Roadmap to sustainably develop the European seaweed industry

Roadmap to sustainably develop the European seaweed industry | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Perspective Roadmap to sustainably develop the European seaweed industry Alexander Jueterbock, Bernardo Duarte, Ricardo Melo, Hindertje Hoarau-Heemstra, and 17 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5200388/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract How to build a sustainable seaweed industry is important in Europe’s quest to produce 8 million tons of seaweed by 2030. Interviews with industry representatives suggest that business models focused only on financial gain would fail. As a team of interdisciplinary experts, we offer a roadmap that satisfies the increasing demand for sustainable practices by leveraging synergies with existing industries as the European seaweed industry develops beyond experimental cultivation. Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental sciences/Environmental impact Social science/Environmental studies Scientific community and society/Agriculture macroalgae farming backcasting blue economy carrying capacity Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Introduction Asia farms 99% of the global marketed seaweed, and produces 34.7 million tons annually worth 14.85 billion USD (FAO, 2021 )⁠. In contrast, Europe’s seaweed industry is mostly run by startups (European Commission, 2022 ). European farmers produced only 3.8% of the 287,033 tons harvested in 2019, with most production coming from wild stocks (Cai, 2021 ). However, seaweed farming plays a key role in the EU’s strategic guidelines for sustainable aquaculture (European Commission, 2021 ). Cold temperate regions, from Norway to Portugal, offer ideal conditions for seaweed cultivation (Araújo et al., 2021 ). Norway’s leading position in Europe’s seaweed production (FAO, 2021 ), with 44 seaweed-related companies, hinges on the wild harvests of 150,000-200,000 tons annually of Laminaria hyperborea and Ascophyllum nodosum to produce alginate (Araújo et al., 2021 ; Havforskningsinstituttet, 2016 ). Commercial farming is yet small-scale, with a peak production of 600 tons in 2023 (Slotsvik et al., 2024 ), and focuses on the kelps Saccharina latissima and Alaria esculenta. In Portugal, 16 smaller businesses (phyconomy.org, accessed June 2023), alongside the leading company AlgaPlus, complement the European seaweed sector with species that thrive in warmer conditions, like Porphyra sp., Fucus spiralis , Laminaria ochroleuca, Ulva sp., and Gelidium sp. (Gaspar, Pereira, & Sousa-Pinto, 2019 ). Seaweed farming is considered inherently sustainable because it does not rely on farmland, feed, fertilizers (at least on small farms), antibiotics, or pesticides. Seaweeds absorb carbon, nutrients, and heavy metals, support marine food webs, and provide habitats to a variety of marine organisms (Feehan, 2023 ; Kim, Yarish, Hwang, Park, & Kim, 2017 ; Visch, Kononets, Hall, Nylund, & Pavia, 2020 ) – yet on a smaller scale than wild kelp forests (Bekkby et al., 2023 ). Moreover, seaweed farming aligns with 13 of the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (C. M. Duarte, Bruhn, & Krause-Jensen, 2021 ; Gao & Beardall, 2022 ; Hossain et al., 2021 ; Ktari, Chebil Ajjabi, De Clerck, Gómez Pinchetti, & Rebours, 2022 ; Spillias et al., 2022 ). Therefore, at current production levels, seaweed farming has the potential to become a profitable, sustainable blue economy, with minimal negative impacts (Hancke et al., 2021 ). By 2030, the European Commission aims to increase production to 8 million tons, valued at 9 billion Euros, and potentially creating 85,000 jobs (Vincent, Stanley, & Ring, 2020 ) (Fig. 1 ). Such a 30-fold increase in farmed production over a decade raises concerns about sustainability thresholds. Intensive seaweed farming could exhaust nutrients in oligotrophic regions, deposit excessive organic matter, and reduce light penetration, leading to changes in marine environments (Campbell et al., 2019 ; Grebe, Byron, Gelais, Kotowicz, & Olson, 2019 ; Stévant, Rebours, & Chapman, 2017 ). Other risks include the spread of non-native species, seaweed diseases, and over-exploitation of wild seaweed beds for seeds (Campbell et al., 2019 ). Large-scale monocultures of fast-growing strains can further reduce biodiversity, and increase vulnerability to diseases (Grebe et al., 2019 ). At the societal level, the seaweed industry may conflict with established local maritime activities, and fail to benefit local communities. The sustainable growth of the seaweed industry relies on three interlinked pillars: (1) the environmental pillar, which emphasizes biodiversity impacts at all levels, from genes to ecosystems (Bhuyan, 2023 ; Campbell et al., 2019 ; Grebe et al., 2019 ; Wood, Capuzzo, Kirby, Mooney-McAuley, & Kerrison, 2017 ), (2) the economic pillar, centered on profitability for farmers and stakeholders (van den Burg, van Duijn, Bartelings, van Krimpen, & Poelman, 2016 ), and (3) the social pillar, addressing social acceptance, job security, livelihoods, and community benefits (Billing, Rostan, Tett, & Macleod, 2021 ; Krause et al., 2015 ). A sustainable economy ideally balances these pillars, as it increasingly hinges on consumers’ trust through verifiable contributions to ecological and social sustainability (Galbreth & Ghosh, 2013 ). The EU's new 2021 directive on sustainability reporting (Odobaša & Marošević, 2023 ) now requires large companies to verify their claims of sustainable production. Sustainability, rather than being viewed in the traditional perspective of linear thinking as a static goal Bagheri & Hjorth ( 2007 ), Hardi & Zdan, ( 1997 ), and Nilsson & Bergström ( 1995 ), is an evolving process, continually shaped by new knowledge and development (Nonaka & Toyama, 2005 ; Voss & Kemp, 2005 ). An emerging inclusive approach to sustainability is the "One Health" initiative, which links human, animal, and environmental health (Davis & Sharp, 2020 ). While the Blue Bioeconomy Forum offers general guidance for sustainable production (Executive Agency for Small and Medium sized Enterprises., Technopolis Group., & Wageningen Research., 2020), seaweed farmers, hatcheries, and political bodies require more specific strategies. To provide guidance, we developed a seven-step roadmap to establish sustainable transformations for the seaweed sector. Through stakeholder interviews and a workshop with Norwegian and Portuguese partners, we identified focus areas that balance environmental, economic, and social aspects to position Europe’s seaweed industry as a role model of a sustainable blue economy. Methodological approach Tools that can assess sustainable practices fall into six categories (De Ridder, Turnpenny, Nilsson, & Von Raggamby, 2007 ): (a) participatory tools, (b) scenario analysis tools, (c) multi-criteria analysis tools, (d) cost-benefit analyses, (e) accounting tools, physical analysis tools, and indicator sets, and (f) model tools. Tools (a) and (b) form the foundation on which tools (c)-(f) can be followed for more detailed assessments (De Ridder et al., 2007 ). Participatory tools involve stakeholders to articulate opportunities and challenges for sustainable development. We conducted 9 semi-structured interviews with industry representatives from Norway (N1-N5) and Portugal (P1-P4) in their native languages (guide in File A.1, and registrations in File A.2 and File A.3) via Teams, transcribed and translated them into English, and analyzed them with the RQDA R package (Huang, 2016 ). Backcasting differs from other scenario analysis tools by starting with a vision of an ideal future instead of the present limitations (Bishop, Hines, & Collins, 2007). We implemented backcasting to draft a roadmap that bridges the gap between the ideal future by 2050 and the current state. In this process, we applied the "four-arrow model" template presented by Okada et al. ( 2022 ) in 4 stages: 1) preparation, 2) development of a sustainable vision, 3) development of pathways to reach that vision, and 4) post-workshop analysis. 1) Preparation: We invited 14 stakeholders from Norway and Portugal (8 men, 6 women; 9 from the natural sciences, 2 from the social sciences; 3 industry practitioners) to a three-day workshop at Nord University in 2022. The stakeholders represented the northern and southern limits of a variety of seaweed species, and seaweed farming practices (Araújo et al., 2021 ), and a variety of expertise areas within the the United Nations's sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the "Wheel of Sustainability" (WOS). The WOS incorporates four dimensions: environment, economics, governance, and culture (Osmundsen et al., 2020 ) (Fig. A.1), and was adapted from the salmon industry for seaweed farming by Godal et al. (2020) to align with the ASC-MSC Seaweed Standard (Aquaculture Stewardship Council and Marine Stewardship Council, 2018 ). 2) Development of a sustainable vision: we constructed a "futures wheel" (Glenn, 2009 ) by brainstorming consequences, impacts, possibilities, and expectations related to an ideal future state of the seaweed industry. The individual ideas were then organized together in a group discussion (Fig A.2), and transferred to the right-hand side (future state) of the 'four-arrow' backcasting template (Okada et al., 2022 ) (Fig A.3). 3) Development of pathways to reach that vision: We first evaluated the current state of the seaweed industry with a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) (Fig A.4), and transferred these to the left-hand side (current state) of the four-arrow backcasting template (Fig A.3). The workshop participants then identified the challenges and tasks to bridge the gap between the present and the envisioned future, and grouped all ideas into seven roadmap topics, which we transferred to the middle area (roadmap) of the 'four-arrow' backcasting template (Fig. A.5). 4) To distill key action points and policy recommendations, we analyzed the interview and workshop content using the R package RQDA (Huang, 2016 ). We coded the material into 29 WOS categories (Table A.1), 40 roadmap categories, and 14 technology push/market pull categories (Okada et al., 2022 ). We assessed the importance of each WOS subsection for the sustainable development of the industry based on the frequency of mentions in the interviews and the workshop. We identified synergies across the WOS dimensions by extracting the raw text that was coded under multiple WOS dimensions, and filtering for recurring coding connections supported by > 3 raw texts. We then visualized the interactions between the SWOT elements and their relationship with the roadmap and WOS dimensions using the alluvial R package (Brunson, 2020 ). Results and discussion Our approach to sustainable seaweed farming in Europe emphasized the environmental and governmental aspects as most significant (Fig. 2 ). Key subsections, such as G6 (Coordination and Collaboration of Interests and Activities) and E2 (Biotic Effects), consistently ranked among the top five (Fig. 2 ). The sustainability categories showed 33 interconnections across the WOS codes, each supported by more than 3 independent stat ements from the workshop or interviews (Fig. 3 a and Table A.2). Governance appeared in all 7 of the most interconnected dimensions, each with ≥ 10 supporting statements (Table 1 ) and, was, together with the environmental focus the most important of the WOS dimensions (Fig. 3 b). Table 1 Strongest connections between sustainability dimensions. The number of statements (n > 10) from the interviews and workshop that were assigned to two codings from two dimensions of the Wheel of Sustainability, as an estimator for the ability to satisfy two or more sustainability dimensions when addressing a single issue or action point (coding). Coding 1 Coding 2 n G5 Representation and negotiation C1 Enquiry and learning 15 G6 Coordination and collaboration of interests and activities C1 Enquiry and learning 15 G6 Coordination and collaboration of interests and activities Ec7 Investments in technology and innovation 15 G1 Accountability and enforcement Ec1 Licence and permit conditions 12 G6 Coordination and collaboration of interests and activities Ec6 Indirect effects on economic activity Ec6 Indirect effects on economic activity 11 G7 Siting E2 Biotic effects 11 G6 Coordination and collaboration of interests and activities E6 Resources efficiency 10 5.1 Stakeholders’ understanding of sustainability While investors prioritize profit, environmental sustainability was an important factor for the interviewed farmers (Fig. 2 b). As Portuguese interviewee P1 stated: “...we don't think just about having to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible. We have to create a sustainable company that has the least possible impact”. Environmental sustainability was also identified as key driver in the development of the Scottish and Irish seaweed industries while large-scale multi-national companies were dismissed by all stakeholders (Bjørkan & Billing, 2022 ; Cerca, Sosa, & Murphy, 2023 ). Thus, environmental sustainability appears central to European seaweed businesses. Accordingly, the motivation behind starting a seaweed business often aligns with fulfilling some of the UN’s SDGs, such as SDG6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG13 (Climate Action), and SDG14 (Life below Water) (C. M. Duarte et al., 2021 ; Gao & Beardall, 2022 ; Spillias et al., 2022 ). On the other hand, emphasis on the environmental domain may reflect market demand for sustainable products, as customers increasingly seek products with low environmental footprints (Galbreth & Ghosh, 2013 ), and local communities are concerned about environmental impacts of seaweed aquaculture (Larsen, 2022 ). However, beliefs such as that of P1 that “algae by itself is already a super ecological resource that brings more benefits than consequences.” may limit their proactive pursuit of sustainability. Moreover, generalizations such as “algae have a very positive impact on the marine ecosystem, they attract fish, they attract a lot of aquatic life” (P1) must be taken with care, as the attracted species could also be invasive species or pathogens. Community Contributions (C3) stood out as a significant theme in the stakeholder interviews. Norwegian interviewee N1 stated that “we want it to be a source of income for people who live along the coast… we want to keep it local.” Similarly, N2 pointed out that new seaweed farming jobs could “attract young people who want to settle in the rural areas.” However, stakeholders understand the link between environmental, cultural, and economic sustainability, as N3 reflected: “However, if large areas in the fjords are to be set aside for kelp cultivation, such as in China, this will mean significant encroachment on the environment, which in turn can create dissatisfaction in the local community”. Similarly, N1 points out that: “there is demand in the market for sustainability in production. This in turn has an impact on sales and price etc.” Thus, prioritizing environmental sustainability not only protects biodiversity but also facilitates economic sustainability of the seaweed industry through social acceptance. Production costs were a significant concern for Norwegian stakeholders (Fig. 2 b). N1 noted, ”The cost of production is so high that the market is very small”. Similarly, N3 stated: “For us as growers, it is not profitable as of today. The cost level of equipment and labour comes into play here.” N1 stated, “Wet biomass is sold for approx. NOK 25 per kg… we need to drop to NOK 15–20 per kg of wet mass, in order for there to be greater demand.“ In addition to lower labour costs in Portugal, Portuguese seaweed fetches higher market prices (green algae such as Ulva and Codium , averaging 0.79 USD/kg, and red algae such as Porphyra and Gracilaria priced at 0.89 and 0.54 USD/kg respectively) than Norwegian kelp ( Saccharina , priced at 0.37 USD/kg) (Cai, 2021 ; Gaspar et al., 2019 ). Therefore, Portuguese seaweed has a higher wholesale price of 1,350 − 10,090 USD per ton, making it more profitable than Norwegian seaweed, which has a price between 880 and 980 USD per ton ( https://www.selinawamucii.com/ ). In Portugal, seaweed farmers are less aware of environmental risks: “I honestly don't see any major negative effects that this production has… on the contrary, I think that the production of macroalgae, whether on land or at sea, can mitigate other environmental problems” (P3). This certainly results from the lack of research in this field, and the positive effects of small-scale farms on benthic and pelagic fauna (Visch et al., 2020 ) as well as on ecosystem services (Hasselström, Visch, Gröndahl, Nylund, & Pavia, 2018 ). Other Portuguese interviewees, such as P1, reported acts of sabotage on seaweed farms: “... fishers who depend on fishing suddenly see here algae cultivation and can see their profession put at risk and there are examples of several companies that test to produce macroalgae and then they see that the buoys were sabotaged, or the ropes were cut by fishers who felt threatened by this innovation”. These tensions highlight the need for awareness training to promote cooperation and to monitor sustainability thresholds. Since seaweed farming and fishing seasons do not overlap, they could indeed provide full-term employment for seasonal workers, fostering synergies between industries (St-Gelais et al., 2022 ). 5.2 Seven steps in a roadmap towards a sustainable European seaweed industry We identified seven roadmap topics that address the gap between the current situation and the future vision for a sustainable seaweed industry (Table A.1). The roadmap steps can either be market-pulled by customer needs and regulations, or market-pushed by new technologies that are not yet in demand. Each step integrates multiple sustainability dimensions (Fig. 4 , and Table A.3), ensuring that the industry develops holistically, and facilitates cross-disciplinary collaboration with mutual benefits to both industry and academia. 5.2.1. Setting boundaries for carrying capacity The first roadmap step focused on area usage, biomass production, and carbon footprint. Establishing research-based thresholds is crucial to prevent potential social and ecological consequences (Cottier-Cook et al., 2021 ), such as dependence on fertilizers (Fan et al., 2019 ) or hampering of phytoplankton production (J. Shi et al., 2011 ). Some farmers, such as N1 underestimate the impacts of upscaling: “Research results show that the environmental consequences of production are minimal, at least to the extent we have today, but we do not think that will change with increased production”. Others, such as N2 recognize: “…we must know what we are doing before we consider scaling up production. We want to avoid making the same mistakes that have been made in other types of food production, both on land and at sea, resulting in problems with large-scale monoculture farming. Everything from alien species, disease, and reduced biological diversity”. Monitoring is essential to track how close the industry moves along identified thresholds, but clear guidelines are lacking (Bārda et al., 2022 ; Hancke et al., 2021 ; Norderhaug, Hansen, Fredriksen, Grøsvik, & Naustvoll, 2021 ). Both monitoring needs to detect 1) poorly predictable impacts (Bekkby et al., 2023 ) and 2) targeted high-risk aspects (Campbell et al., 2019 ; Wilding et al., 2017 ) are met by extensively assessing the ecological state before establishing a farm–ideally state-subsidized, followed with site-specific targeted monitoring at defined intervals. Environmental DNA (eDNA) monitoring (Lynn, Klanderud, Telford, Goldberg, & Vandvik, 2021 ) could help with targeted monitoring of high-risk factors like invasive species, endangered species, and pathogens (Campbell et al., 2019 ). Collaboration among biologists, entrepreneurs, and data scientists is needed to develop standard monitoring programs. Mitigation strategies, such as moving large-scale farms offshore and sourcing reproductive material only locally, can reduce risks, like farm shading, competition for space, and genetic homogenization. By selecting at least 100 parent seaweeds, farms can preserve genetic diversity (Shan, Pang, Li, & Gao, 2016 ). Thus, mitigation strategies can render monitoring of these particular risks redundant (Campbell et al., 2019 ). Defined thresholds and consideration of unknown consequences must influence seaweed aquaculture growth and expansion when compromising sustainable value creation (Fig. 5 ). 5.2.2. Increasing social acceptance through research-backed education Roadmap step 2 focuses on awareness and addressing misinformation about the value and risks of seaweed farming through transparency. As consumer demand for environmentally and socially sustainable products grows (Galbreth & Ghosh, 2013 ), large-scale farming is not readily accepted in coastal communities (Billing et al., 2021 ; Cottier-Cook et al., 2016 ). Accordingly our SWOT analysis revealed 21 Threats and 4 Weaknesses spanning across at least 2 sustainability dimensions related to the uncertain environmental impact (Table A.4). Global G.A.P. certification can enhance trust between farmers and communities Billing et al., 2021 ) and, thus, prevent not-in-my-backyard issues. The impact of larger farms and food security risks must be communicated honestly, and contextualized with less sustainable alternative solutions, such as soy as a vegetarian protein source. Education plays a key role in increasing social approval (Campbell et al., 2019 ; Cottier-Cook et al., 2021 ), extending beyond mere operational acceptance to promoting seaweed products. Lifelong learning, cooking, medical, and cosmetics seminars, and school projects can integrate seaweed into European culture, improving long-term social acceptance (Cornish, Critchley, & Mouritsen, 2017 ). 5.2.3. Building industry synergies and collaborating across disciplines Roadmap step 3 focuses on establishing synergistic connections. The European seaweed industry should seize shared resources and infrastructure with established industries to establish regional industrial symbiosis networks (Giannoccaro, Zaza, & Fraccascia, 2023 ), and support a circular economy. Opportunities of the marine spatial planning approach to boost seaweed aquaculture include integrating seaweed farming with IMTA aquaculture systems, and wind farms (Buck et al., 2018 ; Le Gouvello et al., 2017 ), and tourism. For example, the world’s largest IMTA system in Sanggou Bay, China (Fang, Zhang, Xiao, Huang, & Liu, 2016 ), exhibited 67% greater benefits than kelp monoculture, and 92% greater economic benefits than scallop monoculture (H. Shi, Zheng, Zhang, Zhu, & Ding, 2013 ). Offshore seaweed farms could co-use the infrastructure of wind energy parks and, in turn, attract fish to those parks. Furthermore, developing mobile and lightweight gear can provide yearly employment to seasonal workers in the fishing and aquaculture industries (St-Gelais et al., 2022 ). Excess industrial heat could fuel seaweed drying. A largely unexplored potential that corresponds with the strategic guidelines for integrating suitable aquaculture activities into protected areas for the sustainable development of the EU aquaculture (European Commission, 2021 ) lies in combining farming with restoration. Here, S. latissima hatcheries and farms could provide refugia for these endangered habitat types (Gundersen et al., 2018a , b ), facilitating large-scale seeding on rocks or biodegradable culturing ropes (Filbee-Dexter et al., 2022 ). Collaboration between producers and researchers will advance sustainable growth through innovation and improved decision-making (Iñigo & Albareda, 2016 ; Mezirow, 2000 ), fostering multinational partnerships across Europe. 5.2.4. Establishing industry-specific regulations that protect diversity Roadmap step 4 focuses on tailoring regulations to the seaweed industry. Rigidly applying finfish aquaculture regulations to seaweed cultivation has hindered the growth of the seaweed market. Legislations supporting the seaweed industry must focus on diversity at the genetic, species, regional, and stakeholder levels. Low genetic diversity has hampered the production of Asian kelp cultures, as in the case of Undaria pinnatifida (Shan et al., 2016 ). Maintaining genetic diversity requires strategies like 1) preventing interbreeding between farmed and wild seaweeds, 2) sourcing spores locally, and 3) storing local and national genetic variants as seed banks (Hu et al., 2024). Although initiatives in this direction have begun, they require global coordination (Wade et al., 2020 ). Species diversity refers to the ability to adjust regulations to the different taxa cultivated, and the need to link historically eaten seaweeds to their current names to ensure that they are still recognized as edible. Food safety should focus on contaminants, such as heavy metals, prometryn, and radionuclide substances (B. Duarte et al., 2021 ; Mendes et al., 2022 ; Yoshida & Kanda, 2012 ) rather than taxonomic names. Regional diversity labels should track seaweed origin, preventing cheaper imports from diminishing local production. For example, prohibiting drying seaweed outdoors in Norway but not in Asia raises the costs of European biomass beyond the import price. Stakeholder diversity facilitates coastal small-scale family businesses to co-exist with larger offshore farms around wind parks. This further balances the use of coastal marine space with existing industries. 5.2.5. Conducting research to document impact and facilitate innovation Roadmap step 5 emphasizes research to assess environmental impacts, map genetic connectivity, advance seaweed biotechnology and ecosystem services. Asia’s long history of seaweed farming offers a unique opportunity to identify the ecological effects of large-scale cultivation (Hu et al., 2021 ; Hurtado, Neish, & Critchley, 2019 ), and how farmed cultivars interact with wild populations (Graf et al., 2021 ; Z. Hu et al., 2021 ; Zhang et al., 2017 ). Research at the crossroads of technology and biology can instrumentalize labour-intensive tasks, such as deployment and harvesting (Campbell et al., 2019 ; Feehan, 2023 ; Solvang, Bale, Broch, Handå, & Alver, 2021 ). Moreover, technological innovations, like AI-based video monitoring can benefit not only the European seaweed industry but also global partnerships. Biotechnology research has the potential to secure production in the context of unpredictable environmental challenges, such as the 2021–2022 red tide that diminished the kelp harvest in Rongcheng, Shandong (China) (Li, 2023 ). Breeding fast-growing or pathogen-resistant strains benefits both farming and restoration, and if sterile, does not risk admixture with wild populations but often requires replenishing genetic variation to prevent productivity from decreasing (Z. Hu et al., 2021 ; Z.-M. Hu et al., 2023 ; Shan et al., 2016 ). Additionally, modern approaches, like microbiome engineering, and priming-induced epigenetic programming (Z.-M. Hu et al., 2023 ; Jueterbock et al., 2021 ), which already strengthen crop plants (Afridi et al., 2022 ; Hilker et al., 2016 ; Morales Moreira, Chen, Yanez Ortuno, & Haney, 2023; Pawar & Laware, 2018 ; Wojtyla, Lechowska, Kubala, & Garnczarska, 2016 ), must be adapted to algae aquaculture systems (Jueterbock et al., 2021 ). At the same time, characterizing pathogens and diseases, and understanding how seaweeds defends themselves against these diseases are key to farm production in the future. 5.2.6. Valorizing ecosystem services Roadmap step 6 revolves around retaining the value of coastal regions through localized licensing, and solutions for the economic sustainability of smaller family businesses. Seaweed farming contributes to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (C. M. Duarte et al., 2021 ; Hasselström et al., 2018 ), including SDG2 (Zero Hunger), and SDG3 (Good Health and Well-being), by addressing nutritional deficiencies in modern-day human diets (Holdt, Kraan, & Kraan, 2011 ). Moreover, seaweed farms provide ecosystem services that add to the total economic value (United Nations Environment Programme, Djampou, & Norwegian Blue Forests Network, 2023), as they can bioremediate waste water, enhance biodiversity and health of marine environments (Beheshti et al., 2021 ; Chris Williams et al., 2022 ; Forbes, Shelamoff, Visch, Layton, & Forbes, 2022 ; Theuerkauf et al., 2021 ), and provide biological pest control through oxygenation and biocidal properties (Echave et al., 2022 ; Tânia F. L. Vicente, Carina Félix, Rafael Félix, P. Valentão, & M. Lemos, 2022; Vicente et al., 2021 ). Valued at 65,000 Euros/ha/yr (Eger et al., 2021 ), the bioremediation potential of 35.7 billion tons of global seaweed production (FAO, 2021 ) represents 26% of its commercial value (1.2–3.5 billion USD) (Chopin & Tacon, 2021 ). However, promoting seaweed farming as a significant carbon storage solution is misleading. For example, stakeholder P1 mentioned “In addition to selling algae, one of our main goals is the absorption of carbon dioxide from the environment...”, and “Algae absorb 3 to 10 times more carbon dioxide from the environment than terrestrial plants. Therefore, these services alone I think are going to be a booster of the seaweed industry”. For seaweed biomass to effectively store carbon for more than 50 years, it must sink to the deep sea, which is neither ecologically nor economically sustainable (Chopin et al., 2024 ). Even if all currently farmed algae sink to the deep sea, they would sequester only 2 million tons of CO 2 , which is 1% of what the world’s wild kelp forests sequester (C. M. Duarte, Wu, Xiao, Bruhn, & Krause-Jensen, 2017 ), and only approximately 0.005% of the global CO 2 emissions in 2022 (37.8 Gt) (European Commission. Joint Research Centre., 2022). At a rate of approximately 32 Euros/ha/yr for carbon removal, carbon credits for the total global seaweed production amount to only 26.5 million Euros (Costa-Pierce & Chopin, 2021 ). Instead, seaweed farming is better positioned as a source of carbon-neutral food production, and an alternative to synthetic soil fertilizers that emit CO 2 (C. M. Duarte et al., 2017 ; Nabti et al., 2017 ). 5.2.7. Developing a seaweed-based market Roadmap step 7 targets developing products that resonate with European culture and society while ensuring local value creation, including advanced seeding technologies, circular economy approaches, and the marketing of ecosystem services and diverse products. Although interest in algae-based products is growing, Europe struggles to make seaweed farming economically viable (Stévant & Rebours, 2021 ). A market that values the sustainable production and regional authenticity can command higher prices (Brayden, Noblet, Evans, & Rickard, 2018 ; Dagevos & Van Ophem, 2013 ; Van Den Burg, Dagevos, & Helmes, 2021 ). Certifications, such as protected geographical indications (PGI and PDO) and the Norwegian ‘SeaGreens of Norway’, and traceability systems (Duarte, Renato Mamede, I. Caçador, R. Melo, & V. Fonseca, 2023) can justify the higher price of locally produced seaweed as compared with Asian imports. Incorporating seaweed into traditional foods, such as the Dutch wheat burger, pasta, ravioli, or seaweed sausage (Van Den Burg et al., 2021 ), can further increase demand. Trends, such as the 'New Nordic Cuisine,' emphasizing local and natural foods, and the 'superfood' trend, advocating nutrient-dense foods, can help make seaweed a regular part of European diets (Blikra et al., 2021 ). Economic sustainability on the European market relies on a kg fresh weight (FW) price of approximately 1 Euro (approximately 6,700 Euros per ton dry weight (DW), assuming 15% DW), to exceed the estimated production costs that range from 1,800 to 5,200 per ton DW (DeAngelo et al., 2022 ; LEI International Policy, Van Den Burg, Wakenge, & Berkhout, 2019 ; van den Burg et al., 2016 ). This requires an established market of high-value products (DeAngelo et al., 2022 ), such as fertilizer, biostimulants, biopesticides, biochar, nutraceuticals, and pharmaceuticals (Chopin & Tacon, 2021 ; Van Den Burg et al., 2021 ). Europe can follow the lead of China, which has developed kelp-based innovative industrial clusters, such as alginates, functional food (e.g., jelly, drink, and pet food), sugar alcohol (e.g., mannitol and sorbitol), cosmetics (e.g., mask, wash, and care), medical materials (e.g., fiber and chemicals), and fertilizer. Therefore, a network of collaborators such as farmers, suppliers, universities, and customers increases the chances of innovative and successful products in the market (Baum, Calabrese, & Silverman, 2000 ; Faems & Looy, 2005 ). Conclusions The European seaweed industry has the unique opportunity to distinguish itself as an industry that prioritizes sustainability alongside economic growth. The European Commission supports sustainable growth in seaweed farming through funding opportunities in the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) and Horizon Europe for algae-related research and innovation. Insights from the Norwegian and Portuguese industries, representing the latitudinal extremes of the European seaweed industry, show contrasting yet complementary strengths and strategies. While personal communication with a broader range of stakeholders aligned with these insights, expanding our research through questionnaires would allow us to direct research partnerships based on how sustainable practices and visions vary across Europe. Our roadmap offers a pathway for researchers, policymakers, communities, and industry stakeholders as Phase III to implement sustainable practices in the European seaweed industry (De Ridder et al., 2007 ). To reach Phase IV, which assesses the effectiveness of these actions, we must now implement the proposed roadmap steps that require trust and understanding across disciplines to foster innovation through collaboration among researchers, governments, and businesses. Future research should evaluate how well the roadmap supports sustainable seaweed production by balancing the environmental, economic, and social factors. Long-term studies are necessary to assess the real-world impacts of these sustainable practices. Abbreviations ASC: Aquaculture Stewardship Council DNA: Desoxyribonucleic acid DW: Dry Weight eDNA: environmental DNA FW: Fresh Weight G.A.P: Good Agricultural Practices IMTA: Integrated Multi Trophic Aquaculture MSC: Marine Stewardship Council SDG: Sustainable Development Goal SWOT: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats UN: United Nations WOS: Wheel of Sustainability Declarations Acknowledgements We acknowledge Grete Thuv Tjønndal and Miguel Fernandes for conducting the interviews with stakeholders of the seaweed industry in Norway and Portugal, respectively. This work was supported by the Fund for Bilateral Relations Open Call#1 EEA Financial Mechanism 2014-2021 - iSea project (FBR_OC1_98), and by Nord University (Economic Research ). We further acknowledge support from FCT-Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia to MARE (http://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/04292/2020 and http://doi.org/10.54499/UIDP/04292/2020) and ARNET (http://doi.org/10.54499/LA/P/0069/2020). The funders were not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, in the writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the article for publication. Author contributions AJ and BD conceptualized the project, secured funding, and oversaw its execution. Both developed methodologies and managed resources, with significant contributions from HH-H and KW in data curation, methodology refinement, and validation. AJ additionally took the lead in formal analysis and visualization, shaping the project's scientific direction. The development of the roadmap was a team effort, with AC, AE, AK, AM, AMLN, CB, CG, GH, HM, HR, LO, RM, and RR, all contributing significantly with their knowledge and ideas. RM additionally contributed to refining the methodology and managing resources. The manuscript, initially drafted by AJ, was shaped by the critical review and editing of AE, BD, CB, DLD, HR, HH-H, JZ, KW, PK, RM, RR, and ZMH. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests Data availability The data analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files, with the exception of raw interview transcripts and complete workshop discussion texts. These contain personal information and were excluded to protect the privacy and anonymity of the participants. References Afridi, M. S., Javed, M. A., Ali, S., De Medeiros, F. H. V., Ali, B., Salam, A., … Santoyo, G. (2022). New opportunities in plant microbiome engineering for increasing agricultural sustainability under stressful conditions. Frontiers in Plant Science , 13 , 899464. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.899464 Aquaculture Stewardship Council and Marine Stewardship Council. (2018). ASC-MSC Seaweed ( Algae ) Standard . Araújo, R., Vázquez Calderón, F., Sánchez López, J., Azevedo, I. C., Bruhn, A., Fluch, S., … Ullmann, J. (2021). Current Status of the Algae Production Industry in Europe: An Emerging Sector of the Blue Bioeconomy. Frontiers in Marine Science , 7 (January), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.626389 Bagheri, A., & Hjorth, P. (2007). Planning for sustainable development: A paradigm shift towards a process‐based approach. Sustainable Development , 15 (2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.310 Bārda, I., Ikauniece, A., Armoškaite, A., Arvaniti, E., Barboza, F. R., Jüterbock, A., … others. (2022). Ensuring environmental safety–necessary monitoring practices for seaweed cultivation and harvesting in the Baltic Sea . Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. (2000). Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal , 21 (3), 267–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:33.0.CO;2-8 Beheshti, K., Williams, S. L., Katharyn E. Boyer, Boyer, K. E., Endris, C., Annakate Clemons, … Hughes, B. B. (2021). Rapid enhancement of multiple ecosystem services following the restoration of a coastal foundation species. Ecological Applications . https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2466 Bekkby, T., Ryther, R., Torstensen, G., Andreas, L., Grünfeld, H., Gundersen, H., … Hancke, K. (2023). ‘ Hanging gardens ’—Comparing fauna communities in kelp farms and wild kelp forests . 2010 (February), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1066101 Bhuyan, S. (2023). Ecological risks associated with seaweed cultivation and identifying risk minimization approaches. Algal Research , 69 (July 2022), 102967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2022.102967 Billing, S.-L., Rostan, J., Tett, P., & Macleod, A. (2021). Is social license to operate relevant for seaweed cultivation in Europe? Aquaculture , 534 , 736203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736203 Bishop, P., Hines, A., & Collins, T. (2007). The current state of scenario development: An overview of techniques . (February). https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680710727516 Bjørkan, M., & Billing, S.-L. (2022). Commercial Seaweed Cultivation in Scotland and the Social Pillar of Sustainability: A Q-Method Approach to Characterizing Key Stakeholder Perspectives. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems , 6 , 795024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.795024 Blikra, M. J., Altintzoglou, T., Løvdal, T., Rognså, G., Skipnes, D., Skåra, T., … Noriega Fernández, E. (2021). Seaweed products for the future: Using current tools to develop a sustainable food industry. Trends in Food Science & Technology , 118 , 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.11.002 Brayden, W. C., Noblet, C. L., Evans, K. S., & Rickard, L. (2018). Consumer preferences for seafood attributes of wild-harvested and farm-raised products. Aquaculture Economics & Management , 22 (3), 362–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2018.1449270 Brunson, J. (2020). ggalluvial: Layered Grammar for Alluvial Plots. Journal of Open Source Software , 5 (49), 2017. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02017 Buck, B. H., Troell, M. F., Krause, G., Angel, D. L., Grote, B., & Chopin, T. (2018). State of the Art and Challenges for Offshore Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA). Frontiers in Marine Science , 5 , 165. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00165 Cai, J. (2021). Seaweeds and microalgae: An overview for unlocking their potential in global aquaculture development . FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5670en Campbell, I., Macleod, A., Sahlmann, C., Neves, L., Funderud, J., Øverland, M., … Stanley, M. (2019). The environmental risks associated with the development of seaweed farming in Europe—Prioritizing key knowledge gaps. Frontiers in Marine Science , 6 (MAR). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00107 Cerca, M., Sosa, A., & Murphy, F. (2023). Responsible supply systems for macroalgae: Upscaling seaweed cultivation in Ireland. Aquaculture , 563 , 738996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738996 Chopin, T., Costa-Pierce, B. A., Troell, M., Hurd, C. L., Costello, M. J., Backman, S., … Yarish, C. (2024). Deep-ocean seaweed dumping for carbon sequestration: Questionable, risky, and not the best use of valuable biomass. One Earth , 7 (3), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.01.013 Chopin, T., & Tacon, A. G. J. (2021). Importance of Seaweeds and Extractive Species in Global Aquaculture Production. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture , 29 (2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2020.1810626 Chris Williams, Sian Rees, Emma V. Sheehan, Matthew Ashley, William D. Davies, & William Davies. (2022). Rewilding the Sea? A Rapid, Low Cost Model for Valuing the Ecosystem Service Benefits of Kelp Forest Recovery Based on Existing Valuations and Benefit Transfers. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution , 10 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.642775 Cornish, M. L., Critchley, A. T., & Mouritsen, O. G. (2017). Consumption of seaweeds and the human brain. Journal of Applied Phycology , 29 (5), 2377–2398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-016-1049-3 Costa-Pierce, B. A., & Chopin, T. (2021). The Hype, Fantasies and Realities of Aquaculture Development Globally and In Its New Geographies. World Aquaculture . Cottier-Cook, E. J., Nagabhatla, N., Asri, A., Beveridge, M., Bianchi, P., Bolton, J., … others. (2021). Ensuring the sustainable future of the rapidly expanding global seaweed aquaculture industry—A vision . UNU Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies. Cottier-Cook, E. J., Nagabhatla, N., Badis, Y., Campbell, M. L., Chopin, T., Fang, J., … Jiang, Z. (2016). Safeguarding the future of the global seaweed aquaculture industry. United Nations University and Scottish Association for Marine Science Policy Brief. United Nations University (INWEH) and Scottish Association for Marine Science , 12. Dagevos, H., & Van Ophem, J. (2013). Food consumption value: Developing a consumer-centred concept of value in the field of food. British Food Journal , 115 (10), 1473–1486. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2011-0166 Davis, A., & Sharp, J. (2020). Rethinking One Health: Emergent human, animal and environmental assemblages. Social Science & Medicine , 258 , 113093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113093 De Ridder, W., Turnpenny, J., Nilsson, M., & Von Raggamby, A. (2007). A framework for tool selection and use in integrated assessment for sustainable development. Tools, Techniques and Approaches for Sustainability: Collected Writings in Environmental Assessment Policy and Management , 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814289696_0007 DeAngelo, J., Saenz, B. T., Arzeno-Soltero, I. B., Frieder, C. A., Long, M. C., Hamman, J., … Davis, S. J. (2022). Economic and biophysical limits to seaweed farming for climate change mitigation. Nature Plants , 9 (1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-022-01305-9 DNV. (2021). OCEANS’ FUTURE TO 2050: MARINE AQUACULTURE FORECAST . DNV Group Research and Development. Retrieved from https://www.dnv.com/focus-areas/offshore-aquaculture/marine-aquaculture-forecast/#:~:text=Marine%20aquaculture%20will%20more%20than,weight%20to%2074%20Mt%2Fyr. Duarte, B., Carreiras, J. M. B., Feijão, E., Reis-Santos, P., Caçador, I., Matos, A. R., … Fonseca, V. F. (2021). Fatty acid profiles of estuarine macroalgae are biomarkers of anthropogenic pressures: Development and application of a multivariate pressure index. Science of The Total Environment , 788 , 147817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147817 Duarte, C. M., Bruhn, A., & Krause-Jensen, D. (2021). A seaweed aquaculture imperative to meet global sustainability targets. Nature Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00773-9 Duarte, C. M., Wu, J., Xiao, X., Bruhn, A., & Krause-Jensen, D. (2017). Can seaweed farming play a role in climate change mitigation and adaptation? Frontiers in Marine Science , 4 (APR). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00100 Duarte, Renato Mamede, I. Caçador, R. Melo, & V. Fonseca. (2023). Trust your seaweeds: Fine-scale multi-elemental traceability of edible seaweed species harvested within an estuarine system. Algal Research . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2023.102975 Echave, J., Otero, P., Oliveira, P. G., Garcia-Oliveira, P., Munekata, P. E. S., Pateiro, M., … Miguel A. Prieto. (2022). Seaweed-Derived Proteins and Peptides: Promising Marine Bioactives. Antioxidants , 11 (1). https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11010176 Eger, A., Marzinelli, E., Baes, R., Blain, C., Blamey, L., Carnell, P., … Verges, A. (2021). The economic value of fisheries, blue carbon, and nutrient cycling in global marine forests. EcoEvoRxiv . https://doi.org/10.32942/osf.io/n7kjs European Commission. (2021). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions . Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A230%3AFIN European Commission. (2022). The EU blue economy report 2022 . Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/doi/10.2771/793264 European Commission. Joint Research Centre. (2022). CO2 emissions of all world countries :JRC/IEA/PBL 2022 report. LU: Publications Office. Retrieved from https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/730164 Executive Agency for Small and Medium sized Enterprises., Technopolis Group., & Wageningen Research. (2020). Blue Bioeconomy Forum: Roadmap for the blue bioeconomy. LU: Publications Office. Retrieved from https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/605949 Faems, D., & Looy, B. (2005). Interorganizational Collaboration and Innovation: Toward a Portfolio Approach*. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 22 , 238–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00120.x Fan, W., Ruolan, Z., Yao, Z., Xiao, C., Pan, Y., Chen, Y., … Zhang, Y. (2019). Nutrient Removal from Chinese Coastal Waters by Large-Scale Seaweed Aquaculture Using Artificial Upwelling. Water , 11 (9), 1754. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11091754 Fang, J., Zhang, J., Xiao, T., Huang, D., & Liu, S. (2016). Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in Sanggou Bay, China. Aquaculture Environment Interactions , 8 , 201–205. FAO. (2021). FAO Aquaculture News, May 2021—No. 63 . Feehan, C. J. (2023). Seaweed Farming: Assessment on the Potential of Sustainable Upscaling for Climate, Communities and the Planet. Filbee-Dexter, K., Wernberg, T., Barreiro, R., Coleman, M. A., de Bettignies, T., Feehan, C. J., … Verbeek, J. (2022). Leveraging the blue economy to transform marine forest restoration. Journal of Phycology , 58 (2), 198–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13239 Forbes, H., Shelamoff, V., Visch, W., Layton, C., & Forbes, H. (2022). Farms and forests: Evaluating the biodiversity benefits of kelp aquaculture. Journal of Applied Phycology , (0123456789). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-022-02822-y Fortune Business Insights. (2021). Market Research Report (No. FBI100077). Retrieved from The global commercial seaweed market is projected to grow from $15.01 billion in 2021 to $24.92 billion in 2028 at a CAGR of 7.51% during forecast period... Read More at:- https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/commercial-seaweed-market-100077 Galbreth, M. R., & Ghosh, B. (2013). Competition and Sustainability: The Impact of Consumer Awareness: Competition and Sustainability. Decision Sciences , 44 (1), 127–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2012.00395.x Gao, K., & Beardall, J. (2022). Using macroalgae to address UN Sustainable Development goals through CO 2 remediation and improvement of the aquaculture environment. Applied Phycology , 00 (00), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/26388081.2022.2025617 Gaspar, R., Pereira, L., & Sousa-Pinto, I. (2019). The seaweed resources of Portugal. Botanica Marina , 62 (5), 499–525. https://doi.org/10.1515/bot-2019-0012 Giannoccaro, I., Zaza, V., & Fraccascia, L. (2023). Designing regional industrial symbiosis networks: The case of Apulia region. Sustainable Development , 31 (3), 1475–1514. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2462 Gimpel, A., Stelzenmüller, V., Grote, B., Buck, B. H., Floeter, J., Núñez-Riboni, I., … Temming, A. (2015). A GIS modelling framework to evaluate marine spatial planning scenarios: Co-location of offshore wind farms and aquaculture in the German EEZ. Marine Policy , 55 , 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.012 Glenn, J. C. (2009). The Futures Wheel . Godal, M. S. (2020). Operationalisation of sustainability of the Norwegian macroalgae aquaculture industry . (July). Graf, L., Shin, Y., Yang, J. H., Choi, J. W., Hwang, I. K., Nelson, W., … Yoon, H. S. (2021). A genome-wide investigation of the effect of farming and human-mediated introduction on the ubiquitous seaweed Undaria pinnatifida. Nature Ecology & Evolution , 5 (3), 360–368. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01378-9 Grebe, G. S., Byron, C. J., Gelais, A. S., Kotowicz, D. M., & Olson, T. K. (2019). An ecosystem approach to kelp aquaculture in the Americas and Europe. Aquaculture Reports , 15 (January), 100215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2019.100215 Gundersen, H., Bekkby, T., Norderhaug, K. M., Oug, E., Rinde, E., & Fredriksen, S. (2018a). Sukkertareskog i Nordsjøen og Skagerrak, Marint gruntvann. Retrieved from https://artsdatabanken.no/RLN2018/342 Gundersen, H., Bekkby, T., Norderhaug, K. M., Oug, E., Rinde, E., & Fredriksen, S. (2018b). Sukkertareskog i Norskehavet og Barentshavet, Marint gruntvann. Norsk rødliste for naturtyper 2018. Retrieved from https://artsdatabanken.no/RLN2018/342 Hancke, K., Broch, O. J., Olsen, Y., Bekkby, T., Hansen, P. K., Fieler, R., … Christie, H. (2021). Miljøpåvirkninger av taredyrking og forslag til utvikling av overvåkingsprogram . Hardi, P., & Zdan, T. J. (1997). Assessing sustainable development: Principles in practice . Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development. Hasselström, L., Visch, W., Gröndahl, F., Nylund, G. M., & Pavia, H. (2018). The impact of seaweed cultivation on ecosystem services—A case study from the west coast of Sweden. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 133 (May), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.005 Havforskningsinstituttet. (2016). Havforskningsrapporten 2016. Fisken Og Havet , 3 . https://doi.org/08020620 Hilker, M., Schwachtje, J., Baier, M., Balazadeh, S., Bäurle, I., Geiselhardt, S., … Kopka, J. (2016). Priming and memory of stress responses in organisms lacking a nervous system. Biological Reviews , 91 (4), 1118–1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12215 Holdt, S. L., Kraan, S., & Kraan, S. (2011). Bioactive compounds in seaweed: Functional food applications and legislation. Journal of Applied Phycology , 23 (3), 543–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-010-9632-5 Hossain, M. S., Sharifuzzaman, S. M., Nobi, M. N., Chowdhury, M. S. N., Sarker, S., Alamgir, M., … Chowdhury, S. (2021). Seaweeds farming for sustainable development goals and blue economy in Bangladesh. Marine Policy , 128 (August 2020), 104469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104469 Hu, Z., Shan, T., Zhang, J., Zhang, Q., Critchley, A. T., Choi, H., … Duan, D. (2021). Kelp aquaculture in China: A retrospective and future prospects. Reviews in Aquaculture , (February). https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12524 Hu, Z.-M., Shan, T., Quan‐Sheng Zhang, Fu‐Li Liu, Alexander Jueterbock, Gaoge Wang, … Nai‐Hao Ye. (2023). Kelp breeding in China: Challenges and opportunities for solutions. Reviews in Aquaculture . https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12871 Huang, R. (2016). RQDA: R-based Qualitative Data Analysis. R package version 0.2-8. Retrieved from http://rqda.r-forge.r-project.org/ Hurtado, A. Q., Neish, I. C., & Critchley, A. T. (2019). Phyconomy: The extensive cultivation of seaweeds, their sustainability and economic value, with particular reference to important lessons to be learned and transferred from the practice of eucheumatoid farming. Phycologia , 58 (5), 472–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/00318884.2019.1625632 Iñigo, E. A., & Albareda, L. (2016). Understanding sustainable innovation as a complex adaptive system: A systemic approach to the firm. Journal of Cleaner Production , 126 , 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.036 Jueterbock, A., Minne, A. J. P., Cock, J. M., Coleman, M. A., Wernberg, T., Scheschonk, L., … Hu, Z.-M. (2021). Priming of Marine Macrophytes for Enhanced Restoration Success and Food Security in Future Oceans. Frontiers in Marine Science , 8 (March), 279. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.658485 Kim, J. K., Yarish, C., Hwang, E. K., Park, M., & Kim, Y. (2017). Seaweed aquaculture: Cultivation technologies, challenges and its ecosystem services. Algae , 32 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4490/algae.2017.32.3.3 Krause, G., Brugere, C., Diedrich, A., Ebeling, M. W., Ferse, S. C. A., Mikkelsen, E., … Troell, M. (2015). A revolution without people? Closing the people–policy gap in aquaculture development. Aquaculture , 447 , 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.02.009 Ktari, L., Chebil Ajjabi, L., De Clerck, O., Gómez Pinchetti, J. L., & Rebours, C. (2022). Seaweeds as a promising resource for blue economy development in Tunisia: Current state, opportunities, and challenges. Journal of Applied Phycology , 34 (1), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-021-02579-w Larsen, I. (2022, June 7). 40 innsigelser mot tablering av algeanlegg. Lokalavisa . Le Gouvello, R., Hochart, L.-E., Laffoley, D., Simard, F., Andrade, C., Angel, D., … Marino, G. (2017). Aquaculture and marine protected areas: Potential opportunities and synergies. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems , 27 , 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2821 LEI International Policy, Van Den Burg, S., Wakenge, C., & Berkhout, P. (2019). Economic prospects for large-scale seaweed cultivation in the North Sea . Wageningen: Wageningen Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.18174/470257 Li, X. (2023). Comprehensive Analysis of Large-Scale Saccharina japonica Damage in the Principal Farming Area of Rongcheng in Shandong Province from 2021 to 2022. Retrieved September 17, 2023, from https://www.nkdb.net/EN/10.13304/j.nykjdb.2022.0728 Lynn, J. S., Klanderud, K., Telford, R. J., Goldberg, D. E., & Vandvik, V. (2021). Macroecological context predicts species’ responses to climate warming. Global Change Biology , 27 (10), 2088–2101. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15532 Mendes, M., Navalho, S., Ferreira, A., Paulino, C., Figueiredo, D., Silva, D., … Speranza, L. (2022). Algae as Food in Europe: An Overview of Species Diversity and Their Application. Foods , 11 (13), 1871. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11131871 Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series . Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome Way, San Francisco, CA 94104. Morales Moreira, Z. P., Chen, M. Y., Yanez Ortuno, D. L., & Haney, C. H. (2023). Engineering plant microbiomes by integrating eco-evolutionary principles into current strategies. Current Opinion in Plant Biology , 71 , 102316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2022.102316 Nabti, E., Bhavanath Jha, Jha, B., Hartmann, A., A. Hartmann, & Hartmann, A. (2017). Impact of seaweeds on agricultural crop production as biofertilizer. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology , 14 (5), 1119–1134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-016-1202-1 Nilsson, J., & Bergström, S. (1995). Indicators for the assessment of ecological and economic consequences of municipal policies for resource use. Ecological Economics , 14 (3), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(95)00013-Y Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2005). The theory of the knowledge-creating firm: Subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. Industrial and Corporate Change , 14 (3), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth058 Norderhaug, K. M., Hansen, P. K., Fredriksen, S., Grøsvik, B. E., & Naustvoll, J. (2021). Miljøpåvirkning fra dyrking av makroalger . Odobaša, R., & Marošević, K. (2023). Expected contributions of the European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) to the sustainable development of the European Union. EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC) , 7 , 593–612. https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/27463 Okada, Y., Kishita, Y., Nomaguchi, Y., Yano, T., & Ohtomi, K. (2022). Backcasting-Based Method for Designing Roadmaps to Achieve a Sustainable Future. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 69 (1), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.3008444 Osmundsen, T. C., Amundsen, V. S., Alexander, K. A., Asche, F., Bailey, J., Finstad, B., … Salgado, H. (2020). The operationalisation of sustainability: Sustainable aquaculture production as defined by certification schemes. Global Environmental Change , 60 (April 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102025 Pawar, V. A., & Laware, S. L. (2018). Seed priming a critical review. International Journal of Scientific Research in Biological Sciences , 5 (5), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.26438/ijsrbs/v5i5.94101 Shan, T. F., Pang, S. J., Li, J., & Gao, S. Q. (2016). Breeding of an elite cultivar haibao no. 1 of Undaria pinnatifida (phaeophyceae) through gametophyte clone crossing and consecutive selection. Journal of Applied Phycology , 28 (4), 2419–2426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-015-0748-5 Shi, H., Zheng, W., Zhang, X., Zhu, M., & Ding, D. (2013). Ecological–economic assessment of monoculture and integrated multi-trophic aquaculture in Sanggou Bay of China. Aquaculture , 410–411 , 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.06.033 Shi, J., Hao Wei, Wei, H., Hao Wei, Liang Zhao, Zhao, L., … Zhang, J. (2011). A physical–biological coupled aquaculture model for a suspended aquaculture area of China. Aquaculture , 318 (3), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.05.048 Slotsvik, G. N., De Luigi, G., Abbas, H., Little, L., Sevaldsen, P., Barnes, R., … others. (2024). Norwegian blue forests network (NBFN)-Top ten trends from 2023 . Solvang, T., Bale, E. S., Broch, O. J., Handå, A., & Alver, M. O. (2021). Automation Concepts for Industrial-Scale Production of Seaweed. Frontiers in Marine Science , 8 , 613093. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.613093 Spillias, S., Cottrell, R. S., Kelly, R., Brien, K. R. O., Adams, J., Bellgrove, A., … Mcdonald-madden, E. (2022). Expert perceptions of seaweed farming for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production , 368 (June), 133052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133052 Stévant, P., & Rebours, C. (2021). Landing facilities for processing of cultivated seaweed biomass: A Norwegian perspective with strategic considerations for the European seaweed industry. Journal of Applied Phycology , 33 (5), 3199–3214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-021-02525-w Stévant, P., Table Rebours, C., & Chapman, A. (2017). Seaweed aquaculture in Norway: Recent industrial developments and future perspectives. Aquaculture International , 25 (4), 1373–1390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-017-0120-7 St-Gelais, A. T., Fredriksson, D. W., Dewhurst, T., Miller-Hope, Z. S., Costa-Pierce, B. A., & Johndrow, K. (2022). Engineering A Low-Cost Kelp Aquaculture System for Community-Scale Seaweed Farming at Nearshore Exposed Sites via User-Focused Design Process. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems , 6 (February). https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.848035 Tânia F. L. Vicente, Carina Félix, Rafael Félix, P. Valentão, & M. Lemos. (2022). Seaweed as a Natural Source against Phytopathogenic Bacteria. Marine Drugs . https://doi.org/10.3390/md21010023 Theuerkauf, S. J., Barrett, L. T., HK Alleway, Alleway, H. K., Costa-Pierce, B. A., St. Gelais, A. T., … Jones, R. C. (2021). Habitat value of bivalve shellfish and seaweed aquaculture for fish and invertebrates: Pathways, synthesis and next steps. Reviews in Aquaculture . https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12584 United Nations Environment Programme, Djampou, A., & Norwegian Blue Forests Network. (2023). Into the Blue: Securing a Sustainable Future for Kelp Forests . United Nations Environment Programme. https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/42255 United Nations Environment Programme, N. B. F. N. (2023). Into the Blue: Securing a Sustainable Future for Kelp Forests . Retrieved from https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/42255 Van Den Burg, S. W. K., Dagevos, H., & Helmes, R. J. K. (2021). Towards sustainable European seaweed value chains: A triple P perspective. ICES Journal of Marine Science , 78 (1), 443–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz183 van den Burg, S. W. K., van Duijn, A. P., Bartelings, H., van Krimpen, M. M., & Poelman, M. (2016). The economic feasibility of seaweed production in the North Sea. Aquaculture Economics and Management , 20 (3), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2016.1177859 Vicente, T. F. L., Marco F.L. Lemos, Lemos, M. F. L., Félix, R., Valentão, P., & Félix, C. (2021). Marine Macroalgae, a Source of Natural Inhibitors of Fungal Phytopathogens. Journal of Fungi , 7 (12), 1006. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7121006 Vincent, A., Stanley, A., & Ring, J. (2020). Hidden champion of the ocean: Seaweed as a growth engine for a sustainable European future. Seaweed for Europe , 60 . Retrieved from https://www.seaweedeurope.com/hidden-champion/ Visch, W., Kononets, M., Hall, P. O. J. J., Nylund, G. M., & Pavia, H. (2020). Environmental impact of kelp ( Saccharina latissima ) aquaculture. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 155 (February), 110962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.110962 Voss, J.-P., & Kemp, R. (2005). Reflexive Governance: Learning to cope with fundamental limitations in steering sustainable development . (39), 1–39. Wade, R., Augyte, S., Harden, M., Nuzhdin, S., Yarish, C., & Alberto, F. (2020). Macroalgal germplasm banking for conservation, food security, and industry. PLoS Biology , 18 (2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000641 Wilding, T. A., Gill, A. B., Boon, A., Sheehan, E. V., Dauvin, J.-C., Pezy, J.-P., … De Mesel, I. (2017). Turning off the DRIP (‘Data-rich, information-poor’) – rationalising monitoring with a focus on marine renewable energy developments and the benthos. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews , 74 , 848–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.013 Wojtyla, Ł., Lechowska, K., Kubala, S., & Garnczarska, M. (2016). Molecular processes induced in primed seeds—Increasing the potential to stabilize crop yields under drought conditions. Journal of Plant Physiology , 203 , 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2016.04.008 Wood, D., Capuzzo, E., Kirby, D., Mooney-McAuley, K., & Kerrison, P. (2017). UK macroalgae aquaculture: What are the key environmental and licensing considerations? Marine Policy , 83 (August 2016), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.021 Yoshida, N., & Kanda, J. (2012). Tracking the Fukushima Radionuclides. Science , 336 (6085), 1115–1116. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219493 Zhang, J., Wang, X., Yao, J., Li, Q., Liu, F., Yotsukura, N., … Duan, D. (2017). Effect of domestication on the genetic diversity and structure of Saccharina japonica populations in China. Scientific Reports , 7 (1), 42158. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42158 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Graphicalabstract.png Graphical abstract AppendixASupplementaryInformation.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 13 Mar, 2025 Reviews received at journal 05 Feb, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Jan, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Jan, 2025 Reviews received at journal 18 Oct, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Oct, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 14 Oct, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 08 Oct, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 04 Oct, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 04 Oct, 2024 First submitted to journal 03 Oct, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5200388","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Perspective","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":412075951,"identity":"46354e05-ac6c-493d-9a71-a40a95009cbe","order_by":0,"name":"Alexander Jueterbock","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nord University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alexander","middleName":"","lastName":"Jueterbock","suffix":""},{"id":412075952,"identity":"2db3eb4d-98b3-4eba-8032-004466721bad","order_by":1,"name":"Bernardo Duarte","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"MARE - Centro de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bernardo","middleName":"","lastName":"Duarte","suffix":""},{"id":412075953,"identity":"ee5b8844-30b5-4fa7-9b47-9cace3507f0a","order_by":2,"name":"Ricardo Melo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"MARE - Centro de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ricardo","middleName":"","lastName":"Melo","suffix":""},{"id":412075954,"identity":"7bafb7c0-562b-4dc5-8e70-e5177680bfdf","order_by":3,"name":"Hindertje Hoarau-Heemstra","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nord University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hindertje","middleName":"","lastName":"Hoarau-Heemstra","suffix":""},{"id":412075955,"identity":"d5877560-e471-4c1f-8195-745144c2afee","order_by":4,"name":"Karin Wigger","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Linköping University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Karin","middleName":"","lastName":"Wigger","suffix":""},{"id":412075956,"identity":"def87a1a-01e5-47e2-9a74-19e096c5df00","order_by":5,"name":"Christian Bruckner","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Polaralge AS","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Christian","middleName":"","lastName":"Bruckner","suffix":""},{"id":412075957,"identity":"7c8314f4-b34d-4690-b96b-cc3e1d946744","order_by":6,"name":"Annelise Chapman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tango Seaweed AS","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Annelise","middleName":"","lastName":"Chapman","suffix":""},{"id":412075958,"identity":"126e458e-bf2e-4415-a20e-66c2bfcf3361","order_by":7,"name":"Delin Duan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chinese Academy of Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Delin","middleName":"","lastName":"Duan","suffix":""},{"id":412075959,"identity":"3081e092-2bd1-45b7-b257-c9e6d7c4bf05","order_by":8,"name":"Aschwin Engelen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Algarve","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aschwin","middleName":"","lastName":"Engelen","suffix":""},{"id":412075960,"identity":"b2943373-f69a-433e-a20b-14cd3eaef353","order_by":9,"name":"Clement Gauci","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nord University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Clement","middleName":"","lastName":"Gauci","suffix":""},{"id":412075961,"identity":"256b9661-be87-430f-873a-5968fdb6a0ce","order_by":10,"name":"Griffin Hill","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nord University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Griffin","middleName":"","lastName":"Hill","suffix":""},{"id":412075962,"identity":"d2d1fdbe-f5a3-4c64-8d42-8841c4562cd6","order_by":11,"name":"Zi-Min Hu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yantai University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zi-Min","middleName":"","lastName":"Hu","suffix":""},{"id":412075963,"identity":"ab4ea76b-10c1-4f22-a469-630048d9012b","order_by":12,"name":"Prabhat Khanal","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nord University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Prabhat","middleName":"","lastName":"Khanal","suffix":""},{"id":412075964,"identity":"5b384fea-5c64-4c18-8da7-b3389edd4540","order_by":13,"name":"Ananya Khatei","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nord University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ananya","middleName":"","lastName":"Khatei","suffix":""},{"id":412075965,"identity":"fb4c44e3-3f7e-4b35-8743-9a92861a609d","order_by":14,"name":"Amy Mackintosh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nord University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amy","middleName":"","lastName":"Mackintosh","suffix":""},{"id":412075966,"identity":"d86f609f-ae76-4ae8-86c1-3811407a82f7","order_by":15,"name":"Heidi Meland","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Norwegian Seaweed Association","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Heidi","middleName":"","lastName":"Meland","suffix":""},{"id":412075967,"identity":"b9ecffc2-66f5-463f-ac69-c528d1ff4bf9","order_by":16,"name":"Anne M.L. Nilsen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nord University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anne","middleName":"M.L.","lastName":"Nilsen","suffix":""},{"id":412075968,"identity":"de1b3eb1-216c-43d9-b4d6-7c0506163ee9","order_by":17,"name":"Leonore Olsen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SJY Seaweed AS","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Leonore","middleName":"","lastName":"Olsen","suffix":""},{"id":412075969,"identity":"0755010a-e420-4aae-8606-9aec7985e41c","order_by":18,"name":"Ralf Rautenberger","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ralf","middleName":"","lastName":"Rautenberger","suffix":""},{"id":412075970,"identity":"420ba2f1-9974-4889-92cb-2b737b94d9bd","order_by":19,"name":"Henning Reiss","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nord University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Henning","middleName":"","lastName":"Reiss","suffix":""},{"id":412075971,"identity":"b1008aca-a6ff-46fe-8dc3-8b6ce088e0a6","order_by":20,"name":"Jie Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chinese Academy of Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jie","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-10-03 20:53:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5200388/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5200388/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":78359035,"identity":"894004b1-454d-4f7a-9405-8de1e5087bbe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-12 12:06:33","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":319161,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProjected growth of the European seaweed industry in farmed biomass a) volume, and b) value until 2030. The development shown under ‘Other’ is dominated by Asian countries. Historical growth data were sourced from FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture (online query). Projections for Europe until 2030 are based on Vincent et al. (2020), and projections for the global development are based on DNV (2021) for volume, and on Fortune Business Insights (2021) for monetary value at a CAGR of 7.51%.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5200388/v1/d7da3661898cedadd0aeec7c.png"},{"id":78359036,"identity":"caa47a37-4554-44db-9c8d-2b13a2b8abe9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-12 12:06:33","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1312248,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe representation of codes. The frequency of the codes in the workshop, and the interviews is represented by the circle sizes. The codes are hierarchically clustered by category and type\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5200388/v1/22d3f765368eacbd5bdd8b7e.png"},{"id":78360094,"identity":"18215912-84c8-4424-8f07-297f6b9c23d1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-12 12:14:33","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1427550,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInteractions among (a), representation of (b), and ranking of (c) the Wheel of Sustainability (WOS) codes.a) The connections among the WOS codes represent raw text statements coded under at least 2 of the four WOS dimensions, and their intra-dimensional connections. The red lines indicate connections supported by more than 3 independent statements. Intra-dimensional connections (e.g., different subsections of the environmental dimension of the WOS) are highlighted only if the underlying statements are also connected to subsections of other WOS dimensions. b) The percentage of statements with which the WOS codes were represented in the workshop (bars), in the interviews with Norwegian farmers (triangles), and with Portuguese farmers (circles). Arrows indicate major discrepancies in the representation of a topic among the interviews or between the interviews and the workshop. c) The ranking of the WOS codes shows an ordered list of the WOS codes according to the frequency (top=highest) with which they were coded in the workshop (W) and the interviews with Norwegian (No) and Portuguese (Pl) stakeholders. The codings that ranked among the top five in W, No, and Pl are highlighted in color.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5200388/v1/ac5163ca9fb83377abdbd824.png"},{"id":78359039,"identity":"15f093e2-ef43-403e-b31f-51ed340ba6bb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-12 12:06:33","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1262026,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoadmap towards sustainable growth of the seaweed industry in Europe. The roadmap codings, colored by thes seven roadmap categories, are linked with the respective codes in the concept of technology push and market pull, and with the codings in the Wheel of Sustainability.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5200388/v1/2abcd94ce45a9a9ab8c75cca.png"},{"id":78359042,"identity":"89d41797-a72b-4c5c-acb7-bbed1f2298b1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-12 12:06:37","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":327859,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe seven roadmap steps balance biomass production with industryvalue. The more roadmap steps guide the development of the European seaweed industry, the more the generated value focuses on biomass production, and enhancement through innovation. Biomass volume and farming area may have to be limited to remain within sustainable thresholds but not at the cost of economic sustainability.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5200388/v1/b5b967108d9a53f1c93b5844.png"},{"id":78360393,"identity":"4817408c-075d-43e9-95d7-15b8792e12cf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-12 12:22:38","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":5276911,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5200388/v1/b0e36b88-c9bc-46d1-8726-87ebf138bfb0.pdf"},{"id":78360095,"identity":"4f3d04db-5aff-4f1b-99db-b6d7cb3062de","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-12 12:14:33","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":209362,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGraphical abstract\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Graphicalabstract.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5200388/v1/0a5931f94d30c7b00f95b911.png"},{"id":78359040,"identity":"50bf5e5e-f307-4889-838e-b528bc456736","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-12 12:06:33","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":7260157,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AppendixASupplementaryInformation.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5200388/v1/7f2029ea078c44e4939d53d9.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Roadmap to sustainably develop the European seaweed industry","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAsia farms 99% of the global marketed seaweed, and produces 34.7\u0026nbsp;million tons annually worth 14.85\u0026nbsp;billion USD (FAO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)⁠. In contrast, Europe\u0026rsquo;s seaweed industry is mostly run by startups (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). European farmers produced only 3.8% of the 287,033 tons harvested in 2019, with most production coming from wild stocks (Cai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, seaweed farming plays a key role in the EU\u0026rsquo;s strategic guidelines for sustainable aquaculture (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Cold temperate regions, from Norway to Portugal, offer ideal conditions for seaweed cultivation (Ara\u0026uacute;jo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Norway\u0026rsquo;s leading position in Europe\u0026rsquo;s seaweed production (FAO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), with 44 seaweed-related companies, hinges on the wild harvests of 150,000-200,000 tons annually of \u003cem\u003eLaminaria hyperborea\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAscophyllum nodosum\u003c/em\u003e to produce alginate (Ara\u0026uacute;jo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Havforskningsinstituttet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Commercial farming is yet small-scale, with a peak production of 600 tons in 2023 (Slotsvik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), and focuses on the kelps \u003cem\u003eSaccharina latissima\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAlaria esculenta.\u003c/em\u003e In Portugal, 16 smaller businesses (phyconomy.org, accessed June 2023), alongside the leading company AlgaPlus, complement the European seaweed sector with species that thrive in warmer conditions, like \u003cem\u003ePorphyra\u003c/em\u003e sp., \u003cem\u003eFucus spiralis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLaminaria ochroleuca, Ulva\u003c/em\u003e sp., and \u003cem\u003eGelidium\u003c/em\u003e sp. (Gaspar, Pereira, \u0026amp; Sousa-Pinto, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeaweed farming is considered inherently sustainable because it does not rely on farmland, feed, fertilizers (at least on small farms), antibiotics, or pesticides. Seaweeds absorb carbon, nutrients, and heavy metals, support marine food webs, and provide habitats to a variety of marine organisms (Feehan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Kim, Yarish, Hwang, Park, \u0026amp; Kim, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Visch, Kononets, Hall, Nylund, \u0026amp; Pavia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR110\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) \u0026ndash; yet on a smaller scale than wild kelp forests (Bekkby et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, seaweed farming aligns with 13 of the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (C. M. Duarte, Bruhn, \u0026amp; Krause-Jensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Gao \u0026amp; Beardall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Hossain et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ktari, Chebil Ajjabi, De Clerck, G\u0026oacute;mez Pinchetti, \u0026amp; Rebours, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Spillias et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, at current production levels, seaweed farming has the potential to become a profitable, sustainable blue economy, with minimal negative impacts (Hancke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy 2030, the European Commission aims to increase production to 8\u0026nbsp;million tons, valued at 9\u0026nbsp;billion Euros, and potentially creating 85,000 jobs (Vincent, Stanley, \u0026amp; Ring, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR109\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Such a 30-fold increase in farmed production over a decade raises concerns about sustainability thresholds. Intensive seaweed farming could exhaust nutrients in oligotrophic regions, deposit excessive organic matter, and reduce light penetration, leading to changes in marine environments (Campbell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Grebe, Byron, Gelais, Kotowicz, \u0026amp; Olson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; St\u0026eacute;vant, Rebours, \u0026amp; Chapman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Other risks include the spread of non-native species, seaweed diseases, and over-exploitation of wild seaweed beds for seeds (Campbell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Large-scale monocultures of fast-growing strains can further reduce biodiversity, and increase vulnerability to diseases (Grebe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). At the societal level, the seaweed industry may conflict with established local maritime activities, and fail to benefit local communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sustainable growth of the seaweed industry relies on three interlinked pillars: (1) the environmental pillar, which emphasizes biodiversity impacts at all levels, from genes to ecosystems (Bhuyan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Campbell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Grebe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Wood, Capuzzo, Kirby, Mooney-McAuley, \u0026amp; Kerrison, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR115\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), (2) the economic pillar, centered on profitability for farmers and stakeholders (van den Burg, van Duijn, Bartelings, van Krimpen, \u0026amp; Poelman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR107\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), and (3) the social pillar, addressing social acceptance, job security, livelihoods, and community benefits (Billing, Rostan, Tett, \u0026amp; Macleod, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Krause et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). A sustainable economy ideally balances these pillars, as it increasingly hinges on consumers\u0026rsquo; trust through verifiable contributions to ecological and social sustainability (Galbreth \u0026amp; Ghosh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe EU's new 2021 directive on sustainability reporting (Odobaša \u0026amp; Marošević, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) now requires large companies to verify their claims of sustainable production. Sustainability, rather than being viewed in the traditional perspective of linear thinking as a static goal Bagheri \u0026amp; Hjorth (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), Hardi \u0026amp; Zdan, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), and Nilsson \u0026amp; Bergstr\u0026ouml;m (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e), is an evolving process, continually shaped by new knowledge and development (Nonaka \u0026amp; Toyama, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Voss \u0026amp; Kemp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR111\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). An emerging inclusive approach to sustainability is the \"One Health\" initiative, which links human, animal, and environmental health (Davis \u0026amp; Sharp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). While the Blue Bioeconomy Forum offers general guidance for sustainable production (Executive Agency for Small and Medium sized Enterprises., Technopolis Group., \u0026amp; Wageningen Research., 2020), seaweed farmers, hatcheries, and political bodies require more specific strategies. To provide guidance, we developed a seven-step roadmap to establish \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003esustainable\u003c/span\u003e transformations for the seaweed sector. Through stakeholder interviews and a workshop with Norwegian and Portuguese partners, we identified focus areas that balance environmental, economic, and social aspects to position Europe\u0026rsquo;s seaweed industry as a \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003erole model of\u003c/span\u003e a sustainable blue economy.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodological approach","content":"\u003cp\u003eTools that can assess sustainable practices fall into six categories (De Ridder, Turnpenny, Nilsson, \u0026amp; Von Raggamby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e): (a) participatory tools, (b) scenario analysis tools, (c) multi-criteria analysis tools, (d) cost-benefit analyses, (e) accounting tools, physical analysis tools, and indicator sets, and (f) model tools. Tools (a) and (b) form the foundation on which tools (c)-(f) can be followed for more detailed assessments (De Ridder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eParticipatory tools\u003c/b\u003e involve stakeholders to articulate opportunities and challenges for sustainable development. We conducted 9 semi-structured interviews with industry representatives from Norway (N1-N5) and Portugal (P1-P4) in their native languages (guide in File A.1, and registrations in File A.2 and File A.3) via Teams, transcribed and translated them into English, and analyzed them with the RQDA R package (Huang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eBackcasting\u003c/b\u003e differs from other \u003cb\u003escenario analysis tools\u003c/b\u003e by starting with a vision of an ideal future instead of the present limitations (Bishop, Hines, \u0026amp; Collins, 2007). We implemented backcasting to draft a roadmap that bridges the gap between the ideal future by 2050 and the current state. In this process, we applied the \"four-arrow model\" template presented by Okada et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) in 4 stages: 1) preparation, 2) development of a sustainable vision, 3) development of pathways to reach that vision, and 4) post-workshop analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1) Preparation: We invited 14 stakeholders from Norway and Portugal (8 men, 6 women; 9 from the natural sciences, 2 from the social sciences; 3 industry practitioners) to a three-day workshop at Nord University in 2022. The stakeholders represented the northern and southern limits of a variety of seaweed species, and seaweed farming practices (Ara\u0026uacute;jo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), and a variety of expertise areas within the the United Nations's sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the \"Wheel of Sustainability\" (WOS). The WOS incorporates four dimensions: environment, economics, governance, and culture (Osmundsen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) (Fig. A.1), and was adapted from the salmon industry for seaweed farming by Godal et al. (2020) to align with the ASC-MSC Seaweed Standard (Aquaculture Stewardship Council and Marine Stewardship Council, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2) Development of a sustainable vision: we constructed a \"futures wheel\" (Glenn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) by brainstorming consequences, impacts, possibilities, and expectations related to an ideal future state of the seaweed industry. The individual ideas were then organized together in a group discussion (Fig A.2), and transferred to the right-hand side (future state) of the 'four-arrow' backcasting template (Okada et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) (Fig A.3).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3) Development of pathways to reach that vision: We first evaluated the current state of the seaweed industry with a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) (Fig A.4), and transferred these to the left-hand side (current state) of the four-arrow backcasting template (Fig A.3). The workshop participants then identified the challenges and tasks to bridge the gap between the present and the envisioned future, and grouped all ideas into seven roadmap topics, which we transferred to the middle area (roadmap) of the 'four-arrow' backcasting template (Fig. A.5).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4) To distill key action points and policy recommendations, we analyzed the interview and workshop content using the R package RQDA (Huang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). We coded the material into 29 WOS categories (Table A.1), 40 roadmap categories, and 14 technology push/market pull categories (Okada et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). We assessed the importance of each WOS subsection for the sustainable development of the industry based on the frequency of mentions in the interviews and the workshop. We identified synergies across the WOS dimensions by extracting the raw text that was coded under multiple WOS dimensions, and filtering for recurring coding connections supported by \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3 raw texts. We then visualized the interactions between the SWOT elements and their relationship with the roadmap and WOS dimensions using the alluvial R package (Brunson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results and discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur approach to sustainable seaweed farming in Europe emphasized the environmental and governmental aspects as most significant (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Key subsections, such as G6 (Coordination and Collaboration of Interests and Activities) and E2 (Biotic Effects), consistently ranked among the top five (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The sustainability categories showed 33 interconnections across the WOS codes, each supported by more \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ethan 3 independent stat\u003c/span\u003eements from \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ethe workshop\u003c/span\u003e or interviews (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ea and Table A.2). Governance appeared in all 7 of the most interconnected dimensions, each with \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;10 supporting statements (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) and, was, together with the environmental focus the most important of the WOS dimensions (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eb).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrongest connections between sustainability dimensions. The number of statements (n\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;10) from the interviews and workshop that were assigned to two codings from two dimensions of the Wheel of Sustainability, as an estimator for the ability to satisfy two or more sustainability dimensions when addressing a single issue or action point (coding).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoding 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoding 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eG5 Representation and negotiation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC1 Enquiry and learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eG6 Coordination and collaboration of interests and activities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC1 Enquiry and learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eG6 Coordination and collaboration of interests and activities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEc7 Investments in technology and innovation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eG1 Accountability and enforcement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEc1 Licence and permit conditions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eG6 Coordination and collaboration of interests and activities\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEc6 Indirect effects on economic activity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEc6 Indirect effects on economic activity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eG7 Siting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eE2 Biotic effects\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eG6 Coordination and collaboration of interests and activities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eE6 Resources efficiency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Stakeholders\u0026rsquo; understanding of sustainability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile investors \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eprioritize\u003c/span\u003e profit, environmental sustainability was an important factor for the interviewed farmers (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eb). As Portuguese interviewee P1 stated: \u0026ldquo;...we don't think just about having to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible. We have to create a sustainable company that has the least possible impact\u0026rdquo;. Environmental sustainability was also identified as key driver in the development of the Scottish and Irish seaweed industries \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ewhile large-scale multi-national companies were dismissed by all stakeholders\u003c/span\u003e (Bj\u0026oslash;rkan \u0026amp; Billing, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Cerca, Sosa, \u0026amp; Murphy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, environmental sustainability appears central to European seaweed businesses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eAccordingly, the\u003c/span\u003e motivation behind starting a seaweed business often aligns with fulfilling some of the UN\u0026rsquo;s SDGs, such as SDG6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG13 (Climate Action), and SDG14 (Life below Water) (C. M. Duarte et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Gao \u0026amp; Beardall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Spillias et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, emphasis on the environmental domain may reflect market demand for sustainable products, as customers increasingly seek products with low environmental footprints (Galbreth \u0026amp; Ghosh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), and local communities are concerned about environmental impacts of seaweed aquaculture (Larsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, beliefs such as that of P1 that \u0026ldquo;algae by itself is already a super ecological resource that brings more benefits than consequences.\u0026rdquo; may limit \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003etheir\u003c/span\u003e proactive pursuit of sustainability. Moreover, generalizations such as \u0026ldquo;algae have a very positive impact on the marine ecosystem, they attract fish, they attract a lot of aquatic life\u0026rdquo; (P1) must be taken with care, as the attracted species could also be invasive species or pathogens.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity Contributions (C3) stood out as a significant theme in \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ethe\u003c/span\u003e stakeholder interviews. Norwegian interviewee N1 stated that \u0026ldquo;we want it to be a source of income for people who live along the coast\u0026hellip; we want to keep it local.\u0026rdquo; Similarly, N2 pointed out that new seaweed farming jobs could \u0026ldquo;attract young people who want to settle in the rural areas.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, stakeholders understand the link between environmental, cultural, and economic sustainability, as N3 reflected: \u0026ldquo;However, if large areas in the fjords are to be set aside for kelp cultivation, such as in China, this will mean significant encroachment on the environment, which in turn can create dissatisfaction in the local community\u0026rdquo;. Similarly, N1 points out that: \u0026ldquo;there is demand in the market for sustainability in production. This in turn has an impact on sales and price etc.\u0026rdquo; Thus, prioritizing environmental sustainability not only protects biodiversity but also facilitates economic sustainability of the seaweed industry through social acceptance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProduction costs were a significant concern for Norwegian stakeholders (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eb). N1 noted, \u0026rdquo;The cost of production is so high that the market is very small\u0026rdquo;. Similarly, N3 stated: \u0026ldquo;For us as growers, it is not profitable as of today. The cost level of equipment and labour comes into play here.\u0026rdquo; N1 stated, \u0026ldquo;Wet biomass is sold for approx. NOK 25 per kg\u0026hellip; we need to drop to NOK 15\u0026ndash;20 per kg of wet mass, in order for there to be greater demand.\u0026ldquo; In addition to lower labour costs in Portugal, Portuguese seaweed fetches higher market prices (green algae such as \u003cem\u003eUlva\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eCodium\u003c/em\u003e, averaging 0.79 USD/kg, and red algae such as \u003cem\u003ePorphyra\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eGracilaria\u003c/em\u003e priced at 0.89 and 0.54 USD/kg respectively) than Norwegian kelp (\u003cem\u003eSaccharina\u003c/em\u003e, priced at 0.37 USD/kg) (Cai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Gaspar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, Portuguese seaweed has a higher wholesale price of 1,350\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;10,090 USD per ton, making it more profitable than Norwegian seaweed, which has a price between 880 and 980 USD per ton (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.selinawamucii.com/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.selinawamucii.com/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Portugal, seaweed farmers are less aware of environmental risks: \u0026ldquo;I honestly don't see any major negative effects that this production has\u0026hellip; on the contrary, I think that the production of macroalgae, whether on land or at sea, can mitigate other environmental problems\u0026rdquo; (P3). This certainly results from the lack of research in this field, and the positive effects of small-scale farms on benthic and pelagic fauna (Visch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR110\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) as well as on ecosystem services (Hasselstr\u0026ouml;m, Visch, Gr\u0026ouml;ndahl, Nylund, \u0026amp; Pavia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Other Portuguese interviewees, such as P1, reported acts of sabotage on seaweed farms: \u0026ldquo;... fishers who depend on fishing suddenly see here algae cultivation and can see their profession put at risk and there are examples of several companies that test to produce macroalgae and then they see that the buoys were sabotaged, or the ropes were cut by fishers who felt threatened by this innovation\u0026rdquo;. These tensions highlight the need for awareness training to promote cooperation and to monitor sustainability thresholds. Since seaweed farming and fishing seasons do not overlap, they could \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eindeed\u003c/span\u003e provide full-term employment for seasonal workers, fostering synergies between industries (St-Gelais et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Seven steps in a roadmap towards a sustainable European seaweed industry\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe identified seven roadmap topics that address the gap between the current situation and the future vision for a sustainable seaweed industry (Table A.1). The roadmap steps can either be market-pulled by customer needs and regulations, or market-pushed by new technologies that are not yet in demand. Each step integrates multiple sustainability dimensions (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, and Table A.3), ensuring that the industry develops holistically, and facilitates cross-disciplinary collaboration with mutual benefits to both industry and academia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2.1. Setting boundaries for carrying capacity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first roadmap step focused on area usage, biomass production, and carbon footprint. Establishing research-based thresholds is crucial to prevent potential social and ecological consequences (Cottier-Cook et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), such as dependence on fertilizers (Fan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) or hampering \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eof\u003c/span\u003e phytoplankton production (J. Shi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Some farmers, such as N1 underestimate the impacts of upscaling: \u0026ldquo;Research results show that the environmental consequences of production are minimal, at least to the extent we have today, but we do not think that will change with increased production\u0026rdquo;. Others, such as N2 recognize: \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;we must know what we are doing before we consider scaling up production. We want to avoid \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003emaking\u003c/span\u003e the same mistakes that have been made in other types of food production, both on land and at sea, resulting in problems with large-scale monoculture farming. Everything from alien species, disease, and reduced biological diversity\u0026rdquo;. Monitoring is essential to track how close the industry moves along identified thresholds, but clear guidelines are lacking (Bārda et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Hancke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Norderhaug, Hansen, Fredriksen, Gr\u0026oslash;svik, \u0026amp; Naustvoll, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Both monitoring needs to detect 1) poorly predictable impacts (Bekkby et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and 2) targeted high-risk aspects (Campbell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Wilding et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR113\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) are met by extensively assessing the ecological state before establishing a farm\u0026ndash;ideally state-subsidized, followed with site-specific targeted monitoring at defined intervals. Environmental DNA (eDNA) monitoring (Lynn, Klanderud, Telford, Goldberg, \u0026amp; Vandvik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) could help with targeted monitoring of high-risk factors like invasive species, endangered species, and pathogens (Campbell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Collaboration among biologists, entrepreneurs, and data scientists is needed to develop standard monitoring programs. Mitigation strategies, such as moving large-scale farms offshore and sourcing reproductive material only locally, can reduce risks, like farm shading, competition for space, and genetic homogenization. By selecting at least 100 parent seaweeds, farms can preserve genetic diversity (Shan, Pang, Li, \u0026amp; Gao, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, mitigation strategies can render monitoring of these particular risks redundant (Campbell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Defined thresholds and consideration of unknown consequences must influence seaweed aquaculture growth and expansion when compromising sustainable value creation (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2.2. Increasing social acceptance through research-backed education\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoadmap step 2 focuses on awareness and addressing misinformation about the value and risks of seaweed farming through transparency. As consumer demand for environmentally and socially sustainable products grows (Galbreth \u0026amp; Ghosh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), large-scale farming is not readily accepted in coastal communities (Billing et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Cottier-Cook et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Accordingly our SWOT analysis revealed 21 Threats and 4 Weaknesses spanning across at least 2 sustainability dimensions related to the uncertain environmental impact (Table A.4). Global G.A.P. certification can enhance trust between farmers and communities Billing et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and, thus, prevent not-in-my-backyard issues. The impact of larger farms and food security risks must be communicated honestly, and contextualized with less sustainable alternative solutions, such as soy as a vegetarian protein source. Education plays a key role in increasing social approval (Campbell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Cottier-Cook et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), extending beyond mere operational acceptance to promoting seaweed products. Lifelong learning, cooking, medical, and cosmetics seminars, and school projects can integrate seaweed into European culture, improving long-term social acceptance (Cornish, Critchley, \u0026amp; Mouritsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2.3. Building industry synergies and collaborating across disciplines\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoadmap step 3 focuses on establishing synergistic connections. The European seaweed industry should seize shared resources and infrastructure with established industries to establish regional industrial symbiosis networks (Giannoccaro, Zaza, \u0026amp; Fraccascia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), and support a circular economy. Opportunities of the marine spatial planning approach to boost seaweed aquaculture include integrating seaweed farming with IMTA aquaculture systems, and wind farms (Buck et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Le Gouvello et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), and tourism. For example, the world\u0026rsquo;s largest IMTA system in Sanggou Bay, China (Fang, Zhang, Xiao, Huang, \u0026amp; Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), exhibited 67% greater benefits than kelp monoculture, and 92% greater economic benefits than scallop monoculture (H. Shi, Zheng, Zhang, Zhu, \u0026amp; Ding, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Offshore seaweed farms could co-use the infrastructure of wind energy parks and, in turn, attract fish to those parks. Furthermore, developing mobile and lightweight gear can provide yearly employment to seasonal workers in the fishing and aquaculture industries (St-Gelais et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Excess industrial heat could fuel seaweed drying. A largely unexplored potential that corresponds with the strategic guidelines for integrating suitable aquaculture activities into protected areas for the sustainable development of the EU aquaculture (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) lies in combining farming with restoration. Here, \u003cem\u003eS. latissima\u003c/em\u003e hatcheries and farms could provide refugia for these endangered habitat types (Gundersen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018a\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003eb\u003c/span\u003e), facilitating large-scale seeding on rocks or biodegradable culturing ropes (Filbee-Dexter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Collaboration between producers and researchers will advance sustainable growth through innovation and improved decision-making (I\u0026ntilde;igo \u0026amp; Albareda, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Mezirow, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), fostering multinational partnerships across Europe.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2.4. Establishing industry-specific regulations that protect diversity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoadmap step 4 focuses on tailoring regulations to the seaweed industry. \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eRigidly applying\u003c/span\u003e finfish aquaculture regulations to seaweed cultivation has hindered the growth of the seaweed market. Legislations supporting the seaweed industry must focus on diversity at the genetic, species, regional, and stakeholder levels. Low genetic diversity has hampered the production of Asian kelp cultures, as in the case of \u003cem\u003eUndaria pinnatifida\u003c/em\u003e (Shan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Maintaining \u003cb\u003egenetic diversity\u003c/b\u003e requires strategies like 1) preventing interbreeding between farmed and wild seaweeds, 2) sourcing spores locally, and 3) storing local and national genetic variants as seed banks (Hu et al., 2024). Although initiatives in this direction have begun, they \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003erequire\u003c/span\u003e global coordination (Wade et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR112\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). \u003cb\u003eSpecies diversity\u003c/b\u003e refers to the ability to adjust regulations to the different taxa cultivated, and the need to link historically eaten seaweeds to their current names to ensure that they are still recognized as edible. Food safety should focus on contaminants, such as heavy metals, prometryn, and radionuclide substances (B. Duarte et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Mendes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Yoshida \u0026amp; Kanda, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR116\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) rather than taxonomic names. \u003cb\u003eRegional diversity\u003c/b\u003e labels should track seaweed origin, preventing cheaper imports from diminishing local production. For example, prohibiting drying seaweed outdoors in Norway but not in Asia raises the costs of European biomass beyond the import price. \u003cb\u003eStakeholder diversity\u003c/b\u003e facilitates coastal small-scale family businesses to co-exist with larger offshore farms around wind parks. This further balances the use of coastal marine space with existing industries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2.5. Conducting research to document impact and facilitate innovation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoadmap step 5 emphasizes research to assess environmental impacts, map genetic connectivity, advance seaweed biotechnology and ecosystem services. Asia\u0026rsquo;s long history of seaweed farming offers a unique opportunity to identify the ecological effects of large-scale cultivation (Hu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Hurtado, Neish, \u0026amp; Critchley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and how farmed cultivars interact with wild populations (Graf et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Z. Hu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR117\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Research at the crossroads of technology and biology can instrumentalize labour-intensive tasks, such as deployment and harvesting (Campbell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Feehan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Solvang, Bale, Broch, Hand\u0026aring;, \u0026amp; Alver, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, technological innovations, like AI-based video monitoring can benefit not only the European seaweed industry but also global partnerships. Biotechnology research has the potential to secure production in the context of unpredictable environmental challenges, such as the 2021\u0026ndash;2022 red tide that diminished the kelp harvest in Rongcheng, Shandong (China) (Li, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Breeding fast-growing or pathogen-resistant strains benefits both farming and restoration, and if sterile, does not risk admixture with wild populations but often requires replenishing genetic variation to prevent productivity from decreasing (Z. Hu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Z.-M. Hu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Shan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, modern approaches, like microbiome engineering, and priming-induced epigenetic programming (Z.-M. Hu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Jueterbock et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), which already strengthen crop plants (Afridi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Hilker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Morales Moreira, Chen, Yanez Ortuno, \u0026amp; Haney, 2023; Pawar \u0026amp; Laware, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Wojtyla, Lechowska, Kubala, \u0026amp; Garnczarska, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR114\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), must be adapted to algae aquaculture systems (Jueterbock et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). At the same time, characterizing pathogens and diseases, and understanding how seaweeds defends themselves against these diseases are key to farm production in the future.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2.6. Valorizing ecosystem services\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoadmap step 6 revolves around retaining the value of coastal regions through localized licensing, and solutions for the economic sustainability of smaller family businesses. Seaweed farming contributes to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (C. M. Duarte et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Hasselstr\u0026ouml;m et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), including SDG2 (Zero Hunger), and SDG3 (Good Health and Well-being), by addressing nutritional deficiencies in modern-day human diets (Holdt, Kraan, \u0026amp; Kraan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, seaweed farms provide ecosystem services that add to the total economic value (United Nations Environment Programme, Djampou, \u0026amp; Norwegian Blue Forests Network, 2023), as they can bioremediate waste water, enhance biodiversity and health of marine environments (Beheshti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Chris Williams et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Forbes, Shelamoff, Visch, Layton, \u0026amp; Forbes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Theuerkauf et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), and provide biological pest control through oxygenation and biocidal properties (Echave et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; T\u0026acirc;nia F. L. Vicente, Carina F\u0026eacute;lix, Rafael F\u0026eacute;lix, P. Valent\u0026atilde;o, \u0026amp; M. Lemos, 2022; Vicente et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Valued at 65,000 Euros/ha/yr (Eger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), the bioremediation potential of 35.7\u0026nbsp;billion tons of global seaweed production (FAO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) represents 26% of its commercial value (1.2\u0026ndash;3.5\u0026nbsp;billion USD) (Chopin \u0026amp; Tacon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003epromoting\u003c/span\u003e seaweed farming as a significant carbon storage solution is misleading. For example, stakeholder P1 mentioned \u0026ldquo;In addition to selling algae, one of our main goals is the absorption of carbon dioxide from the environment...\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;Algae absorb 3 to 10 times more carbon dioxide from the environment than terrestrial plants. Therefore, these services alone I think are going to be a booster of the seaweed industry\u0026rdquo;. For seaweed biomass to effectively store carbon for more than 50 years, it must sink to the deep sea, which is neither ecologically nor economically sustainable (Chopin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Even if all currently farmed algae sink \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eto\u003c/span\u003e the deep sea, they would sequester only 2\u0026nbsp;million \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003etons\u003c/span\u003e of CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, which is 1% of what the world\u0026rsquo;s wild kelp forests sequester (C. M. Duarte, Wu, Xiao, Bruhn, \u0026amp; Krause-Jensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), and only approximately 0.005% of the global CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e emissions in 2022 (37.8 Gt) (European Commission. Joint Research Centre., 2022). At a rate of approximately 32 Euros/ha/yr for carbon removal, carbon credits for the total global seaweed production \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eamount\u003c/span\u003e to only 26.5\u0026nbsp;million Euros (Costa-Pierce \u0026amp; Chopin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Instead, seaweed farming is better positioned as a source of carbon-neutral food production, and an alternative to synthetic soil fertilizers that emit CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e (C. M. Duarte et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Nabti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2.7. Developing a seaweed-based market\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoadmap step 7 targets developing products that resonate with European culture and society while ensuring local value creation, including advanced seeding technologies, circular economy approaches, and the marketing of ecosystem services and diverse products. Although interest in algae-based products is growing, Europe struggles to make seaweed \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003efarming\u003c/span\u003e economically viable (St\u0026eacute;vant \u0026amp; Rebours, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). A market that values the sustainable production and regional authenticity can command higher prices (Brayden, Noblet, Evans, \u0026amp; Rickard, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Dagevos \u0026amp; Van Ophem, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Van Den Burg, Dagevos, \u0026amp; Helmes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Certifications, such as protected geographical indications (PGI and PDO) and the Norwegian \u0026lsquo;SeaGreens of Norway\u0026rsquo;, and traceability systems (Duarte, Renato Mamede, I. Ca\u0026ccedil;ador, R. Melo, \u0026amp; V. Fonseca, 2023) can justify the higher price of locally produced seaweed as compared with Asian imports. Incorporating seaweed into traditional foods, such as the Dutch wheat burger, pasta, ravioli, or seaweed sausage (Van Den Burg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), can further increase demand. Trends, such as the 'New Nordic Cuisine,' emphasizing local and natural foods, and the 'superfood' trend, advocating nutrient-dense foods, can help make seaweed a regular part of European diets (Blikra et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic sustainability on the European market relies on a kg fresh weight (FW) price of approximately 1 Euro (approximately 6,700 Euros per ton dry weight (DW), assuming 15% DW), to exceed the estimated production costs that range from 1,800 to 5,200 per ton DW (DeAngelo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; LEI International Policy, Van Den Burg, Wakenge, \u0026amp; Berkhout, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; van den Burg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR107\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This requires an established market of high-value products (DeAngelo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), such as fertilizer, biostimulants, biopesticides, biochar, nutraceuticals, and pharmaceuticals (Chopin \u0026amp; Tacon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Van Den Burg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Europe can follow the lead of China, which has developed kelp-based innovative industrial clusters, such as alginates, functional food (e.g., jelly, drink, and pet food), sugar alcohol (e.g., mannitol and sorbitol), cosmetics (e.g., mask, wash, and care), medical materials (e.g., fiber and chemicals), and fertilizer. Therefore, a network of collaborators such as farmers, suppliers, universities, and customers increases the chances of innovative and successful products in the market (Baum, Calabrese, \u0026amp; Silverman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Faems \u0026amp; Looy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe European seaweed industry has \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ethe\u003c/span\u003e unique opportunity to distinguish itself as an industry that prioritizes sustainability alongside economic growth. The European Commission supports sustainable growth in seaweed farming through funding opportunities in the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) and Horizon Europe for algae-related research and innovation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsights from the Norwegian and Portuguese industries, representing the latitudinal extremes of the European seaweed industry, show contrasting yet complementary strengths and strategies. While personal \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ecommunication\u003c/span\u003e with a broader range of stakeholders aligned with these insights, expanding our research through questionnaires would allow us to direct research partnerships based on how sustainable practices and visions vary across Europe.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur roadmap offers a pathway for researchers, policymakers, communities, and industry stakeholders as Phase III to implement sustainable practices in the European seaweed industry (De Ridder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). To reach Phase IV, which assesses the effectiveness of these actions, we must now implement the proposed roadmap steps that require trust and understanding across disciplines to foster innovation through collaboration among researchers, governments, and businesses. Future research should evaluate how well the roadmap supports sustainable seaweed production by balancing the environmental, economic, and social factors. Long-term studies are necessary to assess the real-world impacts of these sustainable practices.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eASC: Aquaculture Stewardship Council\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDNA: Desoxyribonucleic acid\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDW: Dry Weight\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eeDNA: environmental DNA\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFW: Fresh Weight\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eG.A.P: Good Agricultural Practices\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIMTA: Integrated Multi Trophic Aquaculture\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMSC: Marine Stewardship Council\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSDG: Sustainable Development Goal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSWOT: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUN: United Nations\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWOS: Wheel of Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe acknowledge Grete Thuv Tj\u0026oslash;nndal and Miguel Fernandes for conducting the interviews with stakeholders of the seaweed industry in Norway and Portugal, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the Fund for Bilateral Relations Open Call#1 EEA Financial Mechanism 2014-2021 - iSea project (FBR_OC1_98), and by Nord University (Economic Research ). We further acknowledge support from FCT-Funda\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o para a Ci\u0026ecirc;ncia e a Tecnologia to MARE (http://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/04292/2020 and http://doi.org/10.54499/UIDP/04292/2020) and ARNET (http://doi.org/10.54499/LA/P/0069/2020). The funders were not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, in the writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAJ and BD conceptualized the project, secured funding, and oversaw its execution. Both developed methodologies and managed resources, with significant contributions from HH-H and KW in data curation, methodology refinement, and validation. AJ additionally took the lead in formal analysis and visualization, shaping the project\u0026apos;s scientific direction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe development of the roadmap was a team effort, with AC, AE, AK, AM, AMLN, CB,\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eCG, GH, HM, \u0026nbsp;HR, LO, RM, and RR, all contributing significantly with their knowledge and ideas. RM additionally contributed to refining the methodology and managing resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe manuscript, initially drafted by AJ, was shaped by the critical review and editing of AE, BD, CB, DLD, HR, HH-H, JZ, KW, PK, RM, RR, and ZMH. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;The authors declare no competing interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files, with the exception of raw interview transcripts and complete workshop discussion texts. These contain personal information and were excluded to protect the privacy and anonymity of the participants.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAfridi, M. S., Javed, M. A., Ali, S., De Medeiros, F. H. V., Ali, B., Salam, A., \u0026hellip; Santoyo, G. (2022). New opportunities in plant microbiome engineering for increasing agricultural sustainability under stressful conditions. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Plant Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e, 899464. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.899464\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAquaculture Stewardship Council and Marine Stewardship Council. (2018). \u003cem\u003eASC-MSC Seaweed ( Algae ) Standard\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAra\u0026uacute;jo, R., V\u0026aacute;zquez Calder\u0026oacute;n, F., S\u0026aacute;nchez L\u0026oacute;pez, J., Azevedo, I. C., Bruhn, A., Fluch, S., \u0026hellip; Ullmann, J. (2021). Current Status of the Algae Production Industry in Europe: An Emerging Sector of the Blue Bioeconomy. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Marine Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(January), 1\u0026ndash;24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.626389\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBagheri, A., \u0026amp; Hjorth, P. (2007). Planning for sustainable development: A paradigm shift towards a process‐based approach. \u003cem\u003eSustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(2), 83\u0026ndash;96. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.310\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBārda, I., Ikauniece, A., Armo\u0026scaron;kaite, A., Arvaniti, E., Barboza, F. R., J\u0026uuml;terbock, A., \u0026hellip; others. (2022). \u003cem\u003eEnsuring environmental safety\u0026ndash;necessary monitoring practices for seaweed cultivation and harvesting in the Baltic Sea\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T., \u0026amp; Silverman, B. S. (2000). Don\u0026rsquo;t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups\u0026rsquo; performance in Canadian biotechnology. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(3), 267\u0026ndash;294. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3\u0026lt;267::AID-SMJ89\u0026gt;3.0.CO;2-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeheshti, K., Williams, S. L., Katharyn E. Boyer, Boyer, K. E., Endris, C., Annakate Clemons, \u0026hellip; Hughes, B. B. (2021). Rapid enhancement of multiple ecosystem services following the restoration of a coastal foundation species. \u003cem\u003eEcological Applications\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2466\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBekkby, T., Ryther, R., Torstensen, G., Andreas, L., Gr\u0026uuml;nfeld, H., Gundersen, H., \u0026hellip; Hancke, K. (2023). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo; Hanging gardens \u0026rsquo;\u0026mdash;Comparing fauna communities in kelp farms and wild kelp forests\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003e2010\u003c/em\u003e(February), 1\u0026ndash;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1066101\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBhuyan, S. (2023). Ecological risks associated with seaweed cultivation and identifying risk minimization approaches. \u003cem\u003eAlgal Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e69\u003c/em\u003e(July 2022), 102967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2022.102967\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBilling, S.-L., Rostan, J., Tett, P., \u0026amp; Macleod, A. (2021). Is social license to operate relevant for seaweed cultivation in Europe? \u003cem\u003eAquaculture\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e534\u003c/em\u003e, 736203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736203\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBishop, P., Hines, A., \u0026amp; Collins, T. (2007). \u003cem\u003eThe current state of scenario development: An overview of techniques\u003c/em\u003e. (February). https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680710727516\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBj\u0026oslash;rkan, M., \u0026amp; Billing, S.-L. (2022). Commercial Seaweed Cultivation in Scotland and the Social Pillar of Sustainability: A Q-Method Approach to Characterizing Key Stakeholder Perspectives. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e, 795024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.795024\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlikra, M. J., Altintzoglou, T., L\u0026oslash;vdal, T., Rogns\u0026aring;, G., Skipnes, D., Sk\u0026aring;ra, T., \u0026hellip; Noriega Fern\u0026aacute;ndez, E. (2021). Seaweed products for the future: Using current tools to develop a sustainable food industry. \u003cem\u003eTrends in Food Science \u0026amp; Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e118\u003c/em\u003e, 765\u0026ndash;776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.11.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrayden, W. C., Noblet, C. L., Evans, K. S., \u0026amp; Rickard, L. (2018). Consumer preferences for seafood attributes of wild-harvested and farm-raised products. \u003cem\u003eAquaculture Economics \u0026amp; Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(3), 362\u0026ndash;382. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2018.1449270\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrunson, J. (2020). ggalluvial: Layered Grammar for Alluvial Plots. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Open Source Software\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(49), 2017. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuck, B. H., Troell, M. F., Krause, G., Angel, D. L., Grote, B., \u0026amp; Chopin, T. (2018). State of the Art and Challenges for Offshore Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA). \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Marine Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e, 165. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00165\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCai, J. (2021). \u003cem\u003eSeaweeds and microalgae: An overview for unlocking their potential in global aquaculture development\u003c/em\u003e. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5670en\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampbell, I., Macleod, A., Sahlmann, C., Neves, L., Funderud, J., \u0026Oslash;verland, M., \u0026hellip; Stanley, M. (2019). The environmental risks associated with the development of seaweed farming in Europe\u0026mdash;Prioritizing key knowledge gaps. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Marine Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(MAR). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00107\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCerca, M., Sosa, A., \u0026amp; Murphy, F. (2023). Responsible supply systems for macroalgae: Upscaling seaweed cultivation in Ireland. \u003cem\u003eAquaculture\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e563\u003c/em\u003e, 738996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738996\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChopin, T., Costa-Pierce, B. A., Troell, M., Hurd, C. L., Costello, M. J., Backman, S., \u0026hellip; Yarish, C. (2024). Deep-ocean seaweed dumping for carbon sequestration: Questionable, risky, and not the best use of valuable biomass. \u003cem\u003eOne Earth\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(3), 359\u0026ndash;364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.01.013\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChopin, T., \u0026amp; Tacon, A. G. J. (2021). Importance of Seaweeds and Extractive Species in Global Aquaculture Production. \u003cem\u003eReviews in Fisheries Science \u0026amp; Aquaculture\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(2), 139\u0026ndash;148. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2020.1810626\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChris Williams, Sian Rees, Emma V. Sheehan, Matthew Ashley, William D. Davies, \u0026amp; William Davies. (2022). Rewilding the Sea? A Rapid, Low Cost Model for Valuing the Ecosystem Service Benefits of Kelp Forest Recovery Based on Existing Valuations and Benefit Transfers. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Ecology and Evolution\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.642775\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCornish, M. L., Critchley, A. T., \u0026amp; Mouritsen, O. G. (2017). Consumption of seaweeds and the human brain. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Phycology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(5), 2377\u0026ndash;2398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-016-1049-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCosta-Pierce, B. A., \u0026amp; Chopin, T. (2021). The Hype, Fantasies and Realities of Aquaculture Development Globally and In Its New Geographies. \u003cem\u003eWorld Aquaculture\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCottier-Cook, E. J., Nagabhatla, N., Asri, A., Beveridge, M., Bianchi, P., Bolton, J., \u0026hellip; others. (2021). \u003cem\u003eEnsuring the sustainable future of the rapidly expanding global seaweed aquaculture industry\u0026mdash;A vision\u003c/em\u003e. UNU Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCottier-Cook, E. J., Nagabhatla, N., Badis, Y., Campbell, M. L., Chopin, T., Fang, J., \u0026hellip; Jiang, Z. (2016). Safeguarding the future of the global seaweed aquaculture industry. United Nations University and Scottish Association for Marine Science Policy Brief. \u003cem\u003eUnited Nations University (INWEH) and Scottish Association for Marine Science\u003c/em\u003e, 12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDagevos, H., \u0026amp; Van Ophem, J. (2013). Food consumption value: Developing a consumer-centred concept of value in the field of food. \u003cem\u003eBritish Food Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e115\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1473\u0026ndash;1486. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2011-0166\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavis, A., \u0026amp; Sharp, J. (2020). Rethinking One Health: Emergent human, animal and environmental assemblages. \u003cem\u003eSocial Science \u0026amp; Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e258\u003c/em\u003e, 113093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113093\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Ridder, W., Turnpenny, J., Nilsson, M., \u0026amp; Von Raggamby, A. (2007). A framework for tool selection and use in integrated assessment for sustainable development. \u003cem\u003eTools, Techniques and Approaches for Sustainability: Collected Writings in Environmental Assessment Policy and Management\u003c/em\u003e, 125\u0026ndash;144. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814289696_0007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeAngelo, J., Saenz, B. T., Arzeno-Soltero, I. B., Frieder, C. A., Long, M. C., Hamman, J., \u0026hellip; Davis, S. J. (2022). Economic and biophysical limits to seaweed farming for climate change mitigation. \u003cem\u003eNature Plants\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 45\u0026ndash;57. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-022-01305-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDNV. (2021). \u003cem\u003eOCEANS\u0026rsquo; FUTURE TO 2050: MARINE AQUACULTURE FORECAST\u003c/em\u003e. DNV Group Research and Development. Retrieved from https://www.dnv.com/focus-areas/offshore-aquaculture/marine-aquaculture-forecast/#:~:text=Marine%20aquaculture%20will%20more%20than,weight%20to%2074%20Mt%2Fyr.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuarte, B., Carreiras, J. M. B., Feij\u0026atilde;o, E., Reis-Santos, P., Ca\u0026ccedil;ador, I., Matos, A. R., \u0026hellip; Fonseca, V. F. (2021). Fatty acid profiles of estuarine macroalgae are biomarkers of anthropogenic pressures: Development and application of a multivariate pressure index. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e788\u003c/em\u003e, 147817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147817\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuarte, C. M., Bruhn, A., \u0026amp; Krause-Jensen, D. (2021). A seaweed aquaculture imperative to meet global sustainability targets. \u003cem\u003eNature Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00773-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuarte, C. M., Wu, J., Xiao, X., Bruhn, A., \u0026amp; Krause-Jensen, D. (2017). Can seaweed farming play a role in climate change mitigation and adaptation? \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Marine Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(APR). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00100\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuarte, Renato Mamede, I. Ca\u0026ccedil;ador, R. Melo, \u0026amp; V. Fonseca. (2023). Trust your seaweeds: Fine-scale multi-elemental traceability of edible seaweed species harvested within an estuarine system. \u003cem\u003eAlgal Research\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2023.102975\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEchave, J., Otero, P., Oliveira, P. G., Garcia-Oliveira, P., Munekata, P. E. S., Pateiro, M., \u0026hellip; Miguel A. Prieto. (2022). Seaweed-Derived Proteins and Peptides: Promising Marine Bioactives. \u003cem\u003eAntioxidants\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11010176\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEger, A., Marzinelli, E., Baes, R., Blain, C., Blamey, L., Carnell, P., \u0026hellip; Verges, A. (2021). The economic value of fisheries, blue carbon, and nutrient cycling in global marine forests. \u003cem\u003eEcoEvoRxiv\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.32942/osf.io/n7kjs\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEuropean Commission. (2021). \u003cem\u003eCommunication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A230%3AFIN\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEuropean Commission. (2022). \u003cem\u003eThe EU blue economy report 2022\u003c/em\u003e. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/doi/10.2771/793264\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEuropean Commission. Joint Research Centre. (2022). \u003cem\u003eCO2 emissions of all world countries :JRC/IEA/PBL 2022 report.\u003c/em\u003e LU: Publications Office. Retrieved from https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/730164\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eExecutive Agency for Small and Medium sized Enterprises., Technopolis Group., \u0026amp; Wageningen Research. (2020). \u003cem\u003eBlue Bioeconomy Forum: Roadmap for the blue bioeconomy.\u003c/em\u003e LU: Publications Office. Retrieved from https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/605949\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFaems, D., \u0026amp; Looy, B. (2005). Interorganizational Collaboration and Innovation: Toward a Portfolio Approach*. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Product Innovation Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e, 238\u0026ndash;250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00120.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFan, W., Ruolan, Z., Yao, Z., Xiao, C., Pan, Y., Chen, Y., \u0026hellip; Zhang, Y. (2019). Nutrient Removal from Chinese Coastal Waters by Large-Scale Seaweed Aquaculture Using Artificial Upwelling. \u003cem\u003eWater\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1754. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11091754\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFang, J., Zhang, J., Xiao, T., Huang, D., \u0026amp; Liu, S. (2016). Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in Sanggou Bay, China. \u003cem\u003eAquaculture Environment Interactions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e, 201\u0026ndash;205.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO. (2021). \u003cem\u003eFAO Aquaculture News, May 2021\u0026mdash;No. 63\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeehan, C. J. (2023). \u003cem\u003eSeaweed Farming: Assessment on the Potential of Sustainable Upscaling for Climate, Communities and the Planet.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFilbee-Dexter, K., Wernberg, T., Barreiro, R., Coleman, M. A., de Bettignies, T., Feehan, C. J., \u0026hellip; Verbeek, J. (2022). Leveraging the blue economy to transform marine forest restoration. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Phycology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e(2), 198\u0026ndash;207. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13239\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eForbes, H., Shelamoff, V., Visch, W., Layton, C., \u0026amp; Forbes, H. (2022). Farms and forests: Evaluating the biodiversity benefits of kelp aquaculture. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Phycology\u003c/em\u003e, (0123456789). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-022-02822-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFortune Business Insights. (2021). \u003cem\u003eMarket Research Report\u003c/em\u003e (No. FBI100077). Retrieved from The global commercial seaweed market is projected to grow from $15.01 billion in 2021 to $24.92 billion in 2028 at a CAGR of 7.51% during forecast period... Read More at:- https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/commercial-seaweed-market-100077\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGalbreth, M. R., \u0026amp; Ghosh, B. (2013). Competition and Sustainability: The Impact of Consumer Awareness: Competition and Sustainability. \u003cem\u003eDecision Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(1), 127\u0026ndash;159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2012.00395.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGao, K., \u0026amp; Beardall, J. (2022). Using macroalgae to address UN Sustainable Development goals through CO 2 remediation and improvement of the aquaculture environment. \u003cem\u003eApplied Phycology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e00\u003c/em\u003e(00), 1\u0026ndash;8. https://doi.org/10.1080/26388081.2022.2025617\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaspar, R., Pereira, L., \u0026amp; Sousa-Pinto, I. (2019). The seaweed resources of Portugal. \u003cem\u003eBotanica Marina\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e(5), 499\u0026ndash;525. https://doi.org/10.1515/bot-2019-0012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiannoccaro, I., Zaza, V., \u0026amp; Fraccascia, L. (2023). Designing regional industrial symbiosis networks: The case of Apulia region. \u003cem\u003eSustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1475\u0026ndash;1514. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2462\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGimpel, A., Stelzenm\u0026uuml;ller, V., Grote, B., Buck, B. H., Floeter, J., N\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;ez-Riboni, I., \u0026hellip; Temming, A. (2015). A GIS modelling framework to evaluate marine spatial planning scenarios: Co-location of offshore wind farms and aquaculture in the German EEZ. \u003cem\u003eMarine Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e, 102\u0026ndash;115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlenn, J. C. (2009). \u003cem\u003eThe Futures Wheel\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGodal, M. S. (2020). \u003cem\u003eOperationalisation of sustainability of the Norwegian macroalgae aquaculture industry\u003c/em\u003e. (July).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGraf, L., Shin, Y., Yang, J. H., Choi, J. W., Hwang, I. K., Nelson, W., \u0026hellip; Yoon, H. S. (2021). A genome-wide investigation of the effect of farming and human-mediated introduction on the ubiquitous seaweed Undaria pinnatifida. \u003cem\u003eNature Ecology \u0026amp; Evolution\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(3), 360\u0026ndash;368. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01378-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrebe, G. S., Byron, C. J., Gelais, A. S., Kotowicz, D. M., \u0026amp; Olson, T. K. (2019). An ecosystem approach to kelp aquaculture in the Americas and Europe. \u003cem\u003eAquaculture Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(January), 100215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2019.100215\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGundersen, H., Bekkby, T., Norderhaug, K. M., Oug, E., Rinde, E., \u0026amp; Fredriksen, S. (2018a). Sukkertareskog i Nordsj\u0026oslash;en og Skagerrak, Marint gruntvann. Retrieved from https://artsdatabanken.no/RLN2018/342\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGundersen, H., Bekkby, T., Norderhaug, K. M., Oug, E., Rinde, E., \u0026amp; Fredriksen, S. (2018b). Sukkertareskog i Norskehavet og Barentshavet, Marint gruntvann. Norsk r\u0026oslash;dliste for naturtyper 2018. Retrieved from https://artsdatabanken.no/RLN2018/342\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHancke, K., Broch, O. J., Olsen, Y., Bekkby, T., Hansen, P. K., Fieler, R., \u0026hellip; Christie, H. (2021). \u003cem\u003eMilj\u0026oslash;p\u0026aring;virkninger av taredyrking og forslag til utvikling av overv\u0026aring;kingsprogram\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHardi, P., \u0026amp; Zdan, T. J. (1997). \u003cem\u003eAssessing sustainable development: Principles in practice\u003c/em\u003e. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHasselstr\u0026ouml;m, L., Visch, W., Gr\u0026ouml;ndahl, F., Nylund, G. M., \u0026amp; Pavia, H. (2018). The impact of seaweed cultivation on ecosystem services\u0026mdash;A case study from the west coast of Sweden. \u003cem\u003eMarine Pollution Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e133\u003c/em\u003e(May), 53\u0026ndash;64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHavforskningsinstituttet. (2016). Havforskningsrapporten 2016. \u003cem\u003eFisken Og Havet\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/08020620\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHilker, M., Schwachtje, J., Baier, M., Balazadeh, S., B\u0026auml;urle, I., Geiselhardt, S., \u0026hellip; Kopka, J. (2016). Priming and memory of stress responses in organisms lacking a nervous system. \u003cem\u003eBiological Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e91\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1118\u0026ndash;1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12215\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoldt, S. L., Kraan, S., \u0026amp; Kraan, S. (2011). Bioactive compounds in seaweed: Functional food applications and legislation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Phycology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(3), 543\u0026ndash;597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-010-9632-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHossain, M. S., Sharifuzzaman, S. M., Nobi, M. N., Chowdhury, M. S. N., Sarker, S., Alamgir, M., \u0026hellip; Chowdhury, S. (2021). Seaweeds farming for sustainable development goals and blue economy in Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eMarine Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e128\u003c/em\u003e(August 2020), 104469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104469\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu, Z., Shan, T., Zhang, J., Zhang, Q., Critchley, A. T., Choi, H., \u0026hellip; Duan, D. (2021). Kelp aquaculture in China: A retrospective and future prospects. \u003cem\u003eReviews in Aquaculture\u003c/em\u003e, (February). https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12524\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu, Z.-M., Shan, T., Quan‐Sheng Zhang, Fu‐Li Liu, Alexander Jueterbock, Gaoge Wang, \u0026hellip; Nai‐Hao Ye. (2023). Kelp breeding in China: Challenges and opportunities for solutions. \u003cem\u003eReviews in Aquaculture\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12871\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuang, R. (2016). \u003cem\u003eRQDA: R-based Qualitative Data Analysis. R package version 0.2-8.\u003c/em\u003e Retrieved from http://rqda.r-forge.r-project.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHurtado, A. Q., Neish, I. C., \u0026amp; Critchley, A. T. (2019). Phyconomy: The extensive cultivation of seaweeds, their sustainability and economic value, with particular reference to important lessons to be learned and transferred from the practice of eucheumatoid farming. \u003cem\u003ePhycologia\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e(5), 472\u0026ndash;483. https://doi.org/10.1080/00318884.2019.1625632\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eI\u0026ntilde;igo, E. A., \u0026amp; Albareda, L. (2016). Understanding sustainable innovation as a complex adaptive system: A systemic approach to the firm. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e126\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.036\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJueterbock, A., Minne, A. J. P., Cock, J. M., Coleman, M. A., Wernberg, T., Scheschonk, L., \u0026hellip; Hu, Z.-M. (2021). Priming of Marine Macrophytes for Enhanced Restoration Success and Food Security in Future Oceans. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Marine Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(March), 279. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.658485\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, J. K., Yarish, C., Hwang, E. K., Park, M., \u0026amp; Kim, Y. (2017). Seaweed aquaculture: Cultivation technologies, challenges and its ecosystem services. \u003cem\u003eAlgae\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;13. https://doi.org/10.4490/algae.2017.32.3.3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrause, G., Brugere, C., Diedrich, A., Ebeling, M. W., Ferse, S. C. A., Mikkelsen, E., \u0026hellip; Troell, M. (2015). A revolution without people? Closing the people\u0026ndash;policy gap in aquaculture development. \u003cem\u003eAquaculture\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e447\u003c/em\u003e, 44\u0026ndash;55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.02.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKtari, L., Chebil Ajjabi, L., De Clerck, O., G\u0026oacute;mez Pinchetti, J. L., \u0026amp; Rebours, C. (2022). Seaweeds as a promising resource for blue economy development in Tunisia: Current state, opportunities, and challenges. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Phycology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 489\u0026ndash;505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-021-02579-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLarsen, I. (2022, June 7). 40 innsigelser mot tablering av algeanlegg. \u003cem\u003eLokalavisa\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLe Gouvello, R., Hochart, L.-E., Laffoley, D., Simard, F., Andrade, C., Angel, D., \u0026hellip; Marino, G. (2017). Aquaculture and marine protected areas: Potential opportunities and synergies. \u003cem\u003eAquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e, 138\u0026ndash;150. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2821\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLEI International Policy, Van Den Burg, S., Wakenge, C., \u0026amp; Berkhout, P. (2019). \u003cem\u003eEconomic prospects for large-scale seaweed cultivation in the North Sea\u003c/em\u003e. Wageningen: Wageningen Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.18174/470257\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, X. (2023). Comprehensive Analysis of Large-Scale \u003cem\u003eSaccharina japonica\u003c/em\u003e Damage in the Principal Farming Area of Rongcheng in Shandong Province from 2021 to 2022. Retrieved September 17, 2023, from https://www.nkdb.net/EN/10.13304/j.nykjdb.2022.0728\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLynn, J. S., Klanderud, K., Telford, R. J., Goldberg, D. E., \u0026amp; Vandvik, V. (2021). Macroecological context predicts species\u0026rsquo; responses to climate warming. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Change Biology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(10), 2088\u0026ndash;2101. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15532\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMendes, M., Navalho, S., Ferreira, A., Paulino, C., Figueiredo, D., Silva, D., \u0026hellip; Speranza, L. (2022). Algae as Food in Europe: An Overview of Species Diversity and Their Application. \u003cem\u003eFoods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(13), 1871. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11131871\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMezirow, J. (2000). \u003cem\u003eLearning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series\u003c/em\u003e. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome Way, San Francisco, CA 94104.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorales Moreira, Z. P., Chen, M. Y., Yanez Ortuno, D. L., \u0026amp; Haney, C. H. (2023). Engineering plant microbiomes by integrating eco-evolutionary principles into current strategies. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Opinion in Plant Biology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e71\u003c/em\u003e, 102316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2022.102316\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNabti, E., Bhavanath Jha, Jha, B., Hartmann, A., A. Hartmann, \u0026amp; Hartmann, A. (2017). Impact of seaweeds on agricultural crop production as biofertilizer. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Science and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1119\u0026ndash;1134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-016-1202-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNilsson, J., \u0026amp; Bergstr\u0026ouml;m, S. (1995). Indicators for the assessment of ecological and economic consequences of municipal policies for resource use. \u003cem\u003eEcological Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 175\u0026ndash;184. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(95)00013-Y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNonaka, I., \u0026amp; Toyama, R. (2005). The theory of the knowledge-creating firm: Subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. \u003cem\u003eIndustrial and Corporate Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 419\u0026ndash;436. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth058\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorderhaug, K. M., Hansen, P. K., Fredriksen, S., Gr\u0026oslash;svik, B. E., \u0026amp; Naustvoll, J. (2021). \u003cem\u003eMilj\u0026oslash;p\u0026aring;virkning fra dyrking av makroalger\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOdoba\u0026scaron;a, R., \u0026amp; Maro\u0026scaron;ević, K. (2023). Expected contributions of the European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) to the sustainable development of the European Union. \u003cem\u003eEU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e, 593\u0026ndash;612. https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/27463\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOkada, Y., Kishita, Y., Nomaguchi, Y., Yano, T., \u0026amp; Ohtomi, K. (2022). Backcasting-Based Method for Designing Roadmaps to Achieve a Sustainable Future. \u003cem\u003eIEEE Transactions on Engineering Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e69\u003c/em\u003e(1), 168\u0026ndash;178. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.3008444\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOsmundsen, T. C., Amundsen, V. S., Alexander, K. A., Asche, F., Bailey, J., Finstad, B., \u0026hellip; Salgado, H. (2020). The operationalisation of sustainability: Sustainable aquaculture production as defined by certification schemes. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e60\u003c/em\u003e(April 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102025\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePawar, V. A., \u0026amp; Laware, S. L. (2018). Seed priming a critical review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Scientific Research in Biological Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(5), 94\u0026ndash;101. https://doi.org/10.26438/ijsrbs/v5i5.94101\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShan, T. F., Pang, S. J., Li, J., \u0026amp; Gao, S. Q. (2016). Breeding of an elite cultivar haibao no. 1 of Undaria pinnatifida (phaeophyceae) through gametophyte clone crossing and consecutive selection. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Phycology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(4), 2419\u0026ndash;2426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-015-0748-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShi, H., Zheng, W., Zhang, X., Zhu, M., \u0026amp; Ding, D. (2013). Ecological\u0026ndash;economic assessment of monoculture and integrated multi-trophic aquaculture in Sanggou Bay of China. \u003cem\u003eAquaculture\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e410\u0026ndash;411\u003c/em\u003e, 172\u0026ndash;178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.06.033\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShi, J., Hao Wei, Wei, H., Hao Wei, Liang Zhao, Zhao, L., \u0026hellip; Zhang, J. (2011). A physical\u0026ndash;biological coupled aquaculture model for a suspended aquaculture area of China. \u003cem\u003eAquaculture\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e318\u003c/em\u003e(3), 412\u0026ndash;424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.05.048\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSlotsvik, G. N., De Luigi, G., Abbas, H., Little, L., Sevaldsen, P., Barnes, R., \u0026hellip; others. (2024). \u003cem\u003eNorwegian blue forests network (NBFN)-Top ten trends from 2023\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSolvang, T., Bale, E. S., Broch, O. J., Hand\u0026aring;, A., \u0026amp; Alver, M. O. (2021). Automation Concepts for Industrial-Scale Production of Seaweed. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Marine Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e, 613093. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.613093\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpillias, S., Cottrell, R. S., Kelly, R., Brien, K. R. O., Adams, J., Bellgrove, A., \u0026hellip; Mcdonald-madden, E. (2022). Expert perceptions of seaweed farming for sustainable development. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e368\u003c/em\u003e(June), 133052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133052\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSt\u0026eacute;vant, P., \u0026amp; Rebours, C. (2021). Landing facilities for processing of cultivated seaweed biomass: A Norwegian perspective with strategic considerations for the European seaweed industry. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Phycology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(5), 3199\u0026ndash;3214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-021-02525-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSt\u0026eacute;vant, P., Table Rebours, C., \u0026amp; Chapman, A. (2017). Seaweed aquaculture in Norway: Recent industrial developments and future perspectives. \u003cem\u003eAquaculture International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1373\u0026ndash;1390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-017-0120-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSt-Gelais, A. T., Fredriksson, D. W., Dewhurst, T., Miller-Hope, Z. S., Costa-Pierce, B. A., \u0026amp; Johndrow, K. (2022). Engineering A Low-Cost Kelp Aquaculture System for Community-Scale Seaweed Farming at Nearshore Exposed Sites via User-Focused Design Process. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(February). https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.848035\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eT\u0026acirc;nia F. L. Vicente, Carina F\u0026eacute;lix, Rafael F\u0026eacute;lix, P. Valent\u0026atilde;o, \u0026amp; M. Lemos. (2022). Seaweed as a Natural Source against Phytopathogenic Bacteria. \u003cem\u003eMarine Drugs\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3390/md21010023\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTheuerkauf, S. J., Barrett, L. T., HK Alleway, Alleway, H. K., Costa-Pierce, B. A., St. Gelais, A. T., \u0026hellip; Jones, R. C. (2021). Habitat value of bivalve shellfish and seaweed aquaculture for fish and invertebrates: Pathways, synthesis and next steps. \u003cem\u003eReviews in Aquaculture\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12584\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations Environment Programme, Djampou, A., \u0026amp; Norwegian Blue Forests Network. (2023). \u003cem\u003eInto the Blue: Securing a Sustainable Future for Kelp Forests\u003c/em\u003e. United Nations Environment Programme. https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/42255\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations Environment Programme, N. B. F. N. (2023). \u003cem\u003eInto the Blue: Securing a Sustainable Future for Kelp Forests\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/42255\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Den Burg, S. W. K., Dagevos, H., \u0026amp; Helmes, R. J. K. (2021). Towards sustainable European seaweed value chains: A triple P perspective. \u003cem\u003eICES Journal of Marine Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e78\u003c/em\u003e(1), 443\u0026ndash;450. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz183\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan den Burg, S. W. K., van Duijn, A. P., Bartelings, H., van Krimpen, M. M., \u0026amp; Poelman, M. (2016). The economic feasibility of seaweed production in the North Sea. \u003cem\u003eAquaculture Economics and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(3), 235\u0026ndash;252. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2016.1177859\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVicente, T. F. L., Marco F.L. Lemos, Lemos, M. F. L., F\u0026eacute;lix, R., Valent\u0026atilde;o, P., \u0026amp; F\u0026eacute;lix, C. (2021). Marine Macroalgae, a Source of Natural Inhibitors of Fungal Phytopathogens. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Fungi\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1006. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7121006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVincent, A., Stanley, A., \u0026amp; Ring, J. (2020). Hidden champion of the ocean: Seaweed as a growth engine for a sustainable European future. \u003cem\u003eSeaweed for Europe\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e60\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from https://www.seaweedeurope.com/hidden-champion/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVisch, W., Kononets, M., Hall, P. O. J. J., Nylund, G. M., \u0026amp; Pavia, H. (2020). Environmental impact of kelp ( Saccharina latissima ) aquaculture. \u003cem\u003eMarine Pollution Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e155\u003c/em\u003e(February), 110962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.110962\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVoss, J.-P., \u0026amp; Kemp, R. (2005). \u003cem\u003eReflexive Governance: Learning to cope with fundamental limitations in steering sustainable development\u003c/em\u003e. (39), 1\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWade, R., Augyte, S., Harden, M., Nuzhdin, S., Yarish, C., \u0026amp; Alberto, F. (2020). Macroalgal germplasm banking for conservation, food security, and industry. \u003cem\u003ePLoS Biology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1\u0026ndash;10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000641\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilding, T. A., Gill, A. B., Boon, A., Sheehan, E. V., Dauvin, J.-C., Pezy, J.-P., \u0026hellip; De Mesel, I. (2017). Turning off the DRIP (\u0026lsquo;Data-rich, information-poor\u0026rsquo;) \u0026ndash; rationalising monitoring with a focus on marine renewable energy developments and the benthos. \u003cem\u003eRenewable \u0026amp; Sustainable Energy Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e74\u003c/em\u003e, 848\u0026ndash;859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.013\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWojtyla, Ł., Lechowska, K., Kubala, S., \u0026amp; Garnczarska, M. (2016). Molecular processes induced in primed seeds\u0026mdash;Increasing the potential to stabilize crop yields under drought conditions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Plant Physiology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e203\u003c/em\u003e, 116\u0026ndash;126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2016.04.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWood, D., Capuzzo, E., Kirby, D., Mooney-McAuley, K., \u0026amp; Kerrison, P. (2017). UK macroalgae aquaculture: What are the key environmental and licensing considerations? \u003cem\u003eMarine Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e83\u003c/em\u003e(August 2016), 29\u0026ndash;39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYoshida, N., \u0026amp; Kanda, J. (2012). Tracking the Fukushima Radionuclides. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e336\u003c/em\u003e(6085), 1115\u0026ndash;1116. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219493\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, J., Wang, X., Yao, J., Li, Q., Liu, F., Yotsukura, N., \u0026hellip; Duan, D. (2017). Effect of domestication on the genetic diversity and structure of Saccharina japonica populations in China. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 42158. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42158\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-ocean-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"npjoceansustain","sideBox":"Learn more about [npj Ocean Sustainability](https://www.nature.com/npjoceansustain/)","snPcode":"44183","submissionUrl":"https://mts-npjoceansustain.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"npj Ocean Sustainability","twitterHandle":"@NaturePortfolio","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"npj","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"macroalgae, farming, backcasting, blue economy, carrying capacity","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5200388/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5200388/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"How to build a sustainable seaweed industry is important in Europe’s quest to produce 8 million tons of seaweed by 2030. Interviews with industry representatives suggest that business models focused only on financial gain would fail. As a team of interdisciplinary experts, we offer a roadmap that satisfies the increasing demand for sustainable practices by leveraging synergies with existing industries as the European seaweed industry develops beyond experimental cultivation.","manuscriptTitle":"Roadmap to sustainably develop the European seaweed industry","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-03-12 12:06:27","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5200388/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-03-13T10:44:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-02-05T05:30:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"152437980416871900929972053152823018945","date":"2025-01-28T10:03:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"338040585689574651297724414053468641309","date":"2025-01-27T22:26:51+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-10-18T11:24:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"194659426481821818486575576650538470929","date":"2024-10-18T10:50:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"218212543240780362186710487561187137243","date":"2024-10-14T13:12:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-10-08T08:36:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-10-04T08:56:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-10-04T06:19:54+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"npj Ocean Sustainability","date":"2024-10-03T20:44:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-ocean-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"npjoceansustain","sideBox":"Learn more about [npj Ocean Sustainability](https://www.nature.com/npjoceansustain/)","snPcode":"44183","submissionUrl":"https://mts-npjoceansustain.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"npj Ocean Sustainability","twitterHandle":"@NaturePortfolio","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"npj","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"076f1afd-570c-4fda-a4e9-b3934388ab79","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 12th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":45578215,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental sciences/Environmental impact"},{"id":45578216,"name":"Social science/Environmental studies"},{"id":45578217,"name":"Scientific community and society/Agriculture"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-04-27T14:53:30+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-03-12 12:06:27","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5200388","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5200388","identity":"rs-5200388","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}