The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The economics of Integrated Multi‐Trophic Aquaculture: where are we now and where do we need to go?
Abstract
In integrated multi‐trophic aquaculture (IMTA), species from different trophic levels are raised in proximity to one another and the co‐products (organic and inorganic wastes) of one cultured species are recycled to serve as nutritional inputs for others. IMTA can reduce the ecological impacts near aquaculture operations, improve social perceptions of aquaculture and provide financial benefits for aquaculture producers via product diversification, faster production cycles and price premiums on IMTA products. We review aspects of IMTA’s economic potential and market acceptance and consider ways to address the current gaps in our understanding. We find that adopting IMTA raises the assimilative capacity of the farm and that IMTA substantively reduces the environmental cost of aquaculture. Moreover, integrating extractive species (e.g. invertebrates and/or seaweeds), with existing fed‐monoculture operations, can increase farm profits. The presence of positive public attitudes towards IMTA, as expressed by a willingness to pay a premium for its products, can further increase the profitability of adopting IMTA. Areas requiring more economic research include the development of comparative bioeconomic models of IMTA and the evaluation of competing production systems and their ability to internalize externalities to demonstrate the true value of IMTA to society. Further exploration of economic incentives, such as instruments needed to foster adoption of IMTA, and investigation of marketing opportunities, such as promoting the eco‐certification of IMTA products, are also needed. Our paper aimed to inform economists and non‐economists alike about the latest developments in IMTA economics, and spur further research on critical topics concerning this important subject.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Neori, A., Chopin, T., Troell, M., Buschmann, A. H., Kraemer, G. P., Halling, C., Shpigel, M., & Yarish, C. (2004) · Aquaculture · doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2003.11.015 · Cited by 1,093
Self-citationTroell, M., Joyce, A., Chopin, T., Neori, A., Buschmann, A. H., & Fang, J.-G. (2009) · Aquaculture · doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.09.010 · Cited by 689
Self-citation
Cited by
The decline of mussel aquaculture in the European Union: causes, economic impacts and opportunities
Avdelas, L., Avdic‐Mravlje, E., Borges Marques, A. C., Cano, S., Capelle, J. J., Carvalho, N., Cozzolino, M., Dennis, J., Ellis, T., Fernández Polanco, J. M., et al. (2021) · Reviews in Aquaculture · doi:10.1111/raq.12465 · Cited by 259
Chauton, M. S., Forbord, S., Mäkinen, S., Sarno, A., Slizyte, R., Mozuraityte, R., Standal, I. B., & Skjermo, J. (2021) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/ppl.13391 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Knowler, D., Chopin, T., Martínez‐Espiñeira, R., Neori, A., Nobre, A., Noce, A., & Reid, G.
- Venue
- Reviews in Aquaculture
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-01-27
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1579-1594
- ISSN
- 1753-5123 (ISSN-L)
- 1753-5131
- OpenAlex
- W3001746378
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.