Kelponomics: The State of North American Kelp Mariculture

Kelponomics: The State of North American Kelp Mariculture | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Kelponomics: The State of North American Kelp Mariculture Sarah B. Gutzmann, Joshua Russell, Samantha Martinez de Arredondo Raya, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8912882/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 16 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The kelp sector is growing in Canada, the USA, and Mexico. In part, this expansion is due to the enthusiasm around the sector’s promise for environmental, social, economic, and climate benefits. However, these Blue Economy goals may not be inherently realized by Indigenous Nations and coastal communities where kelp industries operate. To investigate the status of the kelp-economy in North America, we compiled a database of 267 kelp-related organizations from across North America and gave each a score from 1–4 for community participation as a proxy for community-derived benefit. We then looked at broader political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental (PESTLE) factors at the state/province level to evaluate which enabled community participation. Finally, we used a cluster analysis to group states/provinces into broader regions based on their PESTLE variables. We found that factors that influence community participation included state-level political legislation (local adoption of UNDRIP), regional economic support/planning, public support of seaweed aquaculture, initial permitting investment, and environmental trends reflected in wild kelp abundance. Of the regions evaluated, British Columbia (a cluster in itself) had the strongest enabling conditions (highest PESTLE scores) and had higher participation than other clusters. Overall, we recommend that if the North American kelp-economy aims to meet the social-environmental goals of the Blue Economy, additional effort should be directed by state/provincial powers towards enabling greater community participation, particularly of Indigenous Nations, in areas engaged with the seaweed economy. Further, we discuss how seaweed-specific legislation, species reporting, authentic collaboration, and inter-industry connections may progress these goals. phyconomy regenerative development seaweed aquaculture ecological economics kelp restoration Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 2 Introduction Interest in seaweed industries is expanding in Canada, the United States of America, and Mexico (FAO 2024 ). Globally, seaweed aquaculture swelled from 10 million to 36 million tonnes between 2000 and 2022, an average annual growth rate of 5.8% (FAO 2024 ). The vast majority of seaweed (macroalgae) is produced in Asia (~ 97%), with North America (NA; Canada, USA, Mexico) contributing less than 1% to global markets (FAO 2024 ). However, seaweed production in this region is currently being emphasized given its potential for local employment, bioremediation, habitat production, and climate change mitigation, leading to a increased interest in investment and commercial enterprises within the “Phyconomy” (a contraction of the words phycology and agronomy describing seaweed crop production; Critchley et al., 2024 ). Here, we analyzed this growth in the NA Phyconomy, with particular focus on enabling benefits for local communities. Canada and Mexico [and prior to the 2025 Trump administration, the USA] are members of the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, which explicitly prioritises seaweed aquaculture (High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy 2023 ). Moreover, the United Nations General Assembly launched a Global Seaweed Initiative in September 2025, aiming “to accelerate the safe, sustainable, and inclusive development of the global seaweed sector” (UN Trade and Development 2025 ). Seaweed industries can indeed lead to socioeconomic benefits such as increased social cohesion, income, and employment, especially for women (Hamad and Islam 2022 ; Spillias et al. 2023 ; Sultana et al. 2023 ; Mwaijande and Rashidi 2025 ). On the other hand, rapid seaweed development can have trade-offs for communities such as financial dependency, population displacement, and overproduction (Steenbergen et al. 2017 ; Spillias et al. 2023 ; Meng 2025 ). Although aquaculture is the most prominent seaweed industry type globally (FAO 2024 ), seaweed-based businesses and initiatives are not limited to cultivation, particularly in NA (Gutzmann and Cisneros-Montemayor 2026 ). In 2023, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) data reveals that landings from wild seaweed harvest in NA totaled at least 14,000 tonnes live weight, compared with only ~ 730 tonnes live weight of farmed seaweed production (FAO 2025 ). Seaweed industries like aquaculture and wild harvest can advance 12 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, including those aimed at food security, gender equality, and clean water (Khan et al. 2024 ). Seaweed businesses thus fit within the concept of a Blue Economy, which explicitly calls for centering social equity in addition to environmental sustainability in both new and emerging ocean sectors (Cisneros-Montemayor et al. 2022 ). To move towards the goal of a Blue Economy, we suggest that the complementary practise of Regenerative Development and Design is used to guide ocean sectors as it requires that businesses, local communities, and the environment all benefit from project development. This practise starts with analyzing potential, or “the gap between what something is and what it could be” (Regenesis Institute for Regenerative Practice 2019 ). Hence, despite the fact that NA has a high potential for Blue Economic operationalization and implementation socially and ecologically (Cisneros-Montemayor et al. 2021 ; Wuwung et al. 2022 ), studies on the social impacts and benefits of seaweed industry in NA are underdeveloped (Spillias et al. 2023 ). In NA, nearly 50% of previously documented (n = 40/84) seaweed organizations target kelp species (seaweed species in the order Laminariales). However, 68% of 266 companies’ data do not include the species used (Hermans 2024 ). This gap is important given the prominence of wild harvest in NA seaweed production. Kelps are ecologically critical, forming undersea forests along much of NA’s coastline where Canada and the USA have an estimated 609,000 km 2 of kelp habitat combined (Eger et al. 2024b ). Indeed, throughout human evolution, kelps have helped to shape NA with evidence that kelp forests allowed humans to travel the coast before glacial retreat (Erlandson et al. 2007 ), and nutrients from macroalgae supporting human brain evolution through dietary supplements (Cornish et al. 2017 ). Moreover, kelps have held cultural importance to Indigenous Peoples for generations (Turner and Bell 1973 ; Turner 2000 ; Erlandson et al. 2007 ; Dillehay et al. 2008 ; Hale Hendlin et al. 2024 ; Gutzmann et al. 2025 ). Diverse human-kelp relationships continue today, and thus a spectrum of kelp relationships and uses is important to consider for wholistic governance of a NA kelp economy (Gutzmann and Cisneros-Montemayor 2026 ). For example, kelp monitoring and restoration are required for a regenerative kelp-economy, although long-term financing remains a challenge at present (Eger et al. 2022 , 2024c ). Further, for connecting to global markets, downstream market actors who develop and sell kelp applications and products as well as processing facilities, are critical to consider from a supply chain perspective. In this way, the Phyconomy is expanded from aquaculture and/or harvest to include downstream applications of biomass as well as research and stewardship organizations (Hermans 2024 ; note that within this work we focus on a kelp specific subset of the Phyconomy in NA and use aquaculture and farming interchangeably. To maintain this distinction, we use “kelp-economy” to describe this kelp focused economic development in NA). The interest in a kelp-economy highlights the need for NA not only to determine pathways to entering global seaweed markets, but also to invest in guardrails for local equity and community-derived benefits. Globally, ocean based economic expansion has and continues to lead to violations of human rights to a healthy ocean, food, livelihood, health, and security (Bennett et al. 2023 ; The Ocean Defenders Project 2025 ). Hence, although the seaweed industry has championed social, environmental, and cultural benefits for coastal communities, these may not be inherently realized (The Nature Conservancy 2021 ; Spillias et al. 2023 ). For instance, licencing and permitting, public support, market size, and technological investment are larger hurdles to kelp industries than environmental factors like warming waters in the global North (Koch et al. 2026 ). Further, Indigenous economic sovereignty is highlighted as a necessity in resource sectors due to past and present colonial systems (Boron and Markey 2020 ; Atleo and Boron 2023 ; Jobin 2023 ; Atleo 2024 ) where sector actors (including states/provinces and the private sector) must increase the recognition and protection of specific Indigenous rights to the ocean (Bennett et al. 2023 ; The Ocean Defenders Project 2025 ). Despite the clear interest in expanding the kelp-economy in NA, the current political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental (PESTLE) factors that enable or constrain community-derived benefits have not been specifically explored for the sector. If the NA kelp-economy is to meet its regenerative potential and benefit coastal communities per Blue Economic initiatives, it is critical to assess current community decision-making sovereignty as the sector expands because power distribution to local communities is a precursor for an equitable, co-managed resource sector (Carlsson and Berkes 2005 ; Hamilton-Smith 2005 ). In NA, this assessment must specifically include the level of engagement and leadership of Indigenous peoples given the extent of their marine and coastal territories across the Pacific Northwest. This research addresses this need by presenting a preliminary, novel investigation into the distribution of Indigenous/community participation in NA kelp-economy by addressing the questions of: 1) What is the current state of the kelp-economy in NA; specifically, how many actors are there, what are their main objectives, and where are they located? 2) What are the regional PESTLE profiles which may enable community-derived benefits at the organization level, and are these variables associated with current community participation? 3) Do regional PESTLE profiles cluster into larger regional units that can be used to direct focus to increase local benefits? We reiterate that this work is for the contemporary, commercial kelp-economy and does not represent cultural and traditional relationships that Indigenous peoples and communities have had for generations. Additionally, while there are different definitions of equity, here we consider it in the context of decision-making power at the organizational level (participation in the kelp-economy) as a proxy for community-based benefit. 3 Methods Herein we detail how we addressed each of the above research questions, beginning with database development and mapping (question 1); political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental (PESTLE) analysis (question 2); and finally, a cluster analysis (question 3). 3.1 Data on NA Kelp Economy (question 1) First, we compiled a kelp economy database for NA from an existing global Phyconomy database by Hermans ( 2024 ). As of December 2024, the global database included more than 1400 entries updated by Hermans and through public submission. We manually verified existing NA entries in the database and added new ones found using LinkedIn, Google searches, as well as via the websites and word-of-mouth of organizations which were already named in the Hermans Phyconomy Database (e.g., documented collaborators). Using publicly available information, we detailed company/organization information, kelp species utilized, and date of establishment (see Supplementary Materials for details). We also recorded organization type as non-profit, for-profit private, Guardians (Indigenous resource and stewardship organizations), and knowledge hubs (kelp-specific research or management related conglomerates/networks; note that we did not include individual academic groups/labs whose portfolios included some kelp work as, to avoid double counting, we assumed significant players were represented by the larger knowledge hubs). We stopped adding organizations to our database in December 2025. We categorized up to three organization objectives as either: agriculture; bioplastics; consulting; food product; kelp aquaculture; kelp propagation; nutraceuticals, biostimulants, or other chemically derived applications); processing (wholesale); regulation/governance/policy; research, blue carbon; research, ecology or biology including monitoring; research, genetics/biobanking; research, social or economic factors; restoration; skincare; spatial planning; stewardship, or; wild kelp harvest. Secondly, we further grouped what we determined to be each organizations’ primary objective into categories for ‘mariculture’ activities (representing the spectrum of harvest, farming, seed propagation, and restoration), ‘research and management’, ‘Indigenous stewardship or governance bodies’, and kelp ‘products or applications’ (e.g., food products, skincare, biostimulants, etc.). To address Indigenous engagement in organizations, we developed a participation scale based on Boron and Markey ( 2020 ) which details a framework of participation in resource decision-making that describes the distribution of decision-making power. The framework goes from the power being entirely in colonial systems (i.e., consultation), to those entirely within Indigenous control (i.e., autonomous governance), transitioning through stages of collaboration and co-governance (Boron and Markey 2020 ). We gave each organization in our kelp-economy database a score from 1–4 for Indigenous participation inferred from the information given by each organization’s website(s). A score of 1 indicated that the organization made no mention of Indigenous participation and/or no evidence of any consultation on public facing materials. A score of 2 was given when the organization demonstrated a low-level commitment to Indigenous participation within their project/company such as a land acknowledgement or an indication of consultation (consultation was defined per Boron and Markey 2020 ). A score of 3 was given when an organization had some level of formal collaboration, co-management or co-ownership. Finally, a score of 4 indicated that the organization was owned (in majority or entirely) by an Indigenous Nation(s). Indigeneity is recognized differently in Mexico due to its distinct colonial history and majority mestizo population throughout the country, so the method was slightly modified to make this comparable to the other countries in NA. Except for a small number of specific regions (most of which are not within significant kelp ecosystems), local community participation is a more appropriate comparison for engagement by private firms with more equitable practices and distribution of benefits. In this case, a score of 1 indicated no mention of the company giving back to local communities, a 2 for some sort of interest statement or indication of hiring local peoples, a 3 for community project(s) or funding initiative(s), and 4 for co-ownership. 3.2 Regional Profiles (question 2) Following a preliminary screen of our database, we selected regions with a higher number active of actors in each region (≥ 3 organizations) for PESTLE analysis. Thus, for Alaska, Baja California, British Columbia, California, Connecticut, Maine, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Oregon, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Sinaloa, and Washington we conducted an information search to determine categorical scores for each PESTLE category in each region as follows. As we explain below, a higher score was associated with conditions we hypothesized would better enablers of Indigenous/community participation in a kelp-economy. Political (P) scores were derived from state or province-level commitments to Indigenous rights consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP). Here we utilized a scale from 1–4 where a score of 1 indicated not enough information, 2 indicated that UNDRIP was not legislated in the region, 3 indicated UNDRIP was legislated at the federal or provincial (or state) level, and 4 indicated that UNDRIP was legislated at both federal and provincial levels. The economic (Econ) score is out of 6 corresponding to various levels of economic plans associated with each of the jurisdictions. A score of 1 constituted not enough information; 2 indicated that there were no relevant plans; 3 indicated some sort of state/province-level aquaculture plan that was inclusive of kelp/seaweed; 4 indicated the presence of some sort of state/province-level Indigenous/community-focused economic plan; 5 indicated a plan that linked kelp economic development with Indigenous/community-focused economic development but with no proof of commitment, and finally; 6 indicated a plan that linked kelp and Indigenous/community-focused economic development with proof of commitment (e.g., funding specified, programs associated with). For these purposes, we considered an ‘Indigenous economic plan’ to be any state or province level government document which aimed to support Indigenous economic development within the region, and we acknowledge that many Nations and Tribes have their own economic plans distinct from the plans we considered in this context. Social (S) PESTLE scores were determined from documentation of public support for kelp/seaweed mariculture. Three studies notably covered multiple regions, these being Flaherty et al. ( 2019 ), Kotowicz et al. ( 2024 ), and Tenorio-Rodríguez et al. ( 2025 ), in which social support for a seaweed sector was expressed explicitly through surveys or inferred (by us) through public willingness to eat kelp/seaweed products. Where possible, we averaged the findings of these overarching surveys with regional specific studies (e.g., Getchis et al. 2020 ; Guan et al. 2022 ; Colombo et al. 2024 ; Xue 2025 ). Each region was assigned a score of 1 for not enough information, 2 for ≤ 25% support, 3 for 26–50% support, 4 for 51–75% support, and a 5 for > 75% support. Technology (T) scores represented the relative level of investment required to acquire permits for kelp farming, specifically. While technological investment differs across objectives and by operation, for consistency in and across regions we selected an objective (farming) which consistently required permitting in all regions. Moreover, we assumed that because downstream applications of kelp would be facilitated in regions with greater kelp production, this mariculture investment may function as a proxy for downstream investment. We note that the case-by-case cost for equipment and any individual studies required by each permitting body are highly variable and additional to those we present. T scores were broken down into categories from 1–5, where 1 indicated not enough information, 2 potentially prohibitive conditions, 3 a high level of initial investment (> $ 5000 USD), 4 a moderate initial investment (> 1000 and < $ 5000 USD), and 5 a comparatively low level of initial investment (< $ 1000 USD). Legal (L) scores were a representation of the number of permits required to begin mariculture operations on a scale of 1–6. Like the T scores, we assumed that kelp farming would be a proxy for downstream uses of kelp for consistency across regions. A score of 1 indicated not enough information, 2 indicated that kelp aquaculture was not permitted, 3 indicated > 10 permits or regulations were required, 4 indicated 7–9 permits or regulations, 5 indicated 4–6 permits or regulations, and 6 indicated 1–3 permits or regulations. Where a harmonized review process was used, we considered the authorizations within the harmonization to be represented by a single permit. We acknowledge that L scores do not reflect nuance in permitting processes; for instance, a convoluted, slower system could require fewer permits but be more of a barrier than a streamlined, faster process with a larger number of permits. Environmental (Env) scores were based off Krumhansl et al. ( 2016 ), which was the most recent global assessment of kelp abundance at the time of writing. Krumhansl et al. ( 2016 ) showed positive change for the North American Pacific Fjordland (British Columbia), the Gulf of Alaska and the Southern California Bight, no change for Oregon, Washington and Vancouver Island, and negative change for North-Central California, Southern New England, the Gulf of Maine, and along the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia. While slight increases in kelp were found in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, and Labrador, data were sparse. A score of 1 indicated no information, 2 an annual declining trend of > 2%, 3 a declining trend < 2%, 4 for stable populations, 5 for increasing trend 2%. 4.4.3 (R Core Team, 2025) was used for all data analysis and data were ordinal in nature. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to look for a difference in participation scores across objective categories with a Conover-Iman test for pairwise comparison (R package ‘conover.test’ (Dinno 2024 ). Ordered chi squared tests (R package “coin” (Hothorn et al. 2023 )) were used to look for associations between each PESTLE category and participation. Association strength between each PESTLE category and participation was checked with Goodman and Kruskal's gamma (R package “DescTools” (Signorell et al. 2025 )). Mapping of organizations was done through ARCGIS Pro 3.5. The organizations were displayed according to the city indicated as their headquarters. Each organization was given regional PESTLE scores (described below), alongside the organization type, adjusted scale of participation, and its primary objective category. Symbology was then added to the points to illustrate the adjusted participation scale, with unique icons per score (1–4). 3.3 Geopolitical Cluster Analysis (question 3) The “eclust” function with 1000 iterations (R package “factoextra” (Kassambara and Mundt 2020 )) was used to cluster regions (n = 14 states/provinces) based on their PESTLE scores’ k-means. The number of clusters (5) was determined by evaluating of scree and silhouette plots (see Supplementary Material). Kruskal-Wallis and Conover-Iman tests were used to look for significant differences in Indigenous/community participation between clusters. Clusters were made at the state/province level to avoid complications due to psuedoreplication and unequal sample sizes at the organization level. 4 Results 4.1 Current State of the NA Kelp Phyconomy (question 1) We added 118 kelp-specific actors to the original Phyconomy database (Hermans 2024) for a total of 267 active organizations in NA. Overall, we found 159 kelp-economy actors in the USA, 101 in Canada, and 7 in Mexico (Fig. 1). While only about 57% organizations publicized their date of establishment (n = 153), we found that generally the NA kelp-economy has been increasing exponentially since the early 2000’s (Fig. 2). British Columbia and California saw the greatest increase in kelp-sector actors with 75 and 42 organizations active by 2025 respectively, followed by Washington and Alaska with 38 and 25. Only 87 (~ 33%) of organizations specifically identified which species of kelp they worked with, where the most common species listed were Saccharina latissima (n = 36 instances of documentation), Nereocystis luetkeana (n = 25 instances), Macrocystis spp. (n = 23 instances). Note that organizations may work with more than one species of kelp. 4.2 Regional Profiles (question 2) Subsetting our NA data to the regions more active in the kelp-economy (≥ 3 organizations) resulted in a subsample of 248 actors (Alaska, British Columbia, Baja California, California, Connecticut, Maine, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Oregon, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Sinaloa, and Washington). Of the 248, we classified 25% (n = 62) as Guardians (Indigenous Nations, Nations’ resource and stewardship offices, Guardian programs), 5% (n = 13) as knowledge hubs (research or management focused conglomerates), 13% (n = 33) non-profits, and 56% (n = 140) private sector entities. Out of the 248 organizations, 49% (n = 121) had a participation score of 1, 3% (n = 8) received a score of 2, 19% (n = 48) a score of 3, and 29% (n = 71) a score of 4 (Fig. 3). Mean participation scores were significantly different (p < 2.2e-16) between objective categories across all 248 organizations. Pairwise tests revealed significant differences between the mean participation scores of Indigenous stewardship/governance organizations and all other groups, as well as between mariculture- and kelp product-focused organizations, mariculture and research/management organizations, and product-focused organizations and research/management organizations (p < 0.00 for all). The mean participation score of Indigenous stewardship organizations was 4, mariculture was 1.7, kelp-products was 1.1, and research/management-based organizations was 2.3. Companies with high participation scores are focused on BC and Washington, encapsulating most of the Pacific Northwest through to Alaska. This area does not extend through Oregon and California. Within the Pacific Northwest is a high concentration of Indigenous Guardian networks, centered between Alaska, British Columbia and Washington’s Puget Sound. Furthermore, this region sees the largest cluster of direct-kelp activities such as farming, harvest, and restoration, with companies averaging higher participation scores than East Coast companies. The East Coast lacks Indigenous participation outside of Guardian networks and it has a higher proportion of its companies dealing with farming than other categories (maps are presented in the Supplementary Material). Ordered chi-square analysis of PESTLE score results (Table 1) found that political, economic, social, technological, and environmental categories were significantly (p < 0.00) and positively associated with organization-level community participation, supporting our initial hypotheses. Political and economic scores had the greatest association at ~ 0.44. Social, technological, and environmental categories all had moderate gammas of = 0.34, 0.37, and 0.32, respectively. Legal scores were non-significant (p = 0.5) and had the weakest association (~ 0.05) (for additional detail on scores, see the supplementary material). Legal scores had no impact on overall cluster groupings (i.e., the same clusters formed with or without the inclusion of L scores) but were retained in the final clusters as they slightly improved model fit. Table 1: PESTLE Scores by region evaluated. 1 scores (grey) indicate data deficient. Higher scores represent criteria hypothesized to support greater Indigenous/community participation in the NA kelp-economy. 4.3 Regional Clusters (question 3) The PESTLE cluster analysis resulted in 5 groupings (Table 1; Fig. 3; Fig. 4). Cluster one (SIN, BCN) was defined by proportionally high (> 0.75) S and L, moderate T, but low Econ, Env, and P. Looking at the organizations within Cluster 1, the number is comparatively low with a focus on product applications. Cluster 2 (NB, NL, PEI, NS, QC) had high (> 0.75) L and T scores, and moderate P, Econ, S, Env scores. The organizations in Cluster 2 were relatively evenly distributed across objectives but few overall. Cluster 3 (CT, OR) had comparatively low ( 0.75) P, Econ, S, L, and Env scores but a moderate T score. The organizations within cluster 4 revealed a focus on Indigenous governance/stewardship and mariculture, including aquaculture, restoration, propagation, and harvest. Finally, cluster 5 (CA, ME, WA, and AK) was defined by a high Econ score (> 0.75) but low-moderate (< 0.50) scores for the remaining categories. Looking at the organizations within this grouping, the cluster 5 region prioritizes mariculture activities, followed by stewardship and research. Mean participation varied between clusters (cluster 1, n = 7, mean = 1.57, sd = 0.98; cluster 2, n = 25, mean = 1.72, sd = 1.31; cluster 3, n = 12, mean = 1.75, sd = 0.97; cluster 4, n = 75, mean = 2.83, sd = 1.29; cluster 5, n = 129, mean = 2.14, sd = 1.28). We found that the mean participation score of cluster 4 was significantly different from clusters 2 and 5 (p < 0.00; Fig. 5). There was no significant difference detected between cluster 4 and clusters 1 or 3, likely due to small sample sizes in the latter groups. 5 Discussion A better understanding of both the extent of the current seaweed economy and the current participation of local communities is necessary to reach (or course correct for) a kelp-economy that meets the equity, environmental, and economic goals of a Blue Economy. This work presents a novel investigation into the state of the kelp-economy across Canada, the USA, and Mexico. We documented a total of 267 active kelp-related organizations in North America (Fig. 1 , Fig. 2 ). We then subset our data to focus on regions more active in the kelp-economy (i.e., contained ≥ 3 organizations) resulting in 248 organizations across 14 states/provinces, namely: Alaska, British Columbia, Baja California, California, Connecticut, Maine, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Oregon, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Sinaloa, and Washington. The majority (56%) of these 248 organizations were for-profit, private sector companies. Simultaneously, 49% do not appear to have any local community participation (i.e., a participation score of 1 by our ranking). Most regions had relatively fewer product-focused organizations (Supplementary Fig. 1, Fig. 4 ), which corroborates the observation that kelp-product markets are lacking in North America (Kotowicz et al. 2024 ; Koch et al. 2026 , Tamburello et al. in press ), especially compared to Asia (World Bank 2023 ). However, we acknowledge that this work did not follow supply chains between states/provinces where cross-border sales may supplement the demand for kelp product/applications in each region. Using participation as a proxy for community-derived benefit (Fig. 5 ) our results show that if the North American kelp-economy aims to meet the social-environmental goals of the Blue Economy, additional effort should be directed by state/provincial powers towards enabling greater community participation, particularly of Indigenous Nations, in areas engaged with the seaweed economy. We found that PESTLE factors influenced community participation, specifically state-level political legislation (e.g., local adoption of UNDRIP), regional economic support/planning, social (public) support of seaweed aquaculture, technological capacity (e.g., initial permitting investment), and environmental trends reflected in wild kelp abundance. The legal status of UNDRIP as well as specific regional economic planning had the largest influence on participation, while the number of permits was not statistically significant. These PESTLE variables were used to cluster the 14 states/provinces into 5 larger regions (Table 1 ; Fig. 3 ). Of these clusters, British Columbia (a cluster in itself) had the strongest enabling conditions (highest PESTLE scores) overall and had higher participation than other clusters, although sample sizes were too small to determine a significant difference between all groups (Fig. 5 ; Supplementary Fig. 4). To our knowledge, ours is the first in-depth study of the state of the NA kelp-economy that evaluates local community participation (as a proxy for community benefit) and includes organizations at all stages of kelp production (harvest and aquaculture), down-stream application, as well as restoration, stewardship, and research. In fact, we are unaware of a similar study anywhere else in the global seaweed sector (recognizing that our authorship team was limited to publications in English and Spanish). Research has shown tropical seaweed aquaculture has resulted in direct community benefit, particularly for women, through employment in the global south (Sultana et al. 2023 ). For instance, C-Weed Mwani ( https://cweed.com/ ) in Tanzania has formed community-based partnerships where they provide training, support, and payment to farmers for seaweed grown before they collect, store, and distribute the collective yield. Conversely, farmer cooperative efforts have been found to be negative experiences for some communities in Malaysia due to factors such as poor social cohesion, complex marketing, and limited participation in decision-making (Nor et al. 2017 ). Similarly, obscure and/or financially fraudulent practises within some cooperatives led to the eventual collapses of said cooperatives in the Philippines (Andriesse and Lee 2021 ). 5.1 Limitations We acknowledge that this work is limited in that the accuracy of our data is dependent on the detail of information provided by organisations and state/provincial agencies in the public space. For instance, some organizations may not prioritize updating websites or social media and therefore may be represented inaccurately in this study. Moreover, we do not intend to say that a participation score of 1 is necessarily “a bad thing” or equal across organizations. For example, we did not distinguish between large or small organizations in our participation scores and recognize that smaller organizations might simply have less capacity to engage in collaborative work. Likewise, an organization may generate community-benefits in ways that are not captured by our scoring system (e.g., by being a part of the community, employing local people, contributing to local economies). Finally, we reiterate that the environmental scores are based on data prior to 2016 (see Krumhansl et al. 2016 ) and the current trends of kelp may differ from those used here. Nonetheless, we believe that these methods are useful to complete similar overview analyses of other Blue Economy sectors and identify both opportunities to develop more equitably as well as to course correct current systems. 5.2 Global Outlook Outside of Asia, Europe is the next largest aquaculture-based producer of kelps (mostly Saccharina japonica or kombu), specifically in the Faroe Islands and Norway (Cai et al. 2021 ). In addition, Norway, France, Iceland, and Ireland are some of the top global wild-harvest producers of kelp (in 2019; Cai et al. 2021 ). North America parallels Europe’s kelp-economy in both scale (i.e., a small number of organizations involved) and strategy (i.e., developing within broader multi-sector Blue Economy plans) (Barbier et al. 2020 ; Cai et al. 2021 ). Further, NA and Europe have similar social-ecological challenges that increase production costs, including high labour and operating costs, limited growing seasons, complex licensing landscapes, and the requirement of using wild stock for seed (Cai et al. 2021 ; Jueterbock et al. 2025 ; Koch et al. 2026 ). While there are initiatives looking into how to obtain social license to operate for seaweed aquaculture (e.g., Billing et al. 2023 ) which discuss the merits of forming farmer cooperatives (e.g., Orr 2022 ), or public consultation in harvest permitting (e.g., Greenhill et al. 2021 ), we did not find studies looking at community-derived benefits in the European kelp-economy. As mentioned, Asia dominates seaweed markets globally. Significant government investment, research, and technological innovation (e.g., automation) as well as selective breeding of cultivated strains have made South Korea, China, and Japan world leaders in seaweed cultivation (Hwang and Park 2020 ; Hwang et al. 2020 ; Hu et al. 2021 , 2024 ; Park and Hwang 2022 ). East Asian markets are driven by human food applications, as well as other developed global markets including those for agar, alginate, carrageenan, and aquaculture feed (Cai et al. 2021 ; World Bank 2023 ). Still, the World Bank predicts that seaweed applications are largely untapped and that demand will grow by an additional USD 11.8 billion by 2030, largely through developments in markets for biostimulants, pet and animal feed, nutraceuticals, alternative protein, fabric, bioplastics, and (over the longer term) construction materials and pharmaceuticals (World Bank 2023 ). To compete in these global markets, a major challenge for the production side of the NA kelp-economy will be lowering production costs. Although there are many factors that influence production costs and what is competitive in an end market, estimated production costs per dry metric tonne range from ~ $ 2200 in Canada, ~ $ 4400 in Alaska, ~ $ 13900 in Connecticut, to ~ $ 24000 in Maine (Coleman et al. 2022 ). Increasing farm size can bring down costs; for instance, ~ $ 2600 USD per wet tonne from a 405 ha site in Maine has been calculated (Moscicki et al. 2025 ). However, as of writing, the largest farms were ~ 40 ha in the USA (AK) (NOAA Fisheries 2025 ) and ~ 70 ha Canada (BC) (Tamburello et al. in prep ). In comparison, a preliminary estimation suggests that the USA in general would require a 1000 ha farm to decrease costs to the required $ 100- $ 300 per dry tonne to be competitive in biofuel markets, for example (Kite-Powell et al. 2022 ). Farms of this scale would likely meet significant pushback from coastal residents and need further, detailed investigation for environmental impacts. Thus, research in the near term should focus on other technological advancements and accompanying policy (e.g., gametophyte culture; (Coleman et al. 2022 )) as well as site design and location optimization (Moscicki et al. 2025 ; James et al. 2026 ) to bring down production costs. Importantly, as we argue in this research, kelp farming and harvest are not the only components of a kelp-economy (Gutzmann and Cisneros-Montemayor 2026 ). The focus on kelp conservation has been increasing in recent years with international efforts (e.g., the Kelp Forest Challenge (Eger et al. 2024a ), Green Gravel Action Group (Wood et al. 2024 )) aiming to fill the gaps created by limited kelp biodiversity policy globally (Beattie et al. 2025 ). Given the immense importance of wild kelp for global social-ecological systems (see Introduction), it is critical that kelp production is supportive of, and ideally beneficial to, conservation and restoration efforts. However, these commercial and conservation-based goals are largely considered separately in research and policy. The seemingly divergent goals of production/conservation can be thought of as linked through different scales of human-kelp interaction (Gutzmann and Cisneros-Montemayor 2026 ), where the connection between production, stewardship, and restoration of kelp will become more important as kelp populations (farmed and wild) are increasingly threatened by changing ocean conditions. 5.3 Recommendations for a Regenerative Kelp Economy In the face of the challenges the NA kelp-economy faces, we argue that it is critical that the NA kelp-economy uses a Blue Economy lens to guide the sector as it develops. Kelps form some of the most important marine ecosystems globally (Eger et al. 2024a ) and is therefore more than a “resource” to be extracted in the most sustainable way or grown with the highest yield. Conversely, kelp conservation cannot ignore the utility and social benefit of extraction and product development. Our work emphasizes the following recommendations to course-correct the current kelp-economy towards a more regenerative future: 1. Disclose the species of kelp utilized. Ultimately, the kelp-economy depends on the biology and ecology of kelp, both wild and farmed, which in turn requires an ocean environment that is conducive to its growth. Different species of kelp have different geographic ranges and environmental tolerances, and even within species, kelps have been found to have localized genetic and phenotypic specificity (e.g., Starko et al. 2020 ; Gonzalez et al. 2023 ; Pontier et al. 2024 ; Dykman et al. 2025 ; Bemmels et al. 2025 ). While what kelp species is used may be known internally to governance bodies (e.g., through harvest and cultivation licenses), we found that there is a lack of transparency and corporate accountability in the sector at present with only ~ 33% of organizations listing species publicly. Further, because there are numerous concerns around the impacts of kelp mariculture to the genetic integrity of wild kelp populations, in addition to the genetic diversity of cultivated kelp itself (Campbell et al. 2019 ; Mendes et al. 2024 ; Purcell et al. 2025 , Tamburello et al. in press ) genetic diversity might ideally be documented as well. However, analyzing tracking genetic diversity would likely need to be surveyed at regional scales due to costs and technical expertise required (Tamburello et al. in press). 2. Policy and Legislation should be fit to purpose. While determining L and T scores, we observed that all locations have permitting systems that overlap with, or are tacked onto, other forms of aquaculture (e.g., shellfish). Thus, regulations might not be fit to purpose and can act as a barrier to entry, particularly as the sector scales (Mendes et al. 2024 ; Kosichek et al. 2024 ; Kotowicz et al. 2024 ; Martone et al. 2025 ; Koch et al. 2026 ). Emerging seaweed-specific standards like the ASC-MSC Seaweed Standard ecolabel (Aquaculture Stewardship Council and Marine Stewardship Council 2018) may offer guidance for developing legislation fit for seaweed aquaculture. Further, this need for specific legislation is not isolated to seaweed aquaculture but applies to downstream processing and applications as well; for instance, kelp producers in BC have spoken about challenges in needing to meet food handling safety regulations intended for raw fish and shellfish which do not apply to kelps (Reidlinger 2025 ). Moreover, additional research into the legal landscapes at all stages of the kelp-economy would be beneficial; for example, such as has been done for kelp restoration policies in California (Cleveland 2024 ). 3. Accelerate authentic collaboration. While this paper makes the case for increased community/Indigenous participation, leadership, and ownership, this must be done in a place-specific manner. Our findings suggest that, broadly, regions should focus on improving the PESTLE conditions in which they scored low to enable the sector. At a finer scale, funding and other development programs should work to balance Indigenous and community autonomy with the realities of location-specific capacity. For instance, investors typically seek a certain level of assurance and reciprocal investment from a community when building a business and thus regions should consider what capital (e.g., financial, social, human) is needed for a community to meaningfully engage (Cascadden et al. 2021 ). However, we caution against regional programs which incentivize disingenuous partnerships or increase community burden. For example, funding programs which require an Indigenous partner can increase engagement burden on Indigenous Nations and Tribes and partnerships may form out of necessity rather than aligned vision and values, risking exploitation (Reidlinger 2025 ). Thus, while specific Indigenous funding pathways are important to equitably grow a kelp-economy, they should be partnered with other capacity building initiatives such as those focused on training programs, access to expert advice, access to reliable internet, equipment, and supporting personnel, etc. A deeper analysis of social networks within the kelp-economy can assist in identifying which of these gaps should be prioritized, and how, in a community-specific manner. 4. Regenerate within the sector. Developing a regenerative sector requires good-faith collaboration as well as increases in natural, built, human, social, and financial capital across the system (Mang et al. 2016 ; Regenesis Institute for Regenerative Practice 2019 ). No one actor needs to provide all five capitals to the system, however, as social networks allow for reciprocal exchanges and overall increases in capital. Essentially, by breaking siloes between kelp-economy participants, organizations with different interests and projects can all work towards a common vision. Networking initiatives are already in place in North America, for instance, Green Wave has recently launched a “Seaweed Source” platform to link seaweed producers with buyers ( https://www.greenwave.org/seaweed-source ) throughout North America, and a National Kelp Community of Practice is in development across Canada. The barriers to and boundaries of kelp-economies can differ greatly from one country to the next, where in the global North the most important are socio-economic (Koch et al. 2026 ). Based on our findings, the kelp-economy does not inherently generate more direct benefits for local communities than other natural resource industries just because producing seaweed can be innately low-input. Indeed, although a kelp-economy certainly has high potential for local community and ecological benefits (e.g., through restoration), these are actively facilitated or dissuaded by regional political and social conditions. Hence, this research ground-truths recent work which tempers the expectation that seaweed will be an equitable, climate and biodiversity panacea, instead calling for deeper evaluation of the social, economic, and environmental conditions surrounding the industry (Nishihara et al. 2025 ; Reidlinger 2025 ). To approach the kelp-economy’s Blue Economic potential, there remain challenges and opportunities for organizations to steward and utilize kelp in ways that are regenerative to both nature and society. Declarations Data Statement Data is available in the Supplementary Material. Competing Interests Funding for this work is provided to SBG partially through a Mitacs Accelerate Internship in partnership with Ocean Regenerative Aquaculture. Funding for this work is provided to SBG through a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Doctoral Fellowship (752-2024-2447) as well as a Mitacs Accelerate Internship (IT38256) in partnership with Ocean Regenerative Aquaculture. Author Contribution **Conceptualization** : Sarah B. Gutzmann; **Methodology** : Sarah B. Gutzmann, Joshua Russell **; Investigation** : Sarah B. Gutzmann, Joshua Russell, Samantha Martinez de Arredondo Raya; **Formal Analysis** : Sarah B. Gutzmann; **Writing - original draft preparation** : Sarah B. Gutzmann; **Writing - review and editing** : Sarah B. Gutzmann, Joshua Russell, Samantha Martinez de Arredondo Raya, Andrés Cisneros-Montemayor; **Funding acquisition** : Sarah B. Gutzmann, Andrés Cisneros-Montemayor; **Supervision** : Sarah B. Gutzmann, Andrés Cisneros-Montemayor. Acknowledgement Thank you to Dr. Jon Boron and Dr. Pedro C. González-Espinosa for input into the PESTLE analysis methodology. We also thank Dr. Andrew Wright and David Parker for their advice on the study conceptualization. Data Availability Data is available in the Supplementary Material. References Andriesse E, Lee Z (2021) Resisting the coastal squeeze through village associations? Comparing environmental, organizational, and political challenges in Philippine seaweed-growing communities. J Agrar Change 21:485–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12405 Aquaculture Stewardship Council, Marine Stewardship Council (2018) ASC-MSC Seaweed (Algae) Standard Atleo CG (2024) Capitalism: Can It Be Indigenized? In: Engraved on Our Nations: Indigenous Economic Tenacity. University of Manitoba Press., Winnipeg, MB, pp 144–169 Atleo CG, Boron JM (2023) Extractive Settler Colonialism: Navigating Extractive Bargains on Indigenous Territories in Canada. In: Bowles P, Andrews N (eds) Extractive Bargains. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 97–118 Barbier M, Araújo R, Rebours C, et al (2020) Development and objectives of the PHYCOMORPH European Guidelines for the Sustainable Aquaculture of Seaweeds (PEGASUS). Bot Mar 63:5–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/bot-2019-0051 Beattie S, Brodie J, Nagabhatla N, et al (2025) Recognising Seaweeds: Addressing Gaps in International Biodiversity Frameworks for Global Seaweed Conservation. Sustain Dev n/a: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3497 Bemmels JB, Starko S, Weigel BL, et al (2025) Population genomics reveals strong impacts of genetic drift without purging and guides conservation of bull and giant kelp. Curr Biol 35:688–698.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.12.025 Bennett NJ, Lama RL de la, Billon PL, et al (2023) Ocean defenders and human rights. Front Mar Sci 9:. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.1089049 Billing S-L, Ferguson L, Franco S, et al (2023) A guide to the characteristics and measures that are associated with establishing social license to operate for seaweed cultivation in the UK. WWF-UK, Scottish Association for Marine Science Boron J, Markey S (2020) Exerting Sovereignty Through Relational Self-determination: A Case Study of Mineral Development in Stk’emlupsemc te Secwépemc Territory. J Rural Community Dev 15: Cai J, Lovatelli A, Aguilar-Manjarrez J, et al (2021) Seaweeds and microalgae: an overview for unlocking their potential in global aquaculture development. FAO Campbell I, Macleod A, Sahlmann C, et al (2019) The Environmental Risks Associated With the Development of Seaweed Farming in Europe - Prioritizing Key Knowledge Gaps. Front Mar Sci 6:107. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00107 Carlsson L, Berkes F (2005) Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. J Environ Manage 75:65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.008 Cascadden M, Gunton T, Rutherford M (2021) Best practices for Impact Benefit Agreements. Resour Policy 70:101921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101921 Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Croft F, Issifu I, et al (2022) A primer on the “blue economy:” Promise, pitfalls, and pathways. One Earth 5:982–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.08.011 Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Moreno-Báez M, Reygondeau G, et al (2021) Enabling conditions for an equitable and sustainable blue economy. 396 Nat 591:. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03327-3 Cleveland M (2024) RESTORING ABUNDANCE: CALIFORNIA’S PERMITTING LANDSCAPE FOR NEARSHORE MARINE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND POLICY SOLUTIONS TO ACCELERATE RESTORATION EFFORTS. Masters, Johns Hopkins University Coleman S, Gelais ATSt, Fredriksson DW, et al (2022) Identifying Scaling Pathways and Research Priorities for Kelp Aquaculture Nurseries Using a Techno-Economic Modeling Approach. Front Mar Sci 9:894461. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.894461 Colombo S, Manríquez-Hernández JA, Music J, Charlebois S (2024) Canadians’ Opinions and Preferences regarding Seafood, and the Factors That Contribute to Their Consumption and Purchasing Habits. Sustainability 16:1111. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031111 Cornish ML, Critchley AT, Mouritsen OG (2017) Consumption of seaweeds and the human brain. J Appl Phycol 29:2377–2398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-016-1049-3 Critchley AT, Hurtado AQ, Neish IC (eds) (2024) Tropical Phyconomy Coalition Development: Focus on Eucheumatoid Seaweeds. Springer International Publishing, Cham Dillehay TD, Ramírez C, Pino M, et al (2008) Monte Verde: Seaweed, food, medicine, and the peopling of South America. Science 320:784–786. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1156533/ SUPPL_FILE/DILLEHAY.SOM.PDF Dinno A (2024) conover.test: Conover-Iman Test of Multiple Comparisons Using Rank Sums Dykman LN, Steell SC, Bemmels JB, et al (2025) Testing the roles of local adaptation and genetic diversity to improve Giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) restoration. Restor Ecol e70114. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.70114 Eger A, Aguirre JD, Altamirano M, et al (2024a) The Kelp Forest Challenge: A collaborative global movement to protect and restore 4 million hectares of kelp forests. J Appl Phycol 36:951–964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-023-03103-y Eger A, Layton C, Anoush McHugh T, et al (2022) Kelp Restoration Guidebook: Lessons Learned from Projects Arounf the Wolrd. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA Eger A, McHugh T, Eddy N, Verges A (eds) (2024b) State of the World’s Kelp Forests Report V1.0. Sydney, Australia. Eger AM, Bauer-Civeillo A, Bernal B, et al (2024c) Monitoring Kelp Forest Ecosystems A Guidebook to Quantifying Biodiversity, Ecosystem Health, and Ecosystem Benefits. Kelp Forest Alliance, Ocean Wise, Sydney, NSW, Australia Erlandson JM, Graham MH, Bourque BJ, et al (2007) The Kelp Highway Hypothesis: Marine Ecology, the Coastal Migration Theory, and the Peopling of the Americas. J Isl Coast Archaeol 2:161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564890701628612 FAO (2024) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024. FAO FAO (2025) FishStat: Global aquaculture production 1950–2023 Flaherty M, Reid G, Chopin T, Latham E (2019) Public attitudes towards marine aquaculture in Canada: insights from the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Aquac Int 27:9–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-018-0312-9 Getchis T, Russo Kelly M, Concepcion A, Bovay J (2020) The Connecticut Seafood Survey: Assessing Seafood Consumption, Knowledge, Behaviors and Preferences of Connecticut Residents. Connecticut Sea Grant. CTSG-20-03. Gonzalez ST, Alberto F, Molano G (2023) Whole-genome sequencing distinguishes the two most common giant kelp ecomorphs. Evolution 77:1354–1369. https://doi.org/10.1093/evolut/qpad045 Greenhill L, Sundnes F, Karlsson M (2021) Towards sustainable management of kelp forests: An analysis of adaptive governance in developing regimes for wild kelp harvesting in Scotland and Norway. Ocean Coast Manag 212:105816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105816 Guan J, McEwen M, Rilum S, Wee L (2022) Perceptions of Seaweed Aquaculture in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Prepared for Ocean Rainforest, Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California Santa Barbara Gutzmann SB, Cisneros-Montemayor AM (2026) Planning for an Expanding Industry: Opportunities for a Successful Kelp Economy in British Columbia. In: Critchley AT, Hurtado AQ, Neish IC, Pereira L (eds) Advances in Temperate Phyconomy: Algal Harvest and Cultivation in Globally Distributed Temperate Waters. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp 317–328 Gutzmann SB, Humchitt C, Kowalchuk K, et al (2025) Indigenous resurgence in the Blue Economy: Relational values to guide kelp mariculture. People Nat 00:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70214 Hale Hendlin Y, Weggelaar J, Derossi N, Mugnai S (2024) Being Algae: Transformations in Water, Plants. BRILL Hamad WA, Islam GMN (2022) Alternative Employment, Women Participation In Seaweed Farming And Livelihoods Of Small-Scale Fishing Community In Zanzibar. J Posit Sch Psychol 6:2987–3000 Hamilton-Smith E (2005) Sharing Power: Learning-by-doing in Co-management of Natural Resources throughout the World Hermans S (2024) Phyconomy Database High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (2023) Transformations for a Sustainable Ocean Economy A Vision for Protection, Production and Prosperity Hothorn T, Winell H, Hornik K, et al (2023) coin: Conditional Inference Procedures in a Permutation Test Framework Hu Z, Shan T, Zhang J, et al (2021) Kelp aquaculture in China: a retrospective and future prospects. Rev Aquac 13:1324–1351. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12524 Hu Z-M, Shan T-F, Zhang Q-S, et al (2024) Kelp breeding in China: Challenges and opportunities for solutions. Rev Aquac 16:855–871. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12871 Hwang EK, Choi HG, Kim JK (2020) Seaweed resources of Korea. Bot Mar 63:395–405. https://doi.org/10.1515/bot-2020-0007 Hwang EK, Park CS (2020) Seaweed cultivation and utilization of Korea. Algae 2020:107–121. https://doi.org/10.4490/algae.2020.35.5.15 James P, Evensen T, Donovan ME, et al (2026) A comparison of potential yield and production timing for sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima) between sites in the north and south of Norway. J Appl Phycol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-026-03786-z Jobin SW (2023) Upholding indigenous economic relationships: nehiyawak narratives. UBCPress, Vancouver Jueterbock A, Hoarau-Heemstra H, Wigger K, et al (2025) Roadmap to sustainably develop the European seaweed industry. Npj Ocean Sustain 4:22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-025-00122-9 Kassambara A, Mundt F (2020) factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses Khan N, Sudhakar K, Mamat R (2024) Macroalgae farming for sustainable future: Navigating opportunities and driving innovation. Heliyon 10:e28208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28208 Kite-Powell HL, Ask E, Augyte S, et al (2022) Estimating production cost for large-scale seaweed farms. Appl Phycol 3:435–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/26388081.2022.2111271 Koch SJI, Filgueira R, Alberg J, et al (2026) Identifying a sustainable operating window for seaweed aquaculture in the Global North: balancing expansion barriers and carrying capacity. Aquaculture 611:742907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2025.742907 Kosichek H, Reimer J, Filgueira R (2024) Assessing the potential for seaweed aquaculture in Nova Scotia. Aquac Rep 36:102064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2024.102064 Kotowicz DM, Concepcion A, Bradt G, et al (2024) Identifying challenges of the US domestic seaweed aquaculture industry. Aquaculture 593:741314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.741314 Krumhansl KA, Okamoto DK, Rassweiler A, et al (2016) Global patterns of kelp forest change over the past half-century. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:13785–13790. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.1606102113/- /DCSUPPLEMENTAL/PNAS.1606102113.SAPP.PDF Mang P, Haggard B, Regenesis (2016) Regenerative Development and Design: a Frameworks for Evolving Sustainability. Wiley, New Jersey Martone R, Gregr IR, Gregr EJ (2025) Seaweed Aquaculture in British Columbia: Policy, Regulations and Recommendations for Mitigating Potential Ecological Effects. David Suzuki Foundation Mendes M, Hillinger A, Ihle K, et al (2024) Seaweed Aquaculture Importance in Sustainable Economy in an Era of Climate Change. IntechOpen Meng X (2025) Encountering Seaweed: Life In and Beyond Macroalgae Farming Through Lived Experience of Farmers in Shandong and Fujian, China. International Master’s Programme in Human Ecology, Lund University Moscicki Z, St. Gelais AT, Coleman S, et al (2025) Comprehensive quantification of production costs for large-scale kelp aquaculture and cost reduction opportunities. Algal Res 92:104383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2025.104383 Mwaijande F, Rashidi YR (2025) Application of Social Life Cycle Assessment on Seaweed Farming Blue Economy in Zanzibar-Tanzania by Nishihara GN, Sato Y, Eger AM, et al (2025) Expert opinions regarding the concept of blue carbon in seaweed systems. Phycol Res n/a: https://doi.org/10.1111/pre.70009 NOAA Fisheries (2025) Tide to Table Profiles: Seagrove Kelp Co. | NOAA Fisheries. In: NOAA. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/aquaculture/tide-table-profiles-seagrove-kelp-co . Accessed 2 Feb 2026 Nor AM, Gray TS, Caldwell GS, Stead SM (2017) Is a cooperative approach to seaweed farming effectual? An analysis of the seaweed cluster project (SCP), Malaysia. J Appl Phycol 29:2323–2337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-016-1025-y Orr K (2022) Facilitating development of the seaweed cultivation industry in Scotland. The Sustainable Inshore Fisheries trust Park CS, Hwang EK (2022) Seaweed Production Companies in Korea: An Overview. In: Ranga Rao A, Ravishankar GA (eds) Sustainable Global Resources Of Seaweeds Volume 1: Bioresources, cultivation, trade and multifarious applications. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 205–223 Pontier O, Rhoades O, Twist B, et al (2024) Bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) growth rates as climate stress indicators for Canada’s Pacific coast. FACETS 9:1–19 Purcell C, Volk J, Hyde J, Blair G (2025) Science advice for genetic effects from macroalgae aquaculture in Southern California and the Gulf of Mexico. https://doi.org/10.25923/EHNN-VE18 Regenesis Institute for Regenerative Practice (2019) The Regenerative Practitioner Reidlinger T (2025) An Analysis of the Social and Political Elements Influencing the Emerging Kelp Aquaculture Industry in British Columbia. Master of Science in Environment and Management, Royal Roads University Signorell A, Aho K, Alfons A, et al (2025) DescTools: Tools for Descriptive Statistics Spillias S, Kelly R, Cottrell RS, et al (2023) The empirical evidence for the social-ecological impacts of seaweed farming. PLOS Sustain Transform 2:e0000042. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000042 Starko S, Demes KW, Neufeld CJ, Martone PT (2020) Convergent evolution of niche structure in Northeast Pacific kelp forests. Funct Ecol 34:2131–2146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13621 Steenbergen DJ, Marlessy C, Holle E (2017) Effects of rapid livelihood transitions: Examining local co-developed change following a seaweed farming boom. Mar Policy 82:216–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.026 Sultana F, Wahab MA, Nahiduzzaman M, et al (2023) Seaweed farming for food and nutritional security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and women empowerment: A review. Aquac Fish 8:463–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2022.09.001 Tenorio-Rodríguez PA, Nicasio-Arzeta S, Robledo D, Freile-Pelegrín Y (2025) Consumer acceptance of edible seaweed in Mexico: An exploratory study on willingness. Food Qual Prefer 133:105630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105630 The Nature Conservancy (2021) Global Principles of Restorative Aquaculture The Ocean Defenders Project (2025) Ocean Defenders: Protectors of Our Ocean Environment and Human Rights. The Peopled Seas Initiative, Vancouver, Canada Turner N, Bell A (1973) The Ethnobotany of the Southern Kwakiutl Indians of British Columbia. Econ Bot 27:257–310 Turner NJ (2000) Coastal Peoples and Marine Plants on the Northwest Coast. In: Tides of Technology: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International Association of Aquatic and Marine Science Libraries and Information Centers (IAMSLIC). pp 69–76 UN Trade and Development (2025) United Nations Global Seaweed Initiative (UNGSI). https://unctad.org/topic/trade-and-environment/united-nations-global-seaweed-initiative . Accessed 21 Nov 2025 Wood GV, Filbee-Dexter K, Coleman MA, et al (2024) Upscaling marine forest restoration: challenges, solutions and recommendations from the Green Gravel Action Group. Front Mar Sci 11:. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2024.1364263 World Bank (2023) Global Seaweed: New and Emerging Markets Report, 2023. World Bank Wuwung L, Croft F, Benzaken D, et al (2022) Global blue economy governance – A methodological approach to investigating blue economy implementation. Front Mar Sci 9:. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.1043881 Xue W (2025) Study on Public Perceptions on Seaweed Aquaculture in Maine. Master of Environmental Management, Nicholas School of the Environment of Duke University Additional Declarations Competing interest reported. Funding for this work is provided to SBG partially through a Mitacs Accelerate Internship in partnership with Ocean Regenerative Aquaculture. Supplementary Files SuplementaryMaterialKelponomicsGutzmannetal.docx KelponomicsGutzmannetal.2026Database.csv Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 24 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 21 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 20 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 15 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 12 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 25 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 24 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 24 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 24 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 24 Feb, 2026 First submitted to journal 18 Feb, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8912882","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":598913711,"identity":"9f9a7671-4970-4180-94e6-1010a6cf98e9","order_by":0,"name":"Sarah B. Gutzmann","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Simon Fraser University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sarah","middleName":"B.","lastName":"Gutzmann","suffix":""},{"id":598913715,"identity":"02dba3d1-cf6a-4bb5-a64a-55c302aa0196","order_by":1,"name":"Joshua Russell","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Simon Fraser University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Joshua","middleName":"","lastName":"Russell","suffix":""},{"id":598913718,"identity":"67811e4f-c3da-4901-8fb8-4b2e5c524a7a","order_by":2,"name":"Samantha Martinez de Arredondo Raya","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Simon Fraser University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Samantha","middleName":"Martinez de Arredondo","lastName":"Raya","suffix":""},{"id":598913719,"identity":"9ce04d98-d3a8-4ffe-b7b4-8ab883a79230","order_by":3,"name":"Andrés M. Cisneros-Montemayor","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Simon Fraser University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Andrés","middleName":"M.","lastName":"Cisneros-Montemayor","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-19 00:23:26","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8912882/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8912882/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":103783321,"identity":"b957bc82-e963-43de-899d-554209a40369","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-02 21:45:27","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":162122,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap of kelp-economy organizations in North America. Outlined states and provinces represent those with ≥ 3 organizations which were carried to the next stage of the analysis. To see regions in more detail, see the Supplementary Material.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8912882/v1/a5dc7ed77fbe27e0f176ebf0.jpeg"},{"id":104400949,"identity":"61cd120b-06a6-4bfe-bff1-839530233f49","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 12:11:31","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":16240,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCumulative number (n = 267) of kelp organizations in Canada (yellow), the USA (green) and Mexico (blue) through time. Points denote the total number of active organizations in 2025 as not all organizations provided a date of establishment.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8912882/v1/9903f76f308dc1dc059487ab.png"},{"id":103783320,"identity":"03fbe633-333f-43f7-8f7a-fcefb6805b0e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-02 21:45:27","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":361144,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(top) regional clusters (cluster 4 appears in the bottom left corner) of evaluated states/provinces (n=14) based on their k-means for PESTLE scores; and (bottom) average PESTLE scores across clusters, scaled from 0-1 (grey values). Points further from the center represent higher PESTLE scores. The following state/provinces make up each cluster: 1= Sinaloa, Baja California; 2 = New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec; 3 = Connecticut, Oregon; 4 = British Columbia; 5 = Alaska, California, Maine, Washington.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8912882/v1/a3355d95631c97df2136ecb7.jpeg"},{"id":104400030,"identity":"be463c3b-6f66-487d-953d-e632ee7b6b13","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 12:08:36","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":15369,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe distribution of objectives across clusters. The objective category for ‘mariculture’ represents the spectrum of harvest, farming, seed propagation, and restoration. The following state/provinces make up each cluster: 1 = Sinaloa, Baja California; 2 = New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec; 3 = Connecticut, Oregon; 4 = British Columbia; 5 = Alaska, California, Maine, Washington.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8912882/v1/8c849106f17d31c62842a511.png"},{"id":103783326,"identity":"541f0e94-f88b-4d2d-b3ae-295fb65bb9f9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-02 21:45:27","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":40369,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe distribution of participation scores across clusters. Cluster 4 had a significantly higher mean participation score than clusters 2 or 5 (p \u0026lt; 0.00). The following state/provinces make up each cluster: 1 = Sinaloa, Baja California; 2 = New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec; 3 = Connecticut, Oregon; 4 = British Columbia; 5 = Alaska, California, Maine, Washington.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8912882/v1/90c1f0feb4c33191ecc0d2c5.png"},{"id":104410562,"identity":"614ffc4c-675a-42bd-9ef5-abd22c4a2ca4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 12:52:44","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1375767,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8912882/v1/4715a98e-c0d0-46ae-8d0c-76a10a4b3f65.pdf"},{"id":103783325,"identity":"5d4c96d4-57e9-4078-a282-d7fa8ead97ff","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-02 21:45:27","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1372346,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SuplementaryMaterialKelponomicsGutzmannetal.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8912882/v1/31d91a825e5239e1ec53b44f.docx"},{"id":103783324,"identity":"1871b223-e6a7-4996-87e0-97a1d9266600","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-02 21:45:27","extension":"csv","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":92113,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"KelponomicsGutzmannetal.2026Database.csv","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8912882/v1/e2e9259446f7458e263417bd.csv"}],"financialInterests":"Competing interest reported. Funding for this work is provided to SBG partially through a Mitacs Accelerate Internship in partnership with Ocean Regenerative Aquaculture.","formattedTitle":"Kelponomics: The State of North American Kelp Mariculture","fulltext":[{"header":"2 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eInterest in seaweed industries is expanding in Canada, the United States of America, and Mexico (FAO \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Globally, seaweed aquaculture swelled from 10\u0026nbsp;million to 36\u0026nbsp;million tonnes between 2000 and 2022, an average annual growth rate of 5.8% (FAO \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The vast majority of seaweed (macroalgae) is produced in Asia (~\u0026thinsp;97%), with North America (NA; Canada, USA, Mexico) contributing less than 1% to global markets (FAO \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). However, seaweed production in this region is currently being emphasized given its potential for local employment, bioremediation, habitat production, and climate change mitigation, leading to a increased interest in investment and commercial enterprises within the \u0026ldquo;Phyconomy\u0026rdquo; (a contraction of the words phycology and agronomy describing seaweed crop production; Critchley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Here, we analyzed this growth in the NA Phyconomy, with particular focus on enabling benefits for local communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCanada and Mexico [and prior to the 2025 Trump administration, the USA] are members of the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, which explicitly prioritises seaweed aquaculture (High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the United Nations General Assembly launched a Global Seaweed Initiative in September 2025, aiming \u0026ldquo;to accelerate the safe, sustainable, and inclusive development of the global seaweed sector\u0026rdquo; (UN Trade and Development \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Seaweed industries can indeed lead to socioeconomic benefits such as increased social cohesion, income, and employment, especially for women (Hamad and Islam \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Spillias et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Sultana et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mwaijande and Rashidi \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, rapid seaweed development can have trade-offs for communities such as financial dependency, population displacement, and overproduction (Steenbergen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Spillias et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Meng \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough aquaculture is the most prominent seaweed industry type globally (FAO \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), seaweed-based businesses and initiatives are not limited to cultivation, particularly in NA (Gutzmann and Cisneros-Montemayor \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). In 2023, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) data reveals that landings from wild seaweed harvest in NA totaled at least 14,000 tonnes live weight, compared with only\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;730 tonnes live weight of farmed seaweed production (FAO \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Seaweed industries like aquaculture and wild harvest can advance 12 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, including those aimed at food security, gender equality, and clean water (Khan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Seaweed businesses thus fit within the concept of a Blue Economy, which explicitly calls for centering social equity in addition to environmental sustainability in both new and emerging ocean sectors (Cisneros-Montemayor et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo move towards the goal of a Blue Economy, we suggest that the complementary practise of Regenerative Development and Design is used to guide ocean sectors as it requires that businesses, local communities, and the environment all benefit from project development. This practise starts with analyzing potential, or \u0026ldquo;the gap between what something is and what it could be\u0026rdquo; (Regenesis Institute for Regenerative Practice \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Hence, despite the fact that NA has a high potential for Blue Economic operationalization and implementation socially and ecologically (Cisneros-Montemayor et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Wuwung et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), studies on the social impacts and benefits of seaweed industry in NA are underdeveloped (Spillias et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn NA, nearly 50% of previously documented (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40/84) seaweed organizations target kelp species (seaweed species in the order Laminariales). However, 68% of 266 companies\u0026rsquo; data do not include the species used (Hermans \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This gap is important given the prominence of wild harvest in NA seaweed production. Kelps are ecologically critical, forming undersea forests along much of NA\u0026rsquo;s coastline where Canada and the USA have an estimated 609,000 km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e of kelp habitat combined (Eger et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e). Indeed, throughout human evolution, kelps have helped to shape NA with evidence that kelp forests allowed humans to travel the coast before glacial retreat (Erlandson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), and nutrients from macroalgae supporting human brain evolution through dietary supplements (Cornish et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, kelps have held cultural importance to Indigenous Peoples for generations (Turner and Bell \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1973\u003c/span\u003e; Turner \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Erlandson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Dillehay et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Hale Hendlin et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Gutzmann et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Diverse human-kelp relationships continue today, and thus a spectrum of kelp relationships and uses is important to consider for wholistic governance of a NA kelp economy (Gutzmann and Cisneros-Montemayor \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). For example, kelp monitoring and restoration are required for a regenerative kelp-economy, although long-term financing remains a challenge at present (Eger et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024c\u003c/span\u003e). Further, for connecting to global markets, downstream market actors who develop and sell kelp applications and products as well as processing facilities, are critical to consider from a supply chain perspective. In this way, the Phyconomy is expanded from aquaculture and/or harvest to include downstream applications of biomass as well as research and stewardship organizations (Hermans \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; note that within this work we focus on a kelp specific subset of the Phyconomy in NA and use aquaculture and farming interchangeably. To maintain this distinction, we use \u0026ldquo;kelp-economy\u0026rdquo; to describe this kelp focused economic development in NA).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interest in a kelp-economy highlights the need for NA not only to determine pathways to entering global seaweed markets, but also to invest in guardrails for local equity and community-derived benefits. Globally, ocean based economic expansion has and continues to lead to violations of human rights to a healthy ocean, food, livelihood, health, and security (Bennett et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; The Ocean Defenders Project \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Hence, although the seaweed industry has championed social, environmental, and cultural benefits for coastal communities, these may not be inherently realized (The Nature Conservancy \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Spillias et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, licencing and permitting, public support, market size, and technological investment are larger hurdles to kelp industries than environmental factors like warming waters in the global North (Koch et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). Further, Indigenous economic sovereignty is highlighted as a necessity in resource sectors due to past and present colonial systems (Boron and Markey \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Atleo and Boron \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Jobin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Atleo \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) where sector actors (including states/provinces and the private sector) must increase the recognition and protection of specific Indigenous rights to the ocean (Bennett et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; The Ocean Defenders Project \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the clear interest in expanding the kelp-economy in NA, the current political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental (PESTLE) factors that enable or constrain community-derived benefits have not been specifically explored for the sector. If the NA kelp-economy is to meet its regenerative potential and benefit coastal communities per Blue Economic initiatives, it is critical to assess current community decision-making sovereignty as the sector expands because power distribution to local communities is a precursor for an equitable, co-managed resource sector (Carlsson and Berkes \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Hamilton-Smith \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). In NA, this assessment must specifically include the level of engagement and leadership of Indigenous peoples given the extent of their marine and coastal territories across the Pacific Northwest. This research addresses this need by presenting a preliminary, novel investigation into the distribution of Indigenous/community participation in NA kelp-economy by addressing the questions of:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1) What is the current state of the kelp-economy in NA; specifically, how many actors are there, what are their main objectives, and where are they located?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2) What are the regional PESTLE profiles which may enable community-derived benefits at the organization level, and are these variables associated with current community participation?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3) Do regional PESTLE profiles cluster into larger regional units that can be used to direct focus to increase local benefits?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe reiterate that this work is for the contemporary, commercial kelp-economy and does not represent cultural and traditional relationships that Indigenous peoples and communities have had for generations. Additionally, while there are different definitions of equity, here we consider it in the context of decision-making power at the organizational level (participation in the kelp-economy) as a proxy for community-based benefit.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3 Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eHerein we detail how we addressed each of the above research questions, beginning with database development and mapping (question 1); political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental (PESTLE) analysis (question 2); and finally, a cluster analysis (question 3).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Data on NA Kelp Economy (question 1)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, we compiled a kelp economy database for NA from an existing global Phyconomy database by Hermans (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). As of December 2024, the global database included more than 1400 entries updated by Hermans and through public submission. We manually verified existing NA entries in the database and added new ones found using LinkedIn, Google searches, as well as via the websites and word-of-mouth of organizations which were already named in the Hermans Phyconomy Database (e.g., documented collaborators). Using publicly available information, we detailed company/organization information, kelp species utilized, and date of establishment (see Supplementary Materials for details). We also recorded organization type as non-profit, for-profit private, Guardians (Indigenous resource and stewardship organizations), and knowledge hubs (kelp-specific research or management related conglomerates/networks; note that we did not include individual academic groups/labs whose portfolios included some kelp work as, to avoid double counting, we assumed significant players were represented by the larger knowledge hubs). We stopped adding organizations to our database in December 2025.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe categorized up to three organization objectives as either: agriculture; bioplastics; consulting; food product; kelp aquaculture; kelp propagation; nutraceuticals, biostimulants, or other chemically derived applications); processing (wholesale); regulation/governance/policy; research, blue carbon; research, ecology or biology including monitoring; research, genetics/biobanking; research, social or economic factors; restoration; skincare; spatial planning; stewardship, or; wild kelp harvest. Secondly, we further grouped what we determined to be each organizations\u0026rsquo; primary objective into categories for \u0026lsquo;mariculture\u0026rsquo; activities (representing the spectrum of harvest, farming, seed propagation, and restoration), \u0026lsquo;research and management\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;Indigenous stewardship or governance bodies\u0026rsquo;, and kelp \u0026lsquo;products or applications\u0026rsquo; (e.g., food products, skincare, biostimulants, etc.).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address Indigenous engagement in organizations, we developed a participation scale based on Boron and Markey (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) which details a framework of participation in resource decision-making that describes the distribution of decision-making power. The framework goes from the power being entirely in colonial systems (i.e., consultation), to those entirely within Indigenous control (i.e., autonomous governance), transitioning through stages of collaboration and co-governance (Boron and Markey \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). We gave each organization in our kelp-economy database a score from 1\u0026ndash;4 for Indigenous participation inferred from the information given by each organization\u0026rsquo;s website(s). A score of 1 indicated that the organization made no mention of Indigenous participation and/or no evidence of any consultation on public facing materials. A score of 2 was given when the organization demonstrated a low-level commitment to Indigenous participation within their project/company such as a land acknowledgement or an indication of consultation (consultation was defined per Boron and Markey \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). A score of 3 was given when an organization had some level of formal collaboration, co-management or co-ownership. Finally, a score of 4 indicated that the organization was owned (in majority or entirely) by an Indigenous Nation(s).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndigeneity is recognized differently in Mexico due to its distinct colonial history and majority mestizo population throughout the country, so the method was slightly modified to make this comparable to the other countries in NA. Except for a small number of specific regions (most of which are not within significant kelp ecosystems), local community participation is a more appropriate comparison for engagement by private firms with more equitable practices and distribution of benefits. In this case, a score of 1 indicated no mention of the company giving back to local communities, a 2 for some sort of interest statement or indication of hiring local peoples, a 3 for community project(s) or funding initiative(s), and 4 for co-ownership.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Regional Profiles (question 2)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing a preliminary screen of our database, we selected regions with a higher number active of actors in each region (\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;3 organizations) for PESTLE analysis. Thus, for Alaska, Baja California, British Columbia, California, Connecticut, Maine, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Oregon, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Sinaloa, and Washington we conducted an information search to determine categorical scores for each PESTLE category in each region as follows. As we explain below, a higher score was associated with conditions we hypothesized would better enablers of Indigenous/community participation in a kelp-economy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolitical (P) scores were derived from state or province-level commitments to Indigenous rights consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP). Here we utilized a scale from 1\u0026ndash;4 where a score of 1 indicated not enough information, 2 indicated that UNDRIP was not legislated in the region, 3 indicated UNDRIP was legislated at the federal or provincial (or state) level, and 4 indicated that UNDRIP was legislated at \u003cb\u003eboth\u003c/b\u003e federal and provincial levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe economic (Econ) score is out of 6 corresponding to various levels of economic plans associated with each of the jurisdictions. A score of 1 constituted not enough information; 2 indicated that there were no relevant plans; 3 indicated some sort of state/province-level aquaculture plan that was inclusive of kelp/seaweed; 4 indicated the presence of some sort of state/province-level Indigenous/community-focused economic plan; 5 indicated a plan that linked kelp economic development with Indigenous/community-focused economic development but with no proof of commitment, and finally; 6 indicated a plan that linked kelp and Indigenous/community-focused economic development with proof of commitment (e.g., funding specified, programs associated with). For these purposes, we considered an \u0026lsquo;Indigenous economic plan\u0026rsquo; to be any state or province level government document which aimed to support Indigenous economic development within the region, and we acknowledge that many Nations and Tribes have their own economic plans distinct from the plans we considered in this context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial (S) PESTLE scores were determined from documentation of public support for kelp/seaweed mariculture. Three studies notably covered multiple regions, these being Flaherty et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), Kotowicz et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), and Tenorio-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), in which social support for a seaweed sector was expressed explicitly through surveys or inferred (by us) through public willingness to eat kelp/seaweed products. Where possible, we averaged the findings of these overarching surveys with regional specific studies (e.g., Getchis et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Guan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Colombo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Xue \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Each region was assigned a score of 1 for not enough information, 2 for \u0026le;\u0026thinsp;25% support, 3 for 26\u0026ndash;50% support, 4 for 51\u0026ndash;75% support, and a 5 for \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;75% support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology (T) scores represented the relative level of investment required to acquire permits for kelp farming, specifically. While technological investment differs across objectives and by operation, for consistency in and across regions we selected an objective (farming) which consistently required permitting in all regions. Moreover, we assumed that because downstream applications of kelp would be facilitated in regions with greater kelp production, this mariculture investment may function as a proxy for downstream investment. We note that the case-by-case cost for equipment and any individual studies required by each permitting body are highly variable and additional to those we present. T scores were broken down into categories from 1\u0026ndash;5, where 1 indicated not enough information, 2 potentially prohibitive conditions, 3 a high level of initial investment (\u0026gt;\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e5000 USD), 4 a moderate initial investment (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1000 and \u0026lt;\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e5000 USD), and 5 a comparatively low level of initial investment (\u0026lt;\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1000 USD).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegal (L) scores were a representation of the number of permits required to begin mariculture operations on a scale of 1\u0026ndash;6. Like the T scores, we assumed that kelp farming would be a proxy for downstream uses of kelp for consistency across regions. A score of 1 indicated not enough information, 2 indicated that kelp aquaculture was not permitted, 3 indicated\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;10 permits or regulations were required, 4 indicated 7\u0026ndash;9 permits or regulations, 5 indicated 4\u0026ndash;6 permits or regulations, and 6 indicated 1\u0026ndash;3 permits or regulations. Where a harmonized review process was used, we considered the authorizations within the harmonization to be represented by a single permit. We acknowledge that L scores do not reflect nuance in permitting processes; for instance, a convoluted, slower system could require fewer permits but be more of a barrier than a streamlined, faster process with a larger number of permits.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental (Env) scores were based off Krumhansl et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), which was the most recent global assessment of kelp abundance at the time of writing. Krumhansl et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) showed positive change for the North American Pacific Fjordland (British Columbia), the Gulf of Alaska and the Southern California Bight, no change for Oregon, Washington and Vancouver Island, and negative change for North-Central California, Southern New England, the Gulf of Maine, and along the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia. While slight increases in kelp were found in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, and Labrador, data were sparse. A score of 1 indicated no information, 2 an annual declining trend of \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2%, 3 a declining trend\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;2%, 4 for stable populations, 5 for increasing trend\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;2%, and a 6 for an increasing trend\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.4.3 (R Core Team, 2025) was used for all data analysis and data were ordinal in nature. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to look for a difference in participation scores across objective categories with a Conover-Iman test for pairwise comparison (R package \u0026lsquo;conover.test\u0026rsquo; (Dinno \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Ordered chi squared tests (R package \u0026ldquo;coin\u0026rdquo; (Hothorn et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)) were used to look for associations between each PESTLE category and participation. Association strength between each PESTLE category and participation was checked with Goodman and Kruskal's gamma (R package \u0026ldquo;DescTools\u0026rdquo; (Signorell et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e)).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMapping of organizations was done through ARCGIS Pro 3.5. The organizations were displayed according to the city indicated as their headquarters. Each organization was given regional PESTLE scores (described below), alongside the organization type, adjusted scale of participation, and its primary objective category. Symbology was then added to the points to illustrate the adjusted participation scale, with unique icons per score (1\u0026ndash;4).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Geopolitical Cluster Analysis (question 3)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe \u0026ldquo;eclust\u0026rdquo; function with 1000 iterations (R package \u0026ldquo;factoextra\u0026rdquo; (Kassambara and Mundt \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)) was used to cluster regions (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14 states/provinces) based on their PESTLE scores\u0026rsquo; k-means. The number of clusters (5) was determined by evaluating of scree and silhouette plots (see Supplementary Material). Kruskal-Wallis and Conover-Iman tests were used to look for significant differences in Indigenous/community participation between clusters. Clusters were made at the state/province level to avoid complications due to psuedoreplication and unequal sample sizes at the organization level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Current State of the NA Kelp Phyconomy (question 1)\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWe added 118 kelp-specific actors to the original Phyconomy database (Hermans 2024) for a total of 267 active organizations in NA. Overall, we found 159 kelp-economy actors in the USA, 101 in Canada, and 7 in Mexico (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1). While only about 57% organizations publicized their date of establishment (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;153), we found that generally the NA kelp-economy has been increasing exponentially since the early 2000\u0026rsquo;s (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2). British Columbia and California saw the greatest increase in kelp-sector actors with 75 and 42 organizations active by 2025 respectively, followed by Washington and Alaska with 38 and 25. Only 87 (~\u0026thinsp;33%) of organizations specifically identified which species of kelp they worked with, where the most common species listed were \u003cem\u003eSaccharina latissima\u003c/em\u003e (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;36 instances of documentation), \u003cem\u003eNereocystis luetkeana\u003c/em\u003e (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;25 instances), \u003cem\u003eMacrocystis spp.\u003c/em\u003e (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23 instances). Note that organizations may work with more than one species of kelp.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Regional Profiles (question 2)\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSubsetting our NA data to the regions more active in the kelp-economy (\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;3 organizations) resulted in a subsample of 248 actors (Alaska, British Columbia, Baja California, California, Connecticut, Maine, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Oregon, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Sinaloa, and Washington). Of the 248, we classified 25% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;62) as Guardians (Indigenous Nations, Nations\u0026rsquo; resource and stewardship offices, Guardian programs), 5% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13) as knowledge hubs (research or management focused conglomerates), 13% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;33) non-profits, and 56% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;140) private sector entities. Out of the 248 organizations, 49% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;121) had a participation score of 1, 3% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8) received a score of 2, 19% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;48) a score of 3, and 29% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;71) a score of 4 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3). Mean participation scores were significantly different (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;2.2e-16) between objective categories across all 248 organizations. Pairwise tests revealed significant differences between the mean participation scores of Indigenous stewardship/governance organizations and all other groups, as well as between mariculture- and kelp product-focused organizations, mariculture and research/management organizations, and product-focused organizations and research/management organizations (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.00 for all). The mean participation score of Indigenous stewardship organizations was 4, mariculture was 1.7, kelp-products was 1.1, and research/management-based organizations was 2.3.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCompanies with high participation scores are focused on BC and Washington, encapsulating most of the Pacific Northwest through to Alaska. This area does not extend through Oregon and California. Within the Pacific Northwest is a high concentration of Indigenous Guardian networks, centered between Alaska, British Columbia and Washington\u0026rsquo;s Puget Sound. Furthermore, this region sees the largest cluster of direct-kelp activities such as farming, harvest, and restoration, with companies averaging higher participation scores than East Coast companies. The East Coast lacks Indigenous participation outside of Guardian networks and it has a higher proportion of its companies dealing with farming than other categories (maps are presented in the Supplementary Material).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrdered chi-square analysis of PESTLE score results (Table\u0026nbsp;1) found that political, economic, social, technological, and environmental categories were significantly (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.00) and positively associated with organization-level community participation, supporting our initial hypotheses. Political and economic scores had the greatest association at ~\u0026thinsp;0.44. Social, technological, and environmental categories all had moderate gammas of =\u0026thinsp;0.34, 0.37, and 0.32, respectively. Legal scores were non-significant (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.5) and had the weakest association (~\u0026thinsp;0.05) (for additional detail on scores, see the supplementary material). Legal scores had no impact on overall cluster groupings (i.e., the same clusters formed with or without the inclusion of L scores) but were retained in the final clusters as they slightly improved model fit.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable 1: PESTLE Scores by region evaluated. 1 scores (grey) indicate data deficient. Higher scores represent criteria hypothesized to support greater Indigenous/community participation in the NA kelp-economy.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cimg src=\"https://myfiles.space/user_files/69519_bce2c0439cd956a6/69519_custom_files/img1772487767.png\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Regional Clusters (question 3)\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe PESTLE cluster analysis resulted in 5 groupings (Table\u0026nbsp;1; Fig.\u0026nbsp;3; Fig.\u0026nbsp;4). Cluster one (SIN, BCN) was defined by proportionally high (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.75) S and L, moderate T, but low Econ, Env, and P. Looking at the organizations within Cluster 1, the number is comparatively low with a focus on product applications. Cluster 2 (NB, NL, PEI, NS, QC) had high (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.75) L and T scores, and moderate P, Econ, S, Env scores. The organizations in Cluster 2 were relatively evenly distributed across objectives but few overall. Cluster 3 (CT, OR) had comparatively low (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.25) scores for all PESTLE categories, with a focus on research and mariculture across a small kelp-sector in this region. Cluster 4 (BC) was defined by high (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.75) P, Econ, S, L, and Env scores but a moderate T score. The organizations within cluster 4 revealed a focus on Indigenous governance/stewardship and mariculture, including aquaculture, restoration, propagation, and harvest. Finally, cluster 5 (CA, ME, WA, and AK) was defined by a high Econ score (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.75) but low-moderate (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.50) scores for the remaining categories. Looking at the organizations within this grouping, the cluster 5 region prioritizes mariculture activities, followed by stewardship and research.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean participation varied between clusters (cluster 1, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7, mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.57, sd\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.98; cluster 2, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;25, mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.72, sd\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.31; cluster 3, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12, mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.75, sd\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.97; cluster 4, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;75, mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.83, sd\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.29; cluster 5, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;129, mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.14, sd\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.28). We found that the mean participation score of cluster 4 was significantly different from clusters 2 and 5 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.00; Fig.\u0026nbsp;5). There was no significant difference detected between cluster 4 and clusters 1 or 3, likely due to small sample sizes in the latter groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5 Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eA better understanding of both the extent of the current seaweed economy and the current participation of local communities is necessary to reach (or course correct for) a kelp-economy that meets the equity, environmental, and economic goals of a Blue Economy. This work presents a novel investigation into the state of the kelp-economy across Canada, the USA, and Mexico. We documented a total of 267 active kelp-related organizations in North America (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). We then subset our data to focus on regions more active in the kelp-economy (i.e., contained\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;3 organizations) resulting in 248 organizations across 14 states/provinces, namely: Alaska, British Columbia, Baja California, California, Connecticut, Maine, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Oregon, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Sinaloa, and Washington. The majority (56%) of these 248 organizations were for-profit, private sector companies. Simultaneously, 49% do not appear to have any local community participation (i.e., a participation score of 1 by our ranking). Most regions had relatively fewer product-focused organizations (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;1, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), which corroborates the observation that kelp-product markets are lacking in North America (Kotowicz et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Koch et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e, Tamburello et al. \u003cem\u003ein press\u003c/em\u003e), especially compared to Asia (World Bank \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). However, we acknowledge that this work did not follow supply chains between states/provinces where cross-border sales may supplement the demand for kelp product/applications in each region.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing participation as a proxy for community-derived benefit (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) our results show that if the North American kelp-economy aims to meet the social-environmental goals of the Blue Economy, additional effort should be directed by state/provincial powers towards enabling greater community participation, particularly of Indigenous Nations, in areas engaged with the seaweed economy. We found that PESTLE factors influenced community participation, specifically state-level political legislation (e.g., local adoption of UNDRIP), regional economic support/planning, social (public) support of seaweed aquaculture, technological capacity (e.g., initial permitting investment), and environmental trends reflected in wild kelp abundance. The legal status of UNDRIP as well as specific regional economic planning had the largest influence on participation, while the number of permits was not statistically significant. These PESTLE variables were used to cluster the 14 states/provinces into 5 larger regions (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Of these clusters, British Columbia (a cluster in itself) had the strongest enabling conditions (highest PESTLE scores) overall and had higher participation than other clusters, although sample sizes were too small to determine a significant difference between all groups (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e; Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;4).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo our knowledge, ours is the first in-depth study of the state of the NA kelp-economy that evaluates local community participation (as a proxy for community benefit) and includes organizations at all stages of kelp production (harvest and aquaculture), down-stream application, as well as restoration, stewardship, and research. In fact, we are unaware of a similar study anywhere else in the global seaweed sector (recognizing that our authorship team was limited to publications in English and Spanish). Research has shown tropical seaweed aquaculture has resulted in direct community benefit, particularly for women, through employment in the global south (Sultana et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, C-Weed Mwani (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://cweed.com/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://cweed.com/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) in Tanzania has formed community-based partnerships where they provide training, support, and payment to farmers for seaweed grown before they collect, store, and distribute the collective yield. Conversely, farmer cooperative efforts have been found to be negative experiences for some communities in Malaysia due to factors such as poor social cohesion, complex marketing, and limited participation in decision-making (Nor et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, obscure and/or financially fraudulent practises within some cooperatives led to the eventual collapses of said cooperatives in the Philippines (Andriesse and Lee \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe acknowledge that this work is limited in that the accuracy of our data is dependent on the detail of information provided by organisations and state/provincial agencies in the public space. For instance, some organizations may not prioritize updating websites or social media and therefore may be represented inaccurately in this study. Moreover, we do not intend to say that a participation score of 1 is necessarily \u0026ldquo;a bad thing\u0026rdquo; or equal across organizations. For example, we did not distinguish between large or small organizations in our participation scores and recognize that smaller organizations might simply have less capacity to engage in collaborative work. Likewise, an organization may generate community-benefits in ways that are not captured by our scoring system (e.g., by being a part of the community, employing local people, contributing to local economies). Finally, we reiterate that the environmental scores are based on data prior to 2016 (see Krumhansl et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and the current trends of kelp may differ from those used here. Nonetheless, we believe that these methods are useful to complete similar overview analyses of other Blue Economy sectors and identify both opportunities to develop more equitably as well as to course correct current systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Global Outlook\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutside of Asia, Europe is the next largest aquaculture-based producer of kelps (mostly \u003cem\u003eSaccharina japonica\u003c/em\u003e or kombu), specifically in the Faroe Islands and Norway (Cai et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, Norway, France, Iceland, and Ireland are some of the top global wild-harvest producers of kelp (in 2019; Cai et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). North America parallels Europe\u0026rsquo;s kelp-economy in both scale (i.e., a small number of organizations involved) and strategy (i.e., developing within broader multi-sector Blue Economy plans) (Barbier et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Cai et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Further, NA and Europe have similar social-ecological challenges that increase production costs, including high labour and operating costs, limited growing seasons, complex licensing landscapes, and the requirement of using wild stock for seed (Cai et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Jueterbock et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Koch et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). While there are initiatives looking into how to obtain social license to operate for seaweed aquaculture (e.g., Billing et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) which discuss the merits of forming farmer cooperatives (e.g., Orr \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), or public consultation in harvest permitting (e.g., Greenhill et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), we did not find studies looking at community-derived benefits in the European kelp-economy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs mentioned, Asia dominates seaweed markets globally. Significant government investment, research, and technological innovation (e.g., automation) as well as selective breeding of cultivated strains have made South Korea, China, and Japan world leaders in seaweed cultivation (Hwang and Park \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Hwang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Hu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Park and Hwang \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). East Asian markets are driven by human food applications, as well as other developed global markets including those for agar, alginate, carrageenan, and aquaculture feed (Cai et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; World Bank \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Still, the World Bank predicts that seaweed applications are largely untapped and that demand will grow by an additional USD 11.8\u0026nbsp;billion by 2030, largely through developments in markets for biostimulants, pet and animal feed, nutraceuticals, alternative protein, fabric, bioplastics, and (over the longer term) construction materials and pharmaceuticals (World Bank \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo compete in these global markets, a major challenge for the production side of the NA kelp-economy will be lowering production costs. Although there are many factors that influence production costs and what is competitive in an end market, estimated production costs per dry metric tonne range from ~\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e2200 in Canada, ~\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e4400 in Alaska, ~\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e13900 in Connecticut, to ~\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e24000 in Maine (Coleman et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Increasing farm size can bring down costs; for instance, ~\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e2600 USD per wet tonne from a 405 ha site in Maine has been calculated (Moscicki et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). However, as of writing, the largest farms were ~\u0026thinsp;40 ha in the USA (AK) (NOAA Fisheries \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) and ~\u0026thinsp;70 ha Canada (BC) (Tamburello et al. \u003cem\u003ein prep\u003c/em\u003e). In comparison, a preliminary estimation suggests that the USA in general would require a 1000 ha farm to decrease costs to the required \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e100-\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e300 per dry tonne to be competitive in biofuel markets, for example (Kite-Powell et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Farms of this scale would likely meet significant pushback from coastal residents and need further, detailed investigation for environmental impacts. Thus, research in the near term should focus on other technological advancements and accompanying policy (e.g., gametophyte culture; (Coleman et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)) as well as site design and location optimization (Moscicki et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; James et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e) to bring down production costs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, as we argue in this research, kelp farming and harvest are not the only components of a kelp-economy (Gutzmann and Cisneros-Montemayor \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). The focus on kelp conservation has been increasing in recent years with international efforts (e.g., the Kelp Forest Challenge (Eger et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e), Green Gravel Action Group (Wood et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)) aiming to fill the gaps created by limited kelp biodiversity policy globally (Beattie et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Given the immense importance of wild kelp for global social-ecological systems (see Introduction), it is critical that kelp production is supportive of, and ideally beneficial to, conservation and restoration efforts. However, these commercial and conservation-based goals are largely considered separately in research and policy. The seemingly divergent goals of production/conservation can be thought of as linked through different scales of human-kelp interaction (Gutzmann and Cisneros-Montemayor \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e), where the connection between production, stewardship, and restoration of kelp will become more important as kelp populations (farmed and wild) are increasingly threatened by changing ocean conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Recommendations for a Regenerative Kelp Economy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the face of the challenges the NA kelp-economy faces, we argue that it is critical that the NA kelp-economy uses a Blue Economy lens to guide the sector as it develops. Kelps form some of the most important marine ecosystems globally (Eger et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e) and is therefore more than a \u0026ldquo;resource\u0026rdquo; to be extracted in the most sustainable way or grown with the highest yield. Conversely, kelp conservation cannot ignore the utility and social benefit of extraction and product development. Our work emphasizes the following recommendations to course-correct the current kelp-economy towards a more regenerative future:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. \u003cb\u003eDisclose the species of kelp utilized.\u003c/b\u003e Ultimately, the kelp-economy depends on the biology and ecology of kelp, both wild and farmed, which in turn requires an ocean environment that is conducive to its growth. Different species of kelp have different geographic ranges and environmental tolerances, and even within species, kelps have been found to have localized genetic and phenotypic specificity (e.g., Starko et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Gonzalez et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Pontier et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Dykman et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Bemmels et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). While what kelp species is used may be known internally to governance bodies (e.g., through harvest and cultivation licenses), we found that there is a lack of transparency and corporate accountability in the sector at present with only\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;33% of organizations listing species publicly. Further, because there are numerous concerns around the impacts of kelp mariculture to the genetic integrity of wild kelp populations, in addition to the genetic diversity of cultivated kelp itself (Campbell et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Mendes et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Purcell et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e, Tamburello et al. \u003cem\u003ein press\u003c/em\u003e) genetic diversity might ideally be documented as well. However, analyzing tracking genetic diversity would likely need to be surveyed at regional scales due to costs and technical expertise required (Tamburello et al. \u003cem\u003ein press).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. \u003cb\u003ePolicy and Legislation should be fit to purpose.\u003c/b\u003e While determining L and T scores, we observed that all locations have permitting systems that overlap with, or are tacked onto, other forms of aquaculture (e.g., shellfish). Thus, regulations might not be fit to purpose and can act as a barrier to entry, particularly as the sector scales (Mendes et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Kosichek et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Kotowicz et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Martone et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Koch et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). Emerging seaweed-specific standards like the ASC-MSC Seaweed Standard ecolabel (Aquaculture Stewardship Council and Marine Stewardship Council 2018) may offer guidance for developing legislation fit for seaweed aquaculture. Further, this need for specific legislation is not isolated to seaweed aquaculture but applies to downstream processing and applications as well; for instance, kelp producers in BC have spoken about challenges in needing to meet food handling safety regulations intended for raw fish and shellfish which do not apply to kelps (Reidlinger \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, additional research into the legal landscapes at all stages of the kelp-economy would be beneficial; for example, such as has been done for kelp restoration policies in California (Cleveland \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. \u003cb\u003eAccelerate authentic collaboration.\u003c/b\u003e While this paper makes the case for increased community/Indigenous participation, leadership, and ownership, this must be done in a place-specific manner. Our findings suggest that, broadly, regions should focus on improving the PESTLE conditions in which they scored low to enable the sector. At a finer scale, funding and other development programs should work to balance Indigenous and community autonomy with the realities of location-specific capacity. For instance, investors typically seek a certain level of assurance and reciprocal investment from a community when building a business and thus regions should consider what capital (e.g., financial, social, human) is needed for a community to meaningfully engage (Cascadden et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, we caution against regional programs which incentivize disingenuous partnerships or increase community burden. For example, funding programs which \u003cem\u003erequire\u003c/em\u003e an Indigenous partner can increase engagement burden on Indigenous Nations and Tribes and partnerships may form out of necessity rather than aligned vision and values, risking exploitation (Reidlinger \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, while specific Indigenous funding pathways are important to equitably grow a kelp-economy, they should be partnered with other capacity building initiatives such as those focused on training programs, access to expert advice, access to reliable internet, equipment, and supporting personnel, etc. A deeper analysis of social networks within the kelp-economy can assist in identifying which of these gaps should be prioritized, and how, in a community-specific manner.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. \u003cb\u003eRegenerate within the sector.\u003c/b\u003e Developing a regenerative sector requires good-faith collaboration as well as increases in natural, built, human, social, and financial capital across the system (Mang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Regenesis Institute for Regenerative Practice \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). No one actor needs to provide all five capitals to the system, however, as social networks allow for reciprocal exchanges and overall increases in capital. Essentially, by breaking siloes between kelp-economy participants, organizations with different interests and projects can all work towards a common vision. Networking initiatives are already in place in North America, for instance, Green Wave has recently launched a \u0026ldquo;Seaweed Source\u0026rdquo; platform to link seaweed producers with buyers (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.greenwave.org/seaweed-source\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.greenwave.org/seaweed-source\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) throughout North America, and a National Kelp Community of Practice is in development across Canada.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe barriers to and boundaries of kelp-economies can differ greatly from one country to the next, where in the global North the most important are socio-economic (Koch et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). Based on our findings, the kelp-economy does not inherently generate more direct benefits for local communities than other natural resource industries just because producing seaweed can be innately low-input. Indeed, although a kelp-economy certainly has high potential for local community and ecological benefits (e.g., through restoration), these are actively facilitated or dissuaded by regional political and social conditions. Hence, this research ground-truths recent work which tempers the expectation that seaweed will be an equitable, climate and biodiversity panacea, instead calling for deeper evaluation of the social, economic, and environmental conditions surrounding the industry (Nishihara et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Reidlinger \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). To approach the kelp-economy\u0026rsquo;s Blue Economic potential, there remain challenges and opportunities for organizations to steward and utilize kelp in ways that are regenerative to both nature and society.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Statement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData is available in the Supplementary Material.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eFunding for this work is provided to SBG partially through a Mitacs Accelerate Internship in partnership with Ocean Regenerative Aquaculture.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003efor this work is provided to SBG through a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Doctoral Fellowship (752-2024-2447) as well as a Mitacs Accelerate Internship (IT38256) in partnership with Ocean Regenerative Aquaculture.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e**Conceptualization** : Sarah B. Gutzmann; **Methodology** : Sarah B. Gutzmann, Joshua Russell **; Investigation** : Sarah B. Gutzmann, Joshua Russell, Samantha Martinez de Arredondo Raya; **Formal Analysis** : Sarah B. Gutzmann; **Writing - original draft preparation** : Sarah B. Gutzmann; **Writing - review and editing** : Sarah B. Gutzmann, Joshua Russell, Samantha Martinez de Arredondo Raya, Andr\u0026eacute;s Cisneros-Montemayor; **Funding acquisition** : Sarah B. Gutzmann, Andr\u0026eacute;s Cisneros-Montemayor; **Supervision** : Sarah B. Gutzmann, Andr\u0026eacute;s Cisneros-Montemayor.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThank you to Dr. Jon Boron and Dr. Pedro C. Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Espinosa for input into the PESTLE analysis methodology. We also thank Dr. Andrew Wright and David Parker for their advice on the study conceptualization.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData is available in the Supplementary Material.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndriesse E, Lee Z (2021) Resisting the coastal squeeze through village associations? Comparing environmental, organizational, and political challenges in Philippine seaweed-growing communities. J Agrar Change 21:485\u0026ndash;503. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12405\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/joac.12405\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAquaculture Stewardship Council, Marine Stewardship Council (2018) ASC-MSC Seaweed (Algae) Standard\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAtleo CG (2024) Capitalism: Can It Be Indigenized? In: Engraved on Our Nations: Indigenous Economic Tenacity. University of Manitoba Press., Winnipeg, MB, pp 144\u0026ndash;169\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAtleo CG, Boron JM (2023) Extractive Settler Colonialism: Navigating Extractive Bargains on Indigenous Territories in Canada. In: Bowles P, Andrews N (eds) Extractive Bargains. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 97\u0026ndash;118\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarbier M, Ara\u0026uacute;jo R, Rebours C, et al (2020) Development and objectives of the PHYCOMORPH European Guidelines for the Sustainable Aquaculture of Seaweeds (PEGASUS). Bot Mar 63:5\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1515/bot-2019-0051\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1515/bot-2019-0051\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeattie S, Brodie J, Nagabhatla N, et al (2025) Recognising Seaweeds: Addressing Gaps in International Biodiversity Frameworks for Global Seaweed Conservation. Sustain Dev n/a: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3497\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/sd.3497\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBemmels JB, Starko S, Weigel BL, et al (2025) Population genomics reveals strong impacts of genetic drift without purging and guides conservation of bull and giant kelp. Curr Biol 35:688\u0026ndash;698.e8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.12.025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cub.2024.12.025\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBennett NJ, Lama RL de la, Billon PL, et al (2023) Ocean defenders and human rights. Front Mar Sci 9:. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.1089049\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fmars.2022.1089049\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBilling S-L, Ferguson L, Franco S, et al (2023) A guide to the characteristics and measures that are associated with establishing social license to operate for seaweed cultivation in the UK. WWF-UK, Scottish Association for Marine Science\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoron J, Markey S (2020) Exerting Sovereignty Through Relational Self-determination: A Case Study of Mineral Development in Stk\u0026rsquo;emlupsemc te Secw\u0026eacute;pemc Territory. J Rural Community Dev 15:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCai J, Lovatelli A, Aguilar-Manjarrez J, et al (2021) Seaweeds and microalgae: an overview for unlocking their potential in global aquaculture development. FAO\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCampbell I, Macleod A, Sahlmann C, et al (2019) The Environmental Risks Associated With the Development of Seaweed Farming in Europe - Prioritizing Key Knowledge Gaps. Front Mar Sci 6:107. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00107\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fmars.2019.00107\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarlsson L, Berkes F (2005) Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. J Environ Manage 75:65\u0026ndash;76. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCascadden M, Gunton T, Rutherford M (2021) Best practices for Impact Benefit Agreements. Resour Policy 70:101921. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101921\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101921\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCisneros-Montemayor AM, Croft F, Issifu I, et al (2022) A primer on the \u0026ldquo;blue economy:\u0026rdquo; Promise, pitfalls, and pathways. One Earth 5:982\u0026ndash;986. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.08.011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.oneear.2022.08.011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCisneros-Montemayor AM, Moreno-B\u0026aacute;ez M, Reygondeau G, et al (2021) Enabling conditions for an equitable and sustainable blue economy. 396 Nat 591:. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03327-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41586-021-03327-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCleveland M (2024) RESTORING ABUNDANCE: CALIFORNIA\u0026rsquo;S PERMITTING LANDSCAPE FOR NEARSHORE MARINE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND POLICY SOLUTIONS TO ACCELERATE RESTORATION EFFORTS. Masters, Johns Hopkins University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColeman S, Gelais ATSt, Fredriksson DW, et al (2022) Identifying Scaling Pathways and Research Priorities for Kelp Aquaculture Nurseries Using a Techno-Economic Modeling Approach. Front Mar Sci 9:894461. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.894461\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fmars.2022.894461\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColombo S, Manr\u0026iacute;quez-Hern\u0026aacute;ndez JA, Music J, Charlebois S (2024) Canadians\u0026rsquo; Opinions and Preferences regarding Seafood, and the Factors That Contribute to Their Consumption and Purchasing Habits. Sustainability 16:1111. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su16031111\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su16031111\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCornish ML, Critchley AT, Mouritsen OG (2017) Consumption of seaweeds and the human brain. J Appl Phycol 29:2377\u0026ndash;2398. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-016-1049-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10811-016-1049-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCritchley AT, Hurtado AQ, Neish IC (eds) (2024) Tropical Phyconomy Coalition Development: Focus on Eucheumatoid Seaweeds. Springer International Publishing, Cham\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDillehay TD, Ram\u0026iacute;rez C, Pino M, et al (2008) Monte Verde: Seaweed, food, medicine, and the peopling of South America. Science 320:784\u0026ndash;786. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1156533/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1126/SCIENCE.1156533/\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eSUPPL_FILE/DILLEHAY.SOM.PDF\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://SUPPL_FILE/DILLEHAY.SOM.PDF\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDinno A (2024) conover.test: Conover-Iman Test of Multiple Comparisons Using Rank Sums\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDykman LN, Steell SC, Bemmels JB, et al (2025) Testing the roles of local adaptation and genetic diversity to improve Giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) restoration. Restor Ecol e70114. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/rec.70114\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/rec.70114\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEger A, Aguirre JD, Altamirano M, et al (2024a) The Kelp Forest Challenge: A collaborative global movement to protect and restore 4 million hectares of kelp forests. J Appl Phycol 36:951\u0026ndash;964. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-023-03103-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10811-023-03103-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEger A, Layton C, Anoush McHugh T, et al (2022) Kelp Restoration Guidebook: Lessons Learned from Projects Arounf the Wolrd. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEger A, McHugh T, Eddy N, Verges A (eds) (2024b) State of the World\u0026rsquo;s Kelp Forests Report V1.0. Sydney, Australia.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEger AM, Bauer-Civeillo A, Bernal B, et al (2024c) Monitoring Kelp Forest Ecosystems A Guidebook to Quantifying Biodiversity, Ecosystem Health, and Ecosystem Benefits. Kelp Forest Alliance, Ocean Wise, Sydney, NSW, Australia\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErlandson JM, Graham MH, Bourque BJ, et al (2007) The Kelp Highway Hypothesis: Marine Ecology, the Coastal Migration Theory, and the Peopling of the Americas. J Isl Coast Archaeol 2:161\u0026ndash;174. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/15564890701628612\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/15564890701628612\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO (2024) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024. FAO\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO (2025) FishStat: Global aquaculture production 1950\u0026ndash;2023\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFlaherty M, Reid G, Chopin T, Latham E (2019) Public attitudes towards marine aquaculture in Canada: insights from the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Aquac Int 27:9\u0026ndash;32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-018-0312-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10499-018-0312-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGetchis T, Russo Kelly M, Concepcion A, Bovay J (2020) The Connecticut Seafood Survey: Assessing Seafood Consumption, Knowledge, Behaviors and Preferences of Connecticut Residents. Connecticut Sea Grant. CTSG-20-03.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGonzalez ST, Alberto F, Molano G (2023) Whole-genome sequencing distinguishes the two most common giant kelp ecomorphs. Evolution 77:1354\u0026ndash;1369. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/evolut/qpad045\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/evolut/qpad045\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreenhill L, Sundnes F, Karlsson M (2021) Towards sustainable management of kelp forests: An analysis of adaptive governance in developing regimes for wild kelp harvesting in Scotland and Norway. Ocean Coast Manag 212:105816. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105816\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105816\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuan J, McEwen M, Rilum S, Wee L (2022) Perceptions of Seaweed Aquaculture in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Prepared for Ocean Rainforest, Bren School of Environmental Science \u0026amp; Management, University of California Santa Barbara\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGutzmann SB, Cisneros-Montemayor AM (2026) Planning for an Expanding Industry: Opportunities for a Successful Kelp Economy in British Columbia. In: Critchley AT, Hurtado AQ, Neish IC, Pereira L (eds) Advances in Temperate Phyconomy: Algal Harvest and Cultivation in Globally Distributed Temperate Waters. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp 317\u0026ndash;328\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGutzmann SB, Humchitt C, Kowalchuk K, et al (2025) Indigenous resurgence in the Blue Economy: Relational values to guide kelp mariculture. People Nat 00:1\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70214\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/pan3.70214\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHale Hendlin Y, Weggelaar J, Derossi N, Mugnai S (2024) Being Algae: Transformations in Water, Plants. BRILL\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHamad WA, Islam GMN (2022) Alternative Employment, Women Participation In Seaweed Farming And Livelihoods Of Small-Scale Fishing Community In Zanzibar. J Posit Sch Psychol 6:2987\u0026ndash;3000\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHamilton-Smith E (2005) Sharing Power: Learning-by-doing in Co-management of Natural Resources throughout the World\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHermans S (2024) Phyconomy Database\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHigh Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (2023) Transformations for a Sustainable Ocean Economy A Vision for Protection, Production and Prosperity\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHothorn T, Winell H, Hornik K, et al (2023) coin: Conditional Inference Procedures in a Permutation Test Framework\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu Z, Shan T, Zhang J, et al (2021) Kelp aquaculture in China: a retrospective and future prospects. Rev Aquac 13:1324\u0026ndash;1351. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12524\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/raq.12524\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu Z-M, Shan T-F, Zhang Q-S, et al (2024) Kelp breeding in China: Challenges and opportunities for solutions. Rev Aquac 16:855\u0026ndash;871. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12871\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/raq.12871\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHwang EK, Choi HG, Kim JK (2020) Seaweed resources of Korea. Bot Mar 63:395\u0026ndash;405. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1515/bot-2020-0007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1515/bot-2020-0007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHwang EK, Park CS (2020) Seaweed cultivation and utilization of Korea. Algae 2020:107\u0026ndash;121. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4490/algae.2020.35.5.15\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4490/algae.2020.35.5.15\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJames P, Evensen T, Donovan ME, et al (2026) A comparison of potential yield and production timing for sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima) between sites in the north and south of Norway. J Appl Phycol. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-026-03786-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10811-026-03786-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJobin SW (2023) Upholding indigenous economic relationships: nehiyawak narratives. UBCPress, Vancouver\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJueterbock A, Hoarau-Heemstra H, Wigger K, et al (2025) Roadmap to sustainably develop the European seaweed industry. Npj Ocean Sustain 4:22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-025-00122-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s44183-025-00122-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKassambara A, Mundt F (2020) factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhan N, Sudhakar K, Mamat R (2024) Macroalgae farming for sustainable future: Navigating opportunities and driving innovation. Heliyon 10:e28208. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28208\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28208\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKite-Powell HL, Ask E, Augyte S, et al (2022) Estimating production cost for large-scale seaweed farms. Appl Phycol 3:435\u0026ndash;445. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/26388081.2022.2111271\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/26388081.2022.2111271\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoch SJI, Filgueira R, Alberg J, et al (2026) Identifying a sustainable operating window for seaweed aquaculture in the Global North: balancing expansion barriers and carrying capacity. Aquaculture 611:742907. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2025.742907\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.aquaculture.2025.742907\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKosichek H, Reimer J, Filgueira R (2024) Assessing the potential for seaweed aquaculture in Nova Scotia. Aquac Rep 36:102064. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2024.102064\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.aqrep.2024.102064\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKotowicz DM, Concepcion A, Bradt G, et al (2024) Identifying challenges of the US domestic seaweed aquaculture industry. Aquaculture 593:741314. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.741314\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.741314\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKrumhansl KA, Okamoto DK, Rassweiler A, et al (2016) Global patterns of kelp forest change over the past half-century. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:13785\u0026ndash;13790. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.1606102113/-\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/PNAS.1606102113/-\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e/DCSUPPLEMENTAL/PNAS.1606102113.SAPP.PDF\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http:///DCSUPPLEMENTAL/PNAS.1606102113.SAPP.PDF\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMang P, Haggard B, Regenesis (2016) Regenerative Development and Design: a Frameworks for Evolving Sustainability. Wiley, New Jersey\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMartone R, Gregr IR, Gregr EJ (2025) Seaweed Aquaculture in British Columbia: Policy, Regulations and Recommendations for Mitigating Potential Ecological Effects. David Suzuki Foundation\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMendes M, Hillinger A, Ihle K, et al (2024) Seaweed Aquaculture Importance in Sustainable Economy in an Era of Climate Change. IntechOpen\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeng X (2025) Encountering Seaweed: Life In and Beyond Macroalgae Farming Through Lived Experience of Farmers in Shandong and Fujian, China. International Master\u0026rsquo;s Programme in Human Ecology, Lund University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoscicki Z, St. Gelais AT, Coleman S, et al (2025) Comprehensive quantification of production costs for large-scale kelp aquaculture and cost reduction opportunities. Algal Res 92:104383. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2025.104383\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.algal.2025.104383\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMwaijande F, Rashidi YR (2025) Application of Social Life Cycle Assessment on Seaweed Farming Blue Economy in Zanzibar-Tanzania by\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNishihara GN, Sato Y, Eger AM, et al (2025) Expert opinions regarding the concept of blue carbon in seaweed systems. Phycol Res n/a: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/pre.70009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/pre.70009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNOAA Fisheries (2025) Tide to Table Profiles: Seagrove Kelp Co. | NOAA Fisheries. In: NOAA. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/aquaculture/tide-table-profiles-seagrove-kelp-co\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/aquaculture/tide-table-profiles-seagrove-kelp-co\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 2 Feb 2026\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNor AM, Gray TS, Caldwell GS, Stead SM (2017) Is a cooperative approach to seaweed farming effectual? An analysis of the seaweed cluster project (SCP), Malaysia. J Appl Phycol 29:2323\u0026ndash;2337. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-016-1025-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10811-016-1025-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOrr K (2022) Facilitating development of the seaweed cultivation industry in Scotland. The Sustainable Inshore Fisheries trust\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePark CS, Hwang EK (2022) Seaweed Production Companies in Korea: An Overview. In: Ranga Rao A, Ravishankar GA (eds) Sustainable Global Resources Of Seaweeds Volume 1: Bioresources, cultivation, trade and multifarious applications. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 205\u0026ndash;223\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePontier O, Rhoades O, Twist B, et al (2024) Bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) growth rates as climate stress indicators for Canada\u0026rsquo;s Pacific coast. FACETS 9:1\u0026ndash;19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePurcell C, Volk J, Hyde J, Blair G (2025) Science advice for genetic effects from macroalgae aquaculture in Southern California and the Gulf of Mexico. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.25923/EHNN-VE18\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.25923/EHNN-VE18\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRegenesis Institute for Regenerative Practice (2019) The Regenerative Practitioner\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReidlinger T (2025) An Analysis of the Social and Political Elements Influencing the Emerging Kelp Aquaculture Industry in British Columbia. Master of Science in Environment and Management, Royal Roads University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSignorell A, Aho K, Alfons A, et al (2025) DescTools: Tools for Descriptive Statistics\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpillias S, Kelly R, Cottrell RS, et al (2023) The empirical evidence for the social-ecological impacts of seaweed farming. PLOS Sustain Transform 2:e0000042. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000042\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pstr.0000042\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStarko S, Demes KW, Neufeld CJ, Martone PT (2020) Convergent evolution of niche structure in Northeast Pacific kelp forests. Funct Ecol 34:2131\u0026ndash;2146. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13621\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1365-2435.13621\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSteenbergen DJ, Marlessy C, Holle E (2017) Effects of rapid livelihood transitions: Examining local co-developed change following a seaweed farming boom. Mar Policy 82:216\u0026ndash;223. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.026\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.026\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSultana F, Wahab MA, Nahiduzzaman M, et al (2023) Seaweed farming for food and nutritional security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and women empowerment: A review. Aquac Fish 8:463\u0026ndash;480. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2022.09.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.aaf.2022.09.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTenorio-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez PA, Nicasio-Arzeta S, Robledo D, Freile-Pelegr\u0026iacute;n Y (2025) Consumer acceptance of edible seaweed in Mexico: An exploratory study on willingness. Food Qual Prefer 133:105630. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105630\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105630\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Nature Conservancy (2021) Global Principles of Restorative Aquaculture\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Ocean Defenders Project (2025) Ocean Defenders: Protectors of Our Ocean Environment and Human Rights. The Peopled Seas Initiative, Vancouver, Canada\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurner N, Bell A (1973) The Ethnobotany of the Southern Kwakiutl Indians of British Columbia. Econ Bot 27:257\u0026ndash;310\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurner NJ (2000) Coastal Peoples and Marine Plants on the Northwest Coast. In: Tides of Technology: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International Association of Aquatic and Marine Science Libraries and Information Centers (IAMSLIC). pp 69\u0026ndash;76\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUN Trade and Development (2025) United Nations Global Seaweed Initiative (UNGSI). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://unctad.org/topic/trade-and-environment/united-nations-global-seaweed-initiative\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://unctad.org/topic/trade-and-environment/united-nations-global-seaweed-initiative\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 21 Nov 2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWood GV, Filbee-Dexter K, Coleman MA, et al (2024) Upscaling marine forest restoration: challenges, solutions and recommendations from the Green Gravel Action Group. Front Mar Sci 11:. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2024.1364263\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fmars.2024.1364263\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Bank (2023) Global Seaweed: New and Emerging Markets Report, 2023. World Bank\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWuwung L, Croft F, Benzaken D, et al (2022) Global blue economy governance \u0026ndash; A methodological approach to investigating blue economy implementation. Front Mar Sci 9:. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.1043881\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fmars.2022.1043881\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXue W (2025) Study on Public Perceptions on Seaweed Aquaculture in Maine. Master of Environmental Management, Nicholas School of the Environment of Duke University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"","identity":"journal-of-applied-phycology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"10811","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10811/3","title":"Journal of Applied Phycology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"phyconomy, regenerative development, seaweed aquaculture, ecological economics, kelp restoration","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8912882/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8912882/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe kelp sector is growing in Canada, the USA, and Mexico. In part, this expansion is due to the enthusiasm around the sector\u0026rsquo;s promise for environmental, social, economic, and climate benefits. However, these Blue Economy goals may not be inherently realized by Indigenous Nations and coastal communities where kelp industries operate. To investigate the status of the kelp-economy in North America, we compiled a database of 267 kelp-related organizations from across North America and gave each a score from 1\u0026ndash;4 for community participation as a proxy for community-derived benefit. We then looked at broader political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental (PESTLE) factors at the state/province level to evaluate which enabled community participation. Finally, we used a cluster analysis to group states/provinces into broader regions based on their PESTLE variables. We found that factors that influence community participation included state-level political legislation (local adoption of UNDRIP), regional economic support/planning, public support of seaweed aquaculture, initial permitting investment, and environmental trends reflected in wild kelp abundance. Of the regions evaluated, British Columbia (a cluster in itself) had the strongest enabling conditions (highest PESTLE scores) and had higher participation than other clusters. Overall, we recommend that if the North American kelp-economy aims to meet the social-environmental goals of the Blue Economy, additional effort should be directed by state/provincial powers towards enabling greater community participation, particularly of Indigenous Nations, in areas engaged with the seaweed economy. Further, we discuss how seaweed-specific legislation, species reporting, authentic collaboration, and inter-industry connections may progress these goals.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Kelponomics: The State of North American Kelp Mariculture","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-02 21:45:22","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8912882/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-03-24T20:10:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-21T07:23:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-20T23:51:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-15T16:08:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-13T01:43:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"224156293672858116142420217519784487066","date":"2026-03-01T22:44:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"5603767636491748356457384926430491707","date":"2026-02-27T17:46:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"274676581405865273243507686963865198985","date":"2026-02-27T17:09:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"201643933435521175045541145253282294555","date":"2026-02-27T14:33:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"305490667072787717357773000565404684774","date":"2026-02-25T14:38:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-25T13:43:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"226576990227089635081202303849430645610","date":"2026-02-24T22:19:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-24T22:15:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-24T21:49:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-02-24T12:11:46+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Journal of Applied Phycology","date":"2026-02-19T00:14:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"","identity":"journal-of-applied-phycology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"10811","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10811/3","title":"Journal of Applied Phycology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b9860c67-2591-4d66-9d2f-4a957682bb28","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 2nd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-22T17:38:14+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-02 21:45:22","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8912882","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8912882","identity":"rs-8912882","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}