Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact categories for life cycle assessment research of seafood production systems: Review and prospectus

  • LCA Methodology
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Goal, Scope and Background

In face of continued declines in global fisheries landings and concurrent rapid aquaculture development, the sustainability of seafood production is of increasing concern. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) offers a convenient means of quantifying the impacts associated with many of the energetic and material inputs and outputs in these industries. However, the relevant but limited suite of impact categories currently used in most LCA research fails to capture a number of important environmental and social burdens unique to fisheries and aquaculture. This article reviews the impact categories used in published LCA research of seafood production to date, reports on a number of methodological innovations, and discusses the challenges to and opportunities for further impact category developments.

Main Features

The range of environmental and socio-economic impacts associated with fisheries and aquaculture production are introduced, and both the commonly used and innovative impact categories employed in published LCA research of seafood production are discussed. Methodological innovations reported in agricultural LCAs are also reviewed for possible applications to seafood LCA research. Challenges and options for including additional environmental and socioeconomic impact categories are explored.

Results

A review of published LCA research in fisheries and aquaculture indicates the frequent use of traditional environmental impact categories as well as a number of interesting departures from the standard suite of categories employed in LCA studies in other sectors. Notable examples include the modeling of benthic impacts, by-catch, emissions from anti-fouling paints, and the use of Net Primary Productivity appropriation to characterize biotic resource use. Socio-economic impacts have not been quantified, nor does a generally accepted methodology for their consideration exist. However, a number of potential frameworks for the integration of such impacts into LCA have been proposed.

Discussion

LCA analyses of fisheries and aquaculture call attention to an important range of environmental interactions that are usually not considered in discussions of sustainability in the seafood sector. These include energy use, biotic resource use, and the toxicity of anti-fouling paints. However, certain important impacts are also currently overlooked in such research. While prospects clearly exist for improving and expanding on recent additions to environmental impact categories, the nature of the LCA framework may preclude treatment of some of these impacts. Socio-economic impact categories have only been described in a qualitative manner. Despite a number of challenges, significant opportunities exist to quantify several important socio-economic impacts.

Conclusion

The limited but increasing volume of LCA research of industrial fisheries and aquaculture indicates a growing interest in the use of LCA methodology to understand and improve the sustainability performance of seafood production systems. Recent impact category innovations, and the potential for further impact category developments that account for several of the unique interactions characteristic of fisheries and aquaculture will significantly improve the usefulness of LCA in this context, although quantitative analysis of certain types of impacts may remain beyond the scope of the LCA framework. The desirability of incorporating socio-economic impacts is clear, but such integration will require considerable methodological development.

Recommendations and Perspectives

While the quantity of published LCA research for seafood production systems is clearly increasing, the influence this research will have on the ground remains to be seen. In part, this will depend on the ability of LCA researchers to advance methodological innovations that enable consideration of a broader range of impacts specific to seafood production. It will also depend on the ability of researchers to communicate with a broader audience than the currently narrow LCA community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alverson D, Freeberg M, Murawski S, Pope J (1994): A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper no. 339, FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen O (2002): Transport of fish from Norway: energy analysis using industrial ecology as the framework. J Clean Prod 10, 581–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson J, Fong Q (1997): Aquaculture and international trade. Aquaculture Econ Manage 1(1) 29–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson K, Ohlsson T, Olsson P (1994): LCA of food products and production systems. Trends Food Sci Tech 134–138

  • Andersson K (2000): LCA of food products and production systems. Int J LCA 5(4) 239–248

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berg H, Michelsen P, Troell M, Kautsky N (1996): Managing aquaculture for sustainability in tropical Lake Kariba, Zimbabwe. Ecol Econ 18, 141–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brentrup F, Kusters J, Lamel J, Kuhlmann H (2002): Life cycle impact assessment of land use based on the Hemeroby concept. Int J Life Cycle Ass 7(6) 339–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Catchpole T, Frid C, Gray T (2005): Discards in North Sea fisheries: causes, consequences and solutions. Mar Policy 29(5) 421–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen V, Guenette S, Heymans J, Walters C, Watson R, Zeller D, Pauly D (2003): Hundred-year decline of North Atlantic predatory fishes. Fish Fish 4(1) 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, Fava J, Franklin W, Jensen A, de Oude N, Parrish R, Perriman R, Postlethwaite D, Quay B, Sequin J, Vignon B (1993): Guidelines for life cycle assessment: A ‘Code of Practice’. Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Brussels and Pensacola

  • Cowell S, Clift R (2000): A methodology for assessing soil quantity and quality in life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 8, 321–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chuenpagdee R, Morgan L, Maxwell S, Norse E, Pauly D (2003): Shifting Gears: Assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters. Front Ecol Environ 1(10) 517–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derraik J (2002): The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review Mar Pollut Bull 44(9) 842–852

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006): A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J LCA 11(2) 88–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Einum S, Fleming I (1997): Genetic divergence and interactions in the wild among native, farmed and hybrid Atlantic salmon. J Fish Biol 50, 634–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellingsen H (2004): Working environment and LCA. Chapter 6 of Environmental Assessment of Seafood Products through LCA: Final report of a Nordic Network project. Mattsson B, Ziegler F (eds), Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  • Findlay R, Watling R, Mayer L (1995): Environmental impact of salmon net-pen culture on marine benthic communities in Maine — A case study. Estuaries 18(1A) 145–179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming I, Hindar K, Mjolnerod I, Jonsson B, Balstad T, Lamberg A (2000): Lifetime success and interactions of farm salmon invading a native population. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 267, 1517–1523

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Folke C (1988): Energy economy of salmon aquaculture in the Baltic Sea. Environ Manage 12(4) 525–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Kautsky N, Troell M (1992): The cost of eutrophication from salmon farming: Implications for policy. Environ Manage 40, 173–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Kautsky N, Berg H, Jansson A, Troell M (1998): The ecological footprint concept for sustainable seafood production: A review. Ecol Appl 8(1) S63–S71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Food and Agriculture Organization (2004): The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2004. FAO Fisheries Department, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass C (2000): Conservation of fish stocks through bycatch reduction: A review. Northeast Nat 7(4) 395–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinee J, Gorree M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Weneger A, Suh S, Udo de Haes H, de Bruin H, Duin R, Huijbregts M (2001): Life Cycle Assessment: An operational guide to the ISO Standards Part 2. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, The Hague, Netherlands

  • Haas G, Wetterich F, Kopke U (2001): Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agr Ecosyst Environ 83, 43–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall S, Mainprize B (2005): Managing by-catch and discards: how much progress are we making and how can we do better? Fish Fish 6(2) 134–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington J, Myers R, Rosenberg A (2005): Wasted fishery resources: discarded by-catch in the USA. Fish Fish 6(4) 350–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastein T (1995): Disease Problems, Use of Drugs, Resistance Problems and Preventive Measures in Fish Farming World Wide. In: Reinertsen H, Haaland H (eds), Sustainable Fish Farming: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Sustainable Fish Farming, Oslo, Norway, 28–31 August 1994, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 183–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayman B, Dogliani M, Kvale I, Fet A (2000): Technologies for reduced environmental impact from ships — Ship building, maintenance and dismantling aspects. ENSUS-2000, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller M, Keoleian G (2003): Assessing sustainability of the US Food System: A life cycle perspective. Agr Syst 76, 1007–1041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hites R, Foran J, Carpenter D, Hamilton M, Knuth B, Schwager S (2004): Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. Science 303(5655) 226–229

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hospido A, Tyedmers P (2005): Life cycle environmental impacts of Spanish tuna fisheries. Fish Res 76, 174–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization (2003): ISO 14041, Geneva, Switzerland. < http://www.iso.org > (accessed October 19, 2005)

  • Jackson J, Kirby M, Berger W, Bjorndal K, Botsford L, Bourque B, Bradbury R, Cooke R, Erlandson J, Estes J, Hughes T, Kidwell S, Lange C, Warner R (2001): Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293, 629–638

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen A, Hoffman L, Birgite T, Schmidt A, Christiansen K, Berendsen S, Elkington J, van Dijk F (1999): Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) — A guide to approaches, experiences, and information sources. Environmental Issue Report No. 6, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson K (2002): Review of National and International Literature on the Effects of Fishing on Benthic Habitats. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/SPO, no. 57, Maryland, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsen H, Angelfoos A (2000): Transport of frozen fish between Ålensund and Paris — A case study. Technical report no. HiÅ 20 20/B101/R-00/020/00, Ålensund College, Ålensund, Norway

    Google Scholar 

  • Krkosek M, Lewis M, Volpe J, Morton A (2006): Fish farms and sea lice infestations of wild juvenile salmon in the Broughton Archipelago — A rebuttal to Brooks (2005). Rev Fish Sci 14(1-1) 1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson J, Folke C, Kautsky N (1994): Ecological limitations and appropriation of ecosystem support by shrimp farming in Columbia. Environ Manage 18(5) 663–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattsson B, Ziegler F (2004): Environmental assessment of seafood products through LCA. Final Report of a Nordic Network Project 546. Environment and Fisheries, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell C, Cleveland C (1993): Resource scarcity, energy use and environmental impact: A case study of the New Bedford, Massachusetts, USA, fisheries. Environ Manage 17(3) 305–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mungkung R (2005): Shrimp aquaculture in Thailand: Application of life cycle assessment to support sustainable development. Ph.D. thesis. Center for Environmental Strategy, School of Engineering, University of Surrey, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  • Mungkung R, Udo de Haes H, Clift R (2006): Potentials and limitations of life cycle assessment in setting ecolabeling criteria: A case study of Thai shrimp aquaculture product. Int J LCA 11(1) 55–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers R, Worm B (2003): Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423, 280–283

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Naylor R, Burke M (2005): Aquaculture and ocean resources: Raising tigers of the sea. Annu Rev Env Resour 30, 185–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naylor R, Goldburg R, Mooney H, Beveridge M, Clay J, Folke C, Kautsky N, Lubchenco J, Primavera J, Williams M (1998): Nature’s subsidies to shrimp and salmon farming. Science 282(5390) 83–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naylor R, Goldburg R, Primavera J, Kautsky N, Beveridge M, Clay J, Folke C, Lubchenco J, Mooney H, Troell M (2000): Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405, 1017–1024

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson P, Ziegler F (2006): Spatial distribution of fishing effort in relation to seafloor habitats of the Kattegat, a GIS analysis. Aquat Conserve (in press)

  • O’Brien M, Doig A, Clift R (1996): Social and environmental life cycle assessment (SELCA): Approach and methodological development. Int J LCA 1(4) 231–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens J (2002): Water resources in life cycle impact assessment: Considerations in choosing category indicators. J Ind Ecol 5(2) 37–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paez-Osuna F (2001): The environmental impact of shrimp aquaculture: A global perspective. Environ Pollut 112(2) 229–231

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Papatryphon E, Petit J, Kaushik S, Van der Werf H (2004): Environmental impact assessment of salmonid feeds using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Ambio 33(6) 316–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papatryphon E, Petit J, Van der Werf H, Kaushik S (2003): Life Cycle Assessment of trout farming in France: A farm level approach. Life Cycle Assessment in the agrifood sector. Proceedings from the 4th International Conference Dias Report 61, 71–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauly D, Alder J, Bennett E, Christensen V, Tyedmers P, Watson R (2003): The Future for Fisheries. Science 302, 1359–1361

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pauly D, Christensen V (1995): Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374(16) 255–257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pauly D, Christensen V, Guénette S, Pitcher T, Sumaila U, Walters C, Watson R, Weller D (2002): Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418, 689–695

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington D, Potting J, Finnveden G, Lindeijer E, Jolliet O, Rydberg T, Rebitzer G (2004): Life Cycle Assessment part 2: Current impact assessment practice. Environ Int 30, 721–739

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Read A, Drinker P, Northridge S (2006): Bycatch of marine mammals in US and global fisheries. Conserv Biol 20(1) 163–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatella E, Franquesa R (2004): Manual of Fisheries Sampling Surveys: Methodologies for Estimations of Socio-Economic Indicators in the Mediterranean Sea. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  • Seppala J, Silvenius F, Gronroos J, Makinen T, Silvo K, Storhammar E (2001): Rainbow trout production and the environment. The Finnish Environment Institute, Suomen ymparisto 529. Technical Report, Helsinki (in Finnish)

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrane M (2004a): Environmental Impacts from Danish Fish Products — Hot spots and environmental policies. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrane M (2004b): Energy consumption in the Danish fishery. Identification of key factors. J Indus Ecol 8(1–2) 223–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thrane M (2006): LCA of Danish fish products: New methods and insights. Int J LCA 11(1) 66–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyedmers P (2000): Salmon and sustainability: The biophysical cost of producing salmon through the commercial salmon fishery and the intensive salmon culture industry. PhD. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyedmers P (2004): Fisheries and Energy Use. In: Cleveland C (ed), Encyclopedia of Energy. Elsevier Science 2, 683–693

  • Tyedmers P, Watson R, Pauly D (2005): Fueling global fishing fleets. Ambio 34(8) 635–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Udo de Haes H, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Muller-Wenk R (1999): Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment. Int J LCA 4(2) 66–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitousek P, Ehrlich P, Ehrlich A, Matson P (1986): Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. BioScience 36(6) 368–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watanabe H, Okubo M (1989): Energy Input in Marine Fisheries of Japan. B Jpn Soc Sci Fish 53(9) 1525–1531

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidema B (2002): Quantifying Corporate Social Responsibility in the Value Chain. Presentation for the Life Cycle Management Workshop of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative at the ISO TC207 meeting, Johannesburg, South Africa

  • Worm B, Myers R (2004): Managing fisheries in a changing climate — No need to wait for more information: industrialized fishing is already wiping out stocks. Nature 429(6987) 15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Youngson A, Verspoor E (1998): Interactions between wild and introduced Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55, 153–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler F, Hansson P (2003): Emissions from fuel combustion in Swedish cod fishery. J Clean Prod 11, 303–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler F, Nilsson P, Mattsson B, Walther Y (2003): Life Cycle Assessment of frozen cod fillets including fishery-specific environmental impacts. Int J LCA 8(1) 39–47

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School for Resource and Environmental Studies (SRES), Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

    Nathan L. Pelletier, Nathan W. Ayer & Peter H. Tyedmers

  2. Ecotrust, Portland, Oregon, USA

    Sarah A. Kruse, Greg Robillard & Astrid J. Scholz

  3. The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK), Göteborg, Sweden

    Anna Flysjo, Friederike Ziegler & Ulf Sonesson

Authors
  1. Nathan L. Pelletier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathan W. Ayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter H. Tyedmers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sarah A. Kruse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anna Flysjo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Greg Robillard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Friederike Ziegler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Astrid J. Scholz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ulf Sonesson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan L. Pelletier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pelletier, N.L., Ayer, N.W., Tyedmers, P.H. et al. Impact categories for life cycle assessment research of seafood production systems: Review and prospectus. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12, 414–421 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.09.275

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.09.275

Keywords

Search

Navigation