Content uploaded by Rosewine Joy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rosewine Joy on Jun 16, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Rosewine Joy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rosewine Joy on Jun 16, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN:2456-4303
UGC APPROVED
http://journalsinternational.co.in/index.php/IJMLSS/user
International Journal of Management, Law & Science Studies, IJMLSS
VOL 01, ISSUE 10, June 2017 Impact factor:3.682
51 | P a g e
SOCIAL SCIENCE STUDIES ON WETLAND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR
AQUACULTURE: A REVIEW
Dr. Rosewine Joy
Assistant professor, Presidency University, Bangalore
&
Research Scholar, School of Industrial Fisheries, Cochin University of
Science and Technology
ABSTRACT
Wetland degradation is impacting all food production systems world over.
Agriculture, aquaculture, inland fishery are not exception. This has affected the communities
who depends on these resources. The objective of this paper is to review the social science
based studies on aquaculture valuation. The study finds that there is huge gap in social
science based aquaculture studies on valuation.
Keywords: Wetland, Water quality, aquaculture, Economic Valuation
INTRODUCTION
World over wetlands are degrading and the threats to wetlands include siltation,
eutrophication, reclamation, encroachment, pollution etc. (Barbier, 1997).Value of wetlands
occur at three levels of ecological hierarchy, that is population, ecosystem and biosphere
(Mitsch & Gosselink, 2000). The wetlands provide many provisional, regulating, existence
values and with degradation these ecosystem services also got altered. Most of the wetland
threats could have caused as we have undervalued the ecosystem service of wetlands well.
The ecosystem services of wetlands include flood mitigation, storm abatement, aquifer
recharge, water quality improvement, aesthetics, and abstinence use. The degradation is
attributed to climatic and human induced changes such as fragmentation of hydrological
ISSN:2456-4303
UGC APPROVED
http://journalsinternational.co.in/index.php/IJMLSS/user
International Journal of Management, Law & Science Studies, IJMLSS
VOL 01, ISSUE 10, June 2017 Impact factor:3.682
52 | P a g e
regimes, siltation from degraded catchments, pollution, spread of invasive, species and over-
harvesting of resources (Ministry of Environment, 2015). With time we have understood that
environmental degradation is a treat to the existence of life (UNDP, 2013).The objective of
this paper is to review social science studies on ecosystem services for aquaculture .The
paper is differentiated as three .First we introduce the paper followed by water quality
degradation and then by social science paper review on ecosystem services for aquaculture .
Water quality degradation: Provision of water is a service which helps achieve basic
livelihood needs as well as economic service for surplus generation. Water is a means of
production whether in agriculture or in industry, whether in artisanal production or large scale
industrial production. Water is more understood through two of its characteristics water
quantity and quality. Requirements of accessibility and quality have typically been discussed
less than the question of quantity of water or pricing (Bluemel, 2004). Water quality is
relatively a new concept only extending over the past 150 years. Water quality degradation is
one of the main global challenges having direct impacts on health, water resources
availability and sustainability, food production, ecosystems, as well as economic growth
(UN Water, 2012). Ban Ki-moon (Secretary-General of the United Nations) opinioned that
how we use and manage water resources is central to setting the world on a more sustainable
and equitable path .The newly-adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030
Agenda calls for “improving water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and
minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated
wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally”.
Social science based studies on water quality variation in aquaculture: The study by
(Clark, Weldon, Adams, & Wirth, 2010.) found source of risk on the profitability of small
scale shrimp farms are input-output cost, random-kill events, and hurricane damages. The
study found that higher net present value is achieved only when initial investment cost is
reduced by 50%. The study is important as higher stocking density (100 shrimp per m2),
harvest yield of 80 %( expected harvested yield for shrimp is considered as 80%), a price
premium of $0.66, discount rate of 8% where not able to produce positive net present values.
ISSN:2456-4303
UGC APPROVED
http://journalsinternational.co.in/index.php/IJMLSS/user
International Journal of Management, Law & Science Studies, IJMLSS
VOL 01, ISSUE 10, June 2017 Impact factor:3.682
53 | P a g e
Using Cumulative density function (CDF) analyses suggested that probabilities of financial
success were also sensitive to random-kill (probability assumed to be 6% in an year) and
hurricane events (survival rate expectation from (70%-80%-90%) to (50%-70%-90%).
( Martinez & Seijo, 2001) evaluated farms in northwest Mexico were low water exchange
must be complemented with artificial aeration to compensate for low levels of oxygen in
warm and highly saline water. Reducing water exchange in shrimp aquaculture minimize
discharge of pollutants as it’s considered as means for sustainable aquaculture. The study
focus apply a bio economic model to understand the economic yield of a low-water-
exchange production system compared against yield from a typical water-exchange-without-
aeration system for Penaeus vannamei culture. Shrimp aquaculture is a risky investment. The
main production uncertainty comes from changing survival rates and a variable rate of
growth of shrimp The main external (to the farm) uncertainty is volatile shrimp price and to a
lesser extent, post larvae price. Assuming standard pond-management quality and certain
seeding density, water temperature is a major determinant of shrimp growth rate. Risk
analysis is adopted and incorporated in the bio economic model by taking in to account for
uncertainty of seed price, shrimp growth rate, survival rate, and shrimp prices. The typical
system was slightly more profitable than the low-water-exchange, aerated system. The latter
used less electricity than the former in all of the three mortality-rate scenarios. To compare
the economic yield of Typical System(TS) and low-water-exchange, aeration system (LAS
systems), these uncertainties are incorporated by means of risk analysis into a bio economic
model .However, the difference in profitability is so small that for practical purposes both
production systems provide similar economic yield. For a typical system, the probability of
reaching a positive net present value (NPV) is high, therefore under the assumed risks, a 100
ha semi-intensive shrimp farm in northwest Mexico is a good investment choice.
The study by (Edgar & Francisco, 2014) did economic risk assessment of a semi-
intensive shrimp farm in Sinaloa, Mexico using stochastic bio economic model, the
production scenarios were evaluated by means of production and economic performance
indicators. These included mean individual harvesting weight (g), survival rate (%), feed
conversion ratio (FCR) and yield (kg/ha). Economic performance indicators considered were
total cost (TC), profit (p), breakeven yield (BEY) and operating profit margin ratio
ISSN:2456-4303
UGC APPROVED
http://journalsinternational.co.in/index.php/IJMLSS/user
International Journal of Management, Law & Science Studies, IJMLSS
VOL 01, ISSUE 10, June 2017 Impact factor:3.682
54 | P a g e
(OPMR).In welfare economics, risk viewed as a social cost and acceptability depends upon a
significant degree on the costs of avoiding risk or as a matter of costs and benefits, or as a
matter of right and responsibilities.
Social risk assessments are predominantly done using perception studies .The
perception of public at large and the experts are considered for understanding the social risk
in many environmental issues .The study by (Trana, Euanb, & Islac, 2002) foused on
coastal water pollution in Mexico . The study point out that , the people don’t consider water
pollution as a serious menace to the coastal community and they were ready to participate in
water quality monitoring programs .The study point out that environmental education and
awareness trainings could increase the knowledge of local inhabitants and influence their
perception on social risk. Hazards and Vulnerability are concomitant and leads to risk
(Cardona, 2003). Risk is the potential loss to the exposed subject or system, resulting from
the convolution of hazard and vulnerability. Judgments on risk require reliable estimates and
quantitative methods (KATES & KASPERSON, 1983) . The resultant yield risk in food
production systems should be understood at individual and collective level measures. The
survival and security of the communities greatly depend on how well they manage the risk.
The study by (Jennifer L. Clark, 2010) used a stochastic simulation model to
examine the impact of risky economic variables on the profitability of a small-scale shrimp
farm. Three submodels production system model,stochastic variable model and financial
accounting model were used in this study where stochastic variable model was used to
introduced risk to study. Sources of risk included input and output prices, random-kill events,
and hurricane damages. Success was measured using the probability distribution of the net
present value (NPV). The model used in this study operates as multiple spreadsheets in
Microsoft Excel and utilizes Simetar and did statistic analysis such as descriptive statistic,
probabilities, cumulative density function and identified the a priori identification of a
general level of risk acceptance required in a shrimp aquaculture investment may quantify
potential losses for the investor and perhaps generate alternative production plans, marketing
methods, and investment ideas for agricultural producers.
ISSN:2456-4303
UGC APPROVED
http://journalsinternational.co.in/index.php/IJMLSS/user
International Journal of Management, Law & Science Studies, IJMLSS
VOL 01, ISSUE 10, June 2017 Impact factor:3.682
55 | P a g e
(Flaten, Lien, & Tveteras, 2008) studied risk exposure and risk efficiency of salmon cage
farming comparing with agriculture in Norway. The study identified that the yield, price and
economic returns at farm level is more variable in salmon fishery in comparison to
agriculture. Salmon farming though offer more volatile economic returns is preferred to
agriculture as economic returns distribution are more risk efficient. (Clark, Weldon, Adams,
& Wirth, 2010.)A stochastic simulation model was developed to examine the impact of risky
economic variables on the profitability of a small-scale shrimp farm. Sources of risk included
input and output prices,random-kill events, and hurricane damages. Success was measured
using the probability distribution of the net present value (NPV) using different scenarios.
The analaysis shows there is virtually zero chance of positive NPV of the net cash income if
less than average survival rates are encountered over the production planning horizon if there
is poor water quality. Additional analyses suggested that probabilities of financial success
were also sensitive to random-kill and hurricane events.
CONCLUSION:
The study points out that aquaculture farmers will be badly effected with water
quality changes as the resource degradation have high impact on the value of aquaculture
output.
REFERENCES:
Martinez , J., & Seijo, J. (2001). Economics of risk and uncertainty of alternative water
exchange and aeration rates in semi‐intensive shrimp culture systems. Aquaculture
Economics & Management, 5, 129-145.
Barbier, E. (1997). Valuing the Environment as Input:Review of Applications to Mangrove-
Fishery Linkages. Ecological Economics, 35(1), 47-61.
Mitsch, M., & Gosselink, J. (2000). The Value of Wetlands: The Importance of Scale and
Landscape Setting. Ecological Economics, 35(1), 25-33.
