Expanding the role of participatory mapping to assess ecosystem service provision in local coastal environments

There has been increasing international effort to better understand the diversity and quality of marine natural capital, ecosystem services and their associated societal benefits. However, there is an evidence gap as to how these benefits are identified at the local scale, where benefits are provided and to whom, trade-offs in development decisions, and understanding how benefits support wellbeing. Often the benefits of conservation are poorly understood at the local scale, are not effectively integrated into policy and are rarely included meaningfully in public discourse. This paper addresses this disjuncture and responds to the demand for improving dialogue with local communities and stakeholders. Participatory GIS mapping is used as a direct means of co-producing knowledge with stakeholder and community interests. This paper drives a shift from development of participatory approaches to adaptive applications in real-world case studies of local, national and international policy relevance. The results from four sites along the UK North Sea coast are presented. This paper showcases a robust stakeholder-driven approach that can be used to inform marine planning, conservation management and coastal development. Although the demonstration sites are UKfocused, the methodology presented is of global significance and can be applied across spatial and temporal scales.


Introduction
International scientific efforts, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005), have focused on furthering our understanding of the diversity and quality of ecosystem services provided by the environment and how these can benefit society. The MA (2005) first separated ecosystem services into four distinct categories: provisioning (the products obtained from the ecosystem); regulating (the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes); supporting (those that are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services, but do not yield direct benefits to humans); and cultural (the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems) services. Within Europe, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) project developed an ecosystem services framework (de Groot et al., 2010), which was based upon a conceptual model adapted from Haines-Young and Potschin (2010) and Maltby (2009) and, similarly to the MA, was applied to a range of ecosystems (including marine/open ocean, coastal systems, wetlands, rivers/lakes, forest, deserts and urban areas). Whilst, the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) formed part of the analytical framework for ecosystem service assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (Maes et al., 2014) and was also adapted for application at a local level within Belgium (Turkelboom et al., 2013). More recently, the dialogue around this has evolved to encompass the concept of natural capital, which can be defined as the stock and flow of both renewable and nonrenewable natural resources (e.g. water, biodiversity, air) that provide benefits to society (NCC, 2019). Within the UK, a number of studies have attempted to categorise the links between ecosystem services, societal benefits and well-being across a broad spectrum of ecosystems that make up natural capital (e.g. UKNEA, 2011), including more specifically with respect to the marine environment (e.g. Beaumont  Coastal waters, and the diverse habitats and species they sustain, provide society with food to eat (provisioning service), regulate the climate we live in, break down the waste we produce and protect us from coastal erosion and flooding (regulating services) (MA, 2005;Turner et al., 2015). They provide an inspirational seascape that allows us to play, contemplate and create (cultural services), and are essential for our individual and social well-being. The continued delivery of these ecosystem services, however, is under increasing pressure as a result of both human activities and the ongoing impacts of climate change. In addition, the advancement of Blue Growth (i.e. the long term strategy to support sustainable growth in the marine and maritime sectors as a whole) has led to further opportunities for maritime (and supporting) industries, resulting in increased pressure along the coastal zone, and has more recently led to a shift in activities further offshore (e.g. aquaculture, renewable energy development) (Börger et al., 2014;OECD, 2016).
Although a relatively recent addition to the conversation around ecosystem services and their value, there exists a myriad of recognised methods and approaches to assess socio-cultural values (e.g. Klain & Chan, 2012;Börger et al., 2014;Kenter et al., 2015;Cooper et al., 2016;Kenter et al., 2016) and their inclusion in ongoing conversations around marine natural capital. These range from quantitative, deductive approaches employed through large-scale questionnaires using Likert scale style questions as a method of assessing non-monetary values, through to more inductive, qualitative approaches of data gathering, including interviews, focus groups, workshops and an increasing use of art to elucidate values, through methods such as photo elicitation and visual mapping (Andrews et al., 2018). Mapping ecosystem services and the values (both monetary and non-monetary) attributed to them provides decision makers with the ability to design management grounded in a spatial understanding of the ecosystem e.g. mapping can identify spatial variation in ecosystem service supply and value (Martinez-Harms & Balvanera, 2012; Brown & Fagerholm, 2015). Despite a recent growth in research effort around community-based mapping approaches (Raymond et al., 2009), there remains a significant knowledge gap regarding the socio-cultural value associated with natural capital and ecosystem services, as well as the social deliberation that determines trade-offs and exchanges between these services in the determination of societal welfare. As a counterbalance, this paper shifts the spotlight onto methods of socio-cultural valuation, specifically examining the role of participatory mapping as a tool through which socio-cultural values can be elucidated.
Participatory mapping is a direct means of co-producing knowledge with stakeholder and community interests, often in contrast to the simplifications and technocratic approaches of traditional Geographical Information Systems (GIS) that avoid social complexity and political negotiation. Participatory mapping approaches refer to a range of methodologies to capture spatially explicit data in a participatory way (Brown & Fagerholm, 2015), underpinned by effective stakeholder and community engagement processes (Damastuti & de Groot, 2019), producing knowledge and understanding of place and use on a local scale (Brown & Reed, 2012). In the context of ecosystem services valuation and mapping, relevant actors provide local, spatially explicit information about ecosystem service provision, use and value (both monetary and non-monetary, where possible), negating the need to use proxy data derived from literature or modelling (Brown & Fagerholm, 2015). Building on participatory mapping approaches, actively engaging stakeholders and local communities with a Participatory Geographical Information System (PGIS) approach (Elwood, 2006) allows more accurate spatial mapping of ecosystem uses and values on a local scale to be undertaken and can provide a rich data set relating to values (Klain & Chan, 2012). Participatory mapping (GIS) projects have gained status in recent years, particularly with the recognition that social-ecological systems tend to be 'messy' and complex, knowledge is diverse and contested and spatial representations have inherently political elements (Cutts et al., 2011); all of which may be avoided by traditional GIS approaches. Furthermore, participatory mapping results in a more comprehensive understanding of spatial variation in valuation and provides a platform for the consideration of multiple values, as well as providing a potential mechanism for conflict resolution when addressing potential trade-offs between ecosystem services and users As with all methods, there are potential limitations of participatory mapping as a way of engaging stakeholders. For the process to be effective and representative, it is necessary to ensure stakeholders with varying levels of influence, interest, knowledge and spatial relationships with the environment are given an opportunity to participate (Elwood, 2006;Brown & Kyttä, 2014;García-Nieto et al., 2015), which can be logistically complex and challenging. Providing this equal opportunity for engagement refers not only to inviting stakeholders to participate, but also to ensuring participants have a clear understanding of the aims and objectives and are contributing to the discussion from a similar knowledge baseline (Elwood, 2006). Further, design of any participatory process must be sensitive to any cultural, political or social tensions within the stakeholder group and the local context (Elwood, 2006). There is, therefore, considerable onus on the design and facilitation of the participatory mapping process to ensure it does not inadvertently exclude, which could potentially lead to bias, impact the validity and integrity of the data collected and undermine the wider stakeholder engagement process.
Despite these potential limitations, participatory approaches are increasingly considered best practice for eliciting meaningful values relating to the natural world. However, valuing the non-tangible and subjective personal-spatial nature of many of these (e.g. sense of place, peacefulness, tranquillity) remains a challenge, resulting in a limited understanding of many socio-cultural values (Klain & Chan, 2012;Brown & Fagerholm, 2015). Our approach seeks to address this by working closely with stakeholders across a series of workshops, actively encouraging participants to include spatially bounded information about how and where they use the coastal and marine environment, in addition to the valuing information. While participatory mapping and GIS approaches are becoming increasingly commonplace, their use in a marine and coastal context remains limited (Moore et al., 2017). This paper builds on existing work examining social-cultural values and the inclusion of community views and local environmental knowledge (see for example Berkes et al., 2007;Klain & Chan, 2012;Chan et al., 2012a,b;Nursery-Bray et al., 2014), and presents a flexible and adaptive methodology that can be applied across a range of coastal contexts, contributing to the growing literature base around the applicability of, and indeed the need for, participatory mapping to support effective and sustainable coastal management.
Despite a rapidly developing evidence base, there remains an evidence gap as to how ecosystem services are identified at the local scale, what benefits are provided and to whom, how trade-offs between services and benefits are negotiated in planning, and how benefits support positive social well-being. This paper addresses this disjuncture and responds to the demand for improving dialogue, understanding and access to ecosystem services and linking these services to the emerging well-being agenda. Using the observations from four stakeholder workshops, this paper examines the potential for participatory mapping to capture socio-cultural values in a local or regional context and influence coastal decision-making. In so doing, this paper drives a shift from the development of such approaches to real-world application and testing at the local community scale.

Background
Ecosystem services have the potential to lead to diverse benefits for society; therefore, it is appropriate to consider their broader value . There has been increasing attention given to the valuation of ecosystem service approaches in science, and this has recently been followed by an uptake and use by stakeholders (Tallis et al., 2008;Norgaard, 2010;de Groot et al., 2010;Dempsey & Robertson, 2012;Beery et al., 2016;Willcock et al., 2016). For example, at the EU-level, an assessment of the value of ecosystem services is called for under the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy (EU, 2011), which emphasises the need 'to value ecosystem services and to integrate these values into accounting systems as a basis for more sustainable policies'. Additionally, the EU's Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive both explicitly call for the integration of valuation into the environmental management process (Burdon et al., 2016). Furthermore, at a UK scale, the importance of ecosystem services and natural capital was recently highlighted within the UK Government's 25-Year Plan to Improve the Environment (HM Government, 2018), which recognises the need to take a natural capital approach to understand the full value of the marine environment and incorporate it within decision-making in England. Similar efforts are being taken across the UK's devolved administrations. For example, the Scottish Government is currently developing a draft 'Environment Strategy for Scotland' which incorporates natural capital thinking into the national policy context. It is developing a series of 'knowledge accounts' to guide implementation on safeguarding natural capital (Scottish Government, 2018). The concept of 'full value' is interpreted in these cases to mean not only the economic values of the coastal and marine environment but also the broader social, cultural and ecological values of the system.  Bennett et al., 2017). This is matched by an emerging interest by decision-makers on how social-ecological interactions can be operationalised in a policy, planning and management context. An example is the emphasis in the green economy domain on the integration of natural capital within an inclusive green economy (Lok et al., 2018). Expanding local partnerships with the communities who directly use a range of ecosystem services should deepen the understanding of these benefits and promote local biodiversity conservation. Furthermore, linking social and ecological systems and developing novel models of governance and assessment help to deliver an ecosystem approach under the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Aichi Targets (Geijzendorffer et al., 2017).
When considering valuation of natural resources 'Total Social Value' is one of many concepts that can be used to incorporate the views of both individuals and society as a whole and their values associated with ecosystem service provision into the decision-making process to support the determination of policy options and management measures (MA, 2003). This holistic approach recognises the importance of considering both ecological value and socio-cultural value, alongside the more traditionally recognised economic values ( Figure 1). There is a growing evidence base relating to marine ecosystem services which consider these three elements, assessing ecological value (e.g.  . This paper contributes to the wider discussion around total value with a focus on the socio-cultural value (as presented in Figure 1).

Methods
This paper has developed an adaptive approach to participatory mapping, whereby community and stakeholder activities, perceptions and experiences can be directly captured, digitised and used to inform local coastal and marine planning initiatives that improve the management of biodiversity and the benefits that flow from natural capital. This approach engages local coastal stakeholders to discuss the social benefits derived from local ecosystems, how those benefits are spatially distributed and how they trade-off against other uses of the marine environment.

Demonstration Sites
Four demonstration sites were selected to reflect a diversity of anthropogenic activities, natural features, and coastal communities along the North Sea east coast in Scotland and England ( Figure 2). Workshops were co-designed and co-delivered with the relevant local coastal partnership ( Table 1) to ensure that the aims and objectives of the workshop were appropriate at the local scale and that relevant stakeholders were identified and enrolled for participation from an existing network of local stakeholders. The two Scottish workshops focussed on coastal stretches and interactions between human activities and marine protected areas, whereas the two English workshops adopted a case study approach focussing on areas of interest as identified by The Wash and North Norfolk Marine Partnership, and the Humber Nature Partnership as part of their Natural Capital Vision for the Humber (HNP, 2017).

Workshop Aims and Objectives
After collaborative discussions with the relevant local coastal partnerships, the two workshops in the north east of Scotland focussed on human activities within East Caithness and Aberdeen Bay. The workshops identified and mapped the multiple sectoral activities which occurred within these sites and how protected marine features (i.e. habitats and species) could support activities via the provision of ecosystem services and 'benefits'. The facilitators did not define the term 'benefits' as the workshops aimed to capture the full range of perceived benefits from the marine environment from the stakeholders perspective.
Designed similarly, following discussions with the relevant local nature/marine partnerships, the two workshops on the English east coast focussed on: • Identifying and mapping natural features of interest within the Humber Estuary (focussing on all intertidal features) and The Wash (focussing on saltmarsh); • Identifying and mapping the benefits provided by these features; and • Discussing the use of both satellite imagery and participatory mapping in the future management of these designated sites.

Stakeholder Engagement
The range of organisations represented at each workshop reflected the aims and objectives of the workshop (Table 2). Each workshop consisted of three groups of 4-5 stakeholders plus a facilitator (except for East Caithness where a lower turnout resulted in only one group on the day) to ensure an even balance between the representation of organisations, and that each stakeholder had an opportunity to participate in the discussions and mapping exercises. Through discussions with the local project teams, stakeholders were identified and contacted by the local coastal partnership to ensure that the full range of local voices were represented at each workshop.

Workshop Activities
While all four case study sites ( Figure 1) have broadly similar features and the methodology has common activities, an adaptive approach was adopted throughout the workshops. This enabled the research team to test different approaches, obtain feedback from the stakeholders, review and adapt the methodology in response to the needs and interests of stakeholders at each case study site. All four workshops were designed with a consistent structure, comprising a series of introductory presentations at the start of the day, a series of interactive identification and mapping sessions throughout the day, and ending the day with a plenary discussion and stakeholder feedback.
The workshops were all stand-alone exercises, which complemented existing work undertaken by the respective local coastal partnerships. The specific activities undertaken and discussion topics covered were co-developed by the local coastal partnership and the project team in order to reflect the specific aims and objectives of each workshop (Table 3). In the case of the East Caithness and Aberdeen Bay, workshop design centred on identifying coastal and marine activities and how activities can be influenced by the ecosystem services that are provided by marine protected areas. In the Humber Estuary these discussions focussed around the Natural Capital Vision for the Humber (HNP, 2017) whereas the discussion in The Wash workshop centred around findings from the Common Ground Project (MCS, 2017). In order to ensure consistency in the workshops, the lead author of this paper facilitated all four workshops, with the second author facilitating three out of the four workshops.

Workshop Materials
Given the focus of the East Caithness and Aberdeen Bay workshops on anthropogenic activities and protected sites, the stakeholders were provided with three A0 scale maps which presented (1) the recreational activities which occur within the case study site; (2) the extent of maritime industries in the case study site (e.g. fishing, pipelines, renewable energy); and (3)  , highlights the confidence in the relationship between a particular feature and the ecosystem services they deliver, and thus provides a valuable visual tool for stakeholder engagement. An example of the Matrix for Aberdeen Bay designated habitats is provided in Figure 3. The matrix activity formed part of the discussion at the two Scottish workshops as a means to compare local observations against the broader (UK) assessments within the matrix.  2  3  3  1  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  1  3  3  3  3  3  3  1  3  1  1  1  E,W  A2.2  Intertidal sand and muddy sand  3  3  3  1  3  1  3  3  1  2  1  2  1  2  3  3  1  1  1  3  1  3  3  E,W  A2.3  Intertidal mud  3  3  3  1  1  1  1  3  3  3  3  3  1  3  3  3  3  1  1  1  In addition to the maps, each workshop used a range of flip-charts, pens, post-it notes, and sticky dot 18 based activities to capture the information from the stakeholders. To support data collection, each 19 workshop facilitator took their own notes of discussions, which were verified by the participants after 20 the workshop. 21

Analysis and Reporting 22
The annotated maps were photographed at the end of each workshop, and then digitised using GIS 23 software ARC GIS. In the East Caithness and Aberdeen Bay workshops, the activities data was hand 24 drawn over the top of the formal spatial data. This approach allowed for sense checking of local 25 perspectives against the national data sets. Hand drawn data were discussed by the stakeholders and 26 were digitised into vector layers using the Android mapping application GIS Pro. The layers were then 27 imported to ARC GIS for scaling and clean-up before being imported as layers onto ESRI Web Apps 28 (ARC GIS online) which was made publicly available via a web link. The maps from the Humber Estuary 29 and The Wash workshops were digitised using ARC GIS software and were then converted into 30 interactive Pdfs which were circulated to the stakeholders for sense-checking and feedback. The 31 advantages of an interactive Pdf are that stakeholders do not require GIS software, GIS expertise or 32 internet access to interrogate the data layers making them more accessible and user-friendly. 33

Stakeholder Feedback 34
In order to facilitate a co-productive and adaptive approach, stakeholders who attended the 35 workshops were asked to complete a short workshop evaluation questionnaire. The questionnaire 36 consisted of five questions, using a mix of both open (qualitative data) and closed (quantitative data) 37 questions. These aimed to collect stakeholder feedback on: (i) the usefulness of the workshop overall, 38 (ii) the usefulness of each of the workshop activities (e.g. mapping exercises as described above), (iii) 39 the quality of the materials used in the workshop exercises, (iv) the quality of the venue and catering, 40 and; (v) an opportunity for stakeholders to provide suggestions as to how the workshops and/or the 41 process could be improved. In total, 36 responses were received across the four workshops, with the 42 stakeholder comments collated, analysed and used to review and adapt the final workshop process 43 presented in this paper. For the closed, quantitative questions, descriptive statistical analysis was used 44 to examine overall trends in the responses obtained. This gave the research team an indication of 45 stakeholder views across all four workshops, and allowed any differences between cases to be 46 identified. Open, qualitative questions were analysed using a manual thematic coding approach 47 whereby the responses to open questions were reviewed by the research team to identify emergent 48 themes. The data were reviewed numerous times to ensure confidence in the final thematic codes 49 assigned. Where appropriate, italicised quotes taken from the stakeholder feedback are used to 50 support the presentation of results. 51

Results 52
The workshops results are presented below with respect to the mapping of activities, features and 53 benefits, workshop outputs and stakeholder feedback. 54

Activities Mapping 55
Stakeholders at the East Caithness workshop identified a range of recreational and commercial 56 activities and designations, including several not mapped onto, or in contrasting intensity to those on 57 national marine database layers (Figure 4). Stakeholders were enthusiastic to discuss and map 58 activities, requesting more detailed maps at a finer scale. The low intensity of activities in East 59 Caithness reflects the low population in the area, although a diverse range of activities were identified. 60 Activities of cultural importance including historic sites, castles and wrecks were discussed, reflecting 61 the regions strong connection to their cultural heritage. Inconsistencies and inaccuracies of existing 62 data in East Caithness were highlighted including the spatial distribution of wrecks and dive sites.  and included a range of both natural features such as broad scale habitats (mudflats, sandflats and 105 saltmarsh) to man-made structures (managed realignment sites, flood banks and pipelines). Once a 106 list was produced, the stakeholders drew the features on to the A1 scale paper map produced using a 107 satellite image, and generated their own colour-coded key for each feature. This exercise required 108 local knowledge to accurately map and sense-check the features which were visible from the satellite 109 image and also enhanced the level of stakeholder buy-in to the process given that the stakeholders 110 were responsible for all lines drawn on the map. An example of the map generated for the Welwick 111 site is shown in Figure 6. After the workshop the lines drawn by the stakeholders were digitised, with 112 the colour coding and feature types being standardised across the three Humber Estuary sites, 113 resulting in a digital image of features ( Figure 6). were all sub-features of saltmarsh. A total of 7 sub-features of saltmarsh were identified, which 120 included pioneer low, pioneer middle, middle marsh, upper marsh, high upper marsh and grazed 121 marsh. In addition, infrastructure were also identified which included sea walls and a managed 122 realignment site. The stakeholders identified these sub-features on A1 scale paper copies of the 123 satellite images by drawing around the extent of each sub-feature (Figure 7). Following the workshop, 124 the extent of each sub-feature was digitised using GIS software and converted into an interactive pdf 125 which allows the different sub-features to be turned on and off by the user (Figure 7). 126

Benefits Mapping 131
All stakeholders were asked to identify the benefits they receive from the marine and coastal 132 environment. No definition of benefits was provided in order to capture the full range of benefits that 133 the stakeholders identify being gained from the marine environment. The full range of benefits 134 identified by each workshop is presented in Table 4. 135  (Figures 6 & 7) in which benefits can be selected in 143 relation to the feature which provides that particular benefit. For example, Figure 6 shows the 144 importance of creeks and managed realignment in providing fish nursery (supporting ecosystem 145 service), whereas Figure 7 shows the importance of the pioneer low and middle saltmarsh for 146 wildfowling (cultural benefit). In addition to the digitised outputs, a brief workshop report was 147 produced following each workshop which was circulated to all the stakeholders who attended the 148 workshops. 149 Following the workshops, the benefits identified by the stakeholders (Table 4)  including those related to employment (e.g. employment income or job creation) or abiotic benefits 159 (e.g. shipping, renewable energy generation). 160 and for use in stakeholder engagement. Feedback suggests that stakeholders saw the matrices as a 180 good visual tool to condense large volumes of data into an accessible format, but that the ability to 181 see the data sources behind the scoring would strengthen the validity of the approach. Stakeholders 182 felt that more time would be required to fully understand and then apply the matrix approach at the 183 local scale; however, they saw value in local adaptations of the matrices to interrogate changes in 184 ecosystem service provision resulting from different management scenarios. 185 The feedback received from the stakeholders was used by the authors to refine the methodology for 186 subsequent workshops (Table 5). This resulted in the development of a co-produced adaptive, 187 modular structure for marine stakeholder participatory mapping workshops (Figure 9). 188

Stakeholder Feedback Workshop(s) Refined Methodology
The provision of pre-reading in the form of contextual information and background for the specific locations, as well as workshop activities, would be more efficient and lead to more effective engagement from workshop attendees.

Aberdeen Bay & Humber Estuary
A more detailed background document to be circulated prior to each workshop to outline the workshop aims and objectives, but also to state which case studies will be covered within the workshop (Figure 9).
The scale of the maps used at the workshops was not sufficiently detailed to capture activities at a local scale.

East Caithness
Move to using maps derived from Satellite imagery for both the Humber Estuary ( Figure 5) and The Wash ( Figure 6) and which resulted in habitats being mapped down to a 10m scale. To ensure representation from as many relevant stakeholders at workshops as possible, it was suggested that extending the invitation out more widely would be beneficial.

Aberdeen Bay, East Caithness
For future workshops, invitations will be sent to key stakeholders as early in the process as possible. However, it must be recognised that participation in these workshops is voluntary and it may not always be possible to have representation from every stakeholder organisation or group. Stakeholders made recommendations regarding the materials used during the workshops, including the provision of multiple maps to support high volumes of data and avoid confusion ('maps became messy/confusing due to volume of information') or providing maps for both summer and winter to allow for seasonal comparisons to be made.

Aberdeen Bay, Humber Estuary, The Wash
Incorporating satellite imagery into the stakeholder-driven methodology allows for comparison between maps over time. This allows seasonal or historic comparisons to be made if that is of interest to the stakeholders at the local scale. For example, The Wash workshop used images from different seasons.
It would be useful to try and plot where humans go around the estuary. Data can be obtained for activities such as cycling (e.g. using the STRAVA app.) but we could also build on the access and activity mapping undertaken under other projects.

Humber Estuary
A mapping activity (Task 7, Figure 9) is included within the proposed methodology to capture the activities as well as the features and benefits. Such mapping activities have recently been applied on behalf of the MMO (Project 1136 2 ) for nonlicensable activities. Stakeholders suggested that an iterative process of 3-4 workshops would be valuable.

East Caithness
A series of 3 workshops is proposed which can be tailored to meet the needs of particular local groups (Figure 9) Stakeholders expressed a desire to know more about the outputs of the workshop and how these might be used in the future to support decision making and coastal management in their local areas.

Humber Estuary, The Wash
It is proposed that a series of workshops would be developed so that the second workshop would start with the output of the first, and so forth. For example, a second workshop could start to use the interactive pdfs developed in Workshop 1 (Figure 9). The ecosystem service matrix approach was seen as a valuable tool which could be used to assess trade-offs under different scenarios; however more time was needed to understand the approach.

Aberdeen Bay, East Caithness
The ecosystem service matrix approach was omitted from subsequent workshops (Humber Estuary, The Wash) due to time constraints but it is was seen as a valuable approach for understanding trade-offs (Task 11, Figure 9). under their respective national marine strategies, there will be increasing demand for improved local 201 data on ecosystem services and how they are used and contested in coastal communities, particularly 202 when trade-offs will need to be made across overlapping or competing activities. It is also applicable 203 to other UK and international coastal contexts where natural capital assessments are becoming more 204 commonplace and demonstrating the multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems and marine protected 205 areas is becoming a key part of marine planning. 206 Feedback from the stakeholders on each activity has resulted in refinement of the methodology 207 employed at subsequent workshops, with the overall feedback and testing of the activities at multiple 208 sites resulting in the development of a co-produced adaptive methodology (Figure 9). This 209 methodology has a flexible structure, providing opportunity for bespoke workshops to be co-210 developed with local marine stakeholders. Working in collaboration with local coastal partnerships 211 was a major strength in the approach. Depending on the issues of interest at the local scale, a series 212 of workshops can be co-designed to ensure local specificity and application (if required  and cemented concerns about the expansion of golf courses that undermine services from sand dune 317 systems. Engaging a range of marine stakeholders in a workshop setting has not only resulted in the 318 expansion of the role of participatory mapping for natural capital but has also enhanced discussion for 319 management of the coastal and marine environment. 320

Request feedback from stakeholders on interactive pdfs (features & benefits & activities) and management scenarios -amend accordingly
By taking a stakeholder-driven approach, where the outputs of the research are generated by the 321 stakeholders themselves, it ensures buy-in from the start and provides a product legacy for use by the 322 stakeholders at the end of the research. Our approach has focused on the development and 323 application of a methodology, and with future iterations, will be applied in different coastal localities 324 and incorporating additions such as trade-off analysis and future scenarios. For example, the method 325 is currently been applied within a series of stakeholder workshops for the Suffolk Marine Pioneer 326 project (Burdon et al., in preparation). Our focus on using coastal partnerships enabled researchers to 327 identify and connect with those stakeholders who directly benefit ecosystem services and to those 328 who manage, protect and educate about the marine environment and are at the forefront of policy 329 change. A clear signal from all four workshops is that current coastal planning and policy mechanisms 330 at the local scale are poorly equipped to deal with the policy challenge of natural capital and 331 ecosystem services. We recommend a state change in effort and focus from the national scale (e.g. 332 Natural Capital registers) to the community scale accommodating multiple stakeholders, interests and 333 viewpoints around coastal system benefits. Our view is that a range of direct and indirect benefits are 334 produced and consumed at the local scale and that this pattern of spatial heterogeneity across coastal 335 regions should be reflected in UK, national and local policy. agenda at the local scale co-produced with community interests and expertise. 342 Participatory mapping offers a route for engagement in the process of knowledge production linking 343 national initiatives and data with local knowledge, a critical component of an ecosystem approach to 344 management. This research has demonstrated through the production of locally evaluated service / 345 benefits maps that there is a disconnect between the findings of national evaluations and the social 346 reality of diverse, contested and contextual ecosystem services. The outputs indicate that services in 347 the domains of regulatory, provisioning and cultural, are consumed or experienced at the local scale 348 (e.g. shoreline protection, sense of place, recreation and food gathering). The distribution, access to 349 and beneficiaries of these services are subject to social deliberation and negotiation, particularly at 350 times of change when development or bio-physical changes in the local environment drive shifts in 351 the patterns of access or changes in benefits. During the four workshops, participants were engaged 352 in the identification, spatial mapping and discussion of local activities, natural and modified features 353 and the full range of ecosystem service benefits. The project took a strong approach to refinement 354 and adaptation, improving the methodology in response to feedback and incorporating innovative 355 new designs such as the use of satellite imagery to derive feature / benefit relationships. One of the 356 insights of this demonstration work is that attempts to value natural capital and ecosystem services 357 may have been premature, particularly in the context of local understanding and policy. What we have 358 explored in these cases is that the local distribution and understanding of ecosystem services is 359 complex, variable and subject to interpretation. While valuation is a necessary and important tool, 360 this should be preceded by rigorous and detailed understanding of the services that exist in the local 361 context before any valuations are undertaken. 362

Conclusions and Future Work 363
Although there has been a recent rapid development in our understanding of the values (qualitative 364 and quantitative) of marine ecosystem services, socio-cultural values are often overlooked. This paper 365 has demonstrated the value of incorporating participatory GIS in the co-production of knowledge 366 about ecosystem services in marine and coastal environments. Positive feedback from all four 367 workshops has shown support for engagement of stakeholders in the local level discussion of natural 368 capital and ecosystem services. Looking to the future, this paper has proposed an innovative, 369 stakeholder-driven, adaptive approach, which has been piloted throughout the workshops, and other 370 associated projects (e.g. MMO1136), aiming to deliver co-developed tools for use in marine planning, 371 conservation management and coastal development strategies at a local, national and international 372 scale. The flexibility in approach enables a bespoke series of workshops to be co-developed with 373 stakeholders, ensuring that both the outputs and outcomes of the process are fit-for-purpose by the 374 end-users in the sustainable management of our coasts and seas. Further research should aim to 375 implement and evaluate the application of the framework to support local decision making at 376 additional sites within the UK, including application within the UK overseas territories, and to test the 377 methodology more widely across the globe. As the call for improved and meaningful stakeholder 378 engagement in marine and coastal decision making continues to grow, this paper demonstrates the 379 successful application of this co-developed, participatory approach within a UK context. Given the 380 flexibility in the approach, the framework has the potential to be adapted for broad-scale use outside 381 the UK, as well as for the management of other ecosystems types (e.g. terrestrial and freshwater 382 catchments). 383