Fish Prisons and Bluehouses: Perceived Risks and Benefits of Land-based Aquaculture in Four US Communities

ABSTRACT

The farming of aquatic species in water environments, aquaculture is presently the fastest-growing food producing sector worldwide yet is unfamiliar to many Americans. In this study, we examine perceptions of land-based recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), a novel approach to raising fish. Through in-depth interviews (n = 71) with diverse stakeholders in four US communities, we explore how individuals make sense of the risks and benefits associated with proposed or existing RAS facilities and situate these judgments in the context of “naturalness.” As a hybrid of fishing and industrial farming, land-based RAS can both support and undermine perceived naturalness, thus posing both perceived benefits and risks to local environments and economies. As a form of restoration, some RAS projects bring economic and environmental revitalization to communities; however, this restoration is understood in the context of a site’s historical use. Findings contribute to emerging environmental scholarship on food systems communication, and offer practical applications for public communication surrounding aquaculture development.

KEYWORDS:

• Aquaculture
• food technology
• qualitative methods
• perceived risk and benefit

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the individuals who graciously agreed to be interviewed for this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 In four cases, given scheduling and time constraints, researchers conducted a second interview with the same individual to complete questioning. Three interviews included two individuals from the same organization.

2 The relationship between aquaculture perceptions, sense of place, and community identity is further explored in [our in-progress work], which draws upon quantitative survey data collected in three out of the four communities (Samoa Peninsula, CA; Homestead, FL; and Belfast, ME).

3 U.S. federal law includes a separate designation for “Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Facilities (CAAP)” (see 40 CFR Part 122.24).

4 Since the Belfast site is not yet operational, this comparison of effluent waste to water quality in Penobscot Bay is based on modeling, as well as on specific definitions and limits of what constitutes acceptable levels of pollutants. That Nordic Aquafarms has received all necessary permits from state environmental agencies to construct their facility shows that this information has cleared the necessary legal bar; however, we cannot know the true environmental impact of the operation until regular water testing begins.

5 While beyond the scope of this study, visual aesthetics are an important component to understanding individual and community-level perceptions of aquaculture development and are often central to understanding the social context for aquaculture in a locale (e.g., Dalton et al., 2017; Weitzman & Filgueira, 2020).

6 Using qualitative dominant mixed-methods, Q methodology reveals the diversity of viewpoints about a given issue (e.g., aquaculture development) by asking participants to rank a “concourse” of statements about the issue, then answer questions about this ranking (Ramlo, 2016).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea Grant College under grant #NA19OAR4170327. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Department of Commerce, nor any of the other listed organizations. This material is also based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1828466.