IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i5p1396-d211520.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resource Use in Mariculture: A Case Study in Southeastern China

Author

Listed:
  • Tomás Marín

    (College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Jing Wu

    (College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Xu Wu

    (Zhejiang Economic Information Center, Hangzhou 310006, China
    College of Economics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Zimin Ying

    (College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Qiaoling Lu

    (College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Yiyuan Hong

    (College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Xiaoyan Wang

    (College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Wu Yang

    (College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

Abstract

China is the biggest provider of aquaculture products, and the industry is still growing rapidly. Further development of the sector will affect the provision of ecosystem services that maintain the livelihood of local populations. In particular, the current size and growth rate of China’s mariculture has raised many environmental concerns, but very few studies of this sector have been conducted to date. Here, we report the resource use in the production of six main Chinese mariculture products ( Larimichthys crocea , Apostichopus japonicus , Haliotis spp., Laminaria japonica , Gracilaria spp., Porphyra spp.), taking the city of Ningde as a case study. We used the life cycle assessment framework and the Cumulated Exergy Demand indicator to quantify resource use, and implemented a Monte Carlo simulation where model uncertainty was included using various methods. The mean exergy demand values of the production of one live-weight ton of large yellow croaker, sea cucumber, abalone, laminaria, gracilaria, and porphyra are 106 GJ eq., 65 GJ eq., 126 GJ eq., 0.25 GJ eq., 1.55 GJ eq., and 0.98 GJ eq., respectively. For animal products, 45–90% of the impacts come from the feed requirements, while in seaweed production, 83–99% of the impacts are linked to the fuel used in operation and maintenance activities. Policies oriented toward efficient resource management in the mariculture sector thus should take the farm design, input management, and spatial planning of marine areas as the main targets to guide current practices into more sustainable ones in the future. Improvements in all those aspects can effectively increase resource efficiency in local mariculture production and additionally reduce other environmental impacts both locally and globally.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomás Marín & Jing Wu & Xu Wu & Zimin Ying & Qiaoling Lu & Yiyuan Hong & Xiaoyan Wang & Wu Yang, 2019. "Resource Use in Mariculture: A Case Study in Southeastern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1396-:d:211520
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1396/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1396/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrik J G Henriksson & Reinout Heijungs & Hai M Dao & Lam T Phan & Geert R de Snoo & Jeroen B Guinée, 2015. "Product Carbon Footprints and Their Uncertainties in Comparative Decision Contexts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-11, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefano Cucurachi & Carlos Felipe Blanco & Bernhard Steubing & Reinout Heijungs, 2022. "Implementation of uncertainty analysis and moment‐independent global sensitivity analysis for full‐scale life cycle assessment models," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(2), pages 374-391, April.
    2. Giovanni Codotto & Massimo Pizzol & Troels J. Hegland & Niels Madsen, 2024. "Model uncertainty versus variability in the life cycle assessment of commercial fisheries," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 28(1), pages 160-172, February.
    3. Andrew Berardy & Carol S. Johnston & Alexandra Plukis & Maricarmen Vizcaino & Christopher Wharton, 2019. "Integrating Protein Quality and Quantity with Environmental Impacts in Life Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-11, May.
    4. Mu, W. & Groen, E.A. & van Middelaar, C.E. & Bokkers, E.A.M. & Hennart, S. & Stilmant, D. & de Boer, I.J.M., 2017. "Benchmarking nutrient use efficiency of dairy farms: The effect of epistemic uncertainty," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 25-33.
    5. Steffen Kiemel & Chantal Rietdorf & Maximilian Schutzbach & Robert Miehe, 2022. "How to Simplify Life Cycle Assessment for Industrial Applications—A Comprehensive Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-26, November.
    6. Anne‐Marie Boulay & Pascal Lesage & Ben Amor & Stephan Pfister, 2021. "Quantifying uncertainty for AWARE characterization factors," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(6), pages 1588-1601, December.
    7. Nhu, Trang T. & Le, Quan H. & Heide, Peter ter & Bosma, Roel & Sorgeloos, Patrick & Dewulf, Jo & Schaubroeck, Thomas, 2016. "Inferred equations for predicting cumulative exergy extraction throughout cradle-to-gate life cycles of Pangasius feeds and intensive Pangasius grow-out farms in Vietnam," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 42-49.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1396-:d:211520. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.