MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is lack of space a limiting factor for the development of aquaculture in EU coastal areas?

2015· article· en· W1885139238 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOcean & Coastal Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquacultureGeographyDistribution (mathematics)FisheryEuropean unionMarine conservationEnvironmental protectionBusinessFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the spatial occupancy of marine finfish aquaculture in the European Union (EU), identifies geographical clusters and administrative areas where cage aquaculture development is particularly significant and provides evidence on the interactions between aquaculture and the touristic use of the coastline. Despite the increasing demand for seafood in the EU, its aquaculture is not expanding at the same rate ( FAO, 2014 ), and the low number of new licences issued in recent years is a clear sign of the difficulties of the sector to expand. In this study, Google Earth satellite images and GIS methods were used to map and analyse spatial properties of marine finfish aquaculture sites in the EU. The analysis covers ten member states (Cyprus, Spain, France, Greece, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Slovenia, United Kingdom) representing around 95% of EU marine finfish aquaculture production by volume, and Turkey. The results indicate that existing marine aquaculture sites occupy around 230 hectares (ha) in Greece, and 34 ha in UK, which represent respectively 28% and 44% of EU marine finfish production by volume. Considering these very low figures of occupied surface, it is difficult to imagine that the expansion of marine aquaculture in the EU would be constrained by a lack of space in absolute terms. Limitations to growth may be better explained by the competition for space which takes place at the local level with more established coastal economic activities. To examine in particular the interactions with the touristic use of the coastline, the analysis considered the distribution of hotels around the aquaculture sites and found that there is evidence of strong negative spatial interaction up to a distance of 3 km. These quantitative findings corroborate more qualitative considerations on the conflicts affecting the establishment of marine aquaculture in specific coastal regions in USA , Canada, Australia and New Zealand described in the literature. Another contribution from this study lies in the identification and mapping of geographical clusters and local administrative units where aquaculture production is particularly significant. Since socio-economic data for the individual aquaculture sites in the EU are not easily accessible, the mapping of EU aquaculture clusters is the prerequisite for further research to understand the local enabling conditions apart from bio-physical conditions which favoured the expansion of aquaculture in specific areas and not in others and identifying examples of best practices for the governance of the sector.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it