Environmental impacts of farms integrating aquaculture and agriculture in Cameroon

Ewoukem, Thomas Efolé; Aubin, Joël; Mikolasek, Olivier; Corson, Michael S.; Eyango, Minette Tomedi; Tchoumboué, J.; Werf, Hayo M.G. van der; Ombredane, Dominique

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.039

Cited by 49 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Two allocation rules were applied, one based on gross energy contents Pelletier and Tyedmers, 2011) and one based on economic values (Aubin et al, 2006Boissy et al, 2011;Efole-Ewoukem et al, 2012). The former were calculated from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service database (U.S. Department of Agriculture and Agricultural Research Service, 2012), Mwangamilo and Jiddawi (2003), and FishBase (Froese and Pauly, 2012), while the latter came from surveyed farmers ( Table 2).…”

Section: Environmental Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method has been previously applied to assess the environmental performance of intensive fish-production systems, especially for salmonids Boissy et al, 2011;d'Orbcastel et al, 2009;Papatryphon et al, 2004a,b;Samuel-Fitwi et al, 2012). However, there are few available studies on pond systems (Bosma et al, 2011;Cao et al, 2011Cao et al, , 2013Mungkung, 2005;Pelletier and Tyedmers, 2010) and even fewer on extensive polyculture systems (Casaca, 2008;Efole-Ewoukem et al, 2012;Phong et al, 2011). However, no studies have been performed on polyculture systems in Asia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Environmental performance of brackish water polyculture system from a life cycle perspective: A Filipino case study

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was applied to assess the environmental performance of brackish water polyculture of black tiger prawn, mud crabs, tilapia and milkfish in a pond aquaculture system. The study was conducted on 15 production sites, located in Pampanga Province of the Philippines. The scope of analysis covered the hatchery or capture of juveniles from the wild up to the delivery of products to auction markets. Impact categories included eutrophication, acidification, climate change, land occupation, net primary production use, total cumulative energy demand (TCED), and total human labour. Life cycle impact indicators were calculated for one tonne of product (total production or that of individual species) using both energy-based and economic allocations. The results indicated that the main impacts from farming operations were eutrophication, land occupation, acidification and human labour. Feed (molluscs harvested from aquatic ecosystems) mainly influenced net primary production use, TCED and climate change, and harvesting and delivery mainly influenced climate change and TCED. Differences in farm practices and yields induced high variability in impacts. Production site size had no significant effect; however, its distance from the sea appeared to affect its efficiency and, consequently, impacts. Changing the allocation method changed the ranking of species' impacts within each impact category, milkfish having the highest impacts with energy-based allocation and prawn and crabs having the highest impacts with economic allocation. The lack of differences in impacts between intensive monocultures of prawn and tilapia recorded in the literature and the same species in Pampanga's polyculture suggests that the degree of intensification is not a relevant concept for distinguishing impacts of aquaculture systems.

show abstract

Section: Environmental Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental performance of brackish water polyculture system from a life cycle perspective: A Filipino case study

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further precise calculations could even be performed, using data of TL by species, from the FishBase database (Froese and Pauly 2012), instead of average TL by group of species. Moreover, NPP use has already been used by several authors in LCA (review by Henriksson et al 2012;Jerbi et al 2011;Efole Ewoukem et al 2012). Indirect impact of fishing is not accounted for in the present method, as other authors have done using NPP use .…”

Section: Limits and Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…NPP use for a biomass uptake (m) in kilograms of wet weight can be calculated in kilograms of primary carbon equivalent (Pauly and Christensen 1995). It has already been used as an indicator for LCIA of fisheries (reviews by Avadi and Fréon 2013) and aquaculture products (review by Henriksson et al 2012;Jerbi et al 2011;Efole Ewoukem et al 2012). The NPP use is the impact value (SI LSF,remov , in Eq.…”

Section: Impacts Of Biomass Removal On Lsfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sea use impact category in life cycle assessment: characterization factors for life support functions

Langlois

Fréon

Steyer

et al. 2015

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The impact of human activities on marine environments is poorly addressed by the scope of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). The aim of this study is to provide characterization factors to assess impacts of sea use such as fishing activities or seafloor destruction and transformation on the life support functions of marine ecosystems. Methods The consensual framework of land use for ecosystem services damage potential assessment was applied, according to the recent United Nations Environment Programme-Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP-SETAC) guidelines, using the free net primary production as a quality index of life support functions. Results and discussion The impact of shading, biomass removal, seafloor destruction, and artificial habitat creation on the available quantity of organic biomass for the ecosystem functioning was quantified at the midpoint level with a common unit (kg of organic carbon equivalent). It included effects of human interventions on both the ecosystem production potential and the stock of biomass present within the ecosystem. Characterization factors (CF) for biomass removal vary from 0.1 kg Ceq kg −1 for seaweed to 111.1 kg Ceq kg −1 for tunas, bonitos, and billfishes. CF for seafloor destruction range from 0.164 kg Ceq m −2 for a temperate seagrass ecosystem to 0.342 kg Ceq m −2 for an intertidal tropical rocky habitat.Conclusions This study provides an operational method in order to compute sea use impact assessment.

show abstract

“…Besides, various international organizations have recognized that eco-efficiency assessment is a strong instrument of providing managers and policy makers to support them design better managerial strategies and environmental policies with achieving sustainable development [13]. Moreover, many researches [14]- [18] motioned that eco-efficiency concept can be applied for strengthening agriculture performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measure on Eco-Efficiency of Thai Growing-Fishing Pig Farms

Rattanapan¹,

Suksaroj²,

Wongsawass³

et al. 2013

IJESD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This research measured the eco-efficiency of Thai growing-fishing pig farms. Eco-efficiency indicators were developed by the previous literatures and field observation contributed for the investigation of the potential environmental impact in a material flow analysis. Eco-Eco-efficiency degrees and trends at economic and environment performances for Thai growing-fishing pig farms during 2010-2012 was calculated. The eco-efficiency degrees and trends were assessed by World Business Council for Sustainable Development recommendation and Snapshot graph plot, respectively. The results showed that the highest and lowest eco-efficiency degrees of Thai growing-fishing pig farms were drug and energy consumptions, respectively. The eco-efficiency of Thai growing-fishing pig farms snapshot showed that most eco-efficiency indicators were located in Fully-Eco-Efficiency.However, only wastewater production indicator was located in Haft-eco-efficiency because the growing-fishing pig farm required the water for cleaning twice a day. Biogas production from the growing-fishing pig farms wastewater should be recommended for enhancing approach of eco-efficiency performance.

show abstract

Environmental impacts of farms integrating aquaculture and agriculture in Cameroon

Cited by 49 publications

References 18 publications

Environmental performance of brackish water polyculture system from a life cycle perspective: A Filipino case study

Environmental performance of brackish water polyculture system from a life cycle perspective: A Filipino case study

Sea use impact category in life cycle assessment: characterization factors for life support functions

Measure on Eco-Efficiency of Thai Growing-Fishing Pig Farms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About