Environmental Impacts Of Aquaculture

This shows that customers are largely unaware that antibiotic use has significantly decreased in many production systems (Pieniak, Vanhonacker and Verbeke, 2013), and that aquaculture has various potential advantages with respect to managing, controlling and guaranteeing the quality, safety, healthiness and even taste of farmed fish (Verbeke et al., 2007).

In another perspective, however, some consumers regard farmed fish as less affected than wild fish by marine pollution and heavy metals (DFO, 2005; Claret et al., 2014). Hence, consumers seem to face a trade-off between health additive residues (e.g. antibiotics), which are believed to be more present in farmed fish, and heavy metals, which are believed to be less present in farmed fish

In the absence of such confidence in food safety controls and regulatory systems, the safety and quality of food become the most important aspects associated with fish. In China, safety and quality rather than price were considered the most important factors influencing the consumption of fish products (Zhang, 2002). Consequently, consumers were willing to pay a modest price premium for food products that underwent more-rigorous food-safety inspection (Wang et al., 2009).

b. Environmental Impacts

Given that aquaculture is prevalent in coastal ecosystems and freshwater habitats, which are often under pressure from multiple human impacts, it is not surprising that the sector raises environmental concerns. Thus the challenge in natural resource management is to strike a balance between conservation and economic development, taking into consideration different opinions and interests so as to achieve reasonable outcomes (Mazur and Curtis, 2008). Environmental damage is not only a consequence of aquaculture but also represents a momentous constraint, owing to the sector’s primary dependence on good environmental conditions and hence a shared interest in their maintenance (Young, Brugere and Muir, 1999).

There is therefore different perceptions of the socio-economic benefits and risk of aquaculture development. Proof from available surveys of peoples attitude on socio-economic concerns recommends that the strongest reaction of aquaculture is generally seen when local communities benefit directly from the industry (Katranidis, Nitsi and Vakrou, 2003; Whitmarsh and Palmieri, 2009; Mazur and Curtis, 2008). In developing countries, mostly, small-scale aquaculture development can support expansively to local communities as a supplier of healthy animal protein to grow the nutrition of poor people (Irz et al., 2007; Ahmed and Lorica, 2002). Adding, aquaculture growth can boost the supply of fish in local markets making it less expensive and affordable (Irz et al., 2007). Correspondingly, in Canada and Europe, customer surveys show that farmed seafood (especially salmon) is normally seen as cheaper and available year-round, compared with wild-caught fish thus enabling people to eat fish more frequently (DFO, 2005; Claret et al., 2014; Amberg and Hall, 2008; Vanhonacker, Pieniak and Verbeke, 2013). Also, information from focus-group discussions in seven European countries shows that the public identify the economic benefits of fish farming which are higher employment rates, better income and economic development in rural areas (Schlag and Ystgaard, 2013). This