Environmental and Economic Implications of Small-Scale Canadian

Aquaponics: A Life Cycle Study

by

Gayathri Valappil

A thesis
presented to the University of Waterloo
in fulfilment of the
thesis requirement for the degree of
Master of Environmental Studies
in
Sustainability Management

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2021

© Gayathri Valappil 2021

 Author’s Declaration
I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any
required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners.
I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public.

ii
 Abstract
Agricultural production will be challenged in the near future to keep up with the rising nutritional
demands of a growing global population. Additionally, climate change, through increased frequency of
extreme weather events and droughts, will further push food production to its limits. Controlled-
environment food production systems (CEFPS) are suggested as viable options to supplement existing
agriculture by allowing food production expansion without requiring large amounts of land and by offering
protection from changing weather patterns and other undesirable external conditions. Aquaponics is a form
of CEFPS that combines recirculating aquaculture with hydroponics to produce both fish and vegetables.
However, the environmental and economic performances of these systems in Canada and other cold
climates have yet to be explored in depth.
The overarching goal was to evaluate the potential for aquaponics to be a responsible and sustainable
solution to maintaining Canadian food security. Specifically, this thesis aimed to identify environmental
and economic barriers faced by small-scale Canadian aquaponics systems and provide options for reducing
barriers and environmental impacts through the application of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle
cost (LCC) analysis.
The major results of this study indicate that aquaponics in its current form is an energy-intensive form
of agriculture and is more environmentally impactful than conventional forms of fish and vegetable
production with a global warming potential (GWP) of 68 kg CO2eq/kg live fish and 50 kg CO2eq/kg leafy
greens. Alternative scenarios, including energy efficiency improvements, renewable energy sources, and
insect-based fish feed, were considered in order to address the environmental and economic hotspots
identified.
The following specific conclusions can be made: (1) energy consumption for artificial lighting and
heating made necessary by cold climates is the biggest contributor to environmental impacts and costs; (2)
an alternative scenario with off-site wind energy, LED lighting, and insulation reduces life cycle costs by
5% and GWP by 97%; and (3) alternative scenarios with insect-feed and on-site renewable energy can
reduce specific environmental impacts but are more costly. It is recommended to pay particular attention to
building design aspects, such as access to natural lighting and energy efficient HVAC systems, and climate-
specific choices, such as cold-resistant crops and fish, in order to reduce the inherent energy intensity of
operation. Overall, this work will help researchers and businesses improve performance of aquaponics
systems, while serving as a foundation for the sustainability assessment of cold-climate aquaponics.
Keywords: aquaponics, indoor agriculture, cold climate agriculture, Canada, life cycle assessment, life
cycle cost, energy efficiency

iii
 Acknowledgments
The work I’ve done over the past two years would not be possible without the help of some very
important people. First and foremost, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to my two supervisors,
Dr. Goretty Dias and Dr. Christine Moresoli. Their encouragement to continually push my boundaries
helped me grow and inspired me immensely. I would also like to thank Dr. Jeffrey Wilson for his extensive
knowledge and for always being willing to answer my questions. I am also grateful for Dr. Komal Habib
for her time and valuable feedback as the external reader for my thesis. An enormous thank you also goes
to my partner, Pranit Trivedi, for being there every step of the way, especially the times when this journey
seemed particularly difficult. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Anitha and Muralee Valappil, for
opening up a world of opportunities for me and for always being my biggest supporters.

iv
 Table of Contents

Author’s Declaration ..................................................................................................................................... ii

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ iii
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... ix
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................... x
Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Research Approach and Goals ........................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Thesis Contributions .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Thesis Structure ................................................................................................................................. 3
Chapter 2 Literature Review ......................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 System Design: Trends, Advances, and Challenges .......................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Aquaponics Systems .................................................................................................................. 4
2.1.2 Ecological Relationships ........................................................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Hydroponics Systems ................................................................................................................ 7
2.1.4 Aquaculture Systems ................................................................................................................. 9
2.1.5 Aquaponics System Optimization: Potential and Barriers....................................................... 10
2.2 Environmental Implications ............................................................................................................. 12
2.3 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Food Systems ............................................................................. 13
2.3.1 Method and Methodological Issues ......................................................................................... 13
2.3.2 Life Cycle Assessment of Hydroponics Systems .................................................................... 16
2.3.3 Life Cycle Assessment of Aquaculture Systems ..................................................................... 17
2.3.4 Life Cycle Assessment of Aquaponics Systems ...................................................................... 19
2.4 Economic Implications .................................................................................................................... 20
2.5 Life Cycle Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................. 21
2.6 Key Themes and Research Implications .......................................................................................... 22
Chapter 3 Life Cycle Assessment of Aquaponics Production: A Canadian Case Study ............................ 25
3.1 Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 25
3.2 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 27
3.3.1 System Description .................................................................................................................. 27
3.3.2 Goal and Scope ........................................................................................................................ 29

v
 3.3.3 Life Cycle Inventory ................................................................................................................ 32
3.3.4 Assumptions and Limitations .................................................................................................. 33
3.3.5 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................................. 34
3.4 Results.............................................................................................................................................. 36
3.4.1 Aquaponics as Two Individual Process: Aquaculture and Hydroponics ................................. 36
3.4.2 Sensitivity Analysis of the Impact Partitioning for Aquaponics System ................................. 39
3.5 Perspectives and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 41
3.5.1 Insights from Literature ........................................................................................................... 41
3.5.2 Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 43
3.6 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................... 44
Chapter 4 Exploration of Environmental and Economic Improvement Pathways: Life Cycle Cost and
Scenario Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 47
4.1 Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 47
4.2 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 47
4.3 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 49
4.3.1 LCA & LCC Scenarios ............................................................................................................ 49
4.3.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCC).............................................................................................. 53
4.4 Results.............................................................................................................................................. 55
4.4.1 Alternative Scenarios Impact Comparison .............................................................................. 55
4.4.2 Alternative Scenarios Contribution Analysis .......................................................................... 57
4.4.3 LCC ......................................................................................................................................... 63
4.4.4 Sensitivity Analysis for LCC ................................................................................................... 65
4.5 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 67
4.5.1 Eco-Efficiency Analysis .......................................................................................................... 67
4.5.2 Comparison to Other Agricultural Systems ............................................................................. 70
4.6 Recommendations and Conclusions ................................................................................................ 72
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 75
5.1 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................... 75
5.2 Recommendations............................................................................................................................ 76
References ................................................................................................................................................... 77
Appendix A: Life Cycle Inventory Data ..................................................................................................... 89
Appendix B: Data Quality .......................................................................................................................... 92
Appendix C: Life Cycle Impact Results ..................................................................................................... 93

vi
 List of Figures
Figure 2-1: System diagrams showing coupled (a) and decoupled (b), where aquaculture (blue) and
hydroponics (green) are connected in different configurations (Monsees et al., 2017). ............................... 5
Figure 2-2: Illustrations of Media-Based Grow Bed (a), Deep Water Culture (b), and Nutrient Film
Technique (c) Hydroponics (Main Methods of Hydroponics, 2019) ............................................................ 8
Figure 3-1: Depiction of aquaponics system............................................................................................... 28
Figure 3-2: Flow diagram for unit process approach. ................................................................................. 29
Figure 3-3: Process flow diagram for aquaponics facility, black box approach. ........................................ 35
Figure 3-4: Relative contribution of input flows according to impact category for aquaculture unit. ........ 37
Figure 3-5: Average contribution of feed ingredients to environmental impact of fish feed. ..................... 38
Figure 3-6: Relative contribution of input flows according to impact category for hydroponics unit. ....... 38
Figure 3-7: Average contribution of infrastructure components to total environmental impact of
infrastructure. .............................................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 3-8: Comparison of contribution of input flows to global warming potential for mass, calorie, and
protein allocation. ....................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 3-9: Changing magnitude of impacts by allocation method for global warming potential and
eutrophication. ............................................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 3-10: Comparison of global warming potential of aquaponics system in this study to aquaponics
systems in literature (Boxman et al., 2017; Forchino et al., 2018; Ghamkhar et al., 2019; Hindelang et al.,
2014) ........................................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 4-11: Alternative scenario comparison according to eutrophication, acidification, fossil fuel
depletion, and GWP per kg of live fish for the aquaculture unit. ............................................................... 56
Figure 4-12: Alternative scenario comparison according to eutrophication, acidification, fossil fuel
depletion, and GWP per kg of leafy greens for the hydroponics unit. ........................................................ 57
Figure 4-1: Relative contribution of input flows to impact category for the A-EFF scenario. ................... 58
Figure 4-2: Relative contribution of input flows to impact category for the H-EFF scenario. ................... 59
Figure 4-3: Relative contribution of input flows to impact category for the A-W scenario. ...................... 60
Figure 4-4: Relative contribution of input flows to impact category for the H-W scenario. ...................... 61
Figure 4-5: Relative contribution of input flows according to impact category for the A-BG scenario..... 61
Figure 4-6: Relative contribution of input flows to impact category for the H-BG scenario. .................... 62
Figure 4-7: Relative contribution of input flows to impact category for the IBF scenario. ........................ 63
Figure 4-8: Life cycle cost and internal rate of return for scenarios described in Table 4-1. ..................... 64
Figure 4-9: Sensitivity analysis showing effect of discount rate on life cycle cost. ................................... 66
Figure 4-10: Sensitivity analysis on LCC for insect-based feed price variations. ...................................... 67
Figure 4-13: Eco-efficiency chart of all scenarios for global warming potential against LCC with an 8%
discount rate. ............................................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 4-14: Eco-efficiency chart of all scenarios for the acidification impact against LCC with an 8%
discount rate. ............................................................................................................................................... 69

vii
Figure 4-15: Comparison of the aquaculture unit (A-O and A-W) to indoor recirculating aquaculture, net-
pen aquaculture (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009), and long-line fishing (Svanes et al., 2011)............................ 71
Figure 4-16: Comparison of hydroponics unit (H-O and H-W) to compact greenhouse lettuce and open field
lettuce production (Khandelwal, 2020). ...................................................................................................... 72
Figure A-1: Nova Scotia Grid Composition, 2018 (Today’s Energy Stats, 2020) ..................................... 89

viii
 List of Tables
Table 2-1: Summary of Assumptions Made in Reviewed Aquaponics LCA Literature............................. 19
Table 3-1: Data Quality Requirements ....................................................................................................... 32
Table 3-2: Calculated Input and Output Flows, per Functional Unit for Aquaculture Unit and Hydroponics
Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. 32
Table 3-3: Allocation Ratios for Mass, Energy/Calorie, and Protein Allocation ....................................... 36
Table 4-1: LCC Scenario Descriptions and Naming................................................................................... 52
Table 4-2: Economic Life Cycle Inventory for Original Scenario and Alternate Scenarios of the Aquaponics
System ......................................................................................................................................................... 53
Table A-1: Infrastructure Weights .............................................................................................................. 89
Table A-2: Infrastructure Materials and Lifespans ..................................................................................... 89
Table A-3: Life Cycle Inventory for Black-Box Approach ........................................................................ 90
Table A-4: Life Cycle Inventory for Insect-Based Feed, from (Roffeis et al., 2017) ................................. 90
Table A-5: Impact Categories and Units..................................................................................................... 91
Table B-1: Data Quality Matrix, Adapted from (Weidema & Wesnæs, 1996) .......................................... 92
Table B-2: Data Quality Scores .................................................................................................................. 92
Table C-1: Impact Results for Scenario Analysis for Aquaculture and Hydroponics Units ....................... 93

ix
 List of Abbreviations
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
CBA Cost-benefit analysis
CEFPS Controlled-environment food production systems
CHP Combined heat and power
DWC Deep water culture hydroponics
GWP Global warming potential
HDPE High density polyethylene
HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IBF Insect-based feed
IRR Internal rate of return
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LCA Life cycle assessment
LCC Life cycle cost
LED Light emitting diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
NFT Nutrient film technique hydroponics
NPV Net present value
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
TEA Techno-economic analysis

x
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background

The current agri-food system is a burden on the earth. With a population expected to hit 10 billion within
the next thirty years (Eigenbrod & Gruda, 2015), food systems are being pushed to their production limits
and are forced to rely on detrimental methods of increasing yield. These production practices result in land-
clearing, unsustainable fertilization practice, and excessive water usage, all of which amount to stresses on
Earth’s planetary boundaries (Campbell et al., 2017). Reducing these impacts in the face of rising
populations and food demand will require huge amounts of agricultural infrastructure, investment, and most
importantly, innovation. In an attempt to lessen environmental impacts while still maintaining production
yields, controlled-environment food production has been suggested as a solution to food security concerns.
Controlled-environment food production systems (CEFPS) are technologies that separate agriculture
from the natural environment, increasing protection from climate fluctuations. In addition, they are typically
closed systems that can be monitored and maintained at ideal conditions. Aquaponics is one example of
CEFPS that combines the plant cultivation of hydroponics with fish farming of aquaculture. In hydroponics,
plants are grown without soil, but require the addition of essential nutrients, while aquaculture produces a
large number of fish, but requires the removal of waste and feces. By combining these two systems, waste
produced by the fish is converted by microorganisms into a form that can be used as a fertilizer for the
plants. The resulting combined system requires fewer inputs than the systems in isolation, making it more
desirable than some conventional methods of farming. Furthermore, aquaponics has been popularized
because it helps to fill two important production gaps in the food system: vegetables, which are currently
underproduced (Bahadur KC et al., 2018), and fish, which is growing in demand despite overfishing
concerns (Ghamkhar et al., 2019; Ross et al., 2008). Therefore, these are two key areas of potential food
insecurity that aquaponics can help address.
Despite being a relatively new technology, aquaponics research has been growing over the past fifty
years. However, research in the past has been heavily focused on productivity and operation parameters,
leaving large gaps regarding environmental and economic performance. Especially from an environmental
perspective, a number of questions remain surrounding its sustainability. While many studies have been
conducted in warm regions, such as the Mediterranean and Hawaii, very few studies have been conducted
in regions that experience harsh winters. Controlling growth parameters becomes especially difficult in
colder climates due to additional heating and lighting requirements. As a result, differences in climate can
greatly affect system operation and subsequent impacts. The few studies that have been conducted in colder
climates agreed that energy inputs were large and that renewable energy should be considered (Cohen et
al., 2018; Forchino et al., 2018; Ghamkhar et al., 2019; Maucieri et al., 2017). In the era of the local food

1
movement, as more companies across Canada and globally begin to embrace aquaponics and other CEFPS,
studies are needed to determine if the benefits of combining productions systems outweigh the
environmental impacts and economic strains of this energy-intensive form of indoor farming.

1.2 Research Approach and Goals

Assessing a complex technology such as this one requires a systematic and well-defined method that
simplifies analysis where relevant. For agriculture and food systems, life cycle assessment (LCA) is an
appropriate and frequently applied research method (Goldstein et al., 2016). LCA is a tool that examines
the environmental impacts of a system or product across its life cycle (Finnveden et al., 2009; Notarnicola
et al., 2017). Moreover, an additional component of LCA is life cycle cost (LCC) analysis. While not always
included in life cycle studies, LCC is a comprehensive tool that examines the economic performance of a
product throughout its life. Since both these methods follow standardized guidelines, comparability across
other aquaponics LCA studies is ensured.
As shown above, the majority of aquaponics research is concentrated in warm regions and is often
through a European lens. North American aquaponics LCAs are rare (Ghamkhar et al., 2019; Savidov et
al., 2007), with none conducted in Canada so far. The winter season introduces additional challenges, such
as reduced daylight hours, lower average temperatures, and different material and design requirements,
which can hinder environmental and economic performance. While summer operations might mirror
findings from Europe, the limitations imposed by Canadian winters will undoubtedly affect both
environmental performance and profitability of aquaponics systems. These systems must therefore be
examined before the widespread adoption of the technology can be justified.
In order to understand the application of aquaponics in a Canadian context, LCA and LCC analyses of
a small-scale commercial facility were used as a case study. This now-defunct facility was located in an
industrial warehouse in Halifax, Nova Scotia and operated from 2018 to 2019. There is a tendency for urban
agriculture systems to operate within converted warehouses like this, which means that building envelopes
are often not optimized for controlling agricultural parameters (Laidlaw & Magee, 2014; Love et al., 2015).
Therefore, the operation conditions and challenges faced by this facility are expected to mirror current
practice. Specifically, this research will address the following questions: (1) what are the environmental
and economic barriers faced by small-scale aquaponics systems in Canada; and (2) how can the
sustainability of aquaponics systems in cold regions be improved? The overarching goal is to evaluate the
potential for aquaponics to be a responsible and sustainable solution to maintaining Canadian food security.
Areas for improvement in operation will be highlighted, helping future companies maintain financial
stability and environmental sustainability, simultaneously.

2
 1.3 Thesis Contributions

This research is proposed at an opportune time where global development is focused on economic
prosperity, but also on sustainability. There is a newly realized urgency for emerging technologies to not
compromise sustainability the same way their predecessors did. An LCA will help address the question of
whether the implementation of large-scale aquaponics systems will be an additional burden on the
environment or a solution to growing food insecurity. These types of concerns are frequent in the field of
agricultural technology because they often surpass the resource requirements of traditional farming. In the
case of aquaponics in Canada, the objective is to use this and future assessments that build upon these
findings to avoid unintended consequences. Furthermore, this study will examine the influence of impact
partitioning on the results of aquaponics LCAs by comparing allocation methods as well as the unit process
approach where production is split into unit operations. As a result, the study can be used as a basis to
evaluate the environmental impacts and benefits of aquaponics systems. Not only will this support
researchers and farmers looking to adopt aquaponics systems, but it will also help them to understand
impacts and potentially reduce them. Moving forward, this work will serve as a foundation for the
sustainability assessment of aquaponics in Canada and similar cold climates.

1.4 Thesis Structure

This thesis will have the following format. First, an in-depth literature review examines concepts
important to the field of indoor agriculture and life cycle assessment such as aquaponics design and barriers
to operation, environmental implications, socio-economic implications, and gaps in the field. Following the
literature review, Chapter 3 includes a life cycle assessment of a small-scale Canadian aquaponics systems,
while Chapter 4 includes scenario analysis as well as a life cycle cost analysis. The last chapter makes
recommendations and closing remarks for future research, aquaponics businesses, and decision-makers.

3
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Aquaponics is an emerging technology that combines processes and components from aquaculture and
hydroponics to simultaneously produce fish and plants for human consumption. Technical components and
physical processes are borrowed and adapted from each: the cultivation of plants without soil from
hydroponics and the production of fish in a controlled setting from aquaculture. In the past, aquaponics
research has mainly focused on warm, subtropical regions where operations are not impacted by cold
climates (Tokunaga et al., 2015; Yep & Zheng, 2019). Regions that experience cold climates and reduced
sunlight often require extra heating and lighting. These unique requirements influence a number of
outcomes, including profitability. Consequently, cold-weather aquaponics can be operationally burdensome
in terms of high costs and increased environmental impacts. However, the economic success and
environmental implications of operating these systems in cold climates, specifically Canada, is largely
unknown. There is a disconnect between literature and practice in terms of tailoring operations to cold
climates.
This literature review will examine the environmental benefits and impacts of cold-climate aquaponics
operations, as well as their economic performance. Starting with a broad overview of technical
considerations, the focus will narrow to operational barriers to sustainability within the context of Canadian
aquaponics and the results of previous sustainability assessments in this field.

2.1 System Design: Trends, Advances, and Challenges

2.1.1 Aquaponics Systems
Aquaponics in its simplest form is a combination of hydroponics and aquaculture to simultaneously
produce fish and plants. However, these systems are complex by nature because fish and plants have distinct
nutritional objectives. The broadest classification of aquaponics systems is based on their configuration:
coupled and decoupled (Gibbons, 2020; Monsees et al., 2016). The major difference between these forms
is that coupled systems cycle water back and forth between aquaculture and hydroponics, but decoupled
systems only allow regulated one-way water flow (Monsees et al., 2017). This is depicted in Figure 2-1a,
where the coupled system is connected at multiple points allowing for back-and-forth circulation, while the
decoupled system, Figure 2-1b, is connected by a one-way valve which only allows for controlled water
flow when the valve is opened. Research in this area is driven primarily by a few notable researchers,
including Monsees and Kloas (Kloas et al., 2015; Monsees et al., 2016, 2017), however researchers in all
areas within aquaponics have realized the importance of distinguishing these two systems.

4
 Figure 2-1: System diagrams showing coupled (a) and decoupled (b), where aquaculture (blue) and hydroponics
(green) are connected in different configurations (Monsees et al., 2017).

In its original form, aquaponics only existed in the coupled version. For this reason, it is often considered
the “classical form” of aquaponics (Monsees et al., 2016). Coupled aquaponics systems consist of one loop,
meaning that the hydroponics and aquaculture components cycle the same inlet water back and forth
(Goddek & Körner, 2019; Janker et al., 2018; Kloas et al., 2015; Monsees et al., 2016). Researchers agree
that one disadvantage of coupled configuration is the fact that a single loop prevents either unit process
from being fully optimized, resulting in the needs specific to both the aquaculture and the hydroponics
systems not being met (Gibbons, 2020; Goddek et al., 2016; Monsees et al., 2016; Palm et al., 2018). For
example, due to the fact that ideal pH levels vary greatly for each species present in the system, directly
sharing the water means that one or more of the species will not have access to water at its ideal pH level.
On the other hand, coupled systems are often beneficial due to the lower resource requirements, simpler
infrastructure, and capacity to have small, low-cost set-ups (Gibbons, 2020; Palm et al., 2018). The
consequence of these benefits is the lack of optimal conditions, as mentioned. These include suboptimal
pH levels, poor water quality, and the fact that the system design itself prevents making changes to water
quality or content without affecting all the species (Gibbons, 2020; Goddek et al., 2016; Monsees et al.,
2016; Palm et al., 2018). These discrepancies are primarily what led to the decoupling of aquaponics
systems.
Subsequently, decoupled systems were developed as a solution to optimization problems and
bottlenecks in operation. The premise of decoupled systems is that water does not cycle back and forth
between hydroponics and aquaculture, instead it only flows in one direction when required (Goddek et al.,

5
2016; Monsees et al., 2016). As a result, water that is sent to the hydroponics unit from the aquaculture unit
can be adjusted for optimized pH and nutrient levels (Monsees et al., 2016; Palm et al., 2018). Additionally,
pest and disease control are much simpler because the water can be processed separately (Goddek et al.,
2016). This pH and fertilization management has been proven to make production more effective by
Monsees et al. (2017) and Delaide et al. (2016), who found that hydroponics yields were 36% to 39% higher
in decoupled systems. Furthermore, Gibbons (2020) found that this ability to manage water and nutrients
increases the net present value (NPV) of a decoupled system, representing an economic advantage, due to
the increased productivity. As a result, other costs, such as those for infrastructure and management, are
more easily offset. Finally, sludge removal and waste recovery are much simpler in decoupled systems, and
can potentially result in much better environmental performance (Goddek et al., 2019). On the other hand,
decoupled systems can be complex and expensive in terms of infrastructure (Gibbons, 2020) and due to the
inherent focus on optimization, more advanced technical knowledge is required for effective management
(Love et al., 2015). Therefore, there are trade-offs between coupled and decoupled systems due to the
challenges and benefits they each present.

2.1.2 Ecological Relationships

As mentioned previously, a key factor for success in aquaponics systems is symbiosis between distinct
species. The symbiotic process starts with the fish that produce waste in the form of ammonia, which is a
nitrogen containing substance (Goddek et al., 2015; Konig et al., 2016; Love et al., 2015; Somerville et al.,
2014; Tyson et al., 2011; Yep & Zheng, 2019). Ammonia is toxic to fish, and while plants need nitrogen to
function, they prefer in the form of nitrites, which is produced via a multi-step process involving ammonia-
oxidizing bacteria and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (Goddek et al., 2015; Tyson et al., 2011; Yep & Zheng,
2019). The plants can then absorb the nutrients and generate clean water to be recirculated back to the fish
tanks (Fang et al., 2017; Quagrainie et al., 2017; Tyson et al., 2011). Important here is the integral role that
bacteria play in the operation of aquaponics. Without them, neither system would function optimally.
Very few studies have investigated the critical role of bacteria and their symbiosis with the plants in the
operation. Junge et al. (2017) draw attention to the fact that the majority of past research on species
optimization has focused on the fish and plants. However, the focus in these studies was the individual
species, not their symbiosis. More knowledge is needed on the interactions between species because this is
what supports the reduced resource load. This includes how to control pests because inputs, such as
antibiotics or pesticides, greatly influence all other species and the pH of the water (Goddek et al., 2015;
Konig et al., 2016; Yep & Zheng, 2019). Consequently, the necessity of optimization for successful system
operation becomes evident. Not only does this include the species themselves, due to their various growth
requirements (Tyson et al., 2011), but it also includes the amount of feed required to support various

6
quantities of fish and plants (Cohen et al., 2018; Goddek et al., 2015). These areas must be improved to
ensure both economic success and environmental favourability.

2.1.3 Hydroponics Systems

In order to further understand aquaponics systems and their operation, looking at the individual
hydroponics and aquaculture components is important. Each of these systems is unique, with different
challenges and benefits. Furthermore, hydroponics and aquaculture are far more established than
aquaponics, implying that much more research is available related to them. Starting with hydroponics, the
following sections describe the configurations available for system design, advances, as well as challenges
in the field.
Hydroponics systems are often complex in design due to the number of physical and mechanical
requirements for supporting adequate plant growth in the absence of soil. In general, the following types
are the most commonly used: media-based grow beds (MBG), deep water culture (DWC), and nutrient film
technique (NFT). First of all, media-based grow bed hydroponics (Figure 2-2a) consist of plastic troughs
as well as some sort of media, such as gravel, clay, or other inert substances, which both serve to support
plant growth and root development while delivering nutrient-rich water to the plants (Somerville et al.,
2014; Tyson et al., 2011; Yep & Zheng, 2019). Furthermore, the media provides multiple surfaces that
support healthy microbial populations (Somerville et al., 2014; Yep & Zheng, 2019), which are necessary
for the symbiosis that supports plant growth. These systems are advantageous because the media acts as a
natural biofilter and solids filter while still providing a high degree of root-to-water contact, ensuring that
nutrient uptake is efficient (Somerville et al., 2014; Tyson et al., 2011; Yep & Zheng, 2019). However,
these systems are not always ideal because the media used is often heavy and difficult to clean (Palm et al.,
2018; Yep & Zheng, 2019). Next, DWC systems (Figure 2-2b) consist of polystyrene rafts, within which
the plants sit, that float directly atop nutrient-rich water ensuring the roots are in full contact with water
(Forchino et al., 2017; Goddek et al., 2015; Yep & Zheng, 2019). These systems are beneficial because
there is significant root contact with water, and compared to MBG, the infrastructure is much simpler
(Pattillo, 2017b; Yep & Zheng, 2019). However, due to proximity of the roots to the water, large
biofiltration systems are needed because filtration does not occur naturally (Goddek et al., 2015; Yep &
Zheng, 2019). Finally, NFT systems (Figure 2-2c) have plants sitting atop plastic channels in which a thin
layer of water flows, ensuring constant and direct contact with water without complete submersion (Goddek
et al., 2015; Palm et al., 2018; Yep & Zheng, 2019). These systems are advantageous because their designs
are simple and effective, making them light enough in weight for vertical systems in existing buildings
(Yep & Zheng, 2019). Nevertheless, while the design may be simple, the cost of infrastructure is often high
(Sanyé-Mengual, Orsini, et al., 2015). Some less commonly used systems include drip irrigation, ebb and

7
flow, and vertical towers and wells (Goddek et al., 2015; Pattillo, 2017b; Yep & Zheng, 2019), however
these tend to have more specific applications while the formerly mentioned three can be widely used.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 2-2: Illustrations of Media-Based Grow Bed (a), Deep Water Culture (b), and Nutrient Film Technique
(c) Hydroponics (Main Methods of Hydroponics, 2019)

Within hydroponics, many technological advances have made it so that these systems are comparable
to conventional farming. For example, water use is often less than in conventional farming in these systems
because their irrigation systems are much more controlled (Goddek et al., 2015, 2016; Kloas et al., 2015).
Furthermore, development of lightweight systems, such as NFTs, mean hydroponics can potentially be
implemented in existing buildings, particularly in urban areas. However, the most significant hurdle for
hydroponics operation is the technical expertise required for system operation, which is often the limiting
factor (Goddek et al., 2019; Love et al., 2015). Specifically, due to the wide variety of hydroponics system
design and plants that can be grown, as well as various growth parameters such as temperature and water
8
levels, optimization is often difficult to achieve (Goddek et al., 2015; Yep & Zheng, 2019). This is an area
that researchers are focused on, with future research concentrating on energy demand (Lages Barbosa et
al., 2015), impacts of cold, winter seasons (Moreno et al., 2007), and optimal balances of plant type and
system type (Yep & Zheng, 2019).

2.1.4 Aquaculture Systems

Like aquaponics systems, aquaculture systems are complex and must be understood individually in great
depth. In general, aquaculture can be defined as the cultivation of fish and other aquatic organisms, such as
molluscs and aquatic plants, in a controlled manner (Yep & Zheng, 2019). Like hydroponics, aquaculture
can take many forms, ranging from nets in the ocean, to outdoor ponds and lakes, to indoors in tanks.
Systems can be set up in open water using floating nets or floating concrete tanks, both of which are
preferred in marine environments (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009). They can also be set up in lakes and ponds
using raceways or nets (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009; Somerville et al., 2014). Finally, land-based, indoor
recirculating systems exist where tanks are placed indoors, providing better wastewater management and
less risk of predation (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009; Somerville et al., 2014). The systems themselves can be
simple or complex in terms of infrastructure and operation, meaning a wide variety of economic limitations
can be accommodated. In contrast, unlike hydroponics, only one of these aquaculture configurations can be
used in aquaponics systems: recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS). This is because this is the only form
that allows for capture of nutrient-rich wastewater that can then be used as an input to the hydroponics
system. Moving forward, researchers have highlighted a need for a deeper understanding of feeding
behaviour, stresses on the fish, feed formulations, and other naturally occurring cycles in order to produce
fish in a more effective manner (Hannon et al., 2013; Yildiz et al., 2017). Despite these concerns,
aquaculture technologies have advanced significantly over the years, which means the challenges they face
are well understood, unlike those faced by emerging technologies like aquaponics.
Aquaculture is an extremely important component of many economies worldwide. In fact, 50% of fish
eaten globally comes from aquaculture and that number is expected to rise in coming years as overfishing
concerns rise (Somerville et al., 2014). Furthermore, hundreds of species have been successfully grown this
way (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009), implying that aquaculture could help to meet the demands of a growing
population. Especially with the developments of aquaculture technologies for aquatic plants and non-fish
species, there is a possibility that these systems could become significantly less impactful and the food
system in general could become more sustainable. However, further work is needed, particularly in the
areas of feed management to improve the feed conversion efficiency in order to reduce nutrient leaching
and eutrophication from wastewater (Mungkung et al., 2013). In addition, the production of fish feed is an
environmental concern due to the life cycle impacts of obtaining fishmeal, fish oil, and other animal-based

9
products used in commercial feeds (Cohen et al., 2018; Goddek et al., 2019; Junge et al., 2017; Rizal et al.,
2018; Somerville et al., 2014). Smetana et al. (2016) suggest that government regulations on aquaculture
production and pollution are needed at both the local and regional level to ensure that food systems can be
sustainable.

2.1.5 Aquaponics System Optimization: Potential and Barriers

Due to the complexity of aquaponics systems, system optimization is highly sought after. Literature has
highlighted three main areas where optimization is needed to improve environmental performance, system
efficiency, and economic profitability. These areas are feed, energy consumption, and industrial symbiosis.
Each of these is explored in further detail below.
First of all, given the design of aquaponics systems, feed is one of the most significant inputs.
Consequently, it is also one of the most environmentally impactful (Cohen et al., 2018; Goddek et al., 2019;
Junge et al., 2017; Rizal et al., 2018; Somerville et al., 2014). Optimization of feed ingredients and loading
rates are sought after due to the environmental impacts of using fishmeal or fish oil in feeds, as well as the
costs of animal-based feeds. In literature, one of the most frequently suggested methods of reducing fish
feed-related impacts is switching towards insect-based or plant-based feeds (Goddek et al., 2019; Yep &
Zheng, 2019). In fact, it is currently theorized that insect-based feeds will be less impactful than plant-based
ones (Cohen et al., 2018; Goddek et al., 2019; Afton Halloran et al., 2016; Smetana et al., 2016; Somerville
et al., 2014); however, little quantitative evidence is presented for aquaculture and hydroponics because the
field of insect-rearing itself is just emerging. Furthermore, as concerns about overfishing and availability
of arable land increase, insect-farming has been looked to as a potentially low-impact, low-land requirement
form of production (Junge et al., 2017). Finally, one other option is to switch to species of fish that are
omnivorous, rather than carnivorous, so that their protein demands can be met more easily with substitute
feed ingredients (Knaus & Palm, 2017). In general, feed is a complex system input that is affected by
various factors and in turn, results in a number of environmental and economic impacts that must be
addressed in aquaponics systems.
Another similar input that has complex relationships with system design is energy consumption,
specifically for lighting and heating. The environmental impacts incurred from energy use in aquaponics
systems are most frequently named as the biggest concern these systems pose (Goddek et al., 2015;
Hindelang et al., 2014; Somerville et al., 2014; Yep & Zheng, 2019), especially in cold climates (Forchino
et al., 2018; Ghamkhar et al., 2019; Xie & Rosentrater, 2015). In many cases, researchers have demonstrated
that switching to renewable forms of energy, including wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear, result in fewer
impacts than relying on fossil-based energy (Atlason et al., 2017; Forchino et al., 2018). However, in some
cases, economic limitations and dependence on regional grids prevent the use of renewable energy so some

10
other ways of optimizing energy use are suggested. Junge et al. (2017) suggest that improving the overall
climate management of indoor systems can drastically reduce energy use. In this case, heating and lighting
needs would be lowered through the use of energy efficient lighting, better insulation, and building
automation systems to effectively monitor energy use and efficiency (Goldstein et al., 2016; Junge et al.,
2017; Love et al., 2015). Furthermore, research into LED design and optimal spectrums have shown that
certain ranges of wavelengths of light are more beneficial to plant growth and that the number of hours of
artificial lighting provided can be optimized to each plant species (Avgoustaki, 2019; Kang et al., 2013;
Pennisi et al., 2019; Rehman et al., 2017; Sabzalian et al., 2014). This strategy is frequently suggested for
optimization because it would serve the purpose of reducing energy use and making infrastructure more
sustainable while simultaneously improving production and yields.
Finally, industrial symbiosis is another area where aquaponics systems could potentially be optimized.
Industrial symbiosis is the process of connecting various industrial material and energy flows, such that
“waste” outputs from one process are used as inputs to another, thereby reducing impacts and waste in the
process (Chance et al., 2018; Fraccascia et al., 2020). Therefore, because aquaponics systems share
resources and wastes to reduce input requirements, it is a form of industrial symbiosis in itself, but there is
room for improvement. In general, the potential of industrial symbiosis in agricultural systems is growing
in popularity through the development of agro-industrial networks (Chance et al., 2018; Concha et al., 2016;
Fernandez-Mena et al., 2016; Fraccascia et al., 2020). In aquaponics specifically, many possibilities exist
due to the sheer number of energy and material flows present. These networks can take various forms. For
example, heat recovery is a promising concept where industrial waste heat can be used to heat other facilities
or processes (Andrews & Pearce, 2011; Law et al., 2012; Legorburu & Smith, 2018). Since heating demands
are such a major concern in cold climates, heat recovery could help to reduce environmental impacts as
well as energy costs (Andrews & Pearce, 2011). Similarly, anaerobic digestion is another form of industrial
symbiosis, where waste is converted into biogas by microorganisms, which can then be used for energy
production (Andrić et al., 2017; Bong et al., 2018). The waste used for biogas production can be from a
variety of sources, including on-site sludge and green waste produced by the aquaponics system (Goddek
& Körner, 2019), specifically for large-scale systems that produce substantial quantities of sludge
(Gigliona, 2015). This introduces circularity to the material and energy flows in the system, thereby
lowering environmental concerns. In conclusion, industrial symbiosis is a complex solution to many
problems faced by aquaponics systems, including energy use and waste production. However, the methods
by which it is applied require careful consideration to reach an optimal balance.

11
 2.2 Environmental Implications
Despite the appeal of reduced resources, environmental sustainability remains one of the main reasons
for the adoption of aquaponics. Symbiosis allows aquaponics to mimic natural ecosystems, which is
proposed to increase system efficiency and reduce resource use. In fact, multiple studies concur that fewer
resources are required in aquaponics than in traditional agriculture (Goddek et al., 2015; Kloas et al., 2015;
Rizal et al., 2018; Tyson et al., 2011). In addition to the reduced requirements for water and fertilizer,
aquaponics does not require soil, which is beneficial because agricultural production is the largest driver in
surpassing earth’s land-system change planetary boundary (Campbell et al., 2017). Junge et al. (2017)
emphasize that this also makes aquaponics suitable for non-traditional agriculture locations, such as cities.
This adds further appeal by increasing the resilience and food security of those areas.
In addition to the benefits gained from symbiosis, Cohen et al. (2018) suggest that aquaponics allows
for a circular, closed system where inputs are shared and waste is reduced, as opposed to the linear, open
system that traditional agriculture follows. This developing idea of using controlled-environments and
shared resources is especially significant today because this disconnect from the natural world protects the
crops against extreme weather and provides greater opportunities to control effluents and impacts (Cohen
et al., 2018). For example, numerous studies have found that the small daily water losses in aquaponics
systems, ranging between 0.5 and 4%, are far lower than the literature maximum of 10% (Forchino et al.,
2017; Kloas et al., 2015; Love et al., 2015; Maucieri et al., 2017). These studies effectively demonstrate
that aquaponics crops could be protected from water shortages and droughts that will continue to be a
pressing concern in the future. The consensus in the literature is that a number of potential environmental
benefits exist, especially when compared to traditional agriculture, which is why the systematic
environmental analysis of aquaponics remains an important research objective.
However, due to the complexity and a lack of sufficient understanding surrounding aquaponics systems,
there are also drawbacks. Currently, the most critical impacts of aquaponics operation originate from the
three main inputs to the system: fish feed, energy, and water. This implies that future means for
improvement can be focused in these areas. Within these studies, fish feed, which often consists of fishmeal
and plant-based protein meals, is quantitatively determined to be the most impactful component of
aquaponics (Cohen et al., 2018; Forchino et al., 2017; Rizal et al., 2018). In general, the use of fishmeal
and fish oil in commercial fish feeds adds pressure to already scarce agricultural resources because the
varieties of pelagic fish used in these feeds are frequently overfished (Malcorps et al., 2019; Olsen & Hasan,
2012). Furthermore, plant-based feeds, which are composed mainly of soybean meal, impose land-use
change concerns due to the already large portion of arable land used for animal feed globally (Malcorps et
al., 2019). Cohen et al. (2018) maintain that there are several options for impact reduction, including using
insect-based proteins; however, these feeds still require full impact assessment before wide-scale adoption.
12
 In terms of energy requirements, of the few studies that examined aquaponics systems in cold climates,
the consensus is that the occurrence of reduced daylight hours and lower temperatures translate to higher
heating and lighting costs and impacts (Forchino et al., 2018; Ghamkhar et al., 2019; Love et al., 2015).
This means that aquaponics in Canada will face similar challenges, including higher greenhouse gas
emissions and global warming potential, than warm-climate aquaponics. In spite of that, renewable energy
use has great potential to reduce impacts and operation costs (Forchino et al., 2018; Forchino et al., 2017;
Ghamkhar et al., 2019; Junge et al., 2017; Tokunaga et al., 2015). Finally, while aquaponics uses less water
than traditional agriculture, multiple studies have suggested ways to reduce water use further, including the
use of covers and vent traps to limit daily water losses (Pattillo, 2017a; Kloas et al., 2015) and rainwater
collection (Pattillo, 2017a; Junge et al., 2017; Love et al., 2015; Rizal et al., 2018; Somerville et al., 2014).
Overall, system inputs are a potential area for improvement and while a number of methods to reduce their
impacts have been proposed, their success, especially in cold climate environments like Canada, has yet to
be determined and will rely on adoption of effective methods of sustainability assessment.

2.3 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Food Systems

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a method of examining the environmental implications of a product or
system through its life, from raw material extraction to end-of-life disposal. Due to this extensive coverage
across life cycle stages, LCA is often called a “cradle-to-grave” assessment. It is a systematic way of
quantifying environmental impacts per a unit quantity, or functional unit, of a product by considering all
input and output flows within specified system boundaries. In general, an LCA study requires a detailed
goal and scope, a life cycle inventory including all process-related material and energy flows, impact
assessment, and interpretation of results. Details regarding this methodology are provided in Chapter 3, but
the following section provides a summary of the methodological challenges posed by life cycle assessment
of agriculture and food systems reported in literature. In brief, these include functional unit definition,
allocation of impacts, boundary selection, and data availability and quality.

2.3.1 Method and Methodological Issues

Firstly, functional unit definition is one of the most commonly faced problems in food systems. When
conducting LCA, a functional unit based on a quantity of the final output is selected in order to evaluate the
portion of impacts incurred per unit output. The reason the functional unit causes concern is that most food
systems have multiple functions and multiple outputs (Halloran et al., 2017), but LCA guidelines only allow
for selection of one main functional unit (CAN/CSA-ISO 14044, 2006). In general, functional units for food
systems are defined in terms of mass, economic value, calories, or other nutritional values (Halloran et al.,
2016; Notarnicola et al., 2017). Some researchers suggest that the true function of food is to provide energy,
therefore calorie-based functional units should be the standard (Hayashi et al., 2005; Notarnicola et al.,

13
2017). In fact, by using energy or calories as the functional unit, studies are able to capture the share of
energy that the plant or animal devoted to production, making it a more accurate representation of impacts
(Pelletier et al., 2009). In contrast, for food products consumed for their protein content, researchers suggest
that protein content should be used as a functional unit (Bohnes & Laurent, 2019; González-García et al.,
2014; Halloran et al., 2016). However, the majority of aquaponics LCAs select simpler functional units
based on mass or economic factors (Jaeger et al., 2018; Mungkung et al., 2013). In these cases, mass-based
functional units are preferable to economic ones because economic values tend to shift depending on market
conditions, rather than by system operation. Furthermore, the relationships between mass-based functional
units and energy or protein are constant, thereby making it easier convert between units as necessary.
Moving forward, some LCA practitioners concur that nutrition-related functional units, whether that be
caloric, protein, or a complex nutrient-based index (Bianchi et al., 2020; Hallström et al., 2018), should be
the new direction for life cycle assessment in food (Hayashi et al., 2005; Notarnicola et al., 2017).
Related to the challenge described above, multifunctionality in food systems, where co-products are
produced in addition to a main product, also introduces complications. It creates a methodological challenge
because a decision needs to be made regarding how impacts are associated with each co-product (Ayer &
Tyedmers, 2009; Finnveden, 2000; Luo et al., 2009). Allocation is the most common method used in a
variety of food systems, including aquaculture (Hindelang et al., 2014; Mungkung et al., 2013), broiler
chicken production (González-García et al., 2014; Kalhor et al., 2016), and dairy farming (Yan & Holden,
2018; Zhang et al., 2013). In this way, multifunctionality is managed by partitioning impacts between co-
products based on some factor selected by the researcher (Finnveden, 2000; Pelletier et al., 2015). Similar
to functional units, allocation can be based on physical factors, such as mass, or on economic value of
products (Finnveden, 2000; Lopez-Andres et al., 2017; Reap et al., 2008b). However, allocation can create
discrepancies in the model because selection of allocation based on mass can create imbalances when
energy is split between co-products and vice versa (Pelletier et al., 2015; Weidema & Schmidt, 2010).
Therefore, ISO guidelines recommend against allocation where possible, instead suggesting to either
divide the process into individual unit processes which only have single outputs or to apply system
expansion (CAN/CSA-ISO 14044, 2006). In general, splitting multifunctional processes into unit processes
is considered the ideal approach (Pelletier et al., 2015). In the case of aquaponics, splitting into subprocesses
of aquaculture and hydroponics is a possibility, but has yet to be applied from a life cycle perspective.
Alternatively where division into unit processes is not an option, system expansion should be conducted,
where different means of producing the co-product are considered so that impacts quantified from the
alternative process can be subtracted from the process at hand (CAN/CSA-ISO 14044, 2006). As a result,
system expansion is based on the underlying assumption that the market will change, or reduce production,
to accommodate additional production from the system being studied (Pelletier et al., 2015). Because of

14
this, Pelletier et al. (2015) argue that this method of handling multifunctionality is more fitting with
consequential forms of LCA, which are change-oriented and aim to understand how the global share of life
cycle impacts burdens change with production. Attributional LCA on the other hand, which is the main
form of LCA discussed in this work, is meant to calculate absolute impacts of a specific process at a given
point in time (Finnveden et al., 2009; Pelletier et al., 2015; Schrijvers et al., 2016). Therefore, the use of
system expansion does not logically apply in attributional studies as it would in consequential studies where
changes are inherent to the study at hand. Accordingly, attributional LCAs conducted on food systems in
the future should first attempt to divide multifunctional processes into subprocesses before considering
system expansion or allocation.
Another methodological challenge faced is related to the boundaries of the study itself. In LCA, the
broadest possible boundaries include all impacts from cradle, or raw material extraction, to grave, or end
of life and disposal (Finnveden et al., 2009; Reap et al., 2008a). The reason boundary selection poses a
challenge is because they need to strike a compromise between being feasible and being broad enough to
capture the actual reality of the situation (Reap et al., 2008a). Poor boundary selection, like poor functional
unit or allocation choices, reduces the accuracy of a study, lessening the efficacy of decision making from
their findings (Reap et al., 2008a; Wender et al., 2014). Within food and protein production systems,
boundaries are often selected and justified based on data availability and commonly selected boundaries by
other studies in the field (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009; Ghamkhar et al., 2019). However, in doing so, it is
unlikely that novel conclusions can be made. Therefore, it is important that boundary selection be closely
tied to the desired outcomes and applications of a study, rather than limitations of data or comparable
literature.
Finally, the last common challenge in food LCA studies is related to data availability and quality. In
most cases, life cycle inventories for food and agricultural systems are either unavailable or unmeasurable
(Notarnicola et al., 2017). Available databases are either too region specific or too general (Finnveden,
2000; Finnveden et al., 2009), making the accuracy of the assessment less than ideal. Furthermore, Reap et
al. (2008) postulate that when data is not readily available, there can be discrepancies in the model between
the results and the actual situation being studied. In depth studies which collect data for all life cycle stages
are more likely to be accurate, but they come at the cost of expensive and time-consuming research. Overall,
finding a balance between available and collectable data is necessary for both the integrity of studies and
their timely completion. This, like the many other challenges presented above, represents an area where
LCA studies can potentially lose credibility.

15
 2.3.2 Life Cycle Assessment of Hydroponics Systems
Since there are few full life cycle assessments of aquaponics systems in literature, it is also helpful to
examine how researchers have conducted studies on hydroponics and aquaculture systems individually. For
the purpose of this review, hydroponics systems examined include soilless, indoor production with any of
the configurations described in Section 2.1.3. Then, by this definition, a number of studies have been
conducted in Europe and North America, all ranging back fewer than ten years. The results of these studies,
along with methodological choices made and challenges faced, will be discussed next.
In general, LCAs conducted on hydroponics have highlighted the importance of resource efficiency in
agricultural technologies. A number of these studies have been based on European climates and operations.
For example, studies conducted by Sanyé-Mengual et al. (2018) in Italy and Dorr et al. (2017) in France
found that rooftop hydroponic systems were more environmentally impactful when compared to
conventional rooftop farming due to high energy consumption and low resource-use efficiency. In both of
these cases, the mild European climate results in fewer concerns about energy use for heating and lighting
supplementation. Beyond rooftop farming, a study conducted by Romeo et al. (2018) comparing
conventional farming to hydroponics systems in Lyon, France also reported that energy consumption was
a problem for hydroponics systems, even considering the mild climate. Vertical hydroponics systems, such
as the one investigated by Martin & Molin (2019) in Sweden, are also growing in popularity in Europe.
Their study confirmed the environmental impacts of energy consumption for heating and lighting found in
previous studies, but it also emphasized the importance of considering infrastructure in hydroponics
systems because it represents an important area for potential improvement (Martin & Molin, 2019). This is
an important limitation because often, aquaponics studies neglect infrastructure entirely. Moreover, all
studies in Europe conclude that room for improvement exists and must be researched to reduce the
environmental burdens of hydroponics farming.
On the other hand, far fewer studies exist from a North American perspective. In terms of the United
States, the study conducted in the Midwest by Chen et al. (2020) found that energy intensity was also a
significant challenge, especially due to additional heating and lighting requirements in the winter, but that
impacts could be reduced if wind power was used rather than coal. Furthermore, their study also compared
hydroponics production to aquaponics production, ultimately making the conclusion that aquaponics
systems were 45% less impactful than hydroponics due to shared resources and increased production
capacity (Chen et al., 2020). Additionally, a hydroponics LCA was conducted from a Canadian perspective
by Dias et al. (2017). In addition to energy intensity, this study addressed the water intensity of greenhouse
hydroponics systems located in Ontario, Canada (Dias et al., 2017). It was concluded that Ontario
greenhouses were more efficient in terms of global warming potential than greenhouses located in milder
European climates. This illustrates the importance of efficiency studies to ensure that cold-climate food
16
systems balance production with environmental impacts. Overall, the key finding from the reviewed
hydroponics LCAs is that energy use is a significant factor for environmental impacts regardless of climate
conditions, but impacts are exacerbated by cold climates.
In terms of methodology applied, most studies described above had a number of similarities. The
majority of them selected a mass-based functional unit of 1 kg (Dias et al., 2017; Romeo et al., 2018; Sanyé-
Mengual et al., 2018). System boundaries were cradle to system gate to exclude consumption and disposal,
as well as other aspects such as fertilizer production and pest management (Chen et al., 2020; Dorr et al.,
2017; Romeo et al., 2018; Sanyé-Mengual, Oliver-Solà, et al., 2015). Furthermore, unlike aquaponics
systems, most hydroponics systems only have one main product, so allocation was not a concern for these
studies. However, the studies did face a variety of other challenges. For instance, the sole use of mass-based
functional units, as discussed in Section 2.3.1, is a limitation because it fails to capture the true function of
food systems (Notarnicola et al., 2017). Furthermore, the systems themselves were all located in mild
climates, limiting the applicability of the results to more extreme hot or cold climates. Moving forward, the
field of hydroponics LCA would benefit greatly from variety in location and methodology.

2.3.3 Life Cycle Assessment of Aquaculture Systems

Unlike the studies described above, aquaculture life cycle assessments are more widely studied and
cover a range of geographical regions. The results from these studies are particularly important to consider
for aquaponics systems. This is due to the fact that the aquaculture component in aquaponics controls
numerous inputs introduced to the system and its outputs are often considered the main product. Results,
as well as methodological decisions and challenges, from aquaculture life cycle assessments are described
below.
Overall, the hotspots uncovered by life cycle studies on aquaculture were largely consistent. The
majority of studies found that fish feed was the biggest concern, especially those that contained animal
products (Mungkung et al., 2013; Pelletier et al., 2009; Rizal et al., 2018; Smetana et al., 2016; Yep &
Zheng, 2019). Specifically, the impact categories mainly affected by fish feed were eutrophication and
toxicity (Mungkung et al., 2013; Smetana et al., 2016). However, even fish feeds that were mainly
composed of plant-products were impactful due to transportation and land-use change impacts (Hochman
et al., 2018; Rizal et al., 2018). The general consensus in the field is that other, more environmentally
sustainable forms of feed, such as insect-based feeds, should be considered and compared using life cycle
studies (Cohen et al., 2018; Goddek et al., 2019; Somerville et al., 2014). Furthermore, transportation was
also a major concern for other components in aquaculture, specifically in studies conducted in Asia,
including Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, and India (Henriksson et al., 2018; Robb et al., 2017).
Additionally, both indoor and outdoor aquaculture facilities faced concerns related to the impacts of water

17
quality (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009; Bohnes & Laurent, 2019; Henriksson et al., 2018; Mungkung et al., 2013).
The study conducted by Mungkung et al. (2013) found that deteriorating water quality reduced the feed
conversion ratio such that additional feed inputs were required to ensure adequate fish nutrition, thereby
exacerbating the impacts associated with feed production and consumption. Finally, it was found that
systems located indoors had high energy use that resulted in environmental concerns (Ayer & Tyedmers,
2009). It was concluded that indoor recirculating aquaculture systems, which are the kind needed for
aquaponics, were the most impactful form of aquaculture due to their energy consumption (Ayer &
Tyedmers, 2009). Moving forward, more research is needed on these systems for cold climate regions
where additional energy inputs are required to fully understand the implications of indoor aquaculture.
In order to gain a more valuable understanding of aquaculture systems, methodological challenges must
be addressed. Similar to hydroponics, aquaculture life cycle assessments had a number of common
methodological choices. Most studies selected a functional unit of a single unit of mass of either whole fish
or processed fish filets (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009; Bohnes & Laurent, 2019; Mungkung et al., 2013; Pelletier
et al., 2009). Similarly, cradle to farm gate were the boundaries selected in order to include all relevant
impacts before distribution and consumption (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009; Mungkung et al., 2013; Robb et al.,
2017). On the other hand, unlike hydroponics, allocation was necessary within aquaculture and was most
frequently applied within feed production and for solid waste production (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009; Bohnes
& Laurent, 2019). Furthermore, while hydroponics studies were often based on case studies and single-site
assessments, aquaculture studies often relied on surveys to capture regional or national behaviour
(Henriksson et al., 2018; Mungkung et al., 2013; Robb et al., 2017), making these studies more applicable
in a broader context. Therefore, in general, aquaculture LCAs are more diverse in terms of methodology
than hydroponics LCAs.
Nonetheless, aquaculture life cycle assessments still face a number of methodological challenges despite
the numerous and broad range of studies conducted. As mentioned above, allocation is a concern in
aquaculture because, like most protein production systems, co-products are present at multiple life cycle
stages. The papers by Ayer & Tyedmers (2009) and Pelletier et al. (2009) handled the allocation in a well-
thought out manner by using nutritional energy content for feed production. Ayer & Tyedmers (2009) went
further by applying system expansion at the farm gate to effectively capture the true purpose of each co-
product. However, in many other studies, mass-based allocation was applied for its simplicity (Bohnes &
Laurent, 2019), bringing into question the reliability of their results. Furthermore, a literature review
conducted by Bohnes & Laurent (2019) of 65 aquaculture life cycle assessments concluded that the major
methodological issues in the field included: functional units not being representative of the true system
function, allocation being poorly handled, and boundaries being too narrow due to data or time restrictions.
Furthermore, Bohnes & Laurent (2019) also state that the majority of studies exhibiting these issues rarely

18
addressed methodological challenges or limitations of their results. Therefore, LCA application in
aquaculture could be improved by addressing these common challenges and by adjusting methodology
accordingly.

2.3.4 Life Cycle Assessment of Aquaponics Systems

For aquaponics systems, like other emerging technologies, life cycle assessment is difficult due to data
limitations. Additional uncertainty is introduced in this case because very few full life cycle assessments
have been conducted on aquaponics systems. The reported LCA studies are based in Europe or the United
States, not Canada. This is a major gap, because as described in the previous sections, climate can
significantly affect system operation by influencing heating and lighting requirements, system design, and
even species. However, some results can be generalized and have been consistent across all studies. For
example, all reviewed aquaponics LCA studies highlight energy consumption as a major contributor to
environmental impacts. The studies conducted for cold-climate systems also found that energy inputs were
significant and that renewable energy should be considered a necessity (Cohen et al., 2018; Forchino et al.,
2018; Forchino et al., 2017; Maucieri et al., 2017). Furthermore, while most of the studies used the same
species of fish and plants, some of them indicated the importance of product selection for both profitability
(Goddek et al., 2015; Maucieri et al., 2017) and market acceptance (Forchino et al., 2017; Ghamkhar et al.,
2019). Despite a keen awareness of how life cycle operations affect profit, only the study by Forchino et al.
(2018) included life cycle cost analysis, concluding that profitability is only possible with a comprehensive
understanding of market conditions. Overall, despite the consistency among results, some major differences
arise as well, especially in terms of the assumptions made. The studies conducted, their locations, and major
assumptions are summarized in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Summary of Assumptions Made in Reviewed Aquaponics LCA Literature

Location Boundaries Functional Unit Allocation Study
United States Cradle-to-Gate 1 kg of combined product None Ghamkhar et al. (2019)
Belgium Cradle-to-Gate 1 kg plants Mass Forchino et al. (2018)
System
France Cradle-to-Gate 1 kg plants Jaeger et al. (2018)
Expansion
Switzerland Cradle-to-Gate 1 tonne fish Mass Cohen et al. (2018)
Italy Cradle-to-Gate 1 kg plants Mass Forchino et al. (2017)
System
St. Croix Cradle-to-Gate 1 tonne fish Boxman et al. (2017)
Expansion
United States Cradle-to-Gate 1 kg fish or 1 kg plants Mass Xie & Rosentrater (2015)
Indonesia Cradle-to-Gate 640 kg combined product Mass Hindelang et al. (2014)

In terms of system boundaries, all the studies consider activities from cradle to system gate, making the
results comparable, but the study conducted by Ghamkhar et al. (2019) is the only one that considers the

19
equipment itself. While others often exclude it, this study makes the case that equipment accounts for a
non-negligible portion of impacts and should be considered.
Functional unit selection is problematic in aquaponics studies. As seen in Table 2-1, mainly mass-based
functional units are used, but there are studies which consider fish the main product, ones that consider
plants the main product, and finally, ones that consider aggregate products. This implies that there is not
yet consensus on what is considered the main product of aquaponics systems, which poses a problem in life
cycle assessment because functional unit selection affects results. In fact, Ghamkhar et al. (2019), through
the use of sensitivity analysis, found that overall results varied greatly depending on whether fish or plants
were selected as the functional unit in aquaponics studies. Another problem is posed by the lack of diversity
in allocation methods used in aquaponics studies. Future aquaponics LCAs would benefit from dividing
aquaponics production into its unit operations of aquaculture and hydroponics in order to capture impacts
of each product more accurately.

2.4 Economic Implications

Like any emerging technology, rationale for implementing aquaponics systems goes beyond
environmental benefits and food production demands and should include potential economic gains. Based
on the lower resource requirements, researchers predict lower input costs for both water and fertilizer (Rizal
et al., 2018; Somerville et al., 2014; Tyson et al., 2011). However, one major limitation is that most
aquaponics companies are private, with little incentive to share their economic data (Goddek et al., 2015).
Even more limiting is that there are few studies covering economic performance. The ones that do, focus
on warm climates outside of Canada that face entirely different economic, environmental, and policy
barriers. The exploratory study by Tokunaga et al. (2015) is by far the most comprehensive and robust study
of the economic feasibility of aquaponics in a warm climate. Their overall finding was that despite the
potential for profitability, high capital expenses, labour, and feed costs were large barriers (Tokunaga et al.,
2015). This reiterates similar findings that profitable conditions are fickle and highly dependent on variables
like market demand and price (Bosma et al., 2017; Forchino et al., 2018; Forchino et al., 2017; Tokunaga
et al., 2015; Xie & Rosentrater, 2015).
Despite these challenges, a number of options for reducing costs have been highlighted in literature.
Many of these options include design or operation changes, such as the use of on-site renewable energy
sources (Forchino et al., 2018; Tokunaga et al., 2015), the automation of labour (Tokunaga et al., 2015),
the use of existing buildings to cut infrastructure costs (Junge et al., 2017), and even exploitation of
economies of scale (Quagrainie et al., 2017). The most commonly suggested option is to ensure that the
price of products is as high as possible by seeking organic certification (Asciuto et al., 2019; Quagrainie et
al., 2017; Tokunaga et al., 2015). Janker et al. (2018) criticize this approach due to potential obstacles that

20
exist in obtaining certification. Furthermore, due to gaps in literature, there is very little evidence that these
measures will actually improve the economic performance of aquaponics systems. In summary, the current
strategy for boosting economic profitability is to increase efficiency in system operation and to use quality-
based certifications to increase product value, but significant further research is required to determine the
effectiveness of these methods.

2.5 Life Cycle Cost Analysis

As mentioned above, economic performance is a key aspect that must be studied in order to ensure
overall success in aquaponics systems. Life cycle cost (LCC) analysis is one way to determine economic
productivity throughout the life cycle of a product or system. LCC is defined by Rebitzer & Hunkeler (2003)
as “an assessment of all costs associated with the life cycle of a product.” Similar to life cycle assessment,
what sets LCC apart from other economic assessment methods is its inherent interest in the entire life cycle
of a product. LCC is mainly used as an internal tool to assess a company’s cost management over a product
or system life cycle, rather than a tool that can determine economic value or be used for financial accounting
(Kádárová et al., 2015; Rebitzer & Hunkeler, 2003). This is mainly because LCC captures steady state costs
and neglects any changes in markets that could affect the value of the product (Luo et al., 2009). Instead,
LCC is often used to optimize costs by a number of industries (Savić et al., 2019; Smit, 2012). Researchers
have found that in the area of food and agriculture, there is much room left for improvement in terms of
methods and applicability (De Menna et al., 2018; Savić et al., 2019). Furthermore, researchers also argue
that despite the tendency for LCC to focus on business goals rather than environmental ones, environmental
goals are necessary all same for well-rounded sustainable development (Rebitzer & Hunkeler, 2003; Savić
et al., 2019). Therefore, it can be concluded from literature that in order to achieve such goals, LCC should
be employed alongside environmental LCA.
In terms of application, LCC methodology follows closely with LCA. Typically, the same goal and
scope will be used to frame an LCC study, including the boundaries, time periods, and data quality
requirements (Kádárová et al., 2015; Moreau & Weidema, 2015; Rebitzer & Hunkeler, 2003). Furthermore,
similarly to LCA, there is a need to identify the purpose and application of results to ensure that any findings
are meaningful and introduce value to the intended audience (Smit, 2012). Then, instead of quantifying the
flows by physical characteristics like in LCA, cash flows, adjusted by inflation and interest rates, are used
in LCC (Saeid Mohamad et al., 2014). Furthermore, like LCA, all material and energy flows throughout
the life cycle of a product must be included (De Menna et al., 2018; Saeid Mohamad et al., 2014). Therefore,
it can be said that the life cycle cost of a product is the sum of all direct costs, which are associated with
primary material and energy flows, and indirect costs, which are related to business operations rather than
production (Smit, 2012). Additionally, especially for agriculture, researchers have found that indirect costs

21
in an LCC study should include government funding and subsidies (Baquero et al., 2011). Allocation is
necessary for these indirect costs (De Menna et al., 2018) and can be applied in the following ways: weight-
based, usage rate, other specific rates based on physical or economic criteria (De Menna et al., 2018; Luo
et al., 2009). Overall, while it is important to keep these fundamental components of LCC in mind, in
practice, application can vary greatly.
In general, the application of LCC is much less standardized than LCA, resulting in a number of differing
strategies applied throughout literature. In fact, De Menna et al. (2018) found through an assessment of
LCC studies that distinctions between application approaches are rarely fully described or reported, making
replication difficult. This is especially challenging because within different fields, such as agriculture, there
is very little consensus on which methodology is most appropriate. Furthermore, Miah et al. (2017) also
argue that because connections and similarities between the various approaches are unclear, potential
integrated methods are left uninvestigated. There have been a few attempts by researchers to summarize
and integrate various LCC frameworks, including Miah et al. (2017) who used multi-objective linear
programming and Baquero et al. (2011) who used cost-benefit analysis to consolidate the approaches.
Regardless of these variations in method, the basic calculation of summing sum the net prevent value (NPV)
of all flows using the appropriate interest rate can be observed in multiple studies (Cleary et al., 2015; De
Menna et al., 2018; Langdon, 2005; Miah et al., 2017; Spickova & Myskova, 2015). Therefore, future LCC
studies should focus on standardizing calculations and methodology to ensure comparability and reliability
between results.

2.6 Key Themes and Research Implications

Most of the literature reviewed here is from the past ten years, making aquaponics a relatively young
field with growing interest and potential. Researchers have identified one major need across all studies.
This is the need for optimization within aquaponics to reduce operation and start-up costs, improve
environmental performance, and increase production yields. Specifically, the need for optimization has
been highlighted with respect to environmental impact, system design, and symbiosis. Furthermore,
researchers have consistently pointed out environmental hotspots related to energy use for all climates.
Within the field of aquaponics LCA, a number of other gaps have been identified. These include dealing
with co-products, allocation, and finally, functional unit selection and justification.
Due to the complex and ever evolving nature of these variables, there is no “one size fits all” solution.
However, a number of options for improving operation from an environmental and economic standpoint
have been identified. The next steps for aquaponics research are to eliminate some of the uncertainty
surrounding cold climate operations as aquaponics gains popularity around the world (Villarroel et al.,
2016). Especially in Canada, aquaponics systems need more guidance because the Canadian climate and

22
market introduce different demands and conditions that need to be met for productivity. In the process of
optimizing these systems, it is more important than ever to maintain environmental sustainability to ensure
that these technologies remain viable alternatives to traditional agriculture. In conducting research such as
this, sustainable pathways for aquaponics in Canada can effectively be identified.

23
 Chapter 3 Contributions
The contributions for this chapter are as follows: I, Gayathri Valappil, conducted analysis and wrote
the content, while Dr. Goretty Dias and Dr. Christine Moresoli provided guidance and revisions.

24
 Chapter 3 Life Cycle Assessment of Aquaponics Production: A Canadian
Case Study
3.1 Abstract

Global population growth is putting pressure on food production systems to meet growing nutritional
demands. Therefore, methods of controlled-environment food production are frequently suggested as food
security solutions as well as means to fill gaps in current production. Aquaponics is one such technology
that combines recirculating aquaculture with hydroponics to simultaneously produce fish and vegetables,
but is known for its energy intensity, especially in cold climates. This study splits aquaponics production
into individual unit processes of aquaculture and hydroponics and uses a cradle-to-gate life cycle
assessment to investigate the environmental barriers faced by small-scale, Canadian aquaponics systems. It
was concluded that energy consumption for artificial lighting and heating was the biggest environmental
hotspot due to the large percentage of fossil-based energy used by the local grid. This resulted in a global
warming potential of 68 kg CO2eq/kg live fish and 50 kg CO2eq/kg leafy greens. All other input flows
contributed to an average of 2% of total impacts. Energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy
are suggested, but other input flows, including infrastructure and fish feed, could also be altered to improve
environmental performance. The findings of this study are posed to support future businesses and
researchers in making aquaponics operations and technologies more environmentally viable.
Keywords: life cycle assessment, cold climate agriculture, energy use, indoor aquaculture, Canada

3.2 Introduction

As the impacts of climate change become more prominent, the global agriculture industry will be under
pressure to meet rising nutritional demands. In 2003, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry issued a report that outlined the need for increased resiliency in Canadian agriculture due to
expected changes in climate conditions, such as increased frequency of extreme weather events and pests,
changes to Canada’s growing zones, and the economic effect of changes in global agricultural productivity
(Oliver & Wiebe, 2003). These changing climate conditions have already put strains on agricultural
production around the world and have led to significant crop loss (Calicioglu et al., 2019; Eigenbrod &
Gruda, 2015; Goodman & Minner, 2019). Furthermore, research also indicates the importance of shifting
production towards currently under-produced goods, including seafood, nuts and legumes, and fruits and
vegetables in order to make the food system as a whole more sustainable and capable of supporting a
growing population (Bahadur KC et al., 2018). Therefore, restructuring the agriculture industry in Canada
to accommodate climate change-related challenges and population growth is an important issue.

25
 In response to these challenges, controlled-environment food production systems (CEFPS) are
growing in popularity. CEFPS are climate-controlled, often indoor systems, in which ideal growing
conditions can be maintained year-round (Benke & Tomkins, 2017; Despommier, 2011; Goodman &
Minner, 2019; Shamshiri et al., 2018). They are especially important in urban areas and in cold regions
because they open up the possibility of local produce being accessible year-round, rather than having to
rely on imported goods. These systems are sometimes impervious to extreme weather events as well as the
shorter growing periods in cold climates. Additionally, due to the level of control offered by CEFPS
technologies, reduced resource use is often touted as a potential environmental and economic benefit
(Benke & Tomkins, 2017; Despommier, 2011). For these reasons, CEFPS technologies are often thought
of as a solution to food production barriers in urban areas and cold regions. However, they are often placed
in converted warehouses and barns (Chance et al., 2018; Love et al., 2015) without consideration of how
inadequate building envelopes can increase energy consumption in cold climates.
Of these CEFPS technologies, aquaponics is one particular type that combines aquaculture and
hydroponics for simultaneous fish and vegetable production. These systems are typically closed loops that
cycle water between the aquaculture and hydroponics systems with the help of biofilters (Danner et al.,
2019; Goddek et al., 2015; Yep & Zheng, 2019). The water output from the aquaculture unit contains
nutrients from the fish waste that eliminate or reduce the need for additional fertilizers in the input to the
hydroponics unit (Goddek et al., 2015; Yep & Zheng, 2019). A common set-up for small-scale commercial
aquaponics systems is to pair recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) with deep-water culture (DWC)
hydroponics systems (Goddek et al., 2015; Palm et al., 2018). In RAS, water output from the aquaculture
system is treated using biofilters to convert harmful ammonia into a useful form of nitrogen before being
sent to the hydroponics system and eventually returning to the aquaculture tanks (Delaide et al., 2016;
Monsees et al., 2017). At the same time, DWC systems, also known as raft hydroponics, allow plants to sit
on rafts that float directly atop nutrient rich water, eliminating the need for soil (Goddek et al., 2015; Sayadi-
Gmada et al., 2019; Somerville et al., 2014; Yep & Zheng, 2019). In addition to reduced fertilizer and soil
needs, aquaponics systems also require very little water beyond the initial filling due to the water recycling
operations that take place (Danner et al., 2019; Goddek et al., 2015). Therefore, there is growing interest in
these technologies to address challenges in the food system.
However, aquaponics systems are not without drawbacks. A number of life cycle assessments (LCA)
exist for aquaponics systems, most of which highlight energy use to be the most significant hotspot for
indoor operations (Forchino et al., 2018; Ghamkhar et al., 2019; Hindelang et al., 2014; Xie & Rosentrater,
2015). Furthermore, fish feed is found to be impactful due to the use of fishmeal and fish oil in many
commercial operations (Cohen et al., 2018; Hindelang et al., 2014; Maucieri et al., 2017). However, the
majority of these LCAs are based on warm or Mediterranean climates with very few that focus on cold

26
climates, and none that look specifically at Canadian aquaponics systems. The few studies on cold regions
have found that long winters introduce the need for additional heating and artificial lighting such that energy
use is the primary concern (Ghamkhar et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019). However, factors specific to Canada,
such as composition of the electricity grid, materials and infrastructure requirements, markets for specific
fish species and crop varieties, and length of the growing period can all affect LCA results. As a result, the
need for Canadian perspectives on the life cycle assessment of indoor aquaponics systems is clear.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify the environmental barriers that are faced by small-scale,
indoor Canadian aquaponics systems located in converted warehouses or barns by conducting a life cycle
assessment. Additionally, a known challenge in aquaponics LCA studies, and in any LCA of a
multifunctional system with multiple products including a primary product and coproducts, is how to
partition impacts between products. Therefore, a secondary purpose of this study was to evaluate how
coproduct treatment affects the final impact results for each product in the aquaponics system.

3.3 Methodology

This study followed the standard procedure for a life cycle assessment (LCA) outlined in the ISO
14044 framework. As per the guidelines, the study includes goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory,
life cycle impact analysis, and interpretation (CAN/CSA-ISO 14040, 2006). Details regarding these methods
are described in the following sections.

3.3.1 System Description

The aquaponics system of interest is a small-scale commercial facility located in Halifax, Nova Scotia,
Canada. It consistently produced rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and striped bass (Morone saxatilis)
year-round, while plant production rotated between a variety of leafy greens, including Swiss chard (Beta
vulgaris), arugula (Eruca vesicaria), butter lettuce (Lactuca sativa), Vulcan hybrid lettuce (Lactuca sativa),
and basil (Ocimum basilicum) depending on market value and demand (Design Parameters Optimization
and Economics of a Commercial Aquaponics, 2018). The target market of this system were customers in
Atlantic Canada and Ontario, but the venture ultimately shut down after five years due to the various
uncertainties surrounding Canadian aquaponics practice.
The system consisted of three 6 m2 Styrofoam stacked grow beds, a 0.75 m3 high density polyethylene
(HDPE) plastic fish tank, settling tank, mineralization tank, water filters and a biofilter, two water pumps
(45-W each), two aerators (25-W each), and 90 T-8 fluorescent bulbs (32-W each) (Design Parameters
Optimization and Economics of a Commercial Aquaponics, 2018). Because the system was located in a
windowless room, all of the lighting required for plant growth needed to be provided artificially, resulting

27
in a frequent bulb replacement rate. Further details regarding each of these components, including the
lifespans for the main materials and the size are given in Appendix A: Life Cycle Inventory Data.
The hydroponics unit was a form of deep-water culture (DWC), while the aquaculture unit was a
recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) which meant that the roots of the plants sat directly atop the
nutrient-rich water that cycled back and forth between the systems. Each hydroponic grow bed had a volume
of 1 m3 and was able to hold 200 plants, resulting in a total system capacity of 600 plants. The total water
capacity was 4 m3, with 3 m3 used by the hydroponics system and 1 m3 used by the aquaculture system. Of
this total volume, 0.01% was replaced each week. In terms of energy input, the system used minimal heating
from October to March as well as fluorescent grow lights that operated for 12 hours a day year-round. The
electricity requirement for the hydroponics system was determined based on use of 80 32-W lighting
fixtures, while the remaining 10 fixtures were used by the aquaculture system. The heating was provided
with electrical space heaters. Heating was therefore divided based on the area taken up by each process,
meaning that 35% of heating was used for the hydroponics unit, based on a 6 m2 area, and 65% was used
for the aquaculture unit, based on a 13 m2 area. Overall, the system took up 19 m2 and could produce 64 kg
of fish and 300 kg of produce each year, making this a multifunctional system. A not-to-scale diagram of
the system is shown in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1: Depiction of aquaponics system.

Because aquaponics produces both fish and leafy greens, there is a main product and a coproduct.
According to the ISO standards, the preferred way to deal with a multifunctional system is to subdivide the
“black box” that produces the two products into its unit processes, where each unit process has an output
of one product (CAN/CSA-ISO 14040, 2006). This means that all input flows and impacts were divided
according to how they were used to generate each product. For an aquaponics system, the production
operation can be seen as an integration of the aquaculture and hydroponics sub-systems, as shown in Figure
3-2. As a result, the need for allocation or system expansion was eliminated.

28
 Figure 3-2: Flow diagram for unit process approach.

3.3.1.1 Climate Considerations

Nova Scotia is a Maritime province located on the east coast of Canada. Halifax is its capital. Proximity
to the Atlantic Ocean gives Nova Scotia a milder climate than landlocked regions in Canada. This means
that Halifax typically experiences mild summers and winters, with occasional periods of extreme heat and
humidity or extreme cold (Environment Canada, 2021). During the cold season when heating was required
(October to March), outdoor temperatures of -9°C and 14°C are typical, while the warm season has
temperatures ranging between 17°C and 25°C (Environment Canada, 2021).

3.3.2 Goal and Scope

3.3.2.1 Goal and Application

The goal of this LCA was to explore the environmental impacts and resource consumption of small-
scale aquaponics systems in Canada and to extend findings to other cold regions. Additionally, through the
application of the unit process model described above, this research aimed to address gaps in current
aquaponics LCAs which have generally applied allocation to partition impacts between co-products. The
overarching aim was to evaluate the potential for aquaponics to be a responsible and sustainable production
method for the Canadian food system.
The results of this study will be beneficial in several regards. Primarily, its findings will be able to guide
existing and future aquaponics farmers in Canada to improve their environmental performance by
identifying hotspots in operation and enabling their correction. This will guide system improvements and
operational decision-making that will ultimately help to ensure that aquaponics facilities are

29
environmentally sustainable. The intended audience for the study is therefore operators and owners of
aquaponics systems, but also policy-makers and researchers who are looking for key areas of food
production that should be targeted to achieve sustainability.

3.3.2.2 Functional Unit

As discussed previously, the aquaponics system of interest in this study provided a controlled
environment for the simultaneous production of both fish and leafy greens. In LCA, this implies that it is a
multi-functional system, however, one output must be selected as the main product, with the other being
referred to as the co-product. Then, the function of the system can be described with respect to the main
product, such as per unit of fish or per unit of leafy greens. In general, many aquaponics LCAs tend to select
fish as the primary product and, in order to manage the co-product of plants, use mass allocation to partition
impacts (Cohen et al., 2018; Forchino et al., 2017, 2018). However, allocation is not a desirable approach
according to ISO guidelines (CAN/CSA-ISO 14044, 2006), so to avoid it, the unit process approach
described in Section 3.3.1 was instead applied in this study. Therefore, the two functional units selected for
this study are: 1 kg of live fish for the aquaculture unit and 1 kg of leafy greens for the hydroponics unit
over the period of one year of system operation.

3.3.2.3 System Boundaries

When modeling the life cycle, cradle-to-gate boundaries were applied. This meant that all aspects of the
life cycle up to the point where products left the facility were considered. In particular, this included raw
material extraction (ores, fuels, etc.), refining and manufacturing (plastics, steel refining, rockwool, feed,
etc.), on-site activities (water and electricity use, etc.), as well as transport between these steps. Note that
for the fish feed used in the aquaculture unit, while milling of crop products was included, energy for
blending and its infrastructure were neglected. Similarly, the packaging materials used for the fish and leafy
greens were excluded for this LCA screening due to its assumed minor influence on environmental impacts.
Since activities that occur before or after these are not directly dependent on the operation of this aquaponics
system, they were not of interest in this study. This includes cleaning and packaging of the fish and leafy
greens, consumption, and disposal of products and system infrastructure, as well as any processes needed
for the construction of capital buildings used at any stage in the life cycle. In terms of geographical
boundaries, wherever possible Canadian and American data were given preference over European data to
ensure that results are applicable to a wide range of Canadian aquaponics facilities. Additionally, data from
daily operations exists for a one-year period, however the results of the assessment should be applicable
over a suitable period where technological change is expected to be minor. The actual lifespan of
aquaponics systems is debated in literature due to the varying lifespans of the materials used. Some studies

30
have chosen a 20-year lifespan due to the breadth required for planning and predicting finances needed for
capital projects (Bosma et al., 2017), while others have performed sensitivity analysis on various lifespans
of the materials (Ghamkhar et al., 2019). It has been reported that shorter equipment lifespans tend to
increase environmental impacts and that infrastructure is a highly sensitive area that should be included in
aquaponics LCAs (Ghamkhar et al., 2019). For this study, a lifespan of 5 years was chosen because
aquaponics is an emerging and rapidly evolving technology that is likely to have various environmental
considerations in the near future.

3.3.2.4 Impact Categories and Impact Assessment

In order to model the system, openLCA 1.10 was used with information available in the ecoinvent 3.5
database. Modeling of the environmental impacts was done using TRACI 2.1 (Tool for the Reduction and
Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts), which is the method developed by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency. The impact categories chosen for this study were determined by
the types of impacts incurred by aquaponics facilities but also follow closely with existing studies in order
to allow for comparison between results. These categories are acidification, eutrophication, global warming
potential and fossil fuel depletion.
Acidification potential captures the possibility of airborne emissions altering the pH of both soil and
water and can be measured through sulfur dioxide, or equivalent, emissions (La Rosa, 2016). It is relevant
to aquaponics production due to the emissions created in energy generation and plastic manufacturing
(Forchino et al., 2017; Goddek et al., 2015), both of which are vital to the operation of the facility. Next,
eutrophication potential indicates the possibility of excess nutrients being added to water to the point where
algal blooms interfere with existing aquatic and terrestrial life (Morelli et al., 2018). Consideration of this
impact is relevant to aquaponics operation due to its water usage and to compare impacts of other aquatic
agriculture where eutrophication concerns are high (Morelli et al., 2018). Global warming potential is
directly linked to energy usage and emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that result from
it (La Rosa, 2016). Not only do most, if not all, aquaponics LCAs include this impact category, energy
consumption often results in the largest impacts, making this category vital to the validity of this study.
Furthermore, this is related to fossil fuel depletion because it directly connects non-renewable fuel use to
the impacts of the system.

3.3.2.5 Data Quality Requirements

In order to ensure validity of results, defining data quality requirements is crucial for selection of relevant
data. For the most part, the data used in this screening was obtained from the ecoinvent 3.5 database, which
means not everything was directly applicable to this product system. Therefore, the data quality

31
requirements given in Table 3-1 were used to ensure that data used in the model would be temporally,
geospatially, and technologically relevant to this study. Then, with these requirements in mind, a data
quality matrix, such as the one developed by Weidema & Wesnæs (1996), was used to quantify the quality
of a set of data at the interpretation phase. The matrix and data quality scores are provided in Appendix B:
Data Quality.

Table 3-1: Data Quality Requirements

Data Quality Category Requirement
All data should be from within five years of 2018, which is the year
Temporal
the facility was operated.
Operation data should be appropriate for Canadian or similar northern
Geospatial
regions. This is to ensure that cold climate considerations are made.
The most commonly used/available technology for upstream
Technological production processes will be accepted, but system data should be
relevant for Canadian operations.
3.3.3 Life Cycle Inventory

As discussed previously, aquaponics systems have multiple input and output flows that must be
accounted for in LCA. These consist of the basic consumable inputs, including seeds, hatchlings, water,
feed, chemical additives, and energy, as well as infrastructure components of PVC, HDPE, Rockwool, steel,
and polystyrene foam slabs. The output flows are the live fish and leafy greens. Each input or output flow
value must be divided by the amount of functional unit produced. The normalized values for each input and
output flow for the unit process approach are given in Table 3-2 along with assumptions and sources for
input values. Further information regarding material lifespan and infrastructure mass can be found in
Appendix A: Life Cycle Inventory Data.

Table 3-2: Calculated Input and Output Flows, per Functional Unit for Aquaculture Unit and Hydroponics Unit
Flow Quantity Unit Assumptions & Sources1
Aquaculture Hydroponics
Unit Unit
INPUTS
0.24 - Adult trout production,
Hatchlings kg
conservative approach
Seeds - 2.4E-4 kg
19.78 9.15 Tap water production in
Water kg
Quebec
9.58 44.09 Grid composition used in
Electricity kWh Nova Scotia in 2018, see
Figure A-1
61.80 6.97 Electrical heating used,
Heating kWh compared to natural gas and
biogas
Potassium 1.2E-4 2.5E-5 L

32
 Calcium 1.2E-4 2.5E-5 L
Iron 6.3E-5 1.3E-5 L
Energy required for blending
Feed
feed components neglected
Soybean meal 0.65 - kg
Wheat 0.28 - kg
Corn/maize 0.28 - kg
Fishmeal and fish oil 0.09 - kg
Based on 20-year lifespan,
Infrastructure
after which replaced
PVC 0.007 0.002 kg
HDPE 0.041 - kg
Steel - 0.019 kg
- 0.048 Annual replacement, from
Rockwool kg
(De La Hera et al., 2016)
- 0.38 Annual replacement, 100%
Polystyrene slabs kg
virgin materials
OUTPUTS
1 - Rainbow Trout and Striped
Live fish kg
Bass
Leafy greens - 1 kg Various lettuces, chard, basil
1
All unit processes from ecoinvent 3.5 database. Values obtained from Nova Scotia facility unless
otherwise specified.

3.3.4 Assumptions and Limitations

A limitation of this study is the relative scarcity of Canadian life cycle inventory data (Ayer & Tyedmers,
2009). In fact, a significant portion of data on background processes is only available based on European
conditions (Rebitzer et al., 2004), which means it may not be directly applicable to Canadian analyses
(Weidema & Wesnæs, 1996). For processes occurring within Canada, use of data from non-Canadian
locations can cause problems due to variations in the type of electricity grids and other manufacturing
processes. Additionally, some data from the Nova Scotia facility was only provided in terms of Canadian
dollar values, which are likely to have fluctuated from the time of operation to the time of the study. This
included heating data, where only the electricity expenses were provided, rather than the amount of kilowatt
hours of electrical heating used. Therefore, estimations were made using the cost of energy per kilowatt
hour in Nova Scotia in 2018 to determine the consumption in kilowatt hours. Also, the production of
hatchlings in Canada was unavailable in ecoinvent 3.5, so the process was approximated using data for fully
grown trout produced in South America.
Assumptions had to be made on the materials used in the infrastructure and their amounts, the lifetime
of equipment, the composition of the feed, and the amount of green waste produced on site. Firstly, many
aquaponics life cycle assessment studies have suggested that infrastructure related impacts are negligible
and often neglect it from analysis (Forchino et al., 2017; Ghamkhar et al., 2019). However, because waste

33
from indoor agriculture has been found to be significant in other contexts (Egea et al., 2018), it was deemed
relevant for this study. It was assumed that the major components that make up the aquaponics system,
including the tanks, the piping, the racks, and the hydroponics growth supports, would be included within
the scope of infrastructure. The materials of these components, as well as their replacement rates, are given
in Appendix A: Life Cycle Inventory Data. However, other components, such as pumps, light bulbs, and the
building housing the aquaponics system were left out for simplicity.
The manufacturer’s website did not state the exact ratio of feed components; however, the ratio of
proteins, fats, and carbohydrates was provided. Therefore, using this ratio and comparing to feed ratios and
compositions provided in the work by Ghamkhar et al. (2019), an approximate feed composition was
estimated, as shown in Table 3-2. Similarly, since the Rockwool production process was unavailable in
ecoinvent 3.5, a life cycle inventory and emissions record from De La Hera et al. (2016) was used based on
its similarity to Canadian manufacturing processes (Rockwool Production Process, 2020). Finally, the
production of green waste on site was not considered. This green waste included leftover plant parts, such
as leaves and roots.
Lastly, while the amount of electricity for lighting and pumping consumed by the aquaponics system
was recorded in terms of kilowatt hours, the amount of heating was only available in terms of Canadian
dollar values. To determine how much heating each unit process used, area-based allocation was used. The
amount of heating used by the entire warehouse in which the aquaponics system was housed was given, so
using the overall area of the building and the area specific to the aquaponics system, the amount of heating
used by the aquaponics system was determined. Similarly, the ratio of area used by the aquaculture unit (13
m2) to the hydroponics unit (6 m2) was used to determine the heating specific to each unit process. This
meant that 4000 kWh/year of heating was used for aquaculture and 2000 kWh/year was used for
hydroponics. Next, the composition and quantity of additives were determined based on available liquid
fertilizers targeted for aquaponics systems from Canadian suppliers. Finally, since the exact quantity of
PVC piping was unknown, a quantity from literature for an aquaponics system exactly double the size of
this one (Hindelang et al., 2014) was halved for this model.

3.3.5 Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the impact of the coproduct treatment method on the
final impact results associated with fish and leafy greens. As mentioned above, for the main analysis, the
aquaponics system was split into individual unit processes of aquaculture production and hydroponics
production. This is the ISO recommended approach for dealing with systems that have multiple outputs,
known as multifunctional systems (CAN/CSA-ISO 14044, 2006). The other recommended approach is to
use system expansion, where impacts of the co-product are subtracted from the system being studied based

34
on known values from other life cycle assessments. However, because system expansion is based on the
inherent assumption that the market will change in order to accommodate a displacement of production, it
has been argued that system expansion is more suited to consequential LCAs which are fundamentally
interested in how production changes affect the global share of environmental burdens (Pelletier et al.,
2015). Attributional LCA, which is conducted in this study, is interested in the absolute impacts of a product
or system, so system expansion is less suitable in this context. However, while best efforts can be taken to
split the inputs according to unit process, the division of some inputs is not straightforward, introducing the
need for this sensitivity analysis.
The inputs to the aquaponics system where uncertainty is introduced are electricity, water, PVC piping,
chemical additives, and heating. For these input flows, adequate documentation outlining how they were
divided during operation was not available. Instead, assumptions were made regarding their division. For
electricity, water, and PVC piping, inferences based on equipment specifications were made. This included
the electrical demand of pumps and the liquid capacity of the aquaculture and hydroponics tanks. On the
other hand, the chemical additives were assumed to be shared equally and were split in half. Finally, heating
was split based on the footprint of each unit process, as discussed in Section 3.3.4. This splitting of input
flows represents a significant area of uncertainty. Therefore, in order to assess the sensitivity of modelling
the system as unit processes, sensitivity analysis was conducted by modelling the system as a black box.
For this black box approach, depicted as a flow diagram in Figure 3-3, allocation was used to partition
impacts between the coproducts of live fish and leafy greens.

Figure 3-3: Process flow diagram for aquaponics facility, black box approach.

35
 Allocation was applied for mass, energy, and protein contributions. Table 3-3 shows the allocation
ratios of impacts to fish and impacts to leafy greens for each allocation method, while the life cycle
inventory values for the black box approach are given in Table A-3. For mass allocation, the ratio was
simply determined based on the output mass of both individual processes over a one-year period. Similarly,
energy or calorie allocation was conducted based on the caloric value of both fish and leafy greens. In this
way, allocation is representative of one of the functions of food systems, which is to provide energy to the
consumer (Notarnicola et al., 2017). Calorie allocation makes the most sense when 1 kg of live fish is
selected as the functional unit, however, because leafy greens are typically consumed for nutrients rather
than for calories, energy allocation may not make sense for a functional unit based on leafy greens. Finally,
allocation by protein was also investigated to highlight the value of aquaponics as a protein-production
system, given the interest in less-impactful protein sources (Bahadur KC et al., 2018; Specht et al., 2019).
By switching from mass to energy to protein, the portion of impacts allocated to fish increases significantly,
which highlights the importance of allocation in LCA and the limitations of many aquaponics studies solely
relying on mass allocation.

Table 3-3: Allocation Ratios for Mass, Energy/Calorie, and Protein Allocation

Allocation Property Impacts to Fish (%) Impacts to Leafy Greens (%)

Mass 18 82
Energy/Calorie 80 20
Protein 90 10

3.4 Results

The results are presented for the impact contribution of the aquaculture and hydroponics units to various
impact categories, the sensitivity analysis of the coproduct treatment methods, and a comparison of the
environmental performance of this system to similar ones in literature.

3.4.1 Aquaponics as Two Individual Process: Aquaculture and Hydroponics

The contribution analysis for the aquaculture unit is illustrated in Figure 3-4. Heating, which was
supplied by electricity, contributed up to 83% of impacts across all impact categories. Electricity used for
lighting and pumping contributed up to 12% of the total impacts. This is a result of the average annual
energy requirement for the aquaculture unit of 72 kWh per kilogram of fish and the fact that the electricity
grid in Nova Scotia in 2018 was primarily composed of coal and other fossil-based energy, as shown in
Figure A-1. As a result, a GWP of 68 kg CO2eq per kg of live fish was measured. The other inputs combined
contributed to between 0.001% and 2% of all impact categories investigated.

36
 100%

80%

% Contribution
60% Heating
Electricity
40%
Infrastructure

20% Feed
Additives
0% Water
Hatchlings
-20%

Figure 3-4: Relative contribution of input flows according to impact category for aquaculture unit.

In addition to heating, the production of hatchlings was particularly significant for the impact category
of eutrophication. However, this value is a conservative estimation because the process was approximated
using ecoinvent 3.5 data for fully grown trout due to the lack of data on hatchling production. Conservative
estimations are typically preferred in LCA studies because they result in an overestimation of impacts,
rather than an underestimation (Finnveden et al., 2009). Further details regarding the data quality of this
process are given in Appendix B: Data Quality.
Finally, fish feed was also a notable input flow. While in this analysis fish feed contributed on average
to 2% of the overall impacts, previous LCA studies on aquaponics and aquaculture have found fish feed to
be a significant hotspot (Cohen et al., 2018; Hindelang et al., 2014; Maucieri et al., 2017), including those
conducted in Canada (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009; Pelletier et al., 2009). This difference may be due to the
significantly lower content of fishmeal and fish oil in the fish feed used in this study compared to
conventional, commercial feeds considered in the previous studies. For example, in the study conducted by
Hindelang et al. (2014), the fish feed contributed to 90% of eutrophication, 60% acidification, and 25%
global warming potential, rather than the average 2% observed here. The fish feed used in the study by
Hindelang et al. (2014) consisted of 23% fishmeal and fish oil, while the feed used in the current study
consisted of only 7% for an annual usage of 0.09 kg fishmeal and fish oil per kg of live fish. Furthermore,
as shown in Figure 3-5, soybean meal was the largest contributor to the impacts of fish feed in this study,
while fishmeal only contributed 6%.

37
 10% 6%

21%
Fishmeal & Fish Oil
Maize Grain
Soybean Meal
Wheat Grain

63%

Figure 3-5: Average contribution of feed ingredients to environmental impact of fish feed.

The relative contribution of input flows according to impact category for the hydroponics unit is
provided in Figure 3-6. When compared to aquaculture, the highest contribution to impacts from the
hydroponics unit came from electricity for lighting. This is due to the daily requirement of 12 hours of
artificial lighting, equating to 44 kWh per kilogram of leafy greens. Furthermore, fluorescent bulbs were
used in the system, which consume more electricity than most newer lighting technologies (Rehman et al.,
2017; Wolsey, 1993). Heating was also important, contributing to 13% of overall impacts on average. As a
result, a GWP of 50 kg CO2eq per kg of leafy greens was observed. Together, heating and electricity
consumption for the hydroponics unit was 51 kWh/kg of leafy greens, compared to 71 kWh/kg of live fish
in the aquaculture unit.

100%

80%
% Contribution

60%
Electricity
40% Heating
Infrastructure
20% Additives
Water
0%
Seeds
-20%

Figure 3-6: Relative contribution of input flows according to impact category for hydroponics unit.

38
 Hydroponics infrastructure contributed to around 5% of impacts, which was more than water, seeds,
and chemical additives. Specifically, the largest share (65%) of the infrastructure impacts, as shown in
Figure 3-7, came from the polystyrene foam slabs used to support plants and which need to be replaced at
a rate of 23 kg per year. The steel racks were also an important contributor due to the large energy use for
virgin steel production. Therefore, infrastructure requires further consideration to reduce environmental
impacts in aquaponics systems.

7%
PVC Pipes
0% 28%
Steel Racks

Polystyrene Foam Slabs

Rockwool Growing
65% Media

Figure 3-7: Average contribution of infrastructure components to total environmental impact of infrastructure.

3.4.2 Sensitivity Analysis of the Impact Partitioning for Aquaponics System

As discussed previously, a significant limitation of LCA application is having to partition impacts for
systems that have multiple outputs, such as with an aquaponics system that produces both fish and leafy
greens. By splitting the aquaponics system into its individual unit processes of aquaculture and hydroponics,
allocation was avoided in this study. However, the unit process approach still required allocation of some
inputs, including heat, certain infrastructure components, and additives, because the division of these input
flows was not accurately measured. For this reason, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine
impacts when mass, energy, and protein allocation were applied. The contribution of each input flow to the
impact of global warming potential for the three different types of allocation is presented in Figure 3-8.

39
 100
90

% Contribution to Global Warming

80
Electricity
70
Heat
60
Potential Infrastructure
50
Feed
40
Additives
30
Water
20 Seeds
10 Hatchlings
0
Mass Calorie Protein
Allocation Type

Figure 3-8: Comparison of contribution of input flows to global warming potential for mass, calorie, and protein
allocation.

In all three allocation types, heating and electricity were the most impactful input flows, accounting
for 98% of the total global warming potential. This is the case for all the other impact categories considered
in this study, with heat and electricity contributing to an average of 90% of the total impact for each
allocation type. This is important because it reinforces that heating and electricity are the most significant
hotspots in operation for cold-climate aquaponics systems, as found in the unit process approach for both
aquaculture and hydroponics.
The absolute magnitudes of the global warming potential and eutrophication potential impact
categories by allocation method are presented in Figure 3-9. The impacts are given for the functional unit
of 1 kg of fish and are partitioned based on the values in Table 3-3. Additionally, the global warming
potential for the aquaculture unit, based on the unit process approach applied previously, was also provided
as a reference. Figure 3-9 indicates that the share of impacts attributed to fish is highest for protein
allocation and lowest for mass allocation when compared to energy allocation. Specifically, the impact was
approximately 4 times higher for protein allocation and 3.5 times higher for energy allocation when
compared to mass allocation. Furthermore, the impacts of the aquaculture unit were similar to the impacts
observed for mass allocation, but significantly different compared to calorie and protein allocation. This
shows that while the contribution of input flows is not affected by impact partitioning methods, the actual
value of impacts per functional unit varies greatly. How to allocate impacts, both in aquaponics research
and in life cycle assessments in general, is heavily debated for this reason (Finnveden, 2000; Pelletier et al.,
2015; Reap et al., 2008b).

40
 Aquaculture Unit 68 0.30

Mass 52 0.21

Calorie 234 0.93

Protein 265 1.05

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Global Warming Potential (kg CO2eq) Eutrophication (kg Neq)

Figure 3-9: Changing magnitude of impacts by allocation method for global warming potential and
eutrophication.

3.5 Perspectives and Recommendations

3.5.1 Insights from Literature

Much of the work done in this study is meant to support cold-climate aquaponics systems due to the
fact that the majority of existing research is concentrated on systems in tropical and mild climates. This
study aimed to determine the environmental barriers that are faced by small-scale aquaponics systems
located in Canada. It was found that the hotspots uncovered here, namely energy for heating and lighting,
were also frequently mentioned in literature for warm-weather systems but exasperated in this context of
aquaponics operated in a cold climate. For example, energy consumption is often the most significant
hotspot in all aquaponics research, but especially for systems located outside of tropical zones. The studies
by Hindelang et al. (2014) in Thailand, Boxman et al. (2017) in St. Croix, and Barbosa et al. (2015) in
Arizona, USA, despite having consistent, warm temperatures year-round, all found energy use for pumping
and lighting in aquaponics production to be impactful. Other systems, such as those studied by Ghamkhar
et al. (2019) in midwestern USA and Forchino et al. (2018) in Belgium, found that heating requirements in
the winter greatly contributed to the environmental impacts. In the case of Ghamkhar et al. (2019), heating-
related impacts were mainly caused by a reliance on natural gas, while the study by Forchino et al. (2018)
used electrical heating powered by a mixture of renewable and non-renewable sources. In general,
recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), which is the type used in this study and the aforementioned
aquaponics systems, have the greatest environmental impacts even when renewable energy sources are

41
introduced (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009). Therefore, the inherent energy demand of aquaponics systems
hinders its environmental sustainability.
For the aquaponics LCAs mentioned above that selected fish to define functional unit, a comparison
of the global warming potential (GWP) is provided in Figure 3-10. It is observed that the GWP of the
system studied here at 52 kg CO2eq, while over 20 times higher than the lowest GWP observed in the study
by Hindelang et al. (2014), is still almost four times less than the worst impact, which was observed in the
study by Ghamkhar et al. (2019). As mentioned previously, the reason the studies by Boxman et al. (2017)
and Hindelang et al. (2014) have much lower impacts than the system in this study and the one studied by
Ghamkhar et al. (2019) is that they are located in warm or mild climates and therefore have much lower
energy requirements than the ones located in cold climates. While the system studied by Forchino et al.
(2018) was not located in a warm region, its heating impacts were reduced through the use of renewable
energy sources. This is in contrast to the study by Ghamkhar et al. (2019) where a higher quantity of natural
gas-powered heating was required. As a result, the global warming potential is significantly higher,
highlighting the influence the electricity grid and its composition can have on the environmental impact of
cold-climate aquaponics systems.

160
Global Warming Potential (kg CO2eq)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
This System Ghamkhar et al. Forchino et al. Boxman et al. Hindelang et al.
(2019) (2018) (2017) (2014)

Figure 3-10: Comparison of global warming potential of aquaponics system in this study to aquaponics systems
in literature (Boxman et al., 2017; Forchino et al., 2018; Ghamkhar et al., 2019; Hindelang et al., 2014)

In contrast, certain results from this study were quite different from patterns reported in literature. In
previous studies, fish feed was typically determined to be an environmental hotspot (Ayer & Tyedmers,
2009; Cohen et al., 2018; Hindelang et al., 2014; Pelletier et al., 2009). The primary cause of this is the
heavy dependence on fishmeal and fish oil-based feeds. In this study, fishmeal and fish oil made up 7% of
the overall composition of fish feed, while in other studies fishmeal and fish oil were reported to make up

42
12-23% (Hindelang et al., 2014; Mungkung et al., 2013; Pelletier et al., 2009) and up to 50% (Ghamkhar
et al., 2019) of commercial fish feed. The processes involved in obtaining fishmeal and fish oil typically
result in eutrophication and other negative environmental impacts (Cohen et al., 2018; Malcorps et al.,
2019). Furthermore, the cost of fishmeal and fish oil is expected to increase by up to 70% in the next ten
years (Goddek et al., 2019). Therefore, switching to plant-based feed ingredients has been deemed valuable
by much of the academic community. Additionally, infrastructure is often neglected in aquaponics LCAs
because its impacts are generally assumed to be insignificant (Forchino et al., 2017; Ghamkhar et al., 2019).
Hydroponics infrastructure, namely polystyrene foam slabs, contributed greatly to environmental impacts,
which could be drastically reduced with the use of recycled polystyrene. In this study, while infrastructure
was not nearly as impactful as energy consumption, it was an important input flow in the hydroponics unit,
particularly under the fossil fuel depletion impact category. Overall, this study has shown that both fish
feed and infrastructure are aspects of aquaponics studies that should be examined in detail despite the
obvious and overshadowing issue of energy consumption.

3.5.2 Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, a number of recommendations can be made both for improvement
of the methodology and improvement of system performance. In terms of methodology, the splitting of the
aquaponics system into unit processes was a better indication of the aquaponics production process because
input flows were able to be split according to which product they contributed to. It was found that the type
of allocation method applied, either mass, calorie, or protein, had a significant effect on the magnitude of
the impacts. Furthermore, because mass allocation resulted in fewer impacts associated with fish when
compared to the unit process approach, existing studies that have applied mass allocation may be slightly
underreporting the implications of aquaponics production. Because of this, it is suggested that aquaponics
LCAs model operation as the unit processes of aquaculture and hydroponics to better capture the reality of
production. Additionally, other life cycle stages not examined here, such as transportation, packaging, and
waste treatment should also be considered in future studies. Many existing studies are limited to cradle to
system gate boundaries, but as determined here, neglected processes can play a significant role and are
worth exploring. Therefore, future studies should expand methodologies beyond the basics, in addition to
exploring different types of aquaponics systems and different regions of operation.
In terms of the improvement of system performance, the following suggestions should be considered.
In general, it was determined that energy consumption contributed to the majority of impacts, which was
the case throughout aquaponics literature as well. Furthermore, because cooling was not applied in the
summer months, there was a resulting loss of fish during extreme heat episodes. This implies that, despite
the significant amount of energy already consumed by the system, more energy would be required for

43
addressing the extreme temperature fluctuations over the year. Therefore, optimization of heating and
cooling in aquaponics systems should be considered to both reduce energy consumption and reduce the
amount of fish loss. In the current study, the aquaponics system was located in an old warehouse, with a
low-efficiency HVAC system and no windows, both of which contributed to its enormous energy
consumption. This is a potential barrier to the environmental sustainability of aquaponics production
because more and more urban agriculture systems are being set-up in existing spaces such as this.
Consideration of buildings with efficient HVAC technologies and certification by a building energy board,
such as LEED or Energy Star, could allow for optimization of energy consumption. If an existing certified
site is not available, alternative options, such as retrofitting to LED lighting, improving insulation quality,
and incorporating renewable energy sources are recommended. Furthermore, selection of climate-
appropriate crops and fish, such as cold-resistant crops for winter operation and warm water fish for summer
operation, should also be considered to ensure productivity and reduce energy demand. These options will
be explored in further depth in the following chapter.

3.6 Conclusions

In summary, this study conducted life cycle assessment on a small-scale Canadian aquaponics system
that operated year-round in Nova Scotia. It highlighted challenges specifically faced by systems located in
cold climates as well as the environmental consequences of intensive energy consumption. Furthermore, a
novel approach of splitting the aquaponics system into its unit operations of hydroponics and aquaculture
helped to address methodological challenges faced in the LCA of multi-functional systems. It can be
concluded that the methodology was effectively able to highlight hotspots of concern without the
consequence of impact partitioning and that future research should aim to continually expand LCA
methodology to fit system complexity.
It was found that electricity consumption, for both lighting and heating, was the most significant
contributor to environmental impacts. While the aquaculture unit was most impacted by heating use,
hydroponics dominated in energy consumption due to the need for artificial lighting to support plant growth.
This is potentially a challenge all systems operating through winter can expect to face due to shortened
daylight hours and low temperatures. Furthermore, the Nova Scotia electrical grid at the time of operation
was fossil-fuel heavy, exasperating environmental impacts of energy consumption. Improvements, such as
LED lighting, insulation, and renewable energy sources, are recommended areas of further research.
Moreover, other inputs which were not typically believed to have impacts on operation were also
uncovered in this study. While when compared to energy consumption these input flows were insignificant,
they also represent simple improvements that can be made with relatively no effect on operation.
Specifically, infrastructure was found to be influential on the fossil fuel depletion potential of hydroponics

44
operation. Switching to recycled materials and aiming to lengthen their lifespan are both simple, low-cost
solutions to these problems. Additionally, while the impacts of fishmeal-based fish feeds are typically quite
high, it can be concluded based on findings from this study that switching to plant-based feeds can
drastically reduce the impact of commercial fish feeds.
Overall, while aquaponics systems help to address gaps in the food system by producing both
vegetables and a high-quality protein source, their environmental impacts should not be ignored. Energy
consumption is of primary concern and in their current state, aquaponics systems located in cold climates
would contribute greatly to environmental degradation. Furthermore, other factors not included in this
chapter, such as economic performance and social implications, should also be considered to ensure all
pillars of sustainability are addressed. Consideration of the recommendations made here will be necessary
for aquaponics to become a viable, wide-spread technology.

45
 Chapter 4 Contributions
The contributions for this chapter are as follows: I, Gayathri Valappil, conducted analysis and wrote
the content, while Dr. Goretty Dias, Dr. Christine Moresoli, and Dr. Jeffrey Wilson provided guidance and
revisions.

46
 Chapter 4 Exploration of Environmental and Economic Improvement
Pathways: Life Cycle Cost and Scenario Analysis
4.1 Abstract

Aquaponics, which combines recirculating aquaculture and hydroponics to simultaneously produce

fish and vegetables, is an emerging form of controlled-environment food production. These technologies
are growing in popularity and are often suggested to be solutions to urban food insecurity and production
gaps in the food system. However, especially in cold climates, much remains to be understood regarding
the economic performance and environmental impact of aquaponics systems. This study uses life cycle
assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) analysis to determine how various alternative scenarios,
including energy efficiency measures, renewable energy, and insect-based fish feed, affect environmental
and economic sustainability of a small-scale Canadian aquaponics system. It was concluded that pairing
increased energy efficiency with wind electricity resulted in a GWP reduction of 97% and an LCC reduction
of 5%. Other measures, such as insect-feed and on-site biogas heating, increased costs drastically despite a
reduction in environmental impacts. Future aquaponics studies should examine these and other
improvement scenarios in more detail by considering other forms of economic analysis and including social
impact assessment.
Keywords: aquaponics, life cycle assessment, life cycle cost, cold climate agriculture, energy use, indoor
aquaculture, Canada

4.2 Introduction

Controlled-environment food production systems (CEFPS) are frequently suggested as solutions to

many problems faced by the food industry today. They are a group of technologies characterized by their
ability to moderate food production conditions, optimize yields, and minimize the influence of external
factors, such as temperature and weather (Eigenbrod & Gruda, 2015; Lakhiar et al., 2018; Specht et al.,
2014). However, the results from the previous chapter show that without proper consideration of energy-
related challenges, CEFPS can instead pose other challenges. Winter conditions in Nova Scotia, including
temperatures ranging between -9°C and 1°C and reduced sunlight (Environment Canada, 2021), as well as
Nova Scotia’s reliance on coal power (Today’s Energy Stats, 2020), contribute to environmental impacts.
It was concluded that the energy demand and energy source of indoor farming systems located in cold
regions contributed greatly to environmental impacts beyond that of systems located in warm or mild
climates.

Aquaponics is a specific form of CEFPS that combines aquaculture and hydroponics to simultaneously
produce fish and vegetables. These systems may help to reduce resource use, especially water and fertilizer,

47
when compared to conventional agriculture. However, much about the operation and impacts of aquaponics
systems are still unknown. There are multiple studies that use LCA to examine the environmental
implications of aquaponics, however most of them are geographically centered around Europe or the United
States. The consensus from these studies is that intensive energy consumption is the biggest environmental
barrier faced by aquaponics systems (Forchino et al., 2018; Ghamkhar et al., 2019; Xie & Rosentrater,
2015; Yep & Zheng, 2019). Countries like Canada, which experience long, harsh winters, are rarely the
focus of environmental assessments which means that caveats of winter operation, such as increased heating
and lighting demands, have not yet been assessed. Methods of reducing these demands and impacts, such
as use of energy efficient appliances and renewable energy technologies, also have yet to be examined
through LCA. As a result, much is left to be understood regarding the performance of aquaponics in
Canadian markets.
The economic performance of cold-climate aquaponics systems has also rarely been addressed. Some
studies have assessed their viability in specific markets, typically located within tropical zones or mild
climates. In general, these studies have concluded that aquaponics can only be commercially viable in areas
where niche markets, such as those for ornamental fish, exist (Bosma et al., 2017; Greenfeld et al., 2019;
Janker et al., 2018; Tokunaga et al., 2015). These studies also state that the biggest cause for this is the high
cost of operation which raises the cost of goods substantially. This also means that areas with easily
accessible aquaculture and fishery products may not be able to support aquaponics production because the
price of goods would not be competitive. Furthermore, many aquaponics facilities located across the United
States ultimately failed after a few years of operation (Quagrainie et al., 2017). However, government
funding can also motivate and support the operation of aquaponics systems. Therefore, understanding the
economic barriers and policy incentives that affect the success of aquaponics businesses will prove useful
in the future.
Of the existing economic assessments described above, the following trends can be observed. Two
important aquaponics studies were limited to a qualitative assessment, where a cursory examination of
economic performance was considered (Bosma et al., 2017; Rizal et al., 2018). These studies were
particularly useful in the early stages of the field for gaining a preliminary understanding and to highlight
potential improvement pathways. Additionally, a few quantitative assessments, such as cost benefit analysis
(CBA) (Bosma et al., 2017; Gibbons, 2020) and techno-economic analysis (TEA) (Xie & Rosentrater,
2015) also exist, but are rare and restricted to specific geographies. While both CBA and TEA are powerful
quantitative tools, they focus mainly on the profit gained from specific products (Bosma et al., 2017; Rizal
et al., 2018) and technological performance based on system design (Xie & Rosentrater, 2015), respectively.
In order to capture all costs incurred across the lifespan of aquaponics systems, life cycle cost (LCC)
analysis should be conducted. However, LCC has rarely been used for quantitative assessment for

48
aquaponics systems. One study has been conducted in Belgium (Forchino et al., 2018) but none exist for
the Canadian market, which limits the ability for aquaponics businesses in Canada to understand economic
hotspots across the full life cycle of operation.
The purpose of this study was therefore to examine alternative scenarios by targeting the hotspots
identified from the LCA of a cold-climate aquaponics system located in Nova Scotia, Canada and to conduct
LCC analysis for the original and alternative scenarios. The alternative scenarios were based on three
themes: energy efficiency, energy source, and fish feed composition. The results include the environmental
life cycle impacts of applying various alternative scenarios, followed by the LCC results of both the original
and alternate systems. Recommendations regarding which measures are most worthy of pursuing are made
to support policy makers and aquaponics businesses and researchers in Canada.

4.3 Methodology

This study used LCA and LCC analysis to examine a variety of alternative scenarios for both
environmental and economic improvement. These scenarios included switching from fluorescent to LED
lighting, upgrading insulation thickness and technology, using wind and biogas energy, and using insect-
based fish feed to replace fishmeal and fish oil. The LCA methodology followed ISO guidelines. Details of
the system description, boundaries, functional unit, and impact categories are provided in Section 3.3.
Similarly, the fundamental motivation behind life cycle cost analysis is discussed in Section 2.5. The life
cycle cost analysis methodology is described in depth in the following section.

4.3.1 LCA & LCC Scenarios

Alternative scenarios were explored to determine pathways for improvement of cold-climate

aquaponics systems. The alternative scenarios investigated in this study focused on energy efficiency,
energy source, and fish feed composition. Briefly, the energy efficiency scenarios examined measures that
can be taken to reduce the amount of energy required by the system, thereby reducing both costs and
environmental impacts. Then, the energy source scenarios built upon the efficiency scenarios to look at
renewable sources of energy, which could further reduce the environmental impacts but may not necessarily
reduce costs. Finally, the fish feed scenarios looked at both the environmental and economic implications
of switching from fishmeal-heavy fish feeds to insect-meal based ones, which are frequently touted in
literature as a potential solution to the environmental impacts of using fishmeal-based feeds (Junge et al.,
2017; Smetana et al., 2016; Specht et al., 2019). The specific values and methods applied to model these
scenarios are described in detail below.

49
 4.3.1.1 Energy Efficiency Scenarios

As mentioned, the energy efficiency scenarios focused solely on reducing the amount of electricity
used without considering the source of energy itself. There were two main improvement measures
examined, LED lighting and improved insulation. In the existing system, fluorescent T-8 bulbs were used
in all fixtures, including the ones that supplied artificial lighting for the plants. These bulbs were 2.54 cm
in diameter, 30 cm in length, and had a wattage of 32 W (Uline T-8 LED Bulbs, 2021). Lighting was
provided for 12 hours per day, 365 days per year. By switching to LED T-8 bulbs, energy usage for
electricity was assumed to be lowered by 40%, as per the study by Katzin et al. (2021). Katzin et al. (2021)
also suggested that switching to LEDs would result in a higher heating demand due to the amount of heat
usually emitted by the fluorescent bulbs, but this phenomenon was not considered in this study. In terms of
the life cycle inventory, the cost of LED bulbs was determined based on the bulk cost of 90 fixtures and a
replacement rate of 3 years (Uline T-8 LED Bulbs, 2021), while the cost of energy was adjusted based on
the improved lighting efficiency. These costs are provided in Table 4-2.
The other energy efficiency alternative was the improvement of insulation within the building that the
aquaponics system operated. The building was relatively old and lacked an efficient HVAC system, which
meant heating was provided through electric space heaters. Furthermore, because there was little existing
insulation, a large portion of heating energy was lost each winter. This alternative scenario was based on
increasing the thermal resistance by using a spray foam insulation to achieve R-13 insulation in the walls
and R-19 in the roof, as per recommendations found in ASHRAE standards (ASHRAE 90.1, 2004). This
was assumed to reduce heating requirements by 15% (US Department of Energy, 2020). The costs for
insulation were determined based on the average material and installation costs in Canada, as shown in
Table 4-2. However, since the range of costs is significant, sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine
the impact of the upper and lower prices.

4.3.1.2 Energy Source Scenarios

Building upon the previous section, the energy source scenarios examined the effect of replacing fossil-
based energy with renewable energy on the environmental and economic performance. It was assumed that
energy efficiency was first reduced through the use of LED lighting and improved insulation before varying
the energy source. While replacing fossil-based energy was expected to reduce environmental impacts,
particularly within the fossil fuel depletion and global warming potential (GWP) impact categories, the
overall life cycle cost was expected to increase due to the limited access to off-site renewable electricity in
Nova Scotia.
The original scenario operated with electricity provided by the grid in Nova Scotia. The composition
of this grid was fossil-fuel heavy, consisting of 63% coal and coke and an overall non-renewable energy
50
contribution of 76% (Today’s Energy Stats, 2020). The remaining fractions of the grid can be found in
Figure A-1. Therefore, two energy source alternative scenarios were examined. The first alternative
scenario considered 100% onshore wind energy to reflect the growing proportion of wind farming on the
eastern coast of Canada and that the Nova Scotia grid is shifting towards more renewable sources of energy
(Today’s Energy Stats, 2020). While the original scenario used electrical heating, natural gas heating is
more commonly used in Nova Scotia, so both options of heating source were evaluated. The pricing for the
wind electricity scenario was based on the Canadian company Bullfrog Power that allows for the purchase
of renewable energy credits. Their business model was based on investing in renewable energy projects to
offset the amount of non-renewable energy used by their customers (Bullfrog Power Canada, 2021).
Therefore, they charge an additional 2 cents per kWh for electricity. This is reflected in the LCI provided
in Table 4-2.
The second alternative energy source scenario considered the use of biogas energy from anaerobic
digestion. The basic premise of this scenario was to partner aquaponics facilities with other agricultural
facilities, specifically dairy farms, that produced enough waste to share excess biomass energy. Dairy farms
in Canada are most equipped for having on-site anaerobic digesters due to their size and economic
profitability and often only use the biomass for electricity, implying that some amount of heat gets wasted
(Law et al., 2012; Purdy et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2013). Therefore, there is potential for aquaponics
systems to capture this waste heat. In this case, it was assumed that the aquaponics facility would use
anaerobic digestion solely for the purpose of heating over the months of October to March and continue to
use wind or grid-powered electricity for all other energy needs.
From here, two implementation options for biogas energy were considered. The first was that at the
expense of the aquaponics business, a small-scale combined heat and power (CHP) system would be
installed on site, assuming the partner facility would have its own existing anaerobic digester. Due to this
partnership between facilities, there would be no additional cost for the biogas, but excess waste heat could
be used instead of lost. The cost of a small-scale CHP system is also an area where sensitivity analysis was
conducted since larger CHP systems are more prevalent in the current market, making the cost of small
ones unpredictable (Darrow et al., 2015). The second implementation option was to purchase credits for
renewable biogas through Bullfrog Power, as described for the wind energy scenario. In this way, the capital
cost of a CHP system could be avoided. Furthermore, this represents a feasible option for existing
aquaponics facilities not located near dairy farms. Both of these options were explored with respect to
environmental impacts and economic performance.

51
 4.3.1.3 Fish Feed Scenarios

The fish feed scenarios focused on the impacts associated with the use of fishmeal and fish oil in fish
feed. Fishmeal and fish oil, obtained from lower trophic level fish, are often the main ingredient in fish feed
formulations for aquaculture (Ghamkhar et al., 2019; Maiolo et al., 2020; Roffeis et al., 2017). Because of
the significant impacts and costs of these feed components, other protein sources, including soybean meal
or insect meal are introduced (Roffeis et al., 2017). Furthermore, LCA studies conducted by Le Féon et al.
(2018) and Roffeis et al. (2017) have shown that substituting insect meal in fish feed for aquaculture can
be environmentally beneficial, while not totally economically different. The original scenario used a
soybean-heavy fish feed, which meant that the impacts were not as significant as other aquaponics systems
from literature (Ghamkhar et al., 2019; Yep & Zheng, 2019), but room for improvement exists. Therefore,
understanding how the use of insect meal in fish feed compares to the current fish feed would be useful.
However, only the effect on environmental impact and life cycle cost were considered in this study. The
effect on fish productivity, such as growth and weight gain, were not considered. The study by Roffeis et
al. (2017) was used as the baseline for insect-based feed (IBF) production and impacts, as shown in Table
A-4.
In terms of LCC, uncertainty is introduced because the cost of IBF is ambiguous in the current market.
While there has been significant research conducted on the use of and resulting productivity of IBF, there
are only a few companies that sell it at a commercial scale. Furthermore, the ones that do often use insect
meal as a supplement or additive, rather than a replacement for fishmeal and fish oil (Pulina et al., 2018).
However, it was possible to estimate a range of prices based on current trends in the insect meal market. As
shown in Table 4-2, three prices were selected: $370/year, $740/year, and $1500/year. The lower price is
based on the current price of commercial fish feed, assuming that future process improvements would allow
for competitive pricing of insect-meal products (Pulina et al., 2018). The intermediate price is a more
realistic estimate for the cost of these goods in the European market in the near future based on the study
by Pulina et al. (2018) and was therefore used in this study. Finally, the high price is based on costs of
specialty feeds, such as pet food (Pulina et al., 2018). Sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine
implications of this uncertainty in IBF pricing. One of the limitations of this scenario is that the effect on
fish health and growth was not considered. Further research must be done to assess the productivity in
aquaculture and aquaponics systems using IBF to improve the quality of the LCC estimates.
The various alternative scenarios are summarized in Table 4-1. Note that the addition of an A or H to
any of the short forms listed refer to aquaculture and hydroponics, respectively.

Table 4-1: LCC Scenario Descriptions and Naming

Short
Scenario Theme Scenario Description
Form

52
 Original system operation, grid pricing O
Original
Original energy usage, natural gas heating, grid pricing O-NG
Insulation at average price INS
Energy Efficiency LED lighting LED
Efficiency measures combined (average price insulation & LEDs) EFF
Wind electricity, efficiency measures, Bullfrog pricing W
Biogas heating, efficiency measures, wind electricity, Bullfrog
BG
pricing
Energy Source Off-site biogas heating, efficiency measures, wind electricity,
OFF-BG
Bullfrog pricing (LCC only)
On-site biogas heating, efficiency measures, wind electricity,
ON-BG
Bullfrog pricing (LCC only)
Wind electricity, efficiency measures, insect-based feed, Bullfrog
Fish Feed IBF
pricing

4.3.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCC)

Like LCA, LCC requires the definition of a goal and scope and collection of inventory data.
Boundaries, time period of data validity, data quality, among others, are all aspects that must be defined
clearly (Kádárová et al., 2015; Moreau & Weidema, 2015; Rebitzer & Hunkeler, 2003). In this study, all
aspects of the goal and scope, including the system description defined in Section 3.3 for the LCA remain
the same for the LCC, but the life cycle inventory is different. In LCC, monetary values are of primary
interest. Therefore, costs associated with investment, maintenance, operation, and energy, as well as all
other expenses incurred throughout the life cycle of a product system, were considered (Cleary et al., 2015;
Langdon, 2005).

4.3.1.1 Economic Life Cycle Inventory

The costs considered for the LCC are provided in Table 4-2. The costs pertinent to the original
operation and additional values for Bullfrog pricing, insulation, insect-based feed, and combined heat and
power systems are provided for the alternative scenarios of the aquaponics system. All data was collected
from system operation, unless otherwise specified.

Table 4-2: Economic Life Cycle Inventory for Original Scenario and Alternative Scenarios of the Aquaponics
System
Item Cost Notes and Source
Energy
Electricity Rate 8.353 ¢/kWh (Rates & Tariffs, 2020)
Natural Gas Rate $0.07/kWh (Rates & Tariffs, 2020)
Bullfrog Electricity Rate 10.353 ¢/kWh (Bullfrog Power Canada, 2021)
Bullfrog Renewable Natural Gas (Bullfrog Power Canada, 2021)
$0.08/kWh
Rate

53
 Lighting
Fluorescent Bulbs $234/year (Uline Bulk T-8 Bulbs, 2020)
LED Bulbs $358/year (Uline T-8 LED Bulbs, 2021)
Based on the range of costs of
insulation materials in Canada from
Insulation and Installation (Great Northern Insulation, 2020) and
thickness requirements from ASHRAE
(ASHRAE 90.1, 2004)
Low Cost $780
Average Cost $1700
High Cost $2600
From confidential business report and
Consumables
cost projections (Wilson et al., 2018)
Water $190/year
Seeds $140/year
Rockwool Growing Media $560/year
Hatchlings $480/year
Chemical Additives $200/year
Feed
Original Feed $370/year
Low-Cost Insect Feed $370/year (Pulina et al., 2018)
Average-Cost Insect Feed $740/year (Pulina et al., 2018)
High-Cost Insect Feed $1500/year (Pulina et al., 2018)
System equipment and maintenance
Combined Heat & Power (CHP)
costs (San Martín et al., 2008)
Low-Cost $2600
Average-Cost $5700
High-Cost $8900

The discount rate is an important factor in LCC calculations. It is a rate describing the change of the
value of money over time (Langdon, 2005). In terms of LCC, the discount rate is used to determine the
present value of all input costs and output revenues over the lifetime of the product or system so that all
cash flows can be summed up within an equivalent time frame. In this study, three discount rates were
considered to understand their effect on LCC. First, the rate for determining net-present values of economic
flows in Canada (8%), which is based on the economic opportunity cost of capital, was considered (Jenkins
& Kuo, 2007). Additionally, another accepted discount rate proposed by Canadian researchers (10%)
(Jenkins & Kuo, 2007) and the more recent social discount rate approved by the Canadian treasury board
(3.5%) (Boardman et al., 2010) were also selected. The discount rate of 8% represents the most likely
scenario for a business undertaking an aquaponics project and was therefore used throughout the analysis.
In contrast, the social discount rate reflect the social opportunity cost of capital and can be applied to the
aquaponics facility because it represents a project that has inherent social value, such as supporting urban
food security. Therefore, the effect of the selecting a different discount rate was examined through the use
of a sensitivity analysis in Section 4.4.4.

54
 4.3.1.2 LCC Methodology

LCC involves taking values from the life cycle inventory, applying the discount rate, and summing
them up over a given period of time; however much of LCC methodology has not yet been standardized
(De Menna et al., 2018; Miah et al., 2017). In this study, the life cycle cost was determined by summing
the net present value (NPV) of all expense cash flows over a 20-year period. The timespan was selected
based on the expected lifespan of the aquaponics system and its major infrastructure components. This is
described in Equation 1, where t represents the year, Ct represents the cash flow at year t including both
costs and revenues, and i represents the discount rate.

20
𝐶𝑡
𝐿𝐶𝐶 = ∑ ( ) (1)
(1 + 𝑖)𝑡
𝑡=1

Furthermore, the inflation rate in Canada at the time of the study (2%) was applied to determine the
value of each cash flow over the 20-year period (Bank of Canada Interest Rates, 2019). This was calculated
as shown in Equation 2 below, where f represents the inflation rate.

𝐶𝑡 = 𝐶𝑡−1 × (1 + 𝑓) (2)

In addition to the life cycle cost, the internal rate of return (IRR) was also calculated. This value is
useful because it allows for a comparison between projects. When the IRR is low, it means that there is a
lower return on investment, usually implying that the high capital and operation costs outweigh profits
(Langdon, 2005). Therefore, higher IRR values are desired because they imply higher cash returns. IRR is
estimated by solving for the value of i after setting Equation 1 to zero and substituting values for Ct and t.
These two values of LCC and IRR were of main interest in this study and are discussed in Section 4.4.3.

4.4 Results

The results are presented for the impact comparison of the alternative scenarios, contribution analysis
for the alternative scenarios, comparison of the life cycle costs and internal rate of return, and the sensitivity
analysis conducted on the LCC.

4.4.1 Alternative Scenarios Impact Comparison

The alternative scenarios focused on areas that were environmental hotspots in the original scenario
(O, O-NG). Since energy consumption had the greatest environmental impact, energy efficiency (INS,
LED, EFF) and energy source (W, BG) related scenarios were the main focus, along with a third alternative
scenario related to fish feed (IBF).

55
 The benefits and consequences of each alternative scenario explored in this study are presented in
Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 for four impact categories: acidification, eutrophication, fossil fuel depletion,
and global warming potential. First of all, for both aquaculture and hydroponics, the use of renewable biogas
(BG) heating almost doubled the impacts of eutrophication and acidification due to ammonia storage
practices, while significantly reducing fossil fuel depletion and global warming potential impacts. In
contrast, the A-IBF scenario and the H-W scenario resulted in the most significant reductions across all
impact categories. In fact, each impact was reduced by an average of 80%, making these the most promising
scenarios from an environmental perspective. Specifically, they reduced the GWP of aquaculture from 68
kg CO2eq/kg live fish to 3 kg CO2eq/kg of live fish and reduced the GWP of hydroponics from 50 kg CO2eq/kg
leafy greens to 3 kg CO2eq/kg leafy greens. This analysis highlights that energy efficiency measures alone
cannot significantly reduce environmental impacts of aquaponics systems, but pairing such measures with
a renewable source of electricity, such as wind, can drastically reduce impacts. The absolute impact values
for the remaining impact categories are provided in Appendix C: Life Cycle Impact Results.

A-O

A-EFF

A-W

A-IBF

A-BG

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 20 40 60

Eutrophication (kg Neq) & Fossil Fuel Depletion (MJ surplus) &
Acidification (kg SO2eq) GWP (kg CO2eq)

Eutrophication Acidification Fossil Fuel Depletion GWP

Figure 4-1: Alternative scenario comparison according to eutrophication, acidification, fossil fuel depletion, and
GWP per kg of live fish for the aquaculture unit.

56
 H-O

H-EFF

H-W

H-BG

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 10 20 30 40 50

Eutrophication (kg Neq) & Fossil Fuel Depletion (MJ surplus) &
Acidification (kg SO2eq) GWP (kg CO2eq)

Eutrophication Acidification Fossil Fuel Depletion GWP

Figure 4-2: Alternative scenario comparison according to eutrophication, acidification, fossil fuel depletion, and
GWP per kg of leafy greens for the hydroponics unit.

4.4.2 Alternative Scenarios Contribution Analysis

4.4.2.1 Energy Efficiency Alternative Scenarios

The energy efficiency alternative scenarios included: (1) switching from fluorescent bulbs to LED
bulbs (LED), and (2) increasing the thickness and type of insulation to match ASHRAE standards (INS).
Combined (EFF), these two alternatives were expected to significantly lower the energy consumed by the
system. Figure 4-3 shows the relative contribution of inputs for the aquaculture unit with increased
insulation and LED lighting (A-EFF). When compared to Figure 3-4, which shows the contribution of input
flows to impacts of the original aquaculture scenario (A-O), the overall contribution of each input flow did
not change significantly, implying that electricity and heating were still the most significant contributors.
Furthermore, the heat and electricity usage only changed from 71 kWh/kg of live fish in the original system
to 62 kWh/kg of live fish with the improvements, resulting in a GWP and fossil fuel depletion reduction of
12%. This is because the greatest reduction in electricity came from the switch to LED lighting, of which
the majority of usage was associated with the hydroponics unit, rather than the aquaculture unit. On top of
this, the building in which the system operated was not selected with HVAC efficiency, access to windows,
and building envelope in mind. Therefore, while the increased insulation quality does result in a heating
reduction, a more significant heating reduction for the aquaculture system will require more dramatic
changes, such as a full retrofit of the building.

57
 100%

80%

% Contribution
60% Electricity
Heating
40%
Infrastructure

20% Feed
Additives
0% Water
Hatchlings
-20%

Figure 4-3: Relative contribution of input flows to impact category for the A-EFF scenario.

Figure 4-4 shows the contribution of the input flows to each impact category for the hydroponics unit
after insulation improvements and LED lighting were applied (H-EFF). Like the aquaculture unit, the
relative contribution did not change significantly from the original scenario for the hydroponics unit.
However, because lighting played such a significant role in hydroponics’ energy consumption, the
electricity and heating demand changed from 51 kWh/kg of leafy greens to 27 kWh/kg leafy greens. This
resulted in a 36% reduction in fossil fuel depletion and a 44% reduction in global warming potential.
Overall, the energy efficiency scenarios resulted in more significant reductions in environmental impact for
the hydroponics unit than the aquaculture unit, almost halving the electricity and heating demand and
reducing fossil-fuel related impacts by up to 44%. However, the relatively similar contributions of input
flows for EFF and O indicate that room for improvement exists for both aquaculture and hydroponics.

58
 100%

80%

% Contribution
60%
Electricity
40% Heating
Infrastructure
20% Additives
Water
0%
Seeds
-20%

Figure 4-4: Relative contribution of input flows to impact category for the H-EFF scenario.

4.4.2.2 Energy Source Alternative Scenarios

The energy source alternative scenarios considered two different sources of energy. First, wind energy
was considered to be a plausible option in Nova Scotia due to the many options for on and offshore wind
energy and many coastal areas with high wind potential. This scenario, as discussed in Section 4.3.1,
assumed that wind energy credits could be purchased to offset the impact of the fossil-based grid used in
Nova Scotia.
Starting with the aquaculture unit, Figure 4-5 shows the relative contribution of input flows to impact
categories for the A-W scenario, where efficiency measures of LED lighting and improved insulation, as
well as wind electricity, were applied. In contrast with A-EFF and H-EFF discussed previously, wind
electricity shifted the relative contribution of other input flows dramatically. In fact, the use of wind energy
resulted in a 95% reduction of GWP and an 88% reduction in fossil-fuel depletion, with similar reductions
being observed for other impact categories. The absolute values of the GWP and fossil fuel depletion are
provided in Appendix C: Life Cycle Impact Results. With such reductions, other input flows, such as fish
feed, infrastructure, and hatchlings appeared to be much more influential. However, energy consumption
for heat and electricity remained the largest hotspot.

59
 100%

80%

% Contribution
60% Electricity
Heating
40%
Infrastructure

20% Feed
Additives
0% Water
Hatchlings
-20%

Figure 4-5: Relative contribution of input flows to impact category for the A-W scenario.

The contribution of the input flows to impact category for the H-W scenario is shown in Figure 4-6. It
was observed that the contribution profile changed greatly compared to the original scenario, H-O. While
in the original scenario, the input flow of infrastructure had a minor contribution to select impact categories,
it is now dominant in many impact categories, including fossil fuel depletion, global warming potential,
acidification, ozone depletion, and smog. Therefore, for the hydroponics system it is especially important
that infrastructure aspects, such as materials, lifespans, and recycling options, be considered and improved
on. However, because electricity was still the greatest contributor to environmental impacts, it can be
concluded that the use of artificial lighting is a barrier to the environmental sustainability of hydroponics
systems.

60
 100%

80%

% Contribution
60%
Electricity
40% Heating
Infrastructure
20% Additives
Water
0%
Seeds
-20%

Figure 4-6: Relative contribution of input flows to impact category for the H-W scenario.

The second type of energy source scenario was the use of biogas heating. For these scenarios (A-BG
and H-BG), biogas energy was used to replace electrical heating used in the original scenario, while the
remaining electricity requirement was fulfilled with wind electricity. The relative contribution of the input
flows to each impact category for the A-BG and H-BG scenarios are presented in Figure 4-7 and Figure
4-8.

100%

80%
% Contribution

60% Wind Electricity

Biogas Heating
40%
Infrastructure

20% Feed
Additives
0% Water
Hatchlings
-20%

Figure 4-7: Relative contribution of input flows according to impact category for the A-BG scenario.

61
 100%

80%

% Contribution
60%
Wind Electricity
40% Biogas Heating
Infrastructure
20% Additives
Water
0%
Seeds
-20%

Figure 4-8: Relative contribution of input flows to impact category for the H-BG scenario.

In both the aquaculture unit and the hydroponics unit, the use of biogas heating resulted in the
contribution of input flow to each impact category being shifted considerably from the original system.
Now, with the notable exception of fossil fuel depletion in the hydroponics unit, the greatest contributor to
every impact category was biogas heating. These results highlighted the burden of heating requirements for
indoor cold-climate agriculture systems. Heating remains the largest contributor to all impact categories in
the aquaculture unit even when renewable energy sources were used. Heating is now also the largest
contributor to all impact categories in hydroponics unit, whereas previously, electricity for lighting was the
greatest contributor. In fact, acidification and eutrophication potential were nearly doubled, despite over a
60% reduction in both global warming potential and fossil fuel depletion among both unit processes.

4.4.2.3 Fish Feed Alternative Scenario

In this alternative scenario, the type of fish feed used in the aquaculture unit was altered in addition to
the previously described scenarios of energy efficiency and wind electricity. The typical commercial fish
feed, consisting of fishmeal and fish oil, was replaced with an insect meal-based feed adapted from the
study by Roffeis et al. (2017). The relative contribution of the input flows to each impact category is
presented in Figure 4-9 for the IBF scenario. When compared to the relative contribution for A-W shown
in Figure 4-5, the contribution of the feed was significantly less for many impact categories, including
eutrophication, smog, and respiratory effects. Note that in the original scenario, the fish feed used contained
only 7% fishmeal, which is far less that the 25-50% fishmeal used in many conventional feeds (Ghamkhar
et al., 2019; Hindelang et al., 2014). This implies that the effect of switching to IBF could be even more

62
dramatic for systems using feeds with a larger proportion of fishmeal and fish oil. Therefore, additional
research is required before embracing insect meal as a suitable alternative to fishmeal.

100%
90%
80%
% Contribution
70%
60% Electricity
50% Heat
40%
Infrastructure
30%
20% Feed
10% Additives
0%
Water
Hatchlings

Figure 4-9: Relative contribution of input flows to impact category for the IBF scenario.

4.4.3 LCC

In addition to the LCA perspective discussed above, the LCC was also calculated for both the original
scenario and the alternative scenarios. For these scenarios, a discount rate of 8% was selected and results
are given over a 20-year period, rather than per the mass-based functional units used previously in the LCA
analysis. This means that LCC was calculated for the overall aquaponics system, rather than for the unit
processes of aquaculture and hydroponics. As with the LCA, electricity and heating costs, specifically for
lighting, represented the largest economic hotspot regardless of alternatives. However, examination beyond
LCC hotspots is relevant here because costs are expressed over the entire life cycle, allowing for effective
comparison between scenarios. Therefore, the LCC and IRR of the original and alternative scenarios are
provided in Figure 4-10 for the naming convention presented in Table 4-1.

63
 $60,000.00 90%
81% 81% 81%
80%
$58,000.00 72% 72% 72% 72% 72%
70%
$56,000.00
60%
53%
$54,000.00 50%

$52,000.00 40%

30%
$50,000.00
20%
$48,000.00
10%

$46,000.00 0%
O O-NG INS LED EFF W IBF OFF-BG ON-BG

Life Cycle Cost Internal Rate of Return

Figure 4-10: Life cycle cost and internal rate of return for scenarios described in Table 4-1.

Five scenarios (EFF, W, IBF, OFF-BG, ON-BG) had significantly lower LCC and lower IRR than the
original scenario. The IRR was lowered because even though each of the five scenarios had the same
revenue, the capital costs were higher than the original scenario, resulting in a lower return on investment.
Furthermore, while the LCC was lower for these five scenarios, much of the reduction was due to the energy
source alternatives, while all other alternative scenarios actually increased the overall operation and capital
costs of the system. There was one notable exception to this, which was the scenario where only LED bulbs
were considered. This is because the higher replacement costs of LED bulbs were offset by the significant
reduction of overall lighting costs, resulting in a lower LCC as well as the highest IRR of the alternative
scenarios. Moreover, because productivity changes associated with improvement scenarios were not
considered, the actual IRR values may be different than shown here. In general, it can be concluded that
higher capital costs tend to lower the IRR unless operating costs are reduced significantly.
It also appeared that when environmental burdens were reduced, LCC tended to decrease to different
extents. For example, the alternative scenarios where wind energy was considered (W and IBF) had the
highest reduction in environmental impacts, but LCC was only reduced by up to 5%. On the other hand,
the LED scenario resulted in one of the lowest LCCs observed in Figure 4-10 but only reduced
environmental impacts slightly. When energy efficiency measures were combined (EFF), a small reduction
in environmental impacts was observed as well as a reduction of LCC by 9%. The highest LCC reduction,
12%, was observed for the ON-BG scenario, however, this scenario also resulted in an overall increase in

64
eutrophication and acidification potentials. Therefore, while a modest reduction in environmental burdens
is associated with a significantly lower LCC, significant reductions in environmental burdens only led to
modest reductions in LCC. This is because the scenarios that resulted in lower LCC tended to reduce energy
demand but did not address the GHG emissions associated with Nova Scotia’s reliance on coal. Therefore,
the importance of considering both environmental and economic factors when making decisions is clear
because alone, neither assessment is able to fully describe outcomes. This is further discussed through the
use of eco-efficiency charts in Section 4.5.1.

4.4.4 Sensitivity Analysis for LCC

Sensitivity analysis was used to assess the uncertainty in the discount rate, the cost of insulation, the
efficiency and cost of biogas heating, and the price of insect-based fish feed. Each of these are discussed in
the following section, highlighting areas where further research is needed.

4.4.4.1 Discount Rate

As discussed in Section 4.3.1, the discount rates for this system were 3.5%, 8%, and 10%. For all
previously discussed LCC values, 8% was applied because it represents an appropriate discount rate for
economic analysis in Canada at the time of the study (Jenkins & Kuo, 2007). Additionally, 3.5%, which
represents a social discount rate, and 10%, which is another accepted rate for calculating net present value,
were also examined. Figure 4-11 shows the effect each discount rate has on life cycle cost for each scenario.
LCC values changed linearly for each scenario as the discount rate changed. On average, when a 3.5%
discount rate was applied, there was a 38% increase from the original LCC, while the 10% discount rate
resulted in an 11% decrease. Therefore, selection of discount rate is quite influential on the absolute
magnitude of LCC values. Consequently, differences in these rates could have a significant impact on
decision making throughout the planning and operation stages. However, in this study, the relative value of
LCC was desired because the goal was to understand how LCC compares between the alternative scenarios.

65
 $85,000.00

$80,000.00

$75,000.00

$70,000.00
$ (CAD)

$65,000.00

$60,000.00

$55,000.00

$50,000.00

$45,000.00

$40,000.00
O O-NG INS LED EFF W IBF OFF-BG ON-BG
3.5% 8% 10%

Figure 4-11: Sensitivity analysis showing effect of discount rate on life cycle cost.

4.4.4.2 Insulation Cost

Sensitivity analysis was conducted on the cost of insulation in Canada. The cost of insulation was
based on the average range of spray foam insulation materials and installation because no direct quote for
the aquaponics facilities was obtained. In this case, instead of the previously considered $1700 for
insulation, costs could vary between $780 and $2500. However, because the LCC values were typically
greater than $50,000, the one-time cost difference of $1000 for insulation did not play a significant role,
especially because quality differences of the insulation from the different price points were not considered.
Therefore, it can be concluded that this variation in insulation costs did not affect the robustness of the
model or the validity of the results.

4.4.4.3 Biogas Heating Efficiency

The purpose of the sensitivity analysis conducted in this section was to determine how different
assumptions regarding the efficiency of CHP systems affect the LCC of the ON-BG scenario. As discussed
previously, this scenario assumed that a small-scale CHP system was installed on-site instead of purchasing
credits from Bullfrog Power for renewable biogas energy. The uncertainty came from the varying efficiency
of different CHP systems converting biogas to heat and electricity. All results discussed previously assumed
an efficiency of 35/25, where 35% of output was electricity and 25% was heating, but the ratio of 40/20 is
also possible for small-scale CHP systems (US Department of Energy, 2019; Uuemaa et al., 2014). For the
ON-BG scenario with an efficiency of 35/25, the LCC was $51,000 and the IRR was 53%. However, when
a 40/20 efficiency was considered, the LCC became $52,000 and the IRR remained at 53%. Therefore,

66
similarly to the insulation cost, it can be concluded that the fluctuation of $1000 depending on the efficiency
of the CHP system has very little impact on the overall LCC.

4.4.4.4 Insect Feed Pricing

Sensitivity analysis was conducted on the cost of insect-based feed to determine how uncertainty in
the commercial rate for insect-meal based fish feeds (IBF) affected the LCC. As discussed in Section 4.3.1,
the price of insect feed varies greatly due to the niche markets and inadequate production processes of
existing facilities. In addition to the midrange cost of IBF of $740/year that was considered in the previous
discussion of the IBF scenario, a low cost of $370/year (IBF-LOW) and a high cost of $1500/year (IBF-
HI) are also possible. The change in LCC as the price of feed varied is presented in Figure 4-12. Compared
to the insulation and biogas input flows where variations of around $1000 were observed, the variation for
the change in IBF cost was much more significant, at over $10,000 over the lifespan of 20 years. The highest
LCC of $68,000 observed for IBF-HI was higher than all other scenarios considered in this study, including
the scenarios which incurred higher capital costs. Therefore, the uncertainty in insect feed pricing is an area
of concern in this study and represents an area where large margins for error exist.

$70,000 $68,000

$65,000
Life Cycle Cost (CAD)

$59,000
$60,000
$55,000
$55,000

$50,000

$45,000

$40,000
IBF-LOW IBF IBF-HI

Figure 4-12: Sensitivity analysis on LCC for insect-based feed price variations.

4.5 Discussion

4.5.1 Eco-Efficiency Analysis

The previous sections indicate that environmental impacts and costs do not necessarily align with each
other for the aquaponics system investigated in this study. There appears to be a need for trade-offs between
reducing environmental impacts and reducing costs and it may be premature to make decisions based solely
on environmental or economic analyses. Consideration of the environmental impacts and costs together
may assist in providing a more complete picture of the overall implications of a product or system. One

67
avenue to visualize potential relationships between environmental impacts and costs of a product or system
is to use eco-efficiency charts. The purpose of eco-efficiency charts is to highlight the intersections between
environmental and economic sustainability. In this case, the bottom left quadrant will identify scenarios
that minimize both environmental impacts and LCC. The eco-efficiency chart for the global warming
potential impact category is presented in Figure 4-13 for each alternative scenario discussed in this chapter
at a discount rate of 8%.

20000

18000

16000
Global Warming Potential (kg CO2eq)

14000 O
O-NG
12000
INS
10000 LED
EFF
8000
W
OFF-BG
6000
ON-BG
4000 IBF

2000

0
50 52 54 56 58 60
Life Cycle Cost (Thousands of $ CAD)

Figure 4-13: Eco-efficiency chart of all scenarios for global warming potential against LCC with an 8%
discount rate.

The bottom left quadrant highlights two main scenarios where both costs and environmental impacts
are reduced: the implementation of LED lighting (LED) and the use of on-site biogas heating paired with
wind energy and efficiency measures (ON-BG). Lower environmental impacts are seen in the bottom right
quadrant, which contains more costly scenarios (W, OFF-BG, and IBF) that have added energy costs
through Bullfrog Power’s renewable energy credit program. The top right quadrant contains those scenarios
which are both expensive and did not lower environmental impacts, namely, the original (O), natural gas
heating (O-NG), and the increased insulation scenario (INS), while the top left quadrant contains only the
scenario where efficiency measures are applied (EFF) with a large reduction in life cycle cost but minor
reduction in GWP. This classification indicates that the lowest cost scenarios are those that include energy

68
efficiency improvements, but their ability to reduce environmental impacts remains marginal when
compared to more expensive alternative scenarios, such as switching to renewable energy.
Similar eco-efficiency observations as those seen in Figure 4-13 were made for the fossil fuel
depletion, ozone depletion, respiratory effects, and smog impact categories. In contrast, the eco-efficiency
charts for the acidification and the eutrophication impact categories were different. Those differences are
illustrated in Figure 4-14 for the acidification impact category. Now, two scenarios with energy efficiency
improvements, LED and EFF, are located in the bottom left quadrant. The ON-BG scenario previously
observed in this quadrant has moved to the top left quadrant, indicating higher acidification potential than
the original scenario. A similar difference is observed for the OFF-BG scenario, which moved from the
bottom right quadrant to the top right quadrant. This has to do with emissions associated with storing the
liquid anaerobic digestate in open-air containers, reinforcing the existence of trade-offs for every
improvement and the importance of considering multiple environmental impact categories. Except for the
two BG scenarios and the EFF scenario, all other scenarios remain in the same quadrants observed
previously. The eco-efficiency charts demonstrate that W is the most eco-efficient option in terms of both
environmental impacts and economic performance for all impact categories assessed in this study.

140

120

100 O
Acidification (kg SO2eq)

O-NG
80 INS
LED
60 EFF
W

40 OFF-BG
ON-BG
IBF
20

0
50 52 54 56 58 60
Life Cycle Cost (Thousands of $ CAD)

Figure 4-14: Eco-efficiency chart of all scenarios for the acidification impact against LCC with an 8% discount
rate.

69
 4.5.2 Comparison to Other Agricultural Systems

Throughout this chapter and the previous, the implications of this specific cold-weather aquaponics
system located in Nova Scotia, Canada have been considered. Equally important is to understand how the
performance of aquaponics systems compares to similar systems and to conventional means of producing
fish and leafy greens. A comparison was done for the global warming potential and acidification impact
categories to align with literature data available. The results of the comparison are presented according to
each unit of the aquaponics system, namely the aquaculture unit and the hydroponics unit.
For the aquaculture unit, the comparison was made with the results from Ayer & Tyedmers (2009) for
both a similar indoor-recirculating aquaculture system and a net-pen aquaculture system, along with results
from Svanes et al. (2011) for long-line fishing. While the comparison to a similar recirculating system is
crucial, the comparison to net-pen aquaculture and long-line fishing were selected because they represent
two common means of obtaining fish in Canada (Atlantic and Arctic commercial fisheries, 2020). The
comparison between the original scenario (A-O), the aquaculture scenario with wind energy, LED lighting,
and improved insulation (A-W), and the published results is presented in Figure 4-15, where impacts are
given per kilogram of fish.
The global warming potential and acidification impact of the original aquaculture unit (A-O)
significantly exceeded those of all other reference systems, including the indoor recirculating aquaculture
system studied in Ayer & Tyedmers (2009). In fact, the impacts of the A-O scenario ranged from twice to
30 times higher than the others. However, once wind energy, LED lighting, and improved insulation were
considered (A-W), the impacts were considerably lower for both impact categories. In fact, the A-W was
almost 90% less impactful in both categories when compared to the other indoor aquaculture system.
Furthermore, the A-W scenario was much more comparable in terms of impacts to the long-line fishing and
net-pen aquaculture systems. Therefore, this comparison indicates that indoor aquaculture systems in
Canada are more environmentally impactful than common, cheaper means of fishing and aquaculture. Only
by applying significant improvements, that would include both energy efficiency measures and renewable
energy sources, can their impacts be reduced to levels comparable to alternative processes.

70
 Acidification (kg SO2eq)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Indoor Recirculating Aquaculture

Long-Line Fishing

Net-Pen Aquaculture

Aquaculture Unit, W

Aquaculture Unit, O

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Global Warming Potential (kg CO2eq)

Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential

Figure 4-15: Comparison of the aquaculture unit (A-O and A-W) to indoor recirculating aquaculture, net-pen
aquaculture (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009), and long-line fishing (Svanes et al., 2011).

The comparison between the original scenario (H-O), the hydroponics scenario with wind energy, LED
lighting, and increased insulation (H-W) and published results for greenhouse and open-field lettuce
production is illustrated in Figure 4-16 per kilogram of greens. As observed in the aquaculture unit
comparison, the magnitude by which H-O exceeded the global warming potential and acidification impacts
of conventional agriculture was quite large. These impacts were often 30 times higher than both greenhouse
lettuce and open-field lettuce production for global warming potential and acidification. In contrast to the
aquaculture unit, the use of wind energy, LED lighting, and increased insulation (H-W) did not improve
operation of the hydroponics system to make it comparable to conventional farming. Given the significant
amount of artificial lighting required by the hydroponics system, the higher impacts are not surprising. One
point to note is that lettuce was used for the comparison to conventional farming systems, but lettuce tends
to require less sunlight than greens such as basil (Avgoustaki, 2019). One could expect lower lighting needs,
and therefore less energy-related impacts, if lettuce were the sole crop grown in this hydroponics system.
The absence of natural light ultimately made the hydroponics unit, irrespective of improvements, much
more environmentally impactful that conventional means of agriculture. Therefore, indoor operation of
hydroponics systems is an energy intensive means of production, but there remains opportunity to couple
production with indoor aquaculture in order to reduce environmental impacts.

71
 Acidification (kg SO2eq)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Greenhouse Lettuce

Open Field Lettuce Production

Hydroponics Unit, W

Hydroponics Unit, O

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Global Warming Potential (kg CO2eq)

Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential

Figure 4-16: Comparison of hydroponics unit (H-O and H-W) to compact greenhouse lettuce and open field
lettuce production (Khandelwal, 2020).

In the context of the economic perspective, few full life cycle cost studies exist on the subject. The
LCC study by Forchino et al. (2018) for an indoor aquaponics system located in Belgium that produced
700 kg of fish and 4000 kg of leafy greens determined LCC to be €77,000, which is equivalent to $120,000
CAD at the time of the study. On the other hand, the aquaponics system considered here was over 10 times
smaller and still cost $58,000 CAD. Both the system considered in this study and the one in the study by
Forchino et al. (2018) were located in zones with a winter season, used similar system boundaries of cradle
to system gate, and used artificial lighting-supported deep-water culture (DWC) as the method for
hydroponics production. Seeing as the cost was only around double but production was tenfold higher, this
could indicate that an economy of scale exists for aquaponics, such that larger systems could have lower
production costs than smaller systems. However, a comparison between two studies alone is insufficient to
make claims on the overall economic performance of aquaponics systems. Therefore, significant research
is still needed on this subject to both highlight economic hurdles and make recommendations for
improvement. Especially for cold climates, additional economic assessment of aquaponics systems would
help to address challenges related to the cost of energy, matching market demand, and to determine whether
economies of scale exist for aquaponics production.

4.6 Recommendations and Conclusions

The LCA and LCC of an existing aquaponics system located in Nova Scotia, Canada was assessed for
alternative scenarios aimed at reducing environmental impacts and economic burdens. Based on this
analysis, recommendations for future research and decision-makers are made. First of all, the use of energy
efficiency measures reduced environmental impacts and life cycle costs. Therefore, it is recommended that
72
cold-climate aquaponics systems invest in energy efficient lighting, upgrade insulation, and consider
operation in greenhouses or locations with natural light to reduce energy demands. Especially in the case
of LED lighting, despite having initially higher investments, operating costs can be greatly reduced due to
an increase in energy efficiency.
The second recommendation is to consider renewable sources of energy, such as wind. The use of
wind energy, while being a slightly more costly option than other scenarios examined, had the highest
reduction in environmental impacts. As the use of wind energy and other renewable energy technologies
increases, it is likely that costs will be reduced, making scenarios that include both efficiency measures and
renewable energy more favourable for cold-climate systems. In contrast, the use of biogas heating reduced
global warming potential and fossil fuel depletion impacts dramatically, but significantly increased
acidification and eutrophication impacts. This increase in acidification and eutrophication potential is likely
due to ammonia emissions associated with the open-air storage of the liquid anaerobic digestate (Fusi et al.,
2016; Jamaludin et al., 2018). Options for mitigation may exist, such as ammonia scrubbing (Jamaludin et
al., 2018) and closed storage. Furthermore, uncertainty exists around the efficiency of energy production in
small-scale CHP systems used for anaerobic digestion, as well as their costs (Darrow et al., 2015). The ON-
BG scenario therefore remains incomplete and requires more detailed analysis on cost, efficiency of energy
production, and environmental impact. In addition to selecting traditional sources of renewable energy,
other options for energy and heat recovery through industrial symbiosis should also be explored to reduce
the environmental burdens and costs of aquaponics operation in cold climates.
The use of insect-based feed (IBF) was found to reduce environmental impacts compared to the
original scenario. There remains a significant amount of uncertainty surrounding impacts of production
because most available data on IBF is based on studies conducted in Africa, rather than Europe or North
America. The cost of IBF is also an area of uncertainty which was found to influence the LCC by
7% to 15%. Moreover, IBF is often suggested to eliminate impacts of the harmful aquaculture practices
associated with fishmeal and fish oil, like overfishing (Maiolo et al., 2020; Malcorps et al., 2019;
Springmann et al., 2018), but other impacts of IBF have not been considered here, such as influence on fish
growth and productivity. Therefore, additional research is required before embracing insect meal as a
suitable alternative to fishmeal. The emerging nature of IBF and its contribution to impacts and costs mean
that significant work is required to understand its use in aquaponics systems.
Eco-efficiency charts were used to compare alternative scenarios and identify those scenarios that
reduced both environmental impacts and economic burdens of aquaponics systems. The scenarios with
improved energy efficiency measures and wind electricity were among the most eco-efficient, with lower
environmental impacts and lower LCC. However, few other LCC studies have been conducted on
aquaponics systems, which means that patterns in economic burden are difficult to identify. Therefore,
73
additional LCC studies, especially those for aquaponics systems that vary in system size and geographical
location, are required for a more in-depth understanding.
In this study, the environmental and economic pillars of sustainability of aquaponics systems for cold
climate conditions were investigated while no consideration was given to the social pillar of these systems.
Therefore, it is recommended that the social implications of aquaponics systems located in cold climates
be studied. By understanding the relationships and trade-offs that exist between the three pillars of
sustainability, environment, economy, and society, optimized operation parameters can be determined for
cold-climate aquaponics systems, building upon the key findings from this study.

74
 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to identify the environmental and economic barriers faced by small-
scale aquaponics systems in Canada and to identify pathways for reducing environmental impacts and
operational costs. In order to do so, a life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) analysis were
conducted. The LCA focused on uncovering environmental hotspots from cradle to system gate of
aquaponics production, while the LCC looked at all incurred costs over the system lifespan of 20 years.
Scenario analysis was also conducted to determine methods of improving operation by focusing on hotspots
identified in the LCA. It was found that the overarching challenge facing aquaponics systems, especially
those located in cold climates, is their energy intensity. Energy consumption was the most significant
environmental hotspot uncovered in this study. This impact was worsened by a reliance on coal in Nova
Scotia. The significant energy consumption also made electricity and heating the highest expenses of the
system even when alternative scenarios improving energy efficiency, such as LED lighting and increased
insulation, were considered. Consequently, cold-climate aquaponics operations should include energy
efficiency measures, as well as transition to renewable sources of energy to improve environmental and
economic performance.
In this study, the alternative scenario using LED lighting and insulation paired with wind energy
resulted in the greatest reduction of environmental impacts, including a 97% reduction in GWP and an 89%
reduction in eutrophication potential, while also reducing the life cycle cost by 5%. However, while the use
of wind energy was successful, biogas heating, another form of renewable energy considered in this study,
was not as successful. The use of renewable biogas did offset fossil fuel depletion and global warming
potential and reduce LCC by up to 12%, but it also increased acidification and eutrophication impacts by
over 20%. Thus, certain operation parameters can reduce overall environmental impacts greatly without
reducing LCC significantly, while others can reduce specific environmental impacts in order to reduce LCC
to a greater extent. Trade-offs must therefore be considered when making decisions about energy source
for aquaponics production systems.
Furthermore, the unit process approach of dividing the aquaponics production process into the
operations of aquaculture and hydroponics was applied in this study. This resulted in a more accurate
representation of how input flows contributed to the impacts of the two co-products of the system. When
impacts were instead allocated between products by mass, calorie, or protein content, it was found that
results varied greatly depending on the allocation method applied and that studies in literature using mass
allocation may be slightly underreporting impacts per kg of fish. Therefore, future aquaponics LCAs should

75
model production using the unit process approach in order to achieve a more accurate and realistic
understanding of impacts incurred by each co-product of the system.

5.2 Recommendations

In addition to the above recommendations on energy efficiency and energy source, other changes to
the operation of cold-climate aquaponics systems to support businesses, researchers, and policy makers
should be considered. First of all, building design and envelope, such as adequate insulation, access to
natural lighting, and efficient HVAC technology, should be taken into consideration when setting up
energy-intensive indoor agriculture technologies in order to reduce energy demand. Furthermore, the
optimization of infrastructure, such as the type of mechanical components, system design, and material
lifespan, represents an important opportunity to both reduce impacts and costs while improving
productivity. Additionally, climate-specific choices should be considered. In this study, the aquaponics
system produced leafy greens year-round, but consideration should be given to crops that are more resistant
to the cold for winter operation. Furthermore, opportunities for industrial symbiosis, such as industrial waste
heat recovery, should be considered in order to share resources between processes, thereby reducing
environmental impacts and costs. Finally, in addition to these environmental and economic-focused
recommendations, it is also crucial to consider social drivers in the start-up and operation of aquaponics
systems. As demonstrated in this study, aquaponics systems have many environmental issues that have yet
to be sorted out and are not very profitable as stand-alone systems. That being said, there are many potential
social benefits, including community engagement and supporting urban food security, that should be
considered. Overall, a deeper understanding of the environmental, economic, and social factors that drive
the sustainability of aquaponics is needed to ensure their success and productivity in cold climates.

76
 References
Andrews, R., & Pearce, J. M. (2011). Environmental and economic assessment of a greenhouse waste heat
exchange. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(13), 1446–1454.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.016
Andrić, I., Pina, A., Ferrão, P., Fournier, J., Lacarrière, B., & Le Corre, O. (2017). Approach for modelling
anaerobic digestion processes of fish waste. International Scientific Conference “Environmental and
Climate Technologies.” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.108
Asciuto, A., Schimmenti, E., Cottone, C., & Borsellino, V. (2019). A financial feasibility study of an
aquaponic system in a Mediterranean urban context. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 397–
402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.02.001
ASHRAE 90.1. (2004).
Atlantic and Arctic commercial fisheries. (2020). https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fisheries-peches/commercial-
commerciale/atl-arc-eng.html
Atlason, R. S., Danner, R. I., Unnthorsson, R., Oddsson, G. V., Sustaeta, F., & Thorarinsdottir, R. (2017).
Energy Return on Investment for Aquaponics: Case Studies from Iceland and Spain. BioPhysical
Economics and Resource Quality, 2, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41247-017-0020-5
Avgoustaki, D. D. (2019). Optimization of Photoperiod and Quality Assessment of Basil Plants Grown in
a Small-Scale Indoor Cultivation System for Reduction of Energy Demand. Energies, 12(20), 3980.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12203980
Ayer, N. W., & Tyedmers, P. H. (2009). Assessing alternative aquaculture technologies: life cycle
assessment of salmonid culture systems in Canada. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(3), 362–373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.08.002
Bahadur KC, K., Dias, G. M., Veeramani, A., Swanton, C. J., Fraser, D., Steinke, D., Lee, E., Wittman, H.,
Farber, J. M., Dunfield, K., McCann, K., Anand, M., Campbell, M., Rooney, N., Raine, N. E., Van
Acker, R., Hanner, R., Pascoal, S., Sharif, S., … Fraser, E. D. G. (2018). When too much isn’t enough:
Does current food production meet global nutritional needs? PLoS ONE, 13(10).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205683
Bank of Canada Interest Rates. (2019). https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/interest-rates/
Baquero, G., Esteban, B., Riba, J.-R., Rius, A., & Puig, R. (2011). An evaluation of the life cycle cost of
rapeseed oil as a straight vegetable oil fuel to replace petroleum diesel in agriculture. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 35, 3687–3697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.05.028
Barbosa, G., Gadelha, F., Kublik, N., Proctor, A., Reichelm, L., Weissinger, E., Wohlleb, G., & Halden, R.
(2015). Comparison of Land, Water, and Energy Requirements of Lettuce Grown Using Hydroponic
vs. Conventional Agricultural Methods. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 12(6), 6879–6891. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120606879
Benke, K., & Tomkins, B. (2017). Future food-production systems: Vertical farming and controlled-
environment agriculture. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy, 13(1), 13–26.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2017.1394054
Bianchi, M., Strid, A., Winkvist, A., Lindroos, A. K., Sonesson, U., & Hallström, E. (2020). Systematic
evaluation of nutrition indicators for use within food LCA studies. Sustainability (Switzerland),
12(21), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218992
Boardman, A. E., Moore, M. A., & Vining, A. R. (2010). The social discount rate for canada based on
future growth in consumption. Canadian Public Policy, 36(3), 325–343.

77
 https://doi.org/10.3138/cpp.36.3.325
Bohnes, F. A., & Laurent, A. (2019). LCA of aquaculture systems: methodological issues and potential
improvements. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(2), 324–337.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1517-x LK
Bong, C. P. C., Lim, L. Y., Lee, C. T., Klemeš, J. J., Ho, C. S., & Ho, W. S. (2018). The characterisation
and treatment of food waste for improvement of biogas production during anaerobic digestion – A
review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1545–1558.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.199
Bosma, R. H., Lacambra, L., Landstra, Y., Perini, C., Poulie, J., Schwaner, M. J., & Yin, Y. (2017). The
financial feasibility of producing fish and vegetables through aquaponics. Aquacultural Engineering,
78, 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.07.002
Boxman, S. E., Zhang, Q., Bailey, D., & Trotz, M. A. (2017). Life Cycle Assessment of a Commercial-
Scale Freshwater Aquaponic System. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(5), 299–311.
https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2015.0510
Bullfrog Power Canada. (2021). https://www.bullfrogpower.com/
Calicioglu, O., Flammini, A., Bracco, S., Bellù, L., & Sims, R. (2019). The Future Challenges of Food and
Agriculture: An Integrated Analysis of Trends and Solutions. Sustainability, 11(1), 222.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010222
Campbell, B. M., Beare, D. J., Bennett, E. M., Hall-Spencer, J. M., Ingram, J. S. I., Jaramillo, F., Ortiz, R.,
Ramankutty, N., Sayer, J. A., & Shindell, D. (2017). Agriculture production as a major driver of the
earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecology and Society, 22(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-
09595-220408
Chance, E., Ashton, W., Pereira, J., Mulrow, J., Norberto, J., Derrible, S., & Guilbert, S. (2018). The Plant
- An experiment in urban food sustainability. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 37(1),
82–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12712
Chen, P., Zhu, G., Kim, H. J., Brown, P. B., & Huang, J. Y. (2020). Comparative life cycle assessment of
aquaponics and hydroponics in the Midwestern United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275,
122888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122888
Cleary, J., Wolf, D. P., & Caspersen, J. P. (2015). Comparing the life cycle costs of using harvest residue
as feedstock for small- and large-scale bioenergy systems (part II). Energy, 86, 539–547.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.057
Cohen, A., Malone, S., Morris, Z., Weissburg, M., & Bras, B. (2018). Combined Fish and Lettuce
Cultivation: An Aquaponics Life Cycle Assessment. Procedia CIRP, 69, 551–556.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.029
Concha, D., Adams, M., Suárez, J., & Faxas, R. (2016). Fostering food and energy security through by-
product valorization within agricultural and agro-industrial networks: study of the province of
Santiago de Cuba. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 24(2), 159–
174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1156035
Danner, R. I., Mankasingh, U., Anamthawat-Jonsson, K., & Thorarinsdottir, R. I. (2019). Designing
Aquaponic Production Systems towards Integration into Greenhouse Farming. Water, 11(10), 2123.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11102123
Darrow, K., Tidball, R., Wang, J., & Hampson, A. (2015). Technology Characterization – Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines. Catalog of CHP Technologies, 2.
De La Hera, G., Muñoz-Díaz, I., Cifrian, E., Ramón, V., Oskar, G., Martin, S., & Viguri, J. R. (2016).
78
 Comparative environmental life cycle analysis of stone wool production using traditional and
alternative materials. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 8, 1505–1520.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9660-8
De Menna, F., Dietershagen, J., Loubiere, M., & Vittuari, M. (2018). Life cycle costing of food waste: A
review of methodological approaches. Waste Management, 73, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.12.032
Delaide, B., Goddek, S., Gott, J., Soyeurt, H., & Jijakli, M. H. (2016). Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var.
Sucrine) growth performance in complemented aquaponic solution outperforms hydroponics. Water
(Switzerland), 8(10), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8100467
Design Parameters Optimization and Economics of a Commercial Aquaponics (Issue March). (2018).
Despommier, D. (2011). The vertical farm: controlled environment agriculture carried out in tall buildings
would create greater food safety and security for large urban populations. Journal of Consumer
Protection and Food Safety, 6, 233–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-010-0654-3
DEWALT Shelf Steel . (2020). The Home Depot Canada. https://www.homedepot.ca/product/dewalt-48-
inch-h-x-50-inch-w-x-18-inch-d-3-shelf-steel-wire-deck-industrial-storage-rack-unit-in-
yellow/1001406251
Dias, G. M., Ayer, N. W., Khosla, S., Van Acker, R., Young, S. B., Whitney, S., & Hendricks, P. (2017).
Life cycle perspectives on the sustainability of Ontario greenhouse tomato production: Benchmarking
and improvement opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 831–839.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.039
Dorr, E., Sanyé-Mengual, E., Gabrielle, B., Grard, B. J. P., & Aubry, C. (2017). Proper selection of
substrates and crops enhances the sustainability of Paris rooftop garden. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 37(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0459-1
Egea, F. J., Torrente, R. G., & Aguilar, A. (2018). An efficient agro-industrial complex in Almería (Spain):
Towards an integrated and sustainable bioeconomy model. New Biotechnology, 40, 103–112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2017.06.009
Eigenbrod, C., & Gruda, N. (2015). Urban vegetable for food security in cities. A review. In Agronomy for
Sustainable Development (Vol. 35, Issue 2, pp. 483–498). Springer-Verlag France.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0273-y
Environment Canada. (2021). Historical Climate Data.
https://climate.weather.gc.ca/historical_data/search_historic_data_e.html
Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework: CAN/CSA-ISO 14040
(Vol. 06). (2006). International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines: CAN/CSA-ISO
14044, 06 (2006).
Estimated Life Expectancy Chart. (2019). InterNACHI.
Fang, Y., Hu, Z., Zou, Y., Fan, J., Wang, Q., & Zhu, Z. (2017). Increasing economic and environmental
benefits of media-based aquaponics through optimizing aeration pattern. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 162, 1111–1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.158
Fernandez-Mena, H., Nesme, T., & Pellerin, S. (2016). Towards an Agro-Industrial Ecology: A review of
nutrient flow modelling and assessment tools in agro-food systems at the local scale. Science of the
Total Environment, 543, 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.032
Finnveden, G. (2000). On the limitations of life cycle assessment and environmental systems analysis tools

79
 in general. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 5(4), 229–238.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979365
Finnveden, Göran, Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A.,
Pennington, D., & Suh, S. (2009). Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. In Journal of
Environmental Management (Vol. 91, Issue 1, pp. 1–21).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018
Forchino, A., Gennotte, V., Maiolo, S., Brigolin, D., Mélard, C., & Pastres, R. (2018). Eco-designing
Aquaponics: A Case Study of an Experimental Production System in Belgium. Procedia CIRP, 69,
546–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.064
Forchino, A., Lourguioui, H., Brigolin, D., & Pastres, R. (2017). Aquaponics and sustainability: The
comparison of two different aquaponic techniques using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).
Aquacultural Engineering, 77, 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.03.002
Fraccascia, L., Yazdanpanah, V., van Capelleveen, G., & Yazan, D. M. (2020). Energy-based industrial
symbiosis: a literature review for circular energy transition. In Environment, Development and
Sustainability (Issue 0123456789). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00840-
9
Fusi, A., Bacenetti, J., Fiala, M., & Azapagic, A. (2016). Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity
from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology,
4(MAR), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2016.00026
Ghamkhar, R., Hartleb, C., Wu, F., Hicks, A., & Baiocchi, G. (2019). Life cycle assessment of a cold
weather aquaponic food production system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118767
Gibbons, G. M. (2020). An Economic Comparison of Two Leading Aquaponic Technologies Using Cost
Benefit Analysis: The Coupled and Technologies Using Cost Benefit Analysis: The Coupled and
Decoupled Systems [Utah State University]. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/7823
Gigliona, J. (2015). Implementation of a biogas-system into aquaponics Determination of minimum size of
aquaponics and costs per kWh of the produced energy. https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:826751/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Goddek, S., Delaide, B., Mankasingh, U., Ragnarsdottir, K. V., Jijakli, H., & Thorarinsdottir, R. (2015).
Challenges of sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability (Switzerland), 7(4), 4199–4224.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su7044199
Goddek, S., Espinal, C. A., Delaide, B., Jijakli, M. H., Schmautz, Z., Wuertz, S., & Keesman, K. J. (2016).
Navigating towards decoupled aquaponic systems: A system dynamics design approach. Water, 8(7),
303. https://doi.org/10.3390/W8070303
Goddek, S., Joyce, A., Kotzen, B., & Burnell Editors, G. M. (Eds.). (2019). Aquaponics Food Production
Systems: Combined Aquaculture and Hydroponic Production Technologies for the Future.
Goddek, S., & Körner, O. (2019). A fully integrated simulation model of multi-loop aquaponics: A case
study for system sizing in different environments. Agricultural Systems, 171, 143–154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.01.010
Goldstein, B., Hauschild, M., Fernandez B, J., Birkved, M., Fernández, J., & Birkved, M. (2016). Testing
the environmental performance of urban agriculture as a food supply in northern climates. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 135, 984–994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.004
González-García, S., Gomez-Fernández, Z., Dias, A. C., Feijoo, G., Moreira, T., & Arroja, L. (2014). Life
Cycle Assessment of broiler chicken production: a Portuguese case study. Journal of Cleaner

80
 Production, 74, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.067
Goodman, W., & Minner, J. (2019). Will the urban agricultural revolution be vertical and soilless? A case
study of controlled environment agriculture in New York City. Land Use Policy, 83(June 2018), 160–
173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.038
Great Northern Insulation. (2020). https://www.gni.ca/insulation-faqs/insulation-cost
Greenfeld, A., Becker, N., McIlwain, J., Fotedar, R., & Bornman, J. F. (2019). Economically viable
aquaponics? Identifying the gap between potential and current uncertainties. Reviews in Aquaculture,
11(3), 848–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12269
Halloran, A, Hanboonsong, Y., Roos, N., & Bruun, S. (2017). Life cycle assessment of cricket farming in
north-eastern Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 83–94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.017
Halloran, Afton, Roos, N., Eilenberg, J., Cerutti, A., & Bruun, S. (2016). Life cycle assessment of edible
insects for food protein: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36(57).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0392-8
Hallström, E., Davis, J., Woodhouse, A., & Sonesson, U. (2018). Using dietary quality scores to assess
sustainability of food products and human diets: A systematic review. Ecological Indicators,
93(February), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.071
Hannon, C., Officer, R. A., & Le Dorven, J. (2013). Review of the technical challenges facing aquaculture
of the European abalone Haliotis tuberculata in Ireland. Aquaculture International, 21, 243–254.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-012-9584-7
Hayashi, K., Gaillard, G., Nemecek, T., & Fal Reckenholz, A. (2005). Life Cycle Assessment of
Agricultural Production Systems: Current Issues and Future Perspectives. Good Agricultural Practice
(GAP) in Asia and Oceania.
Henriksson, P. J. G., Belton, B., Murshed-E-Jahan, K., & Rico, A. (2018). Measuring the potential for
sustainable intensification of aquaculture in Bangladesh using life cycle assessment. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(12), 2958–2963.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716530115
Hindelang, M., Gheewala, S. H., Mungkung, R., & Bonnet, S. (2014). Environmental Sustainability
Assessment of a Media Based Aquaponics System In Thailand.
Hochman, G., Hochman, E., Naveh, N., & Zilberman, D. (2018). The Synergy between Aquaculture and
Hydroponics Technologies: The Case of Lettuce and Tilapia. Sustainability, 10(10), 3479.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103479
Jaeger, C., Foucard, P., Tocqueville, A., Nahon, S., & Aubin, J. (2018). Mass balanced based LCA of a
common carp-lettuce aquaponics system. Aquacultural Engineering, 84, 29–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2018.11.003
Jamaludin, Z., Rollings-Scattergood, S., Lutes, K., & Vaneeckhaute, C. (2018). Evaluation of sustainable
scrubbing agents for ammonia recovery from anaerobic digestate. Bioresource Technology,
270(September), 596–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.007
Janker, J., Reinhardt, T., Villarroel, M., & Junge, R. (2018). Analysis of aquaponics as an emerging
technological innovation system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 180, 232–243.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.037
Jenkins, G., & Kuo, C.-Y. (2007). The Economic Opportunity Cost of Capital for Canada - An Empirical
Update.

81
Junge, R., König, B., Villarroel, M., Komives, T., & Jijakli, M. (2017). Strategic Points in Aquaponics.
Water, 9(3), 182. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030182
Kádárová, J., Kobulnický, J., & Teplicka, K. (2015). Product Life Cycle Costing. Applied Mechanics and
Materials, 816, 547–554. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.816.547
Kalhor, T., Rajabipour, A., Akram, A., & Sharifi, M. (2016). Environmental impact assessment of chicken
meat production using life cycle assessment. Information Processing in Agriculture, 3, 262–271.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2016.10.002
Kang, J. H., Krishnakumar, S., Louise, S., Atulba, S., Jeong, B. R., & Hwang, S. J. (2013). Light Intensity
and Photoperiod Influence the Growth and Development of Hydroponically Grown Leaf Lettuce in a
Closed-type Plant Factory System Introduction. Horticulture, Environment, and Biotechnology,
54(6), 501–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13580-013-0109-8
Katzin, D., Marcelis, L. F. M., & van Mourik, S. (2021). Energy savings in greenhouses by transition from
high-pressure sodium to LED lighting. Applied Energy, 281(July 2020), 116019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116019
Khandelwal, G. (2020). Growing Compact and Going Compact. University of Waterloo.
Kloas, W., Groß, R., Baganz, D., Graupner, J., Monsees, H., Schmidt, U., Staaks, G., Suhl, J., Tschirner,
M., Wittstock, B., Wuertz, S., Zikova, A., & Rennert, B. (2015). A new concept for aquaponic systems
to improve sustainability, increase productivity, and reduce environmental impacts. Aquaculture
Environment Interactions, 7(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00146
Knaus, U., & Palm, H. (2017). Effects of the fish species choice on vegetables in aquaponics under spring-
summer conditions in northern Germany (Mecklenburg Western Pomerania). Aquaculture, 473, 62–
73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.01.020
Konig, B., Junge, R., Bittsanszky, A., Villarroel, M., & Komives, T. (2016). On the sustainability of
aquaponics. Ecocycles, 2(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.19040/ecocycles.v2i1.50
La Rosa, A. D. (2016). Life cycle assessment of biopolymers. In Biopolymers and Biotech Admixtures for
Eco-Efficient Construction Materials (pp. 1–465). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-
02075-8
Lages Barbosa, G., Daiane, F., Gadelha, A., Kublik, N., Proctor, A., Reichelm, L., Weissinger, E., Wohlleb,
G. M., Halden, R. U., Bhamidiammarri, R., Tota-Maharaj, K., Barbosa, G. L., Almeida Gadelha, F.
D., Kublik, N., Proctor, A., Reichelm, L., Weissinger, E., Wohlleb, G. M., & Halden, R. U. (2015).
Comparison of Land, Water, and Energy Requirements of Lettuce Grown Using Hydroponic vs.
Conventional Agricultural Methods. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 12(6), 6879–6891. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120606879
Laidlaw, J., & Magee, L. (2014). Towards urban food sovereignty: the trials and tribulations of community-
based aquaponics enterprises in Milwaukee and Melbourne. The International Journal of Justice and
Sustainability, 1469–6711. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.986716
Lakhiar, I. A., Gao, J., Syed, T. N., Chandio, F. A., & Buttar, N. A. (2018). Modern plant cultivation
technologies in agriculture under controlled environment: A review on aeroponics. Journal of Plant
Interactions, 13(1), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2018.1472308
Langdon, D. (2005). Literature review of life cycle costing (LCC) and life cycle assessment (LCA) (Issue
June).
Law, R., Harvey, A., & Reay, D. (2012). Opportunities for low-grade heat recovery in the UK food
processing industry. Applied Thermal Engineering, 53, 188–196.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.03.024

82
Le Féon, S., Thévenot, A., Maillard, F., Macombe, C., Forteau, L., & Aubin, J. (2018). Life Cycle
Assessment of fish fed with insect meal: Case study of mealworm inclusion in trout feed, in France.
Aquaculture, 500, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.06.051
Legorburu, G., & Smith, A. D. (2018). Energy modeling framework for optimizing heat recovery in a
seasonal food processing facility. Applied Energy, 229, 151–162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.07.097
Lopez-Andres, J. L., Alfonso Aguilar-Lasserre, A., Fernando Morales-Mendoza, L., Azzaro-Pantel, C.,
Raúl erez-Gallardo, J. P., & Octavio Rico-Contreras, J. (2017). Environmental impact assessment of
chicken meat production via an integrated methodology based on LCA, simulation and genetic
algorithms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 477–491.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.307
Love, D. C., Uhl, M. S., & Genello, L. (2015). Energy and water use of a small-scale raft aquaponics system
in Baltimore, Maryland, United States. Aquacultural Engineering, 68, 19–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2015.07.003
Luo, L., Van Der Voet, E., & Huppes, G. (2009). Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of bioethanol
from sugarcane in Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 1613–1619.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.024
Main Methods of Hydroponics. (2019). https://www.btlliners.com/the-main-methods-of-hydroponics
Maiolo, S., Parisi, G., Biondi, N., Lunelli, F., Tibaldi, E., & Pastres, R. (2020). Fishmeal partial substitution
within aquafeed formulations: life cycle assessment of four alternative protein sources. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01759-z
Malcorps, W., Kok, B., van’t Land, M., Fritz, M., van Doren, D., Servin, K., van der Heijden, P., Palmer,
R., Auchterlonie, N. A., Rietkerk, M., Santos, M. J., & Davies, S. J. (2019). The sustainability
conundrum of fishmeal substitution by plant ingredients in Shrimp Feeds. Sustainability
(Switzerland), 11(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU11041212
Martin, M., & Molin, E. (2019). Environmental Assessment of an Urban Vertical Hydroponic Farming
System in Sweden. Sustainability, 11(15), 4124. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154124
Maucieri, C., Forchino, A. A., Nicoletto, C., Junge, R., Pastres, R., Sambo, P., & Borin, M. (2017). Life
cycle assessment of a micro aquaponic system for educational purposes built using recovered material.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 3119–3127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.097
Miah, J. H., Koh, S. C. L., & Stone, D. (2017). A hybridised framework combining integrated methods for
environmental Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168,
846–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.187
Monsees, H., Kloas, W., & Wuertz, S. (2016). Comparison of coupled and decoupled aquaponics:
Implications for future system design. European Aquaculture Society.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314305063
Monsees, H., Kloas, W., & Wuertz, S. (2017). Decoupled systems on trial: Eliminating bottlenecks to
improve aquaponic processes. PLoS ONE, 12(9), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183056
Moreau, V., & Weidema, B. P. (2015). The computational structure of environmental life cycle costing.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(10), 1359–1363.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0952-1
Morelli, B., Hawkins, T. R., Niblick, B., Henderson, A. D., Golden, H. E., Compton, J. E., Cooter, E. J., &
Bare, J. C. (2018). Critical review of eutrophication models for life cycle assessment. Environmental
Science and Technology, 52(17), 9562–9578. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00967

83
Moreno, D., Lopez-Berenguer, C., Martinez-Ballesta, C., Carvajal, M., & Garcia-Viguera, C. (2007). Basis
for the new challenges of growing broccoli for health in hydroponics. Journal of the Science of Food
and Agriculture, 1243(January), 1237–1243. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa
Mungkung, R., Aubin, J., Prihadi, T. H., Slembrouck, J., Van Der Werf, H. M. G., & Legendre, M. (2013).
Life cycle assessment for environmentally sustainable aquaculture management: A case study of
combined aquaculture systems for carp and tilapia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 57, 249–256.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.029
Notarnicola, B., Sala, S., Anton, A., McLaren, S. J., Saouter, E., & Sonesson, U. (2017). The role of life
cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: A review of the challenges. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 140, 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.071
Oliver, D., & Wiebe, J. (2003). Climate Change: We Are at Risk (Issue Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry).
Olsen, R. L., & Hasan, M. R. (2012). A limited supply of fishmeal: Impact on future increases in global
aquaculture production. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 27(2), 120–128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2012.06.003
Palm, H. W., Knaus, U., Appelbaum, S., Goddek, S., Strauch, S. M., Vermeulen, T., Haїssam Jijakli, M.,
& Kotzen, B. (2018). Towards commercial aquaponics: a review of systems, designs, scales and
nomenclature. Aquaculture Environment Interaction, 26, 813–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-
018-0249-z
Pattillo, D. (2017a). An Overview of Aquaponic Systems: Aquaculture Components. In North Central
Regional Aquaculture Centre Technical Bulletins. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ncrac_techbulletins/20
Pattillo, D. (2017b). An Overview of Aquaponic Systems: Hydroponic Components. In Technical Bulletins
North Central Regional Aquaculture Center. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ncrac_techbulletins/19
Pelletier, N., Ardente, F., Brandão, M., De Camillis, C., & Pennington, D. (2015). Rationales for and
limitations of preferred solutions for multi-functionality problems in LCA: is increased consistency
possible? International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(1), 74–86.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0812-4
Pelletier, N., Tyedmers, P., Sonesson, U., Scholz, A., Ziegler, F., Flysjo, A., Kruse, S., Cancino, B., &
Silverman, H. (2009). Not all salmon are created equal: Life cycle assessment (LCA) of global salmon
farming systems. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(23), 8730–8736.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es9010114
Pennisi, G., Orsini, F., Blasioli, S., Cellini, A., Crepaldi, A., Braschi, I., Spinelli, F., Nicola, S., Fernandez,
J. A., Stanghellini, C., Gianquinto, G., & Marcelis, L. F. M. (2019). Resource use efficiency of indoor
lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) cultivation as affected by red:blue ratio provided by LED lighting. Scientific
Reports, 9(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-50783-z
Plastic Drum. (2020). Uline. https://www.uline.ca/Product/Detail/S-11860/Drums/Plastic-Drum-with-Lid-
30-Gallon-Open-Top-Blue?pricode=YD824&gadtype=pla&id=S-
11860&gclid=CjwKCAjwkun1BRAIEiwA2mJRWfQnEWI22yW-BJHSeKbzu-
PLpGdwlsip3D0isQRGG517B9jZ03DLaxoC6E0QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Polyethylene Tanks. (2020). Fish Farm Supply Co.
https://www.fishfarmsupply.ca/collections/tanks/products/polyethylene-tanks?variant=41950533006
Proksch, G., Ianchenko, A., & Kotzen, B. (2019). Aquaponics in the Built Environment. In Aquaponics
Food Production Systems (pp. 523–558). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15943-6_21

84
Pulina, P., Arru, B., Madau, F. A., Furesi, R., & Gasco, L. (2018). Insect Meal in the Fish Diet and Feeding
Cost: First Economic Simulations on European Sea bass Farming by a Case Study in Italy. 17.
Purdy, A., Pathare, P. B., Wang, Y., Roskilly, A. P., & Huang, Y. (2018). Towards sustainable farming:
Feasibility study into energy recovery from bio-waste on a small-scale dairy farm. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 174, 899–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.018
Quagrainie, K., Manolio, R., Flores, V., Kim, H.-J., & Mcclain, V. (2017). Economic analysis of aquaponics
and hydroponics production in the U.S. Midwest. Journal of Applied Aquaculture, 30(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10454438.2017.1414009
Rates & Tariffs. (2020). Nova Scotia Power. https://www.nspower.ca/about-us/electricity/rates-tariffs
Reap, J., Roman, F., Duncan, S., & Bras, B. (2008a). A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle
assessment. Part 1: Goal and scope and inventory analysis. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 13(4), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0008-x
Reap, J., Roman, F., Duncan, S., & Bras, B. (2008b). A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle
assessment. Part 2: Impact assessment and interpretation. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 13(5), 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0009-9
Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg, T., Schmidt, W. P., Suh, S.,
Weidema, B. P., & Pennington, D. W. (2004). Life cycle assessment Part 1: Framework, goal and
scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environment International, 30(5), 701–720.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005
Rebitzer, G., & Hunkeler, D. (2003). Life cycle costing in LCM: Ambitions, opportunities, and limitations
- Discussing a framework. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8(5), 253–256.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978913
Rehman, M., Ullah, S., Bao, Y., Wang, B., Peng, D., & Liu, L. (2017). Light-emitting diodes: whether an
efficient source of light for indoor plants? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(32),
24743–24752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0333-3
Rizal, A., Dhahiyat, Y., Andriani, Y., Handaka, A. A., & Sahidin, A. (2018). The economic and social
benefits of an aquaponic system for the integrated production of fish and water plants. IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 137 012098. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/137/1/012098
Robb, D. H. F., MacLeod, M., Hasan, M. R., & Soto, D. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions from
aquaculture A life cycle assessment of three Asian systems.
Rockwool Production Process. (2020).
Roffeis, M., Almeida, J., Wakefield, M., Valada, T., Devic, E., Koné, N., Kenis, M., Nacambo, S., Fitches,
E., Koko, G., Mathijs, E., Achten, W., & Muys, B. (2017). Life Cycle Inventory Analysis of
Prospective Insect Based Feed Production in West Africa. Sustainability, 9(10), 1697.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101697
Romeo, D., Vea, E. B., & Thomsen, M. (2018). Environmental impacts of urban hydroponics in Europe: A
case study in Lyon. Procedia CIRP, 540–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.048
Ross, L. G., Martinez Palacios, C. A., & Morales, E. J. (2008). Developing native fish species for
aquaculture: The interacting demands of biodiversity, sustainable aquaculture and livelihoods.
Aquaculture Research, 39(7), 675–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.01920.x
Sabzalian, M. R., Heydarizadeh, P., Zahedi, M., Boroomand, A., Agharokh, M., Sahba, M. R., & Schoefs,
B. (2014). High performance of vegetables, flowers, and medicinal plants in a red-blue LED incubator
for indoor plant production. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34, 879–886.
85
 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0209-6
Saeid Mohamad, R., Verrastro, V., Cardone, G., Bteich, M. R., Favia, M., Moretti, M., & Roma, R. (2014).
Optimization of organic and conventional olive agricultural practices from a Life Cycle Assessment
and Life Cycle Costing perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 70, 78–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.033
San Martín, J. I., Zamora, I., San Martín, J. J., Aperribay, V., & Eguía, P. (2008). Trigeneration systems
with fuel cells. Renewable Energy and Power Quality Journal, 1(6), 135–140.
https://doi.org/10.24084/repqj06.245
Sanyé-Mengual, E., Gasperi, D., Michelon, N., Orsini, F., Ponchia, G., & Gianquinto, G. (2018). Eco-
efficiency assessment and food security potential of home gardening: A case study in Padua, Italy.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072124
Sanyé-Mengual, E., Oliver-Solà, J., Montero, J. I., & Rieradevall, J. (2015). An environmental and
economic life cycle assessment of rooftop greenhouse (RTG) implementation in Barcelona, Spain.
Assessing new forms of urban agriculture from the greenhouse structure to the final product level.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(3), 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-
0836-9
Sanyé-Mengual, E., Orsini, F., Oliver-Solà, J., Rieradevall, J., Montero, J. I., & Gianquinto, G. (2015).
Techniques and crops for efficient rooftop gardens in Bologna, Italy. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 35(4), 1477–1488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0331-0
Savić, B., Milojević, I., & Petrović, V. (2019). Cost optimization in agribusiness based on life cycle costing.
Ekonomika Poljoprivrede, 66(3), 823–834. https://doi.org/10.5937/ekopolj1903823s
Savidov, N. A., Hutchings, E., & Rakocy, J. E. (2007). Fish and plant production in a recirculating
aquaponic system: A new approach to sustainable agriculture in Canada. Acta Horticulturae, 742,
209–222. https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.2007.742.28
Sayadi-Gmada, S., Rodríguez-Pleguezuelo, C. R., Rojas-Serrano, F., Parra-López, C., Parra-Gómez, S.,
García-García, M. del C., García-Collado, R., Lorbach-Kelle, M. B., & Manrique-Gordillo, T. (2019).
Inorganic Waste Management in Greenhouse Agriculture in Almeria (SE Spain): Towards a Circular
System in Intensive Horticultural Production. Sustainability, 11(14), 3782.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143782
Schrijvers, D. L., Loubet, P., & Sonnemann, G. (2016). Critical review of guidelines against a systematic
framework with regard to consistency on allocation procedures for recycling in LCA. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(7), 994–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1069-x
Shamshiri, R. R., Kalantari, F., Ting, K. C., Thorp, K. R., Hameed, I. A., Weltzien, C., Ahmad, D., & Shad,
Z. (2018). Advances in greenhouse automation and controlled environment agriculture: A transition
to plant factories and urban agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological
Engineering, 11(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20181101.3210
Smetana, S., Palanisamy, M., Mathys, A., & Heinz, V. (2016). Sustainability of insect use for feed and
food: Life Cycle Assessment perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 741–751.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.148
Smit, M. C. (2012). A North Atlantic Treaty Organisation framework for life cycle costing. International
Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 25, 444–456.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2011.562541
Somerville, C., Cohen, M., Pantanella, E., Stankus, A., & Lovatelli, A. (2014). Small-scale aquaponic food
production. Integrated fish and plant farming. In FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture.

86
Specht, K., Siebert, R., Hartmann, I., Freisinger, U. B., Sawicka, M., Werner, A., Thomaier, S., Henckel,
D., Walk, H., & Dierich, A. (2014). Urban agriculture of the future: An overview of sustainability
aspects of food production in and on buildings. Agriculture and Human Values, 31(1), 33–51.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-013-9448-4
Specht, K., Zoll, F., Schümann, H., Bela, J., Kachel, J., & Robischon, M. (2019). How Will We Eat and
Produce in the Cities of the Future? From Edible Insects to Vertical Farming—A Study on the
Perception and Acceptability of New Approaches. Sustainability, 11(16), 4315.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164315
Spickova, M., & Myskova, R. (2015). Costs Efficiency Evaluation using Life Cycle Costing as Strategic
Method. Procedia Economics and Finance, 34, 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-
5671(15)01638-x
Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B. L., Lassaletta, L., de Vries, W.,
Vermeulen, S. J., Herrero, M., Carlson, K. M., Jonell, M., Troell, M., DeClerck, F., Gordon, L. J.,
Zurayk, R., Scarborough, P., Rayner, M., Loken, B., Fanzo, J., … Willett, W. (2018). Options for
keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature, 562(7728), 519–525.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0
Styrofoam Slab. (2020). https://www.homedepot.com/p/STYROFOAM-2-in-x-4-ft-x-8-ft-R-10-
Scoreboard-XPS-Insulation-1578/202899754
Svanes, E., Vold, M., & Hanssen, O. J. (2011). Environmental assessment of cod (Gadus morhua) from
autoline fisheries. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16, 611–624.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0298-2
Today’s Energy Stats. (2020). Nova Scotia Power. https://www.nspower.ca/clean-energy/todays-energy-
stats#
Tokunaga, K., Tamaru, C., Ako, H., & Leung, P. (2015). Economics of small-scale commercial aquaponics
in hawai’i. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 46(1), 20–32.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12173
Tyson, R. V., Treadwel, D. D., & Simonne, E. H. (2011). Opportunities and challenges to sustainability in
aquaponic systems. HortTechnology, 21(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.21273/horttech.21.1.6
Uline Bulk T-8 Bulbs. (2020). https://www.uline.ca/Product/Detail/S-19983/Light-Bulbs/Fluorescent-
Tubes-48-T8-Daylight?pricode=YE011&gadtype=pla&id=S-
19983&gclid=Cj0KCQiAhs79BRD0ARIsAC6XpaW0ii4f69_tb3vo7CKPY39aGbtvh-
Ys3ciWhJV4XIGbk5VAjYZcN94aAkphEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
Uline T-8 LED Bulbs. (2021). https://www.uline.ca/Product/Detail/S-23706/Light-Bulbs/Sylvania-Glass-
LED-Tubes-48-T8-Daylight
US Department of Energy. (2019). Characterization of CHP Opportunities at U.S. Wastewater Treatment
Plants. April, 23.
US Department of Energy. (2020). Insulation. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/weatherize/insulation
Uuemaa, P., Vigants, H., Blumberga, D., & Drovtar, I. (2014). Industrial CHP excess heat efficient usage
for cooling. Energetika, 60(2), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.6001/energetika.v60i2.2937
Villarroel, M., Junge, R., Komives, T., König, B., Plaza, I., Bittsánszky, A., & Joly, A. (2016). Survey of
aquaponics in Europe. Water (Switzerland), 8(10), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8100468
Weidema, B. P., & Wesnæs, M. S. (1996). Data quality management for life cycle inventories-an example
of using data quality indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 4(3–4), 167–174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(96)00043-1
87
Weidema, B., & Schmidt, J. (2010). Avoiding Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment Revisited. Journal of
Industrial Ecology, 14(2), 192–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00236.x
Wender, B. A., Foley, R. W., Hottle, T. A., Sadowski, J., Prado-Lopez, V., Eisenberg, D. A., Laurin, L., &
Seager, T. P. (2014). Anticipatory life-cycle assessment for responsible research and innovation.
Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(2), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.920121
Wilson, J., Carscallen, M., & Kierstead, P. (2018). Confidential Business Plan & Cost Projections.
Wolsey, R. (1993). T8 Fluorescent Lamps. Lighting Answers Volume 1, Issue 1.
Wu, F., Ghamkhar, R., Ashton, W., & Hicks, A. L. (2019). Sustainable Seafood and Vegetable Production:
Aquaponics as a Potential Opportunity in Urban Areas. Integrated Environmental Assessment and
Management, 15(6), 832–843. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4187
Xie, K., & Rosentrater, K. A. (2015). Life cycle assessment (LCA) and Techno-economic analysis (TEA)
of tilapia-basil aquaponics. Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, 2–32.
https://doi.org/10.13031/aim.20152188617
Yan, M., & Holden, N. M. (2018). Life cycle assessment of multi-product dairy processing using Irish
butter and milk powders as an example. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 215–230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.006
Yep, B., & Zheng, Y. (2019). Aquaponic trends and challenges – A review. Journal of Cleaner Production,
228, 1586–1599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.290
Yildiz, H., Robaina, L., Domínguez, D., Pirhonen, J., Mente, E., & Parisi, G. (2017). Fish welfare in
aquaponic systems: Its relation to water quality with an emphasis on feed and faeces-A review. Water
(Switzerland), 9(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/w9010013
Zhang, S., Bi, T., & Clift, R. (2013). A Life Cycle Assessment of integrated dairy farm-greenhouse systems
in British Columbia. Bioresource Technology, 150, 496–505.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.09.076

88
 Appendix A: Life Cycle Inventory Data
Table A-1: Infrastructure Weights
Component Material Weight (kg) Quantity Reference
210-gal tank HDPE 22.7 1 (Fish Farm Supply Co, 2020)
50-gal tank HDPE 11.3 2 (Fish Farm Supply Co, 2020)
32-gal tank HDPE 7.3 1 (Plastic Drum, 2020)
Rack Steel 30.4 ~3.8 (DEWALT Shelf Steel, 2020)
Rockwool cube Rockwool 0.0022 6528 (Ghamkhar et al., 2019)
Styrofoam slab Polystyrene 8.58 6 (Styrofoam Slab, 2020)
Pipes PVC 64 unknown (Hindelang et al., 2014)

Table A-2: Infrastructure Materials and Lifespans

Lifespan
Component Main Material Reference
(Years)
Rack Steel 20 (Estimated Life Expectancy Chart, 2019)
Tanks HDPE 20 (Pattillo, 2017a)
Pipes PVC 20 (Proksch et al., 2019)
Fluorescent
Not considered 2.5 (Wolsey, 1993)
Bulbs
LED Bulbs Not considered 5 (Rehman et al., 2017)
Raft Trays Polystyrene 3 (Ghamkhar et al., 2019)
Growing Media Rockwool 1 (Rockwool Production Process, 2020)

4% 3%

9%

Coal/Coke

9% Wind
Natural gas
Hydro
Petroleum
12% 63%
Biomass/geo

Figure A-1: Nova Scotia Grid Composition, 2018 (Today’s Energy Stats, 2020)

89
 Table A-3: Life Cycle Inventory for Black-Box Approach
Flow Quantity Unit Assumptions and Sources1
Black Box
Approach
INPUTS
0.24 Adult trout production, conservative
Hatchlings kg
approach
Seeds 0.00011 kg
Water 62.68 kg Tap water production in Quebec
216.26 Grid composition used in Nova Scotia
Electricity kWh
in 2018, see Figure A-1
94.48 Electrical heating used, compared to
Heating kWh
natural gas and biogas
Potassium 0.012 L
Calcium 0.012 L
Iron 0.0065 L
Energy required for blending feed
Feed
components neglected
Soybean meal 0.65 kg
Wheat 0.28 kg
Corn/maize 0.28 kg
Fishmeal and fish oil 0.09 kg
Based on 20 year lifespan, after which
Infrastructure
replaced
PVC 0.014 kg
HDPE 0.032 kg
Steel 0.018 kg
0.226 Annual replacement, from (De La
Rockwool kg
Hera et al., 2016)
0.365 Annual replacement, 100% virgin
Polystyrene slabs kg
materials
OUTPUTS
Live fish 1 kg Rainbow Trout and Striped Bass
Leafy greens 4.69 kg Various lettuces, chard, basil
1
All unit processes from ecoinvent 3.5 database.

Table A-4: Life Cycle Inventory for Insect-Based Feed, from (Roffeis et al., 2017)
Flow Quantity Unit
INPUTS
Land 0.05 m2a
Built infrastructure 0.11 m2a
Manure, dried 6.30 kg
Brewery waste 8.90 kg
Water 74.60 L
Natural gas 3.30 MJ
Transport by truck 0.10 km
OUTPUTS
Wastewater 49.80 L

90
CH4 to air 11.30 g
N2O to air 0.20 g
NH3 to air 2.10 g
Volatile solids to air 1.80 g
IBF 1.00 kg
Residue substrate 7.10 kg

Table A-5: Impact Categories and Units

Impact Category Unit
Acidification kg SO2 eq
Carcinogenics CTUh
Ecotoxicity CTUe
Eutrophication kg N eq
Fossil fuel depletion MJ surplus
Global warming potential kg CO2 eq
Non-carcinogenics CTUh
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq
Respiratory effects kg PM2.5 eq
Smog kg O3 eq

91
 Appendix B: Data Quality
Table B-1: Data Quality Matrix, Adapted from (Weidema & Wesnæs, 1996)
Indicator
1 2 3 4 5
score
Less than three Age of data
years of Less than six Less than 10 Less than 15 unknown or
Temporal
different to years years years more than 15
correlation
year of study difference difference difference years
date difference
Average data Data from
Data from area
from larger Data from area unknown are
with slightly
Geographical Data from area area in which with similar or area with
similar
correlation under study the area under production very different
production
study is conditions production
conditions
included conditions
Data from Data from
Data from processes and processes and Data on related Data on related
enterprises, materials materials processes or processes or
Technological
processes, and under study under study materials but materials but
correlation
materials but from but from same different
under study different different technology technology
enterprises technology

Table B-2: Data Quality Scores

Inventory Flow Time Period Geographic Region Data Quality Scores
Electricity Generation
Coal 2013 Global (2,2,1)
Wind 2013 Nova Scotia, CA (2,1,1)
Hydro 2012 Switzerland (2,2,3)
Natural Gas 2013 Nova Scotia, CA (2,1,1)
Oil 2013 Global (2,2,2)
Biomass 2014 Switzerland (2,4,3)
Imports 2013 New Brunswick, CA (2,1,1)
Composition 2018 Nova Scotia, CA (1,1,1)
Infrastructure
Steel 2005 Germany (4,4,2)
Steel Manufacturing 2011 Quebec, CA (3,3,2)
Polystyrene, Virgin 2003 Global (4,4,4)
Polystyrene, 100% Recycled 2003 Global (4,4,4)
Rockwool 2000 Switzerland (5,4,5)
Hatchlings 2012 Peru (2,5,4)
Feed
Maize 2018 Quebec, CA (1,2,2)
Wheat 2018 Quebec, CA (1,2,2)
Soybean Meal 2011 Global (3,4,2)
Fishmeal and Fish Oil 2016 Peru and Chile (1,4,4)

92
 Appendix C: Life Cycle Impact Results
For aquaculture, the functional unit (FU) is 1 kg live fish and for hydroponics, the FU is 1 kg live fish.

Table C-1: Impact Results for Scenario Analysis for Aquaculture and Hydroponics Units

Scenario Global Warming Potential Fossil Fuel Depletion (MJ Acidification (kg SO2eq/FU) Eutrophication (kg Neq/FU)
(kg CO2eq/FU) surplus/FU)

Unit Process Aquaculture Hydroponics Aquaculture Hydroponics Aquaculture Hydroponics Aquaculture Hydroponics

O 68.02 49.52 30.30 25.52 0.48 0.34 0.30 0.19

EFF 59.36 27.71 26.60 16.21 0.42 0.19 0.27 0.10

W 3.02 2.55 3.63 5.95 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.01

BG 18.85 9.61 9.80 8.69 1.19 0.54 0.54 0.22

IBF 2.61 - 3.14 - 0.02 - 0.06 -

93