ABSTRACT
Urban aquaculture has been defi ned in several ways. Clearly the location of aquacultural production within built-up areas of cities or within municipal administrative boundaries can be classifi ed as such but the defi nition ‘urban’ has been attached to aquaculture outside this strictly literal defi nition (Little et al. 2012). Aquacultural practices established in conjunction with commercial, industrial and infrastructural developments – for example, power stations and dams for hydroelectric power generation – have previously been categorized as urban (Bunting and Little 2003, 2005; Leschen et al. 2005; Bunting et al. 2006). Aquaculture located on the edge of towns and cities (peri-urban) that makes use of nutrientenriched drainage and sewerage water for producing food and at the same time treats the waste is often termed urban (Edwards 2003). The city as a source of nutrients and other key inputs, as well as being the major demand driver for the outputs, explains the location of much traditional or emergent aquaculture being located close to urban settlements. The very nature of ‘urban’ in densely populated, dynamic economies that are increasingly well networked is subject to redefi nition (Leschen et al. 2005; Little and Bunting 2005). Aquacultural practices developed in rural areas but inspired by examples operated in urban areas or based on knowledge derived from urban-rural migrants and returning students or intended to supply demand from urban markets may be regarded as urban from a sociocultural or social-psychological perspective (Iaquinta and Drescher 2000; Bunting and Little 2005).
