There is growing interest in sustainable intensification of aquaculture production. Yet little economic analysis has been done on farm‐level effects of the economic sustainability of production intensification. Data from 83 shrimp farms (43 in Vietnam and 40 in Thailand) were used to identify (through principal component and cluster analyses) 13 clusters of management practices that reflected various scales of production intensity that ranged from 0–1999 kg/ha/crop to 10,000 kg/ha/crop and above, for both Penaeus monodon and Litopenaeus vannamei in Vietnam and Thailand. The clusters identified reflected sets of management practices that resulted in differing yields despite similarities in stocking densities among some clusters. The enterprise budget analysis developed showed that the more intensively managed clusters outperformed the less intensively managed clusters in economic terms. More intensively managed farm clusters had lower costs per metric ton of shrimp produced and were more profitable. The greater yields of shrimp produced per hectare of land and water resources in more intensively managed shrimp farms spread annual fixed costs across a greater volume of shrimp produced and reduced the cost per metric ton of shrimp. Costs per metric ton of shrimp produced decreased from the lowest to the highest intensity level (from US$10,245 at lowest intensity to US$3484 at highest for P. monodon and from US$24,301 to US$5387 for L. vannamei in Vietnam and from US$8184 at the lowest intensity level to US$3817 at the highest intensity level per metric ton for L. vannamei in Thailand). Costs of pond amendments used in shrimp production were particularly high in Vietnam and largely unwarranted, whereas fixed costs associated with the value of land, production facilities, equipment, and labor were sufficiently high in Thailand so that net returns were negative in the long run. Nevertheless, economic losses in Thailand were less at greater levels of intensification. The study demonstrated a clear value proposition for shrimp farmers to use natural resources (such as land) and other inputs in an efficient manner and supports findings from corresponding research on farm‐level natural resource use efficiency. Additional research that incorporates economic analysis into on‐farm studies of sustainable intensification of aquaculture is needed to provide ongoing guidance related to sustainable management practices for aquaculture.

Increased attention has been paid in recent years to both positive and negative effects of increasing numbers of regulations on businesses in the United States. The decline in U.S. aquaculture has been attributed in part to increasing volumes of imports and high feed prices. However, there is increasing concern that the U.S. regulatory environment, as compared to that of international competitors, may also have contributed to this decline. More than 1,300 laws apply to U.S. aquaculture and even though the majority has been issued by individual states and apply only to specific types of aquaculture businesses in that state, the cumulative regulatory burden has increased over time. Major compliance categories include: 1) environmental management; 2) food safety; 3) legal and labor standards; 4) interstate transport of aquatic products; 5) fish health; and 6) culture of commercially harvested species. A substantial portion of the regulatory burden is the managerial and labor time spent on compliance in addition to the direct cost increases. The streamlined one-stop process adopted in Norway appears to have allowed growth of aquaculture within a comprehensive regulatory framework, yet the lack of such a streamlined approach in the United States appears to have contributed to the decline of existing industries and to serve as a deterrent to investment in newly emerging technologies. Favorable regulatory environments in countries that export to the U.S. contrast sharply with the increasingly inefficient, cumbersome and/or restrictive U.S. environment. Such disparities have created competitive disadvantages for U.S. producers. Attention is needed by policy makers to search for streamlining mechanisms and by the scientific community to address the growing competitive disadvantage to U.S. aquaculture to respond to increased global demand for farmed seafood.

One of the key underlying principles of sustainable food and agriculture systems is to enhance the resilience of people, communities, and ecosystems. This paper discusses broadly the intersection of community resiliency and sustainability of our food system through the lens of positive and negative contributions of aquaculture within the context of the underlying environmental, economic, social, and governance dimensions. Aquaculture has been part of the food supply system for humans for millennia, and its contributions to the resiliency of communities and to sustainability is critical to meet the nutritional, economic, and ecological challenges of the world. Aquaculture, as any human endeavor, can result in negative impacts on the environment, economy, social structure, and resilience of communities. Recent work has reported continued progress in the sustainability of aquaculture and dispelled myths that have proliferated in public media. As a result, aquaculture is increasingly viewed as a potential solution to global challenges of supplying a sustainably raised protein source, complementing fishing and other activities in communities, improving water quality, and responding to climate change, among others. Communities face ever more complex pressures that affect their resiliency when confronted with an array of environmental, social, and economic challenges. Whether aquaculture enhances or decreases the resilience of communities depends largely on the regulatory framework and associated public governance policies at local, state/provincial and national levels. In locales where aquaculture is under-regulated, communities can be affected negatively from resulting environmental, economic, and social problems. Over-regulation of aquaculture can stifle aquaculture activities that enhance ecosystem services and provide social and economic benefits. Greater attention is needed to aquaculture governance and regulatory processes to ensure that rulemaking, implementation, and enforcement provide adequate oversight, but avoid unintended negative consequences to the environment, social networks, and local economies. Participatory approaches that entail effective engagement among regulatory agency staff, aquaculture producers, local citizens, and other stakeholders are more effective than command-and-control regulatory approaches. Aquaculture, when practiced responsibly and sustainably by farmers and when appropriate science-based regulations are implemented rationally and efficiently, can enhance the resiliency of communities.

Catfish farming continues to be the largest segment of U.S. aquaculture, and U.S. catfish farmers have demonstrated resilience and resourcefulness in adapting to changing economic conditions. Commercial production began in the 1950s–1960s, with growth leading to processing and marketing challenges in the 1970s. By the early 1980s, the key production, processing, and marketing pieces were in place to transform catfish farming into a major enterprise. Keys included development of efficient aerators, nutritionally complete feeds, multiple-batch production providing year-round supply of fish, processing innovations, and creation of The Catfish Institute (TCI) for marketing and public relations. The successful expansion into nontraditional catfish markets attracted competition of pangasius catfish imported from Vietnam by U.S. seafood importers, free riding on successful marketing programs. The 2003–2013 contraction of the U.S. industry was the combined effect of four external economic shocks; trough of price cycle; 2001 recession; September 11 terrorist attacks; and Vietnamese pangasius imports. Prices fell to historical lows and remained below production cost for 3 years. Adoption of intensive systems (split ponds, intensive aeration) that reduced costs led to steady growth from 2014 to 2019. Lessons for U.S. aquaculture include the importance of fingerling/seed technologies, farmer associations, research, Extension, marketing, and state/federal support.