IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i16p9180-d615302.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder Perspectives on Blue Mussel Farming to Mitigate Baltic Sea Eutrophication

Author

Listed:
  • Emilija Žilinskaitė

    (Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden)

  • Malgorzata Blicharska

    (Department of Earth Sciences, Natural Resources and Sustainable Development, Uppsala University, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden)

  • Martyn Futter

    (Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden)

Abstract

Here, we present an application of systems thinking to controlling Baltic Sea eutrophication—a wicked environmental problem characterized by multiple stakeholder perspectives and no single, agreed upon solution. The Baltic Sea is one of the most polluted waterbodies in the world. More than 40 years of land-based (linear) measures have failed to adequately control eutrophication, yet internal (circular) measures are rarely used. Farming native blue mussels for nutrient capture has been proposed as one measure for eutrophication control, but the relevant stakeholders disagree as to its environmental, social and economic benefits. Here, we present the views of four Swedish stakeholder groups—academics, entrepreneurs, municipal government employees and representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—on the sustainability of native blue mussel farming, a circular measure for eutrophication control. Using semi-structured interviews, we elicited stakeholder perspectives on the environmental, economic and social dimensions of blue mussel farming. The interviewees generally agreed that blue mussel farming is not currently economically sustainable, but that it can contribute to the social sustainability of coastal regions. Academics were skeptical of the environmental benefits, claiming that farms could reinforce eutrophication, whereas the remaining stakeholder groups argued for its potential to mitigate eutrophication. In a roundtable discussion conducted one year after the original interviews, all stakeholder groups agreed that blue mussel farming alone will not fix Baltic Sea eutrophication, but can be part of the solution together with land-based measures. All groups also agreed on the need for cautious upscaling, continuous environmental monitoring and constant improvement if blue mussel farms are to be part of a “toolkit” for eutrophication control. Our results highlight the fact that wicked environmental problems can be addressed when multiple stakeholder groups with differing perspectives have the opportunity to achieve consensus through dialog.

Suggested Citation

  • Emilija Žilinskaitė & Malgorzata Blicharska & Martyn Futter, 2021. "Stakeholder Perspectives on Blue Mussel Farming to Mitigate Baltic Sea Eutrophication," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:16:p:9180-:d:615302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9180/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9180/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manal Hamam & Gaetano Chinnici & Giuseppe Di Vita & Gioacchino Pappalardo & Biagio Pecorino & Giulia Maesano & Mario D’Amico, 2021. "Circular Economy Models in Agro-Food Systems: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Elizabeth Allen & Chad Kruger & Fok-Yan Leung & Jennie Stephens, 2013. "Diverse Perceptions of Stakeholder Engagement within an Environmental Modeling Research Team," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(3), pages 343-356, September.
    3. Jentoft, Svein & Chuenpagdee, Ratana & Bundy, Alida & Mahon, Robin, 2010. "Pyramids and roses: Alternative images for the governance of fisheries systems," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 1315-1321, November.
    4. Rau, Henrike & Goggins, Gary & Fahy, Frances, 2018. "From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 266-276.
    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. de Almeida, Liliane & Augusto de Jesus Pacheco, Diego & Caten, Carla Schwengber ten & Jung, Carlos Fernando, 2021. "A methodology for identifying results and impacts in technological innovation projects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    2. Dominic Villeneuve & David Durán-Rodas & Anthony Ferri & Tobias Kuttler & Julie Magelund & Michael Mögele & Luca Nitschke & Eriketti Servou & Cat Silva, 2019. "What is Interdisciplinarity in Practice? Critical Reflections on Doing Mobility Research in an Intended Interdisciplinary Doctoral Research Group," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Jesús de Frutos-Belizón & Fernando Martín-Alcázar & Gonzalo Sánchez-Gardey, 2021. "The research–practice gap in the field of HRM: a qualitative study from the academic side of the gap," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1465-1515, August.
    4. Heikki Tuomenvirta & Hilppa Gregow & Atte Harjanne & Sanna Luhtala & Antti Mäkelä & Karoliina Pilli-Sihvola & Sirkku Juhola & Mikael Hildén & Pirjo Peltonen-Sainio & Ilkka T. Miettinen & Mikko Halonen, 2019. "Identifying Policy Actions Supporting Weather-Related Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Arru, Brunella & Furesi, Roberto & Pulina, Pietro & Sau, Paola & Madau, Fabio A., 2022. "The Circular Economy in the Agri-food system: A Performance Measurement of European Countries," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 24(2), September.
    6. De Silva, Muthu & Gokhberg, Leonid & Meissner, Dirk & Russo, Margherita, 2021. "Addressing societal challenges through the simultaneous generation of social and business values: A conceptual framework for science-based co-creation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    7. Miltos Ladikas & Julia Hahn & Lei Huang, 2022. "Assessing the Impact of Technology Assessment, Responsible Research and Innovation and Sustainability Research: Towards a Common Methodological Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, February.
    8. Isti Hidayati & Claudia Yamu & Wendy Tan, 2019. "The Emergence of Mobility Inequality in Greater Jakarta, Indonesia: A Socio-Spatial Analysis of Path Dependencies in Transport–Land Use Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-18, September.
    9. Laura Kreiling & Ahmed Bounfour, 2020. "A practice-based maturity model for holistic TTO performance management: development and initial use," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1718-1747, December.
    10. Keishiro Hara & Iori Miura & Masanori Suzuki & Toshihiro Tanaka, 2023. "Designing research strategy and technology innovation for sustainability by adopting “imaginary future generations”—A case study using metallurgy," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3-4), September.
    11. Florence Gignac & Anne-Sophie Gresle & Valeria Santoro Lamelas & Montserrat Yepes-Baldó & Leonardo de la Torre & Maria-Jesus Pinazo & the InSPIRES Consortium, 2021. "Self-evaluating participatory research projects: A content validation of the InSPIRES online impact evaluation tool [Content Validity and Reliability of Single Items or Questionnaires]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 500-513.
    12. Alba Viana Lora & Marta Gemma Nel-lo Andreu, 2020. "Alternative Metrics for Assessing the Social Impact of Tourism Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-12, May.
    13. Ana de Jesus & Minna Lammi & Teresa Domenech & Fedra Vanhuyse & Sandro Mendonça, 2021. "Eco-Innovation Diversity in a Circular Economy: Towards Circular Innovation Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-22, October.
    14. Yufeng Chen & Biao Zheng, 2019. "What Happens after the Rare Earth Crisis: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-26, March.
    15. Julian Kirchherr & Andrea Urbinati & Kris Hartley, 2023. "Circular economy: A new research field?," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(5), pages 1239-1251, October.
    16. Vítor João Pereira Domingues Martinho, 2021. "Contributions from Literature for Understanding Wine Marketing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-20, July.
    17. Helka Kalliomäki & Sampo Ruoppila & Jenni Airaksinen, 2021. "It takes two to tango: Examining productive interactions in urban research collaboration [Generating Research Questions through Problematization]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 529-539.
    18. Karel Diéguez-Santana & Liliana B. Sarduy-Pereira & Neyfe Sablón-Cossío & Horacio Bautista-Santos & Fabiola Sánchez-Galván & Sebastiana del Monserrate Ruíz Cedeño, 2022. "Evaluation of the Circular Economy in a Pitahaya Agri-Food Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, March.
    19. Maryam Nastar, 2023. "A Critical Realist Approach to Reflexivity in Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, February.
    20. Reed, M.S. & Ferré, M. & Martin-Ortega, J. & Blanche, R. & Lawford-Rolfe, R. & Dallimer, M. & Holden, J., 2021. "Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).

    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:13:y:2021:i:16:p:9180-:d:615302. 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.