Implementing the Blue Economy: Analysis of indicator interrelationships across countries and over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Blue Economy aims to foster equitable and sustainable economic development by balancing ecological, governance, and economic factors. Tracking progress relies on a set of indicators, with the assumption that improvements in one area lead to progress in others. However, the empirical correlations among these indicators are often overlooked or untested, and this can contribute to inefficient or conflicting policies. This study examines the empirical statistical relationships among 21 datasets of indicators related to the Blue Economy, both across countries (cross-sectional), and within countries over time (longitudinal). We classify relationships as direct (positive correlation), inverse (negative correlation), or neutral. Results suggest that, across countries, there is statistical evidence of direct correlations in ecological, economic, and governance indicators (52% direct, 48% neutral), indicating that improvements in one area might generally support progress in others. However, when analysed over time (e.g., 2000–2019), correlations between indicators within each country become predominantly neutral, although slightly more diverse (8% direct, 86% neutral, 6% inverse). This means that common assumptions on co-benefits of development progress may not hold over time due to more nuanced and dynamic interactions within individual countries. As the first study analysing the empirical relationships of indicators commonly used in the Blue Economy, we discuss how selecting analytical approaches can yield distinct insights. By incorporating both cross-sectional and longitudinal perspectives, future research could provide a more holistic framework for implementing policies and decision-making strategies that effectively address the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of the Blue Economy. • Analysed 21 datasets to explore Blue Economy indicator relationships. • Cross-sectional analysis revealed 52% direct correlations among indicators across countries. • Longitudinal analysis showed 86% neutral relationships within countries over time. • Interactions vary significantly depending on the analytical approach. • Calls for integrating diverse methods for holistic Blue Economy policy insights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".