available online at: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/15895-The-Governments-Aquaculture-Strategy-to-202 (Accessed August 22, 2024).
Tiller R., De Kok J.-L., Vermeieren K., Richard R., Van Ardelan M., Bailey J. (2016). Stakeholder perceptions of links between environmental changes to their socio-ecological system and their adaptive capacity in the region of Troms, Norway. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 267. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00267
Tress G., Tress B., Fry G. (2005). Clarifying integrative research concepts in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol. 20, 479–793. doi: 10.1007/s10980-004-3290-4
Upton H. F. (2019). U.S. Offshore Aquaculture Regulation and Development. Congressional Research Service. Report R45952. Available online at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45952 (Accessed August 22, 2024).
Vandergeest P., Unno A. (2012). A new extraterritoriality? Aquaculture certification, sovereignty, and empire. Polit Geogr. 31, 358–367. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2012.05.005
Watson L., Falconer L., Dale T., Telfer T. C. (2022). ‘Offshore’ salmon aquaculture and identifying the needs for environmental regulation. Aquaculture 546, 737342. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737342
Weber E. P., Khademian A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administ. Rev. 68, 334–349. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00866.x
Weitzman J., Filgueira R., Grant J. (2023). Dimensions of legitimacy and trust in shaping social acceptance of marine aquaculture: An in-depth case study in Nova Scotia, Canada. Environ. Sci. Policy 143, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2023.02.019
Wever L., Krause G., Buck B. H. (2015). Lessons from stakeholder dialogues on marine aquaculture in offshore wind farms: Perceived potentials, constraints and research gaps. Mar. Policy 51, 251–259. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.08.015
White C., Halpern B. S., Kappel C. V. (2012). Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 4696–4701. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1114215109
Wiber M. G., Mather C., Knott C., Gómez M. A. L. (2021). Regulating the Blue Economy? Challenges to an effective Canadian aquaculture act. Mar. Policy 131, 104700. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104700
Keywords: governance, inter- and transdisciplinarity, systems perspective, social dimensions, offshore aquaculture
Citation: Krause G, Weitzman J, Rector ME, Filgueira R, Burg Svd, Dankel DJ, Olsen MS and Osmundsen TC (2024) The social science of offshore aquaculture: uncertainties, challenges and solution-oriented governance needs. Front. Aquac. 3:1384037. doi: 10.3389/faquc.2024.1384037
Received: 08 February 2024; Accepted: 12 August 2024;
Published: 03 September 2024.
Edited by:
Tyler Sclodnick, Innovasea Systems Inc., CanadaReviewed by:
Edison D. Macusi, Davao Oriental State University (DOrSU), PhilippinesHilde Toonen, Wageningen University and Research, Netherlands
Copyright © 2024 Krause, Weitzman, Rector, Filgueira, Burg, Dankel, Olsen and Osmundsen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ramon Filgueira, ramon.filgueira@dal.ca