Non-financial results. How the results of different practices contribute to business objectives has been shown in Figure 4.1. In summary, Case 2 Nearshore Urban Floating Community contributes to all business objectives; whereas, Case 1 Offshore Industrial Floating Accommodation is regarded less innovative relatively, its potential to be future proof, namely with regards to sea level rise, and to scale up and cater future needs remains low.
Non-financial results. As pointed out in section 2.2, some benefits and costs to society in general may apply to the implementation of offshore mussel farming, which are summarized in Figure 4. The Business Case is developed to increase production of mussels as a source of food for the human population. It thereby contributes to the overall food security. Not only the quantity, but also the quality of offshore grown mussels appears to be high in comparison to coastal grown mussels. They benefit form high food availability, resulting also in high growth rates. Mussels feed on particles, mainly phytoplankton (microalgae). Coastal areas often have a high turbidity because of large amounts of detritus (dead organic material) that has less nutritive value as compared to living algae. The additional production of mussels is not only reflected by higher flesh contents, also additional shell material is produced that contributes (but to a minor extend) to the sequestration of carbon, and therefore to the reduction of CO2-induced climate change. Coastal zones are intensively used for human activities. In the coastal areas concerned, i.e. the southern coast of the Netherlands and the Dutch Wadden Sea, these activities including nature conservation, shipping, fisheries, and tourism. The offshore farming of mussels may reduce the intensity of mussel culture activities in the Dutch Wadden Sea, especially the need to collect mussel seed from natural mussel beds. This will benefit the development of natural mussel beds, which have a high nature value because of their high associated biodiversity, and filtering function. By shifting activities from the coast to offshore located areas, the competition of space with other activities may be diminished. Also the potential risks of negative interferences between these activities, such as collisions, may be reduced. Loss of any materials from the culture installations due to rough sea state may forms a source of litter, i.e. non- organic waste pollution. This might negatively impact vulnerable organisms such as sea mammals and seabirds. Another source of pollution are emissions by ships, that are needed for transport of goods, and people for the shore to the offshore location.
Non-financial results. Non-financial goals were described in section 2.2 and an evaluation is presented in Figure 12. By transposing the activities to an offshore location, pressure on the requirement of space in the coastal area is reduced. Thereby, effects on the ecosystem caused by the aquaculture activities are consequently also diminished, as is competition for space with other user functions in the coastal zone, such as fishing activities, tourism and shipping. The substantial increase in fish production considered in this business case also provides food security to feed the increasing human population. Frozen fish can be transported over a wide area directly from the culture facility or via onshore fish markets. Since the RAS is by definition making use of closed systems, discharges of waste are negligible as compared to a similar production size produced in open cages. There may also be some negative consequences for society by offshore fish. Rough weather conditions may increase the risk of the loss of materials that are then released into the environment. This would result in the creation of litter,
