Next Article in Journal
Study on the Behavior Strategy of the Subject of Low-Carbon Retrofit of Residential Buildings Based on Tripartite Evolutionary Game
Previous Article in Journal
Rural Energy Transition for Cooking in India—Revisiting the Drivers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/su15097638
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Review of Sustainable Pillars and their Fulfillment in Agriculture, Aquaculture, and Aquaponic Production

by
Mark Schoor
,
Ana Patricia Arenas-Salazar
,
Irineo Torres-Pacheco
,
Ramón Gerardo Guevara-González
and
Enrique Rico-García
*
Department of Biosystem Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Autonomous University of Queretaro, Querétaro P.O. Box 76010, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(9), 7638; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097638
Submission received: 30 March 2023 / Revised: 28 April 2023 / Accepted: 3 May 2023 / Published: 6 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Topic Sustainability in Agri-Food and Forestry Ecosystems)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Focusing on new food production methods and sustainable pillars’ accomplishments has changed the definition of sustainable pillars themselves. Moreover, some general characteristics of the main pillars can be redefined in separate dimensions to better explain their positive sustainable impacts. Therefore, the main objective of this research is to redefine the sustainable pillars linked to food production and review the most important cultural and technological sustainability impacts they have, in addition to the three classic pillars: economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Cultural and technological sustainability are increasingly important complements to the traditional sustainability concept. Furthermore, new food production technologies and systems are influenced by ancient production methods, as well as by profitable crop selection. Traditional agricultural and aquaculture production in relation to more recent aquaponic production concepts are still a major part of global food security, but the better usage of waste materials or residues generates a more favorable agroecological impact. In conclusion, constantly redefining the sustainable pillars in the context of sustainable food production methods and proving the viability of their general production impacts is important.

1. Introduction

The ecological impacts caused by human activities such as industrialization, urbanization processes, and the need for enlarged supply chains threaten our planet’s sustainability and the environment [1]. Sustainability and the concept of sustainable development are related to industrial and agricultural production, which is integrated into environmental management. Both synonyms have different implications regarding potentials and limitations, according to their individual significance [2]. The three major areas of sustainability are the adjustments of economic, social, and environmental principles [3,4], which must coexist with each other [5]. In 2002, due to cultural disparity increases, culture was added as a fourth principle of sustainable development [6]. In addition to culture, technological advances and innovation are considered a new fifth pillar, due to the impact of technological improvements in sustainable development [7], which is mostly included in that of economic performance [8]. Furthermore, the objective of sustainable development is to support the balance between ecosystems and the economic exploitation of nature, by providing resources with a focus on preserving the Earth for future generations [9].
The long history of sustainability in the different production sectors has led to various policies and initiatives to address and integrate different disciplines, close sustainability gaps, and implement circular economy concepts [1]. Therefore, strategic economic and organizational activities must be adopted [10] to create a healthy environment, social cohesion, and economic efficiency [11]. The continual growth of the world’s population and the projected figure of 10 billion people living on our planet by 2050 necessitates transforming food production systems [12] to prevent environmental degradation and the rise of carbon emissions. Moreover, in many countries, there is little support for environmental sustainability considerations that permit an increase in economic growth and simultaneously protect the environment [13].
Food production systems represent a complex process involving food processing, packaging, distribution, selling, and consumption [14]. Furthermore, there are only a few organizations that control the food production sector and the inputs used, such as the required materials (seeds, agrochemicals, and machinery) that maintain agricultural production [15]. The transformation of food production systems must be improved and requires a redesign to conserve the environment and mitigate climate change [16].
This process includes globalizing food production [17], a model in which the implemented food production systems and methods [18] have a key role in achieving ecological sustainability in the application of innovative food production ideas [19]. In the past, there have been several investigations that, on the one hand, focused on sustainable production methods and the more efficient use of natural resources [20], mainly in the better exploitation of production spaces [21] and the better management of water in food production systems [12]. Moreover, there are complementary investigations focusing on declining agrochemical use [22] and the implementation of more agroecological production methods [23].
On the other hand, there is a new focus in the literature on enhancing food supply chains [24] and strengthening local food markets [25,26], which could provide organic foods in an innovative concept of “producing, buying, and eating locally” in food production [27]. Therefore, an increasing interest in backyard farming to complement partially local diets has been observed [28].
The greatest potential for implementing agroecological and sustainable food production exists in the better usage of waste and the residues originating from food production [12]. However, most investigations do not incorporate details of sustainability or do not demonstrate why a certain food production system is sustainable. This review focuses on an application of the different sustainable pillars to conduct an analysis on food production in aquaponic systems, including the two main components (agriculture and aquaculture) of aquaponics that could play a major role in accomplishing food security.

2. Literature Research Methodology

The initial literature survey in June 2022 was conducted to establish basic information about the concept of sustainability in relation to food production, which provided the keywords for the review. The research was performed by searching the MDPI, Elsevier, IEEE, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Google Scholar databases, concentrating the research on sustainability dimensions and food production systems. This differentiation helped to define a methodology with two main sections, the first analyzing the need to complement the traditional pillars of sustainability in food production and the impacts of cultural heritage and technological production, and the second examining the way that these predefined sustainable pillars are reflected in different food production systems.
Therefore, we performed a systematic review of the three traditional pillars of sustainability—economic, social, and environmental—to analyze the different concepts and implement the following sub-questions:
  • What are the specifics of the traditional sustainable dimensions?
  • Is there a need to amplify this definition, based on food production systems?
  • How sustainable are traditional food production systems (agriculture, aquaculture)?
  • How sustainable is an aquaponic production system in comparison to traditional production systems?
We attempt to answer these sub-questions by: (1) describing the traditional dimensions of sustainability; (2) linking traditional production systems to cultural practices and technology according to the local context, to ensure a better understanding of sustainable food production; (3) analyzing two traditional food production systems, agriculture and aquaculture, and establishing their sustainable impact in food production, comparing these systems (4) to sustainable aquaponic food production.
Analysis of the traditional sustainable dimensions was performed by reviewing the initial concept of sustainability and its adoption by international institutions during the last few decades. Moreover, our analysis of the two traditional production systems (agriculture and aquaculture) showed that there are global cultural and technological differences that need to be considered when defining sustainable food production. Furthermore, food production was analyzed on the base of external influences which substituted the traditional production methods, as in the case of aquaponic food production.
Although aquaponics is categorized as a sustainable production method, we intend to compare the sustainability of aquaponic food production with the traditional production systems because aquaponics is a combination of agriculture and aquaculture, and both systems must surmount some difficulties to accomplish full sustainability.
This research was performed in three different languages, namely, English, German, and Spanish, to gain access to different information and studies about the pillars of sustainability. Moreover, conducting research in different languages helped us to review articles from different countries and to understand the cultural heritage of food production and the relevant applied technology in different parts of the world.
For this paper, we utilized different types of articles (reviews and scientific studies) and book chapters from different areas wherein sustainable pillars are applied and defined, on the topic of sustainability in food production systems. In general, the information is dated from 2018 to 2023; only established concepts and basic information about the topic date from before 2018.

3. The Concept of Sustainability and the Sustainable Pillars

The concept of sustainability or sustainable development is based on the German word “Nachhaltigkeit”, which was defined in the book Sylvicultura Oeconomica, by von Carlowitz [29]. Implementing sustainability can be traced back to the year 1713, when it was used in relation to the forest industry [30], along with an implemented discussion of whether a forest can recover from humans’ wood consumption [29]. Furthermore, it discusses the main principles of sustainability and how to strike a balance between resource consumption and the natural regeneration process of nature to ensure the survival of future generations [31]. The von Carlowitz concept was redefined several times, one of these being the Brundtland report in 1987, also known as “Our common future” [32]. The Brundtland report focused on sustainability’s three main sections: the environment, the economy, and society (equity) [33]; more particularly, it directs us to our population’s economic growth and the life cycle of our goods [34].
The United Nations redefined sustainability and sustainable development by implementing the 17 sustainable development goals and set the objective of accomplishing peace and prosperity by 2030 [35]. Furthermore, the United Nations implemented an agenda to support the preservation of the environment for future generations, implementing measures against climate change and reducing global warming [36] by adopting clean energy concepts [37]. Therefore, the following section concentrates on the three principal sustainability pillars, their classification, and the importance of the definition of the cultural and technological pillars of sustainability (Figure 1). The standard concept of sustainability, defined by Elkington, specified three main dimensions, namely, the economic dimension, the social and human dimension, and the environmental dimension [38], as stated in the Brundtland report [3]. Nowadays, these three dimensions [39] must be complemented by two new dimensions, these being cultural [40] and technological sustainability (Table 1) [41]. Therefore, employing the right indicators to measure the differences between regional geography, local problems, and population structure is important [39].

3.1. Economic Sustainability

3.1.1. Generalities

The economic pillar of sustainability is defined as the balance between the environmental and social aspects in relation to economic goals [3], which can include the limitations that the human population must place on economic growth [42] to minimize the economic activities’ ecological impacts [43]. The past has shown us that technological improvements have led to products with shorter life cycles [44], made without considering an economic and environmental balance, in addition to the difficulty of establishing sustainable development [45].
In general, economic sustainability is more influenced by the social pillar of sustainability [42] due to the consumer decisions that are taken in the acquisition and the resulting quality of products and goods [46]. Therefore, the concept of consumer satisfaction with the least environmental impact possible must be adopted by introducing innovative products and goods [44] that have been produced according to environmental standards [47].

3.1.2. Economic Sustainable Food Production and Consumption

Social pressure from consumers can lead to a new focus on green product innovations [48]; economically, this can create corporate advantages and business benefits for companies investing in green products and process innovations [49], and, consequently, generate positive and sustainable economic growth for innovative companies [50]. There is a need for balancing all the long-term costs and benefits of economic activities to achieve sustainable economic growth, while simultaneously assuring nature’s regenerative ability along with economic progress [42].
Nature’s regenerative ability is even more important in the food production sector because of the adverse effects of climate change and the loss of productive croplands caused by rising food demand from the world’s growing population [51]. Economic growth in agriculture depends on increasing crop yields and using non-conventional plants to provide food security [52]. There is high economic potential in the use of new technologies in saline areas that use salt-resistant plants, which can sustain crop productivity and reduce freshwater consumption. In addition, the new focus must be on plants with high nutritional values that are also resistant to soil contamination and can be implemented in industrial production with biotechnological functions [53]. Furthermore, the use of waste products from food production (organic material and water residues) to create a second product or animal feed becomes ever more important for establishing a sustainable cycle of production [54].

3.2. Social Sustainability

3.2.1. Generalities

The social sustainability pillar implies the continuation of satisfying basic human needs [42], which can also involve preventing social injustices such as child labor, inequality, and the abuse of working time limits and living conditions for workers in important manufacturing sectors inside international supply chains [55]. Moreover, social sustainability is connected to social responsibility and sustainable development which ensures economic substance without affecting the ecological environment [39]. This also includes the legal, ethical, and philanthropic obligations and responsibilities that the different members of society have [56].
Legal responsibilities include activities in line with laws and regulations, combined with ethical responsibilities, which involve moral conduct and behavior according to society’s value system [57]. Therefore, social sustainability values include working rights, gender equality, non-discrimination, health coverage, and access to medical attention [58]. In addition, education was established as an important factor in the sustainable development goals outlined in the 2030 agenda of the United Nations, part of the social sustainability dimension and focusing on education’s contribution to reaching economic and social wealth, which can also lead to a greater consensus on the importance of environmentally friendly practices [59,60].

3.2.2. Social Responsibility in Food Production

Even though social sustainability can be considered as being secondary [61], difficult to quantify the impact of [62], and often overlooked, attention is still paid to social practices and the relationship between economic growth and social responsibility [55]. In agricultural food production processes and due to the harmful environmental impact of using intensive monoculture systems, population growth has created a high social demand for suitable practices [63]. Social damage and the loss of economic growth with intensive agriculture necessitate implementing sustainable strategies of cropland use and management practices, which include improving rural communities’ long-term quality of life [60].
The life quality of rural communities also depends on socio-economic indicators that focus on the rural population’s present conditions and families’ specific incomes in rural areas due to agricultural production, labor availability, seasonal climate variations, and crop requirements [58]. Furthermore, the indicators reflect the farmers’ actual conditions and regional development in the context of sustainable performance [64]. Rural regions and their local vitality create a state of isolation from urban areas, due to their lack of social policies [65]. Moreover, the rural population has different occupations and has passed through different educational systems [58], which necessitates a special regional social infrastructure to support local labor and discourage the local population from migrating [66]. The implementation of modern communication technology could also improve social cohesion, innovation, and education [67] in rural areas and stop regional depopulation [66].

3.3. Environmental Sustainability

3.3.1. Generalities

In recent years, environmental sustainability has earned more recognition as a way to guarantee socio-economic sustainability and a healthy ecological environment [68]. The environmental sustainability pillar refers to maintaining natural productivity and ecosystem performance, in addition to protecting different wild species and preserving biodiversity [42]. Protection of the environment also includes the loss of natural wildlife, soil degradation, climate change, contamination in urban areas, and the intensification of agricultural production due to the incremental human consumption of natural resources [69]. The human consumption and production activities that cause environmental degradation are reflected in biodiversity loss, increasing natural hazards, food security, and human health effects [70].
An investigation of the contamination caused by an area’s human population requires implementing an ecological footprint to control economic production density and development and the effects of urbanization [68]. Therefore, environmental sustainability necessitates improving and developing alternatives for conventional resources and using greener, cleaner, and more renewable processes [71] with a more balanced ecological footprint [68].

3.3.2. Environmentally Friendly Food Production

An important example of this includes the main effects and health risks caused by the use of chemical products, which have a negative effect on climate change and necessitate reducing industrial pollution to save the environment [69]. Especially in the energy sector, there is high potential for implementing sustainable energy requirements, such as by developing biofuels or using nanotechnology [71].
Focusing on food production, agricultural intensification is related to non-sustainable practices due to soil contamination, erosion, and water pollution, which cause environmental degradation and biodiversity loss [72,73]. Moreover, intensive agricultural production is the main cause of soil erosion because of salinization and a deficiency in organic substances, which cause biodiversity loss and general ill effects in agricultural regions [58]. Therefore, implementing sustainable agricultural practices and newly designed agricultural methods could play a key role in the development of sustainability and adapting practices to challenge the impacts of climate change [74].

3.4. Cultural Sustainability

3.4.1. Generalities

In most analyses of the sustainability dimensions, the cultural pillar is included in the social dimension, in the form of the socio-cultural pillar [75], or under the cultural diversity concept [58], which is not considered as important as the three original sustainable development pillars [76]. Nowadays, it is valuable to distinguish between social and cultural pillars, which might improve the alignment between external sustainability goals and organizational missions [77].
Culture and cultural heritage represent the diversity and representation of communities globally [78]. Moreover, protecting cultural heritage properties and the trespassing of values and meanings among generations is vital for implementing cultural sustainability [79]. Additionally, implementing cultural sustainability can help us to understand regional population values and implement the necessary changes in accordance with the general sustainability concept [76]. Today, cultural transmission is more possible and is different from the traditional cultural structures [80], due to the connection between people using social media and the possibility of international travel, in this way passing cultural information and heritage on to other countries with the use of multi-language functionality [77], implementing the idea of a global cultural village [78]. Social networks are also a reflection of cultural heritage, exposing the economic status and sustainable problems inherent in the concept of cultural globalization [81]. The assessment of culture has a key role in sustainable development, including the topics of traditions, vitality, economic capability, diversity, locality, and the ecological resilience of cultures and civilizations [77].

3.4.2. Cultural Heritage in Food Production

In agricultural food production, evaluating the cultural pillar is based on qualitative measurements, whereby rural community-based indicators are centered on self-evaluation via surveys and interviews with the rural population [58]. Ilieva et al. [82] have shown that there is a certain cultural benefit of agriculture due to community commitment, economic opportunities, and educational benefits. Moreover, implementing food production areas has fomented investigations into new agricultural technology [83] and increased awareness among the population regarding the benefits of ecological farming in contrast to conventional agricultural food production [82]. Agricultural food production is an important part of cultural identity and diversity that corresponds with food production methods, education, and providing food for the community [84].

3.5. Technological Sustainability

3.5.1. Generalities

Technological sustainability is considered to be part of the economic pillar in most definitions, but technology now impacts all three pillars in the classic sustainable pillars definition [85]. The development and implementation of new technologies in shorter time frames have elevated natural resource consumption and decreased product life cycles, which will heavily impact future generations [44]. Therefore, it is necessary to have more efficient recycling and technology reuse processes [86], although this is difficult due to the high demand for new products [87].
There was a significant increase in the shift toward socio-technical transition [88] and an increased commitment to more scientific investigations based on sustainable methods [89]. Moreover, digital technological progress has transformed human society and the economic processes of technological sustainable development [90].
Technological innovations can help to achieve sustainability in various sectors and areas; in general, there must be a positive environmental impact [91]. The most recent investigations were focused on environmentally friendly technologies that resulted in sustainable accomplishments [92]. Therefore, technological advances can help to implement environmentally friendly practices and optimize resource usage [93], which are two important indicators of technological sustainability. This type of business model uses clean production practices, green innovation, and short supply chains as an advantage to achieve sustainable performance [91].
Modern technology concepts produced under sustainable methods include the use of recycled materials in the production processes of new goods [94], thus optimizing the production process by integrating sustainable resources [95]. Moreover, new technologies that support sustainability [96] need to avoid contamination [97], especially regarding transportation distances in international supply chains, and protect social values and codes [98], which, in the end, could support regenerating the environment and biodiversity [99].

3.5.2. Sustainable Technology Innovation in Food Production

Agricultural methods have adapted to new technologies that permit high crop yield rates using improved machinery and developed enhanced genetic seeds and agrochemical products [58]; they have focused more on food security [100] and less on sustainability. One of the latest technological developments is the use of nanotechnology in the production of biofuels [71] or agriculture [101].
In agriculture, sustainable technology can be used for optimizing production processes and transforming food production practices into green and clean methods [102]. For example, the treatment of wastewater from food production processes can help achieve sustainability by using new and innovative technology [103]. Moreover, wastewater treatment technologies and economic, environmental, and energy usage rate analyses [104] can help producers to implement technologies such as aquaponics [105].

4. Sustainability in Food Production

Human population growth and the global scale of urbanization [106] necessitate establishing expanded food production and highlight the importance of food supply chains from rural to urban areas [107]. Moreover, transportation from rural to urban areas has a great environmental impact [108] so it requires more local sustainable production methods [109]. Therefore, to understand sustainability, analyzing the different sectors of food production where sustainability has been applied is important. This section of the article focuses on food production in aquaponic systems, looking at two components of the system: agriculture and aquaculture production.

4.1. Sustainability in Agriculture Food Production

4.1.1. Recent Agricultural Food Production

Agriculture food production provides economic, social, cultural, and technological benefits to the human population [110] and, in the different stages of planting, growing, harvesting, and transporting the final product, offers labor opportunities to more than one billion people globally [111]. Moreover, increasing alimentation needs and breaking off from nutrient accumulation have impacted the balance between food demand and supply, which will bring new difficulties for the food production sector in the coming years [112].
The consequences of higher world food demand included an increase in synthetic fertilizer use, causing massive environmental impacts due to toxic soil pollution and changes in the physicochemical soil conditions [113], which has led to general soil degradation, with long-term effects on agricultural productivity and human health [112]. Furthermore, recent studies about contamination showed negative effects caused by the use of more than one agrochemical pesticide on 64% of global agricultural land. Moreover, in addition to 64% of affected soil, 31% of agricultural soil is considered at high risk of contamination [114]; therefore, more environmentally friendly methods are required [115].
There is a significant contrast between the different concepts of agriculture. Intensified agriculture is the most common concept, which can be understood as productivity increases in the same cropland space [116,117]. Food production intensification is highly dependent on advances in agrochemical and genetic technologies, but causes soil and salinity degradation and soil sterility, causing the soil to no longer be viable for agricultural food production [118]. Nowadays, the development of new agro-technologies is fundamental to meeting the rising global demand for food products [119] and simultaneously increasing food production, with less environmental pressure [120]. The key to more environmentally friendly food production is sustainability and the use of more renewable resources with lower ecological impacts [115]. In sustainable agricultural development, there are some patterns that must be addressed, such as the conservation of agriculture, the perspective of organic farming, the use of biological agrochemicals, and better pest management [120], with the focus being on a sustainable production system with lower environmental, economic, and social impacts [121].

4.1.2. Impact of the Sustainable Pillars in Agriculture

The search for more sustainable production methods must involve food production systems adopting resource-saving and environment-conserving concepts, along with efficient production, to secure market competitiveness; as a result of this practice, farmers’ living standards will improve [122]. According to the authors of [123], the implementation of sustainable production methods involves working with natural and social systems, including conserving agriculture in general, and the agroecological process and food production process principles more specifically. The major principle of sustainable food production and the reduction of environmental impacts [124] must take into account soil management, crop management, and genetic management to protect biodiversity as part of the concept of agricultural conservation [125].
Moreover, soil management is vital for food production due to the provision of nutrients for agricultural plant growth, with the essential soil nutrients for plants being N, P, and K [126]. Furthermore, there is a difference between qualitative and quantitative production techniques [58]. Qualitative techniques are based on visual evaluations of soil structure and texture [127] or of quality and fertility, which impact cropland management [128]. Moreover, quantitative techniques suggest compiling data-based literature and creating empirical models of food production [129].
Food production sustainability is at risk in plant nutrition because excessive chemical fertilizer usage and the consequent soil degradation require considering physical soil condition rehabilitation [130]. Moreover, crop rotation, biofertilizers, and precision agriculture can help to increase crop productivity and prevent cropland from decreasing in soil fertility [120].
Therefore, to measure sustainability in agricultural practices, it is important to adopt viable three-dimensional indicators to establish the different farming systems, methods, and local considerations [58]. These environmental indicators of agricultural production consider the cause-and-effect relationship between food production and the environment, including agricultural biodiversity, agrochemicals use, water usage, and soil composition [131]. The indicators focusing on economic considerations incorporate the viability, profitability, stability, liquidity, and productivity of the inputs and outputs of agricultural cropland production [58]. The social indicators are based on the farming methods of the community and community wellbeing [60] in relation to agricultural sustainable practices according to the local ecosystem [132].

4.2. Sustainability in Aquaculture Food Production

4.2.1. Industrial Aquaculture Production

Besides agricultural plant-based food production, a second common system is aquaculture production, which can be defined as human participation in the farming of aquatic organisms by adapting freshwater and marine habitats [133]. Aquaculture food production is the quickest-growing food production sector, using aquatic food production systems in inland locations or open sea marine systems [134], with the main regions in Asia practicing aquaculture for food production [133].
There are different aquaculture production systems; the most common are cage, floodplain, net-pen, pond, raft and long-line aquaculture and raceway farming, recirculating aquaculture systems, and rice–fish farming [133]. Aquaculture production can be classified as intensive, semi-intensive, or extensive production [135], cultivating aquatic animals via monoculture, polyculture, or integrated fish farming [136]. Globally, there are more than 622 aquatic animal species reported that can be farmed in aquaculture food production systems, the most common of these being carp, catfish, shrimp, salmon, and tilapia [133] due to their trade values [134].
Aquaculture farmers are greatly concerned with the elevated costs of raw materials and equipment requirements [137]. On the one hand, using industrial aquafeed aliments creates a large environmental impact due to different types of contamination (water and mud sediments) [138]. On the other hand, the high levels of use of hydric resources and the return of wastewater to the environment causes aquaculture food production’s sustainability to be questionable [139].

4.2.2. Sustainable Optimization Potential of Aquaculture

The new sustainable aquaculture food production methods demand the implementation of strategies that consider the effects of climate change, environmental risks, biosecurity, and the health of aquatic species while applying new technologies to guarantee productivity [137]. There is a high potential to solve one fundamental problem of aquaculture food production, namely, the use of fish meal protein for aquatic animal feed, which is affecting the system’s sustainability [140]. These types of aliments have costly production processes due to the high demand for raw materials, causing several environmental issues [138].
A viable sustainable alternative for aquatic feed aliment involves using black soldier fly larvae [141], which are rich in protein [140]. Even more viable is producing and using cheaper, locally produced nutritious ingredients for aquafeed, such as banana and cassava peels or rice and maize brans as carbon sources inside the food supply chain [137], contributing to the circular economy with efficient waste use [142].
Aquaculture is a water-intensive food production system, with a high usage of freshwater [143], which creates a high water footprint for aquatic animal production [144]. Furthermore, aquaculture food production has a high environmental impact, due to the hydric discharge of wastewater concentrations of organic, inorganic, and microalgae into the environment [145]; without a nutrient eradication process, this causes the eutrophication of natural aquifers [146]. Due to the resulting nitrogen pollution in the water, aquaculture production generates a greywater footprint, with the concentration being dependent on the cultivated aquatic animal species [147].
Even though nitrogen is a vital nutrient in agricultural food production, the nitrogen concentration from aquacultural food production, as seen in pond sludge and wastewater discharge, has damaging effects on the local ecosystems; therefore, more sustainable aquacultural production practices and nitrogen-efficient usage are required [146]. One method to reduce aquaculture sludge waste’s environmental impact involves using black soldier fly larvae and biologically transforming the sludge waste, which is cost-efficient and easy to handle in comparison with traditional waste-reducing technologies [148].
To be more sustainable, aquaculture needs to consider the nature input that is required for food production, depending on the farmed species, and possibly increasing production to its maximum potential [149]. Moreover, integrating technological advances to improve resource usage efficiency and energy efficiency, along with recirculating aquaculture systems such as aquaponics, can not only improve food security but also decrease aquaculture production’s environmental impact [137].

4.3. Sustainability of Aquaponic Systems

4.3.1. Aquaponic System Development

Aquaponics is a technology that can support a short food supply chain and has the capability to be installed in smaller spaces [107]. Aquaponic systems combine agricultural plant production, with the use of plant cultivation via hydroponics, and aquaculture fish production in one incorporated system [150]. There are two different designs of aquaponic systems; the most common is the recirculating system [105], in which nutrient-rich water resources from fish production run in a circle-loop layout between the fish culture area and the plant production bed [151]. Less well-known is an open aquaponic system with combined soil-based plant cultivation, which consists of an aquaculture production system using aquatic wastewater for soil irrigation to foment plant production [152]; this system is also known as a wastewater irrigation system [153,154].
Therefore, due to the beneficial connection between fish and plant production, aquaponics is considered a sustainable production method [155]. The produced aquatic waste intended for fostering plant growth [156] uses fish defecation as nutritious fertilizer [157]. Furthermore, the natural nutrients concentrated in aquatic wastewater can limit chemical fertilizer and freshwater use due to a second exploitation of hydric resources, which has a positive environmental impact [158].

4.3.2. Wastewater Use in Aquaponic Food Production

Wastewater use in aquaponic systems reduces the need for external nutrient input and waste disposal [159] due to water reuse. Aquaponics adopts the principles of the circular economy, which consist of reducing resource consumption and discharge into the environment [160]. Moreover, circular economic enhancement and the optimization of food production [161] can reduce the waste generation caused by food production [160]. Reusing aquatic animal wastewater could involve implementing a zero-waste process [162], with water savings of from 80% up to 90% in comparison with traditional production methods [163]. Therefore, the water efficiency of aquaponic systems is higher than the conventional techniques and reduces chemical fertilizer use [150,164].
The responsible use of resources and production efficiency make aquaponic systems appropriate for educational programs, with a positive social outcome [155]. Additionally, aquaponics systems demand rigorous monitoring, control, and management, which can be enhanced using technology based on the Internet of Things (IoT) to optimize water use and food production [156].
Moreover, aquaponic systems have an important role in terms of providing food security [165,166] because they can be implemented regionally, offering the production of various vegetables, fruits, and aquatic animals near the consumers’ homes [167]. Regional food production and local backyard production using aquaponics can support sustainability [168] by lowering food transportation and CO2 contamination [159].
Aquaponics, as a type of urban agriculture ensuring the supply of fresh food [124], also contributes to the local economy by creating green jobs and offering social integration [169]. Furthermore, aquaponics enables urban areas to be more sustainable by promoting self-sufficiency and the implementation of low-carbon food production by growing high-value plants [170]. Additionally, aquaponics presents a valuable market opportunity due to the new ideology of buying local [26], environmentally friendly, and organic products, which are free of antibiotics and agrochemicals [159,171]. Therefore, the low water usage and wastewater nutrient use, in combination with design variety and simple adaption to different locations, production types, and climate conditions are strong arguments for aquaponics to be considered as a sustainable production method [169] that replicates natural systems by farming aquatic animals and plants in symbiosis [150].

5. Discussion

Global food production depends on adopting sustainable production methods because of the overexploitation of fertile soil, cropland loss [172], high agrochemical and water usage in agriculture [173] and aquaculture systems [174], and water contamination. This requires a variety of optimizations to transform the different systems into sustainable ones [175,176]. Agricultural production is reaching its limit due to intensification [177], to the point that using even more agrochemicals does not promise more productivity [158]. Furthermore, agricultural food production is reverting to organic food production [178,179], with less substantial yield rates, but the system is more environmentally friendly and there is more plant diversity due to the use of multi-cropping or polyculture plant production systems [180,181]. Moreover, aquaculture wastewater discharges into close aquifers are also creating certain negative environmental impacts [182], are wasted, or are not used in alternative food production as a valuable nutritious asset [183].
Aquaponics, combining agriculture and aquaculture in one system [184], is a viable alternative food production system that is regarded as sustainable due to the symbiotic growth of aquatic animals and plants [164] and the use of nutrient concentrations in the wastewater [156]. In fact, an aquaponic system’s water efficiency is higher than in standard agriculture and aquaculture and it prevents agrochemical use [150], which means that aquaponics is an eco-friendly and cost-effective system [164]. Moreover, aquaponics presents an opportunity to reduce production spaces by using closed recirculating systems [105] or an open soil-based irrigation system [152].
Yep and Zheng [150] mention that aquaponics is a cleaner and more sustainable food production practice than conventional food production in general, but suggest that aquaponics is close to being fully sustainable and accomplishing all the sustainability pillars. However, sustainable development depends on local conditions and national policies to achieve full sustainability [66].
In aquaponic systems, the impact of technological sustainability when using an innovative production method is important [159]. Therefore, demonstrating aquaponics’ economic impact and the cost-effectiveness of the different production scales (backyard cultivation, small-scale farming, rural farming, and industrial farming) is important [164]. Furthermore, the social and educational impacts are difficult to measure, but there could be further investigations regarding the handling of agrochemicals in food production and the development of a social conscience about protecting the environment and biodiversity [12]. There is a positive environmental impact due to the better use of water when producing two proteins, namely, fish and plants, in one system but there must be further investigation of aquaponics’ long-term impact, due to the use of different types of plastics and metals, energy use in recirculating systems, and the organic waste materials of the production processes [185]. The most difficult sustainable pillar to accomplish is cultural sustainability because only a few countries and regions have an ancient heritage and traditions of hydroponic production or early aquaponic production, such as the Chinampas food production in Mexico [186].
All these considerations should be applicable to agriculture and aquaculture and help to improve the impact of sustainable food production in traditional production systems. In addition, farmers and agricultural regions need help from different institutions (governments, universities, and non-profit organizations) to develop new sustainable practices based on technological advancements [187]. For example, there is a high potential in terms of using organic fertilizer, waste management [188], and digitalization [189], which could be facilitated by new institutional sustainable strategies.
In the future, there must be more investigation into agricultural, aquacultural, and aquaponic food production to ensure sustainability’s being fully applied to accomplish the different pillars, with a focus on food security, lowering environmental impacts, and high product quality, while respecting farmers’ cultural food heritages and remaining accessible for the whole of social society. Moreover, there must be investigations and cultural exchanges about production methods, systems, and practices, as well as if they are viable for other countries and regions.

6. Conclusions

In the future, it will be important to concentrate scientific investigations more closely on sustainable food production systems that fulfill the five established sustainability pillars (economic, social, environmental, cultural, and technological). Therefore, our investigations must be directed toward renovating the established food production systems (agriculture, aquaculture, and livestock) or combining different food production systems (aquaponics) to detect their hidden potential for optimizing the system. The new focus must concentrate on accomplishing the sustainability pillars and goals. Moreover, cultural and technological sustainability must be more integrated into the concept of sustainability, to help to understand the importance of the acceptance and handling of new food production systems.
Aquaponics may be an alternative system that has the potential to be a sustainable method of food production, but there are still some questions about its sustainability, due to the use of non-organic materials, energy usage (water pumps), waste, and water usage. New and innovative food production systems are important for the future of our alimentation, but there must be long-term investigations about each system’s sustainable impact and in which category (backyard, small-scale, and industrial) production is viable.
In addition to alternative production systems, it is important to verify the traditional production systems, or a combination of new and innovative systems with traditional systems and determine whether increasing each system’s sustainability is possible. In traditional systems, there is still hidden potential in using organic biorational fertilizers or pesticides, different soil accommodations, or crop combinations (multi-cropping), and, in traditional aquaculture, the better usage of wastewater, ponds, and fish food on a renewable organic basis (with black soldier fly larvae).

Author Contributions

Investigation, M.S. and A.P.A.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S. and A.P.A.-S.; writing—review and editing, M.S., A.P.A.-S., E.R.-G., I.T.-P. and R.G.G.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financed by the student investigation support programe FOPER of the Autonomous University of Queretaro with the funding number FOPER-2021-FIN02527.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro (protocol code CEAIFI-XXX-XXX-TI).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the financial support from El Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ramakrishna, S.; Jose, R. Addressing sustainability gaps. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 151208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ruggerio, C.A. Sustainability and sustainable development: A review of principles and definitions. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 786, 147481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Purvis, B.; Mao, Y.; Robinson, D. Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 681–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mensah, J. Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2019, 5, 1653531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Norouzi, N. Sustainable Fourth Industrial Revolution. In Handbook of Research on Changing Dynamics in Responsible and Sustainable Business in the Post-COVID-19 Era; Popescu, C., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 58–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ragheb, A.; Aly, R.; Ahmed, G. Toward sustainable urban development of historical cities: Case study of Fouh City, Egypt. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2022, 13, 101520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bigliardi, B.; Filippelli, S. A review of the literature on innovation in the agrofood industry: Sustainability, smartness and health. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2022, 25, 589–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Larbi-Siaw, O.; Xuhua, H.; Owusu, E.; Owusu-Agyeman, A.; Fulgence, E.B.; Akwasi Frimpong, S. Eco-innovation, sustainable business performance and market turbulence moderation in emerging economies. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Daly, H.E. Sustainable Development—Definitions, Principles, Policies. In The Future of Sustainability; Keiner, M., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Villamil, C.; Schulte, J.; Hallstedt, S. Sustainability risk and portfolio management—A strategic scenario method for sustainable product development. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 1042–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pinto, J.T.M.; Morales, M.E.; Fedoruk, M.; Kovaleva, M.; Diemer, A. Servitization in Support of Sustainable Cities: What Are Steel’s Contributions and Challenges? Sustainability 2019, 11, 855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. García-Oliveira, P.; Fraga-Corral, M.; Pereira, A.G.; Prieto, M.A.; Simal-Gandara, J. Solutions for the sustainability of the food production and consumption system. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 1765–1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Khan, H.; Weili, L.; Khan, I. Environmental innovation, trade openness and quality institutions: An integrated investigation about environmental sustainability. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 3832–3862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fanzo, J.; Rudie, C.; Sigman, I.; Grinspoon, S.; Benton, T.G.; Brown, M.E.; Covic, N.; Fitch, K.; Golden, C.D.; Grace, D.; et al. Sustainable Food Systems and Nutrition in the 21st Century: A report from the 22nd Annual Harvard Nutrition Obesity Symposium. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 115, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Mooney, P. Too big to Feed: Exploring the Impacts of Mega-mergers, Consolidation and Concentration of Power in the Agri-food Sector. 2017. Available online: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=XF2018001356 (accessed on 22 September 2022).
  16. Gillespie, S.; Haddad, L.; Mannar, V.; Menon, P.; Nisbett, N. The politics of reducing malnutrition: Building commitment and accelerating progress. Matern. Child Nutr. 2013, 382, 552–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Fraundorfer, M. Global Food Production. In Global Governance in the Age of the Anthropocene; Fraundorfer, M., Ed.; Springer Nature: Basel, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 161–171. [Google Scholar]
  18. Mahony, J.; van Sinderen, D. Virome studies of food production systems: Time for ‘farm to fork’ analyses. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2022, 73, 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ahmad, M.; Wu, Y. Combined role of green productivity growth, economic globalization, and eco-innovation in achieving ecological sustainability for OECD economies. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 302, 113980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jasti, N.V.K.; Jha, N.K.; Chaganti, P.K.; Kota, S. Sustainable production system: Literature review and trends. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2022, 33, 692–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yu, Q.; Xiang, M.; Sun, Z.; Wu, W. The complexity of measuring cropland use intensity: An empirical study. Agric. Syst. 2021, 192, 103180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hu, X.; Gong, H.; Hollowell, P.; Liao, M.; Li, Z.; Ruane, S.; Liu, H.; Pambou, E.; Mahmoudi, N.; Dalgliesh, R.M.; et al. What happens when pesticides are solubilised in binary ionic/zwitterionic-nonionic mixed micelles? J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2021, 586, 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bezner Kerr, R.; Madsen, S.; Stüber, M.; Liebert, J.; Enloe, S.; Borghino, N.; Parros, P.; Mutyambai, D.M.; Prudhon, M.; Wezel, A. Can agroecology improve food security and nutrition? A review. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 29, 100540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Naderi, R.; Nikabadi, M.S.; Tabriz, A.A.; Pishvaee, M.S. Supply chain sustainability improvement using exergy analysis. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 154, 107142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jablonski, B.B.R.; Hadrich, J.; Bauman, A.; Sullins, M.; Thilmany, D. The profitability implications of sales through local food markets for beginning farmers and ranchers. Agric. Financ. Rev. 2022, 82, 559–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Buscaroli, E.; Braschi, I.; Cirillo, C.; Fargue-Lelièvre, A.; Modarelli, G.C.; Pennisi, G.; Righini, I.; Specht, K.; Orsini, F. Reviewing chemical and biological risks in urban agriculture: A comprehensive framework for a food safety assessment of city region food systems. Food Control 2021, 126, 108085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cappelli, L.; D’Ascenzo, F.; Ruggieri, R.; Gorelova, I. Is Buying Local Food a Sustainable Practice? A Scoping Review of Consumers’ Preference for Local Food. Sustainability 2022, 14, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gugerell, C.; Sato, T.; Hvitsand, C.; Toriyama, D.; Suzuki, N.; Penker, M. Know the Farmer That Feeds You: A Cross-Country Analysis of Spatial-Relational Proximities and the Attractiveness of Community Supported Agriculture. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Carlowitz, H.C.V. Sylvicultura Oeconomica, Oder Haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung Zur Wilden Baum-Zucht; Bayerische Staatsbibliothek: München, Germany, 1713. [Google Scholar]
  30. Weyand, A.; Thiede, S.; Mangers, J.; Plapper, P.; Ketenci, A.; Wolf, M.; Panagiotopoulou, V.C.; Stavropoulos, P.; Köppe, G.; Gries, T.; et al. Sustainability and Circular Economy in Learning Factories—Case Studies. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Learning Factories (CLF 2022), Singapore, 11–13 April 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bradu, P.; Biswas, A.; Nair, C.; Sreevalsakumar, S.; Patil, M.; Kannampuzha, S.; Mukherjee, A.G.; Wanjari, U.R.; Renu, K.; Vellingiri, B.; et al. Recent advances in green technology and Industrial Revolution 4.0 for a sustainable future. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. WCED. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development; United Nations Digital Library: New York, NY, USA, 1987.
  33. Brinkmann, R. Defining Sustainability. In The Palgrave Handbook of Global Sustainability; Macmillan, P., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jayarathna, C.P.; Agdas, D.; Dawes, L. Exploring sustainable logistics practices toward a circular economy: A value creation perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 704–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Olabi, A.G.; Obaideen, K.; Elsaid, K.; Wilberforce, T.; Sayed, E.T.; Maghrabie, H.M.; Abdelkareem, M.A. Assessment of the pre-combustion carbon capture contribution into sustainable development goals SDGs using novel indicators. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 153, 111710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Roy, J.; Some, S.; Das, N.; Pathak, M. Demand side climate change mitigation actions and SDGs: Literature review with systematic evidence search. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 043003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Muri, H.; Sandstad Næss, J.; Iordan, C.M. Potential contribution from bioenergy with CCS to SDG13: An Earth system modelling perspective. In EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts; EGU2020-19428; European Geosciences Union (EGU): Vienna, Austria, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Elkington, J. Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1994, 36, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Barbu, M.C.R.; Popescu, M.C.; Burcea, G.B.; Costin, D.E.; Popa, M.G.; Păsărin, L.D.; Turcu, I. Sustainability and Social Responsibility of Romanian Sport Organizations. Sustainability 2022, 14, 643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nikolakis, W.; Olaru, D.; Kallmuenzer, A. What motivates environmental and social sustainability in family firms? A cross-cultural survey. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 2351–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lopolito, A.; Falcone, P.M.; Sica, E. The role of proximity in sustainability transitions: A technological niche evolution analysis. Res. Policy 2022, 51, 104464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Di Simone, L.; Petracci, B.; Piva, M. Economic Sustainability, Innovation, and the ESG Factors: An Empirical Investigation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Meseguer-Sánchez, V.; Gálvez-Sánchez, F.J.; López-Martínez, G.; Molina-Moreno, V. Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability. A Bibliometric Analysis of Their Interrelations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sarkar, B.; Ullah, M.; Sarkar, M. Environmental and economic sustainability through innovative green products by remanufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 332, 129813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yadav, D.; Kumari, R.; Kumar, N.; Sarkar, B. Reduction of waste and carbon emission through the selection of items with cross-price elasticity of demand to form a sustainable supply chain with preservation technology. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zia, A.; Alzahrani, M.; Alomari, A.; AlGhamdi, F. Investigating the Drivers of Sustainable Consumption and Their Impact on Online Purchase Intentions for Agricultural Products. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sepehri, A.; Mishra, U.; Sarkar, B. A sustainable production-inventory model with imperfect quality under preservation technology and quality improvement investment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 310, 127332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chen, Y.S.; Lai, S.B.; Wen, C.T. The Influence of Green Innovation Performance on Corporate Advantage in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 67, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Le, T.T.; Ferasso, M. How green investment drives sustainable business performance for food manufacturing small- and medium-sized enterprises? Evidence from an emerging economy. Corp. Soc. Responsab. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 1034–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ong, T.S.; Lee, A.S.; The, B.H.; Magsi, H.B. Environmental Innovation, Environmental Performance and Financial Performance: Evidence from Malaysian Environmental Proactive Firms. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Abbey, L.; Okoli, C.; Martin-Clarke, D.; Ijenyo, M.; Abbey, J.; Anku, K.; Ofoe, R.; Leke-Aladekoba, A.; Gunupuru, L.R.; Iheshiulo, E.M.A.; et al. The Role of Nanomaterials in Plant Production and Fortification for Food and Nutrition Security. In Emerging Challenges in Agriculture and Food Science; B P International: Hong Kong, China, 2022; Volume 4, pp. 18–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Marinova, D.; Bogueva, D. Food and Environmental Emergency. In Food in a Planetary Emergency; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Munir, N.; Hasnain, M.; Roessner, U.; Abideen, Z. Strategies in improving plant salinity resistance and use of salinity resistant plants for economic sustainability. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 52, 2150–2196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fernández-Lobato, F.; López-Sánchez, Y.; Baccar, R.; Fendri, M.; Vera, D. Life cycle assessment of the most representative virgin olive oil production systems in Tunisia. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 32, 908–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fernando, Y.; Halili, M.; Tseng, M.L.; Tseng, J.W.; Lim, M.K. Sustainable social supply chain practices and firm social performance: Framework and empirical evidence. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 32, 160–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Carroll, A.B. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1979, 4, 497–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nicolescu, M.M.; Vărzaru, A.A. Ethics and Disclosure of Accounting, Financial and Social Information Within Listed Companies. Evidence From the Bucharest Stock Exchange. In Proceedings of the 6th BASIQ International Conference on New Trends in Sustainable Business and Consumption, Messina, Italy, 4–6 June 2020; Pamfilie, R., Dinu, V., Tăchiciu, L., Pleșea, D., Vasiliu, C., Eds.; ASE: Bucharest, Romania, 2020; pp. 73–80. [Google Scholar]
  58. Alaoui, A.; Barão, L.; Ferreira, C.S.S.; Hessel, R. An Overview of Sustainability Assessment Frameworks in Agriculture. Land 2022, 11, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fröberg, A.; Lundvall, S. Sustainable Development Perspectives in Physical Education Teacher Education Course Syllabi: An Analysis of Learning Outcomes. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Latruffe, L.; Diazabakana, A.; Bockstaller, C.; Desjeux, Y.; Finn, J.; Kelly, E.; Ryan, M.; Uthes, S. Measurement of sustainability in agriculture: A review of indicators. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2016, 118, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Litvaj, I.; Drbúl, M.; Bůžek, M. Sustainability in Small and Medium Enterprises, Sustainable Development in the Slovak Republic, and Sustainability and Quality Management in Small and Medium Enterprises. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Teixeira, H.M.; Schulte, R.P.O.; Anten, N.P.R.; Bosco, L.C.; Baartman, J.E.M.; Moinet, G.Y.K.; Reidsma, P. How to quantify the impacts of diversification on sustainability? A review of indicators in coffee systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 42, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ait Sidhoum, A.; Vrachioli, M. Agriculture and Sustainability. In The Palgrave Handbook of Global Sustainability; Macmillan, P., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Reytar, K.; Hanson, C.; Henninger, N. Indicators of Sustainable Agriculture: A Scoping Study; Working Paper—Installment 6 of Creating a Sustainable Food Future; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 1–20. Available online: http://www.worldresourcesreport.org (accessed on 2 November 2022).
  65. Scown, M.W.; Brady, M.V.; Nicholas, K.A. Billions in Misspent EU Agricultural Subsidies Could Support the Sustainable Development Goals. One Earth 2020, 3, 237–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Bezáková, M.; Bezák, P. Which sustainability objectives are difficult to achieve? The mid-term evaluation of predicted scenarios in remote mountain agricultural landscapes in Slovakia. Land Use Policy 2022, 115, 106020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Beaudoin, C.; Joncoux, S.; Jasmin, J.F.; Berberi, A.; McPhee, C.; Schillo, R.S.; Nguyen, M.V. A research agenda for evaluating living labs as an open innovation model for environmental and agricultural sustainability. Environ. Chall. 2022, 7, 100505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cui, L.; Weng, S.; Nadeem, A.M.; Rafique, M.Z.; Shahzad, U. Exploring the role of renewable energy, urbanization and structural change for environmental sustainability: Comparative analysis for practical implications. Renew. Energy 2022, 184, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Van den Brink, P.J.; Boxall, A.B.A.; Maltby, L.; Brooks, B.W.; Rudd, M.A.; Backhaus, T.; Spurgeon, D.; Verougstraete, V.; Ajao, C.; Ankley, G.T.; et al. Toward sustainable environmental quality: Priority research questions for Europe. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2018, 37, 2281–2295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Leip, A.; Billen, G.; Garnier, J.; Grizzetti, B.; Lassaletta, L.; Reis, S.; Simpson, D.; Sutton, M.A.; de Vries, W.; Weiss, F.; et al. Impacts of European livestock production: Nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus and greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, water eutrophication and biodiversity. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 115004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sharma, S.; Kundu, A.; Basu, S.; Shetti, N.P.; Aminabhavi, T.M. Sustainable environmental management and related biofuel technologies. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 273, 111096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Arif, M.S.; Riaz, M.; Shahzad, S.M.; Yasmeen, T.; Ashraf, M.; Siddique, M.; Mubarik, M.S.; Bragazza, L.; Buttler, A. Fresh and composted industrial sludge restore soil functions in surface soil of degraded agricultural land. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 619–620, 517–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ferreira, C.S.S.; Keizer, J.J.; Santos, L.M.B.; Serpa, D.; Silva, V.; Cerqueira, M.; Ferreira, A.J.D.; Abrantes, N. Runoff, sediment and nutrient exports from a Mediterranean vineyard under integrated production: An experiment at plot scale. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 256, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Granco, G.; Caldas, M.; Bergtold, J.; Heier Stamm, J.L.; Mather, M.; Sanderson, M.; Daniels, M.; Sheshukov, A.; Haukos, D.; Ramsey, S. Local environment and individuals’ beliefs: The dynamics shaping public support for sustainability policy in an agricultural landscape. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 301, 113776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. de Araújo, A.F.; Andrés Marques, I.; Ribeiro Candeias, T. Tourists’ Willingness to Pay for Environmental and Sociocultural Sustainability in Destinations: Underlying Factors and the Effect of Age. In Transcending Borders in Tourism Through Innovation and Cultural Heritage; Katsoni, V., Şerban, A.C., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 33–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hawkes, J. The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in Public Planning; Cultural Development Network and Part of University Press: Melbourne, Australia, 2001; Available online: http://www.culturaldevelopment.net.au/community/Downloads/HawkesJon (accessed on 5 November 2022).
  77. Loach, K.; Rowley, J. Cultural sustainability: A perspective from independent libraries in the United Kingdom and the United States. J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci. 2022, 54, 80–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gonçalves, A.; Dorsch, L.L.; Figueiredo, M. Digital Tourism: An Alternative View on Cultural Intangible Heritage and Sustainability in Tavira, Portugal. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Policy Document for the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the World Heritage Convention. General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention at Its 20th session 2015. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/sustainabledevelopment/ (accessed on 5 November 2022).
  80. Alba, E. Fundamentos para la gestión del Patrimonio cultural. In El Desarrollo Territorial Valenciano. Reflexiones en Torno a Sus claves; PUV: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 169–193. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10550/35407 (accessed on 5 November 2022).
  81. Gretzel, U.; Sigala, M.; Xiang, Z.; Koo, C. Smart tourism: Foundations and developments. Electron. Mark. 2015, 25, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ilieva, R.T.; Cohen, N.; Israel, M.; Specht, K.; Fox-Kämper, R.; Fargue-Lelièvre, A.; Poniży, L.; Schoen, V.; Caputo, S.; Kirby, K.K.; et al. The Socio-Cultural Benefits of Urban Agriculture: A Review of the Literature. Land 2022, 11, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Scholte, S.S.K.; van Teeffelen, A.J.A.; Verburg, P.H. Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 114, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Reynolds, K.; Cohen, N. Beyond the Kale: Urban Agriculture and Social Justice Activism in New York City; University of Georgia Press: Athens, GA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  85. Raihan, A.; Tuspekova, A. Role of economic growth, renewable energy, and technological innovation to achieve environmental sustainability in Kazakhstan. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2022, 4, 100165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ullah, M.; Biswajit Sarkar, B. Recovery-channel selection in a hybrid manufacturing-remanufacturing production model with RFID and product quality. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 219, 360–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Dey, B.K.; Bhuniya, S.; Sarkar, B. Involvement of controllable lead time and variable demand for a smart manufacturing system under a supply chain management. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 184, 115464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hansmeier, H.; Schiller, K.; Rogge, K.S. Towards methodological diversity in sustainability transitions research? Comparing recent developments (2016–2019) with the past (before 2016). Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2021, 38, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Köhler, J.; Geels, F.W.; Kern, F.; Markard, J.; Onsongo, E.; Wieczorek, A.; Alkemade, F.; Avelino, F.; Bergek, A.; Boons, F.; et al. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019, 31, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. von Kutzschenbach, M.; Daub, C.H. Digital Transformation for Sustainability: A Necessary Technical and Mental Revolution. In New Trends in Business Information Systems and Technology; Studies in Systems, Decision and Control; Dornberger, R., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 294, pp. 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Alraja, M.N.; Imran, R.; Khashab, B.M.; Shah, M. Technological Innovation, Sustainable Green Practices and SMEs Sustainable Performance in Times of Crisis (COVID-19 pandemic). Inf. Syst. Front. 2022, 24, 1081–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Zhu, Q.; Zou, F.; Zhang, P. The role of innovation for performance improvement through corporate social responsibility practices among small and medium-sized suppliers in China. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. El-Haddadeh, R. Digital Innovation Dynamics Influence on Organisational Adoption: The Case of Cloud Computing Services. Inf. Syst. Front. 2020, 22, 985–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Javaid, M.; Haleem, A.; Singh, R.P.; Khan, S.; Suman, R. Sustainability 4.0 and its applications in the field of manufacturing. Internet Things Cyber-Phys. Syst. 2020, 2, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Lăzăroiu, G.; Andronie, M.; Iatagan, M.; Geamănu, M.; Ștefănescu, R.; Dijmărescu, I. Deep Learning-Assisted Smart Process Planning, Robotic Wireless Sensor Networks, and Geospatial Big Data Management Algorithms in the Internet of Manufacturing Things. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2022, 11, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Chourasia, S.; Tyagi, A.; Pandey, S.M.; Walia, R.S.; Murtaza, Q. Sustainability of Industry 6.0 in Global Perspective: Benefits and Challenges. MAPAN 2022, 37, 443–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kurniawan, T.A.; Liang, X.; O’Callaghan, E.; Goh, H.; Othman, M.H.D.; Avtar, R.; Kusworo, T.D. Transformation of Solid Waste Management in China: Moving towards Sustainability through Digitalization-Based Circular Economy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Saraniemi, S.; Harrikari, T.; Fiorentino, V.; Romakkaniemi, M.; Laura Tiitinen, L. Silenced Coffee Rooms—The Changes in Social Capital within Social Workers’ Work Communities during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Challenges 2022, 13, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Vicuña, S.M. Sustainable Cities, Rescue of Original Construction Methods and Use of Technology. A literary Review. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1006, 012013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. FAO. The Future of Food and Agriculture—Alternative Pathways to 2050; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018; p. 60. [Google Scholar]
  101. An, C.; Sun, C.; Li, N.; Zhan, S.; Gao, F.; Zeng, Z.; Cui, B.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Jiang, J.; et al. Nanomaterials and nanotechnology for the delivery of agrochemicals: Strategies towards sustainable agriculture. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2022, 20, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zscheischler, J.; Brunsch, R.; Rogga, S.; Scholz, R.W. Perceived risks and vulnerabilities of employing digitalization and digital data in agriculture—Socially robust orientations from a transdisciplinary process. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 358, 132034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Omran, I.I.; Al-Saati, N.H.; Al-Saati, H.H.; Hashim, K.S.; Al-Saati, Z.N. Sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment techniques in urban areas of Iraq using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Water Pract. Technol. 2021, 16, 648–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Salvador, R.; Carlos Francisco, A.; Moro Piekarski, C.; Mendes Luz, L. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a tool for business strategy. Indep. J. Manag. Prod. 2014, 5, 733–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Rakocy, J.E.; Masser, M.P.; Losordo, T.M. Recirculating Aquaculture Tank Production Systems: Aquaponics—Integrating Fish and Plant Culture. Okla. Coop. Ext. Serv. 2006, 454, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  106. Yang, X.; Khan, I. Dynamics among economic growth, urbanization, and environmental sustainability in IEA countries: The role of industry value-added. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 4116–4127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Pinho, S.M.; de Lima, J.P.; David, L.H.; Emerenciano, M.G.C.; Goddek, S.; Verdegem, M.C.J.; Keesman, K.J.; Portella, M.C. FLOCponics: The integration of biofloc technology with plant production. Rev. Aquac. 2022, 14, 647–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Goldstein, B.; Hauschild, M.; Fernández, J.; Birkved, M. Urban versus conventional agriculture, taxonomy of resource profiles: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Armanda, D.T.; Guinée, J.B.; Tukker, A. The second green revolution: Innovative urban agriculture’s contribution to food security and sustainability—A review. Glob. Food Secur. 2019, 22, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Scown, M.W.; Winkler, K.J.; Nicholas, K.A. Aligning research with policy and practice for sustainable agricultural land systems in Europe. PNAS 2019, 116, 4911–4916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Workie, E.; Mackolil, J.; Nyika, J.; Ramadas, S. Deciphering the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on food security, agriculture, and livelihoods: A review of the evidence from developing countries. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 2, 100014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Mahapatra, D.M.; Satapathy, K.C.; Panda, B. Biofertilizers and nanofertilizers for sustainable agriculture: Phycoprospects and challenges. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 803, 149990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Chandini, R.K.; Kumar, R.; Om, P. The Impact of Chemical Fertilizers on our Environment and Ecosystem. In Research Trends in Environmental Sciences, 2nd ed.; AkiNik Publications: New Delhi, India, 2019; pp. 71–86. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331132826 (accessed on 28 November 2022).
  114. Tang, F.H.M.; Lenzen, M.; McBratney, A.; Maggi, F. Risk of pesticide pollution at the global scale. Nat. Geosci. 2021, 14, 206–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Pereira, A.E.S.; Oliveira, J.L.; Savassa, M.S.; Rogério, C.B.; Medeiros, G.A.; Fraceto, L.F. Lignin nanoparticles: New insights for a sustainable agriculture. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 345, 131145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Schwarzmueller, F.; Kastner, T. Agricultural trade and its impacts on cropland use and the global loss of species habitat. Sustain. Sci. 2022, 17, 2363–2377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Potapov, P.; Turubanova, S.; Hansen, M.C.; Tyukavina, A.; Zalles, V.; Khan, A.; Song, X.P.; Pickens, A.; Shen, Q.; Jocelyn Cortez, J. Global maps of cropland extent and change show accelerated cropland expansion in the twenty-first century. Nat. Food 2022, 3, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Bhuyan, P.P.; Nayak, R.; Jena, M.; Pradhan, B. Convoluted role of cyanobacteria as biofertilizer: An insight of sustainable agriculture. Vegetos 2022, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Lowry, G.V.; Avellan, A.; Gilbertson, L.M. Opportunities and challenges for nanotechnology in the agri-tech revolution. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14, 517–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Marta Nunes da Silva, M.; Machado, J.; Osorio, J.; Duarte, R.; Santos, C.S. Non-Essential Elements and Their Role in Sustainable Agriculture. Agronomy 2022, 12, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. El Chami, D.; Daccache, A.; El Moujabber, M. How Can Sustainable Agriculture Increase Climate Resilience? A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ikerd, J.E. The need for a system approach to sustainable agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1993, 46, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Tomich, T.P.; Brodt, S.; Ferris, H.; Galt, R.; Horwath, W.R.; Kebreab, E.; Leveau, J.H.J.; Liptzin, D.; Lubell, M.; Merel, P.; et al. Agroecology: A Review from a Global-Change Perspective. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011, 36, 193–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Mohanan, V.P.; Mahanta, N.R.; Kushwaha, A.; Goswami, L. Chapter 3—Leveraging the potential of aquaponics for urban sustainability. Emerg. Trends Approaching Zero Waste 2022, 59–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Thierfelder, C.; Baudron, F.; Setimela, P.; Nyagumbo, I.; Mupangwa, W.; Mhlanga, B.; Lee, N.; Bruno Gérard, B. Complementary practices supporting conservation agriculture in southern Africa. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Babla, M.; Katwal, U.; Yong, M.T.; Jahandari, S.; Rahme, M.; Chen, Z.H.; Tao, Z. Value-added products as soil conditioners for sustainable agriculture. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 178, 106079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Alaoui, A.; Barão, L.; Ferreira, C.S.S.; Schwilch, G.; Basch, G.; Garcia-Orenes, F.; Morugan, A.; Mataix-Solera, J.; Kosmas, C.; Glavan, M.; et al. Visual assessment of the impact of agricultural management practices on soil quality. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 2608–2623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Ball, B.C.; Guimarães, R.M.L.; Cloy, J.M.; Hargreaves, P.R.; Shepherd, T.G.; McKenzie, B.M. Visual soil evaluation: A summary of some applications and potential developments for agriculture. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 173, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Kanter, D.R.; Musumba, M.; Wood, S.L.R.; Palm, C.; Antle, J.; Balvanera, P.; Dale, V.H.; Havlik, P.; Kline, K.L.; Scholes, R.J.; et al. Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development. Agric. Syst. 2018, 163, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Reshma Shinde, R.; Sarkar, P.K.; Thombare, N.; Naik, S.K. Soil Conservation: Today’s Need for Sustainable Development. Agric. Food: E-Newsl. 2019, 1, 11163. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pradip-Sarkar-12/publication/332780118_AGRICULTURE_FOOD_e-Newsletter_Soil_Conservation_Today’s_Need_for_Sustainable_Development/links/5cc92504299bf120978b9429/AGRICULTURE-FOOD-e-Newsletter-Soil-Conservation-Todays-Need-for-Sustainable-Development.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2023).
  131. Panagos, P.; Borrelli, P.; Poesen, J.; Ballabio, C.; Lugato, E.; Meusburger, K.; Montanarella, L.; Alewell, C. The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 54, 438–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Gayatri, S.; Gasso-Tortajada, V.; Vaarst, M. Assessing Sustainability of Smallholder Beef Cattle Farming in Indonesia: A Case Study Using the FAO SAFA Framework. J. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 9, 1315–1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Ahmed, N.; Azra, M.N. Aquaculture Production and Value Chains in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2022, 9, 423–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in Action; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Tidwell, J.H. Characterization and Categories of Aquaculture Production Systems. In Aquaculture Production Systems; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 64–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Ahmed, N.; Ward, J.D.; Thompson, S.; Saint, C.P.; Diana, J.S. Blue-Green Water Nexus in Aquaculture for Resilience to Climate Change. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2018, 26, 139–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Ragasa, C.; Charo-Karisa, H.; Rurangwa, E.; Tran, N.; Shikuku, K.M. Sustainable aquaculture development in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat. Food 2020, 3, 92–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Kannan Mohan, K.; Rajan, D.K.; Muralisankar, T.; Ganesan, A.R.; Sathishkumar, P.; Revathi, N. Use of black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens L.) larvae meal in aquafeeds for a sustainable aquaculture industry: A review of past and future needs. Aquaculture 2022, 553, 738095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Jiang, Q.; Bhattarai, N.; Pahlow, M.; Xu, Z. Environmental sustainability and footprints of global aquaculture. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 180, 106183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Mateusz Rawski, M.; Mazurkiewicz, J.; Kierończyk, B.; Józefiak, D. Black Soldier Fly Full-Fat Larvae Meal Is More Profitable Than Fish Meal and Fish Oil in Siberian Sturgeon Farming: The Effects on Aquaculture Sustainability, Economy and Fish GIT Development. Animals 2021, 11, 604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Khieokhajonkhet, A.; Uanlam, P.; Ruttarattanamongkol, K.; Aeksiri, N.; Tatsapong, P.; Kaneko, G. Replacement of fish meal by black soldier fly larvae meal in diet for goldfish Carassius auratus: Growth performance, hematology, histology, total carotenoids, and coloration. Aquaculture 2022, 561, 738618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Verdegem, M.; Yossa, R.; Chary, K.; Schrama, J.W.; Beveridge, M.C.M.; Marwaha, N. Sustainable and Accessible Fish Feeds for Small-Scale Fish Farmers; CGIAR Research Program on Fish Agri-Food Systems: Penang, Malaysia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  143. Gyalog, G.; Cubillos Tovar, J.P.; Békefi, E. Freshwater Aquaculture Development in EU and Latin-America: Insight on Production Trends and Resource Endowments. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Bajpai, P. Water Footprint. In Fourth Generation Biofuels; Springer Briefs in Applied Sciences and Technology; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Teoh, G.H.; Jawad, Z.A.; Ooi, B.S.; Chang, Y.S.; Low, S.C. Surface-templating of rough interface to efficiently recover aquaculture wastewater using membrane distillation. Desalination 2022, 522, 115419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Jiao, Y.; Zhao, H.; Li, Z.; Tang, X.; Li, Y.; Chen, S.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, T.; Strokal, M.; Kroeze, C. Nitrogen budgets for freshwater aquaculture and mariculture in a large tropical island—A case study for Hainan Island 1998–2018. Mar. Environ. Res. 2022, 177, 105642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K.; Aldaya, M.M.; Mekonnen, M.M. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual—Setting the Global Standard; Earthscan: London, UK, 2011; Available online: https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/TheWaterFootprintAssessmentManual_2.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2022).
  148. Lu, J.; Guo, Y.; Muhmood, A.; Lv, Z.; Zeng, B.; Qiu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Wang, P.; Ren, L. Food Waste Management Employing UV-Induced Black Soldier Flies: Metabolomic Analysis of Bioactive Components, Antioxidant Properties, and Antibacterial Potential. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Saha, P.; Hossain, E.; Prodhan, M.H.; Rahman, T.; Nielsen, M.; Khan, A. Profit and loss dynamics of aquaculture farming. Aquaculture 2022, 561, 738619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Yep, B.; Zheng, Y. Aquaponic trends and challenges—A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 1586–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Pinho, S.M.; David, L.H.; Garcia, F.; Keesman, K.J.; Portella, M.C.; Goddek, S. South American fish species suitable for aquaponics: A review. Aquac. Int. 2021, 29, 1427–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Inosako, K.; Troyo Diéguez, E.; Saito, T.; Lucero Vega, G. Manual Técnico para Cultivo a Cielo Abierto usando Agua Residual de Acuaponia. In Manual Técnico Sobre Acuaponía Combinada con Cultivo a Cielo Abierto Adaptado en Zonas Áridas, 1st ed.; Larrinaga Mayoral, J.Á., Racotta Dimitrov, I., Yamada, S., Eds.; Imprenta Fukui, S.A.: Tottori, Japan, 2020; pp. 21–37. [Google Scholar]
  153. Adabembe, B.A.; Fasinmirin, J.T.; Olanrewaju, O.O.; Faloye, O.T. Hydro-physical, Hydrophobicity and Chemical Characterization of Drip Irrigated Soil Using Aquaculture Wastewater under Sweet Pepper/Okra Intercrop. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2021, 53, 2460–2475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Chen, L.; Feng, Q.; Li, C.; Wei, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Feng, Y.; Zheng, H.; Li, F.; Li, H. Impacts of aquaculture wastewater irrigation on soil microbial functional diversity and community structure in arid regions. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 11193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. König, B.; Janker, J.; Reinhardt, T.; Villarroel, M.; Junge, R. Analysis of aquaponics as an emerging technological innovation system. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 232–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Gayam, K.K.; Jain, A.; Gehlot, A.; Singh, R.; Akram, S.V.; Singh, A.; Anand, D.; Delgado Noya, I. Imperative Role of Automation and Wireless Technologies in Aquaponics Farming. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2022, 2022, 8290255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. David, L.H.; Pinho, S.M.; Agostinho, F.; Costa, J.I.; Portella, M.C.; Keesman, K.J.; Garcia, F. Sustainability of urban aquaponics farms: An emergy point of view. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 331, 129896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Joyce, A.; Goddek, S.; Kotzen, B.; Wuertz, S. Aquaponics: Closing the Cycle on Limited Water, Land and Nutrient Resources. In Aquaponics Food Production Systems; Goddek, S., Joyce, A., Kotzen, B., Burnell, G.M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Krastanova, M.; Sirakov, I.; Ivanova-Kirilova, S.; Yarkov, D.; Orozova, P. Aquaponic systems: Biological and technological parameters. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2022, 36, 305–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Jurgilevich, A.; Birge, T.; Kentala-Lehtonen, J.; Korhonen-Kurki, K.; Pietikäinen, J.; Saikku, L.; Schösler, H. Transition towards Circular Economy in the Food System. Sustainability 2016, 8, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Yue, Q.; Guo, P.; Wu, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, C. Towards sustainable circular agriculture: An integrated optimization framework for crop-livestock-biogas-crop recycling system management under uncertainty. Agric. Syst. 2022, 196, 103347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Reyes Yanes, A.; Martinez, P.; Ahmad, R. Towards automated aquaponics: A review on monitoring, IoT, and smart systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. van der Goot, A.J.; Pelgrom, P.J.M.; Berghout, J.A.M.; Geerts, M.E.J.; Jankowiak, L.; Hardt, N.A.; Keijer, J.; Schutyser, M.A.I.; Nikiforidis, C.V.; Boom, R.M. Concepts for further sustainable production of foods. J. Food Eng. 2016, 168, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Gallo, N.; Natali, M.L.; Quarta, A.; Gaballo, A.; Terzi, A.; Sibillano, T.; Giannini, C.; De Benedetto, G.E.; Lunetti, P.; Capobianco, L.; et al. Aquaponics-Derived Tilapia Skin Collagen for Biomaterials Development. Polymers 2022, 14, 1865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Sunny, A.R.; Islam, M.M.; Rahman, M.; Miah, M.Y.; Mostafiz, M.; Islam, N.; Hossain, M.Z.; Chowdhury, M.A.; Islam, M.A.; Keus, H.J. Cost effective aquaponics for food security and income of farming households in coastal Bangladesh. Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. 2019, 45, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Goddek, S.; Delaide, B.; Mankasingh, U.; Ragnarsdottir, K.V.; Jijakli, H.; Thorarinsdottir, R. Challenges of Sustainable and Commercial Aquaponics. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4199–4224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Proksch, G.; Baganz, D. CITYFOOD: Research Design for an International, Transdisciplinary Collaboration. Technol. Archit. Des. 2020, 4, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Rharrhour, H.; Wariaghli, F.; Goddek, S.; Sadik, M.; El Moujtahid, A.; Nhhala, H.; Yahyaoui, A. Towards sustainable food productions in Morocco: Aquaponics. E3S Web Conf. 2022, 337, 03004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Zappernick, N.; Nedunuri, K.V.; Islam, K.R.; Khanal, S.; Worley, T.; Laki, S.L.; Shah, A. Techno-economic analysis of a recirculating tilapia-lettuce aquaponics system. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 365, 132753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Orsini, F.; Kahane, R.; Nono-Womdim, R.; Gianquinto, G. Urban agriculture in the developing world: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 695–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Vesna Miličić, V.; Thorarinsdottir, R.; Dos Santos, M.; Hančič, M.T. Commercial Aquaponics Approaching the European Market: To Consumers’ Perceptions of Aquaponics Products in Europe. Water 2017, 9, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Trevisani, S.; Bogunovic, I. Diachronic Mapping of Soil Organic Matter in Eastern Croatia Croplands. Land 2022, 11, 861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Jayasiri, M.M.J.G.C.N.; Yadav, S.; Dayawansa, N.D.K.; Propper, C.R.; Kumar, V.; Singleton, G.R. Spatio-temporal analysis of water quality for pesticides and other agricultural pollutants in Deduru Oya river basin of Sri Lanka. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 330, 129897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Chen, L.; Qian, Y.; Jia, Q.; Weng, R.; Zhang, X.; Li, Y.; Qiu, J. A large geographic-scale characterization of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) in surface sediments and multiple aquatic foods of inland freshwater aquaculture ponds in China: Co-occurrence, source and risk assessment. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 308, 119716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Singh, S. Networking for food production. Nat. Sustain. 2022, 5, 731–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Abisha, R.; Krishnani, K.K.; Sukhdhane, K.; Verma, A.K.; Brahmane, M.; Chadha, N.K. Sustainable development of climate-resilient aquaculture and culture-based fisheries through adaptation of abiotic stresses: A review. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2022, 13, 2671–2689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Maré, T.F.; Zahonogo, P.; Savadog, K. Factors affecting sustainable agricultural intensification in Burkina Faso. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2022, 20, 1225–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Scuderi, A.; Bellia, C.; Foti, V.T.; Sturiale, L.; Timpanaro, G. Evaluation of consumers’ purchasing process for organic food products. AIMS Agric. Food 2019, 4, 251–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Reganold, J.; Wachter, J. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 15221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Hernández-Ochoa, I.M.; Gaiser, T.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Webber, H.; Seidel, S.J.; Grahmann, K.; Ewert, F. Model-based design of crop diversification through new field arrangements in spatially heterogeneous landscapes. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 42, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Romaneckas, K.; Balandaitė, J.; Sinkevičienė, A.; Kimbirauskienė, R.; Jasinskas, A.; Ginelevičius, U.; Romaneckas, A.; Petlickaitė, R. Short-Term Impact of Multi-Cropping on Some Soil Physical Properties and Respiration. Agronomy 2022, 12, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Hou, Y.; Yang, J.; Russoniello, C.J.; Zheng, T.; Wu, M.L.; Yu, X. Impacts of Coastal Shrimp Ponds on Saltwater Intrusion and Submarine Groundwater Discharge. Water Resour. Res. 2022, 58, e2021WR031866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Kumar, A.; Dubey, S.K.; Sendhil, R.; Mishra, A.K.; Sah, U.; Suna, T.; Chand, R. Smart and Sustainable Food Production Technologies. In Smart and Sustainable Food Technologies; Sehgal, S., Singh, B., Sharma, V., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Pinho, S.M.; Valladão Flores, R.M.; David, L.H.; Emerenciano, M.G.C.; Quagrainie, K.K.; Portella, M.C. Economic comparison between conventional aquaponics and FLOCponics systems. Aquaculture 2022, 552, 737987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Focker, M.; van Asselt, E.D.; Berendsen, B.J.A.; van de Schans, M.G.M.; van Leeuwen, S.P.J.; Visser, S.M.; van der Fels-Klerx, H.J. Review of food safety hazards in circular food systems in Europe. Food Res. Int. 2022, 158, 111505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Rosales-Torres, S.; Beramendi-Orosco, L.E.; McClung de Tapia, E.; Acosta-Ochoa, G. Palynological analysis of an archaeological chinampa in Xochimilco (Basin of Mexico). Construction technology and agricultural production. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2022, 44, 103532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Kiss, B.; Sekulova, F.; Hörschelmann, K.; Salk, C.F.; Takahashi, W.; Wamsler, C. Citizen participation in the governance of nature-based solutions. Environ. Policy Gov. 2022, 32, 247–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Bashir, S.; Mohan, A. An Institutional Approach to Manure Recycling. In Manure Technology and Sustainable Development; Jawaid, M., Khan, A., Eds.; Sustainable Materials and Technology; Springer: Singapore, 2023; pp. 305–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Ayamga, M.; Lawani, A.; Akaba, S.; Birindwa, A. Developing Institutions and Inter-Organizational Synergies through Digitalization and Youth Engagement in African Agriculture: The Case of “Africa Goes Digital”. Land 2023, 12, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 07638 g001 550
Figure 1. The five sustainable pillars.
Figure 1. The five sustainable pillars.
Sustainability 15 07638 g001
Table
Table 1. The sustainable pillars’ characteristics.
Table 1. The sustainable pillars’ characteristics.
PillarCharacteristics
Economic
-
Minimize the ecological impact of economic activities
-
Achieve economic and environmental balance
-
Meet the need for innovative green products
-
Assure nature’s regenerative ability with economic progress
Social
-
Satisfy basic human needs
-
Prevent social injustices
-
Achieve social responsibility
-
Ensure educational development
Environment
-
Maintain natural productivity
-
Protect the environment
-
Create alternatives to conventional resources
-
Use green technology
Culture
-
Represent cultural heritage and diversity
-
Understand regional populational values
-
Protect cultural heritage properties
-
Share cultural values
-
Achieve global cultural exchange
Technology
-
Life cycle assessment
-
Encourage the progress of digital technology
-
Use environmentally friendly technological methods
-
Optimize resource usage
-
Use recycled materials in production processes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Schoor, M.; Arenas-Salazar, A.P.; Torres-Pacheco, I.; Guevara-González, R.G.; Rico-García, E. A Review of Sustainable Pillars and their Fulfillment in Agriculture, Aquaculture, and Aquaponic Production. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7638. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097638

AMA Style

Schoor M, Arenas-Salazar AP, Torres-Pacheco I, Guevara-González RG, Rico-García E. A Review of Sustainable Pillars and their Fulfillment in Agriculture, Aquaculture, and Aquaponic Production. Sustainability. 2023; 15(9):7638. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097638

Chicago/Turabian Style

Schoor, Mark, Ana Patricia Arenas-Salazar, Irineo Torres-Pacheco, Ramón Gerardo Guevara-González, and Enrique Rico-García. 2023. "A Review of Sustainable Pillars and their Fulfillment in Agriculture, Aquaculture, and Aquaponic Production" Sustainability 15, no. 9: 7638. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097638

APA Style

Schoor, M., Arenas-Salazar, A. P., Torres-Pacheco, I., Guevara-González, R. G., & Rico-García, E. (2023). A Review of Sustainable Pillars and their Fulfillment in Agriculture, Aquaculture, and Aquaponic Production. Sustainability, 15(9), 7638. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097638

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop