Review

Water Consumption and the Water Footprint in Aquaculture:

A Review
Stella Symeonidou 1,* and Elena Mente 2

1 Faculty of Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,

GR-54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
2 Department of Veterinary Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, GR-54124 Thessaloniki, Greece;

emente@vet.auth.gr
* Correspondence: stesymeo@civil.auth.gr

Abstract: Aquaculture is a rapidly growing industry that contributes to the growing global demand
for food. Numerous studies have investigated the necessity of increasing food production while
reducing its negative effects on the environment. Aquaculture involves the cultivation of aquatic
animals such as fish, shrimp, and mollusks that require water for their growth and maintenance in
various types of aquaculture operations, such as recirculated aquaculture systems (RASs), ponds,
and sea cages. This study investigates mainly life cycle assessment (LCA) in relation to water con-
sumption, the water footprint (WF) and water budgeting approaches in aquaculture. In addition, it
contributes to the expansion of knowledge and understanding of the different methodologies used,
production practices, types of water (freshwater, marine or brackish) and direct or indirect water
consumption in intensive, semi-intensive and extensive types of aquaculture. Notably, this study
focuses on water consumption and does not include water indices that account for all the water used
in a system, regardless of whether it is returned to the sourced watershed and is therefore available
for other uses. Approximately 15% of the reviewed studies focus on the fish processing stage of the
production chain, which emphasizes the need for more research on this stage. The species of carp,
tilapia, shrimp, and catfish are the most frequently studied aquatic animals in relation to water con-
sumption in aquaculture. Research on water consumption patterns can contribute to the develop-
ment of a more water-efficient aquaculture system that is essential for promoting sustainable prac-
tices.
Citation: Symeonidou, S.; Mente, E.
Water Consumption and the Water Keywords: water footprint; life cycle assessment; aquaculture; consumptive water use; water
Footprint in Aquaculture: A Review. consumption; consumptive water productivity; water budgeting; hydrologic analysis
Water 2024, 16, 3376. https://doi.org/
10.3390/w16233376

Academic Editor: Winnie

Gerbens-Leenes 1. Introduction
Received: 9 October 2024 The demand for food production and protein is expected to increase significantly
Revised: 6 November 2024 over the next few decades due to changes in diet and population growth, which is antici-
Accepted: 22 November 2024 pated to exceed 9 billion by 2050 [1,2]. Because of the problems that humanity faces, such
Published: 24 November 2024 as climate change, population growth, and environmental degradation, sustainable aqua-
culture production has an impact on global food security [3]. Quantifying freshwater con-
sumption for various food products and production methods has become a priority be-
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. cause of the need to ensure both food and water security. According to Troell et al. [4],
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. aquaculture is crucial because of the potential benefits for all 17 SDGs, with the most evi-
This article is an open access article dent ones addressing hunger elimination and health promotion (SDGs 2 and 3); respon-
distributed under the terms and sible production and consumption to improve the environmental sustainability of the
conditions of the Creative Commons land, water, climate, and oceans (SDGs 6, 12, 13, 14, and 15); and reductions in poverty
Attribution (CC BY) license and inequalities and improved livelihoods (SDGs 1, 5, 8, and 10).
(https://creativecommons.org/license An estimated 179 million tonnes of fish were produced worldwide in 2018, of which
s/by/4.0/). 82 million tonnes were produced in aquaculture, while China is considered a significant

Water 2024, 16, 3376. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16233376 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2024, 16, 3376 2 of 23

fish producer, with a contribution of 35% to global fish production in the year 2018 [5].
One of the fastest-growing markets for livestock feed worldwide is aquaculture, and fish
consumption constitutes an option for supplying the growing human population with
environmentally sustainable protein sources. Between 1961 and 2017, the average annual
growth rate of global food and fish consumption was 3.1%, which was higher than the
2.1% annual growth rate of all other foods containing animal protein, such as dairy, meat,
and milk, and nearly twice as fast as the global population was growing (1.6%) during the
same period [5]. Moreover, the demand for aquatic food products is anticipated to in-
crease globally, and estimates of population and income by 2050 indicate that more than
500 megatons (Mt) of meat will be required annually for human consumption [3]. The
worldwide per capita food consumption of fish and seafood from 1961 to 2013 increased
from 9.96 kg/capita/year to 19.86 kg/capita/year [6].
Systems for raising livestock that produce meat and other animal products rely heav-
ily on natural resources. According to Mekonnen and Hoekstra [7], 29% of the global ag-
ricultural sector’s water footprint (WF) is used in the production of animal feed, whereas
beef accounts for one third of the WF worldwide. Only in recent years has the scientific
community begun to pay considerable attention to the WF of aquaculture.
Investigating the sustainability of aquafeed production has also emerged as an im-
portant issue. Concerns regarding sustainability exist for capture fisheries, which are es-
sential for the production of fishmeal and fish oil because, due to the depletion of many
marine fish stocks, fewer fishmeal volumes are available for fish farming, which increases
the cost of fishmeal and makes alternatives more affordable [2]. Due to cost concerns, as
well as the knowledge that wild fish are a finite resource, efforts are being made to identify
substitute feed ingredients that provide lipids and protein, including microalgae, yeasts,
insects, and plants [8,9].
Aquaculture consumes water directly and indirectly. Direct water use in aquaculture
can be categorized into consumptive water use, which refers to the removal of water from
the system that is not returned, such as the sum of the reductions in stream flow, ground-
water and water incorporated into the farmed biomass, and total water use, which in-
cludes all sources of water input and output, such as runoff, precipitation, seepage and
any water added by management practices [10]. Consumptive use occurs when freshwater
is used and cannot be released into the same watershed because of evaporation, product
integration, or discharge into the sea or other watersheds [11]. The portion of water that
is not returned and either evaporates or is incorporated into products and/or organisms
is considered consumed and no longer available, whereas water withdrawal refers to the
diversion of water for human use from streams, rivers, or aquifers; however, some of the
water is returned and may then be recycled or restored to the environment [12,13]. Fresh-
water in the aquaculture production system itself is related to the direct water footprint
(WF), whereas the indirect WF refers to the amount of water used throughout the entire
supply chain of aquaculture operations, including the production of feed, energy, and
other inputs [14].
Vasquez-Mejia et al. [15] reviewed quantitative water use (volume of water input into
a system irrespective of whether it is returned to the sourced watershed) and focused on
finfish aquaculture utilizing life cycle assessment (LCA). This review included LCA im-
pact factors such as water dependence, which accounts for total water use (the total vol-
ume of water used, diverted, flowed or pumped from a river, divided by fish growth rec-
orded during a reference period) [15]. Bohnes et al. [16] performed a critical review of the
LCA of aquaculture systems, whereas Philis et al. [17] compared the status of the LCA of
salmonid aquaculture production systems. Furthermore, Ghamkhar et al. [18] analyzed
particular procedures (energy, feed and infrastructure) and specific impact categories
(water use, land use, and eutrophication potential) of the LCA of aquaculture. The afore-
mentioned reviews are focused on LCA approaches and investigate water use regardless
of whether it is consumed and no longer available for other purposes.
Water 2024, 16, 3376 3 of 23

According to Boyd [19], the primary concern should be consumptive water use by
freshwater aquaculture, as this consumption diminishes the amount of water available for
other advantageous uses and enables estimates of the economic value of water. The
amount of freshwater consumed in the production chains of aquaculture processes is a
field that has begun to be explored more thoroughly in recent years. Furthermore, the
identification and assessment of the water-consuming procedures in brackish and marine
aquaculture are important for proper water management practices, and further research
in this area is needed.
Thus, this study reviews the literature, focusing, for the first time, solely on the as-
pects of aquaculture water consumption—namely, water that is not returned to the
sourced watershed and is not available for other uses—including studies based on life
cycle assessments (LCAs), as well as water budgeting/hydrologic analysis approaches and
water footprint estimations. It aims to (a) summarize the main findings of the studies per-
formed on the investigation of water consumption utilizing water budgets, LCA and wa-
ter footprint accounting in different types of aquaculture systems (freshwater/brack-
ish/marine), (b) analyze the aquaculture supply chain stages, management practices and
highlight the main related methodological concerns in relation to the water consumption
patterns, and (c) suggest future research activities.

2. Materials and Methods

Studies concerning the water consumption of aquaculture have been summarized,
and an effort has been made to identify the gaps in the field’s evolution by analyzing the
differences in methodological approaches, spatial scales, water types, technologies, pro-
cess steps, species, system boundaries, and aquaculture practices.
Articles were identified and selected using the online search engines Scopus, Web of
Science, Google Scholar and Google. The keywords and the search operators used were a
combination of “water footprint” OR “water consumption”, OR “consumptive water”, OR
“water productivity” AND “aquaculture”. The timespan ranged from 2004 to May 2024.
An analysis of 34 studies (peer-reviewed articles) based on the water consumption aspects
of aquaculture systems was performed in this review.
The exclusion criteria included studies that (1) were not relevant/did not include wa-
ter consumption or WF estimations; (2) were literature reviews, book chapters, thesis/dis-
sertations, or conference papers; (3) did not focus on aquaculture; (4) were outside of the
specified time frame; (5) dealt with aquaponics/integrated aquaculture–agriculture; (6)
dealt with the WF of food consumption (diet WF); (7) were not published in English; and
8) were not accessible. The database and cross-reference search identified 257 works after
the removal of duplicate records; 223 works were rejected after the cut-off criteria were
applied, and as a result, 34 papers are examined. The methodology for selecting the stud-
ies included in the present review is presented in Figure 1.
Notably, the current review is focused mainly on the quantitative aspects of aquacul-
ture practices, and it does not thoroughly examine aspects of water quality, such as water
degradation. Moreover, the present study reviews papers focused on the WF of aquacul-
ture food production and is not oriented towards studies on the WF of consumption due
to different diets that include aquaculture products [8,20–25]. This review examines all
aquaculture species, such as fish, shrimp, and mollusks, and the different applied meth-
odologies.
Water 2024, 16, 3376 4 of 23

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart for the selection methodology of the studies under review. Source: [26]

34 works were chosen using the methodology shown in Figure 1, and their main
characteristics such as the examined aquaculture species, the region of the study, the esti-
mated indexes, the applied methodologies and the supply chain stage are analyzed in
Table 1.
Water 2024, 16, 3376 5 of 23

Table 1. List of articles selected for review.

WP 5/
Supply Chain
ID Study Species Region Indexes CWP Methodology Aquaculture Type Water Type
6
Stage

Malcorps et al.
1 Shrimp Global WF 1 WFN 7 NR 11 Feed production NR
[27]
Mohanty et al. WF, CWU 2,
2 Pacific white shrimp India ✓13 HA 8 ponds Fish production brackish water
[28] CWUI 3
Feed and fish
Guzmán-Luna et extensive, semi-intensive and inten-
3 Tilapia Mexico WF WFN production, freshwater
al. [14] sive
Fish processing
pond, open waters, paddy field, and Feed and fish marine and
4 Song et al. [29] 24 farmed fish China WF WFN
industrial farming system production freshwater
Fish, shrimp, and bi- marine and freshwa-
5 Jiang et al. [30] Global WF ✓ WFN NR Feed production
valves ter
ponds; lakes, reservoirs and rivers;
marine and
6 Yuan et al. [31] 22 popularly farmed fish China WF WFN rice fields; Feed production
freshwater
industrialized systems
39 major fish and crusta- marine and
7 Pahlow et al. [32] Global WF ✓ WFN NR Feed production
cean freshwater
Feed and fish
Pérez-Rincón et
8 Tilapia, cachama, trout Colombia WF WFN ponds production, freshwater
al. [33]
Fish processing
Feed and fish
production,
9 Newton et al. [34] Atlantic salmon Scotland CWU LCA 9 marine net pens marine
fish primary pro-
cessing
Henriksson et al. Feed and fish
10 Tilapia Egypt FWC11 WFN and LCA ponds freshwater
[35] production
Henriksson et al. Feed and fish marine, brackish and
11 Eight species Indonesia FWC LCA ponds and cages
[36] production freshwater
Water 2024, 16, 3376 6 of 23

Feed and fish

12 Cooney et al. [37] Eurasian perch Ireland WU AWARE 4 LCA RAS and ponds freshwater
production
Feed and fish
13 Féon et al. [2] Trout France WU AWARE LCA ponds freshwater
production
Feed and fish
14 Petroski et al. [38] Nile tilapia Brazil WC12 LCA (ReCipe) cages freshwater
production
Feed and fish
15 Viglia et al. [39] Farmed catfish USA FD 10 LCA (ReCipe) ponds production, freshwater
Fish processing
Feed and fish
Konstantinidis et
16 Seabass and meagre Greece WC LCA (ReCiPe) marine cages production, marine
al. [40]
Fish processing
Haslawati et al.
17 Giant Freshwater Prawn Malaysia WC LCA (ReCiPe) ponds Fish production freshwater
[41]
Mohanty et al. WF, CWU,
18 Shrimp India ✓ HA ponds Fish production brackish water
[42] CWUI
Pattusamy et al.
19 Shrimp India CWUI ✓ HA ponds Fish production brackish water
[43]
Mohanty et al.
20 Carp polyculture India CWU, CWUI ✓ HA ponds Fish production freshwater
[44]
21 Das et al. [45] Carp polyculture India CWU ✓ HA large outdoor concrete tanks Fish production freshwater
Adhikari et al.
22 Freshwater fish India CWUI HA ponds Fish production freshwater
[46]
Mohanty et al.
23 Carp-prawn polyculture India CWU, CWUI ✓ HA ponds Fish production freshwater
[47]
Feed and fish
24 Tucker et al. [48] Ictalurid catfish USA CWUI HA ponds freshwater
production
25 Das et al. [49] Carp polyculture India CWU, CWUI ✓ HA ponds Fish production freshwater
Feed and fish
26 Sharma et al. [50] Carp polyculture India CWUI ✓ HA ponds freshwater
production
Mohanty et al.
27 Carp-prawn polyculture India CWU, CWUI ✓ HA ponds Fish production freshwater
[51]
Water 2024, 16, 3376 7 of 23

Mohanty et al. Black Tiger Shrimp Pe-

28 India CWU, CWUI ✓ HA ponds Fish production brackish water
[52] naeus monodon
29 Mohanty [53] Carp-prawn polyculture India CWU, CWUI ✓ HA ponds Fish production freshwater
Feed and fish marine, brackish and
30 Gephart et al. [54] Chinese aquaculture China WF WFN semi-closed and open water systems
production freshwater
HA (on-site
31 Lima et al. [55] Nile tilapia fingerling Brazil WC low-salinity biofloc system Fish production low-salinity water
measurement)
Greece
Konstantinidis et Feed and fish
32 Sea Bass and Alba- WC LCA (ReCiPe) marine cages marine
al. [56] production
nia
Marine aquaculture spe-
33 Troell et al. [8] Global WF WFN NR Feed production marine
cies
34 Boyd [19] Channel Catfish Alabama CWU, CWUI HA ponds Fish production freshwater
Notes: WF: water footprint; CWU: consumptive water use; CWUI: consumptive water use index; WU AWARE: water use using the AWARE methodology 5
1 2 3 4

WP: water productivity; 6 CWP: consumptive water productivity; 7 WFN: water footprint network; 8 HA: hydrologic analysis; 9 LCA: life cycle assessment; 10 FD:
freshwater depletion;.11 NR: not reported, 11 FWC: freshwater consumption, 12 WC: water consumption, 13✓: Included in the study.
Water 2024, 16, 3376 8 of 23

3. Results
3.1. Analysis of Findings
An LCA was used in 29.4% of the reviewed studies to analyze the environmental
performance of aquaculture, including its water consumption throughout different stages
of the supply chain, whereas 26.5% of the papers used the WFN approach to estimate the
WF associated with feed and/or fish production and processing. The remaining studies
(44.1%) used a hydrologic analysis approach that applies a water balance accounting for
inland aquaculture (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Distribution of the applied methodologies (%).

As shown in Figure 3, studies on the analysis of water consumption, which have fo-
cused mainly on water budgeting, LCA estimations and the WF in aquaculture, have fo-
cused primarily on the last ten years, even though the time frame that concerns the find-
ings of the current review is for the period of 2004–2024. Notably, the inquiry was per-
formed until May 2024.

10
9
9
8
Number of studies

7
6
5
5
4 4 4
4
3
2
2
1 1 1 1 1 1
1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024

Year

Figure 3. Number of papers published on years 2004 to 2024 of the reviewed studies.
Water 2024, 16, 3376 9 of 23

3.1.1. Studies Based on the Water Footprint Network Approach

The water footprint (WF) of a product, such as fish, refers to the volume of freshwater
used throughout the entire production process of that product, including all stages of the
supply chain [57]. According to Hoekstra et al. [57], the blue WF specifically refers to the
consumption of blue water resources, which includes surface water and groundwater,
throughout the supply chain of a product. This measurement accounts for the loss of water
from the available water body in a catchment area due to factors such as water evapora-
tion, discharge into different watersheds or the sea, or incorporation into a product within
the same period. The green WF is related to the consumption of green water resources
(rainwater, as it does not become runoff) [57]. Given ambient water quality standards and
natural background concentrations, the gray WF is the volume of freshwater needed to
assimilate the load of pollutants [57]. Agriculture uses green water extensively, as it is
needed to grow plant-based ingredients for aquafeed. Globally, green water accounted
for more than 85% of the total water consumption by agricultural crops from 1971 to 2000
[58]. The studies described below measured WF indicators via the WFN approach, and
most of the research utilized focused on the blue, green and gray WFs of the supply chain
stage of feed production in aquaculture.
The global WF related to aquaculture feed production was estimated for the first time
by Pahlow et al. [32] in 2015. This study obtained data for the feed ingredients from Me-
konnen and Hoekstra [59,60], Mekonnen and Hoekstra [7] and Van Oel and Hoekstra [61]
and examined the WF of terrestrial feed ingredients. These findings have been used in
various papers to estimate diet-related water consumption. Fish and crustaceans fed com-
mercial aquafeed were computed to have green, blue, and gray production weighted av-
erage feed WFs of 1629 m3 t−1, 179 m3 t−1, and 166 m3 t−1, respectively, whereas for the year
2008, the estimated total WF of commercial aquafeed worldwide was between 31 and 35
km3. The findings of the study [32] revealed that grass carp, Nile tilapia, common carp,
Atlantic salmon, and whiteleg shrimp accounted for the top five contributors to the overall
WF of commercial feed, totaling 18.2 km3. The investigation of alternative diets revealed
the possibility of additional strain on freshwater resources if fish oil and fish meal are
substituted for components of terrestrial feed, which may increase the WF of feed produc-
tion and therefore the WF of aquaculture production. Their findings demonstrate the need
to consider freshwater consumption and aquafeed-related pollution for the aquaculture
industry to expand sustainably. While this study [32] provides a thorough investigation
of the indirect WF (of commercial feed), it does not examine water consumption through-
out the entire aquaculture production supply chain.
In a study by Yuan et al. [31], 22 species of fish that are commonly raised in China
were analyzed for average growth and feed parameters to determine the feed-associated
WFs during the farming period. The WFs that were examined for every species of fish
were restricted to the feeds that the fish consumed during their growth period. They esti-
mated a production-weighted average WF of 3.11 L g−1 and average blue, green and gray
components of 0.74, 1.93 and 0.44 L g−1, respectively. The WF of marine fish was 1.49 L g−1
lower than that of freshwater fish, which was 3.16 L g−1, since wild fish used as feed for
marine aquaculture are considered to consume negligible amounts of water. Rice, soy-
beans, and wheat bran, which require a large amount of water, are the main crops used as
crop feeds in freshwater aquaculture. A comparison of the WF values with those of the
study conducted by Pahlow et al. [32] (which used the same database) revealed variations
from one fish species to another, and Yuan et al. computed higher WFs (with the exception
of the species flounder, grass carp, Asian swamp eel, red drum and grouper). These devi-
ations may have occurred because of differences in methodologies and in the feed ingre-
dients of farmed fish. Their findings show that because different fish species have large
feed input variances and diverse WFs, replacing terrestrial animal food products with
farmed fish in China might not lead to a decrease in the amount of consumed water.
In another study conducted in China, Song et al. [29] analyzed 198 common feed
components and measured the WF originating from evaporation loss, feed consumption,
Water 2024, 16, 3376 10 of 23

and pollutant discharges of 24 farmed fish species. Their estimations included the feed-
related WFs of the 22 fish species examined in the study by Yuan et al. [31]. The WFs of
fish farming, as well as economic and protein production, were measured in the baseline
year of 2014. In addition, with 2020 as the target year, 29 scenarios were created to repre-
sent the species composition of fish raised in aquaculture. They performed optimizations
for all predefined scenarios to minimize WF, prevent reductions in the economic and pro-
tein outputs of China’s fish farming system, and reduce the strain on wild fishery cap-
tures. In this study, gray water was calculated using nitrogen as a proxy. The production-
weighted average WF of farmed fish was 5.51 m3 kg−1, which is greater than that reported
by Yuan et al. [31] and Pahlow et al. [32], who focused on the feed production stage. Fresh-
water-farmed fish presented a production-weighted WF of 5.02 m3 kg−1, whereas the WF
of mariculture fish was 16.08 m3 kg−1 (with a significant amount of gray WF). According
to their study, blue water is consumed during fish farming because of evaporation, and,
for example, compared with the water equivalents of feed consumption, which were 4.00
m3 kg−1 and 3.90 m3 kg−1, the average evaporation losses of raising tilapia and sea bass were
higher (5.21 m3 kg−1 and 4.58 m3 kg−1, respectively).
The WF studies under review in the present study broadly consider that the amount
of water consumed in the process of producing animal byproducts such as bone or blood
meal might be minimal, since it is already calculated for the production of food for hu-
mans, and that the water consumption to produce fish meal and fish oil can also be re-
garded as negligibly small. Based on these hypotheses, Pahlow et al. [32] considered the
aforementioned feed ingredients to have a negligible WF and that the types and quantities
of plant-based components are the primary determinants of feed-associated water con-
sumption. According to Verdegem et al. [13], water use for fish oil and fish meal produc-
tion is minimal compared to the amount of water used for crop production, and the types
and quantities of plant ingredients used in the feed are the primary determinants of feed-
associated water use. Malcorps et al. [27] obtained data on the global average freshwater
demand for the processing of fish meal and fish oil from Chatvijitkul et al. [62].
Malcorps et al. [27] gradually replaced fishmeal with plant ingredients in shrimp feed
and evaluated the effects on terrestrial and marine resources such as land, fish, nitrogen,
freshwater, and phosphorus. Their findings showed that a complete substitution of 20–
30% of fishmeal totals might result in an increase in the demand for freshwater. Data were
obtained from Chatvijitkul et al. [62] and Mekonnen and Hoekstra [59]. In the alternative
plant scenario, gray water increased as a result of the increase in the amount of fertilizer-
demanding crops for the needed ingredients, whereas blue water decreased as a result of
the high inclusion rate of pea protein concentrate. Changes in the inclusion of specific
ingredients affected the total WF, with variations in the green, blue, and gray components.
The research findings for the total WF of Litopenaeus vannamei under different scenarios
(fishmeal 20%) were strikingly comparable to those for Penaeus monodon (fishmeal 24%)
(both close to 1600 m3 MT−1), which were similar to the findings of Pahlow et al. [32] (fish-
meal inclusion of approximately 25%).
The outcomes of the research conducted in Mexico by Guzmán-Luna et al. [14] re-
vealed that when comparing the WF evaluations of tilapia filet protein, two and four times
more freshwater is needed compared to the WFs of beef and pork protein, respectively.
Because of the continuous effluent loads from the ponds, tilapia filets use more freshwater
than beef, pork, and poultry do and furthermore contaminate more water than other ter-
restrial animals do. They estimated the energy, land and blue, green and gray WFs of
semi-intensive, extensive, and intensive tilapia aquaculture. The results of the study [14]
revealed that the blue WF of the intensive system was 14 times greater than the blue WF
of the extensive system and 4.5 times greater than the blue WF of the semi-intensive sys-
tem, mainly because of the intensive system’s reliance on high refreshment rates (refresh-
ment rates of 250% of the pond water per day) and higher stocking density. They argued
that water exchange rates must be reduced to reduce blue WFs. While green WFs are neg-
ligible in extensive systems (with no need for aquafeed), they are relatively large for tilapia
Water 2024, 16, 3376 11 of 23

produced in semi-intensive and intensive systems. The gray WFs of tilapia were also high
(greater than those associated with meat production). The use of aquafeed and water re-
freshments determines the total WFs during the fattening phase of semi-intensive and in-
tensive systems, and according to their findings, that stage adds the greatest amount to
the WF. Guzmán-Luna et al. [14] estimated WFs for extensive, semi-intensive and inten-
sive systems of tilapia as blue WFs of 927 m3 t−1, green WFs of 5 m3 t−1, gray WFs of 398 m3
t−1, blue WFs of 2909 m3 t−1, green WFs of 7827 m3 t−1, gray WFs of 1873 m3 t−1, and blue
WFs of 13,027 m3 t−1, green WFs of 7831 m3 t−1, and gray WFs of 1873 m3 t−1, respectively,
whereas Pérez-Rincón et al. [33] estimated a WF of 5486 m3 t−1 for the aquaculture of tilapia
in Colombia.
Pérez-Rincón et al. [33] computed the direct and indirect WFs among the three spe-
cies that are produced most frequently in Colombia: tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus),
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and cachama (Piaractus brachypomus). The WFs of tilapia,
cachama and trout cultures were 5486 m3 t−1, 6193 m3 t−1, and 19,854 m3 t−1, respectively.
The concentrated feed had the highest overall WF for tilapia, followed by the blue WF,
which is related to the volume of water that remains stored in the ponds. For trout and
cachama, on the other hand, the gray WF was the highest because fish excretions and left-
over feed contain high concentrations of solids and nutrients. The direct WF is the primary
component of the total WF in all three species, accounting for 63% of the total WF in
cachama, 50% of the total WF in tilapia, and 85% of that in trout, according to an integrated
analysis of the data. The gray WF was the primary component of the direct WF in the trout
and cachama cultures, whereas the blue WF was the main constituent in the tilapia cul-
ture. The gray WFs in all the cases were linked to nutrients in the water, which were pre-
sent as leftover food and fish waste. Despite the low effluent concentrations, the produc-
tion of trout had the highest total and direct WFs. During the trout fattening stage, if the
ponds’ input flow was equal to the theoretical amount (18 L s−1), the total WF would drop
to 5841 m3 t−1, demonstrating the importance of flow rate optimization for this crop.
Jiang et al. [30] formulated a food–energy–water–carbon (FEWC) index ranging from
0 to 100 to assess the sustainability of aquaculture globally. These results indicate that the
sustainability of aquaculture is generally low. They estimated that the water consumption
due to aquaculture production was approximately 122.6 km3 in 2018. Because aquafeed
was the only variable considered, the WFs may have been underestimated. The FEWC
index results showed that developing nations typically have relatively high water/energy
intensities (water/energy consumption per unit of aquaculture production), probably be-
cause these countries tend to have low feed conversion ratios, inefficient farming technol-
ogies, and resource-intensive species. Norway is a developed country with a subsustain-
ability score for food and water that is more than ten and two times greater than that of
Egypt, respectively, even though the volume of aquaculture production in both countries
is comparable. This disparity may be explained primarily by factors such as feed technol-
ogy, management and farm species, and different culture environments (freshwater vs.
marine), as aquafeed input is typically less necessary in nature-based mariculture.
Gephart et al. [25] computed the WF of marine fish protein consumption and assessed
the potential freshwater savings from substituting with terrestrial protein without consid-
ering the WF generated from the feed resources for marine aquaculture, which include
agricultural compounds. Troell et al. [8] complemented their approach and investigated
the WF of the crops used to feed marine aquaculture, and their estimations resulted in a
total WF of 8 km3 yr−1.

3.1.2. Life Cycle Assessment Studies

The life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology is widely employed to assess the envi-
ronmental effects of a product, process, or service over its full life cycle—from cradle to
grave. LCA investigates water consumption in aquaculture by evaluating the entire life
cycle of aquaculture systems, from feed production to fish harvesting and processing.
LCA provides a comprehensive understanding of the water consumed in aquaculture
Water 2024, 16, 3376 12 of 23

practices and helps in the evaluation of the potential environmental impacts, helping
stakeholders make informed decisions to enhance sustainability.
Newton et al. [34] utilized a midpoint CML2001 with a focus on acidification poten-
tial (AP), global warming potential (GWP), eutrophication potential, ozone depletion po-
tential, consumptive water use, photochemical oxidation potential, and land use in farmed
Scottish salmon aquaculture. In addition to eutrophication potential because of direct ni-
trogenous emissions into the marine ecosystem, more than 90% of the impact on the farm
gate was attributable to feed. The total amount of water required was estimated based on
crop rainfall requirements and assumed to be provided either by irrigation or precipita-
tion. The consumptive water use in m3 t−1 was obtained by extrapolating rainfall to the
given yields per hectare. Mekonnen’s and Hoekstra’s [60] data on crop water require-
ments were used to validate the estimates in the study. The overall effects of feed produc-
tion are anticipated to increase with the increasing substitution of marine ingredients with
refined vegetable ingredients, as vegetable ingredients account for more than 99.7% of
each category in the cases of both consumptive water use and land use.
Henriksson et al. [35] investigated best management practices in the aquaculture of
Nile tilapia and explored five LCA impact categories—eutrophication, global warming,
acidification, freshwater consumption (FWC) and land use—using CMLCA v5.2 for
model construction. The FWC in industrial processes was derived from Ecoinvent v2.2,
whereas the FWC in agriculture was defined by the blue WF according to Mekonnen and
Hoekstra [60]. Water scarcity indices and water degradation were not considered when
accounting for FWC; instead, it was defined as the amount of FW consumed via evapora-
tion. The study area presented high pond evaporation rates (average of 556 l m−2 month−1).
According to their findings, FWC was primarily caused by pond evaporation due to
Egypt’s warm and arid climate combined with long grow-out times, followed by the con-
sumption of irrigation water in agriculture (accounting for 7–12% of the overall FWC).
Henriksson et al. [36] quantified the environmental impacts and socioeconomic indi-
cators for six different projections of Indonesian aquaculture growth through 2030 by in-
vestigating ten production systems and eight species. The amount of fresh water lost to
evaporation in ponds was computed using climate data across Indonesia, and the evapo-
ration rate was assumed to average 317 ± 76 l m−2 month−1. Regarding freshwater con-
sumption, only consumptive use was considered, which was limited to the use of fresh-
water that was rendered unusable for other purposes due to pond evaporation (not cages)
or dilution with seawater. With respect to freshwater consumption and land use, groupers
performed better than did any other species, as they were primarily fed wild-caught fish
being raised in marine cages; however, in the other impact categories, they performed the
worst. The impact category with the highest overall dispersion between outcomes was
freshwater consumption, which also showed the greatest variation across production sys-
tems. Irrigation and pond evaporation dominated freshwater consumption in freshwater
systems. Brackish water ponds (milkfish and shrimp) were found to be the primary con-
sumers of fresh water (the dilution of marine water into brackish water is a water-con-
suming procedure). Caged tilapia and pangasius farms used marginally less water than
pond farms did because feed production accounted for more than 80% of freshwater con-
sumption in these systems.
Two of the reviewed studies used the AWARE approach [2,37]. In Boulay et al. [63],
according to the new WF framework outlined in the ISO 14046 standard [64], a life cycle
assessment (LCA) was used to evaluate freshwater-related impacts. The suggested ap-
proach, known as AWARE, is predicated on measuring the relative amount of water that
is still available in each area after human and aquatic ecosystem demands have been sat-
isfied. Water consumption is the portion of water withdrawn that is no longer available
for the users of the originating river basin as a result of product integration,
evapo(transpi)ration, or discharge into other basins or the sea. Cooney et al. [37] per-
formed an LCA of RAS for perch production and examined the impact categories of acid-
ification potential (AP), global warming potential (GWP), freshwater and marine
Water 2024, 16, 3376 13 of 23

ecotoxicity potential (FAETP and MAETP), eutrophication potential (EP), net primary
production use (NPPU), cumulative energy demand (CED), and water use. Feed produc-
tion accounted for 43% of the water use (AWARE) category, with fish production coming
in second at 22% and electricity production at 20%. The average volume of water needed
to produce one kilogram of fish was 1.49 m3. Féon et al. [2] investigated pan-sized trout
production using insect-based meal rather than fish-based meal and compared a baseline
scenario with three other scenarios: one with a baseline consisting of zero mealworm meal
and two with 15% and 30% of fish meal replaced with mealworm meal. The large amount
of water that was consumed directly from the river, which was required in some processes,
such as egg production (which did not vary across scenarios), had a significant effect (on
AWARE). The proportion of mealworm meal in the feed decreased the impact on AWARE,
in contrast to other impact factors investigated. The study’s findings suggest that includ-
ing mealworm meal in fish feed may not produce many environmental benefits. Nonethe-
less, mealworms were supplied with food from agricultural coproducts (such as beet pulp
and wheat bran) and specially prepared feed that included dietary supplements and ag-
ricultural coproducts with effects on the environment.
Haslawati et al. [41] performed a cradle-to-farm LCA to assess the potential environ-
mental impacts (terrestrial ecotoxicity, global warming, terrestrial acidification, freshwa-
ter eutrophication, human carcinogenic activity, water consumption and human noncar-
cinogenic toxicity) of the giant freshwater prawn GFP in Malaysia. Pond preparation,
farming, stocking, and harvesting were the four main methods of iterative farming. The
software SimaPro 9.3.0.3 was used for the impact analysis, with background data from the
databases Ecoinvent 3.0 and the ReCiPe 2016 midpoint method. In the ReCipe 2016
method [65], every impact related to water is derived from water consumption, which
refers to the utilization of water in a manner in which the resource is incorporated into
products, evaporated, or transferred to other watersheds or to the sea. No discernible im-
pact on water consumption was observed in this study.
The environmental hotspots in seabass and meagre farming associated with fish
feeds of different granulations were studied by Konstantinidis et al. [40]. The amounts of
raw materials, heat, and energy required during the production of fish feeds were consid-
ered. The amounts of energy, fuel and feed required for each size class, which are required
to produce one ton of meagre or seabass, were determined using an LCA of Greek cage
farms. They used the ReCiPe 2016 method [65] with 18 impact categories. They considered
three feed size classes with various compositions, or “formulas”, comprising varying pro-
portions of wheat, fishmeal, fish oil, vitamins, soy, etc. In particular, in seabass and mea-
gre, fry production affected the impact category “water consumption” by 85.4% and
66.2%, respectively. Due to the extensive water requirements of hatcheries, fry production
is the main factor affecting water consumption. When meagres and seabass were com-
pared, meagres showed a noticeably smaller impact on all eighteen environmental impact
indicators.
The assessment of environmental and energy performance throughout the life cycle
of Nile tilapia production for harvesting at varying weights was investigated by Petroski
et al. [38]. The impact categories included global warming, area occupation, energy de-
mand, water consumption, acidification and eutrophication. The water volume required
for the production of inputs (such as irrigated agriculture/manufacturing processes) and
fingerlings, as well as the evaporated water from the lake’s cage, was considered when
calculating water consumption. Although the smaller fish required more fingerlings than
the larger ones did to produce 1 t of Nile tilapia, the smaller fish had a better feed conver-
sion rate. The fish rearing and fattening processes were primarily responsible for acidifi-
cation and eutrophication, whereas feed production dominated the impacts of area occu-
pation, energy demand, water consumption and global warming.
Viglia et al. [39] investigated the water and energy demands in American catfish aq-
uaculture systems from the cradle to the processing/packaging gates and conducted in-
depth interviews with stakeholders. For the estimation of indirect energy and water
Water 2024, 16, 3376 14 of 23

consumption, SimaPro software (v 9.0.0.30), the Ecoinvent database, and the ReCiPe mid-
point (H) method were used. The freshwater depletion potential impact category was cal-
culated (freshwater depletion according to Simapro [66] is the amount of fresh water con-
sumed). The water embodied in the agricultural production of feed ingredients accounted
for the vast amount of water used in feed production (98%). Ninety percent of the total
embodied water (1038.2 L kg- 1) concerned direct water use (evaporation, water replenish-
ment, and pond refilling after drawdown) in the hatchery stage (933.3 L kg−1). Τhe largest
percentage (59%) concerned direct water inputs for filling ponds after harvesting and
evaporation, whereas the water demand for feed production was 40%.

3.1.3. Hydrologic Analysis/Water Budgeting Studies

A standard hydrologic analysis can be used to illustrate the primary direct water
losses from ponds, such as seepage, evaporation, and water exchange. In some studies
included in this review, the hydrological water balance equation, inflow = outflow ±
change in volume (ΔV), was utilized to obtain accurate estimates of the amount of water
used in ponds. In most of the papers, the total water use (probable inflows to ponds) was
estimated as the sum of the initial water filling, the additions or regulated inflows during
management, the precipitation, the groundwater seepage (Si), and the runoff, whereas the
consumptive water use (possible outflows) was computed as the sum of the intentional
discharge or regulated discharge, the evaporation, the overflow, the transpiration, the
seepage, and the water content in the harvested biomass. The estimated consumptive wa-
ter use index (CWUI), which indicates the volume of water used per unit of production,
is displayed as follows: CWUI = CWU (m3)/production (kg).
Two studies conducted in India investigated the shrimp species Litopenaeus vannamei
[28,42]. Mohanty et al. [28,42] investigated the effects of stocking density and the water-
saving approach on sediment quality and water, production performance and growth of
a shrimp species (Litopenaeus vannamei) and examined how water conservation strategies
and stocking density affect the growth, productivity, and quality of water and sediment.
Mohanty et al. [28,42] examined the effects of rearing Litopenaeus vannamei at three densi-
ties using three replicate treatments. They investigated various aspects of water budgeting
to reduce water waste and production costs and improve water productivity and WF, and
performed a hydrological water balance study to quantify the total water requirement
(TWR), CWU and CWUI. The consumptive water use efficiency (WUEc) was computed
by dividing the shrimp production in kg ha−1 by the CWU. The WF was measured in cubic
meters (m3) of consumptive water per ton of shrimp produced. All four aspects of water
loss—water contained in harvested biomass, evapotranspiration and/or evaporation, con-
taminated water, and water that is not returned to the original location—were considered.
Seepage and percolation losses, on the other hand, were excluded from the estimations of
the WF because they are not considered losses to the catchment and can be recycled within
the same area. In L. vannamei culture, an optimum stocking density of 50 post-larvae/m2 is
perceived as a way to improve productivity, CWUI, WUEc and total WF. The investiga-
tions conducted at various stocking densities suggest that the TWU increases with increas-
ing water exchange. Low to moderate water exchange farming systems reduce the amount
of sediment and effluent outputs, enhance water use efficiency, and maintain water qual-
ity appropriate for shrimp growth. They concluded that a crucial step in enhancing aqua-
culture performance is to conduct a hydrological water balance study to ascertain density-
dependent water use in ponds.
Pattusamy et al. [43] and Mohanty et al. [52] examined shrimp species Penaeus van-
namei and Penaeus monodon in India, respectively. They estimated the CWU and CWUI,
but they did not include WF computations. Pattusamy et al. [43] conducted a 90-day study
to determine how much water is needed for the culture of Penaeus vannamei in inland sa-
line groundwater, and three distinct stocking densities were used in the earthen grow-out
ponds. A stocking density of 45 per m2 and a water budget of 6.53 m3 kg−1 of shrimp pro-
duction could be optimal, considering the total amount of water used and the amount of
Water 2024, 16, 3376 15 of 23

shrimp produced from the earthen grow-out ponds using inland saline groundwater. In
the study by Mohanty et al. [52], lower rates of water exchange demonstrated noticeably
better crop performance, productivity, and water quality compared to zero water ex-
change. Additionally, the results under three different feed management protocols
showed that the total water use (TWU) and CWUI increased with feed input, while it was
also noted that the yield and the growth performance increased with the length of the
refeeding period.
Carp polycultures in India were investigated by Mohanty et al. [44], Das et al. [49],
Sharma et al. [50] and Das et al. [45]. The consumptive water use per kg of fish in the
treatments used by Das et al. [49] ranged from 1.66 to 1.96 m3 kg−1. A substantial portion
of consumptive water use (CWU) was contributed by seepage and evaporation losses.
Sharma et al. [50] estimated the total water requirements in a semi-intensive polyculture
system to be 10.3 m3 kg−1 fish (or 6.5 m3 kg−1 fish if the seepage losses were considered
green water), of which 7.6 m3 kg−1 was the system-associated demand. Mohanty et al. [44]
reported that TWU increased with increasing water exchange at various stocking densi-
ties. Furthermore, the CWUI ranged from 5.61 to 6.38 m3 kg−1 fish. According to all these
studies, the amount of water needed for carp production varies based on the culture con-
ditions. According to Mohanty et al. [44], moderate/reasonable rates of water exchange
significantly improved crop performance overall and water use efficiency (WUE) com-
pared with high water exchange at relatively high densities and no water exchange at
relatively low densities.
Large outdoor concrete tanks (50 m2) were used to test the effects of different water
exchange practices (0%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% in total in four phases over three
months) on fingerling production in Indian major carp in the study by Das et al. [45].
When calculating TWU, consideration was given to the initial water amount in the tanks
as well as the following water replenishment for evaporation loss (in control) and ex-
change (in treatments) supplied during the rearing stage, whereas the computation of
CWU took into account the water volume lost from the tank (exchange and evaporation)
in the raising stage. Water loss from seepage in tank systems was minimal and was not
considered in the study. However, the consumptive water uses included the water ex-
changed on a regular basis and the volume of water added to replenish evaporation loss.
Due to its higher water productivity as measured in terms of number and biomass pro-
duction of fingerlings per unit (m−3) of TWU and CWU, the study suggests 80% as the
optimal water exchange rate in concrete tank rearing systems for the production of finger-
lings of Indian major carps.
The amount of water consumed for carp culture was estimated by Adhikari et al. [46]
at the Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture in Orissa, India, where field research
was conducted in six ponds. According to the study, evaporation and seepage are im-
portant factors influencing water loss in ponds. The amount of water that evaporated from
the ponds was determined by weather conditions such as humidity, dry weather, and the
depth and size of the ponds. The soil type and the method of estimation were the primary
causes of the variation in seepage. Location-specific differences existed in terms of seepage
loss and evaporation in their study.
Three studies focused on carp–prawn polycultures in India (Mohanty et al. [47], Mo-
hanty [53], and Mohanty et al. [51]). Mohanty et al. [47] examined the effects of feed re-
striction on water productivity, sediment loading, and compensatory growth (CG). The
impact of feed restriction on sediment loading, water productivity, and the compensatory
growth (CG) performance of Indian major carps was investigated by Mohanty [53], while
the computed CWUI ranged from 5.43 to 6.58 m3 kg−1. They concluded that the rate of
sedimentation increased with increasing apparent feed conversion ratios, while the water
exchange requirement, CWUI, and TWU increased with increasing feed input. In the
study by Mohanty et al. [47], for various water management practices, the computed
CWUIs (m3 kg−1 biomass) were 6.62 (no water exchange), 9.31 (10% water exchange on a
Water 2024, 16, 3376 16 of 23

monthly basis) and 7.08 (10% water exchange depending on the water quality variables).
Evaporation loss contributed significantly to CWU, followed by seepage loss.
Tucker et al. [48] explored catfish aquaculture in the USA. In order to replicate
groundwater withdrawal for the foodfish grow-out stage of ictalurid catfish production
in northwest Mississippi, they employed a hydrological model., using a 50-year daily rec-
ord of evaporation and precipitation. The total consumptive water use index was cal-
culated as ~2.7 m3 kg−1, when ground water computations used for producing fingerlings
and water used to produce grain-based feedstuffs were combined with simulated ground
water use for the most effective set of water conservation techniques in food fish grow-out
ponds. They argued that when ponds are not emptied on a yearly basis, the volume of
wastewater decreases significantly. Moreover, extending the time between pond empty-
ing gives the biological and chemical processes in the pond more time to eliminate water-
borne wastes. According to this study, reducing CWU (through appropriate siting, reus-
ing water, and capturing rainfall) or increasing fish production per hectare are two ways
to improve the water use index.

3.1.4. Water Productivity

The net benefits from forestry, crop, livestock, fishery, and mixed agricultural sys-
tems divided by the amount of water required for the production of those benefits refer
to water productivity (WP) [67]. Economic water productivity refers to the value obtained
per unit of water used, whereas physical water productivity refers to the ratio of agricul-
tural output to the amount of water required.
In studies conducted on the hydrological analysis/water budgeting method to assess
the water management efficiency, the net total water productivity (NTWP), gross total
water productivity (GTWP), and net consumptive water productivity (NCWP) were cal-
culated (USD m−3) [42,44,47,51,53]. They investigated the WP variations under different
feed management systems and different water management protocols.
According to Mohanty et al. [53] reducing feed input and utilizing the compensatory
growth response are effective strategies for raising WP and profitability in aquaculture
operations. Due to the limited feed input, refeeding and cyclic food deprivation supported
the preservation of water quality, which reduces input costs and total water use, while
increases production efficiency.
Das et al. [49] evaluated four cropping patterns of carps in India: intercropping of
minor carps and Indian major carps; ; single stock–multiple harvests; and multiple stocks–
multiple harvests. They concluded that in terms of water productivity, after the intercrop
of minor carps and the Indian major carp method, the multiple stock–multiple harvests
method was the most water-productive cropping pattern.
Pahlow et al. [32] in their study computed the economic consumptive (blue + green)
water productivity [USD per m3], which is determined by the ratio of the unit value [USD
t−1] to the total green and blue WF [m3 t−1]. According to their study, compared to most
marine fishes, crustaceans, and diadromous fishes, freshwater fishes have lower economic
blue and green water productivity (exceptions are milkfish, mullet, and red drum because
of their relatively low monetary value and their comparatively high WF values). They
concluded that enhancing productivity (increased yield per consumed and/or contami-
nated unit of water) and maximizing feed composition offer opportunities to decrease the
WF in aquaculture. This allows for both limiting pressure on freshwater resources and
encouraging the growth and well-being of the species raised in aquaculture systems.

4. Discussion
Figure 4 presents the percentages of the reviewed studies based on the type of aqua-
culture water (freshwater/brackish/marine), the stage of the supply chain (feed produc-
tion/fish production/fish processing), the water system (closed/semi-closed/open), and the
culture technique (monoculture/polyculture). The studies that address the fish processing
stage represent approximately 15%, a fact that highlights the need for further research on
Water 2024, 16, 3376 17 of 23

this relevant stage of the production chain. Freshwater aquaculture dominated the studies
under review (70.6%), similar to the monoculture method (79.4%).

90
85 79
80 71 72
70
59
60
50
40
Per cent (%)

29 28 28
30 24 21
20 15
10
0 brackish

marine

fish production

closed

semi-closed

monoculture
open

polyculture
fish processing
freshwater

feed production

aquaculture water aquaculture supply aquaculture water culture

type chain stage system method

Figure 4. Distribution of the studies under review, expressed as a percentage, based on the type of
aquaculture water, the stage of the supply chain, the water system, and the culture method.

The distributions of the aquatic animals under investigation are shown in Figure 5.
The most common crops studied are carp (40.6%), tilapia (34.4%), shrimp (28.1%) and cat-
fish (25%).

Figure 5. Distribution of the aquatic animal organisms examined in the studies under review.

The CWUI values for the shrimp and carp species in the reviewed studies are shown
in Figure 6. The variance in the values is due mainly to the various management strategies
and the spatiotemporal factors that affect the water balance of the examined aquaculture
systems.
Water 2024, 16, 3376 18 of 23

Figure 6. Comparison of the CWUI values of shrimp and carp species under different management
practices in the reviewed studies. *,**,*** Mohanty et al. [42]: three stocking densities, i.e., 400,000
per ha (T1), 500,000 per ha (T2) and 600,000 per ha (T3); Pattusamy et al. [43]: three stocking densi-
ties, that is, 30 m−2 (T1), 45 m−2 (T2) and 60 m−2 (T3); Mohanty et al. [28]: rearing densities [T1: 0.4
million post-larvae (PL) ha−1, T2: 0.5 million PL ha−1,T3: 0.6 million PLha−1]; Mohanty et al. [44]: var-
ying intensity levels [T1: 6000 fingerlings ha−1, T2: 8000 fingerlings ha−1, T3:10,000 fingerlings ha−1];
Mohanty et al. [52]: two different water management protocols in T1 (no water exchange) and T2
(water exchange on requirement’ basis depending on water quality), and T1 (Regular feeding, 4
times a day), T2 (2-week feeding followed by 1 week no feed), T3 (4-week feeding followed by 1
week no feed); Mohanty [53]: T1 (regular feeding, 2 times a day), T2 (4-week feeding followed by 2-
week no feed), (8-week feeding followed by 2-week no feed); Mohanty et al. [47]: T1 (no water ex-
change), T2 (periodic water exchange),T3 (regulated water exchange); Das et al. [49]: four cropping
patterns, i.e., single stock–single harvest (SSSH), T1: intercrop of minor carps and Indian major
carps, T2: single stock–multiple harvests (SSMH), T3: multiple stock–multiple harvests.
Water 2024, 16, 3376 19 of 23

Studies utilizing hydrologic analysis methodologies have investigated different man-

agement practices, such as various stocking densities, intensity levels, water exchange and
cropping patterns, and their effects on the CWUI values of the examined species.
The majority of brackish water ponds are located in river deltas, where fresh water
has historically been lost to the ocean, raising doubts about the alternative destiny of the
water [36,54]. Henriksson et al. [36] argued that future studies should determine the scales
at which redirecting river flows into brackish water ponds begins to negatively affect local
ecosystems and, furthermore, should investigate area-based management and zoning as
possible measures to minimize adverse consequences. Pattusamy et al. [43] argued that
saline groundwater utilization has enormous potential in the aquaculture sector due to it
considering the factors of stocking density, fish species, the quantity of water required and
water productivity. The management of brackish water pond farming needs further in-
vestigation.
Regarding the WF evaluations, despite the use of the same database, differences were
observed between fish species when the WF values from the studies by Yuan et al. [31]
and Pahlow et al. [32] were compared. The WF evaluations seem to be affected by the
approach taken and the management practices, as, according to the authors, the variations
may have occurred due to differences in methodologies and in the feed ingredients of
farmed fish. According to Pahlow et al. [32], increasing productivity—a relatively high
yield per unit of water used or contaminated—and improving feed composition represent
opportunities to decrease the WF of aquaculture. Potential substitutes for soybean, which
is currently the most popular ingredient in terrestrial aquafeed, will be crucial in this re-
gard [32,68].

5. Conclusions
According to the studies included in this review, WFN studies are applied mostly at
the country/global scale, and most of the papers examine multiple species. On the other
hand, LCA research, which is focused on impacts, is used mainly at the farm level or re-
gional scale. Water budgeting/hydrologic analysis is mostly applied to aquaculture ponds.
The species of carp (40.6%), tilapia (34.4%), shrimp (28.1%), and catfish (25%) are the most
frequently studied crops.
Water consumption varies in space and time (for example, evaporation is dependent
mainly on climate conditions). Therefore, an examination at the farm/regional scale is val-
uable, especially in aquaculture systems such as ponds. The global perspective of the vol-
umetric approach of WFN is also valuable because it provides the possibility to examine
the hidden water embodied in the products and to track the water trade among countries.
Furthermore, WFs can be used in demand-side research to estimate diet-related water
consumption. The different methodologies applied make comparisons of water consump-
tion challenging. In LCA, green water consumption of agricultural systems is usually side-
lined, because it is taken into account as a consequence of the land use change. However,
in aquaculture, the inclusion of green water consumption is meaningful, especially when
agricultural ingredients are used in aquafeed formulations.
In pond management, water accounting and quality monitoring are crucial for im-
proving aquaculture performance and productivity. Improvements in management prac-
tices, such as reducing unnecessary water exchange, water reuse or proper management
of the stocking density of species, to increase aquaculture sustainability, and water
productivity should be further investigated. The demand is increasing, and research on
water productivity can provide insights into the proper water management of aquaculture
requirements in the context of producing more crops per unit volume of water.
Many of the studies focused only on the indirect water consumed in feed production
or examined only direct water consumption. Additionally, differences in the processes
that are part of the system boundary have been noted in LCA studies. Only 15% of the
studies included in this review addressed the fish processing stage, indicating the neces-
sity for additional research on this pertinent stage of the production chain. Future research
Water 2024, 16, 3376 20 of 23

should focus on water consumption across the whole supply chain from cradle to grave
to obtain more comprehensive and comparable results.
Freshwater aquaculture and the monoculture method dominated the reviewed stud-
ies (70.6% and 79.4%, respectively), and further research is needed in the water consump-
tion patterns of brackish and marine aquaculture and the polyculture method, as well.
According to Pahlow et al. [32], the source of the feed’s components used in commer-
cial aquafeed is not recorded in official statistics, despite the fact that aquaculture produc-
ing countries rely on imports to varying degrees [32,68]. More comprehensive databases
are needed to reduce the uncertainties of studies in that field.
Different inputs such as feed, energy, fertilizers, water refreshments and so on are
needed for semi-intensive, extensive and intensive systems, which results in different en-
vironmental impacts. RASs reuse and purify culture water to a large extent, thereby using
a lot less water than traditional systems. They are used to produce a wide variety of fresh-
water and saline species. RASs do not experience water seepage, whereas there is consid-
erable water loss in semi-closed agricultural systems such as aquaculture ponds, as a re-
sult of evaporation, seepage, and water exchange [54]. RASs have great potential to in-
crease water productivity, and according to the studies included in this review, water con-
sumption in RASs has not received sufficient research attention. Therefore, this topic
should be further examined in the future.
The expansion of aquaculture and the resulting increase in demand for plant ingre-
dients in aquafeed may impact the availability of agricultural resources such as freshwa-
ter. Therefore, the quantitative impact should be explored in relation to the optimal con-
stitution of aquafeed products (in terms of sustainability and fish health) and to alterna-
tive solutions for water-intensive ingredients. Trade-offs exist between various feed ingre-
dients, particularly in regard to replacing marine ingredients with vegetable-based ingre-
dients. Although marine ingredients do not consume water, their availability is extremely
restricted. Resource demand calculations are crucial for understanding the environmental
impact of aquafeed production. According to Yuan et al. [31], the main elements that could
eventually lead to a decrease in the WF are the feeding rates, feed components, fry and
harvest fish weights.
A review on the papers focused mainly on the investigation of the water consump-
tion patterns on aquaponics and integrated aquaculture–agriculture would be recom-
mended as future research.
Research on water consumption and the WF of the aquaculture sector has garnered
attention only in recent years. The various methodologies, fish species, technologies, man-
agement practices, water types, aquaculture systems and spatiotemporal scales make in-
vestigating water consumption in the aquaculture sector a challenging task, and further
research is essential for promoting sustainable practices in the future.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.S.; methodology, S.S; writing—original draft prepara-

tion, S.S.; validation, S.S. and E.M.; writing—review and editing, S.S. and E.M. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The AWARE: Aquaponics from Wastewater Reclamation project has received
funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Actions, under grant
agreement N° 101084245. This output reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Union
cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Water 2024, 16, 3376 21 of 23

References
1. Wu, G.; Fanzo, J.; Miller, D.D.; Pingali, P.; Post, M.; Steiner, J.L.; Thalacker-Mercer, A.E. Production and Supply of High-quality
Food Protein for Human Consumption: Sustainability, Challenges, and Innovations. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 2014, 1321, 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12500.
2. Le Féon, S.; Thévenot, A.; Maillard, F.; Macombe, C.; Forteau, L.; Aubin, J. Life Cycle Assessment of Fish Fed with Insect Meal:
Case Study of Mealworm Inclusion in Trout Feed, in France. Aquaculture 2019, 500, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquacul-
ture.2018.06.051.
3. Costello, C.; Cao, L.; Gelcich, S.; Cisneros-Mata, M.Á.; Free, C.M.; Froehlich, H.E.; Golden, C.D.; Ishimura, G.; Maier, J.; Mac-
adam-Somer, I.; et al. The Future of Food from the Sea. Nature 2020, 588, 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2616-y.
4. Troell, M.; Costa-Pierce, B.; Stead, S.; Cottrell, R.S.; Brugere, C.; Farmery, A.K.; Little, D.C.; Strand, Å.; Pullin, R.; Soto, D.; Beve-
ridge, M.; et al. Perspectives on aquaculture’s contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals for improved human and
planetary health. J. World Aquac. Soc. 2023, 54, 251–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12946.
5. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en.
6. FAO. World Aquaculture Performance Indicators (WAPI)—Fish Consumption Module (WAPI-FISHCSP v.2018.1) FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Department: Rome, Italy, 2018. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i9540en/I9540EN.pdf (accessed on 5 June
2024).
7. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products. Ecosystems 2012, 15,
401–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-011-9517-8.
8. Troell, M.; Metian, M.; Beveridge, M.; Verdegem, M.; Deutsch, L. Comment on Water Footprint of Marine Protein Consump-
tion—Aquaculture’s Link to Agriculture’. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 109001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/109001.
9. Klinger, D.; Naylor, R. Searching for Solutions in Aquaculture: Charting a Sustainable Course. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012,
37, 247–276. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-021111-161531.
10. Boyd, C.E.; Tucker, C.; Mcnevin, A.; Bostick, K.; Clay, J. Indicators of resource use efficiency and environmental performance in
fish and crustacean aquaculture. Rev. Fish. Sci. 2007, 15, 327–360.
11. Bayart, J.-B.; Bulle, C.; Deschênes, L.; Margni, M.; Pfister, S.; Vince, F.; Koehler, A. A Framework for Assessing Off-Stream Fresh-
water Use in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15, 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0172-7.
12. Shiklomanov, I.A. World Water Resources: A New Appraisal and Assessment for the 21st Century; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1998.
13. Verdegem, M.C.J.; Bosma, R.H. Water Withdrawal for Brackish and Inland Aquaculture, and Options to Produce More Fish in
Ponds with Present Water Use. Water Policy 2009, 11, 52–68. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2009.003.
14. Guzmán-Luna, P.; Gerbens-Leenes, P.W.; Vaca-Jiménez, S.D. The Water, Energy, and Land Footprint of Tilapia Aquaculture in
Mexico, a Comparison of the Footprints of Fish and Meat. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 165, 105224.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105224.
15. Vasquez-Mejia, C.M.; Shrivastava, S.; Gudjónsdóttir, M.; Manzardo, A.; Ögmundarson, Ó. Current Status and Future Research
Needs on the Quantitative Water Use of Finfish Aquaculture Using Life Cycle Assessment: A Systematic Literature Review. J.
Clean. Prod. 2023, 425, 139009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139009.
16. Bohnes, F.A.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Schlundt, J.; Laurent, A. Life Cycle Assessments of Aquaculture Systems: A Critical Review of
Reported Findings with Recommendations for Policy and System Development. Rev. Aquac. 2019, 11, 1061–1079.
https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12280.
17. Philis, G.; Ziegler, F.; Gansel, L.C.; Jansen, M.D.; Gracey, E.O.; Stene, A. Comparing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Salmonid
Aquaculture Production Systems: Status and Perspectives. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2517. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092517.
18. Ghamkhar, R.; Boxman, S.E.; Main, K.L.; Zhang, Q.; Trotz, M.A.; Hicks, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Aquaculture Systems: Does
Burden Shifting Occur with an Increase in Production Intensity? Aquac. Eng. 2021, 92, 102130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aq-
uaeng.2020.102130.
19. Boyd, C.E. Water Use in Aquaculture. World Aquac. 2005, 36, 12–15+70.
20. Vanham, D.; Del Pozo, S.; Pekcan, A.G.; Keinan-Boker, L.; Trichopoulou, A.; Gawlik, B.M. Water Consumption Related to Dif-
ferent Diets in Mediterranean Cities. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 573, 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.111.
21. Gephart, J.A.; Davis, K.F.; Emery, K.A.; Leach, A.M.; Galloway, J.N.; Pace, M.L. The Environmental Cost of Subsistence: Opti-
mizing Diets to Minimize Footprints. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 553, 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.050.
22. Vanham, D.; Mak, T.N.; Gawlik, B.M. Urban Food Consumption and Associated Water Resources: The Example of Dutch Cities.
Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 565, 232–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.172.
23. Harris, F.; Green, R.F.; Joy, E.J.M.; Kayatz, B.; Haines, A.; Dangour, A.D. The Water Use of Indian Diets and Socio-Demographic
Factors Related to Dietary Blue Water Footprint. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 587–588, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sci-
totenv.2017.02.085.
24. Vanham, D.; Gawlik, B.M.; Bidoglio, G. Food Consumption and Related Water Resources in Nordic Cities. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 74,
119–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.019.
25. Gephart, J.A.; Pace, M.L.; D’Odorico, P. Freshwater Savings from Marine Protein Consumption. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9,
014005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/1/014005.
26. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.;
Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372: n71.
Water 2024, 16, 3376 22 of 23

doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. This work is licensed under CC BY 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/li-
censes/by/4.0/ (accessed on 28 October 2024).
27. Malcorps, W.; Kok, B.; Van T Land, M.; Fritz, M.; Van Doren, D.; Servin, K.; Van Der Heijden, P.; Palmer, R.; Auchterlonie, N.;
Rietkerk, M.; et al. The Sustainability Conundrum of Fishmeal Substitution by Plant Ingredients in Shrimp Feeds. Sustainability
2019, 11, 1212. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041212.
28. Mohanty, R.K.; Ambast, S.K.; Panigrahi, P.; Thakur, A.K.; Mandal, K.G. Enhancing Water Use Efficiency in Monoculture of
Litopenaeus Vannamei: Impacts on Pond Water Quality, Waste Production, Water Footprint and Production Performance. Aq-
uac. Eng. 2018, 82, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2018.06.004.
29. Song, G.; Zhao, X.; Lv, L.; Yuan, Q.; Ma, Y.; Bayer, L.B.; Zhang, D.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P. Scenario Analysis on Optimal Farmed-
Fish-Species Composition in China: A Theoretical Methodology to Benefit Wild-Fishery Stock, Water Conservation, Economic
and Protein Outputs under the Context of Climate Change. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sci-
totenv.2021.150600.
30. Jiang, Q.; Bhattarai, N.; Pahlow, M.; Xu, Z. Environmental Sustainability and Footprints of Global Aquaculture. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2022, 180, 106183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106183.
31. Yuan, Q.; Song, G.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P.; Wang, Y.; Semakula, H.M.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Zhang, S. Water Footprint of Feed Re-
quired by Farmed Fish in China Based on a Monte Carlo-Supported von Bertalanffy Growth Model: A Policy Implication. J.
Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.134.
32. Pahlow, M.; Van Oel, P.R.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Increasing Pressure on Freshwater Resources Due to Terrestrial
Feed Ingredients for Aquaculture Production. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 536, 847–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sci-
totenv.2015.07.124.
33. Pérez Rincón, M.A.; Hurtado, I.C.; Restrepo, S.; Bonilla, S.P.; Calderón, H.; Ramírez, A. Water Footprint Messure Method for
Tilapia, Cachama and Trout Production: Study Cases to Valle Del Cauca (Colombia). Ing. Y Compet. 2017, 19, 109–120.
https://doi.org/10.25100/iyc.v19i2.5298.
34. Newton, R.W.; Little, D.C. Mapping the Impacts of Farmed Scottish Salmon from a Life Cycle Perspective. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
2018, 23, 1018–1029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1386-8.
35. Henriksson, P.J.G.; Dickson, M.; Allah, A.N.; Al-Kenawy, D.; Phillips, M. Benchmarking the Environmental Performance of Best
Management Practice and Genetic Improvements in Egyptian Aquaculture Using Life Cycle Assessment. Aquaculture 2017, 468,
53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.09.051.
36. Henriksson, P.J.G.; Tran, N.; Mohan, C.V.; Chan, C.Y.; Rodriguez, U.-P.; Suri, S.; Mateos, L.D.; Utomo, N.B.P.; Hall, S.; Phillips,
M.J. Indonesian Aquaculture Futures—Evaluating Environmental and Socioeconomic Potentials and Limitations. J. Clean. Prod.
2017, 162, 1482–1490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.133.
37. Cooney, R.; Tahar, A.; Kennedy, A.; Clifford, E. The Dilemma of Opportunity in Developing a Life Cycle Assessment of Emerg-
ing Aquaculture Systems—A Case Study of a Eurasian Perch (Perca Fluviatilis) Hatchery Recirculating Aquaculture System.
Aquaculture 2021, 536, 736403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736403.
38. Petroski, L.P.S.; Medeiros, D.L.; Vidal, L.V.O. The Fish Weight at Slaughter Influences Energy and Environmental Performance
of Fish Farming: The Case of Nile Tilapia Production in Cages. Aquaculture 2024, 586, 740757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquacul-
ture.2024.740757.
39. Viglia, S.; Brown, M.T.; Love, D.C.; Fry, J.P.; Scroggins, R.; Neff, R.A. Analysis of Energy and Water Use in USA Farmed Catfish:
Toward a More Resilient and Sustainable Production System. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 379, 134796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-
pro.2022.134796.
40. Konstantinidis, E.; Perdikaris, C.; Ganias, K. Life Cycle Assessment of Seabass and Meagre in Marine Cage Farming: From
Feeding Plant to Harvesting. Medit. Mar. Sci. 2021, 22, 125. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.25052.
41. Haslawati, B.; Saadiah, I.; Siti-Dina, R.P.; Othman, M.; Latif, M.T. Environmental Assessment of Giant Freshwater Prawn, Mac-
robrachium Rosenbergii Farming through Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14776.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214776.
42. Mohanty, R.K.; Ambast, S.K.; Panigrahi, P.; Mandal, K.G. Water Quality Suitability and Water Use Indices: Useful Management
Tools in Coastal Aquaculture of Litopenaeus Vannamei. Aquaculture 2018, 485, 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquacul-
ture.2017.11.048.
43. Pattusamy, A.; Hittinahalli, C.M.; Chadha, N.K.; Sawant, P.B.; Krishna, H.; Verma, A.K. Water Budgeting for Culture of Penaeus
Vannamei (Boone, 1931) in Earthen Grow-out Ponds Using Inland Saline Groundwater. Aquac. Res. 2022, 53, 4521–4530.
https://doi.org/10.1111/are.15949.
44. Mohanty, R.K.; Ambast, S.K.; Panda, D.K.; Thakur, A.K.; Mohanty, S. Density-Dependent Water Use in Carp Polyculture: Im-
pacts on Production Performance and Water Productivity. Aquaculture 2017, 470, 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquacul-
ture.2016.12.007.
45. Das, P.C.; Kamble, S.P.; Sahoo, N.; Velmurugan, P. Influence of Water Exchange Rates on Fingerling Production in Indian Major
Carps in Large Outdoor Concrete Tanks. Aquac. Eng. 2021, 95, 102203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2021.102203.
46. Adhikari, S.; Pani, K.C.; Jayasankar, P. Water Gain and Water Loss of Some Freshwater Aquaculture Ponds at Kausalyaganga,
Orissa, India. Appl. Water Sci. 2019, 9, 121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-1001-1.
47. Mohanty, R.K.; Mishra, A.; Panda, D.K.; Patil, D.U. Water Budgeting in a Carp-Prawn Polyculture System: Impacts on Produc-
tion Performance, Water Productivity and Sediment Stack. Aquac. Res. 2016, 47, 2050–2060. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.12659.
Water 2024, 16, 3376 23 of 23

48. Tucker, C.S.; Pote, J.W.; Wax, C.L.; Brown, T.W. Improving Water-Use Efficiency for Ictalurid Catfish Pond Aquaculture in
Northwest Mississippi, USA. Aquac. Res. 2017, 48, 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.12893.
49. Das, P.C.; Kamble, S.P.; Velmurugan, P.; Pradhan, D. Evaluation of Minor Carps Intercropping in Carp Polyculture Vis-à-vis
Other Grow-out Cropping Patterns of Carp Farming. Aquac. Res. 2019, 50, 1574–1584. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.14034.
50. Sharma, K.K.; Mohapatra, B.C.; Das, P.C.; Sarkar, B.; Chand, S. Water Budgets for Freshwater Aquaculture Ponds with Reference
to Effluent Volume. Agric. Sci. 2013, 4, 353–359. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2013.48051.
51. Mohanty, R.K.; Mishra, A.; Mandal, K.G.; Panigrahi, P.; Ambast, S.K. Water Use in Carp Polyculture: Effects on Rearing Envi-
ronment and Water Productivity. J. Indian Soc. Coast. Agric. Res. 2017, 35, 68–75.
52. Mohanty, R.K.; Mishra, A.; Patil, D.U. Water Budgeting in Black Tiger Shrimp Penaeus Monodon Culture Using Different Water
and Feed Management Systems. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2014, 14, 487–496. https://doi.org/10.4194/1303-2712-v14_2_20.
53. Mohanty, R.K. Effects of Feed Restriction on Compensatory Growth Performance of Indian Major Carps in a Carp-Prawn Pol-
yculture System: A Response to Growth Depression. Aquac. Nutr. 2015, 21, 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/anu.12173.
54. Gephart, J.A.; Troell, M.; Henriksson, P.J.G.; Beveridge, M.C.M.; Verdegem, M.; Metian, M.; Mateos, L.D.; Deutsch, L. The sea-
food Gap’ in the Food-Water Nexus Literature—Issues Surrounding Freshwater Use in Seafood Production Chains. Adv. Water
Resour. 2017, 110, 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.03.025.
55. Lima, P.C.M.; Abreu, J.L.; Silva, A.E.M.; Severi, W.; Galvez, A.O.; Brito, L.O. Nile Tilapia Fingerling Cultivated in a Low-Salinity
Biofloc System at Different Stocking Densities. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2019, 16, e0612. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2018164-13222.
56. Konstantinidis, E.; Perdikaris, C.; Gouva, E.; Nathanalides, C.; Bartzanas, T.; Anestis, V.; Ribaj, S.; Tzora, A.; Skoufos, I. Assessing
Environmental Impacts of Sea Bass Cage Farms in Greece and Albania Using Life Cycle Assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2020,
14, 693–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-020-00289-8.
57. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K.; Aldaya, M.M.; Mekonnen, M.M. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Stand-
ard. Routledge: London, UK, 2011. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775526.
58. Rost, S.; Gerten, D.; Bondeau, A.; Lucht, W.; Rohwer, J.; Schaphoff, S. Agricultural Green and Blue Water Consumption and Its
Influence on the Global Water System. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44, 2007WR006331. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006331.
59. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Farm Animals and Animal Products. Volume 2: Appen-
dices; UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education: Delft, The Netherlands, 2010.
60. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Crops and Derived Crop Products. Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci. 2011, 15, 1577–1600. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-1577-2011.
61. Van Oel, P.R.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Towards Quantification of the Water Footprint of Paper: A First Estimate of Its Consumptive
Component. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26, 733–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9942-7.
62. Chatvijitkul, S.; Boyd, C.E.; Davis, D.A.; McNevin, A.A. Embodied Resources in Fish and Shrimp Feeds. J. World Aquac. Soc.
2017, 48, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12360.
63. Boulay, A.-M.; Bare, J.; Benini, L.; Berger, M.; Lathuillière, M.J.; Manzardo, A.; Margni, M.; Motoshita, M.; Núñez, M.; Pastor,
A.V.; et al. The WULCA Consensus Characterization Model for Water Scarcity Footprints: Assessing Impacts of Water Con-
sumption Based on Available Water Remaining (AWARE). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23, 368–378.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1333-8.
64. ISO 14046 2014; Water Footprint—Principles, Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
65. Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Steinmann, Z.J.N.; Elshout, P.M.F.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M.D.M.; Hollander, A.; Zijp, M.; van Zelm,
R. ReCiPe 2016: A Harmonized Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level Report I: Characterization; National
Institute for Public Health and the Environment: Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 1–194.
66. SimaPro 2022. Database User Manual. Available online: https://simapro.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/DatabaseMan-
ualMethods.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2024).
67. Molden, D.; Oweis, T.; Steduto, P.; Bindraban, P.; Hanjra, M.A.; Kijne, J. Improving Agricultural Water Productivity: Between
Optimism and Caution. Agric. Water Manag. 2009, 97, 528–535.
68. Tacon, A.G.J.; Hasan, M.R.; Metian, M. Demand and Supply of Feed Ingredients for Farmed Fish and Crustaceans Demand and Supply
of Feed Ingredients for Farmed Fish and Crustaceans; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 564; FAO, Rome, Italy,
2011.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au-
thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.