Applied Geography 105 (2019) 111–123

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Geography
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog

Understanding an emerging economic discourse through regional analysis: T

Blue economy clusters in the U.S. Great Lakes basin
Marcello Grazianoa,∗, Karen A. Alexanderb, Matthew Lieschc, Eva Lemad, José Alfredo Torrese
a
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Central Michigan University, Dow Science Complex 280, MI 48859, USA
b
Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Room 113.13, IMAS Waterfront, Hobart CBD Campuses, Australia
c
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Central Michigan University, Dow Science Complex 281, MI 48859, USA
d
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Central Michigan University, Dow Science Complex 277, MI 48859, USA
e
Department of Geography, Central Connecticut State University, 1615 Stanley Street, CT 06050, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The Blue Economy (BE) is rapidly becoming one of the most commonly applied regional economic paradigms in
Blue economy coastal and maritime regions globally. Since the late 1970s, the U.S. Great Lakes basin has searched for ways to
Clusters reverse its economic decline, and the BE offers new opportunities to sustain the region's economic development,
Marine economy possibly sustaining its transition towards new economic sectors. In developing, applying, and critically ap-
Great lakes
praising a definition of the BE in one of the largest fresh-water systems in the world, our work identifies how
regional characteristics and intersectoral conflicts can pose issues to both policymakers and researchers. The use
of standard metrics (e.g. location quotients) allows us to compare our findings with previous works conducted in
other regions. From this comparison, and by comparing inter-state differences, we find that the BE in the region
comprises highly-productive clusters, although employment specialization remains low. In addition, several BE
clusters are dominated by industries that are different compared to those in other regions. To the Great Lakes
basin, our work represents a benchmark analysis that builds upon existing concepts used locally by researchers
and policymakers alike for crafting policies aimed at supporting economic growth in a region only recently
emerging from a long period of economic and demographic decline.

1. Introduction & objectives
The Blue Economy, as an environmental and economic development
strategy, has gained acceptance and importance worldwide (Marine
Scotland, 2014; Patil, Virdin, Diez, Roberts, & Singh, 2016; Mulazzani,
Trevisi, Manrique, & Malorgio, 2016). Marine and coastal regions have
once more become central in the regional development discourse (see
e.g. Burgess, Michaela Clemence, McDermott, Costello, & Gaines, 2018;
Ding, Ge, & Casey, 2014; Doloreux, Shearmur, & Figueiredo, 2016;
Edwards, Veglia, & Buckley, 2014; Morrissey & O’Donoghue, 2012;
World Bank, 2016, pp. 1–28). What, in some cases were peripheral or
economically declining regions, have become regions of (potential)
growth (Graziano et al., 2018). However, we currently do not fully
understand what the Blue Economy means for regional development.
This is despite trialing varying frameworks, and synthetizing different
terminologies, across multiple regions, and disciplines (see e.g.
Doloreux, 2017).
The Great Lakes Region (GLR) is an interesting case study through
which to explore the regional Blue Economy. Although the lakes are
inland bodies of freshwater, shared by two countries (the U.S. and
Canada), they are subject to “high seas” laws under U.S. policy (NOAA
OGC, 2018), to which they are connected through the St. Lawrence
Seaway. The sheer size of the lakes makes them analogous to internal
seas. Furthermore, most shoreline communities within the GLR hold
considerable ecological capital (Austin, Anderson, Courant, & Litan,
2007; Steinman et al., 2017). They are also part of the Rust Belt, the
former manufacturing heart of the U.S., which went through rapid
economic decline from the second half of the 1970s onwards (Alder,
Lagakos, & Ohinian, 2014; Feyrer, Acerdote, & Stern, 2007, pp.
41–102). In this study, we use the GLR as an example by which to
identify issues arising from our lack of a full understanding of the re-
gional Blue Economy.
The remainder of Section 1 will focus on the difficulties associated
with defining the Blue Economy concept and associated industry

Corresponding author.
∗

E-mail addresses: grazi1m@cmich.edu (M. Graziano), karen.alexander@utas.edu.au (K.A. Alexander), matt.liesch@cmich.edu (M. Liesch),
lema1e@cmich.edu (E. Lema), jt0560@ccsu.edu (J.A. Torres).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.02.013
Received 7 October 2018; Received in revised form 23 January 2019; Accepted 25 February 2019
Available online 20 March 2019
0143-6228/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Graziano, et al. Applied Geography 105 (2019) 111–123

clusters. Section 2 provides a methodology, defining the extent of GLR

and the metrics used. Section 3 presents the results of the GLR Blue
Economy analysis. Finally, Sections 4 and 5 provide policy implications
for the GLR and raise some issues that emerge when framing the Blue
Economy within regional development.

1.1. Blue economy and regional economic development

Contradictory and often sparking debate about its relationship with

social sciences (see e.g. Winder and Le Heron, 2017; and the rebuttal
by; Morrissey, 2017; and the counter-rebuttal by; Winder and Le Heron,
2017b); the concept of Blue Economy is far from well defined. Never-
theless, the recent interdisciplinary debate hosted by the “Article
Forum” on Dialogues of Human Geography (2017) shows the emer-
gence of promising research paths.
It is beyond the scope of this work to discuss in detail the inter- and
transdisciplinary implications of existing conceptualizations of Blue
Economy, or the innate conflict among different industries even when
the Blue Economy formally includes a reference to ‘sustainable use of
the seas’ (see e.g. Burgess et al., 2018; Voyer et al., 2018). Nevertheless,
it is useful to review how the Blue Economy discourse is tied up in
recent literature on regional economic development. Fig. 1. Industries included in this study, and industries and sectors included in
The Blue Economy concept arises from the globally increasing in- Ketels and Protsiv (2016); NOAA (2017) & NOEP (Colgan, 2007); and the EU
terest in the growth of water-based activities. What the limits of this (European Commission, 2012). Red color shows clusters not included by Ketels
water environment are (e.g. within a buffer from the coast, etc.), is and Protsiv (2016), but included in this study and by other authors. (For in-
terpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred
however, left open to interpretation.1 Simultaneously emerging is a
to the Web version of this article.)
focus upon environmental sustainability. References to sustainability in
the Blue Economy vary from the ambiguous, to a “[…] dependency on
others [sectors] using the seas sustainably” (European Commission,
2012, p. 3), to a strong commitment to ecological sustainability and
(see Fig. 1).
social inclusion as within the Sustainable Development Goals of the
United Nations (World Bank, 2017, pp. i–38). One academic study
1.2. Marine & maritime clusters
suggests that a definition of the Blue Economy could be “the sustainable
industrialization of the oceans to the benefit of all” (Smith-Godfrey, 2016,
What constitutes Blue Economy industries, oftentimes labeled
p.60). However, with its fluid nature and multidimensional governance,
‘Maritime clusters’ (Doloreux, 2017; Koliousis, Papadimitriou, Riza,
integrating industrialization and sustainability in the maritime domain
Stavroulakis, & Tsioumas, 2017) is also not unequivocal. Several defi-
is complex. Furthermore, like other tools and frameworks that have
nitions of Blue Economy clusters build directly upon the physical re-
emerged in recent years, for example Marine Spatial Planning (MSP),
lationship with the marine environment. For example, Pinto, Cruz, and
the Blue Economy exists and operates within mismatches in scale and
Combe (2015) and, to a lesser extent, Fernández-Macho et al. (2016),
power relations (see e.g. Alexander & Graziano, 2018), and mismatches
use the term ‘maritime cluster’ as a way to identify cooperating subsets
in the very perspectives used to conceptualize marine and coastal en-
of industries within the broader policy framework of the Blue Economy.
vironments (Voyer et al., 2018).
This approach has been said to be in line with “[…] the classic ocean
The recent work of Doloreux (2017), utilized a comprehensive de-
economy” (Mulazzani & Malorgio, 2017, p. 19).
finition offered by the European Union (hereafter EU) European Com-
Following the work of Morrissey (2015) and Morrissey and
mission in 2012: “The individual sectors of the blue economy are inter-
Cummins (2016) among others, and working within the categories
dependent. They rely on common skills and shared infrastructure such as
proposed by Doloreux, we define Blue Economy clusters as “Maritime
ports and electricity distribution networks. They depend on others using the
clusters defined on the basis of interindustry transactions as illustrated by
sea sustainably.” (European Commission, 2012, p. 3). The EU concept of
input-output models and include a mix of maritime (and other) industries
Blue Economy includes several economic sectors, both ‘traditional’ (e.g.
connected by important flows of goods and services.” (Doloreux, 2017, p.
fisheries), and recent (e.g. renewable energy) (European Commission,
216). Both Doloreux and Shearmur (2009) and Doloreux et al. (2016)
2012).
used this broad definition, further defining the maritime industry as a
A vis-a-vis comparison between definitions of Blue Economy used
set of firms and other network institutions involved in maritime activ-
in the EU and equivalent terms used in North America is not
ities, such as marine transportation, fishery and marine products.
straightforward, mainly due to the different scale of the terms used,
which range from sectors to industries. Previous studies (e.g. Colgan,
1.3. Blue economy and the Great Lakes
2003) have focused on specific aspects of the ‘coastal economy’ or the
evaluation of ecosystem services generated from the oceans. The term
The potential of the Blue Economy has emerged in recent years in
“coast” has taken on a wide variety of physical definitions ranging
the GLR, even though a coordinated effort has yet to emerge. As an
from counties immediately adjacent to the shoreline of the oceans and
example, a report by the Great Lakes Commission and Council of Great
the Great Lakes, to the headwaters of basins of major rivers. In this
Lakes Industries (2017) found that restoring ecosystem services and
work, we build on the definition Blue Economy used by the EU, thus
engaging in coastal and marine activities:
expanding upon the industries commonly considered in North America
“[..] Generated positive economic benefits for the GLR in terms of jobs,
personal income, population, and increased real estate development, espe-
1
We use the term ‘water environment’ as Blue Economy can be applied to the cially in coastal areas; greatly improved the sense of “community” and op-
ocean, sea, lacustrine, or inner-seas environment. timism in impacted communities; and generated a long-term “return on

112
M. Graziano, et al.
Fig. 2. Map of the study area (U.S. GLR basin), with highlighted Chicago MSA.6
investment” in terms of the capacity of Great Lakes communities to colla-
borate in future community development.” (p. 7).
Furthermore, a report by the University of Michigan Research
Seminar in Quantitative Economics and Central Michigan University
(2017) found that:
“the economic impact analysis suggests that the GLRI drove large eco-
nomic and demographic benefits in the case study communities, accounting
for roughly one-fifth of observed employment growth in Sheboygan County,
Wisconsin and one-fifth of observed population growth in Muskegon County,
Michigan and Erie County, New York” (p. 4).
Adriens (2017) identifies Blue Economy cluster themes that have
developed in the GLR as water and wastewater, agriculture and food,
biofuels and biochemical, as well as recycling and waste. Austin (2014)
and Austin and Stehman (n.d.) further identify emerging Blue Economy
sectors in the Great Lakes such as cleaning and monitoring, water-re-
lated education, research, and innovation centers, and water place-
making, which includes activities such as waterfront restoration, the
tourism, and real estate development and renewal.
In this work, the U.S. GLR is defined following the Great Lakes
Drainage Basin boundaries defined by the Great Lakes Basin Compact of
1955 (GLC, 2018). This definition allows us to include both coastal and
near coastal counties, while maintaining a continuity from an eco-
system service and policy perspective, given the basin is under the
purview of the Great Lakes Commission. Although there are multiple
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) straddling the Great Lakes wa-
tershed, the drainage divide is remarkably close to the shores of Lake
Michigan at Chicago omitting most of the municipalities in the Great
Lakes' principal urban agglomeration. Accordingly, this study has in-
cluded the entire Chicago MSA (Fig. 2).2 According to the Rural-Urban
Continuum Codes 2013 (USDA, 2013) the GLR is a highly hetero-
geneous area, characterized by a high proportion of counties that are
either metro areas or adjacent, and with populations of 20,000 or more.
2 3
While Chicago MSA for short, the US Census Bureau officially titles it the
Chicago – Naperville – Elgin, Illinois – Indiana – Wisconsin MSA.
113
Applied Geography 105 (2019) 111–123
2. Methods & definitions
2.1. Methodology
As noted in the previous section, this study expands the EU defini-
tion of Blue Economy and maritime clusters. The EU Blue Growth in-
dustries and the NOAA and NOEP Ocean Economy industries were in-
cluded as maritime clusters. As the GLR is home to several United
States' federally-funded Sea Grant programs, we included an education
and knowledge creation cluster (higher education and research in-
stitutions) and a performing arts cluster. Furthermore, we included
several natural resource clusters (Metal Mining, Non-Metal mining) and
their manufacturing processes (Biopharmaceuticals, Downstream
Metals, Vulcanized and Fired Material, Oil and Gas Production and
Transportation) as well as the transportation and logistics cluster. We
chose to exclude some clusters due to very low-recorded activity in the
GLR, and thus sparse data was restricted for privacy concerns, or the
cluster presence was heavily skewed within the Chicago Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA).3 This modification recognizes the benefits and
support of connected industries not usually directly associated with the
marine landscape, as has been previously used by Ketels and Protsiv
(2014; 2016). The differences between the industries included in this
work and the EU-based and the US-based definitions were depicted in
Fig. 1.
By using a cluster approach, this study emphasizes trans-industry
synergies, reducing the risk of overlooking related industries, (Ketels &
Protsiv, 2014; 2016). Manufacturing in the Great Lakes offers a good
example of these linkages. Upstream chemicals, Biopharmaceuticals
and Downstream metal manufacturing clusters may not directly relate
to marine and coastal resources, but they directly link to Water
Transportation. Similarly, the Performing Arts Cluster is strongly as-
sociated with the Hospitality and Tourism cluster (see Fig. 3).
There are, however, disadvantages to this approach, and we must
A complete list of NAICS 6-digit codes is available from the authors upon
request.
M. Graziano, et al.
Fig. 3. Categories of Harvard Clusters (partly based on Delgado et al., 2014) and related industries.
use clusters with caution. Cluster categories in the U.S. were formed to
depict agglomerations throughout the entire country and sometimes
their industries may not appear to fit the drivers behind the Blue
Economy. For instance, Electric Energy Generation and Transmission
includes Fossil Fuel Generated Energy, an activity that runs counter to
the sustainability notion that is an integral part of the Blue Economy.
However, since the majority of the industries in this cluster are com-
patible with the Blue Economy (and may share ownership) they remain
in the analysis.
The clusters selected may raise questions regarding the connection
between the coastal environment and industries outside of their
proximity. However, it is important to highlight the potential that firms
operating within these clusters hold as Blue Economy opportunities
arise. This may be in the form of new investments from firms, or a
movement of skilled workforce into emerging Blue Economy firms.
These inter-sectoral spillovers have been previously used in literature
(see e.g. Graziano, Musso, & Lecca, 2017b; Verspagen and De Loo,
1999; Wolf and Nadiri, 1993).
Within each cluster, industries are organized using the North
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS). NAICS is “[produc-
tion-oriented and supply-based] industry classification system that groups
establishments into industries based on the similarity of their production
processes” (OMB, 2017) commonly developed and utilized by the U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico. The system is a 2-digit to 6-digit hierarchical
system. In this study, clusters are populated at the 6-digit level. Those
clusters identified as relevant to the Blue Economy have previously
been populated by Delgado, Porter, and Stern (2014). Finally, it should
be noted that most of the clusters in the region are mostly statistical
aggregations, not backed by cluster institutions.
2.2. Data and sources
Following the work of Morrissey (2015), Doloreux (2017), and
Doloreux et al. (2016) this study focused on selected characteristics
depicting the current state and past dynamics of the Blue Economy
clusters. This study examined employment, location quotient (LQ),
Gross Regional Product (GRP; the value added per cluster), and Labor
Productivity as indicators of the importance of the Blue Economy in the
GLR, and as a proxy to understand whether the GLR possesses the
114
Applied Geography 105 (2019) 111–123
know-how to capitalize upon this new set of opportunities. LQ provided
insights about the employment specialization of the region(s). GRP
location guided the relative weight of each cluster and the role of each
state-basin in relation to the state. Labor Productivity contributed to
understanding the Blue Economy potential for the region (Morrissey &
O'Donoghue, 2012). In addition, we compared this study's results to the
performance of the nation to identify whether the GLR is competitive to
take advantage of an increased growth of the Blue Economy through
both regional and national policies.
We retrieved data using the EMSI database (EMSI, 2017.3). EMSI
contains data on all NAICS codes that compose the Harvard clusters
(Delgado et al., 2014). The data were aggregated at state level for the
basin counties of the eight states across the Great Lakes and are pre-
sented for the six cluster categories identified in Fig. 3. Each metric is
explained below.
2.2.1. Employment
This study used the total number of employees including not only
the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) but also Non-
QCEW employees and self-employed persons (EMSI, 2017.3). Including
all employment categories was of particular importance for clusters
such as Fishing or Hospitality and tourism, where the share of self-
employed people can be particularly high. Results for Employment
show the aggregate sum for all the NAICS 6-digit codes (i.e. industries)
in each cluster.
2.2.2. Labor productivity
Generally, labor productivity is defined as “a measure of economic
performance that compares the amount of goods and services produced
(output) with the number of hours worked to produce those goods and
services” (BLS, 2017). This measure carried the advantage of capturing
several changes in production factors, while providing an under-
standing of a region's incomes, along with the competitiveness of each
region (state-basin counties) vis-à-vis the country (the U.S.) average
(Shreyer & Pilat, 2001). Based on the indications of the OECD (Shreyer
& Pilat, 2001), we calculated net labor productivity for 2016 was:
Value Added in $, i /Employment , i (1)
Where i is the i-th cluster. These results are to be interpreted as an
M. Graziano, et al.
Table 1
Comparison of labor productivity in GLR and U.S., for 2016 (in $).
Calculated based on EMSI, 2017.
average representation of all the firms in the respective cluster.
2.2.3. Location quotient
We used the location quotients provided for each cluster by the
EMSI dataset. This measure shows the level of labor (industrial) spe-
cialization of each region within each cluster, compared to the entire
USA (BEA, 2008). We further restrict the definition of ‘specialization’
from the commonly used value of 1.25 (see Crawley, Beynon, &
Munday, 2013), to 2 to account for changes in the short period, similar
to Sölvell, Lindqvist, and Ketels (2003).
3. Results
3.1. GLR vs U.S.
Starting with labor productivity (Table 1), the GLR appears to be a
highly productive region of the U.S., outperforming the country in all
but two clusters. Of particular interest are the performances of Oil &
Gas Production and Transportation, Fish and Fisheries, and Non-metal
and Metal Mining. The first sector is dominated by Oil & Gas trans-
portation because of the geographic location of GLR, which is pivotal to
the delivery of these resources throughout the North American con-
tinent (see Graziano et al., 2017b). The highly productive Fish and
Fisheries cluster is driven by combined commercial and recreational
fisheries, with the latter often recording higher-valued output levels.
However, these sectors are limited by the availability of natural re-
sources to further their expansion (e.g. trout and salmon stockings,
which are at record-low levels since 1972 in Lake Michigan (Wehse
et al., 2017)), or possible conflicts when it comes to expanding output
while preserving or ameliorating the ecological quality of the region. In
addition, Fish and Fisheries display low levels of economic activity
within the basin (only 40% of the total activity for all states), and low
115
Applied Geography 105 (2019) 111–123
Difference
$/worker/year
labor specializations. Finally, higher productivity levels in the Hospi-
tality and Tourism and the Performing Arts sectors represent industries
benefitting from an increased perception of the value of coastal and
water resources.
GLR specializes in three clusters (Table 2), Electric Power Genera-
tion and Transmission, Metal Mining, and Vulcanized and Fired Mate-
rials. The specialization of the basin in chemical-associated and mining-
associated production and services is worth noting, especially com-
pared to the image of the GLR as a rural region of the U.S. Further, and
contrary to what productivity levels may suggest, the GLR under-
capitalizes in five other clusters, including some (e.g. Performing Arts)
where it outperforms the rest of the nation in terms of productivity. The
additional under-specialization in the biopharmaceutical section, cou-
pled with the lower-than-average productivity levels, suggest that the
biotechnology cluster may require exogenous investments to fully de-
velop to a marine biotechnology cluster.
3.2. A cluster overview
3.2.1. Transportation
Transportation and logistics has the second highest GRP in the GLR
basin and is the third largest cluster for employment. The regional
transportation and logistics system serves the manufacturing industries
(e.g. auto industry) including the movement of supplies across the
Canadian border. Rail and truck transportation are the major industries
in this cluster, along with air transportation, which is the single in-
dustry with the highest GRP in this cluster.
Water Transportation is a cluster incorporating shipping services,
shipbuilding and port operation services. It has a very low LQ. Despite
the policies initiatives aimed at strengthening the GLR shipping sector
(e.g. CGLSLGP, 2016), most of the industries related to Maritime
transportation (i.e. not inclusive of specialized transportation, e.g. Oil
M. Graziano, et al. Applied Geography 105 (2019) 111–123

pipelines) have not experienced significant growth during the last Table 2
decades. Not surprisingly, only 34% of this cluster's GDP is produced in Average Location Quotient for the clusters in the Great Lakes Basin Region for
the basin of the GLR states. The rest occurs on the ocean ports or in 2016.
inland waters systems of the eight GLR states. There are undeniable
problems such as low water levels (Meyer, Characklis, Brown, & Moody,
2016) and winter shutdown due to ice cover that significantly impact
maritime activity in the Great Lakes. There is also criticism of the Jones
Act law4 (Papavizas & Gardner, 2008), regarding potentially higher
shipping costs and the barrier it poses for new investments, especially
given the scarcity of American-built ships. However, employment has
been rising in some industries (Shipbuilding and Passenger Transpor-
tation) and Great Lakes maritime companies are eager to help new-
comers as impending retirements could leave cargo ships with work-
force shortages (Bencomo, 2017). Both the Transportation and Logistics
and Water Transportation clusters have higher productivity than their
U.S. counterpart does and are believed to be an emerging field for the
region (CGLSLGP, 2016).

3.2.1.1. Tourism. The Hospitality and Tourism cluster is one of the

largest in terms of employment and GRP and has higher productivity
than its U.S. counterpart. However, the location quotient is low,
indicating that the region is not yet specialized in these services. The
region is popular for beaches, parks and protected areas, and through
the GLRI, some of these areas were restored, creating increasing
popularity. However, Table 3 shows that more than half of the GRP
of these industries are not produced within the Basin. For example, the
Performing Arts cluster has just 22% of its GRP produced in the basin
region. It could be that some lakeshore communities are still uncertain
about tourism as an economic staple. Also, potential visitors might not
be aware of the restoration efforts or the new amenities (Liesch, 2011;
Shapiro, 2013).
More than any other cluster, Hospitality and Tourism is heavily
dependent on the Great Lakes' health. Restoration of the Great Lakes
boosted the region's economy and turned people towards more water
activities including recreational fishing, diving, and boating (Ehrlich,
Graziano, McWilliams, & Liesch, 2017; RSQE, 2018). Employment in
many tourism industries increased in the last decade, and in 2016,
about 1.6% of the GLR basin labor force was employed in a tourism
cluster industry. This labor share is low when compared to the U.S.
(3%). Furthermore, salaries and other compensation are low for the
tourism industry. The average for the GLR basin is 35,508$, 6% lower
than the average for the U.S.
3.2.2. Manufacturing
The GLR hosts several manufacturing clusters: Biopharmaceuticals,
Downstream Chemicals Products, Upstream Chemical Products,
Vulcanized and Fired Materials, and Downstream Metal Products. More
than 55% of the GDP of Metal and Chemical Manufacturing clusters and
the Vulcanized and Fired Material clusters are produced in the GLR
basin region. With the exception of Biopharmaceuticals, only strong in
Chicago and found disproportionately outside of the study boundaries,
all manufacturing clusters show a degree of specialization (Table 2).
As for labor productivity, Upstream Chemical and
Biopharmaceutical clusters underperform compared to the rest of the
nation, signaling that these clusters may need further improvements if
their expertise were to be applied to the Blue Economy realm. However,
Downstream Chemical products include those used by consumers and is
a strong sector in the region. This cluster has higher-than-average labor
productivity, good employment specialization, and more than half of
the states' GRP generated within the basin. These strengths suggest that
the region could build upon these firms (e.g. Dow Chemical, see Austin,
4
The Jones Act law requires that waterborne transportation of merchandise
between two points in the United States must take place aboard a vessel that is
U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, U.S.-flagged, and U.S.-crewed.
Source: EMSI, 2017.
2014) as part of a comprehensive regional strategy. However, it should
not be forgotten that this path has inherent risks, as shown by the Love
Canal tragedy (Beck, 1979), and the long-term effects of manufacturing
in Muskegon (Carter, Nalepa, & Rediske, 2003).
3.2.3. Mining
Metal Mining has been an iconic employment source in northern
parts of the Great Lakes region, known for its extraction of iron, copper,
nickel and gold. The region produces 96% of the total eight states' GRP
and has an extremely high Location Quotient (11.04) mostly due to iron
ore extraction in the Mesabi Iron Range of Minnesota. Although not as
famous, Non-Metal Mining products such as limestone, aggregates, and
granite have a higher GNP.
Finally, the region is home to a rich Oil and Gas Production and
Transportation activity. Despite low employment, this cluster per-
formed excellently in terms of GRP and Productivity, which is about 4
times higher than the U.S. Although the region has a history of oil and
gas extraction, refining and pipeline transportation industries, not ex-
traction itself, are the backbone of this cluster.
3.2.4. Electric Power Generation and Transmission, Environmental Services
Electric Power generation and transmission in GLR show signs of
strong specialization (LQ > 2) and very high GRP, but it does not meet
the expectations of a transition to a growing Blue Economy. Fossil fuel
power generation accounts for most specialization in the GLR. As other
studies point out, however, the Lakes play a significant role in these
plants' operation by using the water for cooling purposes (e.g. nuclear
plants).
The Environmental Services cluster shows higher performance in
terms of productivity compared to the rest of the country (+5%).
Thanks to essential activities such as dredging material from the floors
of harbors and collecting marine debris, specialization in the area is in
line with the country average, while the basin hosts more than 56% of
the added-value.
In light of recent restoration efforts (e.g. GLRI, see Ehrlich et al.,
2017), the future of the Great Lakes' economy will likely rely on ex-
pertise and opportunities emerging from this cluster. Many future re-
storation programs (e.g. prevention of soil erosion or removal of sedi-
ment load to harbors) will take place within these regions and will
demand specialized companies to meet their needs. These initiatives

116
M. Graziano, et al. Applied Geography 105 (2019) 111–123

Table 3
Share of the GLR States' GRP produced in the basin in 2016.
Cluster name GRP in 8 GLR states (2016 $) GRP in GLR Basin (2016 $) Percent of GRP in Basin

Biopharmaceuticals 46,359,588,897 16,877,146,646 36.4

Downstream Chemical Products 34,716,708,915 19,773,348,165 57.0
Downstream Metal Products 13,640,944,289 7,550,751,932 55.4
Education and Knowledge Creation 130,848,576,816 48,583,651,699 37.1
Electric Power Generation and Transmission 31,656,047,815 15,900,353,334 50.2
Environmental Services 3,030,805,769 1,699,366,867 56.1
Fishing and Fishing Products 300,072,108 121,921,199 40.6
Hospitality and Tourism 53,779,764,303 23,191,622,532 43.1
Metal Mining 1,826,944,566 1,756,041,150 96.1
Nonmetal Mining 5,848,190,534 2,163,189,063 37.0
Oil and Gas Production and Transportation 30,120,681,224 17,616,189,218 58.5
Performing Arts 17,450,784,395 3,960,788,547 22.7
Transportation and Logistics 61,993,957,056 29,956,609,721 48.3
Upstream Chemical Products 12,090,149,811 6,718,843,865 55.6
Vulcanized and fired materials 8,088,232,860 5,354,994,545 66.2
Water Transportation 3,908,460,899 1,352,407,092 34.6

Source: EMSI, 2017.

have multiple environmental and economic benefits for the region and
outsourcing is usually not the best for the regions' interest in the long
term (USA Army Corps of Engineers 2013).
3.2.5. Education and knowledge creation
Education and Knowledge Creation has the highest cluster GRP and
the highest employment in the basin. However, only a little more than a
third of the states' GRP is produced within the basin, and, as Table 4
further suggest, only two state-basins, Michigan and Illinois, have some
degree of employment specialization, mainly driven by Chicago (for
Illinois) and the inclusion of the entire state (Michigan). This cluster is
important in supporting the development of Blue Economy technolo-
gies, as well as assisting remediation and research efforts along the
coastal region. Examples of research supported by institutions within
this cluster include initiatives on water transportation (U.S. DOT, n.d.)
and Blue-Biopharmaceuticals (Kolympiris, Kalaitzandonakes, & Miller,
2011) among others. The GLR basin contains a fair percentage of higher
education institution of the eight states. The Carnegie Classification of
Institutions of Higher Education categorizes many of these institutions
as R1, or research intensive. In spite of hosting several relevant research
and higher education institutions, only a couple of state-basins spe-
cialize in research related to the Blue Economy, meaning there is the
potential for the region to expand the role of higher education.
3.2.6. Fishing and Fishing Products
The Fishing and Fishing Products cluster contains industries related
to catching and processing, but not retailing. As a result of dramatic
ecological shocks over the past two centuries, valued species of fish
sharply declined, and the industry declined severely (Taylor and Ferreri
2000; Wildlife Federation 2005). This cluster has the lowest GRP and
the lowest share of the total U.S. GDP. Commercial fishing activity
elsewhere in the U.S. produces substantially more GDP than in the GLR.
This is a paradox given the formerly important role of fishing settle-
ments in the GLR: the availability of fish and harbors for launching
shaped the geographies of many Euromerican and indigenous settle-
ments.
Currently there are limited state-issued commercial fishing licenses
throughout all five of the Great Lakes and it is likely that the license are
not used on a regular basis (Goniea, n.d.). In addition, aquaculture is
relatively underdeveloped in the region. In 2013, even assuming that all
farms in the eight states were located within the GLR, the total value of
food fish species for the region was a meager 5% of the national output
(USDA, 2014).
3.3. Clusters and the GLR as a heterogeneous region
Socioeconomically, the GLR is neither a homogenous region, nor it
is a political unit within the U.S. system. A deeper look at the internal
distribution of the strengths and weaknesses of Blue Economy clusters is
pivotal for fully understanding how each state is positioned for ex-
panding its Blue Economy (see Tables 4 and 5). Basin areas of Illinois
and New York enjoy relatively high levels of labor productivity across
all clusters, with particularly high productivity levels in the Oil & Gas,
Metal Mining clusters, and Performing Arts. The first two clusters are
driven by high levels of productivity in the services associated with
extraction activities, such as transportation of oil products, for which
Chicago is a major hub. Overall, transporting Oil & Gas drives the re-
gional productivity to substantial higher-than-national levels.
Water transportation performs well only in a handful of states
(Minnesota, New York, and Ohio), mainly driven by the presence of key
harbor areas in those basin counties (e.g. the City of Duluth in St. Louis
County, Minnesota). Finally, Environmental Services enjoy higher-than-
average productivity in all states except for Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin, with Illinois driving the productivity, possibly thanks to the
presence of a major urban area (Chicago) where major service providers
are located. Overall, the counties in the GLR display a significant degree
of variation in terms of labor productivity within Blue Economy clusters
(Figs. 4 and 5).
This heterogeneity is important to understand for the potential and
competitiveness of these counties if Blue Growth strategies are im-
plemented. Several manufacturing and transportation-related sectors
(Oil & Gas) have relatively high productivity, although the strong
performance of Performing Arts even in counties with no major urban
areas (e.g. Minnesota), and the overall good performance of Hospitality
& Tourism are worth noting.
Minnesota drives the specialization in metal mining, owing to a long
legacy of processing metals in and around the Duluth area plus rela-
tively shallow, abundant deposits that are currently more profitable
than remaining ores in Wisconsin and Michigan (Alanen, 2007; Liesch,
2016). The state is also specialized in the Electricity cluster, which
makes it potentially competitive as a source of investments in marine
renewables and their associated supply chain (e.g. cables, planning,
etc.). Two states, Illinois and Michigan, display no specific specialized
employment, underperforming the rest of the country in several clus-
ters. In combination with lower-than-average productivity levels, this
possibly signals an area where improvements are necessary. These re-
sults have to be interpreted within the recent discourse involving
changes, and risks of transporting Oil & Gas across the GLR, and the
balance between economic benefits and potential environmental and
social risks (see Graziano, Gunther, & Lema, 2017a; Marty & Nicoll,

117
M. Graziano, et al.
Table 4
Labor productivity in 2016 as % of U.S. Average.
Source: EMSI, 2017.
2017).
The relative strengths of each state-basin can be interpreted within
the role that each set of counties play within its state. The profile from
Minnesota, for example, is highly dominated by resource-based, on-
land iconic industries such as Metal Mining and Water Transportation.
Overall, these differences can potentially benefit the region if more
inter-state policies (or basin-wide policies) are implemented because
each state-basin can contribute different, often complementary,
strengths into a broader Blue Economy agenda.
4. Discussion
The results have revealed a number of key findings. Firstly, re-
garding Blue Economy policy in the GLR region, specific lessons relate
to focusing on the heterogeneity of the region, the importance of re-
gional stakeholders beyond jurisdictional boundaries, and strategies for
118
Applied Geography 105 (2019) 111–123
achieving a GLR Blue Economy vision. Secondly, and perhaps more
pertinently, the results have revealed general lessons for understanding
the Blue Economy in relation to regional development. These lessons
relate to the role of transportation, questions around traditional in-
dustries such as fisheries, the role of existing institutions and the im-
portance of restoration and ecological sustainability.
4.1. Blue economy policy implications for the GLR
The picture emerging from this analysis is one of a heterogeneous
region, where traditional (World Bank, 2016, pp. 1–28) marine and
coastal clusters such as Tourism and Hospitality, Fishing & Fishing
Products, and Water Transportation are not (yet?) part of an overall
regional specialization. The legacy of advanced manufacturing provides
a strong basis from which a Blue Economy agenda can be envisioned.
Furthermore, differences across state basins counties are remarkable,
M. Graziano, et al. Applied Geography 105 (2019) 111–123

Table 5
Location Quotient for the basin counties (per state) for 2016.

Source: EMSI, 2017.

Fig. 4. Relative strengths of state-basin clusters by location quotient, GRP, and difference in labor productivity with the U.S. – Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and
Minnesota.

119
M. Graziano, et al.
Fig. 5. Relative strengths of state-basin clusters by location quotient, GRP, and difference in labor productivity with the U.S. – New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.
reflecting the different relationship each set of basin counties have and
the different role they play within each state's economy.5 These dif-
ferences emerged from previous studies on the cluster portfolio of the
Great Lakes region defined as the entirety of the eight U.S. states, and
the two Canadian provinces within the basin (Ontario and Quebec)
(Ketels, 2015). Although a vis-à-vis comparison between this study and
Ketels' work cannot be drawn due to the different geographical extent,
it is important to highlight how vast and connected the overall cluster
portfolio of these states is. This heterogeneity is not, however, without
commonalities: except for Biopharmaceuticals, most of the state basin
counties are more productive than the national average, although not
specialized. This suggests a potential for the region to build upon its
strengths, and the need to coordinate efforts across states in order to
avoid competition by exclusion or rival development of clusters.
As pointed out by several authors (Howard, 2018; Kerr, Colton,
Johnson, & Wright, 2015; Morrisey, 2017; Pinto et al., 2015; Soma, van
der Burg, Hoefnagel, & Stuiver, 2018; World Bank, 2016, pp. 1–28),
regional stakeholders, often beyond jurisdictional boundaries, need to
be included in the policy landscape when strategies for the Blue
5
The only exception is Michigan, where the extent of our analysis includes
the entire state.
6
Counties in Indiana and Wisconsin which are part of the Chicago MSA, were
not counted as part of these states' watershed. Based on these definitions, our
study area is composed of 11 watershed counties for Indiana, 35 for Ohio, 3 for
Pennsylvania, 7 for Minnesota, 35 for New York, and 37 for Wisconsin. For
Michigan, the whole state (83 counties) is considered part of the Great Lakes
watershed. CSA is a grouping of multiple MSAs in cases where there are eco-
nomic linkages throughout overlapping commuting patterns (see: https://
www2.census.gov/geo/maps/econ/ec2012/csa/EC2012_330M200US176M.
pdf).
120
Applied Geography 105 (2019) 111–123
Economy are devised in order avoid state vs. state conflicts. In turn, the
coordinated inclusion of local communities can contribute to reduce
local and regional resistance to certain uses of the coastal and water
space, while increasing the chances of ecologically and economically
sustainable outcomes. A call for sustainability, explicitly laid out within
the Blue Accounting Initiative, is further reinforced by the strong per-
formance of mining-related and manufacturing clusters in this analysis.
Provided that the former clusters are limited by the lack of a natural
resource and global prices, the expansion of mining-related services,
such as transportation of oil & gas products through the region, may
impair the expansion of other clusters of activities, such as advanced
aquaculture or offshore renewables. As the GLR moves forward, the
value of its resource, clean water, will become more central to the re-
gion's economic discourse. Sustainability, built within the concept of
Blue Economy by many scholars and policy initiatives, has to be taken
in to account (e.g. Alexander & Graziano, 2017; Banousis, Kyrizai, &
Bourtzis, 2016; Burgess et al., 2018; ECORYS, 2013; Ehlers, 2016;
Eikeset et al., 2018; European Commission, 2017; European
Commission – Maritime Affairs, 2017; Howard, 2018; Lillebø, Pita,
Garcia Rodrigues, Ramos, & Villasante, 2017; Smith-Godfrey, 2016;
Surís-Regueiro, Garza-Gil, & Varela-Lafuente, 2013). Among these uses
with current or future potential for growth include aeolic energy, ocean
energy, aquaculture, biotechnology, leisure and recreation, seabed
mining, and tourism. Implied with the Blue Economy resource use
strategies is the expectation that water and coastal environments are to
be maintained in a healthy state or be restored to as close to a healthy
state as possible. This work provides a snapshot of the current strengths
of GLR for building a potentially thriving future within the concept of
the Blue Economy, and it does not lay out the full pathway to achieve a
transition to a sustainable coastal economy.
Potentially, and given the strategic role of this region and its
M. Graziano, et al.
resource, several pathways exist for bridging and coordinating among
different states' objectives, including the development of state invest-
ment banks (Mazzuccato & Penna, 2016). These strategies have already
been used, particularly within the realm of renewable energy technol-
ogies, where GLR could build upon a strong regional specialization and
good performance in productivity, along with vast offshore and coastal
resources (Carley, Lawrence, Brown, Nourasfshan, & Bernami, 2011;
Polzin, 2017). The GLR is a transforming region, where the relationship
between humans and aquatic environments is of the utmost importance
for initiating a sustainable transition process. As of 2018, several fed-
eral and regional initiatives are slowly aligning with Blue Economy
goals. Whether these initiatives aim to rebuild the ecological capital of
the region (GLRI), or to bring a new generation of advanced manu-
facturing for water transportation (Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Coalition
for Autonomous Vessels, see CGLSLGP, 2017), or even to highlight the
contribution of the region's ecological capital (Blue Accounting), they
signal an emerging conceptualization of the GLR as a transitioning
coastal region. It should be however noted that most of the clusters
presented here are not necessarily backed by cluster institutions, and
are rather statistical aggregations based on industry linkages.
Eventually, regional stakeholders will choose in varied ways how
the Blue Economy will move forward. These stakeholders will vary from
state to state depending on each state's jurisdictional arrangement (a
further layer of complexity in the region), and will eventually interact
with each other, and with federal institutions. Because of this varied
landscape, it would not be useful to identify specific agents in this work.
These choices will require selecting which industries of the Blue
Economy will be prioritized. Consequently, future research needs to
engage with relevant stakeholders, whether at state (e.g. Michigan's
Department of Natural Resources, the Michigan Economic Development
Corporation) or regional level (e.g. the great Lakes Commission, the
International Joint Commission), for identifying the relevant clusters
(or industries) that compose a region's Blue Economy. Although scho-
lars have used several ways to define these ‘clusters’ (where this word
can take several meanings, see e.g. Doloreux, 2017), these approaches
are either bottom-up, but qualitative, or top-down, and quantitative or
focused on specific parts of generally accepted Blue Economy clusters.
This lack of regional definitions is particularly problematic when
moving from an analytical perspective to a prescriptive approach,
where policies and drivers of success need to be identified.
4.2. Blue economy and regional development: existing paradigms and
lessons learned
Although the importance of maritime transportation is low as a
whole, it is important in relation to specific sectors. in the GLR, the
waterscape acts as the locus of transportation, shaping how natural
resource extraction (in this case oil & gas) interacts with the waterscape
in ways that are different from those in other coastal and marine re-
gions (e.g. North Sea), where resource transportation occurs largely
within underwater pipelines. The importance of water transportation
has been identified as important in other regional economies also. For
example, in Scotland, Alexander et al., (2014) found that the regional
benefit of aquaculture transport was substantial and that it even played
a role in sustaining ferry services for locals and tourists. In Ireland,
maritime transportation was found to have an important economic role
within the wider Irish economy (Morrissey & O’Donoghue, 2013).
Moreover, in a study of 24 Chinese provinces Démurger (2001) sug-
gested that geographical location and infrastructure endowment ac-
counted significantly for differences in regional growth with transport
facilities a key differentiating factor. It often appears that any Blue
Economy focus relating to water transportation is upon bulk: cargo
shipping and large-scale cruise vessels. However, smaller transportation
roles are also clearly important, particularly at the regional scale. In-
deed, transportation provides the geographical inter-linkages
121
Applied Geography 105 (2019) 111–123
throughout the regional economy; as such, it should be an important
consideration when establishing any regional Blue Economy policy or
regional growth plan.
The “Blue Economy” aims to power jobs and economic growth by
bringing together expertise and technology across a range of traditional
and emerging industries. The eight key Blue Economy sectors identified
by the OECD include existing sectors such as offshore oil and gas,
shipping, fisheries and tourism and emerging sectors such as aqua-
culture, marine energy (wind, wave, tide and thermal), biotechnologies
and seabed mining. Fishing has long been the dominant focus of mar-
itime economies, and yet as we have seen in the GLR, the industry is
declining due to various ecological shocks. This is not particular to the
GLR; fisheries collapses have become a regularity in industrial society
(Jacques, 2015). Indeed, we are seeing the decline of fishing commu-
nities around the globe. This leads us to ask the question: what role
should fisheries play in any Blue Economy strategy? Hilborn and
Costello (2018) argue that there is potential to increase global fish yield
by 14% with current fishing methods and that ‘blue growth’ is possible
in fisheries, but what does this mean at the regional scale? This may be
a question for future research.
The role that regional characteristics play in determining the state
of the Blue Economy in the GLR emerging from this work, highlights an
additional element to be added to the relation between Blue Economy
and regional economic development: how existing institutions (i.e.
firms & public institutions) operate in a context of transition. Regional
scientists and economic geographers have developed several frame-
works through which investigating and understanding this role. For
example, in the context of regional economic development,
Evolutionary Economic Geography (EEG, see Boschma & Frenken,
2008) offer paths through which understanding how the current state of
the Blue Economy has come to be, thus providing the possibility to
identify regional strengths and weaknesses, and it has been partly uti-
lized in the context of tourism (see e.g. Brouder, 2014). Sustainable
transition theory (STT) further provides a dynamic framework for
identifying the changing factors in the status quo (Schot & Geels, 2008),
and their role within the transitions process (in our case, towards the
development of a Blue Economy), and this framework is also used in a
‘blue’ context (see e.g. Huitema & Meijerink, 2010; Westley et al.,
2013).
Finally, the results from the GLR state of the Blue Economy high-
lights the importance of ecological restoration & sustainability. Current
efforts to ‘clean up’ areas across the region, and the increasing role
played by ‘Environmental Services’ highlight the emergence of a new
type of ‘extractive activity’, one which focuses on wellbeing and aes-
thetic value on one hand, and on ensuring some continued level of
ecosystem health on the other (Ehrlich et al., 2017; RSQE, 2018). This
clearly links to the concept of ‘sustainability’ in the Blue Economy de-
finition, yet it is not currently recognized as a Blue Economy ‘sector’.
This focus on sustainability and the potential for an ‘Environmental
Services’ sector raises two key considerations for regional Blue
Economy policies. Firstly, multi-sector competition, and the potential
(cumulative) environmental risks each sector poses to others (e.g. oil
spills) requires consideration. Whilst this is already a consideration in
ecosystem-based management, what does it mean for the development
of an Environmental Services sector? Secondly, ‘scale’ will be a decisive
factor for the implementation of the regional Blue Economy. From this
analysis, it emerges that several clusters (e.g. Oil & Gas; Tourism; Water
Transportation etc.) rely on global supply change, which can be ex-
posed to ecological (as well as economic and political) shocks arising
outside of the region (see Alexander & Graziano, 2018). Whilst it is
hoped that these factors will be addressed (as much as possible) in
management processes, they should also be key considerations, parti-
cularly if prioritizing growth of one industry over another, in Blue
Economy strategies.
M. Graziano, et al.
5. Conclusions
The characteristics of the Blue Economy in the GLR identified in this
work have led to new research questions. The definitions applied in
other coastal/marine locales are insufficient or inappropriate to char-
acterize the role several clusters play in relation to the Blue Economy,
while issues of social, ecological, and economic scale persist across
multiple jurisdictions (county, state, federal, international). Thus, the
questions arising around ‘scale’ extend further to the level of regional
management required to govern the Blue Economy, especially in locales
with multi-level governance.
What differences and similarities exist among regions and stake-
holders is another important research question for future research. As
the Blue Economy is adopted, the heterogeneity of marine/coastal re-
gions will emerge more and more as a contrasting force towards top-
down definitions. Proactively working to create flexible frameworks by
which to identify each region's characteristics will become a more
pressing matter. This ‘pressure’ is already emerging in the prominent
‘tool’, MSP, where the initial acritical approach has soon become in-
sufficient to cope with regional differences and scale mismatches (see
Alexander & Graziano, 2018).
These findings suggest the need for rethinking how the Blue
Economy is defined, moving from top-down definitions towards re-
gional definitions, developed through a transdisciplinary process in-
volving local policymakers, researchers, and members of the business
community.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dr. Karyn Morrissey (University of
Exeter) for helping with the paper's structure. Dr. Graziano wishes to
thank Dr. C. Patrick Heidkamp (Southern Connecticut State University,
SCSU), Dr. Stephen Axon (SCSU), and Michaela Garland (SCSU) for the
rich exchange of ideas and sources on the Blue Economy. We should
add a sentence thanking the editor and reviewers. This chapter is
contribution number 118 of the Central Michigan University Institute
for Great Lakes Research.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.02.013.
References
Adriaens, P., & Jones, F. (2017). The great lakes-st. Lawrence Blue Growth Fund1–19.
Alanen, A. R. (2007). Morgan park: Duluth, U.S. Steel, and the forging of a company. Town.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Alder, S., Lagakos, D., & Ohinian, L. (2014). Competitive pressure and the decline of the rust
belt a macroeconomic analysis. Working Papers, No. 20538NBER.
Alexander, K. A., Gatward, I., Parker, A., Black, K., Boardman, A., Potts, T., et al. (2014).
An assessment of the benefits to Scotland of Aquaculture. Edinburgh, UK: Marine
Scotland. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00450799.pdf, Accessed date: 19
July 2018.
Alexander, K., & Graziano, M. (2017). Marine spatial planning, scale mismatches in a
complex (regional) Seascape. Regions Magazine, 307(1), 15–16.
Alexander, K., & Graziano, M. (2018). Scale mismatches: Old friends and new seascapes in
a planning regime. In C. P. Heidkamp, & J. Morrissey (Eds.). Towards coastal resilience
and sustainability (the dynamics of economic space). London, UK: Routledge.
Austin, J. (2014). Growing Michigan's blue economy, Michigan basin summit.
Austin, J. C., Anderson, S., Courant, P. N., & Litan, R. E. (2007). Healthy waters, strong
economy: The benefits of restoring the great lakes ecosystem. Washington, D.C: The
Brookings Institution and the Great Lakes Economic Initiative.
Austin, J. and Stehman, A. (n/a). Michigan blue economy, making Michigan the world's
freshwater & freshwater innovation capital, pp. 1-119.
Banousis, D., Kyrizai, Z., & Bourtzis, T. (2016). Social Economy as a key factor for en-
hancing Blue Growth in Greece. A conceptual perspective. AIMS Environmental
Science, 3(4), 815–826.
Beck, E. C. (1979). The Love canal tragedy. EPA Journal, 5, 17.
Bencomo, P. (2017). Is a maritime career waiting for you? Lake superior magazine, February
2017. https://www.lakesuperior.com/the-lake/maritime/391-is-a-maritime-career-
waiting-for-you/, Accessed date: 16 April 2018.
122
Applied Geography 105 (2019) 111–123
Boschma, R. A., & Frenken, K. (2008). Why is economic geography not an evolutionary
science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. In R. Martin (Ed.). Economy:
Critical essays n human Geography. London, UK: Routledge.
Brouder, P. (2014). Evolutionary economic geography and tourism studies: Extant studies
and future research directions. Tourism Geographies, 16(4), 540–545.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2017). Labor productivity and costs. https://www.bls.
gov/lpc/, Accessed date: 6 April 2017.
Burgess, M. B., Michaela Clemence, M., McDermott, G. R., Costello, C., & Gaines, S. D.
(2018). Five rules for pragmatic blue growth. Marine Policy, 87, 331–339.
Carley, S., Lawrence, S., Brown, A., Nourasfshan, A., & Bernami, E. (2011). Energy-based
economic development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, 282–295.
Carter, G. S., Nalepa, T. F., & Rediske, R. R. (2003). Status and trends of benthic popu-
lations in a coastal drowned river mouth lake of Lake Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes
Research, 32(3), 278–295.
Colgan, C. S. (2003). Measurement of the ocean and coastal economy: Theory and methods.
Digital commons at centers for the blue economy. https://cbe.miis.edu/noep_
publications/3, Accessed date: 25 April 2017.
Colgan, C. S. (2007). A guide to the measurement of the market data for the ocean and coastal
economy in the National Ocean Economics Program. National Oceans Economics Program.
Edmund S Muskie School of Public Service, University of Southern Maine.
Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers (CGLSLGP) (2016).
Strategy for the great lakes-st. Lawrence river maritime transportation system. http://
www.gsgp.org/media/1815/final-regional-mts-strategy-june-15-2016pdf.pdf,
Accessed date: 24 April 2017.
Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers (CGLSLGP) (2017).
Resolution of October 20, 2017. http://www.gsgp.org/media/2009/autonomous-
vessels-resolution-10-20-17.pdf, Accessed date: 26 April 2017.
Crawley, A., Beynon, M., & Munday, M. (2013). Making location quotients more relevant
as a policy aid in regional spatial analysis. Urban Studies, 20(9), 1854–1869.
Delgado, M., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2014). Defining clusters of related industries. http://
clustermapping.us/resource/defining-clusters-related-industries, Accessed date: 19
April 2018.
Démurger, S. (2001). Infrastructure development and economic growth: An explanation
for regional disparities in China? Journal of Comparative Economics, 29(1), 95–117.
Dialogues in human Geography.
Ding, J., Ge, X., & Casey, R. (2014). “Blue competition” in China: Current situation and
challenges. Marine Policy, 44, 351–359.
Doloreux, D. (2017). What is a maritime cluster? Marine Policy, 83, 215–220.
Doloreux, D., & Shearmur, R. (2009). Maritime clusters in diverse regional contexts: The
case of Canada. Marine Policy, 33(3), 520–527.
Doloreux, D., Shearmur, R., & Figueiredo, D. (2016). Québec’coastal maritime cluster: Its
impact on regional economic development, 2001–2011. Marine Policy, 71, 201–209.
Edwards, A., Veglia, S., & Buckley, K. (2014). Mississippi's blue economy, an analysis of
Mississippi's maritime commerce. From https://www.usm.edu/sites/default/files/
groups/trent-lott-national-center/pdf/mississippis_blue_economy.pdf, Accessed date:
16 April 2018.
Ehlers, P. (2016). Blue growth and ocean governance-how to balance the use and pro-
tection of the seas. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 15, 187–203.
Ehrlich, G., Graziano, M., McWilliams, M., & Liesch, M. (2017). The socioeconomic impacts
of the great lakes restoration initiative – phase 1 report. Prepared for the great lakes
commission and the C.S. Mott Foundation.
Eikeset, et al. (2018). What is blue growth? The semantics of “sustainable development”
of marine environments. Marine Policy, 87, 177–179.
EMSI. (2017). Database version 2017.3.
European Commission. (2012). Blue growth–scenarios and drivers for sustainable growth
from the oceans, seas and coasts European Commission. Brussels From https://ec.
europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/publications/blue-growth-scenarios-and-drivers-
sustainable-growth-oceans-seas-and-coasts-0_en, Accessed date: 19 April 2018.
European Commission. (2017). Report on the Blue Growth Strategy: Towards more sustain-
able growth and jobs in the blue economyBrussels: European Commission.
European Commission – Maritime Affairs. (2017). Blue growth. Retrieved from https://ec.
europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/blue_growth_en, Accessed date: 26 April 2017.
Executive Office of the President- Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (2017). North
American industry classification system. https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/
2017NAICS/2017_NAICS_Manual.pdf, Accessed date: 12 February 2018.
Feyrer, J.,S., Acerdote, B., & Stern, D. (2007). Did the rust belt become shiny? A study of
cities and counties that lost steel and auto jobs in the 1980s. Brookings-Wharton Papers
on Urban Affairs.
Goniea, T. (n.d.). The Story of State-licensed Commercial Fishing History on the Great
Lakes, Michigan Department of Natural Resources http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,
4570,7-153-10364_52259-316019–,00.html [Last accessed on 26/04/2017].
Graziano, M., Fox, C. J., Alexander, K. A., Pita, C., Crumlish, M., Hughes, A., et al. (2018).
Environmental and socio-political shocks to the seafood sector: What does this mean
for resilience? Lessons from two UK case studies, 1945–2016. Marine Policy, 87,
301–313.
Graziano, M., Gunther, P., & Lema, E. (2017a). The economic impacts of crude oil trans-
portation across the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway Region. Prepared for the Great
Lakes Commissionhttp://www.glc.org/wp-content/uploads/Oil-Transp-Economics-
Graziano-May2017-FinalReport.pdf, Accessed date: 26 April 2017.
Graziano, M., Musso, M., & Lecca, P. (2017b). Historic paths and future expectations: The
macroeconomic impacts of the offshore wind technologies in the UK. Energy Policy,
108, 715–730.
Great Lakes Commission. (2018). The great Lakes basin Compact. http://www.glc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/01/GreatLakesBasinCompact.pdf, Accessed date: 26 April
2017.
Great Lakes Commission/Commission des Grands Lacs and Council of Great Lakes
M. Graziano, et al.
Industries (2017). Economic impact of restoring the great lakes: Summary of initial re-
search results.
Hilborn, R., & Costello, C. (2018). The potential for blue growth in marine fish yield,
profit and abundance of fish in the ocean. Marine Policy, 87, 350–355.
Howard, B. C. (2018). Blue growth: Stakeholder perspectives. Marine Policy, 87, 375–377.
Huitema, D., & Meijerink, S. (2010). Realizing water transitions: The role of policy en-
trepreneurs in water policy change. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 26.
Jacques, P. J. (2015). Are world fisheries a global panarchy? Marine Policy, 53, 165–170.
Kerr, S., Colton, J., Johnson, K., & Wright, G. (2015). Rights and ownership in sea
country: Implications of marine renewable energy for indigenous and local commu-
nities. Marine Policy, 52, 108–115.
Ketels, C. (2015). Clusters and regional economies: Implications for the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence region. Prepared for the conference of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Governors and premiers 2015 leadership summithttp://www.gsgp.org/media/1604/
clustersregecoreport.pdf, Accessed date: 24 April 2018.
Ketels, C., & Protsiv, S. (2014). Methodology and findings report for a cluster mapping of
related sectors. u: European Cluster Observatory ReportStockholm: School of Economics-
Center for Strategy and Competitiveness.
Ketels, C., & Protsiv, S. (2016). Priority sector report: Blue economy, European cluster ob-
servatory reportStockholm: School of Economics-Center for Strategy and
Competitiveness.
Koliousis, I. G., Papadimitriou, S., Riza, E., Stavroulakis, P. J., & Tsioumas, V. (2017).
Strategy, policy, and the formulation of maritime cluster typologies. Marine Policy,
86, 31–38.
Kolympiris, C., Kalaitzandonakes, N., & Miller, D. (2011). Spatial collocation and venture
capital in the US biotechnology industry. Research Policy, 40(9), 1188–1199. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.022.
Liesch, M. (2011). Partnerships and photographs: Community conceptions of Keweenaw
National Historical park. Geographical Review, 101(4), 497–517.
Liesch, M. (2016). Creating Keweenaw: Parkmaking as response to post-mining economic
decline. Extractive Industries and Society, 3(2), 527–538.
Lillebø, A. I., Pita, C., Garcia Rodrigues, J., Ramos, S., & Villasante, S. (2017). How can
marine ecosystem services support the Blue Growth agenda. Marine Policy, 81,
132–142.
Marine Scotland (2014). An assessment of the benefits to Scotland of aquaculture. The
Scottish Government.
Marty, J., & Nicoll, A. (2017). Environmental sensitivity to oil exposure in the great lakes
waters: A multimodal approach. http://www.glc.org/wp-content/uploads/Oil-Transp-
Risk-Assessment-Marty-June2017-FinalReport.pdf, Accessed date: 16 April 2018.
Mazzuccato, M., & Penna, C. (2016). Beyond market failures: The market creating and
shaping roles of state investment banks. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 19(4),
305–326.
Meyer, E. S., Characklis, G. W., Brown, C., & Moody, P. (2016). Hedging the financial risk
from water scarcity for Great Lakes shipping. Water Resources Research, 52(1),
227–245.
Morrisey, K. (2017). It's not just a Blue Economy moment. Dialogues in Human Geography,
7(1), 42–44.
Morrissey, K. (2015). An inter and intra-regional exploration of the marine sector em-
ployment and deprivation in England. The Geographical Journal, 181(3), 295–303.
Morrissey, K., & Cummins, V. (2016). Measuring relatedness in a multisectoral cluster: An
input–output approach. European Planning Studies, 24(4), 629–644.
Morrissey, K., & O'Donoghue, C. (2012). The Irish marine economy and regional devel-
opment. Marine Policy, 36(2), 358–364.
Morrissey, K., & O'Donoghue, C. (2013). The role of the marine sector in the Irish national
economy: An input–output analysis. Marine Policy, 37, 230–238.
Mulazzani, L., & Malorgio, G. (2017). Blue growth and ecosystem services. Marine Policy,
85, 17–24.
Mulazzani, L., Trevisi, R., Manrique, R., & Malorgio, G. (2016). Blue Growth and the
relationship between ecosystem services and human activities: The Salento artisanal
fisheries case study. Ocean & Coastal Management, 134, 120–128.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Office for Coastal Management
(NOAA). (2017). NOAA report on the U.S. Ocean and great lakes economyCharleston,
SC: NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Available at: https://coast.noaa.gov/
digitalcoast/training/econreport, Accessed date: 16 April 2018.
Papavizas, C. G., & Gardner, B. E. (2008). Is the Jones act redundant. USF Mar. LJ, 21, 95.
Patil, P. G., Virdin, J., Diez, S. M., Roberts, J., & Singh, A. (2016). Toward a blue economy:
A promise for sustainable growth in the caribbean (report No. AUS16344). World Bank
Group.
Pinto, H., Cruz, A. R., & Combe, C. (2015). Cooperation and the emergence of maritime
clusters in the Atlantic: Analysis and implications of innovation and human capital
for blue growth. Marine Policy, 57, 167–177.
Polzin, F. (2017). Mobilizing private finance for low-carbon innovation – a systematic
review of barriers and solutions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 77,
525–535.
Research Seminar in Quantitative Economics (RSQE) (2018). Socioeconomic impacts of the
great lakes restoration initiative. University of Michigan.
123
Applied Geography 105 (2019) 111–123
Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation
journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 20(5), 537–554.
Shapiro, A. (2013). The lure of the North woods: Cultivating tourism in the upper midwest.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Shreyer, P., & Pilat, D. (2001). Measuring productivity. 33:2001/11OECD Economic
Studieshttps://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/1959006.pdf, Accessed date: 17 April
2018.
Smith-Godfrey, S. (2016). Defining the blue economy, maritime Affairs. Journal of the
National Maritime Foundation of India, 12(1), 58–64.
Sölvell, Ö., Lindqvist, G., & Ketels, C. (2003). The Cluster initiative greenbook. Stockholm:
Ivory Tower, AB.
Soma, K., van der Burg, S. W. K., Hoefnagel, E., & Stuiver, M. (2018). Social innovation –
a future pathway for blue growth? Marine Policy, 87, 363–370.
Steinman, A. D., Cardinale, B. J., Munns, W. R., Jr., Ogdahl, M. E., Allan, J. D., Angaldi,
T., et al. (2017). Ecosystem services in the Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes
Research, 43(3), 161–168.
Surís-Regueiro, J. C., Garza-Gil, M. D., & Varela-Lafuente, M. (2013). Marine economy: A
proposal for its definition in the European Union. Marine Policy, 42, 111–124.
Taylor, W. W., & Ferreri, C. P. (Eds.). (2000). Great Lakes fisheries policy and management:
A binational perspective. East Lansing, Michigan, U.S.: Michigan State University Press.
University of Michigan Research Seminar in Quantitative Economics & Central Michigan
University (2017). Socioeconomic impacts of the great lakes restoration initiative:
Preliminary research results.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (n.d.). Great lakes navigation system, Economic Strength to
the Nation.
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis BEA. (2008). An introduction to BEA regional data.
https://www.bea.gov/library/_pdf/regional_info.pdf, Accessed date: 21 July 2018.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2013). Rural-urban Continuum codes doc-
umentation, May 2013. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-
continuum-codes/documentation/, Accessed date: 17 April 2018.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2014). 2013 Census of aquaculture. https://
www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Aquaculture/,
Accessed date: 17 April 2018.
U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT) (n.d.). reportBeyond traffic: 2045 Final
Report. Washington DC: Office of the Under Secretary for Policy. At https://www.
transportation.gov/policy-initiatives/beyond-traffic-2045-final-report [Last accessed
on 17/04/2018].
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration Office of General Counsel (NOAA
OGC) (2018). The great lakes. http://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_greatlakes.html,
Accessed date: 17 April 2018.
Verspagen, B., & De Loo, I. (1999). Technology spillovers between sectors and over time.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60(3), 215–235.
Voyer, M., Quirk, G., McIlgorm, A., & Azmi, K. (2018). Shades of blue: What do com-
peting interpretations of the blue economy mean for oceans governance? Journal of
Environmental Policy and Planning, 20(5), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1523908X.2018.1473153.
Wehse, R., Hanson, D., Reska, T., & Holey, M. (2017). 2017 summary of 2016 lake trout
and salmonid stocking in Lake MichiganGreen Bay Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Office Report Number: 2017-02. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Westley, F. R., Tjombo, O., Schultz, L., Folke, C., Crona, B., & Bodin, O. (2013). A theory
of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society,
18(3), 27–43.
Wildlife Federation. (2005). Prescription for great lakes ecosystem protection and restoration.
http://www.healthylakes.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Prescription-for-Great-
Lakes-RestorationFINAL.pdf, Accessed date: 17 April 2018.
Winder, G. M., & Le Heron, R. (2017). Assembling a blue economy moment? Geographic
engagement with globalizing biological-economic relations in multi-use marine en-
vironments. Dialogues in Human Geography, 7(1), 3–26.
Winder, G. M., & Le Heron, R. (2017b). Further assembly work: A mountains to seas blue
economy imaginary. Dialogues in Human Geography, 7(1), 50–55.
Wolf, E. N., & Nadiri, I. N. (1993). Spillover effects, linkage structure, and research and
development. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 4(2), 315–331.
World Bank. (2016). Oceans 2030, financing the blue economy for sustainable development.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.
World Bank. (2017). The potential of the blue economy, increasing long-term benefits of the
sustainable use of marine resources for small island developing states and coastal least
developed countries. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Groupi.
Further reading
Council of the Great Lakes Region (2017). The great lakes economy: The growth engine of
North America. https://councilgreatlakesregion.org/the-great-lakes-economy-the-
growth-engine-of-north-america/, Accessed date: 22 August 2017.