Technological Adaptation of Aquaculture Practices in Sagñay, Camarines Sur: An Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA)- Based Assessment of Entrepreneurial Opportunities

This study assessed the technological adaptation of aquaculture practices in Sagñay, Camarines Sur, with the objective of identifying entrepreneurial opportunities that enhance profitability and sustainability. It examined aquaculture practices in terms of hatchery and nursery management, feed and feeding systems, water quality monitoring, and production reporting systems. It also identified key environmental challenges, explored technological and entrepreneurial opportunities, and developed an Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) adaptation manual.
The study involved 50 registered fisherfolk engaged in aquaculture operations, selected through purposive sampling to ensure relevant experience. Data were collected using structured questionnaires.
Findings revealed that technological adaptation was implemented to a great extent, particularly in feed and feeding systems, water quality monitoring, and production reporting systems, contributing to improved operational efficiency and cost management. However, hatchery and nursery practices were only moderately implemented, indicating gaps in early-stage production. Key challenges included water quality fluctuations, temperature variability, and limited adoption of advanced technologies, which affect production stability.
Based on the findings, entrepreneurial opportunities were identified in aquaculture diversification, IMTA adoption, seaweed integration, value-added processing, and cooperative-based marketing. The study concludes that strengthening technological adoption, enhancing environmental management, and promoting entrepreneurial innovation are essential to improving the competitiveness and sustainability of aquaculture enterprises. It recommends strengthening training programs, improving access to technology and financing, and supporting IMTA-based systems to promote resource efficiency and income diversification.

technological adaptation; aquaculture entrepreneurship; Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA); profitability; sustainable aquaculture; fisher folks; Philippines; Sagñay, Camarines Sur.

1. Abisha, R. (2022). Sustainable development of climate-resilient aquaculture adaptations. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ahmed, N., & Lorica, M. H. (2021). IMTA for smallholders: adoption, livelihoods and benefits — a global review. Aquaculture Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Aung, Y. M., & colleagues. (2023). The impact of sustainable aquaculture technologies on the welfare of small-scale producers. Aquaculture Economics & Management. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2021.2011988 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Azim, M. E., & Little, D. C. (2021). Fertilization and feeding strategies to improve pond productivity: recent advances. Aquaculture International. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Azizpour, J., et al. (2025). Environmental impacts of fish cage cultures in regional seas: review (online). Marine Pollution Bulletin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Baticados, D. B., Agbayani, R. F., & Quinitio, E. T. (2014). Community‐based technology transfer in rural aquaculture: The case of mudcrab nursery in ponds in Northern Samar, Philippines. Ambio, 43(8), 1022-1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0528-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Boyd, C. E. (2021). Nutrient management and environmental risk in pond aquaculture: current evidence and recommendations. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Brown, A. R., et al. (2024). Assessing the benefits and challenges of recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS): A review. Aquaculture Reports. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2024.2433581 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Buschmann, A. H., et al. (2021). Shellfish and seaweed integration: environmental and economic benefits for IMTA. Aquaculture Environment Interactions. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Bush, S. R., & Belton, B. (2019). Government support for aquaculture: Policy frameworks and implications. Aquaculture, 512, 734–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734741 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Cao, L., & Reddy, M. (2022). Nutrient flows and synergies in integrated aquaculture–agriculture systems: a review. Ambio. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Cardona, L. A., & Sánchez, M. E. (2023). Managing nutrient cycling in pond aquaculture systems: updated approaches and monitoring. Aquaculture International. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Casinillo, L. F., Clava, C. A., & Bales, M. C. (2024). Modeling the adoption of aquaculture technologies among youth groups in the Philippines. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 5(4), 100–108. (Article page). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/cjfy/index.php/cjfy/article/view/29978 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Cerio, C., Piano, M., Vargas, B., Cope, M., & De Vergara, J. (2024). Sustainability Science and Resources, Vol. 6 (2024): Sustainability Science and Resources. Fisherfolk Voices on Mariculture Operations in Sagñay, Camarines Sur, Philippines. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55168/ssr2809-6029.2024.6003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century (IDS Discussion Paper No. 296). Institute of Development Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/775 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Chopin, T., et al. (2023). IMTA in marine cages: integration of extractive species to mitigate environmental impacts — review. Aquaculture Environment Interactions. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Costa-Pereira, R., & Mills, D. (2021). Social impacts of cage aquaculture expansions: synthesis review. Coastal Management. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Cotou, E., et al. (2024). A case study of an IMTA (Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture) system: Productivity and sustainability insights. Oceans & Aquatic Research (MDPI special issue). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Cruz, R. (2019). Challenges and opportunities in small-scale aquaculture in Southeast Asia. Journal of Aquaculture Development, 12(2), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquadev.2019.02. 005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. De Silva, S. S., & Turchini, G. (2022). Feed inputs, nutrient balances and feed management in pond systems: a critical review. Reviews in Aquaculture. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Dearing, J. W., & Cox, J. G. (2018). Diffusion of innovations theory, principles, and practice. Health Affairs, 37(2), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Department of Agriculture – Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. (2024). Philippine aquaculture regulatory review and development report. Government of the Philippines. https://dap.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Edited_FINAL-MGR-AQUACULTURE- [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Edwards, P., & Sultana, P. (2021). Small ponds, big impacts: ponds in rural livelihoods and nutrition — a review. Agricultural Systems. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. FAO. (2022). IMTA and integrated systems: technical review and guidelines. Food and Agriculture Organization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Fitzsimmons, K., & Kumar, G. (2021). Rice-fish systems: evidence for resilience and productivity — a systematic review. Agricultural Systems. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2016). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 21(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-0901-2104r01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Freed, S., Barman, B., Dubois, M., Flor, R. J., Funge-Smith, S., Gregory, R., & Cohen, P. J. (2020; updated reviews 2022–2023). Rice-fish integration: resilience, productivity and policy implications. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Froehlich, H. E., & Gentry, R. R. (2021). Production efficiency in aquaculture: A global analysis. Nature Sustainability, 4(8), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00727-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Garlock, T. M., Asche, F., Anderson, J. L., Eggert, H., Anderson, T. M., Che, B., Chávez, C. A., Chu, J., Chukwuone, N., Dey, M. M., Fitzsimmons, K., Flores, J., Guillen, J., Kumar, G., Liu, L., Llorente, I., Nguyen, L., Nielsen, R., Pincinato, R. B. M., Sudhakaran, P. O., Tibesigwa, B., & Tveteras, R. (2024). Environmental, economic, and social sustainability in aquaculture: the aquaculture performance indicators. Nature Communications, 15(1), 5274. Link: [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49556-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Garlock, T. M., et al. (2024). Environmental, economic, and social sustainability in aquaculture: A comparative analysis of 57 systems. Science of the Total Environment. (Review) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11190207/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Garlock, T., Johnson, M., & Lee, H. (2024). Sustainable aquaculture practices and environmental management in tropical regions. Aquaculture Sustainability Journal, 18(1), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquasust.2024.01.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Garlock, T., Nielsen, R., Sudhakaran, P., & Vetter, R. (2024). Environmental, economic, and social sustainability in aquaculture: The Aquaculture Performance Indicators. Nature Communications, 15(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49556-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Gentry, R. R., et al. (2021). Mapping and modelling the environmental footprint of cage aquaculture: review methods and findings. Nature Communications [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Gentry, R. R., et al. (2023). Closed containment, semi-closed and novel pen designs for mariculture: global review. Global Aquaculture Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Gentry, R. R., Froehlich, H. E., & Halpern, B. S. (2021). Mapping aquaculture’s footprint: distribution and impacts of cage aquaculture. Nature Communications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Glaser, M., & Roder, C. (2022). Pond aquaculture in Southeast Asia: diversity of practices and sustainability implications. Asia Pacific Journal of Marine Science. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Guerrero III, R. D. (2019). Farmed tilapia production in the Philippines is declining: what has happened and what can be done. Philippine Journal of Science. Link: [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. https://philjournalsci.dost.gov.ph/farmed-tilapia-production-in-the-philippines-is-declining-what-has-happened-and-what-can-be-done [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Guerrero, R. D. (2019). Income profile and economic viability of small-scale aquaculture farms in the Philippines. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 23(4), 1–16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2019.1667328 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Hala, A. F., et al. (2024). Life-cycle assessment of IMTA systems. Aquaculture. Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0044848624004964 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Hareide, N.-R., & Carney, R. (2023). Inland and reservoir cage culture: environmental impacts and management approaches — review. Aquaculture Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Hegland, T. J., et al. (2021). Submerged cage mariculture of marine fish: biological challenges and [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Henriksson, P. J. G., Belton, B., Jahan, K. M., & Little, D. C. (2022). Life-cycle assessment methods applied to cage and mariculture systems: review. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Hishamunda, N., & Ridler, N. (2021). Policy and governance for IMTA adoption: lessons from global experiences. Aquaculture Policy Reviews. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Ibrahim, L. A., & Ahmed, S. (2023). Pond-based agriculture–aquaculture integrated systems (AIAS): a comprehensive review. Water. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Jana, P., Krishna, K., & Karmakar, S. (n.d.). Biosecurity in aquaculture | request PDF. Biosecurity in Aquaculture: An Overview. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389493906_Biosecurity_in_Aquaculture [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Juggoo, D., & St Flour, P. O. (2024). The role of digital technologies in supporting climate change adaptation in fisheries and aquaculture. International Journal of Aquaculture, 14(4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. https://doi.org/10.5376/ija.2024.14.0020 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Kalidoss, R., Dheeran, P., Rajendiran, R., & Thapa, A. (n.d.). (PDF) integrated multi-trophic aquaculture: A balanced system for sustainable aquaculture. Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture: A Balanced System for Sustainable Aquaculture. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371166335_Integrated_Multi-Trophic_Aquaculture_A_Balanced_System_for_Sustainable_Aquaculture [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Kumar, G., & Engle, C. (n.d.). (PDF) factors driving aquaculture technology adoption. Factors Driving Aquaculture Technology Adoption. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323700260_Factors_Driving_Aquaculture_Technology_Adoption [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Lafferty, K. D., et al. (2021). Environmental impacts of marine net-pen aquaculture: synthesis review and management implications. Marine Pollution Bulletin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Liu, C., et al. (2024). Investigating ecological benefits from mariculture: evidence and review. Earth’s Future / AGU. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Loayza-Aguilar, R. E., Chopin, T., & Buschmann, A. H. (2023). Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA): strategic overview and recent advances. Frontiers in Marine Science. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Lovatelli, A., & Holthus, P. F. (2021). Sustainable mariculture development: lessons and global perspectives — review. Aquaculture Asia / Reviews in Aquaculture. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Macusi, E. D., & Christian, A. K. (2021). Socio-demographic characteristics, perceived vulnerability, and adaptation strategies of small-scale fishers in the Philippines. Marine Policy, 124, 104318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104318 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Macusi, E. D., & Sudhakaran, P. (2022). Biosecurity practices in Philippine aquaculture: A review of current status and challenges. Aquaculture Reports, 21, 100753. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100753 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Macusi, E. D., Estor, D. E. P., Borazon, E. Q., Clapano, M. B., & Santos, M. D. (2022). Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of shrimp farming in the Philippines: A critical analysis using PRISMA. Sustainability, 14(5), 2977. Link: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052977 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Macusi, E., Geronimo, R. C., & Santos, M. D. (2021). Vulnerability drivers for small pelagics and milkfish aquaculture value chain determined through online participatory approach. Marine Policy, 133, 104710. Link: [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X21003213?via%3Dihub [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Macusi, E., Salayo, N., & Reantaso, M. (2021). Social and economic impacts of aquaculture on coastal communities in the Philippines. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 25(3), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2021.1870052 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Macusi, E., Salayo, N., & Reantaso, M. (2022). Capacity-building programs for small-scale aquaculture operators in Southeast Asia. Journal of Rural Development and Fisheries, 9(4), 77–95. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrdf.2022.07.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Manlosa, A. O., et al. (2021). Aquatic food production in Central Luzon, Philippines: Trends, drivers and implications for food security. Regional Environmental Change. (Article) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8637508/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. Martinez-Porchas, M., Martínez-Córdova, L. R., & Ramos-Ibarra, J. (2021). Microbial dynamics and water quality management in pond aquaculture: review and synthesis. Aquaculture Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Martinez-Porchas, M., Martinez-Cordova, L., & Sainz-Hernandez, J. (2012). Tilapia culture in the context of sustainable aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture, 4(2), 93–111. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-5131.2012.01077.0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Meadows, D. H. (2015). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. Mustafa, S., Estim, A., Shapawi, R., Shaleh M. J., & Sidik, S. R. M. (2021). Technological applications and adaptations in aquaculture for progress towards sustainable development and seafood security. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 718(1):012041. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/718/1/012041 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. Nasr-Esfahani, M., & Støttrup, J. (2022). Cage aquaculture interactions with wild stocks and biodiversity: review. ICES Journal of Marine Science. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Naylor, R. L., et al. (2021). Sustainability challenges in pond aquaculture: lessons learned from global case studies. Global Environmental Change. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Neori, A., et al. (2021). Seaweed and extractive species in IMTA: evidence and constraints. Aquaculture. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. Neori, A., et al. (2022). Economic viability and market pathways for IMTA products: review and case studies. Frontiers in Marine Science. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. Papatryphon, E., & Ellis, A. (2022). Cage design, hydrodynamics and structural innovations for offshore mariculture: technical review. Aquacultural Engineering. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. Parker, R. O., & Tom, J. (2022). Governance, zoning and regulatory frameworks for mariculture expansion: global review. Marine Policy. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

91. Parrao, C. G., et al. (2021). Aquaculture for improving productivity, income, nutrition and women’s empowerment: A systematic review. Global Food Security. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8988765/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. Pauly, D., & Zeller, D. (2021). Integration of aquaculture into food systems: trends and review of benefits. Global Food Security. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

94. Pawar, L. (2020). Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture systems (IMTA): Review and applications. Journal of Aquaculture Research & Development. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

95. https://www.journalofaquaculture.com/index.php/joa/article/view/255 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

96. Ponzoni, R. W., & Nguyen, N. H. (2023). Genetic selection and breeding improvements for pond species: progress and prospects. Aquaculture Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

97. Primavera, J. H. (2022). Pond culture and coastal ecosystem interactions: recent evidence and management recommendations. Marine Policy. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

98. Reganit, J. C. (n.d.). House Bill Creating Nat’l Mariculture Program Filed. Retrieved from https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1185939. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

99. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

100. Ross, L. G., & Ross, B. (2021). Health management and disease risk in cage aquaculture: review of evidence and interventions. Veterinary Microbiology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

101. Ruiz-Vanoye, J. A., et al. (2025). Quality measures and resilience in IMTA and integrated systems: comprehensive review. MDPI — Aquaculture Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

102. Rusco, G., et al. (2024). Can IMTA systems improve productivity and quality traits of aquaculture products? Frontiers / MDPI (Review). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11591913/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

103. Salayo, N. D., & Garcia, Y. R. (2020). Input access and its implications for small-scale aquaculture in the Philippines. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 24(3), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2020.1757365 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

105. Salayo, N. D., Marte, C. L., Toledo, J. D., Gaitan, A. G., & Agbayani, R. F. (2020). Developing a self-sufficient Philippine milkfish industry through value chain analysis. Ocean & Coastal Management, 201, 105426. Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105426 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

106. Salayo, N., & Garcia, Y. (2020). Socioeconomic analysis of aquaculture in Philippine coastal communities. Marine Policy, 113, 103804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103804 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

107. Schmidt, J. O., & Shrivastava, S. (2021). Economic performance and livelihood contributions of smallholder pond aquaculture: a review. Aquaculture Economics & Management. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

108. Scoones, I. (2015). Sustainable livelihoods and rural development. Practical Action Publishing. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448749 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

109. Smith, A., & Jones, R. (2022). Disease management and biosecurity in pond production: recent reviews and recommendations. Aquaculture Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

110. Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center. (2025). Guidelines and best practices for sustainable aquaculture governance in the Asia-Pacific region. SEAFDEC Publications. https://www.seafdec.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

111. Subasinghe, R. P., Phillips, M. J., & Reantaso, M. (2021). Cage culture in marine waters: environmental issues and management — review and FAO guidance. FAO Technical Paper (updated). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

112. Tacon, A. G. J., Hasan, M. R., & Metian, M. (2021). Feed management and waste reduction in cage systems: global review. FAO Fisheries & Aquaculture Technical Paper. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

113. Tahiluddin, A. B. (2025). Environmental impacts of aquaculture in the Philippines. International Journal of Aquaculture,? (?). Highlights negative impacts such as mangrove destruction, seagrass degradation, water-quality issues [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

114. Tahiluddin, A. B., & Terzi, E. (2023). Sustainable aquaculture practices in the Philippines: Challenges and opportunities. Aquaculture Research, 54(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.15123 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

115. Tahiluddin, R., & Terzi, H. (2023). Integrated mangrove-shrimp aquaculture for sustainable coastal management in the Philippines. Environmental Management Journal, 67(2), 230–247. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01712-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

117. Talbot, E., & Sudhakaran, P. (2024). Incorporating climate-readiness into fisheries management in the Philippines. Science of the Total Environment, 802, 149798. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149798 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

119. Tolentino-Zondervan, F., et al. (2022). Sustainable fishery management trends in Philippine fisheries. Ocean & Coastal Management, [Volume/Issue Available in Elsevier]. Link: [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

120. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569122001247 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

121. Troell, M., & Halling, C. (2023). Nutrient recycling and co-culture in pond systems: systematic review of evidence. Ecological Engineering. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

122. Troell, M., et al. (2022). IMTA as a pathway to sustainability: synthesis of case studies and modelling. Reviews in Aquaculture. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

123. Turchini, G., & De Silva, S. S. (2024). Reducing nutrient runoff and improving feed conversion in pond systems: meta-analysis of interventions. Reviews in Aquaculture. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

124. Uddin, M. N. (2025). Potential of IMTA to reduce environmental impacts in shrimp farming: global review. Aquaculture Reports [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

125. Van Rijn, J. (2022). Waste treatment and ecological approaches for eutrophication control in pond aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

126. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

127. Zhang, H., & Gui, F. (2023). The application and research of new digital technology in marine aquaculture. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(2), 401. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

128. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11020401 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

129. Zhang, X., & Jin, R. (2023). Advances in ecological research on integrated rice-field aquaculture systems: a systematic review. Water. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

130. Ahmed, N., & Thompson, S. (2021). The role of aquaculture in sustainable food systems. Reviews in Aquaculture, 13(1), 68–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12489 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

131. Boyd, C. E. (2020). Water quality: An introduction. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

132. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-23335-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

133. Boyd, C. E., & Tucker, C. S. (2021). Pond aquaculture water quality management. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23335-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

134. Buschmann, A. H., Camus, C., Infante, J., Neori, A., Israel, Á., Hernández-González, M. C., … Critchley, A. T. (2022). Seaweed production: Environmental and socio-economic benefits. Nature Sustainability, 5(8), 679–689. https://www.tau.ac.il/~agolberg/pdf/2017_6.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

135. Chopin, T., Tacon, A. G. J., & Reid, G. K. (2020). Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture: Part of the solution or a management tool? Aquaculture, 516, 734601. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734601 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

137. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2022). Aquaculture farm management. https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/aquaculture [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

138. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2024). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2024. https://www.fao.org/sofia/en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

139. Islam, M. S., Rahman, M. M., & Haque, M. M. (2021). Effects of temperature on fish growth and stress in tropical aquaculture systems. Aquaculture Reports, 20, 100645. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100645 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

141. Pörtner, H. O., Roberts, D. C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E. S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., … Rama, B. (2022). Climate change impacts and risks to aquatic ecosystems. Science, 376(6590), eabi5979. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FrontMatter.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

142. Troell, M., Henriksson, P. J. G., Buschmann, A. H., Chopin, T., Quahe, S., & Hall, S. J. (2021). Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture as a key pathway to sustainable aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture, 13(2), 544–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12495 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

143. Valderrama, D., Cai, J., Hishamunda, N., & Ridler, N. (2021). Social and economic dimensions of seaweed farming. Journal of Applied Phycology, 33(1), 131–142. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

144. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237149904 Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming in the United Republic of Tanzania [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Role of Value and Growth Stocks in Portfolio Returns: Insights From the Nigerian Stock Market
• The Impact of Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) and Profitability on Firm Value Moderated by Firm Size
• Assessment of the Impact of Environmental Operating Costs on Return on Assets: Evidence from Listed Breweries in Nigeria
• Mobile Money and Digital Financial Services Ecosystem in Adamawa State
• A Quantitative Approach of Professional Skepticism and Fraud Detection among Malaysian Internal Auditors