Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing of a Greenhouse Culture Model for Litopenaeus vannamei

Abstract

Greenhouse aquaculture is an increasingly advanced practice in shrimp farming. This study employs Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to systematically evaluate the economic and environmental performance of greenhouse shrimp farming. Research data were collected from field surveys and enterprise production records to analyze the construction and farming processes of the aquaculture facilities. LCC analysis revealed that the life cycle cost was 3.56 USD kg⁻¹ shrimp. The construction cost of the greenhouse was 4.58 USD m⁻², with steel pipes and film materials being the dominant cost components. The total farming cost per cultivation cycle reached USD 3510.76 per greenhouse, of which feed (30.54%) and land rent (15.86%) were the primary expenses. This model achieved a net profit of USD 5.31 per m² per cycle and a cost-profit ratio of 60.47%, values which are significantly higher than those reported for the Indoor Super-Intensive Culture (ISIC) model. LCA results demonstrated that the environmental impact per kilogram of shrimp produced via greenhouse aquaculture was characterized by a global warming potential (GWP) of 3.279 kg CO₂ eq, an acidification potential (AP) of 0.369 kg SO₂ eq, and a eutrophication potential (EP) of 0.212 kg PO₄ equation Furthermore, the abiotic depletion potential (ADP) and human toxicity potential (HTP) were relatively low, at 0.002 kg Sb eq and 0.093 kg 1,4-DCB eq per kilogram of shrimp, respectively. The construction phase had the highest greenhouse gas emissions (GWP 1940.00 kg CO₂ eq), mainly due to the consumption of steel (steel pipes accounting for 71.6% of CO₂ emissions) and polymer materials. During the farming phase, the primary emissions per kilogram of shrimp produced were GWP (3.23 kg CO₂ eq), AP (0.27 kg SO₂ eq), and EP (0.212 kg PO₄ eq). The findings indicate that this greenhouse model possesses considerable advantages in balancing economic output and risk management, rendering it suitable for promotion in appropriate regions. Further reductions in cost and environmental impact can be achieved by optimizing building material selection, implementing precision feeding strategies, and improving the energy utilization structure. These measures will enhance the economic and environmental benefits of greenhouse shrimp farming and promote the green development of the entire aquaculture industry.

1. Introduction

The shrimp culture industry in China has a long history and has transitioned from traditional practices to modernized, intensive production. Continuous innovation in farming techniques and models has fostered diversified development trends [1,2]. The evolution of the aquaculture industry from early traditional pond farming to more advanced systems encompasses enhanced ponds, greenhouse farming, high-density industrialized aquaculture, and Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA), enabling progressive achievements in scale, efficiency, and sustainability [3,4]. The large-scale production of Litopenaeus vannamei is economically significant, generating substantial revenues for the fishery sector in China [5]. In recent years, the industry has faced dual pressures from market price fluctuations and global supply–demand imbalances, leading to a widespread decline in profitability. Many farmers have seen sustained income reductions, with some incurring severe losses of up to 25% of production costs [6].

Meanwhile, the culture technology for Litopenaeus vannamei is diversifying, with different models demonstrating distinct characteristics and potential in China [3,7]. The Indoor Super-Intensive Culture model (ISIC) is widely applied due to its high density and controllable environment; however, its substantial water exchange and waste discharge contribute to ecological issues and frequent disease outbreaks [8,9]. To enhance sustainability, recirculating aquaculture systems and biofloc technology have been adopted, mitigating environmental impacts through resource recycling [10,11,12]. Nevertheless, the high costs and market volatility associated with industrialized farming constrain its widespread adoption [13]. In contrast, traditional monoculture pond models (PMC) and Pond Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (PIMTA) offer lower costs and reduced risks but are more susceptible to environmental and seasonal fluctuations, resulting in limited profitability [6,7,14]. The greenhouse farming model is a simple yet highly productive intensive system. It relies on microbial processes for water purification, offering advantages such as low water consumption, minimal wastewater discharge, and high biosecurity, which has led to its widespread acceptance among farmers. However, challenges remain, including insufficient nutrient-degrading microorganisms and nitrogen accumulation due to suboptimal feeding management, necessitating further fundamental research to support technical optimization [15,16]. Additionally, increasing demands for green and healthy aquaculture development, coupled with high water treatment costs, have led to a gradual phasing out of this model in some contexts [17].

To address the aforementioned challenges of enhancing risk resilience, improving profit stability, and promoting cost-effective and sustainable shrimp farming, the industry is implementing multifaceted optimizations of existing culture models. Among these, the greenhouse farming model has revitalized its development potential through recent technological upgrades and is increasingly considered a viable option for promotion [18]. The continuous maturation of applied technologies, such as biofloc and probiotics, has enabled effective control of organic pollution and a significant reduction in pollutant levels. Concurrently, advancements in wastewater treatment technologies and associated cost reductions in some regions have substantially alleviated the economic burden of farm effluent management [19,20]. These developments present new opportunities for the revival and sustainable development of greenhouse culture in specific regional contexts.

Jiangsu Rudong, the origin of greenhouse shrimp farming in China, hosts the largest such operation, with approximately 150,000 greenhouse units currently in use [21]. This model integrates the environmental control and high-density advantages of industrialized farming while substantially reducing production costs. It is characterized by a small land footprint, low risk, and a high return on investment [22,23]. Research indicates that the excellent insulation properties of greenhouses facilitate two annual shrimp crops, one in spring and another in autumn. Spring stock is placed in ponds earlier, allowing harvests to precede peak market periods and generally achieving prices 0.85–1.41 USD kg⁻¹ higher than those from open earthen ponds [24]. Furthermore, this approach incorporates ecological principles from pond aquaculture. The primary use of microbial agents for water quality improvement, coupled with reduced reliance on antibiotics and disinfectants, effectively minimizes disease incidence, underscoring the enhanced environmental friendliness and sustainability of this model [25,26].

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a standardized methodology widely employed to evaluate the environmental impacts of aquaculture systems, thereby providing sustainability guidance for industry and policymakers [27,28]. In recent years, LCA has become an increasingly crucial tool for assessing aquaculture sustainability [8,29,30]. Previous studies have utilized LCA to evaluate the environmental footprints of intensive and semi-intensive shrimp culture, enabling comparisons of sustainability across different aquaculture models [31,32]. To comprehensively measure sustainable development progress, researchers have developed the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) framework, which integrates Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), and other methods to evaluate product sustainability [33,34,35,36]. Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is an economic approach for assessing all costs associated with a product or service throughout its life cycle, from raw material extraction to production, use, and disposal [37].

However, research on the economic and environmental performance of greenhouse culture models remains limited. A significant gap exists in the systematic assessment of both its Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and its Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Therefore, this study aims to analyze the construction and farming costs of the greenhouse culture model and employs LCA to evaluate its environmental emission profiles. By examining the feasibility and specific advantages of greenhouse farming technology, this research quantifies the complete cost structure and environmental impacts of greenhouse shrimp farming systems during both the construction and operational phases under practical production conditions in China, aiming to provide scientific evidence and practical insights for the sustainable development of the shrimp farming industry.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Goal and Scope Definition

This study employs Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) methodologies, in accordance with ISO 14040/14044 standards (ISO, 2006a; ISO, 2006b) [38,39], to systematically evaluate the resource consumption, environmental impacts, and economic performance of Litopenaeus vannamei cultivation in a greenhouse system during its construction and farming phases. With a focus on sustainability within shrimp farming systems, the system boundary excludes downstream processes such as seed production, processing, distribution, consumption, and waste disposal, aligning with established conventions in aquaculture LCA. For operational continuity, the farming process is modeled from the intermediate cultivation stage (Stage 2). The scope of this study includes the construction phase, comprising material production, transportation, and assembly of greenhouse infrastructure components (e.g., steel pipes, film, doors, and keels), and the farming phase, accounting for critical inputs such as shrimp postlarvae, feed, energy, water quality management, and wastewater discharge. Aquaculture infrastructure is considered a long-term capital investment, with shrimp ponds and PVC pipes having a defined lifespan of 20 years, allowing for two crops per year [40,41].

2.2. Inventory Analysis and Data Collection

As established in previous studies [13,31], energy consumption is a dominant factor in environmental pollution emissions, with impacts surpassing those from agricultural water use or biological respiration. Consequently, this analysis specifically focuses on pollution generated from energy consumption during the farming stage to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts associated with greenhouse shrimp farming. Furthermore, the study did not include the use of renewable energy or raw material formulation adjustment strategies. Therefore, the environmental impact assessment in the farming phase of this study is limited to energy consumption, providing a foundational basis for future research aimed at a more comprehensive evaluation of this phase.

Primary data were collected through field surveys and enterprise production records from two greenhouse shrimp farms in Rudong, Jiangsu Province, China (32.2333° N, 121.6667° E). In-depth communication with farm operators enabled the investigation and calculation of key farming costs and cultivation parameters. The collected data encompassed various aspects, including the farming environment, cost composition, and revenue. Standard greenhouses were 40 m long and 10 m wide; small ponds were 1.2 m deep with a slope of 75 degrees. Construction was organized by plot, typically with 30 greenhouses per group, with a production passage between two rows. Information on farming area, yield, greenhouse construction, material usage, and overall production status was also recorded to establish a comprehensive understanding of the operational conditions (details in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2).

To enhance the reliability and accuracy of the study, background life cycle data were incorporated from the Ecoinvent v3.0 database. This database provides extensive life cycle inventory information, facilitating the comparison of field survey data against broader industrial benchmarks. Data collection was aligned with database queries and selectively applied in Life Cycle Assessment, following the framework in Figure S1 (Supplementary Materials). Based on data categories, analysis and comparison identified relevant indicators. Additionally, compare these indicators with those from other farming models to ascertain the influencing types. The functional unit was defined as one kilogram of live shrimp produced. This standardized unit facilitates data comparison and provides a clear basis for the Life Cycle Assessment, thereby enhancing the actionability and reference value of the research findings. The functional unit was defined as one kilogram of live shrimp produced.

2.3. Impact Assessment

The LCA evaluation focuses on five environmental impact categories: Global Warming Potential (GWP), Acidification Potential (AP), Eutrophication Potential (EP), Human Toxicity Potential (HTP), and Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP), applying mass allocation for multi-output systems. The LCC analysis quantifies costs across various categories, including construction materials, equipment depreciation, feed, energy, labor, maintenance, and revenue from live shrimp sales, the latter based on market prices and actual yield. In line with established practice [41], the CML-IA method was applied to characterize environmental impacts due to its robustness in assessing energy inputs, pollutant emissions, and ecological degradation.

2.4. Research Innovations and Quantitative Contributions

Compared with existing LCA studies on systems like ISIC, BFT, and RAS, this study provides a more detailed material inventory for greenhouse shrimp farming systems during construction. Key components such as steel structures, cover materials, and piping systems are quantified based on real production data from China. These results offer practical parameters for assessing the environmental and cost impacts of such infrastructure.

2.5. System and Management Approach

The greenhouse culture system in this study adopted a stocking density of 120–160 shrimp per square meter, with an annual production yield of approximately 7.8 kg per cubic meter (based on 2.5 culture cycles per year). Feeding followed a scheduled and rationed strategy, and the feed conversion ratio (FCR) was maintained between 1.1 and 1.3. Daily management included rigorous water quality monitoring (dissolved oxygen (DO) > 5 mg/L, temperature 28–30 °C, pH 7.8–8.5), periodic size grading, and systematic disease prevention and control measures to ensure stable culture conditions and promote healthy shrimp growth.

3. Results

3.1. Construction and Farming Costs of Greenhouse Culture

The cost analysis for the greenhouse model reveals a total initial investment of USD 5327.07 per greenhouse. Construction costs constituted 34.36% (USD 1830.31) of this total. The primary construction expenditures were for steel pipes, keels, and doors, amounting to USD 597.75 (11.22% of the total cost); the outer shed film, costing 296.48 USD (5.57%); and blowers, at USD 248.03 (4.66%). In contrast, operational farming costs were higher, totaling USD 3510.76 per cycle and accounting for 66.20% of the initial investment. Within the farming costs, feed was the largest expenditure at USD 1626.76 (30.54%), followed by allocated land rent at USD 845.07 (15.86%), and utilities at USD 338.03 (6.35%) (

Table 1. Construction and farming cost analysis.

Category	Item	Price (USD)	Proportion (%)
Construction cost	Excavation	183.1	3.44
	Black film around shed	53.52	1.00
	Drainage pipe	14.08	0.26
	Bridge slab	70.42	1.32
	Air pipe	34.24	0.64
	Air Pipe Tee	12.68	0.24
	Inlet pipe	1.27	0.02
	Steel pipe, keel, and door	597.75	11.22
	Outer shed film	296.48	5.57
	Inner shed film	112.68	2.12
	Air disk	0.42	0.01
	Air pipe	21.13	0.40
	Inlet and water pipe	154.93	2.91
	Blower	248.03	4.66
	Shade net	29.58	0.56
	Total construction process cost (USD Pond−1)	1830.31	34.36
Farming Costs	Seedlings	294.37	5.53
	Animal protection	253.52	4.76
	Labor and maintenance	169.01	3.17
	Utilities	338.03	6.35
	Feed	1626.76	30.54
	Rent allocation cost	845.07	15.86
	Total farming costs	3510.76	66.20
Total	Total cost (USD Pond−1)	5327.07	100.00

Note: The greenhouse area is calculated based on 400 square meters and the farming cycle is calculated over 20 years. Construction costs are the details for a single construction, and farming costs are the details for a single farming cycle.

). To reduce initial capital outlay, the promotion of modular greenhouse designs and corrosion-resistant materials is recommended.

3.2. Profitability Analysis of Greenhouse Farming

The selling price for shrimp from the greenhouse model was 5.63 USD kg⁻¹, with a yield of 1000 kg per greenhouse. The total revenue generated per greenhouse was USD 5630.00, yielding a net profit of USD 2070.00 and demonstrating favorable economic returns. The cost-profit ratio was 60.47%, indicative of robust market demand and effective cultivation practices. The life cycle cost, integrating both construction and farming expenditures, was calculated at USD 3.56 per kg of shrimp. These results confirm that greenhouse farming is not only economically viable but also provides a stable income source for farmers, thereby contributing to local economic development (

Table 2. Cost–benefit analysis.

Item	Amount
Sales price (USD kg−1)	5.63
Yield (kg pond−1)	1000.00
Total revenue (USD Pond−1)	5633.80
Life cycle cost (LCC) (USD kg−1)	3.56
Cost profit margin (%)	60.47

). To further enhance profitability, several strategies are suggested: refining cultivation techniques to stabilize production, improving maintenance protocols to extend the greenhouse lifespan and amortize annual costs, and developing regional brands to strengthen market positioning and premium pricing capabilities.

3.3. Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Farming

In the initial farming phase, the GWP per kilogram of shrimp is 5.18 kg CO₂ eq, with an AP of 0.371 kg SO₂ eq, an EP of 0.213 kg PO₄ eq, a HTP of 0.140 kg 1,4-DCB eq, and the ADP of 0.00228 kg Sb eq, indicating the multiple environmental impacts of this phase. The total environmental impact of the construction process is relatively small, with a GWP of 1.94 kg CO₂ eq, AP of 0.00152 kg SO₂ eq, EP of 0.00124 kg PO₄ eq, HTP of 0.0471 kg 1,4-DCB eq, and ADP of 0.0000281 kg Sb eq per greenhouse. The environmental impact during the farming phase is higher, with a GWP of 3.23 kg CO₂ eq, AP of 0.369 kg SO₂ eq, EP of 0.212 kg PO₄ eq, HTP of 0.0932 kg 1,4-DCB eq, and ADP of 0.00225 kg Sb eq per greenhouse, indicating significant environmental impacts during the farming process. Calculating over a 20-year construction cycle, the GWP decreases to 0.0485 kg CO₂ eq, AP to 0.000397 kg SO₂ eq, EP to 0.000228 kg PO₄ eq, HTP to 0.0001 kg 1,4-DCB eq, and ADP to 0.000002 kg Sb eq kg⁻¹ shrimp. The life cycle analysis shows that the GWP of greenhouse farming is 3.28 kg CO₂ eq, AP is 0.369 kg SO₂ eq, EP is 0.212 kg PO₄ eq, HTP is 0.0933 kg 1,4-DCB eq, and ADP is 0.00225 kg Sb eq kg⁻¹ shrimp. By managing and improving technology, increasing yield and appropriately extending the farming cycle can effectively reduce the environmental impact of greenhouse farming (

Table 3. Life Cycle Assessment comparison of greenhouse farming.

Indictors	GWP (kg CO2 eq)	AP (kg SO2 eq)	EP (kg PO4 eq)	HTP (kg 1,4-DCB eq)	ADP (kg Sb eq)
Total amount (Initial Farming)	5.18	3.71 × 10−1	2.13 × 10−1	1.40 × 10−1	2.28 × 10−3
Construction Process (Initial Farming)	1.94	1.52 × 10−3	1.24 × 10−3	4.71 × 10−2	2.81 × 10−5
Farming stage	3.23	3.69 × 10−1	2.12 × 10−1	9.32 × 10−2	2.25 × 10−3
Construction Process (20 years)	4.85 × 10−2	3.97 × 10−4	2.28 × 10−4	1.00 × 10−4	2.00 × 10−6
Total amount (20 years)	3.28	3.69 × 10−1	2.12 × 10−1	9.33 × 10−2	2.25 × 10−3

Note: GWP (kg CO₂ eq) = Global warming potential, HTP (kg 1,4-DCB eq) = Human toxicity potential, EP (kg PO₄ eq) = Eutrophication potential, ADP (kg Sb eq) = Abiotic depletion potential, AP (kg SO₂ eq) = Acidification potential.

).

3.4. Emission Analysis of Environmental Factors at Different Stages

During the construction process, the total emissions per greenhouse are 1940 kg CO₂ eq, 1.52 kg SO₂ eq, 1.25 kg PO₄ eq, 10.8 kg 1,4-DCB eq, and 0.0259 kg Sb equation Among these, CO₂ emissions dominate. The emissions from excavation and steel pipes are relatively high, at 62.1 kg CO₂ eq and 1390 kg CO₂ eq per greenhouse, respectively, accounting for about 85.5% of the total emissions. Therefore, focusing on environmentally friendly equipment selection and material use can effectively reduce the environmental impact of greenhouse construction (Table 3 and

Table 4. Analysis of the construction process.

Category	Emission Factor Type	GWP (kg CO2 eq)	AP (kg SO2 eq)	EP (kg PO4 eq)	HTP (kg 1,4-DCB eq)	ADP (kg Sb eq)
Excavation	Diesel	6.21 × 101	5.85 × 10−2	1.64 × 10−2	3.23 × 10−1	1.20 × 10−5
Black membrane	Polyethylene material	1.91 × 101	2.49 × 10−2	4.20 × 10−2	6.18 × 10−1	1.77 × 10−4
Drainage pipe	PVC material	8.40	6.26 × 10−3	7.95 × 10−3	9.76 × 10−4	3.35 × 10−5
Bridge plate	Steel	1.64 × 102	1.18 × 10−1	7.37 × 10−2	4.32	2.79 × 10−4
Air pipe	PVC material	2.04 × 101	1.52 × 10−2	1.93 × 10−2	2.37 × 10−3	8.13 × 10−5
Air pipe tee	PVC material	7.56	5.63 × 10−3	7.16 × 10−3	8.79 × 10−4	3.01 × 10−5
Inlet pipe	PVC material	7.56 × 10−1	5.63 × 10−4	7.16 × 10−4	8.79 × 10−5	3.01 × 10−6
Steel pipe	Steel	1.39 × 103	1.00	6.30 × 10−1	4.93 × 10−1	/
Purlin	Steel
Door	Steel
Outer membrane	Polyethylene material	1.06 × 102	1.38 × 10−1	2.32 × 10−1	3.41	9.76 × 10−4
Inner membrane	Polyethylene material	4.02 × 101	5.25 × 10−2	8.84 × 10−2	1.30	3.72 × 10−4
Air disk	Polyethylene material	1.51 × 10−1	1.97 × 10−4	3.32 × 10−4	4.88 × 10−3	1.39 × 10−6
Air pipe	PVC material	1.26 × 101	9.39 × 10−3	1.19 × 10−2	1.19 × 10−2	1.19 × 10−2
Inlet pipe	PVC material	1.01 × 102	8.00 × 10−2	1.00 × 10−1	1.00 × 10−2	1.19 × 10−2
Shade net	Polyethylene material	1.06 × 101	1.38 × 10−2	2.32 × 10−2	3.41 × 10−1	9.76 × 10−5
Total amount		1.94 × 103	1.52	1.25	1.08 × 101	2.59 × 10−2

Note: GWP (kg CO₂ eq) = Global warming potential, HTP (kg 1,4-DCB eq) = Human toxicity potential, EP (kg PO₄ eq) = Eutrophication potential, ADP (kg Sb eq) = Abiotic depletion potential, AP (kg SO₂ eq) = Acidification potential.

; Figure 1).

Further comparison between the construction and farming phases shows that the construction phase of greenhouse model significantly contributes to the GWP, with initial farming emissions accounting for 37.5% of total CO₂ emissions. The contributions to AP, EP, and ADP are relatively low, with the environmental impact of the construction phase primarily concentrated on greenhouse gas emissions. Steel materials (such as steel pipes and bridge plates) dominate all types of emissions, with steel pipes contributing 71.6% of CO₂ emissions, while bridge plates and outer films account for 39.87% and 31.48% of 1,4-DCB emissions, respectively (Figure 2 and Figure 3).

In contrast, the farming phase shows a higher contribution to GWP, accounting for 62.4% of total CO₂ emissions from initial farming. Additionally, the contributions to AP, EP, and ADP are also significantly higher than those during the construction process. In the equipment emission analysis, the total emissions are 3230 kg CO₂ eq, 369 kg SO₂ eq, 212 kg PO₄ eq, 93.2 kg 1,4-DCB eq, and 2.25 kg Sb eq per greenhouse. The emissions from high-speed blowers and root blowers are both 1320 kg CO₂ eq, representing 40.9% of total emissions. The emissions from diesel generators are 602 kg CO₂ eq per greenhouse, accounting for 18.6% of total emissions (

Table 5. Analysis of the farming stage.

Category	Emission Factor Type	Specifications	GWP (kg CO2 eq)	AP (kg SO2 eq)	EP (kg PO4 eq)	HTP (kg 1,4-DCB eq)	ADP (kg Sb eq)
High-speed Blower	Electricity	55 kwh	1.32 × 103	1.85 × 102	1.06 × 102	4.65 × 101	1.12
Roots blower	Electricity	55 kwh	1.32 × 103	1.85 × 102	1.06 × 102	4.65 × 101	1.12
Diesel Generator	Diesel	120 kwh	6.02 × 102	2.36 × 10−2	6.64 × 10−3	1.30 × 10−1	4.83 × 10−6
Total amount	/	/	3.23 × 103	3.69 × 102	2.12 × 102	9.32 × 101	2.25

Note: GWP (kg CO₂ eq) = Global warming potential, HTP (kg 1,4-DCB eq) = Human toxicity potential, EP (kg PO₄ eq) = Eutrophication potential, ADP (kg Sb eq) = Abiotic depletion potential, AP (kg SO₂ eq) = Acidification potential.

; Figure 3).

3.5. Life Cycle Assessment Differences Among Different Culture Models

Comparative analysis of the environmental impacts across farming models reveals distinct patterns. Greenhouse farming (GF) demonstrates the lowest abiotic resource depletion potential (ADP) at 0.000076 kg Sb eq, outperforming both recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS, 0.0189 kg Sb eq) and high-place ponds (HHP, 0.0350 kg Sb eq), though still higher than biofloc technology (BFT, 0.00982 kg Sb eq). In terms of acidification potential (AP), GF (0.0124 kg SO₂ eq) shows intermediate performance, falling between BFT (0.0334 kg SO₂ eq) and HHP (0.0438 kg SO₂ eq). For eutrophication potential (EP), GF achieves a notably low value of 0.0071 kg PO₄ eq—significantly lower than traditional pond culture (PMC, 0.295 kg PO₄ eq), though higher than RAS (0.0218 kg PO₄ eq) and HHP (0.0362 kg PO₄ eq). Global warming potential (GWP) of GF remains moderate at 0.173 kg CO₂ eq, positioned between BFT (5.23 kg CO₂ eq) and HHP (4.97 kg CO₂ eq), and substantially lower than PMC (11.1 kg CO₂ eq). Lastly, GF exhibits the lowest human toxicity potential (HTP) among compared systems (0.00467 kg 1,4-DCB eq), markedly below HHP (0.903 kg 1,4-DCB eq), and also lower than RAS (0.556 kg 1,4-DCB eq) and BFT (0.574 kg 1,4-DCB eq) (

Table 6. Comparison of environmental impacts among different culture systems.

Type	ADP (kg Sb eq)	AP (kg SO2 eq)	EP (kg PO4 eq)	GWP (kg CO2 eq)	HTP (kg 1,4-DCB eq)	References
RAS (kg)	1.89 × 10−2	3.87 × 10−2	2.18 × 10−2	4.42	5.56 × 10−1	Sun et al., 2023 [41]
BFT (kg)	9.82 × 10−3	3.34 × 10−2	1.83 × 10−2	5.23	5.74 × 10−1	Noguera-Muñoz et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2023 [41,42]
HHP (kg)	3.50 × 10−2	4.38 × 10−2	3.62 × 10−2	4.97	9.03 × 10−1	Sun et al., 2023 [41]
GF (kg)	7.60 × 10−5	1.24 × 10−2	7.10 × 10−3	1.73 × 10−1	4.67 × 10−3	This study
PMC (kg)	/	3.81 × 10−2	2.95 × 10−1	1.11 × 101	/	Mateus et al., 2017 [43]
PIMTA (kg)	/	1.45 × 10−2	3.31 × 10−2	3.04	/	Mateus et al., 2017 [43]

Note: RAS and BFT refer to recirculating aquaculture system technology and biofloc technology, respectively, within the Indoor Super-Intensive Culture Model (ISIC). HHP refers to high-place ponds, PMC refers to traditional monoculture pond models, and PIMTA refers to Pond Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture. GF represents greenhouse farming.

).

4. Discussion

4.1. Economic Benefits of Greenhouse Shrimp Culture

Shrimp farming is influenced by market supply, demand, and price fluctuations, rendering its investment costs and economic benefits a primary focus of research [6,7]. Previous studies indicate that the equipment construction cost for the Industrial Shrimp Culture model (ISIC) is USD 13,235.00, constituting only 3.1% of the total construction cost, with land development and infrastructure representing the highest proportions at 34.80% and 24.20%, respectively [44]. This study finds that the construction cost of the greenhouse model is lower than that of industrial farming, with a total cost of USD 1830.31 per greenhouse (400 m²). However, this infrastructure investment is higher than that of pond models, which involve fewer construction projects and typically employ diesel excavators [45]. In the greenhouse model, the costs for steel pipes, beams, and doors are the highest, reaching USD 597.75 per greenhouse and accounting for 11.22% of the initial total cost.

Further analysis of the cost structure reveals that greenhouse farming exhibits a distinct cost distribution compared to other models. The total farming cost reaches USD 3510.76 per greenhouse, with feed and land rent constituting the primary expenditures at 30.54% and 15.86%, respectively. This represents a significant increase in the land cost proportion compared to the ISIC model, where feed accounts for 37.75–42.27% of the cost and land rent only 2.01% [46,47]. In contrast, the Pond Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (PIMTA) model reduces feed costs to 22.28% through its ecological complementary mechanisms, but incurs a land rental cost as high as 47.56% [13,48,49]. The cost structure of the greenhouse model most closely resembles that of the Pond Monoculture (PMC) model, in which feed costs account for 48.82% and land rent for 15.42% [50,51,52].

From a revenue perspective, the greenhouse model presents a lower farming risk, evidenced by a cost-profit margin of 60.47%. This ratio is comparable to that of the Pond Monoculture (PMC) model and significantly higher than the 38.56% and 29.28% reported for the ISIC and High-Intensity Pond (HHP) models, respectively [47,53,54,55]. Owing to its higher stocking density, the total yield of greenhouse farming substantially exceeds that of PIMTA and PMC models (4005.00 kg ha⁻¹) [13]. Consequently, the total revenue from greenhouse farming is more advantageous, with an income of USD 5633.80 per greenhouse. After deducting farming costs, the net profit from the first farming cycle reaches USD 2123.04 per greenhouse. In summary, the greenhouse shrimp farming model demonstrates a favorable cost–benefit balance, characterized by low initial investment and high resource utilization efficiency. This model reduces initial capital expenditure through the use of lightweight building materials and standardized construction. By incorporating feed substitution technologies to further control farming costs, leveraging renewable energy sources, and implementing regionally coordinated, large-scale operations, it holds strong potential for sustained enhancement of economic benefits.

4.2. Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Construction and Shrimp Farming

Greenhouse farming demonstrates superior environmental performance, particularly in terms of resource efficiency and greenhouse gas emission reduction. Eissa et al. (2022) demonstrated that a greater degree of intensification in a farming system correlates with a lower environmental impact per unit of shrimp produced [40]. Furthermore, this study reveals that the environmental impact per kilogram of shrimp is influenced not only by the degree of intensification but also by energy consumption and the utilization of building materials. Compared to the Partially Modified Culture (PMC) and Intensive Semi-Industrial Culture (ISIC) models, greenhouse farming offers superior environmental benefits per kilogram of output (Table 6). For instance, Wang et al. (2025) attributed the poorer environmental performance of PMC relative to greenhouse models to its low stocking density and low yield per unit area (only 0.1125 kg m⁻²) [45]. Although the ISIC model achieves a higher yield (averaging 7.73 kg m⁻²), its extensive consumption of building materials and high energy demands result in greater pollutant emissions per kilogram of output compared to the greenhouse model [46,56,57]. Specifically, in terms of resource consumption, the ADP for the greenhouse model (0.002 kg Sb eq) is notably lower than that of Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) (0.0189 kg Sb eq) and Biofloc Technology (BFT) (0.00982 kg Sb eq) [41]. Regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the GWP of greenhouse farming (3.279 kg CO₂ eq) is not only lower than that of ISIC (5.69 kg CO₂ eq [28]), but also lower than that of the BFT model (5.23 kg CO₂ eq [41,58]). Furthermore, previous studies on monoculture systems of Amazon river shrimp found that their carbon dioxide emissions per kilogram of production were 11.083 equivalents, with 0.295 PO₄ equivalents, which are also higher than those of the greenhouse model, consistent with the findings of this study [43]. Additionally, the HTP of the greenhouse model (0.093 kg 1,4-DCB eq) is only 10.3% of that of the High-Stocking-Density Pond (HHP) model (0.903 kg 1,4-DCB eq), highlighting its significant advantage in reducing human toxicity potential; this difference may be associated with the types of building materials used [41].

Therefore, the environmental impacts of both the construction and farming processes in shrimp culture require careful consideration. Consistent with this, previous Life Cycle Assessments in the building sector have also indicated that the usage phase contributes the most to environmental impact and costs, primarily due to energy consumption [59]. Correspondingly, this study identifies the farming phase as the most environmentally impactful stage of greenhouse farming, contributing 3.23 kg CO₂ eq to GWP (62.4% of the total). This phase also shows significant contributions to AP (0.369 kg SO₂ eq), EP (0.212 kg PO₄ eq), and ADP (0.00225 kg Sb eq) relative to the construction process. This finding is consistent with research on pond-based farming, which indicates that the farming phase accounts for 95.35% of the carbon emissions over the entire lifecycle; for instance, in monopond farming, emissions are 0.85 kg CO₂ per kg of shrimp during the construction phase and 17.4 kg CO₂ during the operational phase [60].

This study further reveals that the construction phase contributes significantly to GWP, accounting for 37.5% of total CO₂ emissions, while its contributions to other indicators (AP, EP, ADP) are relatively low. This suggests that the environmental impact during the construction phase is predominantly associated with greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, among building materials, steel (e.g., pipes and bridge slabs) is the dominant contributor across multiple emission categories, particularly to CO₂ and SO₂ emissions. For example, steel pipes alone account for 71.6% of CO₂ emissions, while bridge slabs and outer membrane films contribute 39.87% and 31.48% to 1,4-DCB emissions, respectively. This indicates that the production and use of steel and polymer materials are the primary sources of environmental burden during the construction phase. A similar pattern is observed in the ISIC model, which also has a relatively high proportion of steel in its infrastructure, where steel comprises 31.55% of the material input in recirculating aquaculture systems [41]. Previous studies on building Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) have found that alternative construction methods provide greater environmental benefits than traditional ones, particularly by reducing the consumption of concrete, rebar, and fuel [61,62]. Therefore, the use of alternative materials or improved production processes in the construction of shrimp culture systems could significantly reduce overall emissions.

Research has established that energy consumption substantially impacts the environment in shrimp farming [63]. For example, ISIC systems exhibit a high environmental impact, as reflected in their GWP, which is largely due to greenhouse gas emissions from electricity and fuel production [41]. This study further reveals that the environmental impact during the operational phase primarily stems from electrically driven equipment (high-speed and Roots blowers). At a power consumption of 55 kWh per functional unit, this equipment contributes 1.32 kg CO₂ eq, 0.185 kg SO₂ eq, 0.106 kg PO₄ eq, 0.047 kg 1,4-DCB eq, and 0.001 kg Sb equation In contrast, emissions from diesel generators are significantly lower, contributing only 0.27 kg CO₂ eq to GWP per kilogram of shrimp produced [45]. Therefore, optimizing the energy mix or improving energy efficiency represent key measures for emission reduction [61]. Specifically, clean energy adoption and energy substitution are promising initiatives for reducing the environmental impact of shrimp farming [64]. While the greenhouse model outperforms other farming models across multiple environmental impact indicators [41,58], the environmental burden during its construction and operational phases warrants further optimization. Therefore, by improving building materials, production processes, and energy efficiency, the overall environmental impact of greenhouse farming can be effectively reduced, thereby providing a research foundation for more scientifically based greenhouse shrimp farming.

Based on the current model parameters and data conditions, this study demonstrates that the described greenhouse aquaculture system exhibits favorable production performance and economic feasibility under specific conditions. However, the conclusions are limited by the representativeness of the database and the coverage of field data. Practical application requires adaptive adjustments based on local resource conditions and management capabilities. Future research could enhance the accuracy and practical guidance of the assessment by expanding the scope of field monitoring and optimizing localized model parameters.

5. Conclusions

Based on the research conditions of this study, the greenhouse aquaculture model demonstrates distinct advantages in terms of economic performance and environmental benefits. Its cost structure is similar to that of the PMC model, with feed and land lease costs representing the largest shares at 30.54% and 15.86%, respectively. Despite these costs, greenhouse farming achieves favorable economic returns through higher yields and lower risks, as reflected in a cost profit ratio of 60.47%, a value 1.57 times greater than that of ISIC models. Regarding environmental impact, this model exhibits lower values across all impact indicators compared to the ISIC and PMC models. However, steel consumption during the construction phase and electricity use during the operational phase remain significant sources of environmental burden. In the future, by optimizing material selection, selecting low-cost feed, and enhancing energy efficiency, it is expected to reduce costs and improve efficiency while further enhancing the sustainability of this system, making it an ideal aquaculture choice for suitable regions.