Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea vs Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea: Indicator for Coastal Eutrophication Potential (ICEP) (kilograms of)

Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea
3.81
in 2015
Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea
6.67
in 2015
Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea rank
16th
Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea rank
13th

Indicator for Coastal Eutrophication Potential (ICEP) (kilograms of) over time

  • Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea
  • Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea
2468200020072015

How they compare

Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea currently reports 6.67 against 3.81 in Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea, a difference of 2.86.

That makes Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea's figure about 1.8 times Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea's.

Across all 16 years both countries report, Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea has been ahead every year.

Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea ranks 16th and Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea ranks 13th of 64 countries.

Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea Difference Ahead
2000s 3.73 6.86 3.13 Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea
2010s 3.03 6.89 3.86 Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher indicator for coastal eutrophication potential (icep) (kilograms of), Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea or Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea?
Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea, at 6.67 against 3.81 in Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea as of 2015.
What is the difference in indicator for coastal eutrophication potential (icep) (kilograms of) between Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea and Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea?
2.86, with Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea and Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea?
16 years are reported by both, from 2000 to 2015.
How do Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea and Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea rank globally for indicator for coastal eutrophication potential (icep) (kilograms of)?
Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea ranks 16th and Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea ranks 13th of 64 countries.
Where does this data come from?
United Nations Statistics Division, SDG Global Database, published as Indicator for Coastal Eutrophication Potential (ICEP) (kilograms of carbon from algae biomass per sq. km. of river basin area per day). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea vs Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea: Indicator for Coastal Eutrophication Potential (ICEP) (kilograms of). Statizoid, drawing on United Nations Statistics Division, SDG Global Database. Retrieved 11 September 2026, from https://development-goals.statizoid.com/compare/indicator-for-coastal-eutrophication-potential-icep-kilograms-of-carbon-from-algae/large-marine-ecosystem-black-sea/large-marine-ecosystem-east-china-sea/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under UN SDG Global Database (open, attribution requested); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://development-goals.statizoid.com/compare/indicator-for-coastal-eutrophication-potential-icep-kilograms-of-carbon-from-algae/large-marine-ecosystem-black-sea/large-marine-ecosystem-east-china-sea/">Large Marine Ecosystem: Black Sea vs Large Marine Ecosystem: East China Sea: Indicator for Coastal Eutrophication Potential (ICEP) (kilograms of)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Indicator for Coastal Eutrophication Potential (ICEP) (kilograms of carbon from algae biomass per sq. km. of river basin area per day)
Source
United Nations Statistics Division, SDG Global Database
Licence
UN SDG Global Database (open, attribution requested)
Coverage
66 places, 1,056 data points, 2000–2015
Last refreshed