LCA of aquaculture systems: methodological issues and potential improvements

  • Florence Alexia BohnesEmail author
  • Alexis Laurent



The aquaculture sector is the fastest growing food production industry. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) can be a useful tool to assess its environmental impacts and ensure environmentally sustainable development. Years ago, critical reviews of LCA methodology have been conducted in that field to evaluate methodological practice. However, how effective were these reviews in improving LCA application? Are there any remaining issues that LCA practitioners should address in their practice?


We tackle the above questions by critically reviewing all LCA cases applied to aquaculture and aquafeed production systems from a methodological point of view. A total of 65 studies were retrieved, thus tripling the scope of previous reviews. The studies were analysed following the main phases of the LCA methodology as described in the ISO standards, and the authors’ choices were extracted to identify potential trends in the LCA practice.

Results and discussion

We identified five main methodological issues, which still pose challenges to LCA practitioners: (i) the functional unit not always reflecting the actual function of the system, (ii) the system boundary often being too restricted, (iii) the multi-functionality of processes too often being handled with economic allocation while more recommendable ways exist, (iv) the impact coverage not covering all environmental impacts relevant to aquaculture and (v) the interpretation phase usually lacking critical discussion of the methodological limitations. We analysed these aspects in depth, highlighting trends and tendencies.


For each of the five remaining issues, we provided recommendations to be integrated by practitioners in their future LCA practice. We also developed a brief research agenda to address the future needs of LCA in the aquaculture sector. The first need is that emphasis should be put on the construction of aquaculture life-cycle inventory databases with a special need for developing countries and for post-farming processes. Additionally, method developers should develop and/or refine characterisation models for missing impact pathways to better cover all relevant impacts of seafood farming.


Aquafeed Fish Life-cycle assessment Food production LCA methodology Review Seafood 


  1. Abdou K, Aubin J, Romdhane MS, le Loc’h F, Lasram FBR (2017a) Environmental assessment of seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and seabream (Sparus aurata) farming from a life cycle perspective: a case study of a Tunisian aquaculture farm. Aquaculture 471:204–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdou K, Ben Rais Lasram F, Romdhane MS, le Loc’h F, Aubin J (2017b) Rearing performances and environmental assessment of sea cage farming in Tunisia using life cycle assessment (LCA) combined with PCA and HCPC. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1049–1062. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arismendi I, Soto D, Penaluna B et al (2009) Aquaculture, non-native salmonid invasions and associated declines of native fishes in northern Patagonian lakes. Freshw Biol 54:1135–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aubin J (2013) Life cycle assessment as applied to environmental choices regarding farmed or wild-caught fish. CAB Rev Perspect Agric Vet Sci Nutr Nat Resour 8:1–10Google Scholar
  5. Aubin J, Baruthio A, Mungkung R, Lazard J (2015) Environmental performance of brackish water polyculture system from a life cycle perspective: a Filipino case study. Aquaculture 435:217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aubin J, Fontaine C (2014) Impacts of producing bouchot mussels in Mont-Saint-Michel Bay (France) using LCA with emphasis on potential climate change and eutrophication. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector environmental, pp 64–69Google Scholar
  7. Aubin J, Papatryphon E, Van der Werf HMG et al (2006) Characterisation of the environmental impact of a turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) re-circulating production system using life cycle assessment. Aquaculture 261:1259–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aubin J, Papatryphon E, van der Werf HMG, Chatzifotis S (2009) Assessment of the environmental impact of carnivorous finfish production systems using life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 17:354–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Avadí A, Fréon P (2015) A set of sustainability performance indicators for seafood: direct human consumption products from Peruvian anchoveta fisheries and freshwater aquaculture. Ecol Indic 48:518–532Google Scholar
  10. Avadí A, Pelletier N, Aubin J, Ralite S, Núñez J, Fréon P (2015) Comparative environmental performance of artisanal and commercial feed use in Peruvian freshwater aquaculture. Aquaculture 435:52–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ayer N, Martin S, Dwyer RL, Gace L, Laurin L (2016) Environmental performance of copper-alloy net-pens: life cycle assessment of Atlantic salmon grow-out in copper-alloy and nylon net-pens. Aquaculture 453:93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ayer NW, Tyedmers PH (2009) Assessing alternative aquaculture technologies: life cycle assessment of salmonid culture systems in Canada. J Clean Prod 17:362–373. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ayer NW, Tyedmers PH, Pelletier NL, Sonesson U, Scholz A (2007) Co-product allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: review of problems and strategies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:480–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Baruthio A, Aubin J, Mungkung R et al (2008) Environmental assessment of Filipino fish/prawn polyculture using life cycle assessment. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on LCA in the agri-food sector. Zurich, Switzerland, pp 242–247Google Scholar
  15. Besson M, Aubin J, Komen H, Poelman M, Quillet E, Vandeputte M, van Arendonk JAM, de Boer IJM (2016) Environmental impacts of genetic improvement of growth rate and feed conversion ratio in fish farming under rearing density and nitrogen output limitations. J Clean Prod 116:100–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bohnes FA, Hauschild MZ, Schlundt J, Laurent A (2018) Life cycle assessments of aquaculture systems: a critical review of reported findings with recommendations for policy and system development. Reviews in Aquaculture.
  17. Bijster M, Guignard C, Hauschild M et al (2017) USEtox 2.0 Documentation (v1)Google Scholar
  18. Boissy J, Aubin J, Drissi A, van der Werf HMG, Bell GJ, Kaushik SJ (2011) Environmental impacts of plant-based salmonid diets at feed and farm scales. Aquaculture 321:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bosma R, Anh PT, Potting J (2011) Life cycle assessment of intensive striped catfish farming in the Mekong Delta for screening hotspots as input to environmental policy and research agenda. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:903–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Boxman SE, Zhang Q, Bailey D, Trotz MA (2016) Life cycle assessment a commercial-scale freshwater aquaponic system. Environ Eng Sci 34:299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cabello FC, Godfrey HP, Tomova A, Ivanova L, Dölz H, Millanao A, Buschmann AH (2013) Antimicrobial use in aquaculture re-examined: its relevance to antimicrobial resistance and to animal and human health. Environ Microbiol 15:1917–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cao L, Diana JS, Keoleian GA (2013) Role of life cycle assessment in sustainable aquaculture. Rev Aquac 5:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cao L, Diana JS, Keoleian GA, Lai Q (2011) Life cycle assessment of Chinese shrimp farming systems targeted for export and domestic sales. Environ Sci Technol 45:6531–6538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cashion T, Hornborg S, Ziegler F, Hognes ES, Tyedmers P (2016) Review and advancement of the marine biotic resource use metric in seafood LCAs: a case study of Norwegian salmon feed. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1106–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cashion T, Tyedmers P, Parker RWR (2017) Global reduction fisheries and their products in the context of sustainable limits. Fish Fish.,18,1026,1037
  26. Chaudhary A, Verones F, De Baan L, Hellweg S (2015) Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species-area models and vulnerability indicators. Environ Sci Technol 49:9987–9995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Chen X, Samson E, Tocqueville A, Aubin J (2015) Environmental assessment of trout farming in France by life cycle assessment: using bootstrapped principal component analysis to better define system classification. J Clean Prod 87:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Clark M, Tilman D (2017) Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ Res Lett 12:1–11Google Scholar
  29. Dekamin M, Veisi H, Safari E, Liaghati H, Khoshbakht K, Dekamin MG (2015) Life cycle assessment for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) production systems: a case study for Iran. J Clean Prod 91:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Diana JS (2009) Aquaculture production and biodiversity conservation. Bioscience 59:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Efole Ewoukem T, Aubin J, Mikolasek O, Corson MS, Tomedi Eyango M, Tchoumboue J, van der Werf HMG, Ombredane D (2012) Environmental impacts of farms integrating aquaculture and agriculture in Cameroon. J Clean Prod 28:208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Emanuelsson A, Ziegler F, Pihl L, Sköld M, Sonesson U (2014) Accounting for overfishing in life cycle assessment: new impact categories for biotic resource use. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1156–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ellingsen H, Aanondsen SA (2006) Environmental impacts of wild caught cod and farmed salmon—a comparison with chicken. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. FAO (2016) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. food and agriculture organisation of the United Nations, Rome, ITGoogle Scholar
  35. Forchino AA, Lourguioui H, Brigolin D, Pastres R (2017) Aquaponics and sustainability: the comparison of two different aquaponic 2 techniques using the life cycle assessment (LCA). Aquac Eng 77:80–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ford JS, Pelletier NL, Ziegler F, Scholz AJ, Tyedmers PH, Sonesson U, Kruse SA, Silverman H (2012) Proposed local ecological impact categories and indicators for life cycle assessment of aquaculture: a Salmon aquaculture case study. J Ind Ecol 16:254–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fréon P, Durand H, Avadí A, Huaranca S, Orozco Moreyra R (2017) Life cycle assessment of three Peruvian fishmeal plants: toward a cleaner production. J Clean Prod 145:50–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. García García B, Rosique Jiménez C, Aguado-Giménez F, García García J (2016) Life cycle assessment of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) production in offshore fish farms. Sustainability 8:1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grönroos J, Seppälä J, Silvenius F, Mäkinen T (2006) Life cycle assessment of Finnish cultivated rainbow trout. Boreal Environ Res 11:401–414Google Scholar
  40. Hellweg S, Mila i Canals L (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 344 (6188):1109–1113Google Scholar
  41. Henriksson P, Rico A, Zhang W (2015) Comparison of Asian aquaculture products by use of statistically supported life cycle assessment—supporting information. Sci Technol 49:14176–14183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Henriksson PJG, Dickson M, Allah AN, al-Kenawy D, Phillips M (2017a) Benchmarking the environmental performance of best management practice and genetic improvements in Egyptian aquaculture using life cycle assessment. Aquaculture 468:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Henriksson PJG, Guinée JB, Kleijn R, De Snoo GR (2012) Life cycle assessment of aquaculture systems—a review of methodologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:304–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Henriksson PJG, Tran N, Mohan CV, Chan CY, Rodriguez UP, Suri S, Mateos LD, Utomo NBP, Hall S, Phillips MJ (2017b) Indonesian aquaculture futures - evaluating environmental and socioeconomic potentials and limitations. J Clean Prod 162:1482–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Huijbregts M, Hauschild M, Margni M et al (2015a) USEtox 2.0 user manual: inorganic substances (v2)Google Scholar
  46. Huijbregts M, Meent D van de, Margni M et al (2015b) USEtox 2.0 user manual: organic substances (v2)Google Scholar
  47. Iribarren D, Dagá P, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2012a) Potential environmental effects of probiotics used in aquaculture. Aquac Int 20:779–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Iribarren D, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010a) Revisiting the life cycle assessment of mussels from a sectorial perspective. J Clean Prod 18:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Iribarren D, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010b) Life cycle assessment of fresh and canned mussel processing and consumption in Galicia (NW Spain). Resour Conserv Recycl 55:106–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Iribarren D, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010c) Implementing by-product management into the life cycle assessment of the mussel sector. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:1219–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Iribarren D, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2012b) Life cycle assessment of aquaculture feed and application to the turbot sector. Int J Environ Res 6:837–848Google Scholar
  52. ISO (2006a) ISO 14040:2006—environmental management—life cycle assessment - principles and framework. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  53. ISO (2006b) ISO 14044:2006—environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  54. Jerbi MA, Aubin J, Garnaoui K, Achour L, Kacem A (2012) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of two rearing techniques of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Aquac Eng 46:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jolliet O, Antón A, Boulay A-M, Cherubini F, Fantke P, Levasseur A, McKone TE, Michelsen O, Milà i Canals L, Motoshita M, Pfister S, Verones F, Vigon B, Frischknecht R (2018) Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: impacts of climate change, fine particulate matter formation, water consumption and land use. Int J Life Cycle Assess.
  56. Jonell M, Henriksson PJG (2015) Mangrove-shrimp farms in Vietnam-comparing organic and conventional systems using life cycle assessment. Aquaculture 447:66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kluts IN, Potting J, Bosma RH, Phong LT, Udo HMJ (2012) Environmental comparison of intensive and integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems for striped catfish production in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, based on two existing case studies using life cycle assessment. Rev Aquac 4:195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kümmerer K (2009) Antibiotics in the aquatic environment—a review—part I. Chemosphere 75:417–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Langlois J, Fréon P, Delgenes J-P et al (2012) Biotic resources extraction impact assessment in LCA of fisheries. In: 8th international conference on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector. Saint-Malo (France), pp 517–522Google Scholar
  60. Laurent A, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2012) Limitations of Carbon Footprint as Indicator of Environmental Sustainability. Environmental Science & Technology 46(7):4100–4108Google Scholar
  61. Laurent A, Bakas I, Clavreul J et al (2014) Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems. Part I: Lessons learned and perspectives. Waste Manag 34:573–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Laurent A, Weidema B, Bare J et al (2018) Methodological review and detailed guidance for the life cycle interpretation phase. Submitted to international journal of life cycle assessment (06/2018)Google Scholar
  63. Lourguioui H, Brigolin D, Boulahdid M, Pastres R (2017) A perspective for reducing environmental impacts of mussel culture in Algeria. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1266–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lozano S, Iribarren D, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010) Environmental impact efficiency in mussel cultivation. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:1269–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. McGrath KP, Pelletier NL, Tyedmers PH (2015) Life cycle assessment of a novel closed-containment salmon aquaculture technology. Environ Sci Technol 49:5628–5636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Medeiros MV, Aubin J, Camargo AFM (2017) Life cycle assessment of fish and prawn production: comparison of monoculture and polyculture freshwater systems in Brazil. J Clean Prod 156:528–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mungkung R, Aubin J, Prihadi TH, Slembrouck J, van der Werf HMG, Legendre M (2013) Life cycle assessment for environmentally sustainable aquaculture management: a case study of combined aquaculture systems for carp and tilapia. J Clean Prod 57:249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mungkung R, Udo de Haes H, Clift R (2006) Potentials and limitations of life cycle assessment in setting ecolabelling criteria: a case study of Thai shrimp aquaculture product. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Naylor R, Hindar K, Fleming IA et al (2005) Fugitive salmon: assessing the risks of escaped fish from net-pen aquaculture. Bioscience 55:427–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Naylor RL, Goldburg RJ, Primavera JH, Kautsky N, Beveridge MCM, Clay J, Folke C, Lubchenco J, Mooney H, Troell M (2000) Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405:1017–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Nhu TT, Schaubroeck T, Henriksson PJG, Bosma R, Sorgeloos P, Dewulf J (2016) Environmental impact of non-certified versus certified (ASC) intensive Pangasius aquaculture in Vietnam, a comparison based on a statistically supported LCA. Environ Pollut 219:156–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ottinger M, Clauss K, Kuenzer C (2016) Aquaculture: relevance, distribution, impacts and spatial assessments - a review. Ocean Coast Manag 119:244–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pahri SDR, Mohamed AF, Samat A (2015) LCA for open systems: a review of the influence of natural and anthropogenic factors on aquaculture systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1324–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pahri SDR, Mohamed AF, Samat A (2016) Life cycle assessment of cockles (Anadara granosa) farming: a case study of Malaysia. Environ Asia 9:80–90Google Scholar
  75. Papatryphon E, Petit J, Kaushik SJ, Van Der Werf HMG (2004a) Environmental impact assessment of salmonid feeds using life cycle assessment (LCA). Ambio 33:316–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Papatryphon E, Petit J, Werf HMG van der, Kaushik SJ (2004b) Life cycle assessment of trout farming in France: a farm level approach. In: Proceedings from the 4th international conference, October 6–8, 2003, Bygholm, Denmark, pp 71–77Google Scholar
  77. Parker R (2012) Review of life cycle assessment research on products derived from fisheries and aquaculture: a report for seafish as part of the collective action to address greenhouse gas emissions in seafood. Sea Fish Industry Authority, Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
  78. Parker RWR, Tyedmers PH (2012) Life cycle environmental impacts of three products derived from wild-caught Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba). Environ Sci Technol 46:4958–4965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Peeler EJ, Oidtmann BC, Midtlyng PJ, Miossec L, Gozlan RE (2011) Non-native aquatic animals introductions have driven disease emergence in Europe. Biol Invasions 13:1291–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pelletier N, Tyedmers P (2007) Feeding farmed salmon: is organic better? Aquaculture 272:399–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pelletier N, Tyedmers P (2010) Life cycle assessment of frozen tilapia fillets from indonesian lake-based and pond-based intensive aquaculture systems. J Ind Ecol 14:467–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pelletier N, Tyedmers P, Sonesson U, Scholz A, Ziegler F, Flysjo A, Kruse S, Cancino B, Silverman H (2009) Not all salmon are created equal: life cycle assessment (LCA) of global salmon farming systems. Environ Sci Technol 43:8730–8736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Phong LT, de Boer IJM, Udo HMJ (2011) Life cycle assessment of food production in integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems of the Mekong Delta. Livest Sci 139:80–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Roque d’Orbcastel E, Blancheton J-P, Aubin J (2009) Towards environmentally sustainable aquaculture: comparison between two trout farming systems using life cycle assessment. Aquac Eng 40:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sala S, Anton A, McLaren SJ et al (2017) In quest of reducing the environmental impacts of food production and consumption. J Clean Prod 140:387–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Samuel-Fitwi B, Meyer S, Reckmann K, Schroeder JP, Schulz C (2013a) Aspiring for environmentally conscious aquafeed: comparative LCA of aquafeed manufacturing using different protein sources. J Clean Prod 52:225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Samuel-Fitwi B, Nagel F, Meyer S, Schroeder JP, Schulz C (2013b) Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of raising rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in different production systems. Aquac Eng 54:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Samuel-Fitwi B, Schroeder JP, Schulz C (2013c) System delimitation in life cycle assessment (LCA) of aquaculture: striving for valid and comprehensive environmental assessment using rainbow trout farming as a case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:577–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Santos AAO, Aubin J, Corson MS et al (2015) Comparing environmental impacts of native and introduced freshwater prawn farming in Brazil and the influence of better effluent management using LCA. Aquaculture 444:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Seghetta M, Romeo D, D’Este M et al (2017) Seaweed as innovative feedstock for energy and feed—evaluating the impacts through a life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 150:1–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Seves SM, Temme EHM, Brosens MCC, Zijp MC, Hoekstra J, Hollander A (2016) Sustainability aspects and nutritional composition of fish: evaluation of wild and cultivated fish species consumed in the Netherlands. Clim Chang 135:597–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Smárason BÖ, Ögmundarson Ó, Árnason J et al (2017) Life cycle assessment of Icelandic Arctic char fed three different feed types. Turkish J Fish Aquat Sci 17:79–90Google Scholar
  93. Sonesson U, Davis J, Flysjö A, Gustavsson J, Witthöft C (2017) Protein quality as functional unit—a methodological framework for inclusion in life cycle assessment of food. J Clean Prod 140:470–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Strazza C, Magrassi F, Gallo M, Del Borghi A (2015) Life cycle assessment from food to food: a case study of circular economy from cruise ships to aquaculture. Sustain Prod Consum 2:40–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Taelman SE, De Meester S, Roef L et al (2013) The environmental sustainability of microalgae as feed for aquaculture: a life cycle perspective. Bioresour Technol 150:513–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. UN (2017) World population prospects the 2017 revision key findings and advance tables. New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  97. Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R et al (2013) Data quality guideline for the Ecoinvent database version 3. The Ecoinvent Centre, St. Gallen, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  98. WHO (2018) Antimicrobial resistance. Accessed 1 Mar 2018
  99. Wilfart A, Prudhomme J, Blancheton JP, Aubin J (2013) LCA and emergy accounting of aquaculture systems: towards ecological intensification. J Environ Manag 121:96–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Winther U, Ziegler F, Hognes ES et al (2009) Carbon footprint and energy use of Norwegian seafood products. SINTEF Fisheries and AquacultureGoogle Scholar
  101. Yacout DMM, Soliman NF, Yacout MM (2016) Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of Tilapia in two production systems: semi-intensive and intensive. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:806–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Youngson D, Saroglia J (2001) Genetic interactions between marine finfish species European aquaculture and wild conspecifics. J Appl Ichthyol 17:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Ziegler F, Hornborg S, Green BG, Eigaard OR, Farmery AK, Hammar L, Hartmann K, Molander S, Parker RWR, Hognes ES, Vázquez-Rowe I, Smith ADM (2016) Expanding the concept of sustainable seafood using Life Cycle Assessment. Fish and Fisheries 17(4):1073–1093Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment (QSA), Department of Management EngineeringTechnical University of Denmark (DTU)Kgs. LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.Nanyang Technological University Food Technology Centre (NAFTEC)School for Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Nanyang Technological University (NTU)SingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations