Marine Renewable Energy and Economic Sustainability: Policy Frameworks for Scaling Offshore Wind and Tidal Power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the policy frameworks necessary for scaling marine renewable energy (MRE), specifically offshore wind and tidal power, within the context of economic sustainability. The objective is to critically examine how current policies support or hinder the expansion of MRE and to propose strategic frameworks that align environmental goals with long-term economic development. Drawing on a qualitative, comparative case study methodology, the research analyzes policy instruments and institutional arrangements in selected leading MRE countries, including the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Canada. Data sources include government policy documents, international energy databases, and expert interviews. The paper uses two theoretically related to each other concepts: ecological economics, which breaks down the interdependence between economic systems and natural ecosystems, and the policy cycle model and helps to assess the success of policy-making and its application. The value of this study is that it helps to support the filling of policy/governance gaps that inhibit the wider uptake of marine renewables. The conclusion shows that there is a need to have integrated, adaptive, and inclusive policy processes that enhance innovation by minimizing the risks associated with investments as well as equitable distribution of benefits among coastal environments. This paper provides policy recommendations that can be used to scale MRE technologies as it promotes sustainable economic results and extends on the expanding data on the policies of energy transition and blue economies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".