The Cooperative Participatory Evaluation of Renewable Technologies on Ecosystem Services (CORPORATES): Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 7 No 1

Appendix 5: Post Workshop Questionnaires

Insight from Post-workshop Questionnaire

We received responses to our questionnaire from three groups. All three had indicated previously (on workshop evaluation forms) that they had a good familiarity with the ecosystem services idea and with various aspects of the marine planning process. Our aim with the follow-up questionnaire was to explore three aspects: specific workshop components; the CORPORATES process as a whole; and workshop design. Given the limited number of responses, the insights drawn can only be characterised as 'things to consider' in the design of future such processes.

Specific components: Both workshops incorporated a 'knowledge exchange interlude' which focused on ecology/oceanography or law/policy. These were provided prior to an exercise that had been designed to draw on the information. In this respect, the interlude's fulfilled their purpose, i.e. responses on the questionnaires indicate that they had been useful for setting up the exercise. One participant wrote: 'although I was familiar with a lot of the information provided, it was useful to provide context for the discussions that followed'. The law/policy interlude was noted in particular as very informative; 'I found this very informative as it was not something that I knew a lot about'.

Both workshops also had a mapping component, the first focused on mapping benefits and activities, the second on mapping the linkages within the system. For the former, we asked participants to provide ideas for how the workshops could make better use of the maps. Comments confirmed the need for clear goals for the maps, the importance of integrating into both workshops and the possible use to illustrate and explore the ' potential for differences in the spatial and temporal differences between [benefits and ecosystem services]', for example, ' benefits may be experienced in one place but the ecosystem services behind them may rely on features or processes that occur over a different/wider area'. For the conceptual systems models, we invited participants to share what they had gained from the exercise. The comments received note the value of the activity for bringing out complexity, linkages, places where trade-offs are likely to occur and an opportunity to learn from other stakeholders:

' The linkage diagrams were incredibly complex and difficult to interpret and highlighted the uncertainties associated with the magnitude and significance of the interactions.'

' It increased knowledge of what other stakeholders value and the complexity of the interconnections. To recognize the interconnected nature of services, activities and benefits, leading to the recognition that trade-offs are a likely component in decision-making.'

' Building a conceptual model is a powerful tool provided all participants have the same understanding of exactly what is meant by the components, flows and impacts.'

The process: These questions explored what might be unique or different about CORPORATES, what had been helpful, the knowledge exchange element and how involvement had or might shape involvement in decision-making and marine spatial planning. Interaction with other stakeholders and extending one's knowledge were highlighted as either unique, useful or both. One participant noted that ' getting all the stakeholders from different organisations with different concerns was almost unique' particularly as ' this project managed to get everyone in a room and talking without much conflict and lots of co-operation'. The co-operation and lack of general acrimony may, in one individual's opinion, be because ' the Forth was not the best location for this study as so much work had already been done and negative impacts much reduced by choice of location and other mitigations.'

Perhaps unsurprisingly, in terms of opportunities to share knowledge and clarifying understanding, given the level of existing familiarity amongst these three individuals, the emphasis in responses to these questions was on their contribution to the discussion. Round table discussions were noted as a useful platform for knowledge exchange as were the sessions in Workshop 1 and the opportunity to support development of other stakeholders' understanding.

The question which asked about involvement in decision making and marine planning processes was included to explore the extent to which involvement in the process developed through CORPORATES might facilitate subsequent engagement. Responses largely reflected the fact that the three individuals who provided responses to this question were already heavily involved in marine spatial planning and decision-making, e.g. it is their job. Two of the individuals indicated that they were incorporating insight gained from CORPORATES into their work; one of these also indicated that they were clearer now about where in the marine planning process they could effectively engage, while the other noted that their involvement in the decision-making process might need to be at a different stage.

Future Workshops: The general consensus was that the 3 month break between the two workshops was too long, with suggestions of an appropriate length ranging from 1 week to 6 weeks. The final question asked for thoughts on what elements from the workshops (1 and 2) should be included in future efforts to facilitate decision-making and how these might be incorporated into the decision-making process. Comments included the need to: (i) quantify ecosystem interactions if they are to be used in decision-making; and (ii) be specific about which and whose decision-making. With respect to the latter, it was emphasized that such techniques would most likely be valuable at early stages e.g. ' when there is still an opportunity to make changes to or even withdraw proposals' and that their usefulness for gathering stakeholder perceptions and spatio-temporal information on benefits from ecosystem services ' could have a strong role in decisions made over planning policies and supporting regional locational guidance'.

Comments also emphasised the vital role for stakeholder involvement, the importance of building and maintaining trust, the magnitude of time, effort and intellectual input made by stakeholders, and the need for clearly defined aims for any ecosystem services mapping and/or valuation if it is to have influence on planning policies.

An additional questionnaire was circulated only to attendees from the recreational group to explore ways in which this sector could be more involved in such decision-making efforts. For this, we received response from only one individual, an attendee who had been at both workshops. Their comments emphasised the key issue of time, noting that for many in the recreational sector, the opportunity costs to attend are high and the need to be clear as to how output or decisions might affect the sector.