Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294

A simulation model of sustainability of coastal communities:

Aquaculture, fishing, environment and labour markets
W.D. McCausland a , E. Mente b,c,∗ , G.J. Pierce b , I. Theodossiou a
a Centre for European Labour Market Research, University of Aberdeen Business School,
Dunbar Street, AB24 3QY Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
b Department of Zoology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue,

AB24 2TZ Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

c Laboratory of Ichthyology and Hydrobiology, Department of Agriculture, Animal Production and Aquatic Environment,
University of Thessaly, Fytokou Street, Nea Ionia, GR-38446 Volos, Greece

Received 11 August 2004; received in revised form 5 July 2005; accepted 25 August 2005
Available online 5 October 2005

Abstract

A bio-socio-economic model was developed to simulate (a) biological interactions related to traditional fishing, aquaculture,
and the physical marine environment and (b) coastal labour market interactions and the regulatory environment. The model was
calibrated using published information on fish farms, fishing, fished stocks and labour activity. Fished stocks were considered
as a single unit undergoing constant natural regeneration. Aquaculture production was described by a standard Cobb–Douglas
production function. The labour force in the coastal community was taken to comprise four components: (a) traditional fishing,
(b) aquaculture, (3) other employment, and (4) the unemployed labour. Simulations investigating the effect of stricter regulation
of traditional fishing and aquaculture on biomass, fish production and employment suggested that while stricter regulation of
fishing inevitably leads to declining employment in fisheries, increased regulation of aquaculture will not necessarily stem
growth in that sector. The importance of aquaculture as an alternative source of employment is emphasised. Nevertheless, the
present model ignores the potential adverse effects of catastrophic stochastic events on the fishing and aquaculture sectors (e.g.
recruitment failure in wild fish populations, loss of farm stock) and the relatively optimistic outlook suggested for the aquaculture
industry should therefore be viewed with caution.
© 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Aquaculture; Sustainability; Fisheries; Simulation model; Employment; Coastal communities

1. Introduction

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1224 272867;

Fishing and aquaculture are both important eco-
fax: +44 1224 272396. nomic activities in the European Union (European
E-mail address: e.mente@abdn.ac.uk (E. Mente). Commission, 2001, 2002). The aquaculture industry

0304-3800/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.08.028
272 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294

Fig. 1. Total aquaculture production (EU + EFTA) (FAO Fish Stat). EU15 + EFTA—Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland.

has grown fast in recent years and played its part in
satisfying an increasing consumer demand for marine
fish (Fig. 1). It has been argued that aquaculture has
the potential to bridge the growing gap between the
global demand and supply of fish products (Goulding
et al., 2000). Aquaculture constitutes around 17% of
the weight and 27% of the value of total fishery pro-
duction of the European Union (total production being
defined as the sum of landings in the ports of EU
Member States and aquaculture production; European
Commission, 19/9/2002). The annual output of the
aquaculture industry in the EU is worth over D 2.4
billion (European Commission, 2001). World aquacul-
ture production has been projected to double by 2030,
exceed 2.5 million tonnes by 2015 and reach 4 million
tonnes by 2030 (FAO, 2002).
In recent years, the harvest of fish from natural
waters in many European fishing grounds has appar-
ently reached its upper limit, but the demand for fish-
ery products is still growing (FAO, 2002). In Euro-
pean waters, many exploited finfish stocks are cur-
rently judged to be outside safe biological limits (ICES,
2002), notably cod in the North Sea. The decline of
important resource species such as cod has resulted in
increasingly stringent regulation of catches (reduced
quotas) and in the setting up of decommissioning
schemes.
While the fishing (capture fishery) sector’s con-
tribution to the gross national product of EU Mem-
ber States is generally less than 1%, its impact is
highly significant as a source of employment in coastal
areas, where there are often few alternatives. How-
ever, the number of fishermen has declined in recent
years, with a loss of 66,000 jobs in the catching sec-
tor (an overall decrease of 22%) and a 14% decline
in employment in the processing sector between 1990
and 1998 (DG Fisheries, 17.01.03); a trend that may
threaten the viability of small coastal communities
in the absence of suitable alternative employment
locally.
 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
Employment in world aquaculture production has
remained relatively stable since 1995 and it was esti-
mated, in 2000, to be 20% of the combined total
employment in capture fisheries and aquaculture (FAO,
2002). In recent years, aquaculture has been the only
segment of the fisheries industry in the European
Community to experience a rise in employment. In
1998, fish processing provided employment for a fur-
ther 89,468 individuals (Green Paper, 2005; European
Commission, 2001). In 1998, aquaculture in the EU
employed at least 80,000 full-time or part-time work-
ers, mostly in coastal and rural areas (European
Commission, 19/9/2002). In Norway, employment in
the aquaculture sector rose from virtually zero to
about 3500 people in 1995, in Ireland 2200 people
are employed, in France 4700 people are employed
in oyster farming and in Galicia (Spain) there are
13,500 jobs in aquaculture (European Commission,
19/9/2002).
While the aquaculture industry has grown rapidly,
so have concerns regarding its environmental and social
impacts. For example, the accumulation of wasted
food and faecal material results in a sedimentary envi-
ronment under fish cages characterized by low redox
potentials (Hargrave et al., 1993), high content of
organic material (Hall et al., 1990; Holmer, 1992)
and the accumulation of nitrogenous and phosphorous
compounds (Hall et al., 1992; Holby and Hall, 1991;
Karakassis et al., 1998). These changes in sediment
characteristics induce conspicuous changes in local
benthic communities (Pearson and Rosenberg, 1978;
O’Connor et al., 1989; Weston, 1990; Pocklington
et al., 1994) and secondary disturbance may prolong
recovery after cessation of fish farming (Karakassis
et al., 1999). Although significant impacts on benthos
composition have been reported at distances as far as
100 m from the cages (Weston, 1990), in general this
type of impact (at least, with respect to salmon culture
in UK waters), is localized to within 20–50 m around
the cages (Beveridge, 1996).
Marine aquaculture interacts with (European)
coastal fisheries in a country-specific manner but there
are some underlying similarities. There are concerns
that coastal fisheries are not sustainable at present
levels and that aquaculture may be adversely affect-
ing fisheries. The employment and welfare of local
and non-local people need to be considered in the
conflicting environment that has developed (European
273
Commission, 19/9/2002, 2000). In addition there are
perceived to be environmental problems associated
with aquaculture that may be threatening capture fish-
eries.
It is difficult for producers, regulators and envi-
ronmental managers to determine the proper balance
between the interests of the environment and the legit-
imate pursuit of sustainable economic activity. It is
important to base the debate on verifiable and sci-
entific facts and testable hypotheses of the interac-
tion between production and the environment (Cromey
et al., 2000; Henderson et al., 2001). Indeed, the long-
term sustainability of aquaculture depends on (among
other things) the maintenance of environmental quality
in order to provide a good growing environment for the
fish.
Sustainability and sustainable development are
complex issues that are difficult to define and apply in
aquaculture. According to Black (2001), sustainability
is where environmental effects meet socio-economics
and markets. Phillips et al. (2001) argued that sustain-
ability could be split into three separate components:
social sustainability, economic sustainability and envi-
ronmental sustainability. Other authors add institu-
tional sustainability to this list. Some European coun-
tries have already developed legal frameworks and poli-
cies for managing aquaculture development (Table 1).
Aquaculture is frequently regulated by many agencies
under a variety of laws (e.g. Greece, Portugal, Fin-
land), though in some countries there is an integrated
legal framework (e.g. UK). Developing a comprehen-
sive regulatory framework for the sector is often legally
and institutionally complex (Henderson and Davies,
2001). It has been argued that existing administra-
tive and legal frameworks need to be reviewed and
adjusted to address the changing characteristics and
needs of the sector and to set out clearly the privileges
and responsibilities of aquaculturists (Henderson and
Davies, 2000).
The development of aquaculture in coastal areas,
coupled with the difficulties presently faced by the
capture fishing industry, poses questions about the
social, economic, environmental and ecological sus-
tainability of coastal communities across Europe, such
as:
(1) How does employment in rural communities
change with the arrival of aquaculture?
274 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
Table 1
List of EU environnemental legislation relevant to aquaculture
EU directives/conventions
Fish and shellfish waters, 1978
Habitat and species, 1988
Integrated coastal zone management
Directive on the conservation of wild birds, 1997
(97/49/EEC), special protection areas (SPAs)
Habitats directive, 1992 (92/43/EEC), special areas of
conservation (SACs)
Directive other substances, 1976 (76/464/EEC)
Directive on waste disposal, 1975 (75/442/EEC)
Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) directive
(pending)
Directive on the quality of shellfish waters, 1979
(79/923/EEC)
Water framework directive, 2000 (60/2000/EC)
Environmental impact assessment directive
85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC
Directive 91/493/EEC as amended by 95/71/EC
Directive 91/67/EEC aquatic animal health
Directive 90/220/EEC genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) and 90/219/EEC
Directive 91/67/EEC as amended by 93/54/EC and
95/22/EC
The dangerous substances directive (76/464/EEC)
The shellfish waters directive (79/923/EEC)
The shellfish hygiene directive (91/492/EEC)
EC directive 91/67
Directive 1999/29/EC, 2001/102/EC and EC 2375/2001
and Reg. 1436/98/EC
Directive 96/23/EEC
Directive 82/471/EEC
Barcelona 1975, 2000 (Convention)
HELCOM, 1974, 1992 (Convention)
FAO, 1995, 1999 (Convention)
UNCLOS (UN convention on law of the sea) 1982 Global
(a) OSPARCOM, 1972, 1974, 1992 (Convention) (b)
OSPAR- PARCOM (The Paris commission recom-
mendation) 1994/1996 on aquaculture code of best
environmental practise (international agreements) (c)
The Paris convention 1974 for the protection of the
North Sea and North-east Atlantic (international agree-
ments)
Code of conduct for European aquaculture, 2000
ICES codes of practise and manual procedures
NASCO (North Atlantic conservation organization)
Objective
Water quality for fish and shellfish
Special areas of conservation, Natura 2000
A European strategy for integrated coastal management
Habitats and the environnent
Concerns the protection and conservation of natural habitats
(NATURA 2000 and Ramsar sites)
Protection of the aquatic environment
Habitats and the environment
Habitats and the environment
Water quality and management
Water quality and management
Thresholds are set by each Member country
Environmental impact statements (EISs)
Controls the animal health conditions
Consumer protection
Release into the environment of live GMOs the use of genetically
modified micro-organisms
Marketing of aquaculture animals and products
Lists toxic substances (those which have deleterious effects on
aquatic environment)
Concerns the quality of shellfish waters in designated areas
Classifies shellfish production areas according to the amount of
microbiological contamination
Approved Zone status for Bonamia and Marteilia diseases
Undesirable substances in animal nutrition (dioxins), regarding
additives in feeds
Monitoring antibiotic residues in food
Regarding certain products used in animal nutrition
Mediterranean Sea, protection of the marine environment
Baltic Sea and Baltic catchment area, protection of the marine
environment
Code of conduct for responsible fisheries
Covered a global area. Law of the sea (a) Northeast Atlantic.
Protection of the marine environment, (b) covers impacts on water
quality and the environment (i.e. limitation of density of fish in
pens, avoidance of the use of chemicals prophylactically, following
periods, washing and drying of nets instead of the use of antifoulant
compounds), (c) requires the reduction by at least 50% by 1995 of
discharges of various toxic and persistent chemicals (i.e. dichlorvos
for sea-lice treatment).
Adopted by the Federation of European aquaculture producers
Introductions and transfers of marine and freshwater organisms
Minimize salmon escapes
 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
(2) What are the predictions for socio-economic, envi-
ronmental and biological sustainability resulting
from the interactions between aquaculture and fish-
eries?
(3) What recommendations can be made for coastal
resource management in areas where aquaculture
and fisheries coexist?
Progress towards carrying out socio-economic eval-
uations of the effect of the aquaculture industry on
local communities and its interaction with employment
in coastal fisheries and other local opportunities has
been slow. Relatively little is known about fishermen’s
behaviour, preferences and strategies when confronted
with an expanding aquaculture industry, taking into
account the availability of other employment oppor-
tunities. There is a need not only to assess the current
socio-economic importance of the interaction of aqua-
culture industry and coastal fisheries but also to explore
the consequences of changing coastal fishery patterns
and management regimes on aquaculture opportunities,
given other employment opportunities or drift to unem-
ployment, and to evaluate prospects for expansion of
either of the above industries.
Modelling has been used as an approach to exam-
ine nitrogen dynamics in aquacultural systems by dif-
ferent authors (Paulson, 1980; Kochba et al., 1994;
Hargreaves, 1997; Lorenzen et al., 1997; Nielsen et al.,
1999; Montoya et al., 1999a,b; Jimenez-Montealegre
et al., 2002). Henderson et al. (2001) reviewed the use
of hydrodynamic and benthic models for managing
environmental impacts. Mathematical modelling has
also been used to assess environmental carrying capac-
ity for multi-species culture in coastal waters (Duarte
et al., 2003). The dynamics of fished populations are
routinely modelled as part of the stock assessment
process (Hilborn and Walters, 1992). Although bioeco-
nomic models have been applied to a range of fisheries
questions (e.g. Agar and Sutinen, 2004; Westra et al.,
2005; Ye et al., 2005), to the knowledge of the authors
the present study represents the first attempt to combine
biological and socio-economic aspects of aquaculture
and fisheries within a common framework. The model
in this paper is a new simulation model of aquaculture
development that takes account of economic and social
driving forces in a biologically realistic environment.
The aim of this paper is to identify and describe
interactions between capture fisheries and aquaculture.
275
The situation modelled is based on conditions on the
west coast of Scotland but should be readily applicable
to other areas. The model (presently) excludes vari-
ous types of stochastic “catastrophic” events, which
sometimes befall aquaculture installations, such as loss
of stock due to failure of nets, disease outbreaks (e.g.
infectious salmon anaemia (ISA)) or invasions of jelly-
fish. The model explores the likely impact of four key
shocks that might strike the aquaculture installations,
namely (a) changes in demand of the aquaculture prod-
uct, (b) changes in the regulations [for both aquaculture
and fishing] brought in by the European Community,
(c) changes in effectiveness of traditional feeding for
farmed fish and (d) changes in the technology used for
fish production. The model attempts to capture biolog-
ical, physical environmental, economic and social pro-
cesses within a complex system and inevitably presents
a highly simplified characterization of these processes.
It is therefore important to establish whether the results
obtained appear to be realistic. Thus, each of the main
findings is discussed in the light of current knowledge
of the interactions between fisheries, aquaculture and
the environment.
2. Methods
2.1. Model description
2.1.1. The biological interactions concerning
traditional fishing, aquaculture and the
environment
2.1.1.1. Traditional fishing. The model (Fig. 2) con-
siders fished stocks as a single unit undergoing constant
natural regeneration. Clearly the real situation involves
many fished species, which interact in various ways
(e.g. competition, predation) with other fished and
unexploited species in the marine habitat. Furthermore,
recruitment of young fish to wild populations is gener-
ally a stochastic process, the strength of which is linked
only weakly to the size of the breeding populations, and
is likely to be influenced by both environmental condi-
tions and the abundance of other species. Nevertheless,
data on annual stock sizes and recruitment levels are
available for the main resource species, such as had-
dock, whiting and cod (e.g. Anon, 2002) and crude
empirical relationships between abundance and recruit-
ment can be extracted from such data. While recent
276 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
Fig. 2. Schematic structure of the bio-socio-economic model.
research on recruitment variability (e.g. Marshall et al.,
2000) has moved well beyond such simplistic repre-
sentations, for the present model this was considered
adequate.
Additions and damages to the fish stock biomass, x
are given by the formula
Dx = rx − υB − (h/0.6) (1)
The first term represents additions in the form of natural
regeneration, taken to be a fixed proportion,1 r, of the
biomass, x. The second two terms represent damages
to the biomass (e.g. due to effects of pollution on the
food chain) and traditional fishing activity. In terms of
the present model, the main impact of environmental
threats (e.g. pollution) is assumed to be on the regula-
tory regime, i.e. the response of managers to perceived
environmental threats, rather than acting directly on
the fished or cultured organisms. Nevertheless, envi-
ronmental effects are notionally represented as effects
1 This is taken to be a weighted average of regeneration rates for
the main fished species, weighted by value of catch. The figures
are based on the published figures for annual SSB and recruitment,
converting the format to numbers of fish based on market sample
data. Although there is likely to be some variation in this parameter
due to the very high variability in recruitment, we find our estimates
are robust to such variations.
on the productivity of benthic animals (benthos, B) at
a local level, as mediated by a sensitivity parameter
(upsilon, υ). For example, since nutrient releases from
fish culture installations are related to the production
of these installations (Black, 2001). Aquaculture instal-
lations generate outputs of nutrients (e.g. from waste
food and fish faeces) and, potentially, chemicals used
to treat disease outbreaks). In the immediate vicinity
of cages holding salmon, benthic animals may be neg-
atively affected, while at a slightly larger spatial scale
the input of nutrients could support increased benthic
production, potentially contributing positively to food
availability to wild fish populations. At a larger scale
again the effects may well be negligible, certainly in
terms of total nitrogen inputs into a sea loch system
and the surrounding coast.
Fishing is now one of the major factors controlling
the size of fished populations. An approximate indica-
tion of the amount (and hence number) of fish removed
by fishing can be obtained by reference to published
data on landings (e.g. Anon, 2002). However, a substan-
tial proportion of the catch – around 40% – (Tidwell and
Allan, 2001) is discarded. Due to poor sampling of the
UK fleet’s activity and the complexity of fishers’ deci-
sions about when to discard fish, published estimates
of amounts of fish discarded tend to be very imprecise
 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
(Stratoudakis et al., 1998, 1999). Although amounts of
discards will vary between species, areas and seasons,
for simplicity we use a simple overall ratio.
Traditional fishing activity is represented by the
catch, h, which is determined in Section 3.1. Since
approximately 0.6 of catch is retained (West of Scot-
land, ASFM 2002) damage to biomass is h/0.6. This
reflects the discarding of fish below the minimum land-
ing size, dumping of “over-quota” fish, and “high grad-
ing” (the dumping of less valuable fish).2
2.1.1.2. Aquaculture. Aquaculture installations gen-
erate outputs of nutrients (e.g. from waste food and fish
faeces), and potentially, chemicals used to treat disease
outbreaks).
Aquaculture production, F, is given by a stan-
dard Cobb–Douglas production function, which relates
inputs (on the right hand side) to output (on the left hand
side), as used by Karagiannis and Katranidis (2000) and
Nerrie et al. (1990) (although the latter usage shows
decreasing returns to labour).
F = RA GFχ LAλ Kκ
where GF is gross feed input (which is analysed fur-
ther below), LA is labour input, and K capital input.
The parameters chi, χ, lambda, λ, and kappa, κ, rep-
resent the elasticity (or sensitivity) of production to
changes in their respective inputs. RA is a shift param-
eter reflecting the effect of regulation in aquaculture,
and is described in Section 3.3.
Gross feed input, GF, is positively related (with coef-
ficient nu, ν) to demand for the final good, d:
GF = νd
Demand for the final good, d, is inversely related to the
market price, π
d = d̄ − zπ
where d̄ is a constant reflecting non-price determinants
of demand, such as advertising, and z is the price elas-
ticity of demand. The market price is taken to be a
mark-up (Gordon, 1976), m, over unit costs, C:
π = (1 + m)C
2 Another source of error concerns the amount of fish landed that
does not enter official statistics (i.e. “black fish”). By definition the
importance of this source of error is difficult to determine.
277
Unit costs, C, are total costs, which depend on the qual-
ity of feed input as measured by the feed composition
of gross feed input, FC, scaled by cost parameter w,
and divided by total output, F:
C = wFC/F (6)
A typical gross feed input, FC comprises (BioMar,
2000): protein 50%, p; phosphorus, 1.2% Q; lipid 16%,
l; fibre 1.3%, f; ash 9.3%, a; carbohydrate 15%, c. Some
of these inputs have polluting impacts on the benthos,
detailed in the next section.
FC = 0.5 p + 0.012 Q + 0.16 l + 0.013
f + 0.093 a + 0.15 c (7)
Feed composition is scaled by a feed quality parameter,
V. Actual sales of the final product, S, are determined
by demand for the final product, income, y, and the
price of substitute products, M, where θ represents the
sensitivity of sales of aquaculture products to prices of
imported products:
(2)
S = d + y − θM (8)
2.1.1.3. Environmental interactions. Aquaculture
production causes damage to the benthos, or pollution,
P. This is represented by the formula:
P = −0.00048 Q − 0.055 N − 0.00005 SS
−0.00005 BOD − 0.00002 A (9)
where the principal pollutants are phosphorus, Q ,
(3) nitrogen (total minus dissolved nitrogen3 ), N, total sus-
pended solids, SS (all measured in kg/T of F), biochem-
ical oxidation demand, BOD (see footnote 5) (mea-
sured in kg O2 /T of F), antibiotics, A (measured in kg/T
of F). The sensitivity coefficients are those of Enell
(4)
(1995), Pillay (1992), and ICES (2002). The effects
of nutrients and organic loadings can be classified as
having:
(a) Local impact: organic content and sediment par-
ticle size in relation to the benthos can possible
(5) lead to oxygen depletion, etc. However, through
3 This is expressed as: N = N
total − Ndissolved = [(0.16p ×
10 FCR) − 30] − [(0.16pδ × 10 FCR) − 30].
278 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
fallowing, it is possible to increase recovery min-
eralisation turn-over by bacteria (the same strains
used in bacterial filtration) (ICES, 2002).
(b) Larger regional scale impact: eutrophication due
to nutrient release (ammonia, phosphate, CO2 ), the
response of plankton, the response of wild fish pop-
ulations, etc. (Davies and Rae, 2003). Quantities
of each pollutant are directly related to produc-
tion in the following ways (Eqs. (10)–(14), see
BioMar, 2000). The formula for phosphorus dis-
charge from a Scottish salmon farm assumes that
of the phosphorus ingested, 5 kg are incorporated
into flesh protein per tonne of production, whereas,
for nitrogen discharge the formula assumes that of
nitrogen ingested in the feed 30 kg are incorpo-
rated into flesh protein per tonne of production (De
Silva and Anderson, 1995). The formula for total
suspended solids (SS) gives an estimate of the SS
in waste arising from salmon farming (kg SS/tonne
of production) (BioMar, 2000).
The biochemical oxidation demand (BOD) mea-
sures the biodegradable material in waste, found by
measuring the oxygen consumed by aerobic micro-
organisms acting on the waste. GESAMP (1996) lists
BOD among suitable environmental metrics for land-
based fish tanks but, in general, BOD is not strictly
appropriate for assessing effects of fish farming on the
marine environment.4 However, in the present model
BOD is used as a proxy for farm discharge per unit
time derived from information on the FCR and the for-
mulae for the discharge parameters given in Eq. (9),
for SS, N and P. The discharge budget is calculated in
terms of BOD, N, P, SS. Eq. (9) outlines the sources of
environmental impact and emphasises the importance
of the feed conversion ratio in salmon farming in terms
of its influence on discharge parameters. It also clearly
shows that, in environmental policy terms, particular
attention should be paid in selecting feeds and feeding
strategies to minimise impact whilst optimising salmon
growth and farm. The standard test for BOD measures
the consumption of oxygen over 5 days at 20 ◦ C giving
the BOD.5 Formula 13 gives an estimate of the BOD
4 The authors are grateful to an anonymous referee of this journal
for this point.
5 The Eqs. (10)–(14) determine feed composition, which feed into
the rest of the model through costs (Eq. (6)).
(see footnote 5) in waste arising from salmon farming
(BioMar, 2000).
Q = (10Q FCR) − 5 (10)
N = (1.66p FCR)(1 − δ) (11)
SS = 398 − 919 FCR + 650 FCR2 − 83 FCR3 (12)
BOD = 686 − 1671 FCR + 1544 FCR2 − 354 FCR3
(13)
A = 0.0002F (14)
where FCR is the feed conversion ratio, defined as
FCR ≡ GF/F, and δ is the digestibility coefficient (see
footnote 5). The pollution index is multiplied produc-
tion, F/j, where j is a scaling parameter.
Additionally, escapes6 from the aquaculture instal-
lations are given by
X = εF (15)
The occurrence of farmed salmon in fisheries can
vary widely between years (Butler, 2002). The model
assumes 20% escapes.
2.1.2. Social and economic interaction between
coastal labour markets in traditional fishing and
aquaculture and the regulatory environment
2.1.2.1. Traditional fishing. The model considers the
fished “stock” as comprising all fished species. Inter-
actions between species are not taken into account.
Following Skjold et al. (1996), catch, h, is given by the
Schaefer (1957) production function which assumes
a Cobb–Douglas relationship between two production
factors, fishing effort, E, and stock biomass, x, and two
technology parameters, the catchability quotient, q, and
technological improvement, e:
h = RE qeγ Eα xβ (16)
where α and β are the effort-output and stock-output
elasticities and γ is the marginal change of efficiency
due to technological improvement. RE is a shift param-
eter capturing the effect of regulation of traditional
fishing and is described in Section 3.3.
6 This has no further feedback within the model.
 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
2.1.2.2. The labour market in the coastal community.
The labour force, LF, in the coastal community is taken
to comprise of four components. These are traditional
fishing,7 assumed to be proxied by fishing effort, E,
labour employed by aquaculture, LA, other employ-
ment, LO (which may include tourism and other eco-
nomic activities), and unemployed labour, LU.
LF = E + LA + LO + LU (17)
A search theory approach is adopted that implies all
flows of labour between the three-employment sectors
take place via unemployment. Changes to the size of
the labour force, represented by net immigration, also
take place via unemployment. Thus the change to the
stock of unemployment comprises the inflow from net
immigration, DLF, and the outflows of workers newly
employed in the traditional fishing, aquaculture and
other sectors: DE, DLA and DLO respectively.
DLU = DLF − DE − DLA − DLO (18)
Each of these flows is now described in turn. Migra-
tion is positively related to general economic activity
as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), Y.
DLF = −τ + µY ψ (19)
The term tau, τ, represents natural out-migration, mu,
µ, represents external shocks to migration and the term
psi, ψ, represents the sensitivity of net immigration to
GDP. A similar expression captures the flow into other
employment, which also depends positively on GDP,
and negatively on output of the two competing sectors.
DLO = o1 Y ζ1 − o2 hζ2 − o3 F ζ3 (20)
The omega terms, o, represent shocks to non-marine
sector employment arising from general economic
activity (subscript 1), the traditional fishing sector (sub-
script 2), and the aquaculture sector (subscript 3). The
zeta terms, ζ, represent the sensitivity of non-marine
sector employment to GDP (subscript 1), catch (sub-
script 2) and aquaculture (subscript 3). The flow into
aquaculture-related employment depends primarily on
7 Since 1998, official statistics on fishing effort in Scotland are
regarded as highly unreliable. In checks carried out by FRS Marine
Laboratory, for some statistical rectangles, as little as 10% of real
fishing effort by the Scottish fleet entered official records (A. Shanks,
Personnel communication).
279
production, F, and catch, h, but also indirectly on other
factors that affect production, as given by Eq. (21).
DLA = φ1 F ξ1 − φ2 hξ2 (21)
The phi terms, φ, represent external shocks to employ-
ment in aquaculture (subscript 1) and the traditional
fishing sector (subscript 2). The xi terms, ξ, repre-
sent the sensitivity of employment in aquaculture to
production in that sector (subscript 1) and production
in the principal competing sector, traditional fishing
(subscript 2). Similarly, the flow into employment in
traditional fishing depends primarily on production as
measured by the catch, h, competing production in
aquaculture, F, and again also indirectly on other fac-
tors that affect production, as given by Eq. (16).
DLE = η1 hι1 − η2 F ι2 (22)
The eta terms, η, represent external shocks to employ-
ment in traditional fishing (subscript 1) and aquaculture
(subscript 2). The iota terms, ι, represent the sensitivity
of employment in traditional fishing to production in
that sector (subscript 1) and production in the principal
competing sector, aquaculture (subscript 2).
2.1.2.2.1. Policy and regulation. Regulation of
aquaculture is given by
RA = R2 (ρP /R3 ) (23)
where ρ > 1 is the regulation parameter (set initially to
2), and P the pollution index defined in Eq. (9) and R
are scaling parameters (set to 1 and 3000, respectively).
Regulation is expressed as an index, 0 ≤ RA ≤ 1. As
pollution rises, regulation becomes exponentially more
severe (Engle and Valderrama, 2002).
Regulation of traditional fishing is given by
RE = σx−R5 (24)
where σ > 0 is the regulation parameter (set initially
to 1), and x the biomass and R is a scaling parame-
ter (set initially to 0.45). Regulation is expressed as
an index, 0 ≤ RE ≤ 1. As the biomass declines, reg-
ulation becomes exponentially more severe. This is
essentially a mathematical interpretation of a common
sense view of how fishing should be regulated and
the departure from linearity could have various expla-
nations, e.g. reflecting an initially slow management
response to declining stocks or, alternatively, express-
ing a risk averse management strategy in which bigger
280 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294

declines require increasingly drastic action to avoid a Table 2

risk of stock collapse (see, e.g. Hilborn and Walters, Nomenclature
1992). In practice, quotas often operate as to produce a Parameter Value
step function; what we have here is a smoothed approx- A: Antibiotics 0.02%
imation. a: Ash 9.3%
The model is formulated as a deterministic sec- B: Benthos 100
BOD: Biochemical oxidation demand Eq. (9)
toral model based on difference equations programmed C: Total costs of aquaculture production
using STELLA Research v 5.1 High Performance Sys- c: Carbohydrate 15%
tems Inc. The STELLA software has previously been D: Change operator
used for biological models simulating nitrogen dynam- d: Demand for aquaculture final product
ics in shrimp aquaculture (Montoya et al., 1999a,b; d̄: Autonomous demand for aquaculture final product 3300
GF: Gross feed input 100000
Montoya et al., 2002). E: Fishing effort 500
e: Technological change parameter 1
2.2. Model evaluation F: Production (aquaculture) 772
f: Fibre 1.3%
In order to run the simulation a set of values was h: Catch
j: Pollution scaling parameter 1000
assumed. Specifically, a systematic analysis was con- LA: Labour employed in aquaculture 300
ducted of the effect of extreme values (as opposed LF: Total labour force 1750
to marginal changes) of parameters and input val- LO: Labour employed in other, non-marine, sectors 900
ues (“factors”) upon simulation responses. Identifica- LU: Unemployed 50
tion of factors that are “important” was informed by K: Capital input (aquaculture) 1
l: Lipid 16%
the relevant economic and biological theories detailed M: Price of Imports 1000
throughout the paper and in particular in Section m: Mark-up parameter 0.05
2. As further simulation runs were conducted, fac- N: Nitrogen settleable Eq. (9)
tors that were revealed to be “unimportant” could be P: Pollution index
sequentially eliminated, and considered to be con- p: Protein (%in feed ration) 50%
Q: Phosphorus 1.2%
stants. Known signs were then verified. The model Q : Phosphorus discharge settable Eq. (9)
was run assuming an equilibrium of 772 tonnes of pro- q: Catchability quotient 1
duction of farmed fish (Table 2). Fishing effort was R1 : Regulation scaling parameter 80
initially set to 500 (days) with a catchability quotient R2 : Regulation scaling parameter 22
normalized to 1 and with an equilibrium catch of 4000 R3 : Regulation scaling parameter 5000
R4 : Regulation scaling parameter 0.02
(tonnes). A feed quality of 1 was assumed and with R5 : Regulation scaling parameter 0.45
capital input being the numeraire (1). Technology was r: Regeneration rate of wild population 0.02
also normalized to 1 and gross feed input was taken S: Aquaculture sales function
to be 1,00,000 (tonnes). Autonomous demand for the SS: Total suspended solids Eq. (9)
final product was 3300 in equilibrium. This was based V: Feed Quality 1
w: Cost scaling parameter 1200
on an input price of 1000 a mark up parameter of 5% X: Escapes Eq. (15)
and a cost scaling parameter of 1200. GDP was nor- x: Biomass 100000
malized to 1. The total labour force was assumed to be Y: GDP 1
1750 of which 300 were employed in aquaculture and z: Transform of price elasticity of demand (−)1000
900 were employed in other non-marine sectors and 50 α: Effort-output elasticity 1.232
β: Stock output elasticity 0.424
were unemployed. The balance of the remaining 500 χ: Output-gross feed elasticity 0.330
was employed in the traditional fishing. The sensitiv- δ: Protein digestibility for the feed ration 90%
ity of the model to variations in the forcing parameters ε: Proportion of aquaculture stock escaping 0.2
was explored. The model tested the following scenar- φ1 : Aquaculture employment shock wrt production 0.01
ios: Regulation of traditional fishing and regulation of φ2 : Aquaculture employment shock wrt catch 0.001
γ: Technology-output elasticity 0.021
aquaculture, improvements in feed quality, changes in
economic conditions and changes in technology.
 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
Table 2 (Continued )
Parameter
η1 : Fishing effort shock wrt catch
η2 : Fishing effort shock wrt aquaculture
ι1 : Catch to employment shock elasticity
ι2 : Aquaculture to employment shock elasticity
κ: Capital-output elasticity
λ: Labour-output elasticity
µ: Immigration shock
ν: Sensitivity of gross feed input to demand
о1 : Other employment shock wrt GDP
о2 : Other employment shock wrt catch
о3 : Other employment shock wrt aquaculture
π: Market price of aquaculture production
θ: Sensitivity of aquaculture sales to import prices
ρ: Regulation parameter aquaculture
σ: Regulation parameter traditional fishing
τ: Natural out migration parameter
υ: Pollution sensitivity of benthos
ξ 1 : Aquaculture output to employment shock elasticity
ξ 2 : Catch to employment shock elasticity
ψ: GDP-immigration elasticity
ζ: Non-marine output to employment shock elasticity
ζ 2 : Catch to employment shock elasticity
ζ 3 : Aquaculture output to employment shock elasticity
y: Income
The aim of the sensitivity analysis was to vary the
parameters over a certain range and compare their rela-
tive influence on the end result. This exercise resulted in
the identification of coefficients with important effects
on the model simulations. Validation of the data (that is,
choice of initial values of factors) was conducted pri-
marily through econometric estimation of biological
and economic relationships obtained from the perti-
nent literature. The references are detailed in Section 2
for each relationship as appropriate. Within each sub-
system some normalisation also was conducted. A full
description of the calibration data and definition of vari-
ables is contained in Table 2.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Regulation of traditional fishing and
regulation of aquaculture
The model showed that an increase in regulation of
traditional fishing by 50% causes a fall in catch and
a fall in employment in the traditional fishing sector
(Fig. 3). This is in line with the finding of Charles
281
(2001). His analysis showed that optimal harvest levels
Value vary over time and labour dynamics can depend sig-
0.01 nificantly on the constraints placed on fishing effort.
0.01 The effect of increased regulation on the fished stock
0.5 biomass in the model is positive. However, if the stock
0.5 has already been severely depleted, as in the North-
0.267
0.128
west Atlantic cod fishery (Swain and Sinclair, 2000),
0.01 increased regulation may not lead to recovery, certainly
0.7 not within a short time-scale.
0.001 The impact on aquaculture production of insti-
0.001 tutional and environmental changes depends on the
0.001
nature of these changes. Incentives for producers to
0.08 supply more to the market increase with grants, infras-
1.5 tructure development and availability of credit. Nev-
1 ertheless, government regulations may also impact on
−0.05 the supply of salmon in that they may limit the areas
1
0.5
in which farming can occur, the size of farms and the
0.5 operation of those farms, which affects their produc-
0.5 tion (Kaiser and Stead, 2002). Regulations pertaining to
0.5 aquaculture activity were developed in Europe and are
0.5 widely regarded as severe when compared to the rate
0.5
of introduction and nature of similar regulations in the
agriculture industry (Kaiser and Stead, 2002). In 1995,
Howarth observed that “the task of the policy maker and
legislator is to reconcile the needs of the environment
with the facilitation of an efficient aquaculture industry
which functions in the common interest of all”.
The model showed that an increase in regulation
of aquaculture by 50% causes a one-off fall in farmed
fish production, but does not stem the growth rate in the
sector as a whole (Fig. 4). Hence, employment in aqua-
culture continues to rise. The government can restrict
the production level in an effort to reduce pollution or to
ensure that production is dispersed among coastal areas
where employment opportunities are needed. Model
output indicates that pollution falls in response to the
one-off fall in production, but then rises again in tan-
dem with the growth of fish production. However, if the
level of pollution is considered to have exceeded a pre-
determined level, the regulatory authority may require
a further reduction in waste output by requiring fur-
ther reduction in fish production (SEPA, 1998). The
regulatory authorities undertake an initial site evalu-
ation to determine the potential impact, they estab-
lish a level of production which does not result in
enrichment exceeding a predetermined level and ini-
tiate a monitoring programme to ensure that the level
of impact remains below the predetermined acceptable
 282
W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
Fig. 3. Effect of regulation of traditional fishing on (a) labour in fishing, (b) labour in aquaculture, (c) unemployment, (d) catch, fish production, (e) demand of aquaculture, and (f)
biomass.
 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
Fig. 4. Effect of regulation of aquaculture on (a) labour in fishing, (b) labour in aquaculture, (c) unemployment, (d) catch, (e) fish production, (f) demand of aquaculture, and (g)
biomass.

283
 284
W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
Fig. 5. Effect of parameter feed quality on (a) labour in fishing, (b) labour in aquaculture, (c) unemployment, (d) catch, (e) fish production, (f) demand of aquaculture, and (g)
biomass.
 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
level (SEPA, 1998). The costs incurred to minimise
environmental impacts will constrain the supply of fish
and the prices.
3.2. Improvements in feed quality
Improvements in husbandry factors such as temper-
ature, feeding frequency and feed technology are likely
to reduce the rate of waste production and increase the
production of fish. The model showed that an improve-
ment in feed quality of 10% generates a rise in fish
production and a consequent rise in employment in that
sector (Fig. 5). Regulation of aquaculture also responds
to the increase in production by increasing regula-
tion. This generates [damped] cyclical behaviour of
fish production leading to the new equilibrium, which
in turn yields cyclical behaviour of costs and hence
prices in the sector. Digestibility values of feed are cur-
rently around 90% and FCR values (currently 1.17 for
salmon) have improved since the early 1980s. If the
FCR can be reduced to 1.0, feed wastage to 1% and
indigestibility to 5% the release rate of dissolved nitro-
gen would be approximately 33 kg/tonne of production
(Davies, 2000). Overfeeding is likely when the value
of the product is high and the cost of the feed is low,
with greater care being taken of an expensive feed prod-
uct. Although in the early years of the Atlantic salmon
farming industry, feed losses were up to 20% it is now
generally accepted that feed losses have been reduced
to less than 5% in well-run farms (Davenport et al.,
2003).
3.3. Changes in economic conditions
The consumption of salmon in the UK grew signifi-
cantly during the 1990s as supplies increased and prices
dropped (Stead and Laird, 2002). The model showed
that a rise in autonomous demand of 3% increases fish
production at first, followed by cyclical adjustment to
a new equilibrium only just higher than the original
(Fig. 6). This is due to the effect of regulation of aqua-
culture increasing in response to the rise in production.
A doubling of mark-up to 10% generates a much more
long lasting effect on fish production, again with over-
shooting (Fig. 7). A significant impact on the demand of
farmed fish can be caused by the negative publicity that
aquaculture pollutes the environment and spreads dis-
eases outbreaks (Infectious Salmon Anaemia in Scot-
285
land 1998/1999). Advertising, negative or positive (i.e.
fish is good for people’s health) is largely designed
to influence buyers’ preferences. Trends in the human
population size and habits also affect the total demand
as well as imports and exports. In the UK, imports
are particularly important for white fish (cod and had-
dock), whereas, exports seem to be more confined to
the pelagic species (SEAFISH, 2002). Other factors
like bad weather, jellyfish losses, industrial agricultural
and domestic sewage outfalls, and oil spills, affect the
supply and the market of the [farmed fish] product.
3.4. Changes in technology
Fishing efficiency has been improved as technol-
ogy has developed with modern fishing gears (changes
in regulation about minimum mesh sizes) and tech-
niques. The model suggests that an increase in the
catchability quotient by 10% does little to stem the
decline in traditional fishing, but, as might be expected,
increases the rate of decline of the biomass (Fig. 8).
Fishers are highly innovative and will always strive
to improve their catching efficiency (Jennings et al.,
2001). However, there is an increasing interest in the
development of highly selective gears that allow non-
target species and by-catches to escape. The 1990’s
have seen a considerable increase in the use of technol-
ogy on fish farms and increased mechanisation of farm
operations drawing on a well-developed research sup-
port base and targeted research programmes. A consid-
erable improvement to the production process in order
to improve efficiency by using technological develop-
ment has been achieved by (ICES, 2002). Most salmon
farms now operate sophisticated computer programs
for recording and forecasting fish numbers and weights
cage by cage as well as costs and sales (Sutherland and
Calyton, 2002). Better feeds and improved husbandry
are examples of such a technological advance.
3.5. Policy/regulations
There are concerns that coastal fisheries are not sus-
tainable at present levels, and that aquaculture may
be adversely affecting fisheries (Naylor et al., 2000).
Bardach (1997) observed that the employment and wel-
fare of local and non-local people need to be considered
in the conflicting social environment that has devel-
oped in Scotland, and that natural resources should be
 286
W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
Fig. 6. Effect of parameter auto demand on (a) labour in fishing, (b) labour in aquaculture, (c) unemployment, (d) catch, (e) fish production, (f) demand of aquaculture, and (g)
biomass.
 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
Fig. 7. Effect of regulation of parameter mark up aqua on (a) labour in fishing, (b) labour in aquaculture, (c) unemployment, (d) catch, (e) fish production, (f) demand of aquaculture,
and (g) biomass.

287
 288
W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
Fig. 8. Effect of regulation of parameter technology on (a) labour in fishing, (b) labour in aquaculture, (c) unemployment, (d) catch, (e) fish production, (f) demand of aquaculture,
and (g) biomass.
 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
shared with all potential users in a way that will benefit
the society while not harming the ecosystem.
In addition, there are perceived to be environmen-
tal problems with aquaculture that may be threatening
capture fisheries. In recent years, the harvest of fish
from natural waters in many European fishing grounds
apparently has reached its upper limit, but the demand
for fishery products is still high (FAO, 2002). Thus
policies must be devised to conserve existing natural
environmental resource stocks. Such policies need not,
however, result in the cessation of aquaculture devel-
opment (Bardach, 1997). As noted by Cromey et al.
(2000) and Henderson et al. (2001), it is important
to base the debate on verifiable and updated scientific
facts, testable hypothesis and transparent modelling of
the interactions between production, environment and
economic welfare.
The model suggests contrasting outcomes from
increased regulation in fisheries and aquaculture.
Although an increase in regulation of aquaculture
causes a short-term fall in farmed fish production,
employment in aquaculture continues to rise pro-
vided that the demand for the aquaculture products
remains strong. This reflects the ability of the aqua-
culture facilities to satisfy the regulation requirements
through improving provisions for environmental pro-
tection without the need to limit employment. In con-
trast, increased regulation in the fishery sector tends to
reduce employment in the sector as regulation directly
targets the economic activity though limits imposed on
landings and days at sea, as well as decommissioning
schemes.
It is important that local government should under-
stand the economic values and social benefits of aqua-
culture, including its potential role in providing work
for unemployed fishermen. Failure to address aquacul-
ture development issues at the local level could result
in socio-economic complications and instability in the
rural areas.
In Europe, an integral part of the process of deter-
mining applications for marine fish farms, renewal
of existing leases or extensions to existing develop-
ments is the environmental impact assessment (EIA)
(Fernandes et al., 2000, 2001). EIA can be a pow-
erful tool, which can ensure that decisions are made
on the basis of the best information. The process of
completing and evaluating EIAs seek to ensure that,
where a development is likely to have significant effects
289
on the environment, these potential effects are sys-
tematically addressed in a formal environmental state-
ment. Economic incentives and constraints (pollution
charges; access charges, tradable permits for resource
use) to promote environmentally and socially friendly
aquaculture require legislation and implementation at
provincial or national government levels (GESAMP,
2001). Financial incentives for sustainable produc-
tion could be granted to aquaculture projects where
investments are directed towards the implementation
techniques that significantly decrease environmental
impacts as well as participating on monitoring schemes
(AQCESS, 2000).
3.6. Changes in economic conditions
Overcapitalisation and overfishing, brought about
by a market failure, have adverse effects on the envi-
ronment (e.g. reduction in stock sizes of target and non-
target species, damage to the sea bed). In aquaculture
there are no comparable problems but overcapitalisa-
tion exists where there has been extensive government
support or subsidy.
Although activity in a wild fishery may be con-
strained by costs of capital equipment in the long run,
in the short run this is not so because the capital equip-
ment has already been purchased and written-off in
the enterprises’ accounts. If stocks are in decline, there
will be an excess of capital. Aside from regulatory
restrictions, pressure on the fished stocks depends not
only on the condition of the stocks and capital costs,
but also on the level of demand, which remains high
and rising. However, an examination of past invest-
ment, profit level and incomes shows that they are
vulnerable to the natural variability of stocks, which
can change the situation significantly in the short
run.
The markets for fish and fish products are in a state
of upheaval caused by two rather separate develop-
ments. The first is a global increase in the demand
for fish; the second one involves a rise in high-income
demand and changes in consumer behaviour, especially
in wealthy countries. The model showed that a rise in
demand increases farmed fish production at first fol-
lowed by cyclical adjustment to a new equilibrium only
just higher than the original. The market is the driv-
ing force of aquaculture development; production and
demand are finely balanced and any increase in pro-
290 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
duction in excess of the likely evolution in demand
may result in steep decrease in price and profitability.
Possible solutions to maintain prices include enlarg-
ing the range of products must be enlarged and bet-
ter marketing strategies. Although private investors
are the leading force, the state can play a key role
in ensuring that economic viability will be achieved
in parallel with respect of the environment and good
quality of the products. To secure employment and
socio-economic well being, aquaculture needs to be
an economically viable and self-sufficient industry. In
contrast to capture fisheries, aquaculture allows conti-
nuity of supply, size and quality assurance of fish. These
features are particularly attractive to the food process-
ing industries (MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd.,
1999).
3.7. Improvements in feed quality
Improved feed quality and usage in aquaculture
results in better growth and survival of the farmed
fish, feed cost savings, less usage of dietary protein
(sparing proteins), less wastage of feed resources, min-
imizes nutrient discharges from aquaculture to the
environment and ensures the sustainability of aquacul-
ture (Dosdat, 2001). The results of this study showed
that improvement in feed quality generates improve-
ment in fish production and employment. The use of
fishmeal in fish feeds is determined by an economic
rationale; when fishmeal prices increase, feed formu-
lators use alternative protein sources from plants (soy,
corn, wheat) to replace them in land animal feeds.
Fishmeal is produced almost exclusively from small
pelagic fish (living in the surface waters or middle
depths of the sea), for which there is little or no demand
for human consumption although harvesting for such
species is not free from ecological costs. World pro-
duction of fishmeal has remained static over the last
decade at 6–7 million tonnes and is likely to remain
so over the next decade, provided that El Niño events
do not cause dramatic changes. In 2000, no more than
34% of world fishmeal production went into fish feed
(European Commission, 19/9/2002). The estimate for
2010 has recently been revised upwards to 2.83 million
tonnes or some 44% of likely supply. It seems likely
that the underlying trend will be for fishmeal prices
to drift, rather than accelerate, upwards over the next
decade from a realistic starting point at pre-El Niño
levels. However, events in 1998–1999 have shown how
volatile this market can be and further disruptions are
likely. If the growing aquaculture industry is to sustain
its contribution to world fish supplies, it must reduce
wild fish inputs in feed (Naylor et al., 2000). Alterna-
tives protein source to replace fishmeal (e.g. soya) in
an objectively serious manner with solid scientific sup-
port and methods of reducing the discharge of feed from
farms are currently investigated. Carbohydrates can be
used as an alternative to fishmeal. Inclusion rates of
fishmeal in aquafeeds vary widely according to species,
the life cycle stage for which the feed is intended and
the composition of the fishmeal available. It would be a
mistake to ignore the significance of fish oils as a com-
ponent of the food. There is a risk that quality fish oils
could prove to be the more finite commodity in the next
decade as aquaculture is projected to use 87% of world
supply in 2010. This has obvious implications for the
salmon sector and others where much of the dietary
energy is provided as oil at present. Furthermore, more
research on fish physiology to better understand the
metabolic requirements of fish and on feed ingredients
and health management will help aquaculture produc-
tion to expand.
3.8. Technology
Fish farming involves the use of a variety of organic
chemicals and pharmaceuticals. In Norway 6 g of
antibiotics was required for each tonne of produc-
tion in 1996 versus 900 g/tonne of production in 1987
(Noakes et al., 2000). This is a good example of how the
technological progress (development of vaccines) and
the improvement in stock management had a positive
effect on production within one decade. The develop-
ment of vaccines, the better husbandry and hygiene
and fallowing in the case of Atlantic salmon farming
have reduced the use of antibiotics in marine aqua-
culture (Costello et al., 2001). The best management
option at corporate level is to take advantage of tech-
nological advances to reduce production costs and to
develop more environmentally friendly (or acceptable)
practices, coupled with research on species diversifica-
tion and product differentiation. Recently technologi-
cal changes have been directed towards the quality of
the final product, addressing “ecological” (i.e.. “envi-
ronmentally friendly”) labelling and animal welfare,
which have been of concern.
 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
3.9. The labour market in the coastal community
Aquaculture not only contributes substantially to
fish supplies but also provides alternative employment
in many fisheries-dependent regions.
The arrival of aquaculture in rural communities
appears to have a positive impact on employment
within these areas. In the west coast of Scotland, aqua-
culture provides an important source of employment
for local people in areas where there are very few alter-
native job opportunities. The main reason why individ-
uals began working in fish farming was the lack of alter-
native employment in the local area (just under 60%
of fish farmers said there was no other employment
opportunities available to them), and lack of alternative
employment is also the main reason why aquaculture
workers stay in the industry (just under a half of fish
farmers stay in aquaculture because of the lack of other
jobs in their community) (AQCESS, 2000).
In recent years, aquaculture has been the only seg-
ment of the fisheries industry in the European Com-
munity to experience a rise in employment, and it
accounts for approximately 60,000 full-time equiva-
lent jobs mostly in coastal and rural areas. In 1998, fish
processing provided employment for a further 89,468
individuals (Green Paper). In 1998, aquaculture in the
EU employed at least 80,000 full or part-time work-
ers (European Commission, 19/9/2002). Employment
has remained steady or has declined in aquaculture in
Greece and Norway although a rise in production was
achieved from 1993 and onwards. The primary cause
to his rationalisation of labour or shedding was a fall
in prices. Small-scale producers are finding it increas-
ingly difficult to survive. However, there are no data
series available on employment of 3 years or more in
most of the European countries.
Aquaculture is of growing importance socio-
economically within the European Union. It may pro-
vide part-time additional revenue for fishermen or
other workers displaced from the fisheries sector. The
depleted stock conditions of groundfish in northern
European seas suggest that maintaining income even
at the present depressed levels will be difficult, and
marginal enterprises are likely to leave the indus-
try; possibly encouraged by active fleet downsizing
measures. Although more precautionary management
could reverse current declines in landings and stocks,
this is unlikely to occur over the short term. Improved
291
profitability need not necessarily be achieved by intro-
ducing ITQs, but this could be an effective mechanism
to reduce fleet capacity, and it is noticeable that the
Icelandic and Dutch harvesting sectors, which use this
approach, achieve significantly better relative earnings
than other countries.
Employment prospects in fisheries are not encourag-
ing over the short term. Present policies (grants for ves-
sels and infrastructure, despite restricted entry through
licensing, and constraints on inputs of “effort”), have
almost certainly led to excessive investment in capi-
tal relative to the use of labour. This may be corrected
by an improved management regime, but only in the
context of a further reduction of capacity. Technical
advances combined with limited or depleted stock pro-
duction can be expected progressively to reduce the use
of labour.
The European fleet may be more capital-intensive
than it should be, and there are also almost certainly
more vessels than needed, given local fishing opportu-
nities. Despite marginal returns, incentives to remain
in the fishery mean that these vessels are employing
crew, thus offsetting somewhat the impact of excessive
capitalisation on total employment, but at the risk of
delaying stock recovery.
It should not be expected that fish stock recovery will
lead to significantly increased landings and employ-
ment in European capture fisheries over a short time
horizon. In addition to other factors, climatic change
has not been favourable to high production, and eco-
logical changes have been noted (Parsons and Lear,
2001). The currently accepted precautionary approach
will encourage lower levels of access in order to sup-
port a balanced ecosystem, and will likely limit TACs
available to fishing enterprises over at least a decadal
time scale.
Prospects for the promotion and development of
alternative employment and earnings opportunities
such as aquaculture or tourism in order to absorb excess
supply labour due to contraction of the fisheries sector
and enhance individuals’ socio-economic welfare are
important for the labour market in the coastal commu-
nities. The model predicts that aquaculture provides
an alternative employment in the coastal communi-
ties especially when there is an increased regulation
to preserve the wild stock. Fishing and aquaculture
is the dominant occupation in mainly rural commu-
nities where the activity (or inactivity) in the sector
292 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
determines the pace of economic development. Mobil-
ity of labour is an attribute of the versatility of the
human resource and its rationalisation is an essential
ingredient for efficient functioning of the fishing and
aquaculture industry and effective environmental pol-
icy relating to reversing the process of inshore stock
depletion. In addition, “sticky” or immobile labour may
render a well-articulated management policy ineffec-
tual thus increasing the problems of redundant labour in
fisheries and inshore stock depletion. In Scotland, there
is considerable potential mobility between the fishing
and aquaculture occupations: just under a third of fish
farmers would be prepared to work in aquaculture and
just under a third of fish farmers would be willing to
be fishermen (AQCESS, 2000).
Another important issue, and one that will influ-
ence the level of labour mobility between the sectors
in coastal economies, is fishermen’s and aquaculture
workers’ attitudes towards their jobs and why they
choose to stay working in these occupations. In Scot-
land around 60% of aquaculture workers began work-
ing in aquaculture because there were no other employ-
ment opportunities available to them (AQCESS, 2000).
This indicates the usefulness of the aquaculture indus-
try in enhancing employment in coastal communi-
ties, especially if employment in the fishing industry
declines.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the European Union,
project “Aquaculture and coastal economic and social
sustainability” (AQCESS), Contract No. Q5RS-2000-
31151. The authors wish to express thanks to all the
members of the AQCESS team for valuable comments.
References
Agar, J.J., Sutinen, J.G., 2004. Rebuilding strategies for multispecies
fisheries: A stylized bioeconomic model. Environ. Res. Econ. 28,
1–29.
Anon, 2002. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fisheries
Management. ICES Cooperative Research Report No 255, Inter-
national Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
AQCESS (Aquaculture and coastal economic and social sustainabil-
ity), 2000. Fifth Framework Project. Contract No. Q5RS-2000-
31151. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/aqcess/.
Bardach, J.E., 1997. Sustainable Aquaculture. John Wiley and Sons
Inc., Canada, 251 pp.
Beveridge, M.C.M., 1996. Cage Aquaculture. Fishing News Books
Ltd., Oxford, 352 pp.
BioMar, 2000. BioMar’s Complete Feeding Quide for Salmon. Copy
number 478. Grangemouth, Scotland, 110 pp.
Black, K.D., 2001. Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture. Sheffield,
Academic Press and CRC Press, Sheffield, UK, 214 pp.
Butler, J.R.A., 2002. Wild salmonids and sea louse infestations on
the west coast of Scotland: sources of infection and implications
for the management of marine salmon farms. Pest Manage. Sci.
58, 595–608.
Charles, A., 2001. Sustainable Fishery Systems. Fish Biology and
Aquatic Resources Series. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, 350
pp.
Costello, M.J., Grant, A., Davies, I.M., Cecchini, S., Papoutsoglou,
S., Quigley, D., Saroglia, M., 2001. The control of chemicals
used in aquaculture in Europe. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 17, 173–180.
Cromey, C.J., Nickell, T.D., Black, K.D., 2000. DEPOMOD. A
model for predicting the effects of solids deposition from mari-
culture to the benthos. Oban Scotland, ISBN 0-9529089-1-3, 120
pp.
Davenport, J., Black, K., Burnell, G., Cross, T., Culloty, S., Ekarathe,
S., Furness, B., Mulcahy, M., Thetmeyer, H., 2003. Aquaculture
the Ecological Issues. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 90 pp.
Davies, I.M., 2000. Waste production by farmed Atlantic salmon
Salmo salar in Scotland. ICES, CM 2000/0:01.
Davies, I.M., Rae, G., 2003. Study for Research into Aquaculture
Fish Carrying Capacity of GB Coastal Waters. FRS, Aberdeen,
25 pp.
De Silva, S.S., Anderson, T.A., 1995. Fish Nutrition in Aquaculture.
Chapman and Hall, London, 309 pp.
DG Fisheries, 17.01.03. http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/reform/
index en.htm. Reforming the Common Fisheries Policy.
Dosdat, A., 2001. Environmental impact of aquaculture in the
Mediterranean: nutritional and feeding aspects. In: Proceedings
of the Seminar of the CIHEAM Network on Technology of Aqu-
culture in the Mediterranean, vol. 55, Zaragossa, 17–21 January
2000. Cahiers Options Mediterraneennes, pp. 23–36.
Duarte, P., Meneses, R., Hawkins, A.J.S., Zhu, M., Fang, J., Grant,
J., 2003. Mathematical modelling to assess the carrying capacity
for multi-species culture within coastal waters. Ecol. Model. 168,
109–143.
Enell, M., 1995. Environmental impact of nutrients from Nordic fish
farming. Water Sci. Technol. 3110, 61–71.
Engle, C.R., Valderrama, D., 2002. The economics of environmen-
tal impacts of aquaculture in the United States. In: Tomasso,
J.R. (Ed.), Aquaculture and the Environment in the United
States, vol. 247–270. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of
the World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, Louisianan, USA,
p. 279.
European Commission 19/9/2002. A strategy for the Sustainable
Development of European Aquaculture. Communication from
the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament,
24 pp.
European Commission 2000. Regional Socio-Economic Studies on
Employment and the Level of Dependency on Fishing. Lot. No.
 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
23 Coordination and Consolidation Study. Fisheries Sub-Sector
Strategy Paper, 53 pp.
European Commission 2002. Financial Instrument for Fisheries
Guidance—Instructions for Use. ISBN 92-894-1647-5, 47
pp. http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/doc et publ/liste publi/
facts/ifop en.pdf.
European Commission, 2001. Facts and Figures on the CFP-Basic
Data on the Common Fisheries Policy. ISBN 92-894-1842-7, 28
pp. http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/doc et publ/liste publi/
facts/pcp en.pdf.
FAO, 2002. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. FAO
Fisheries Department, Rome, ISBN 92-5-104842-8.
Fernandes, T.F., Eleftheriou, A., Ackefors, H., Eleftheriou, M., Ervik,
A., Sanchez-Mata, A., Scanlon, T., White, P., Cochrane, S., Pear-
son, T.H., Read, P.A., 2001. The scientific principles underlying
the monitoring of the environmental impacts of aquaculture. J.
Appl. Ichthyol. 17, 181–193.
Fernandes, T.F., Miller, K.L., Read, P.A., 2000. Monitoring and reg-
ulation of marine aquaculture in Europe. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 16,
138–143.
GESAMP, IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/
UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of
Marine Environemtal Protection, 1996.The contributions of
science to coastal zone management. Rep. Stud. GESAMP 61,
66 pp.
GESAMP, IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/
UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of
Marine Environemtal Protection, 2001. Planning and manage-
ment for sustainable coastal aquaculture development. Rep.
Stud. GESAMP 68, ISBN 92-5-104634-4, 90 pp.
Gordon, R.G., 1976. Recent developments in the theory of inflation
and unemployment. J. Monetary Econ. 2, 185–219.
Goulding, I., Hallam, D., Harrison-Mayfield, L., Mackenzie-Hill,
V., Helder DaSilva, 2000. Regional Socio-economics Studies on
Employment and the Level of dependency on fishing. Lot No 23.
Coordiantion and Consolidation Study. European Commission
DG Fisheries. Fisheries sub-sector Strategy Paper, 50 pp.
Green Paper: The Future of the Common Fisheries Policy on the
EU Online website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/doc et
publ/green/volume1 en.pdf.
Hall, P.O.J., Anderson, L.G., Holby, O., Kollberg, S., Samuelsson,
M.-O., 1990. Chemical fluxes and mass balances in a marine fish
cage farm. I. Carbon. Marine Ecol. Progr. Series 61, 61–73.
Hall, P.O.J., Holby, O., Kollberg, S., Samuelsson, M.O., 1992. Chem-
ical fluxes and mass balances in a marine fish cage farm. IV.
Nitrogen. Marine Ecol. Progr. Series 89, 81–91.
Hargrave, B.T., Duplisea, D.E., Pdeiffer, E., Wildish, D.J., 1993.
Seasonal changes in benthic fluxes of dissolved oxygen and
ammonium associated with marine cultured Atlantic salmon.
Marine Ecol. Prog. Series 96, 157–249.
Hargreaves, J.A., 1997. A simulation model of ammonia dynamics
in commercial catfish ponds in the southeastern United States.
Aquacult. Eng. 16, 27–43.
Henderson, A., Davies, I.M., 2001. Review of the Regulation
and Monitoring of Aquaculture in Scotland, with Emphasis
on Environment and Consumer Protection. Marine Laboratory
Aberdeen, Report No 01/01, 30 pp.
293
Henderson, A., Gamito, S., Karakassis, I., Pederson, P., Smaal, A.,
2001. Use of hydrodynamic and benthic models for managing
environmental impacts of marine aquaculture. J. Appl. Ichthyol.
17, 163–172.
Henderson, A.R., Davies, I.M., 2000. Review of aquaculture, its
regulation and monitoring in Scotland. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 16,
200–208.
Hilborn, R., Walters, C.J., 1992. Quantitative Fish Stock Assessment:
Choice Dynamics and Uncertainty. Chapman and Hall, London,
570 pp.
Holby, O., Hall, P.O.J., 1991. Chemical fluxes and mass balances
in a marine fish cage farm. II. Phosphorus. Marine Ecol. Progr.
Series 70, 263–272.
Holmer, M., 1992. Impacts of aquaculture on surrounding sediments:
generation of organic-rich sediments. In: De Pauw, N., Joyce, J.
(Eds.), Aquaculture and the Environment, Special Publication
No. 16. European Aquaculture Society, pp. 155–175.
ICES, 2002. Report of the Working Group on Environmental Inter-
actions of Mariculture, ICES headquarters, 8–12 April, 50 pp.
Jennings, S., Kaiser, M.J., Reynolds, J.D., 2001. Marine Fisheries
Ecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Jimenez-Montealegre, R., Verdegem, M.C.J., van Dam, A., Ver-
reth, J.A.J., 2002. Conceptualization and validation of a dynamic
model for the simulation of nitrogen transformations and fluxes
in fish ponds. Ecol. Model. 147 (2), 123–152.
Kaiser, M., Stead, S.M., 2002. Uncertainties and values in European
aquaculture: communication, management and policy issues
in time of “changing public perceptions”. Aquacult. Int. 10,
469–490.
Karagiannis, G., Katranidis, S.D., 2000. A production function anal-
ysis of seabass and seabeam production in Greece. J. World
Aquacult. Soc. 313, 297–305.
Karakassis, I., Tsapakis, M., Hatziyanni, E., 1998. Seasonal variabil-
ity in sediment profiles beneath fish farm cages in the Mediter-
ranean. Marine Ecol. Progr. Series 162, 243–252.
Karakassis, I., Hatziyanni, E., Tsapakis, M., Plaiti, W., 1999. Benthic
recovery following cessation of fish farming: a series of suc-
cesses and catastrophes. Marine Ecol. Progr. Series 184, 205–
218.
Kochba, M., Diab, S., Avnimelech, Y., 1994. Modeling of nitro-
gen transformation in intensively aerated fish ponds. Aquaculture
120, 95–104.
Lorenzen, K., Struve, J., Cowan, V.J., 1997. Impact of farming inten-
sity and water management on nitrogen dynamics in intensive
pond culture: a mathematical model applied to Thai commercial
shrimp farms. Aquacult. Res. 28, 493–507.
MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd., 1999. Forward Study of
Community Aquaculture: Summary Report. Brussels: European
Commission Fisheries Directorate General, 60 pp.
Marshall, C.T., Yaragina, N.A., Adlandsvik, B., Dolgov, A.V., 2000.
Reconstructing the stock-recruit relationship for Northeast Arctic
cod using a bioenergetic index of reproductive potential. Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57, 2433–2442.
Montoya, R.A., Lawrence, A.R., Grant, W.E., Velaso, M., 1999a.
Simulation of nitrogen dynamics and shrimp growth in an inten-
sive shrimp culture: effects of feed and feeding parameters. Ecol.
Model. 122, 81–95.
294 W.D. McCausland et al. / Ecological Modelling 193 (2006) 271–294
Montoya, R.A., Lawrence, A.L., Grant, W.E., Velasco, M., 1999b.
Simulation of nitrogen dynamics and shrimp growth in an inten-
sive shrimp culture system: effects of feed and feeding parame-
ters. Ecol. Model. 122, 81–95.
Montoya, R.A., Lawrence, A.L., Grant, W.E., Velasco, M., 2002.
Simulation of inorganic nitrogen dynamics and shrimp survival
in an intensive shrimp culture system. Aquacult. Res. 33, 81–94.
Naylor, R.L., Goldburg, R.J., Primavera, J.H., Kautsky, N., Bev-
eridge, M.C.M., Clay, J., Folkes, C., Lubchenco, J., Mooney, H.,
Troell, M., 2000. Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies.
Nature 405, 1017–1024.
Nerrie, B.L., Hatch, L.U., Engel, C.R., Smitherman, R.O., 1990.
The economics of intensifying catfish production: a production
function analysis. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 21, 350–356.
Nielsen, S.N., Anastacio, P.M., Frias, A.F., Marques, A.F.J.G., 1999.
CRISP—crayfish rice integrated system of production. 5. Simu-
lation of nitrogen dynamics. Ecol. Model. 123, 41–52.
Noakes, D.J., Beamish, R.J., Kent, M., 2000. On the decline of
Pacific salmon and speculative links to salmon farming in British
Columbia. Aquaculture 183, 363–386.
O’Connor, B.D.S., Costelloe, J., Keegan, B.F., Rhoads, D.C.,
1989. The use of REMOTS technology in monitoring coastal
enrichment resulting from mariculture. Marine Pollut. Bull. 20,
384–390.
Parsons, L.S., Lear, W.H., 2001. Climate variability and marine
ecosystem impacts: a North Atlantic perspective. Progr.
Oceanogr. 49, 167–188.
Paulson, L.J., 1980. Models of ammonia excretion for brook trout
(Salelinus fontinalis) and rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Can.
J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37, 1421–1425.
Pearson, T.H., Rosenberg, R., 1978. Macrobenthic succession in
relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine envi-
ronment. Oceanogr. Marine Biol. Annual Rev. 16, 229–311.
Phillips, M., Boyd, C., Edwards, E., 2001. Systems approach to aqua-
culture management. In: Subasinghe, R.P., Bueno, P., Phillips,
M.J., Hough, C., McGladdery, S.E., Arthur, J.R. (Eds.), Aqua-
culture in the third millennium. Technical Proceedings on the
Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millenium. Bangkok,
Thailand, 20–25 February 2000, pp. 239–247.
Pillay, T.V.R., 1992. Aquaculture and the Environment. Fishing New
Books, Oxford, 185 pp.
Pocklington, P., Scott, D.B., Schaffer, C.T., 1994. Polychaete
response to different aquaculture activities. In: Dauvin, J.C.,
Laubier, L., Reish, D.J. (Eds.), Actes de la 4ème Conference
internationale des Polychètes. Mém. Mus. natn. History Nature,
no 162, Paris, pp. 511–520.
SEAFISH, 2002. UK Seafood Market: An Overview.
http://www.seafish.org.
SEPA, 1998. A Manual of Regulation and Monitoring for Cage Fish
Farming in Scotland. Scottish Environment Protection Agency,
Stirling, Scotland, 120 pp.
Schaefer, M.B., 1957. A study of the dynamics of the fishery for
yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Bull. Int.
Am. Trop. Tuna Commis. 2, 245–285.
Skjold, F., Eide, A., Flaaten, O., 1996. Production functions of the
Norwegian bottom fisheries of cod in the Barents Sea. ICES J.
Marine Sci. Int. Council Explor. Seas, Mimeo CM1996/P3.
Stead, S.M., Laird, L., 2002. Handbook of Salmon Farming. Springer
Praxis, Chichester, UK, 497 pp.
Stratoudakis, Y., Fryer, R.J., Cook, R.M., 1998. Discarding practices
for commercial gadoids in the North Sea. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 55, 1632–1644.
Stratoudakis, Y., Fryer, R., Cook, R.M., Pierce, G.J., 1999. Fish
discarded from Scottish demersal vessels: estimators of total dis-
cards and annual estimates for targeted gadoids. ICES J. Marine
Sci. 56, 592–605.
Swain, D.P., Sinclair, A.F., 2000. Pelagic fishes and the cod recruit-
ment dilemma in the Northwest Atlantic. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 57, 1321–1325.
Sutherland, R., Calyton, P., 2002. Economic and business issues.
In: Stead, S., Laird, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Salmon Farming.
Springer Praxis, Chichester, UK, pp. 235–276.
Tidwell, J.H., Allan, G.L., 2001. Fish as food:aquaculture’s contribu-
tion. Ecological and economic impacts and contributions of fish
farming and capture fisheries. EMBO Reports 211, 958–963.
Weston, D.P., 1990. Quantitative examination of macrobenthic com-
munity changes along an organic enrichment gradient. Marine
Ecol. Progr. Series 61, 233–244.
Westra, J.V., Zimmerman, J.K.H., Vondracek, B., 2005. Bioeco-
nomic analysis of selected conservation practices on soil erosion
and freshwater fisheries. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 41, 309–
322.
Ye, Y.M., Loneragan, N., Die, D., Watson, R., Harch, B., 2005. Bioe-
conomic modelling and risk assessment of tiger prawn (Penaeus
esculentus) stock enhancement in Exmouth Gulf. Aust. Fish. Res.
73, 231–249.