ReviewReviews in aquaculture2023
Planning and licensing for marine aquaculture.
Review in Reviews in aquaculture, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stable isotope analysis suggests nutrient connectivity between salmon and kelp within a commercial scale open coast integrated multi-trophic aquaculture system.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Mapping the potential for global offshore finfish mariculture.Marine life science & technology · 2024Article
- Optimizing nutrient utilization, hydraulic loading rate, and feed conversion ratios through freshwater IMTA-aquaponic and hydroponic systems as an environmentally sustainable aquaculture concept.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Real-world waste dispersion modelling for benthic integrated multi-trophic aquaculture.PloS one · 2024Article
- Planning and licensing for marine aquaculture.Reviews in aquaculture · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Marine aquaculture has the potential to increase its contribution to the global food system and provide valuable ecosystem services, but appropriate planning, licensing and regulation systems must be in place to enable sustainable development. At present, approaches vary considerably throughout the world, and several national and regional investigations have highlighted the need for reforms if marine aquaculture is to fulfil its potential. This article aims to map and evaluate the challenges of planning and licensing for growth of sustainable marine aquaculture. Despite the range of species, production systems and circumstances, this study found a number of common themes in the literature; complicated and fragmented approaches to planning and licensing, property rights and the licence to operate, competition for space and marine spatial planning, emerging species and diversifying marine aquaculture production (seaweed production, Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture [IMTA], nutrient and carbon offsetting with aquaculture, offshore aquaculture and co-location and multiuse platforms), and the need to address knowledge gaps and use of decision-support tools. Planning and licensing can be highly complicated, so the UK is used as a case study to show more detailed examples that highlight the range of challenges and uncertainty that industry, regulators and policymakers face across interacting jurisdictions. There are many complexities, but this study shows that many countries have undergone, or are undergoing, similar challenges, suggesting that lessons can be learned by sharing knowledge and experiences, even across different species and production systems, rather than having a more insular focus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.