Temporal patterns of adoption of mariculture innovation globally

Abstract

Mariculture—farming seafood in the ocean—has been expanding in many countries and has the potential to be a critical component of a sustainable global food system. However, it has developed inconsistently across the globe, with minimal development in some regions, while in others intensive growth threatens sustainability. There is no overall understanding of trajectories of mariculture development around the world. We analyse mariculture development trends at the country level, drawing on diffusion of innovation theory. We show that most countries follow predictable patterns of development that are associated with key economic and governance indicators, such as regulatory quality. We also show that production of some taxa (for example, molluscs) is more strongly associated with stable production over time, as is growing a diversity of species. Taken together, our results suggest that enabling policies may unlock mariculture growth opportunities and that strategies that emphasize production of a diversity of species could contribute to a more stable mariculture industry. Further, by assessing each country’s trajectory of mariculture development in relation to its production potential, we consider the limits and opportunities for future mariculture growth and its contribution to sustainable food systems.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Examples of production curves for each curve category.
Fig. 2: The number of species produced per country by curve category.
Fig. 3: The mean indicator value for each of the six World Governance indicators by curve category.
Fig. 4: The relationship between current marine fish production and a conservative estimate of fish production potential for countries categorized as stable or increasing and for which potential production data are available.

Data availability

All data used in this paper are publicly available and can be accessed through: http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-aquaculture-production/en; https://data.worldbank.org/; www.govindicators.org; http://www.doingbusiness.org; and https://doi.org/10.5063/F1CF9N69. Figure 1 uses raw aquaculture production data downloaded from http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-aquaculture-production/en.

References

  1. 1.

    Tilman, D. & Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522 (2014).

  2. 2.

    The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to Food Security and Nutrition for All (FAO, 2016).

  3. 3.

    Gentry, R. R. et al. Offshore aquaculture: spatial planning principles for sustainable development. Ecol. Evol. 7, 733–743 (2017).

  4. 4.

    Price, C. S. & Morris, J. A. J. Marine Cage Culture & The Environment: Twenty-first Century Science Informing a Sustainable Industry (NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS, 2013).

  5. 5.

    Alleway, H. K. et al. The ecosystem services of marine aquaculture: valuing benefits to nature and people. BioScience 69, 59–68 (2019).

  6. 6.

    Marschke, M. & Betcherman, G. Vietnam’s seafood boom: economic growth with impoverishment? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 18, 1129–1150 (2016).

  7. 7.

    Gentry, R. R. et al. Exploring the potential for marine aquaculture to contribute to ecosystem services. Rev. Aquac. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12328 (2019).

  8. 8.

    Lovatelli, A., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J. & Soto, D. (eds) Expanding Mariculture Farther Offshore: Technical, Environmental, Spatial and Governance Challenges FAO Technical Workshop 2010, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 24 (FAO, 2013).

  9. 9.

    Merino, G. et al. Can marine fisheries and aquaculture meet fish demand from a growing human population in a changing climate? Glob. Environ. Change 22, 795–806 (2012).

  10. 10.

    Gentry, R. R. et al. Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1317–1324 (2017).

  11. 11.

    Sanchez-Jerez, P. et al. Aquaculture’s struggle for space: the need for coastal spatial planning and the potential benefits of Allocated Zones for Aquaculture (AZAs) to avoid conflict and promote sustainability. Aquac. Environ. Interact. 8, 41–54 (2016).

  12. 12.

    Rimmer, M. A., Sugama, K., Rakhmawati, D., Rofiq, R. & Habgood, R. H. A review and SWOT analysis of aquaculture development in Indonesia. Rev. Aquac. 5, 255–279 (2013).

  13. 13.

    Morrill, R. L. Waves of spatial diffusion. J. Reg. Sci. 8, 1–18 (1968).

  14. 14.

    Joffre, O. M., Klerkx, L., Dickson, M. & Verdegem, M. How is innovation in aquaculture conceptualized and managed? A systematic literature review and reflection framework to inform analysis and action. Aquaculture 470, 129–148 (2017).

  15. 15.

    Ryan, B. & Gross, N. The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociol. 8, 15–24 (1943).

  16. 16.

    Rogers, E. M. A prospective and retrospective look at the diffusion model. J. Health Commun. 9, 13–19 (2004).

  17. 17.

    Dearing, J. W. Applying diffusion of innovation theory to intervention development. Res. Soc. Work Pract. 19, 503–518 (2009).

  18. 18.

    Padel, S. Conversion to organic farming: a typical example of the diffusion of an innovation? Sociol. Ruralis 41, 40–61 (2001).

  19. 19.

    Adjei, P. O. W., Kosoe, E. A. & Forkuor, D. Facts behind the myth of conservative rurality: major determinants of rural farmers’ innovation adoption decisions for sustainable agriculture. GeoJournal 82, 1051–1066 (2017).

  20. 20.

    Orr, A. Markets, institutions and policies: a perspective on the adoption of agricultural innovations. Outlook Agric. 47, 81–86 (2018).

  21. 21.

    Kumar, G., Engle, C. & Tucker, C. Factors driving aquaculture technology adoption. J. World Aquac. Soc. 49, 447–476 (2018).

  22. 22.

    Von Essen, L. M., Ferse, S. C. A., Glaser, M. & Kunzmann, A. Attitudes and perceptions of villagers toward community-based mariculture in Minahasa, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 73, 101–112 (2013).

  23. 23.

    Fox, M., Service, M., Moore, H., Dean, M. & Campbell, K. Barriers and facilitators to shellfish cultivation. Rev. Aquac. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12325 (2019).

  24. 24.

    Krause, G. et al. A revolution without people? Closing the people–policy gap in aquaculture development. Aquaculture 447, 44–55 (2015).

  25. 25.

    National Aquaculture Sector Overview: Denmark (FAO, 2019); http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_denmark/en

  26. 26.

    Johnson, T. et al. A social–ecological system framework for marine aquaculture research. Sustainability 11, 2522 (2019).

  27. 27.

    Ruff, E. O., Gentry, R. R., Clavelle, T., Thomas, L. R. & Lester, S. E. Governance and mariculture in the Caribbean. Mar. Policy 107, 103565 (2019).

  28. 28.

    Report on the Blue Growth Strategy Towards More Sustainable Growth and Jobs in the Blue Economy (European Commission, 2017).

  29. 29.

    Islam, M. S. Nitrogen and phosphorus budget in coastal and marine cage aquaculture and impacts of effluent loading on ecosystem: review and analysis towards model development. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 50, 48–61 (2005).

  30. 30.

    Costello, M. J. How sea lice from salmon farms may cause wild salmonid declines in Europe and North America and be a threat to fishes elsewhere. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276, 3385–3394 (2009).

  31. 31.

    Naylor, R. L. et al. Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15103–15110 (2009).

  32. 32.

    Froehlich, H. E., Gentry, R. R., Rust, M. B., Grimm, D. & Halpern, S. Public perceptions of aquaculture: evaluating spatiotemporal patterns of sentiment around the world. PLoS ONE 12, e0169281 (2017).

  33. 33.

    Tiller, R., Gentry, R. & Richards, R. Stakeholder driven future scenarios as an element of interdisciplinary management tools; the case of future offshore aquaculture development and the potential effects on fishermen in Santa Barbara, California. Ocean Coast. Manag. 73, 127–135 (2013).

  34. 34.

    McGinnis, M. V. & Collins, M. A race for marine space: science, values, and aquaculture planning in New Zealand. Coast. Manag. 41, 401–419 (2013).

  35. 35.

    Mather, C. & Fanning, L. Social licence and aquaculture: towards a research agenda. Mar. Policy 99, 275–282 (2019).

  36. 36.

    Flaherty, M., Reid, G., Chopin, T. & Latham, E. Public attitudes towards marine aquaculture in Canada: insights from the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Aquac. Int. 27, 9–32 (2018).

  37. 37.

    Suplicy, F. M. A review of the multiple benefits of mussel farming. Rev. Aquac. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12313 (2018).

  38. 38.

    van der Schatte Olivier, A. et al. A global review of the ecosystem services provided by bivalve aquaculture. Rev. Aquac. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12301 (2018).

  39. 39.

    Olivier, D., Heinecken, L. & Jackson, S. Mussel and oyster culture in Saldanha Bay, South Africa: potential for sustainable growth, development and employment creation. Food Secur. 5, 251–267 (2013).

  40. 40.

    Markowitz, H. Portfolio selection. J. Finance 7, 77–91 (1952).

  41. 41.

    Sanchirico, J. N., Smith, M. D. & Lipton, D. W. An empirical approach to ecosystem-based fishery management. Ecol. Econ. 64, 586–596 (2008).

  42. 42.

    Edwards, S. F., Link, J. S. & Rountree, B. P. Portfolio management of wild fish stocks. Ecol. Econ. 49, 317–329 (2004).

  43. 43.

    Figge, F. Bio-folio: applying portfolio theory to biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 13, 827–849 (2004).

  44. 44.

    Koellner, T. & Schmitz, O. J. Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and investment risk. BioScience 56, 977–985 (2006).

  45. 45.

    Wolfe, M. S. Crop strength through diversity. Nature 406, 681–682 (2000).

  46. 46.

    Troell, M. et al. Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13257–13263 (2014).

  47. 47.

    Klinger, D. & Naylor, R. L. Searching for solutions in aquaculture: charting a sustainable course. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 247–276 (2012).

  48. 48.

    Global Aquaculture Production (FAO, 2018); http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-aquaculture-production/en

  49. 49.

    Tjur, T. Coeficients of determination in logistic regression models—a new proposal: the coefficent of discrimination. Am. Stat. 63, 366–372 (2009).

  50. 50.

    Doing Business (The World Bank, 2018); http://www.doingbusiness.org/

  51. 51.

    Worldwide Governance Indicators (The World Bank, 2018); www.govindicators.org

  52. 52.

    World Bank Open Data (The World Bank, 2018); https://data.worldbank.org/

  53. 53.

    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).

  54. 54.

    Wickham, H., Francois, R., Henry, L. & Muller, K. dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 0.7.6 (2018).

  55. 55.

    Wickham, H. & Henry, L. tidyr: Easily tidy data with ‘spread()’ and ‘gather()’ functions. R package version 0.8.1 (2018).

  56. 56.

    Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).

  57. 57.

    Kassambara, A. & Mundt, F. factoextra: Extract and visualize the results of multivariate data analyses. R package version 1.0.5 (2017).

  58. 58.

    Lê, S., Josse, J. & Husson, F. FactoMineR: an R Package for multivariate analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 25, 1–18 (2008).

  59. 59.

    Signorell, A. DescTools: Tools for descriptive statistics. R package version 0.99.27 (2019).

  60. 60.

    Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S (Springer, 2002).

  61. 61.

    South, A. rworldmap: A new R package for mapping global data. R J. 3, 35–43 (2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by National Science Foundation grant no. 1759559.

Author information

R.R.G. and S.E.L. developed the research. R.R.G. performed the analysis with input from S.E.L. and E.O.R. All authors interpreted the results. R.R.G. wrote the manuscript with significant contributions from S.E.L. and E.O.R.

Correspondence to Rebecca R. Gentry.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–2 and Tables 1–5.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gentry, R.R., Ruff, E.O. & Lester, S.E. Temporal patterns of adoption of mariculture innovation globally. Nat Sustain 2, 949–956 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0395-y

Download citation