Abstract
On February 5, 2026, the article titled “The Ocean Equity Index” appeared in the prestigious journal Nature, offering “the first standardized tool for evaluating ocean equity” (page 126).[1] With its transnational group of co-authors and touching upon a topic at the heart of the United Nations’ (UN) Ocean Decade, the paper has gained interest from a wide array of scholars, activists, companies, and institutions. As a piece of public scholarship, the authors of the Ocean Equity Index (with its accompanying website) open themselves to critique, a process central to the scholastic spirit. My intervention begins with a reflection from the field during my attendance at the UN Ocean Conference (UNOC) in 2025, an event used as an example in the article. My observations offer the point of departure that ocean equity, as concept, is in danger of dilution. Likewise, and concerning the Nature article, I find that the ocean equity index does not in fact measure equity as the critical literature would define that term (e.g., involving dimensions of anti-subordination, decolonization, anti-racism, etc.). On the other hand, a generous interpretation of the index would be that it provides a baseline approach to establishing equality in decision-making scenarios. In light of the index’s problematic conceptualization of equity, it does not fair much better as a tool. The ocean equity index appeals to potential users through the rhetoric of statistics; however, the reason for that and the possible interpretive angles one could draw from quantitative results lacks definitions and boundaries that could be drawn from relevant scientific schools of thought. The aforementioned drawbacks are also compounded by the lack of even a loose scientific method, which has consequences for the deployment of the tool, as well as any potential policy interventions that may result from it. Rather than approaching inequitable contexts with a humble curiosity informed by scientific concepts and methods, the ocean equity index encourages the flattening of difference and context into a single percentage. In light of these issues, the ocean equity index threatens to set the concept of ocean equity adrift, dampening the ongoing, wider struggles for ocean equity, within academia and beyond its shores.
Introduction
June 6, 2025 was one of my busiest days in the French city of Nice along the riviera at the third United Nations’ Ocean Conference (UNOC). It began by my speaking on an invited panel and then later with students, discussing the deployment of terms like equity and justice in ocean policy debates. From there, I visited a range of presentations: artistic, scientific, policy oriented, and entrepreneurial. Whatever one’s interest in oceans might be, in Nice, it seemed that it could be accommodated. Later in the day, colleagues invited me to the Mont Alban Fort overlooking the Bay of Nice and Port Lympia, the securitized locale for the science and policy discussions of UNOC. At Mont Alban, I witnessed a presentation about whale bioacoustics, followed by an interpretive dance performance by the Paris based troupe Collectif Minuit 12 that sought to highlight “the relationship between man and the ocean.” The piece performed, Récifs was “made in support of marine protected areas…a cross between contemporary dance, hip-hop and waacking.”[2] Then, as the light faded, colleagues invited me to another happening: a drone show about ocean conservation. Descending the forested mountain terrain, I struck up a conversation with a UNESCO intern and Master’s student working on ocean policy issues. As we walked, we discussed careers and topics of study, typical academic “shop talk.” Regarding work, they explained that excitement has turned to disillusionment: “there is always a tension about what we are allowed to say or do” when it comes to aspects of ocean policy, and an emphasis on “consensus building” seemed ever-present. As our conversation wore on, I was struck by their disenchantment while in a transitional phase of a young career: they approached the working world enthusiastically and were met with the evidently uninspiring practices of international organizations.
Curious about more specific topics they were working on, I asked how the term “equity” is used in their work. The response was that “it’s just words we are now supposed to use when we present things, or when we write reports, or when we talk with people. It’s something they just want to put everything in.” Like a message in a bottle, equity has become a passive receptacle, an empty vessel to be filled more or less artfully. My interlocutor lamented the flattening way the term was used so that it could, from UNOCs branding to its policy tools, carry a minimal level of concern, be disseminated as widely as possible, and build good will for organizations. My interlocutor explained how this had impacted their own reflections on the future: they wanted to work for an international organization that cared about the ocean and making the future more livable for people, while protecting the environment. “Now I worry this kind of work will not be fulfilling.”
This conversation raised questions in my mind. What is the extent of critique lying just below the surface of the very institutions that proclaim to be solving ocean crises? What potential is lost as enthusiastic people are reduced to generating impact on the basis of terminology that they find lacking? If there is a potential in a term like equity for transforming how policy is made, to where did it drift away? Anyway, in that moment, my mind itself was set adrift as the drone show commenced. To cheers, drones emerged as a trail of blinking blue violet lights. The DJ initiated the sound of crashing waves. All along the promenade, phones were raised, engaged in touristic labor.[3] The drone formations proceeded to form sea anemones, an enormous anglerfish was fluttering its tail and appearing to swim through the night sky, seahorses, moon jellyfish, sea turtles, rays, penguins, and kelp were all outlined amidst black. The climax: Hans Zimmer’s sonorous string arrangement of “Time” as drones formed a blue and green rotating Earth, then dissipated into an enormous water droplet around which rotated all the previously visualized animals to then be assembled into the image of a globe again. Bottle-nose dolphins. “One Ocean,” in blue script emerged beneath.
June 6, 2025 – The ocean conservation drone show in the Bay of Nice. Image (c) Brian F. O’Neill.
I was reminded of these moments and my conversations in Nice when, in the first week of February, across my email blipped an update about a new article, “The Ocean Equity Index.” Published in the prestigious journal, Nature, I read it with interest. While my interest in this particular work remained, I recalled my aforementioned interlocutor’s comments, who now seemed especially prescient in their frustration about how the term equity was being used in ocean policy dialogues: “something they just want to put everything in.”
Who is that they? What is that something? While I am not interested in unpacking the intellectual history of the term equity for the purposes of the present essay (in fact, I have done this elsewhere[4]), what intrigues me is the recent investment (intellectually, financially, symbolically, etc.) in this term. More specifically, in the remainder of this essay I will explore “The Ocean Equity Index” (which, uncommon to academic papers to be sure, also comes with its own website) in so far as it might be a prism into which we can gaze to begin to understand the consequences of fragmented knowledges, the refracting of institutional and organizational mandates, and the creative strategies that are besetting the concept of ocean equity.
Defining Ocean Equity?
The article begins well enough. The authors note that the “burdens of a surging ocean economy—which range from exposure to pollution and toxic waste to the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss—are borne by the most vulnerable” (page 123). The authors recognize that the economic expansion and the exploitation of marine and maritime resources now constitute a threat, manifesting in myriad ways that are patterned and uneven, where marginalized populations are at risk. As the authors go on to state, marginalized populations have been identified in the scientific literature in ocean policy and governance as “Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women and small-scale fishers—are not fully recognized, are excluded from ocean decision-making processes and do not gain a fair share of ocean benefits” (Page 123). All of this is consequential due to a number of regional and international processes that have been put into place in recent years, as well as the material and symbolic investments of global institutions like the UN, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), etc. For example, the UN estimates that trade in ocean goods and services accounts for more than a trillion dollars in economic activity,[5] and that there are something in the range of 600 million people who make a living from fisheries.[6] By comparison, the FAO estimates agricultural workers in primary production total around 857 million.[7] Such numbers are enormous, and the ocean in particular is seen as a site of tremendous, often untapped potential by governments, the private sector, and NGOs,[8] while also being seen as a vast territory that deserves protection and exploration.[9]
Shifting to defining what the contribution to understanding the concerns about ocean equity the paper is supposed to make, the authors change gears in two notable ways. First, they articulate that they find “progress towards advancing ocean equity is hampered by a lack of clarity on how to define and measure equity” and that there are “limited resources for time-intensive equity assessments and a lack of actionable recommendations to effectively improve ocean equity” (Page 123). On the same page, they assert that “by synthesizing and building on existing indicators, the OEI provides a standardized and transparent approach.” Secondly, and perhaps in an attempt to rectify what the authors believe is an amorphous concept, under the section heading appropriately titled “Ocean Equity,” they define the term: “Ocean equity can be defined as the recognition, meaningful involvement and fair treatment of all people within ocean initiatives, projects and policies” (Pages 123-124). On page 124, they go on to mention that “Advancing ocean equity is essential owing to its intrinsic role in supporting just ocean economies and its instrumental role in supporting the long-term health of marine environments and the well-being of people reliant on them.” In concluding this conceptualization, they offer the following taxonomy that they believe captures the fundamental qualities of ocean equity, “although it is difficult to offer a definition of ocean equity that fully represents its complexity, the literature tends to recognize three core and interrelated domains: “(1) recognitional, (2) procedural and (3) distributional equity” (Page 124). Within that taxonomy, the terminology of fairness and representation are often used.
As a scholar who has published extensively across various social science subfields on environmental (in)justice(s) and on topics of relevance to academics, “pracademics,” and activists in coastal and ocean territories, the conceptual handwringing at this stage of the paper seemed apparent, but also confusing. The paper begins by indicating a clear and pressing need for ocean policy to locate its concerns on the marginalized, the dispossessed, and the subordinated within the larger blue economy. I agree that such an emphasis is relevant, which is consistent with contemporary literature across multiple sub-disciplines that have been examining ocean and maritime policies and practices. Indeed, any number of articles in well-regarded journals in the social sciences have been making a turn towards the oceans and these types of themes, attempting to, in their own ways, address the dimensions along which the oceans constitute frontier zones of extraction, dark places of human and natural exploitation beyond traditional socio-legal structures[10] and severe human suffering.[11] The development of concepts like “ocean grabbing,”[12]“blue justice,”[13] “blue geopolitics,”[14] “blue washing,”[15] and the larger “oceanic turn”[16] in the social sciences,[17] just to name a few notions, attest to this. It is unclear why the authors of the ocean equity index choose to disengage from the implications of this growing body of critical literature. If they had mobilized any of these ideas, they may have found that, in fact, the concepts of “ocean equity,” and even that of “environmental justice” are not centrally concerned with serving “all” through policy instruments, or indeed, indexes. As myself, alongside colleagues Matthew Jerome Schneider and Alejandro Garcia Lozano have written in a 2025 article published in the journal Environmental Justice: “equity is invoked as a counterpoint to equality. ‘Equality’ connotes, if not anticipates, a process of fairness” (Page 90).[18] And as we further argue, social and environmental justice (EJ) scholars show that processes built on principles of equality too often presume an already existing society where it is a predominant principle (Page 90). As environmental social science scholar Grace Wong has articulated “in practice, the ‘equality for all’ that such uniform frameworks pre-suppose works to deny or ignore existing social hierarchies” (page 146).[19] Not dissimilarly, almost two decades ago in his pathbreaking analysis of the inequalities involved in global development initiatives and the power of the World Bank, sociologist Michael Goldman observed how a “water for all,” became a hegemonic, i.e., dominant force,[20] whereby international institutions wielded tremendous influence over marginalized populations, the result of which was to discipline new subjects into being better market actors.[21] One sees the legacy of the policy trajectories and ideas even today within the ocean conservation worked, with its emphasis on “market based solutions.” Indeed, this disciplining, the forceful enfolding of the subordinated into the idea of the global marketplace, is precisely the theme of notable ethnographies as well, such as Maximilian Viatori and Héctor Bombiella’s analysis of Peruvian artisanal fishers and their response to state and international forces, whereby already impoverished fishers are made unable to meet new demands of creating “responsible” fisheries, which then legitimize processes aimed at closing traditional fishing areas and denying historical rights.[22] And yet, the discourse of “for all” remains persistent, and apparently, persuasive to a particular class of social agents in the field of marine policy and beyond. For example, The High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy proposes: “A sustainable ocean economy puts people at its center, works for everyone, enables human rights, facilitates the equitable distribution of ocean wealth and ensures equality of opportunity for all.”[23] It is striking that the authors of “The Ocean Equity Index” repeatedly reiterate the UN’s understanding of ocean equity, even when it fails to grasp the very thing it claims to wish to reach: human marginalization in the blue economy.
Ocean Equity for What and for Whom?
Having identified the manner in which this authorship team has in fact, not clarified, but muddied the waters of understanding ocean equity by making claims and definitions through a selective use of references and somewhat surprisingly, inconsistencies of argumentation within the text itself, the reader then encounters an attempt to wrangle together a semblance of meaning from within their definition of the concept. This issue centers the question of about whom the concept of ocean equity is concerned. The authors assert that their ocean equity index is going to be concerned with “all relevant actors” within the context of any given ocean initiative that is in question: “Indigenous Peoples, local communities, residents, migrant populations, community leaders, government officials or agencies, regulatory bodies, industry, employees and environmental or other non-governmental organizations, among others. The definition of relevant actors will vary according to the context and scope of the analysis” (Page 124). It is worth noting that women, indigenous and migrant populations, and the dispossessed conspicuously disappear by the methods section of the paper presented at the end of the text. In order to identify the variety of potential actors that would be necessary to engage to develop the index, the authors also blow by whole bodies of literature by saying that “stakeholder analysis” and “actor network theory” will be useful to identify who needs to be engaged in an equitable ocean initiative. This deserves some attention as it could provide insight to the internal logic of the index.
Due to the fact that such little information is given about any theory or how conceptualizations emerged in the context of this paper, it is difficult to apprehend even why an appeal to literatures like Actor Network Theory would be relevant. Actor Network Theory, most famously championed by Bruno Latour, and stakeholder analysis are not mentioned anywhere else in the text or used in a way to show how a particular approach to data collection like this helps one to arrive at the ocean equity index statistics that the paper attempts to develop. Amidst mentions of how “time intensive” (page 123) work on equity can be, it seems clear that considered engagement with scholarship in such a processes certainly would not make the cut. Indeed, authors advocate for no articulation between theory and data, which is a standard practice across the social sciences. Instead, an ad hocprocess of amalgamation more familiar to non-governmental organization work, as indicated on page 124, is advocated: “Scores are assigned on the basis of data interpretation from a wide range of sources (for example, policy documents, management or marine spatial plans, focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews, desktop studies or field observations) and/or firsthand experience with an ocean initiative.”
However, the appeals to discourses of “for all” and fairness hardly even qualifies as a shallow engagement with relevant theory. For example, Latourian Actor Network Theory has been both widely used across a number of social scientific fields, but also received substantial criticism for its inattention to relations of power and its focus on description to the detriment of wider explanations of the phenomena its adherents observe – each case treated in all its multifaceted uniqueness. For example, in his 2005 book, Reassembling the Social,[24] Latour insists on a flattened-out landscape made up of human and nonhuman actors linked in a network. As sociologist Zsuzsa Gille has offered, this creates problems when trying to assess the actually existing inequalities of the world, because Latour’s assumption is “that power resides in the connections and threads, rather than being created and controlled by some nodes, while other nodes may be simply in passive receipt of such flows” (Gille 2010; Page 1052).[25] And while the author team has failed to cite the most famous author of a theory they mention in the text, Latour, the more one approaches the ocean equity index, the more difficult it becomes to take seriously as a scholarly product. But, then again, the paper is listed in Nature’s reporting summary in the “field-specific reporting” category as being in the “ecological, evolutionary, and environmental sciences.” The box for “Behavioral and Social Sciences” is not checked.
Methodological Appeals
This brings us to the statistical procedure that is proposed. Here it must be said from the outset, that again, the authors of the article depart from the critical literature, which tends to emphasize that equity is not an outcome, something to be achieved, or a variable whose “success” can be measured but is instead a process. Be that as it may, to be generous to the authors of the index, we will address their work on the terrain they have attempted to stand.
There are twelve criteria that the authors arrived at as the result of, the reader is told “two workshops” that deal with rights, diversity, participation, accountability, harms, and benefits. The criteria are scored individually from 0-3 based on the aforementioned ad hoc aggregation of materials (so, 4 possible “points”). Reminiscent of the American College Testing (ACT) maximum score, 36 is the maximum possible for the ocean equity index. The web tool converts the score to a percentage “to facilitate comparison and effective communication.” The authors mention that within a given working group using the tool, many people should use the tool and if and when divergences appear, they need to use “focus group discussions to explore the underlying reasons for these differences in opinion, generate actionable ideas to address them, and facilitate dialogue between the groups, thereby fostering improved collaboration and ultimately improving equity” (Page 124). Unfortunately, the underlying equality of participation idea does not answer the question of improving equity, which would be about prioritizing historically marginalized voices, not diluting them. This is another point where some evidence of an underlying conceptual apparatus would be helpful. Are the authors relying on a notion of contact theory to support that the “talk it out” approach will work?[26] The reader is left wondering about the extent of the facile grasp of the social upon which the ocean equity index was erected.
But, let’s get back to those statistics. By their nature, statistical procedures are abstractions. They take the complexity of the social world, or the natural for that matter, and reduce that existence into numbers which are presumed to be digestible for human understanding. I have used statistics in many projects myself, and as many scholars and statisticians will explain, they can be quite good at describing “what” might be happening. To use a basic example, generalized linear models,[27] such as the myriad types of regressions, offer the analyst insight about the likelihood of a specific outcome based on a series of variables. For example, might say, the likelihood of ocean equity being achieved would be informed by an array of factors. Such a process would necessitate a number of steps common to the scientific method, none of which appear evident in this Nature article. One would be making observations and hypotheses about the potential relationships between variables. Another would be testing those hypotheses based on models informed by prior literature. And generalized linear models are just scratching the surface of serious statistical practices that could be applied. With public policy, governance, and ocean research related departments around the world, there is no shortage of potential models or variables that could considered and evaluated based on context and research questions. Would not the users of the ocean equity index respond better to analyses that show probabilities of outcomes tailored to specific cases than a contextless percentage?
The further one thinks about the application of statistics in the ocean equity index, the questions that seem to bubble up soon become irrepressible. The authors mention at multiple points that the aim of the tool is to “improve equity.” We have already established that they have confused equity and equality. But, to show “improvement” would mean involving some measurement over time. This does not seem to be mentioned or outlined in the paper. What is more, the simplicity of the percentage leads one to obvious evaluations of “good” or “bad”, which is both statistically arbitrary, and may tend towards moral assessments of certain actors’, whoever they may be, capacity for change in ocean policy. This would seem self-evidently undesirable. For example, to come back to UNOC, one could imagine how UNOC might in fact have very low scores (and this is shown in the paper) being a forum that concatenates a diversity of people and organizations (although I would argue from firsthand-experience, not diverse enough). Likewise, we might hypothesize that it would improve only marginally over time given the diversity of scales at which it operates. How or why, one would compare that to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework and rāhui governance of the collectivité of French Polynesia is nonsensical. What does the percentage mean when we compare the sites/initiatives as the authors suggest? The only explanation the authors provide is that the rāhui governance was led by local communities and fishers. A reasonable individual would probably expect that a process led by local populations (and in which there is not extensive active conflict) in a former colony would be more impactful and legitimate than any other alternative. What insight is the tool offering?
Could some things be improved in the tool? Surely. Identifying outcomes for specific social groups or even jurisdictions would be a good start. Asking questions and developing context specific variables around analytical concepts like class, race, gender, ethnicity, etc. would be helpful. It is indeed curious how these and other variables that are heavily used and debated in social sciences manage to disappear in ocean policy related reports and tools. For all its discourse about interdisciplinarity, I continue to be hard pressed to see evidence of how the ocean research sciences, marine social sciences, and cognate fields take the history and insights of the social sciences seriously. Anyway, all this would explode the idea that ocean equity needs to be defined as “for all.” It could even be a step towards actual equity. By identifying marginalized populations, and even more importantly, understanding the dimensions of that marginalization, one could evaluate the probabilities of success of certain policy instruments over others. At least, these types of considerations are standard procedures in the already existing fields of policy analysis and research.
Conclusion
By way of conclusion and reflection, a final question emerges. Amidst the obvious disdain that the paper displays for the existing literature on ocean equity, its lack of care and attention to theory or methods that would be relevant to its object, and the progressive whittling away of language within the paper that would foreground the struggles and suffering of maritime peoples, why did this paper need to appear in a journal? This question can be asked because in the context of international conservation NGOs, what is valued as an intellectual product remains an ambiguous thing. At times, I have been told directly that PowerPoints and reports are what often draw the most attention and informs programming, initiatives, and contract proposals. Often, reports, event proceedings, and PowerPoints do in fact come to have impact in terms of citations or other metrics, sometimes more than peer-reviewed articles.
Instead, with the ocean equity index, we see a peer reviewed paper in the most prestigious journal in the world, that also has its own website. The analogy that comes to mind is one of a patenting process as might unfold in the field of engineering, for example. Now, the author team has a literal product, a tool, that they can point to for future funders to explain how they will go about a work process. Its utility reveals itself. However, as with all technologies, there is a risk that lies within their deployment when the apparatus might be used without much critical thinking. In other words, what I have been outlining in this essay is that ocean equity is at least as much about thinking, about reflection, about a genuine attempt to coordinate diverse knowledges and theories, as it is about a concern for making an impact in society, however “impact” may be defined. Unfortunately, the ocean equity index, in submerging and ignoring any engagement with the contemporary literature and instead engaging in process of essentializing social problems in oceanic zones of human activity to a set of boxes that can be ticked, the potential users of the tool will be robbed of a much more rich and productive arrangement of insights. If, as I have argued, grappling with the concept of ocean equity is about opening up a horizon of possibility, and even imagination, to reveal the potential for societies in which actually democratic institutions guaranteed rights and recognition to people, it is difficult to see how the ocean equity index does anything more than cast the dimmest of lights on coastal and ocean struggles.
About the author:
Brian F. O’Neill is an environmental sociologist and ethnographer focused on the politics of climate change adaptation and social inequalities. He is an Ocean Nexus Fellow at the University of Washington’s Evans School of Public Policy & Governance. Brian’s monograph on the history and politics of desalination is under contract with MIT Press and he has published an array of works on water, oceans, and energy issues in journals such as Science, Technology & Human Values, Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, Journal of World-systems Research, International Sociology, Human Geography, The Sociological Quarterly, Environmental Justice, Sustainability and Climate Change, and more.
[1] Blythe, Jessica L., Joachim Claudet, David Gill, Natalie C. Ban, Graham Epstein, Georgina G. Gurney, Stacy D. Jupiter et al. “The Ocean Equity Index.” Nature (2026): 1-6.
[2] From page 9 of the event program: https://projetcoal.org/News-2025/SentimentOceanique_Programme_EN.pdf
[3] Edensor, Tim. Tourists at the Taj: Performance and meaning at a symbolic site. Routledge, 1998.
[4] O’Neill, Brian F., Matthew Jerome Schneider, and Alejandro Garcia Lozano. “Toward a critical environmental justice approach to ocean equity.” Environmental Justice 18, no. 2 (2025): 90-99. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1089/env.2023.0067
[5] https://unctad.org/news/ocean-economy-booming-how-long
[6] https://unctad.org/news/ocean-economy-booming-how-long
[7] https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/almost-half-the-world-s-population-lives-in-households-linked-to-agrifood-systems/en
[8] https://beff2025monaco.org
[9] Ballard, Robert D. “Ocean Exploration: Past, Present, and Future.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 68, no. 2 (2015): 41-48.
[10] Urbina, Ian. The Outlaw Ocean: Journeys across the last untamed frontier. Vintage, 2019.
[11] Barbesgaard, Mads. “Blue growth: savior or ocean grabbing?.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 45, no. 1 (2018): 130-149.
[12] Bennett, Nathan James, Hugh Govan, and Terre Satterfield. “Ocean grabbing.” Marine Policy 57 (2015): 61-68.
[13] Ertör, Irmak. “‘We are the oceans, we are the people!’: fisher people’s struggles for blue justice.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 50, no. 3 (2023): 1157-1186.
[14] Hannigan, John. The geopolitics of deep oceans. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
[15] Kılıç, Arınç Onat. “Beyond bluewashing: A critical examination of labeling blue bonds.” Marine Policy 163 (2024): 106152.
[16] Arbo, Peter, Maaike Knol, Sebastian Linke, and Kevin St. Martin. “The transformation of the oceans and the future of marine social science.” Maritime Studies 17, no. 3 (2018): 295-304.
[17] Anderson, Jon, and Kimberley Peters, eds. Water worlds: Human geographies of the ocean. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2014.
[18] O’Neill, Brian F., Matthew Jerome Schneider, and Alejandro Garcia Lozano. “Toward a critical environmental justice approach to ocean equity.” Environmental Justice 18, no. 2 (2025): 90-99.
[19] Wong, Grace Y., Moira Moeliono, Indah W. Bong, Thuy Thu Pham, Muhammad AK Sahide, Daisuke Naito, and Maria Brockhaus. “Social forestry in Southeast Asia: Evolving interests, discourses and the many notions of equity.” Geoforum 117 (2020): 246-258.
[20] Goldman, Michael. “How “Water for All!” policy became hegemonic: The power of the World Bank and its transnational policy networks.” Geoforum 38, no. 5 (2007): 786-800.
[21] Goldman, Michael. Imperial nature: The World Bank and struggles for social justice in the age of globalization. Yale University Press, 2005.
[22] Viatori, Maximilian, and Héctor Andrés Bombiella Medina. Coastal lives: Nature, capital, and the struggle for artisanal fisheries in Peru. University of Arizona Press, 2019.
[23] https://oceanpanel.org/the-agenda/ocean-equity/
[24] Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford university press, 2005.
[25] Gille, Zsuzsa. “Actor networks, modes of production, and waste regimes: reassembling the macro-social.” Environment and planning A 42, no. 5 (2010): 1049-1064.
[26] Pettigrew, Thomas F. “Intergroup contact theory.” Annual review of psychology 49, no. 1 (1998): 65-85.
[27] Liao, Tim Futing. Interpreting probability models: Logit, probit, and other generalized linear models. No. 101. Sage, 1994.