UHI Research Database pdf download summary

Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services Kenter, Jasper O.

Published in: Ecosystem Services Publication date: 2016 Publisher rights: © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. The re-use license for this item is: CC BY-NC-ND The Document Version you have downloaded here is: Peer reviewed version

The final published version is available direct from the publisher website at: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.010 Link to author version on UHI Research Database

Citation for published version (APA): Kenter, J. O. (2016). Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 21(Part B), 291-307. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.010

General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the UHI Research Database are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights:

1) Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the UHI Research Database for the purpose of private study or research. 2) You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain 3) You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the UHI Research Database

Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at [email protected] providing details; we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Download date: 26. Jul. 2019 Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services

Jasper O. Kenter

Laurence Mee Centre for Society and the Sea, Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS), Oban, PA37 1QA, UK

Email: [email protected]

This article has been accepted for publication following peer review. However, it does not include final corrections and editorial revisions and thus there may be differences between this version and the published version. This version is under copyright by the author(s) and distributed under a CC-BY-NC license.

The final, published version is available from:

Http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.010

Abstract There is increasing recognition of the need to unite analytical and participatory methodologies to establish more comprehensive valuations of ecosystem services and move beyond individual conceptions of value. This research integrates a three-stage choice experiment with participatory systems modelling, participatory mapping and psychometric analysis in a coastal case study in Scotland. It aimed to explore contrasts between individual willingness to pay and shared values expressed as group-deliberated fair prices, how deliberation on social-ecological systems would impact on value formation, and how participatory mapping might elicit distinct values not reflected in the monetary valuation. Results indicated marked differences between individual and deliberated group values, with deliberated individual values falling between the two. The systems modelling intervention combined with explicit discussion of transcendental values (life goals and guiding principles) generated significant learning and helped to better reflect transcendental values in monetary values. The deliberations and fair price framing shifted participants towards a public policy perspective, balancing benefit trade-offs with questions of fairness and responsibility. The highly localised nature of many values expressed through participatory mapping suggests that much of these places-based values would have been under-recognised by monetary valuation alone.

Keywords Fair price; social-ecological systems; Deliberative Value Formation model; public policy model of value expression; cultural ecosystem services

Highlights • Novel methodology integrating multiple deliberative methods for ES valuation • Comparison of individual and deliberated individual WTP and group fair prices • Use of fair price value indicator shifted participants to public policy perspective • Systems modelling helped participants value ES from broader social-ecological perspective • Participatory mapping elicited localised values under-recognised by monetary valuation

1 Introduction In recent decades there is increasing interest among policy makers and environmental managers for a way of working with environmental issues that integrates nature conservation with human values and social-economic considerations. The Convention on Biological Diversity has termed this way of working the Ecosystem Approach, defined as “a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way” (CBD, 2004). Principles of the approach include inter alia the recognition of the dynamic nature of ecosystems, conservation of systemic structure and function for the maintenance of ecosystem services, the integration of local knowledge into management, decentralisation of environmental governance and high levels of stakeholder participation.

The Ecosystem Approach also recognises that ecosystem services are frequently undervalued and difficult to incorporate into markets (Carpenter et al., 2006; Daily et al., 2009; TEEB, 2010). Stated preference approaches (contingent valuation and choice experiments [CEs]) have been recognised as flexible tools for valuing non-marketed ecosystem services, with their ability to assess a very broad range of goods (Carson and Hanemann, 2005). Typically, they are administered via questionnaires

2 where respondents are asked for their willingness to pay (WTP) for ecosystem services in hypothetical scenarios. However, there have been longstanding concerns about people’s ability to make valid choices through those means. People may have difficulty understanding the complexity of environmental benefits and may need time to think and deliberate (Alvarez Farizo et al., 2007; Christie et al., 2012; Lienhoop and MacMillan, 2007a; Nunes and van den Bergh, 2001). More fundamentally, the assumption underlying conventional economic approaches that these values are purely individual has been critiqued (Dietz et al., 2009; Kenter et al., 2011; 2015; Lo and Spash, 2012 Irvine et al. this issue).

A wide range of deliberative and participatory methods exist that harness shared social processes to engender learning, reflect on and exchange values, consider alternatives, and plan actions (Chambers, 2002; Christie et al., 2012; Fazey et al., 2010; Kallis et al., 2006; Kenter, 2016a; Kenter et al., 2014; Kumar, 2002; Mason, 2015; Reed et al., 2013). Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) has been described as a ‘hybrid’ analytical-deliberative method (Fish et al., 2011b). By integrating scientific or technical forms of analysis with deliberation, both facts and values can be made more transparent, allowing them to be contested (Fish et al., 2011a; Kenter, 2016a).

Nonetheless, there have been few empirical DMV studies. Most DMV studies thus far have focused on considering how deliberation helps to inform preferences (Kenter, 2016b), where deliberation is typically structured through presentation of information combined with focus groups or in-depth discussion groups or, occasionally, citizens juries (Bunse et al., 2015). However, lessons from the literature on participation and education can be drawn that effective learning may require more active approaches (Daniels and Walker, 1996; Fazey et al., 2005; 2007; McCrum et al., 2009; Pretty et al., 1995). Also, information-driven methods have ignored the broader social-ecological context in which decisions are evaluated. Finally, regardless of the promises of deliberation, certain aspects of ecosystem services may be intrinsically difficult to recognise through monetary approaches, not just because of ethical concerns (e.g. Cooper et al. this issue) but also because their concrete, place-based nature may be a poor fit with the hypothetical counterfactuals typical of stated preference methods.

To address these issues, this study developed a novel methodology that brought together DMV with two other deliberative methods: participatory systems modelling (PSM) and participatory mapping. The integration of PSM into DMV aimed to open up deliberations to a deeper understanding of interrelations between different aspects of social-ecological systems, potentially achieving significant social learning. The inclusion of participatory mapping aimed to provide a broader set of values than may be possible through monetary valuation alone.

In the design of the DMV process, information-based and values-based deliberation were brought together on the basis of the Deliberative Value Formation model (DVF), a novel theoretical framework developed by Kenter, Reed and Fazey (this issue) for the design and analysis of deliberative valuation. To consider the impacts of deliberation, pre- and post-deliberation values were elicited. I also considered differences between individual WTP and fair price payment terms, and used psychometric tools to help empirically understand value changes.

By integrating these different methods, this study thus aimed to investigate: 1) potential differences between individual and deliberated individual values, and shared values expressed through group deliberated fair prices; 2) how the different key factors conceived of by the DVF influenced deliberation outcomes, and what was the effect of deliberation about social-ecological systems; 3) ways in which participatory mapping might elicit distinct values that were not reflected in the DMV,

3 and whether integration of the different monetary and non-monetary methods delivered a more comprehensive valuation outcome.

These questions were explored through an in-depth regional case study in a peri-urban coastal landscape in Scotland. Together with a second paper in this issue, Kenter et al. (this issue, a), which had similar objectives but applied a different combination of deliberative methods to evaluate a national scale policy issue, these were some of the first studies to explicitly contrast deliberated individual and group values in DMV (Alvarez Farizo et al., 2007) and use fair price value indicators (Kenter et al., 2011; Szabó, 2011). This was also the first study I am aware of to integrate PSM into monetary environmental valuation, and to bring together DMV and participatory mapping. Before describing methods and results, in the following section I will introduce in more detail the notion of deliberative value formation, the use of fair price value indicators, and PSM and participatory mapping in terms of how they might enhance DMV.

2 Background

2.1 Deliberative value formation Empirical DMV research so far has largely focused on developing methodologies for eliciting deliberated preferences, and deliberation has primarily been viewed as a means to improve value elicitation (Bunse et al., 2015; Lo and Spash, 2012). The notion of deliberation as a process of value formation, in addition to value elicitation, has not been considered in any detail, and there is a need to understand how processes of value formation might be constituted and how values are influenced and shaped in group-based deliberative valuation processes. Also, DMV (and ecosystem service valuation generally) has thus far primarily focused on contextual values, largely ignoring transcendental values (Raymond and Kenter, this issue). Transcendental values are the overarching guiding principles and end-goals that guide our lives (Kenter et al., 2015). They stand in contrast to contextual values that describe context-specific opinions of importance or worth, and indicators thereof such as monetary values, ratings and rankings.

To investigate these questions this investigation builds on the Deliberative Value Formation (DVF) model (Figure 1), a theoretical framework to ground approach to the design and analysis of deliberative valuation, described in detail by Kenter, Reed and Fazey elsewhere in this issue. The DVF conceives value formation as an interaction between shared and individual transcendental values and context-specific information, which generates beliefs, norms and contextual values. A number of key factors in the value formation process are identified, such as the ability of participants to deliberate, the intensity of the process and the extent of exposure to new information. These determine whether problematic outcomes of deliberation arise, such as social desirability biases, or positive outcomes are achieved.

4

Figure 1 The Deliberative Value Formation (DVF) model, providing a theoretical template of how an individual forms contextual values and indicators through deliberation with others, the key factors that influence this process and its potential outcomes. Arrows indicate the direction of influence. Worldviews and transcendental values, while they influence the deliberative process, are assumed to be relatively enduring and are only likely to change as a result of long- term or repeated deliberative processes (dashed arrows). Source: Kenter, Reed and Fazey (this issue).

2.2 Participatory systems modeling Many of the potential positive outcomes of deliberation as conceived by the DVF, such as enhanced systemic understanding or enhanced capacity to deliberate, overlap with the social learning aspirations of PSM. PSM is a process that involves creation of a model by groups of stakeholders through the development of shared understanding of the system (Beall and Zeoli, 2008; Van den Belt, 2009; 2004). Models represent a simplified understanding of the world. They can be used for prediction, to engender understanding, and to explore possibilities. Complex systems, such as social- ecological systems, are characterised by emergent behaviour: complex behaviour, properties and patterns that arise through positive and negative causal feedback loops (Kay and Regier, 2000; Richardson, 2005). System dynamics models focus on understanding complex relationships and feedback structures (Coyle, 1996) and are usually based on some kind of conceptual diagram that illustrates causal influences between components of the system. PSM is a process that involves creation of such a model by groups of stakeholders through the development of shared understanding of the system (Beall and Zeoli, 2008; Van den Belt, 2009; 2004). Full involvement of stakeholders in

5 model development fosters ownership of the model and increases the chance of adoption as an aid in decision making, but it can also lead to new insights into how the system functions and in this way generate considerable learning among participants (Standa-Gunda et al., 2003).

PSM has been used in a wide array of contexts. Examples include endangered wildlife management (Beall & Zeoli, 2008), climate change adaptation (Bizikova et al., 2009), watershed management (Brown Gaddis et al., 2007; Videira et al., 2009), water resource planning (Cockerill et al., 2009; Kallis et al., 2006), land use planning (Jones et al., 2009; Prell et al., 2007), sustainable forest management (Mendoza and Prabhu, 2005; Standa-Gunda et al., 2003), tourism management (Patterson et al., 2004), balancing conservation and development goals (Sandker et al., 2010), public sector administration (Van den Belt et al., 2010), and marine spatial planning (Scott et al., 2016). Increasing participation, the use of deliberation, and the application of social-ecological systems approaches become particularly pertinent to valuation of ecosystem services when realising that the inherent uncertainty of complex systems implies gives rise to multiple legitimate understandings (Garmendia and Stagl, 2010). Nonetheless, to date there have been no studies that integrate monetary valuation and systems modelling using a participatory approach.

2.3 Fair price value indicators There has also been little investigation in how deliberation interrelates with different ways that participants might perceive WTP, or the use of value indicator alternatives to individual WTP, such as fair prices. The question of what type of value indicator or payment term to use is linked to questions around how valuation is framed. The conventional interpretation of stated preferences is a ‘purchase model’, where participants’ WTP is seen as an exchange value for the purchase of beneficial consequences. Kahneman and colleagues have questioned this, suggesting that WTP in stated preferences are more of an attitudinal expression of suppport for a good cause, which may be called a ‘contribution model’ of WTP (Kahneman and Ritov, 1994). A third possibility is what Dietz et al. (2009), in their DMV study, called a ‘public policy model’. Here, participants might base their judgement on questions such as whether policy action is necessary and effective, whether there are undesirable side effects, and what are the equity implications. While Dietz et al. (2009) elicited values solely as individual WTP, their conception of a public policy model of decisions on payments matches the conception of a fair price value indicator. Here participants are asked to deliberate not about the welfare effect of a policy on them individually, but its appropriateness and desirability for society in terms of the price tag attached to it (Sagoff, 1998). The two studies that have used fair price value indicators to date, Kenter et al. (2011) and Szabó (2011), have not provided much discussion of how fair prices might be interpreted on the basis of their empircal results, or investiage how they might contrast with individual WTP; these questions will be addressed in this study.

2.4 Participatory mapping Even when applied in a deliberative format, and regardless of the way payments are conceived, monetary valuation ultimately seeks pragmatic outputs in terms of monetary value statements (Orchard-Webb et al. this issue). This framing constrains values into the format of trade-offs, which only reflect a subset of our values and choices (Holland, 2002). Also, certain aspects of value, such of sense of place, spiritual values and aesthetics, may be inherently unsuitable for monetisation (Daniel et al., 2012; Cooper et al., this issue) and communal values may be more recognisable through qualitative approaches (Collins et al., this issue; Ranger et al., this issue).

Here, we link DMV with participatory mapping. Participatory mapping can be conceived of as an interpretive-deliberative method for eliciting communal values (Kenter, 2016a) that contrasts with the

6 quantitative instrumental framework of public participation GIS (Brown and Kyttä, 2014; Raymond et al., 2014). Stakeholders are asked to indicate particular features or areas of relevance to a particular question, such as how an area should be managed, what problems might need to be addressed, or what features should be prioritised.

Participatory mapping provides a more concrete form of value elicitation than DMV and PSM, which tend to be fairly abstract exercises. Abstract valuation approaches, regardless of the quality of deliberation and the potential for learning, is likely to bias away from more concrete place-based values. It may also limit value-expression by those who are challenged by the level of abstraction (Orchard-Webb et al. this issue). Moreover, in the management of places, policy and planning contexts often demand prioritisations of specific landscape elements and locations at least as much as valuation of more abstract benefits (Beverly et al., 2008). Thus, to understand the different ways that the landscape can be valuable to communities, participatory mapping provides a complimentary approach to DMV and PSM that can help to elicit those features of importance in an accessible, easily understood way.

3 Methods A novel methodology linked DMV with PSM and participatory mapping in a case study around coastal realignment and habitat restoration in the Inner Forth estuary, Scotland, working closely with the Inner Forth Landscape Initiative (IFLI), a lottery-funded partnership of local and national NGOs and government to revitalise natural and cultural heritage of the region. An outline of the approach is given in Figure 2. Following stakeholder analysis, the first stage of data gathering consisted of a workshop with 28 stakeholder representatives in July 2011 where a number of conceptual system models of the Inner Forth, linking economy, environment and society, were developed. The second stage revolved around a CE in a series of nine workshops in the first half of 2012 with in total 52 members of community councils (CCs). All workshops were facilitated by the author (an experienced group facilitator), supported by an IFLI representative, and included an informed consent procedure.

In CEs, respondents are asked to repeatedly weigh and choose between different alternatives, each characterised by a number of attributes. One of the attributes usually represents a monetary cost. Through repeated choice tasks, and across the sample of respondents, trade-offs between costs and the other attributes, such as ecosystem service indicators, can be modelled. This way, WTP for the different attributes can be established (Hanley et al., 1998; Hensher et al., 2005). Choice tasks were completed in three stages: at the start, to elicit individual non-deliberated values; secondly following a deliberative intervention, as individual deliberated values, and thirdly as group deliberated values.

The deliberative intervention in the CC workshops consisted of a discussion of participants’ transcendental values, a PSM exercise, and discussion of transcendental values in the context of the system. The CC workshops also involved psychometric testing to consider participants’ transcendental values, beliefs and norms, how these changed in the workshop, and how these impacted on WTP in the CE. The last part of the workshops involved participatory mapping of places of importance and special features in the coastal landscape, and ‘problem places’. Following discussion of the study area, the remainder of this section will consider these different components of the methodological approach.

7

Figure 2 Outline of the methodology.

3.1 Study area The Firth of Forth, located in Central Scotland, is the estuary of the river Forth, where it flows into the North Sea at Edinburgh. This study focuses on the inner estuarine area, between Stirling and Blackness. Historically, the large, flat floodplain provided rich agricultural land and suitable sites for settlements and industry (glass, whiskey and more recently petrochemicals) to grow. However, due to loss of traditional industries and coal mining in recent decades, local people now suffer from high rates of unemployment in many localities in the Forth area. Multiple deprivation in terms of income, health, education, housing, crime etc. is considerable in a number of places, with North Stirling, West and North Falkirk, Grangemouth, Tullibody and southeast Alloa among the 10% most deprived areas of Scotland (Scottish Government, 2011).

Landscape types in the area include flats, coastal margins, lowland river valley and coastal hills. Important habitats are intertidal mudflat and salt marsh, which are an important roosting and feeding area for thousands of seabirds in autumn and winter. Most of these areas are protected by various UK and international nature conservation designations.

8 The area is likely to be subject to considerable sea level rise and increase in winter precipitation during this century (Jenkins et al., 2009). Combined with increased vulnerability to storm surges, this will pose a considerable threat to the low-lying land of the Forth estuary urging re-evaluation of the current system of flood management. In the past, much intertidal habitat has been lost and replaced by engineered coastline.

To address this, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) developed the Inner Forth Futurescape project, which advocates managed realignment and habitat creation to link biodiversity and climate change adaptation objectives. The RSPB has also taken the lead in the wider-ranging Inner Forth Landscape Initiative (IFLI) project, involving local councils (Falkirk, Stirling, Clackmannanshire and Fife), the Central Scotland Forest Trust, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage, Historic Scotland and Sustrans. The IFLI integrates environmental and conservation objectives with measures to improve access, aesthetics, interpretation, cultural heritage and skills, to encourage both ecological and economic regeneration of the area. The project strongly emphasises involvement of stakeholders and local people. The research discussed here aimed to directly feed into these projects by establishing the economic value of ecosystem service benefits of habitat creation to local communities and by eliciting shared, plural and cultural values of the landscape.

9 3.2 Stakeholder system dynamics workshop An initial list of stakeholders was drawn up by the RSPB through combining separate lists compiled the various national, regional and local partner organisations in the project. Researchers then asked all those on the list if they could suggest other groups and organisations that they think should be included. This led to improved identification of community groups in particular. In total 64 stakeholder organisations were identified. This comprehensive list was then analysed using an extended influence-interest matrix (Varvasovszky and Brugha, 2000). Out of the stakeholder organisations identified, 23 were represented by 28 participants in the four-hour stage one workshop. Community groups, NGOs, and government were well represented, businesses less so. Farmers and landholders were not represented despite considerable effort on the side of the researchers and stakeholder organisations to mobilise representatives.

The group was split into five smaller groups of 4-6 people. Following a short warm-up exercise, including listing benefits generated by ecosystems and the landscape, and an introduction to the concept of systems, system models, variables and feedback, a conceptual system model was built in a number of steps. First, the five groups of participants inventorised system components by listing what were the most important social and community, environmental, and economic variables of the Inner Forth. Then, these were ranked by the groups for importance, which was explained as having most influence on other components. The groups then each took the four most important variables and looked at whether there were any direct, significant relationships between them. If so, this was indicated by arrows made from string. This resulted in five influence diagrams. Participants were then asked to identify and discuss one or more feedback loops within the diagram. Variables from each of the models were coded in order to identify unified variables that could be counted across different models. The workshops were completed by asking participants about their learning outcomes in terms of community-economy, economy-environment and environment-community interactions using likert-scale and open questions.

10

Figure 3 Stakeholders identifying variables for in the Inner Forth system.

11 3.3 Deliberative monetary valuation The second stage revolved around a series of CEs in nine workshops with 52 CC representatives in total, representing 21 of 39 CCs in the IFLI area. The first CC workshop functioned as a pilot, but no substantial modifications to the workshop design were made and pilot results were included in the overall data set. Where workshops were larger than 7 people, the group was split into two subgroups for most of the exercises. During the workshops, participants gradually completed different sections of a questionnaire (Table 1) .

CCs, composed of elected volunteers, form the lowest tier of governance in the UK, bridging the gap between local authorities and communities to help make public bodies aware of the opinions and needs of the communities they represent. Their chief competence in Scotland is as a statutory consultee on planning matters. The motivation for inviting CC representatives over a random sample of the public was mostly practical in that the IFLI was at a stage in their decision-making process where it was most appropriate to engage with formal community representatives, but also resonates with political conceptions of DMV (Kenter, 2016b; Orchard-Webb et al. this issue).

At the start of the workshops, participants completed the first round of a CE, which asked for their individual WTP in the questionnaire, individually and without discussion (Table 3). The CE presented two unlabelled alternatives, which were described as reflecting potential benefits of establishing a new conservation area on the Forth, and a business as usual scenario. Attributes included water quality; total number of birds; bird species extinct; new native woodland planted; access and interpretation; and cost expressed as an annual council tax increase (Table 2). An example of a choice task is given in Figure 4. Attributes were selected on the basis of the benefits identified by the stakeholder workshops and discussions with RSPB and IFLI staff on which attributes would be most pertinent to their decision-making.

Next, participants were asked to write down three to five transcendental values (described as values that guided their life choices) that were important to them on post-it notes. These were then placed on a large piece of paper and discussed in their subgroup. Then, participants constructed a conceptual model of the Forth social-ecological system in a similar way to the stakeholder workshop. In drawing up the model, participants worked with the most important variables identified in Stage one, selected on the basis of the following criteria: the variable should have been identified by four of five Stage one subgroups; or they must directly connect two of such variables in at least two models and occur in a majority of the models.

It was then discussed how the transcendental values identified previously interacted with the system. A second individual CE round followed in the same fashion as the first. Next a third CE round took place, where choices were made by the group, through facilitated negotiation leading to consensus or majority vote on the basis of what would be the best choice for society to make and what might be a fair price to ask the public within their community (Table 3). In order to be able to compare between outcomes of the different rounds, and to respect minority positions, participants’ recorded their own, individual votes for the group-based valuation in their paper questionnaire.

3.3.1 Psychometric indicators To investigate psychological attributes of research participants in relation to the environment and better understand the deliberation process, the questionnaire also incorporated sets of questions based on the Values-Beliefs Norms (VBN) theory of environmental behaviour. The VBN theory was devised by Stern and colleagues (Stern, 2000; Stern et al., 1999) and considers that biospheric, altruistic, and egoistic transcendental values (typically measured through Schwartz (1994) value

12 indicators) shape environmental worldview (typically measured through the New Ecological Paradigm [NEP] scale (see Hawcroft and Milfont, 2010)), which in turn influences beliefs around awareness of the consequences (AC) of actions and ascription of responsibility (AR) (measured through context-specific indicators). These in turn shape one’s personal norms (again measured through context-specific indicators), which determine behaviour, here conceived of as behaviour in the CEs and thus expressed as WTP or fair prices. Participants undertook the psychometric testing both at the start and the end of the workshop, so that we could assess the effect of deliberation on the scores. Indicators used are given in Table 4. These were then analysed using the multiple group method, a simple form of confirmatory factor analysis suitable for smalls samples (Steg et al., 2005), and estimation of Cronbach’s alpha. Contrasts between scores before and after deliberation were analysed for significance via t-tests with Bonferroni correction. For a more detailed discussion of the design and analysis of these indicators, the reader is referred to Raymond and Kenter (this issue). The indicators were then included in the analysis of the CE results to understand if any of these psychometric constructs influenced monetary values for the CE attributes in the different CE rounds.

13 Table 1 Outline of the questionnaire for community councillors. Part 1 Background information Demographic and social-economic information, use of the landscape. Choice experiment round I Explanation of the aims and format of the choice experiment. (individual, not deliberated) Information on the choice experiment attributes. Guidelines on how to make choices (base choices on individual interests, no deliberation, think of real willingness and ability to pay the costs attached to the scenario, consider budget constraints). Four choice tasks with three scenarios each, each followed by the level of confidence on scale of 1-5 with which the choice was made. Section is concluded by a question on how the participant made their choices between alternatives. Values-Beliefs-Norms • 10 statements testing the environmental worldview of participants indicators I representing a shortened version of the New Ecological Paradigm scale (as suggested by Hawcroft and Milfont, 2010) on a 5 point Likert scale from ‘strongly agree’ – ‘strongly disagree’. • 4 statements on ‘awareness of consequences’ beliefs, 4 statements on ‘ascription of responsibility’ beliefs, and 4 statements on norms specifically designed for the Inner Forth context, using the same 5 point Likert scale. • 3 egoistic, altruistic and biocentric transcendental values on an 8 point scale from ‘not important’ (0) to ‘of supreme importance’ 7), with an option to choose ‘opposed to this value (-1), following Steg et al. (2005). Part 2 Choice experiment round II Participants again asked to complete four choice tasks in same way as before. (individual, deliberated) Included brief reiteration of guidelines on how to make choices. Choice experiment round III Participants again asked to complete four choice tasks but now asked to (group, deliberated) deliberate for 3-10 minutes per task. Guidelines changed asking people to choose the scenario they deem is in the best interest of society, and to consider whether the costs attached to the scenario are a fair price to ask members of the public in their community in exchange for the benefits. Values-Beliefs-Norms Retest in the same format as before. indicators II Part 3 Feedback and learning 6 statements asking about learning outcomes and 5 questions asking for outcomes feedback on the workshop, on the above mentioned 5 point Likert scale; 2 open questions on learning and 2 open questions asking for feedback.

14 Table 2 Attributes of the choice experiment. Attribute Description Water quality Expressed as ‘moderate’ or ‘good’ following qualifications of the EU Water Framework Directive, which take a wide range of pollutants into account, including heavy metals, agricultural and sewage pollutants. ‘Moderate’ water quality was described as water that could be used for sprinkling gardens and irrigation, boating, and limited coarse fishing. ‘Good’ was described as water more suitable for coarse fishing, and that was safe for swimming.

Total number of birds This attribute was described as the total number of waterfowl, waders and divers in the Inner Forth at the winter peak; baselines were based on indices established by the British Trust for Ornithology [BTO]; improvements went up to 120% which was deemed as realistic by the RSPB if there was sufficient intertidal habitat increase. Levels were indicated on choice tasks in absolute numbers (22,000; 28,000; 31,000; 34,000) and percentages (-20%; no change; +10%; +20%)

Bird species extinct The number of bird species in the Inner Forth that would go locally extinct in the scenario (where it was explained they may still be found elsewhere); Levels were 0, 2, 4 or 7; at the time of research 7 wetland bird species (out of 79) were in immediate threat of local extinction. It was suggested to participants that diversity of birds was also an indicator for broader biodiversity.

New woodlands planted Dummy indicating whether the new conservation area would incorporate a significant proportion of native woodland.

Access and interpretation Four levels: no footpath access; footpath access and interpretation boards; access, interpretation boards and a bird hide; footpath access, interpretation boards and regular presence of a ranger/guide.

Increase in council tax per Annual increase in local tax of £0 (business as usual option only), £20, household £40, £60, £80, for a 50-year period. It was suggested that one-off costs had been annualised.

15 Plan A Plan B Business as usual (C)

Environmental health

Water quality No change Improvement No change Moderate quality Good quality Moderate quality

Wildlife and biodiversity

Total number of birds No change 20% increase 20% decrease 28,000 birds 34,000 birds 22,000 birds

Bird species extinct 2 species extinct 0 species extinct 7 species extinct

Landscape and recreation

New woodland planted Yes No

No new nature Access and interpretation Paths, boards and Paths, boards and conservation area guide available hide available

Costs per year

Increase in council tax £20 £80 £0 per household

Figure 4 An example choice task that community councillors are asked to judge in Stage two of the project.

16 Table 3 Framing of choice tasks. Framing of choice tasks in round one (individual Framing of choice tasks in round three (deliberated values) group values) Experience with previous surveys shows that people When everyone is finished with their individual tasks, have a tendency to respond one way, but may act we will go over choice tasks B1-B4 in Choice Task differently in reality. For example, people may choose Sheet part 2 a second time, as a group, and we will an option with a higher cost than that they are actually consider a new question: willing or able to pay. This can be because they have not fully considered how big an impact the extra costs What is the best choice for society to make? would have on the family budget in reality. It is easy to choose expensive plans with big benefits in a You are asked to discuss this with the others in your questionnaire. But it is important that you do not think community council and come to a joint decision. If in this way when answering the questions as this can there is no consensus, you will vote. affect the validity of the survey. Please base your vote on, and discuss in particular: When choosing between A, B and C, please consider: • Do you feel that the benefits to the public of the • Do you feel that the benefits of the conservation conservation plans are worth the cost? plans are worth the cost to you? • Is the stated council tax increase a fair price to • Would you really be able and willing to pay the ask the public, given the benefits of the plans? increase in council tax that is asked? • What things would you give up to allow you to pay the council tax increase? • If the council tax increase in Plans A and B is more than you are able or willing to pay, then you should choose ‘business as usual’ (Plan C).

Also, at this stage we are interested in which choice you would make personally. Please base this on your personal considerations and budget only. Later in the workshop there will be an opportunity to discuss these choices with your colleagues.

17 Table 4 Psychometric constructs and their indicators used. Italicised indicator statements were reverse coded. Construct Parameter Indicator statements Egoistic values EGO1 Authority, the right to lead or command. EGO2 Wealth, material possessions, money. EGO3 Influence, having an impact on people and events. Altruistic values ALT1 Social justice, correcting injustice, care for the weak. ALT2 Equality, equal opportunity for all. ALT3 A world at peace, free of war and conflict. Biospheric values BIO1 Protecting the environment, preserving nature. BIO2 Respecting the earth, harmony with other species. BIO3 Unity with nature, fitting into nature. New ecological paradigm NEP1 Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. (NEP) NEP2 When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences. NEP3 Humans are severely abusing the environment. NEP4 The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. NEP5 Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. NEP6 The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations. NEP7 Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature. NEP8 The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated. NEP9 The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. NEP10 Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. Awareness of AC1 In the Forth, many species of plants and animals are under increasing threat from consequences (AC) human activities. AC2 Natural habitats are important for our standard of living. AC3 Water pollution is a problem in the Inner Forth. AC4 If the diversity of local wildlife would be diminished, it would not impact on our local economy. Ascription of AR1 A clean and healthy environment in the Inner Forth depends on the support of responsibility (AR) people like me. AR2 I feel responsible for the plight of rare or endangered species of plants and animals. AR3 I don’t feel personally responsible for environmental issues, as they are the responsibility of government and industry. AR4 I am jointly responsible for reducing pollution. Norms NOR1 We should provide more space for other species to live and thrive in the Inner Forth. NOR2 We should think about the economy of the Inner Forth first and only then about its environment. NOR3 My generation should feel obliged to leave the Inner Forth environment in a better condition than that we found it. NOR4 I don’t think we should make the environment a priority when we make important decisions about the future of the Inner Forth.

3.3.2 Choice modelling and value aggregation Choice tasks were established on the basis of a D-efficient design in SAS 9 (SAS Institute) using 32 choice sets across 8 blocks. To maximise efficiency of the design with the expected limited sample size, priors were set to 1 for each of the highest levels of the attributes, and -3 for the highest level of cost attribute. The design was verified with simulated data to verify efficacy with a limited sample

18 size. Data was analysed in NLOGIT 5.0 (Econometric Software) using two mixed logit model specifications with robust error estimation clustered per individual and stratified per CE round. We investigated interactions between all attributes and the round of choice tasks, as well as the geographic location of the workshop (north of the river, south of the river, or Stirling city). In model A we also considered interactions between the alternative specific constant (ASC) and social- economic/demographic characteristics of participants. This model was used for estimating WTP, as usual specified as – βx /βtax. To inform whether individual, individual-deliberated and group-based choices differed significantly, we used Wald tests to verify whether attribute coefficients changed significantly across the three rounds of the CE. Model B served to investigate interactions between attributes and psychometric factors reflecting transcendental values, beliefs and norms (Table 1). Interactions that were not significant at the 10% level were dropped using a stepwise approach (Hosmer and Lemeslow, 2000). In both models the species attribute was square root transformed to better fit the data. Specification of the ASC as a random parameter with uniform (Model A) or triangular (Model B) distribution significantly improved log likelihood over a multinomial logit specification but inclusion of further random parameters did not further improve the models. We estimated models with 1000 Halton draws at which point the models were stable. A small number of missing values were found in the completed questionnaires, either in the choice task responses or in responses to some of the psychometric questions. This reduced the number of complete observations from 624 (52 participants completing 4 choice tasks per round each) to a total of 611 and 584 for Models A and B respectively.

To establish aggregate values for benefits associated with the CE attributes, we gathered population sizes for each of the areas associated with participating community councils, sourced from community council liaison officers at Clackmannanshire, Falkirk, Fife and Stirling local authorities. For Stirling, population figures were not available, but there was data on households per community council area. To establish population sizes, we multiplied by the average number of persons per household in Scotland (2.2) according to the 2011 National Census, and reduced by 5% to account for the census estimate of empty houses. Population sizes were then multiplied by benefits at the individual scale. We aggregated both for each of the benefits separately at the level of the smallest improvement in the attribute, and for a ‘maximum benefits’ scenario which represented the total of the improvements for each significant environmental attribute at its greatest level of improvement within the design.

3.4 Participatory mapping The final part of the community council workshops consisted of a participatory mapping exercise. The subgroups were asked to consider a large, laminated map of the Inner Forth area (Figure 5). As a warm-up, participants were asked to each come up with three activities or practices they engaged in the landscape, in the broadest sense. They were then asked to discuss and point out, as a group, which features (natural or man-made) within the Landscape Initiative project boundary were interesting, special, or should be conserved and indicate these with green dots. Facilitators recorded descriptions of these features and reasons why they were mentioned. Next, participants were given three votes each to allocate to the features they felt were most important to protect. Then, groups used red dots to indicate any problematic features, and these were ranked in the same way as the benign features. Throughout the process, discussion was encouraged. Special and problematic features were categorised through grounded theory coding.

19

Figure 5 Inner Forth Community councillors engaged in participatory mapping

4 Results

4.1 Stakeholder system dynamics workshop Key results from Stage one include benefits of the landscape and conceptual models of the Inner Forth social-ecological system. In terms of the benefits of the landscape, the most important were deemed to be: the landscape as an economic hub (17% of ticks); biodiversity and wildlife (14%), the landscape itself (11%), recreation and leisure activities (10%) (leisure was included as distinct from tourism, which was less important at 4%); healthy and productive ecosystems (8%); providing an attractive living place (7%), aesthetic value (5%) and sense of place (5%).

System modelling results are detailed in Figure 6 and Table 5. Within the system models, social/economic and environmental variables were more or less equally influential. Key variables that appeared in all models were industry, transport and commerce; recreation and tourism; biodiversity and wildlife; and water quality. Notably, landscape quality was seen to influence a very large number of other components of the system; despite being mentioned in only three of the models it was on average the 2nd most important variable representing 8% of causal links. Key links were made between industry and employment on the one hand and pollution on the other; biodiversity and recreation; and habitats and recreation through improved landscape quality. In relation to landscape quality, all subgroups particularly noted the importance of woodlands for recreation, directly and/or indirectly through improved landscape quality; from the discussions it appeared that woodland was particularly lacking south of the Forth.

Thirteen variables were identified by four of five subgroups, or directly connected two of such variables in at least two models and occurred in at least three models, and were thus included in the modelling exercise in Stage two (Table 5).

On feedback forms participants indicated significant learning as as part of the workshop. 77% indicated 4-5 (on a 1-5 scale) in terms of learning about the relationships between society and the

20 environment, 68% indicated 4-5 in terms of learning about society-economy relationships, and 55% indicated the same for environment-economy learning. Qualitative feedback from open questions suggested members of community groups felt they had learned most from the workshop, whereas government representatives (who are likely to have had greater experience with analytical exercises) appeared to have experienced the least amount of learning.

Table 5 System variables after coding the five subgroup system models. Relative importance of the variables was identified from the number of subgroups that named the variable, and from the average proportion of links that each variable had in the models. Starred variables were selected for deliberation in Stage two. Mean proportion of causal Variable links Number of subgroups industry, transport and commerce* 0.14 5 landscape quality* 0.08 3 recreation & tourism* 0.07 5 employment and economic benefits* 0.07 4 biodiversity* 0.06 5 population* 0.06 4 woodlands, moorlands, rare habitats* 0.05 5 agricultural area & production* 0.05 3 pollution* 0.04 4 water quality* 0.04 5 ecosystem health & services 0.04 5 legislation, designations & management quality* 0.04 4 air quality 0.03 4 intertidal habitat* 0.03 1 energy demand, supply & source* 0.03 2 standard of living 0.03 3 soil quality 0.02 2 climate change 0.02 2 quality of life 0.02 2 health 0.02 3 water demand 0.01 2 education 0.01 3 coastal erosion 0.01 1 rainfall 0.01 3 fishing 0.01 2 development 0.01 1 sea defense 0.01 1 knowledge/appreciation of biodiversity 0.00 1 cultural heritage 0.00 1

21

Figure 6 Composite system model based on aggregation of the five stakeholder workshop subgroup models. Font style indicates how often variables occurred. Thickness and colour of the arrows indicate how often causal links between variables occurred.

4.2 Deliberative monetary valuation Choice modelling results are given in Table 6 and monetary values in Table 7. Model fit was very good (Model A with socio-economic interactions: adjusted pseudo R2 =0.43; Model B with psychometric interactions =0.40). In the first round of valuation, individuals were willing to pay substantially for most attributes. The single most important attribute was prevention of species extinction; individual WTP measured £40.90 for prevention of local extinction of a single species, or £108.21 for protecting all seven locally threatened species from going extinct; substantially more than for an improvement in the mean overall size of the bird population (£22.26 for a maximum improvement of 6,000 birds).

For a number of options, there were clear regional differences. Participants north of the river had no interest in a bird hide or new native woodlands, while south of the river, participants were willing to pay substantial amounts for both (£67.90 and £57.76 respectively). Stirling participants were also willing to pay for woodland (£39.44), but not hides. During the deliberative choices later on, in a

22 similar vein to what was discussed in the stakeholder workshop, people in the north indicated they preferred new wetland to new woodland sites, as there was already a relative abundance of existing woodlands. Conversely, in the south, participants felt there was a lack of woodland and were keen on improvements both for recreation and to support wildlife.

WTP was on average lower for younger participants and for men. Income did not significantly impact on WTP. Discussions later in the workshops revealed that lower income participants were less likely to own a car and hence were more dependent on local nature, having less opportunities to recreate in e.g. the Scottish Highlands, balancing out reduced ability to pay with a relatively greater willingness.

As indicated in Table 8, Wald hypothesis tests indicated a significant increase in importance of the tax attribute in round two of the CE, following the transcendental values and systems modelling intervention, and again when moving from round two to round three (deliberated group values). The species attribute also significantly increased in importance in round three to around double what it had been in rounds one and two. It also appeared that error terms became smaller relative to the size of the coefficients, suggesting more consistent choices. For the tax atrribute this was observeable across the rounds, and for the species attribute between rounds two and three.

Translated into monetary values, in round two individual WTP decreased by 44% for species extinctions and 56% for the other environmental attributes, and confidence intervals became narrower (Table 7). In round three, monetary values, now elicited as group deliberated fair prices, decreased by a further 41% for all environmental attributes bar species, to end up being only 26% of round one values for these attributes. Monetary values for preventing species extions decreased by 44% in round two, but in round three increased by 6% compared to round two to become 40% of what participants were willing to pay in round one.

Given that the post-deliberation, group-based values were substantially lower than individual values, we used the group-deliberated fair prices to establish aggregated values per CC area totalled per local authority (Table 9). A ‘maximum benefits’ scenario that included an increase of the number of wintering birds by 6000 on average (a 20% increase), prevention of the local extinction of seven vulnerable bird species, and a conservation area that would include new native woodland, paths, interpretation boards, a hide and guide in each of the local authority areas, would be worth £14.07 million in total to the CC areas that were represented in the study. 59% of the total was associated directly with biodiversity conservation, reflected in the value of protecting bird species from extinction.

4.2.1 Psychometric indicators In terms of the psychological indicators, factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha results indicated that participants answered questions more consistently after deliberation, and as a result the psychometric instrument became more reliable (Table 10 and Raymond and Kenter, this issue). Factor analysis supported the indicator structure but led to the AR3 indicator being dropped. In terms of transcendental values, altruistic (mean 5.25, pre-deliberation, on a -1 to 8 scale) and biospheric scores (4.91 pre-deliberation) scored high in terms of importance, whereas egoistic values were seen to be relatively unimportant (2.84). Biospheric values increased significantly post-deliberation to 5.39. NEP scores were moderately pro-environmental (mean 3.60 on a 1-5 scale), and significantly increased (3.78) after the deliberative exercises. AC and AR beliefs and norms scored moderately positive (3.89 and 3.83) and also increased post-deliberation (4.10 and 4.05), but these differences were not established as significant for the limited sample size following Bonferroni correction.

23 We also modelled the impact of psychometric constructs on choices by including psychometric parameters in choice model B (Table 6). Participants with stronger pro-environmental norms were significantly more likely to choose a conservation scenario over business as usual, and participants with a greater self-ascription of responsibility for environmental issues were willing to pay significantly and substantially more tax (βAR*tax equalling 72% of βtax_individual). The model was not able to detect significant changes in psychometric interactions across the different CE rounds.

Table 6 Mixed logit models with demographic interactions (Model A) and with psychometric interactions (Model B).

Model A Model B Parameter (units) β SE β SE ASC 8.108 2.1759 *** 11.530 3.6125 *** * Young -3.468 1.4489 ** * Male -2.421 0.7549 *** * Norms† 4.241 2.2120 * Water quality (good vs moderate) 0.116 0.1090 0.116 0.1139 Bird population size (per 1000) 0.041 0.0155 *** 0.045 0.0159 *** Paths & interpretation boards present 0.381 0.1863 ** 0.413 0.1939 ** Guide present 0.325 0.1917 * 0.444 0.2000 ** Hide present North of Forth 0.500 0.4304 0.397 0.4418 South of Forth 0.751 0.2411 *** 0.837 0.2525 *** Stirling -0.100 0.2696 0.008 0.2816 Woodland planted

North of Forth -0.100 0.3041 -0.126 0.3104 South of Forth 0.639 0.1857 *** 0.611 0.1917 *** Stirling 0.436 0.1785 ** 0.490 0.1860 *** Prevent species extinctionÖ Individual -0.452 0.0991 *** -0.488 0.1074 *** Deliberated individual -0.585 0.1123 *** -0.588 0.1162 *** Deliberated group -1.042 0.1562 *** -1.023 0.1603 *** Tax (per £) Individual -0.011 0.0041 *** -0.011 0.0046 ** Deliberated individual -0.025 0.0048 *** -0.025 0.0050 *** Deliberated group -0.043 0.0064 *** -0.043 0.0069 *** Tax * Ascription of responsibility† 0.008 0.0041 * Number of observations 611 584 Log-likelihood -446 -376 χ2 (degrees of freedom) 592 (20) *** 532 (20) *** Adjusted pseudo R2 0.43 0.40 *** Significant at p<0.01; **p<0.05; *p<0.1; NS: not significant. Ö parameter unit per square root of number of species † Post-deliberation psychometric factor scores per point on 1-5 Likert scale. ASC: alternative specific constant (dummy: 0 for business as usual, 1 for alternatives). SE: standard error.

24 Table 7 Monetary values derived from Model A. Attribute Individual WTP (£) Deliberated individual Deliberated group fair WTP (£) price (£)

Value 95% CI Value 95% CI Value 95% CI

Bird population size (per 1000) 3.71 0.13 7.30 1.62 0.35 2.90 0.96 0.24 1.69

Paths & interpretation boards 34.48 -7.04 76.01 15.05 -0.25 30.35 8.95 -0.11 18.00 present

Guide present 29.40 -10.16 68.95 12.83 -2.47 28.13 7.63 -1.47 16.73

Hide present

South of Forth 67.90 2.58 133.23 29.64 9.32 49.96 17.62 5.75 29.49

Woodland planted

South of Forth 57.76 8.21 107.32 25.22 10.74 39.69 14.99 6.44 23.54

Stirling 39.44 -2.35 81.23 17.22 1.78 32.66 10.23 1.35 19.11

Prevent species extinctionÖ 40.90 7.16 74.64 23.09 13.02 33.16 24.44 17.87 31.02

WTP: willingness to pay. CI: confidence interval. Ö Value per one square root of number of species.

Table 8 Results of Wald hypthesis tests indicating significance levels of contrasts across the three choice experiment rounds for the tax and species attribute coeffcients. Tax Species Individual Deliberated individual Individual Deliberated individual z p z p z p z p

Deliberated individual 2.43 0.015 0.90 0.3667 Deliberated group 4.39 <0.0001 2.4 0.0165 3.23 0.0012 2.47 0.0136

25 Table 9 Aggregate values for the participating community council areas totalled per local authority, derived from group-based deliberated values. Council area (year of population count) Population Values (£, aggregate values per £1000) Increase bird Paths and Guide Hide Woodland Prevent a Maximum population by interpretation planted species from benefit scenario 1000 boards going extinct locally Clackmannanshire (2010) per individual 0.96 8.95 7.63 - - 24.44 87.03 Aggregate 26,753 26 239 204 - - 654 2,328 Falkirk (2011) per individual 0.96 8.95 7.63 17.62 14.99 24.44 119.64 Aggregate 82,244 79 736 628 1,449 1,233 2,010 9,839 Fife (2012) per individual 0.96 8.95 7.63 - - 24.44 87.03 Aggregate 2,347 2 21 18 - - 57 204 Stirling (2011) per individual 0.96 8.95 7.63 - 10.23 24.44 97.26 Aggregate 17,420 17 156 133 - 178 426 1,694 Aggregate total 128,764 124 1,152 982 1,449 1,411 3,148 14,066

26 Table 10 Psychometric score means and standard deviation (Adapted from Raymond and Kenter, this issue). Pre-deliberation Post-deliberation Mean SD Mean SD Egoistic values 2.84 .22 2.70 .48 Altruistic values 5.25 .05 5.63 .10 Biospheric values 4.91 .02 5.39 .06 ** New Ecological Paradigm 3.60 .38 3.78 .40 * Awareness of consequences 3.89 .18 4.10 .08 Ascription of responsibility‡ 3.83 .12 4.05 .20 Norms 4.05 .09 4.16 .12 Egoistic/Altruistic/Biospheric value indicators are on a -1 to 8 continuous scale, others are on a 1-5 continuous scale. For item descriptions see Table 4. ** Significant difference between pre- and post-deliberation results at p<0.05 (paired t-test with Bonferroni correction for 7 comparisons); * p<0.1. ‡AR3 dropped.

4.3 Participatory mapping Benign features could be coded into four categories: cultural heritage (25 features), natural heritage (11), access options, such as paths and trails (15), and scenic and aesthetic features (5) (Figure 7 in online supplementary material). Some cultural features (e.g. Culross village, Cambuskenneth Abbey, Blackness Castle), were mentioned by many or most groups across the region and could thus be seen as regional icons. However, in vote counts local features were seen as more important. Notable was also the relative unimportance of nationally significant cultural-historical features such as the Bannockburn (where Robert the Bruce defeated an English army of far greater number than his own in 1314) and the Antonine Wall (the northernmost frontier barrier of the Roman Empire), both only mentioned by two groups. The only natural heritage features that were mentioned right across the region were Skinflats, a large nature reserve, which also received the highest number of votes overall, and the estuarine mudflats. The features that were rated most highly locally tended to have a combination of natural, cultural and access elements. All but two access features were mentioned by only one group, even while almost all participants were engaged in walking, cycling, angling and/or bird watching and were long-term residents of the area. In terms of the motivations for mentioning places, words used most often were ‘beautiful’, ‘peaceful’, ‘historic’ and ‘wildlife’ and the activities associated with places.

Problematic features could be categorised as restricted access (10 features), pollution (7), neglect (7), visual impact (3), disturbance/noise (3), flood risk (3), litter (3), and a miscellaneous category (5) (Figure 8 in online supplementary material). Six out of ten access issues had to do with lack of access to and along the river foreshore. While all of the problematic access issues were mentioned by only a single group, and thus appear highly localised, they were generally given more votes than other concerns. In terms of air, water and visual pollution, the Grangemouth industrial plant was regionally seen as problematic. Other concerns raised by multiple groups related to air and water pollution by the Longannet power plant (which is now being decommisioned), concerns about the impacts of proposed fracking, and a landfill site.

5 Discussion

5.1 Value formation and differences between individual and shared values There are a number of limitations to this study that deserve attention. First is the small sample size, which could have led to certain effects of deliberation going undetected, or potentially meaningful effects (e.g. increases in a number of psychometric scores) appearing statistically insignificant. Second, it was not possible to disentangle the effects of group-based decision-making and the fair price framing that was used for group value expression. Third, the design did not allow us to distinguish between the influence of group deliberation and of potential individual learning that could have resulted from simply repeating the choice tasks. Future research using split-sample approaches is needed to disentangle these effects.

Nonetheless, the results clearly distinguished differences between non-deliberated individual values, deliberated individual values and deliberated group values. There was a substantial decrease in monetary values across the three rounds of the CE, while at the same time the group-based fair price for species extinction was substantially higher relative to other goods than individual and individual- deliberated WTP for that attribute.

Across the workshops a range of different deliberative value formation processes could be seen which can explain these differences. Following the framing of the DVF model (Figure 1Figure 1), outcomes of value formation included: 1) changes in systemic understanding; 2) changes in capacity to deliberate; 3) improved understanding of the value of others; 4) triggering of dormant values and stronger association of contextual values with transcendental values; and 5) a shift in value orientation towards the common good.

In terms of changes in systemic understanding and capacity for deliberation, the systems modelling intervention stimulated people to make broader linkages, think through consequences together, and consider trade-offs between environmental and other priorities. Feedback from the stakeholder workshop indicated substantial learning effects, and although the modelling exercise was less elaborate in the CC workshops, participants expressed they felt it was challenging but rewarding in terms of helping to think through relationships. The way that the variables provided to community councillors were selected meant that they linked to a diversity of different stakeholder perspectives and interests making discussions more salient and stimulating participants to consider different perspectives.

Initiating the process with a discussion on transcendental values and then bringing these into the system modelling process meant there was no artificial separation between preference ‘economisation’, i.e. deliberation focused on helping participants state more informed preferences, and ‘moralisation’ (Lo and Spash, 2012). Prompting for and then discussing transcendental values made broader principles and life goals raised by participants, such as ‘family’, ‘health’, ‘social unity’ and ‘security’, explicit, which may have otherwise remained dormant when they did not relate directly to the context. The values exercise, linking values into the system model, and deliberation on group choices about fair prices also helped participants to better understand others’ values.

Psychometric evidence suggested the deliberation activated biospheric transcendental values and increased environmental worldview scores, providing some evidence of a shift in value orientation, reflected in the relative increase in monetary values for preventing species extinctions. Many groups had considerable debate on the relative importance of different attributes and on the question of the degree to which it was fair to ask their constituents to pay for them. Regularly, people felt that from

28 their own conviction, they would choose a higher cost scenario, reflecting their pro-environmental values, worldviews, beliefs and norms in the psychometric testing, but that if they had to weigh off the benefits to the public against how the investment could otherwise be spent (e.g. on health or social care, or other conservation projects) they would have to justify the higher cost. These deliberations were sometimes placed in the context of the scale of the benefits of the proposed project. This led to debate about whether the project would have wider benefits, often in relation to pertinent variables that featured in the system models, for example in terms of positive effects on wildlife in the larger landscape and whether there would be potential benefits for tourism.

Thus, people became more ‘picky’ and appeared to consider more closely whether a specific scenario really weighed up. While decisions in one sense thus became more social, and despite a significant increase in participants’ biospheric values, participants’ choices became less attitudinal following deliberation and particularly in the group-decisions, becoming less inclined to pay as an expression of support for conservation.

In terms of specific attributes, repeatedly there were complex discussions mixing debate over information, making linkages, and discussing moral topics, particularly fairness and responsibility. For example, one group discussed the importance of water quality and noted that it was a particularly central element in their systems diagram. However, the group concluded that it would be fairer if polluting companies would pay to improve water quality rather than communities and that for communities the moral argument to protect species should weigh stronger.

In terms of the species attribute, most groups came to discuss their sense of moral obligation towards preventing extinction. The attribute was framed as the number of species that would go extinct ‘locally’, i.e. it was made clear that this did not mean that species would go extinct altogether. However, participants regularly argued that ‘everyone should take responsibility’ or that ‘we need to do our bit’. One participant noted: “when something is extinct, it's gone - you could reintroduce species, but if everyone doesn’t take care of their species then at some point there are no places left to reintroduce them from.” While moral arguments dominated, it was also mentioned that birdlife was defining for the area, and that biodiversity was ultimately foundational for tourism in the region.

Participants thus weighed values as somthing plural, or multidimensional. One of the larger workshops explicitly distinguished intrinsic and non-intrinsic value, calling these 'ecological value', the value of improving the environment for its own sake; and 'economic value', which was composed of benefits such as attracting more tourism and recreation. Participants identified that they were looking for 'best value', which incorporated both those two things. Making trade-offs was difficult when there were conflicts between the two, and had to be negotiated. Participants often did not reach consensus and there remained minority positions, including some arguing that they felt that all the amounts of tax were too high for the public to pay, at least under the prevailing circumstances of budget cuts and austerity.

Compared to the participants of a national scale DMV study also discussed in this issue (Kenter et al., a), where divers and sea anglers valued potential marine protected areas, the Inner Forth community councillors were more experienced and more pragmatic deliberators. The studies differed in how participants dealt with the inherent tension in DMV between the deliberative process, which resonates with ideals of value plurality and communicative rationality, and the monistic outcome in terms of monetary values (Lo, 2011). The community councellors had no trouble bridging this tension, discussing benefits and costs, duties and responsibility alongside aesthetic ideals and community virtues, and then switching to pragmatic negotiation on fair prices. Whilst psychometric evidence and

29 choice modelling demonstrated interactions between monetary values and normative beliefs, nonetheless there was no sign of protest against the monetary valuation framing, in contrast to the the marine protected areas study where this was substantial. While the Inner Forth CE was less explicit in asking participants to ‘name their price’ than the contingent valuation method used by Kenter et al. (this issue, a), and the issue of marine protected areas was more contested, the difference is also likely to reflect that the composition of the Forth groups mean they were more comfortable in terms of accepting to make trade-offs around money following debate involving plural dimensions of value.

Altogether, these considerations suggest that the shared values resulting from group deliberation were fundamentally different from the initially elicited individual values, resulting from in-depth, systemic learning and an expansion of the set of transcendental values that guided decisions to include broader social conerns. Differences in monetary values could be explainedd solely as a result of task learning, which might have reduced monetary values somewhat and made them more consistent, but which would not explain changes in psychometric indicators, or an increase in the importance of the species attribute between individual and group deliberated values.

This supports the notion that assessment of shared values is as much about value formation as it is about elicitation, as discussed by Irvine et al. and Kenter, Reed and Fazey elsewhere in this issue. Value changes could be explained by most of the the key factors in the DVF model (Figure 1), with significant social learning and exposure to new information through the systems modelling exercise, explicit discussion of transcendental values throughout the deliberative process and groups being composed of community councillors with experience in deliberation. The institutional context of the IFLI process, where participants felt they were being genuinely consulted made participants feel their deliberations would genuinely benefit decision-making, whilst the process design and active facilitation activated learning and promoted inclusivity.

5.2 Implications for valuation Discussion of the process and outcomes of deliberative valuation in this study relate to broader questions about what the nature is of monetary values arising from stated preference studies. As discussed in Section 2, in economic valuation there has been debate around whether WTP in stated preference methods should be seen as an expression of (imprecise) welfare, or attitudes and charitable contributions (Kahneman et al., 1999; Ryan and Spash, 2011; Spash et al., 2009). Intuitively, its potential moralising effect (Lo and Spash, 2012) might lead one to hypothesise that DMV will lead participants to shift away from a purchase model and towards a contribution model of WTP. In some studies, deliberation indeed appeared to shift participants in this direction (Alvarez Farizo et al., 2007; Alvarez Farizo and Hanley, 2006). In contrast, in this study, despite explicit moralisation, monetary values did not appear to shift towards a contribution-based model, becoming decreasingly attitudinal through deliberation and group decision making, reflected in lower monetary values but also clearer priorities. Kenter et al. (this issue, a), comparing between individual WTP and group-based fair prices, found similar results. Dietz et al. (2009) conducted a study comparing deliberated and non-deliberated individual WTP. As in the study presented here, the authors concluded that group deliberation around values induced participants to take an increasing number of factors into account in their decisions. While group deliberation did not directly affect WTP, it did so indirectly through affecting the kinds of issues considered, which in turn influenced WTP. They described this shift in focus as a shift away from a contribution model, towards a public policy model. Here the issues considered shifted from how stronly they support the cause to thinking like a policy analyst, contrasting different policy options in terms of their importance, impacts, alternatives, and equity implications. It appeared that, if participants of deliberative valuation were left unconstrained in how they were to assess their

30 payments, they naturally question the fairness of proposals. This suggests that fair prices are a naturally appropriate payment term for ‘public values’ (Dietz et al., 2009; Sagoff, 1986) or shared values (Kenter et al., 2015).

In this study, the deliberations around fair prices clearly instigated a public policy framing, which could be summarised as: 1) what the benefits really meant, and which benefits were ultimately most important in the short and long term; 2) who would benefit: all of society, only some people, or some people who were particularly in need; 3) competing priorities, both whether money should be spent on this or other environmental projects, or non-environmental social concerns; 4) duties to other species and future generations; and 5) responsibilities, e.g. the notion that local people were responsible for local sites, or that everyone, or every local community, had to take responsibility for ‘their bit’ towards social goals such as protecting biodiversity.

This framing, in combination with effective deliberation, lead to lower estimates of monetary values overall. Similar effects were found by Kenter et al. (this issue, b). This suggests potential for fair prices to not only to aid in broadening participants framings of the issues at hand, but also to provide more realistic welfare estimates than individual WTP, which is well known to suffer from hypothetical bias (e.g. Mohammed, 2014). However, there is no clear theoretical understanding of how fair price values can be compared to other monetary values (Bunse et al., 2015); for example, if non-market benefits of ecosystem services generated by a conservation project are established using a deliberative, shared values approach, how do these compare to the private and public costs of a project?

Ultimately, a key question in terms of assessment of values is the purpose of the valuation exercise. CBA, although widely criticised, is one of the most widely used tools to rank policy alternatives (Hanley, 2001). Pragmatic, ‘deliberated preferences’(Kenter, 2016b) approaches to DMV, such as the Market Stall format (Alvarez Farizo et al., 2007; Lienhoop and MacMillan, 2007b), incorporate deliberation to ‘improve’ the value elicitation process, but still with the assumption that such values could feed into CBA. Conventionally, CBA is about aggregating individual, self-regarding preferences and this aggregate is then perceived to be a measure of social welfare (Hockley, 2014; Parks and Gowdy, 2013). If altruistic concerns were included, there is a risk of double counting. If deliberation moralises values in a way that leads to expression of altruistic values, moving participants away from a purchase model of WTP, this poses a problem for estimating welfare.

However, it may be noted that revealed preferences of actual market transactions are only assumed to be solely self-regarding. In reality, behaviour in markets is not restricted by selfish utility maximisation, and is obviously influenced by broader norms (Peacock, 1997). Consumer choices are not just a reflection of price and quality but also reflect ethical and broader shared values (Mazar and Zhong, 2010). From this perspective, we argue that including deliberated WTP estimates is not conceptually more problematic than incorporating market prices into CBA. If economists are happy to consider market prices ‘blind to reason’, then why not non-market prices?

Furthermore, using a fair price value indicator side-steps the double-counting issue. In contrast to asking for individual WTP, respondents are asked to consider what they believe is the value to whoever they are representing as a whole (e.g. the public, a beneficiary group). As such, it encapsulates self-regarding and other-regarding values, reflecting a perception of the value to society or some other social unit, but at the individual scale.

31

Here we aggregated community councillor’s fair prices to establish an aggregate value estimate for potential improvements in ecosystem services, implying comparability with other costs and benefits. Besides being a likely underestimate on the grounds that only a selection of services was included and we only aggregated across beneficiaries that were represented, this might raise three more fundamental concerns. First, fair prices are not a measure of utility, and thus one might challenge applying the Bergson–Samuelson social welfare functions conventionally used to establish social welfare in CBA. Second, these fair prices were not established by a statistically representative sample of beneficiaries, but by elected community representatives.

In terms of the first, the real question is whether aggregated costs and benefits should be considered as welfare measures in the first place, given that it has long been known that aggregation of preferences across individuals cannot lead to a single logically consistent ranking of policy alternatives (Arrow, 1950; Feldman, 1987; Hockley, 2014; Parks and Gowdy, 2013). One answer to this is to provide not just deliberation on values but also on how values should be aggregated (Kenter et al. this issue, b). For fair prices it may seem intuitive in the concept that everyone would be expected to pay the fair price, but this is something that requires further consideration and empirical research on how fair prices are perceived by participants. The alternative is deliberation on pre-aggregated measures of social welfare (for an example, see Orchard-Webb et al. this issue). In terms of the second, this is perhaps less of an issue: given that by using a fair price we have already stepped out of the land of utility and into the broader domain of public policy, it is not unreasonable to use an elected rather than arbitrary sample.

In conclusion, the use of a fair price appeared to support a shift in terms of conceptualisation of payments from a purchase or contribution model to a public policy model, and as such provides a particularly suitable value indicator for group deliberation. Thus, more research is needed on the theory and empirics of fair prices. Can fair prices reduce hypothetical bias? Do fair prices include a consumer surplus? How do they compare to prices on markets where consumers may also explicitly consider fairness, e.g. in relation to green or fair trade products or ethical investments? Can they fit within a preference utilitarian framework? Certainly, fair prices challenge the utilitarian assumptions of conventional value aggregation. It may be argued that these have significant theoretical and empirical shortcomings anyway, and that aggregation of fair prices in such a way is thus pragmatically acceptable. Alternatively, a pluralistic, deliberative alternative to analytical aggregation needs to be found.

5.3 Participatory mapping and shared values Nonetheless, regardless of whether it is framed in terms of utility and efficiency or public policy, monetary valuation does not necessarily provide the most informative valuation in terms of particular decision-making contexts. Here, the participatory mapping and ranking exercise showed to be a more practical tool in terms of expressing priorities for management measures than the DMV.

The results clearly showed the potential for the IFLI to improve cultural ecosystem service benefits by resolving local access issues, but also by improving connections between local access options across the region and by simply inventorising and publicising the many places available where people can engage with the landscape. They also underline the importance of linking nature conservation with improving access and restoring cultural heritage, as ecological, heritage and recreational features of importance were often co-emergent for participants.

A surprising number of features, particularly locations that people valued for recreation access, were valued in a highly localised and concrete way. This supports conceptualisations of cultural ecosystem

32 services as place-based (Church et al., 2011; 2014), and of the need to assess them as an expression of cultural landscapes (Tengberg et al., 2012), coproduced by humans and nature. It also supports the Ecosystems Approach principles around the importance of valuing them and managing them at the lowest feasible scale, and the importance of not pre-assuming how people value the landscape and integrating in local knowledge into management (CBD, 2004). Their idiosyncratic nature also suggests that much of their value would be under recognised by monetary approaches, and possibly also by instrumental, aggregation-based non-monetary approaches (Raymond et al., 2014).

Cultural heritage and sense of place relate to a mix of tangible natural and human artifacts and as well as intangible aspects, such as the stories that surround places, which involves not just personal but also shared, collective aspects (Lewicka, 2008), and where the past is interpreted through how it is related to in the present (Tengberg et al., 2012). Hence, the benefits of group-deliberative mapping, in contrast to individual methods, lies in bringing out both shared communal values more explicitly, supporting people to more clearly consider how they relate to the landscape and the way it generates cultural ecosystem services.

These points underline the importance of the inclusion of interpretive and spatially explicit elements in deliberative valuation methodologies, but also inclusion of deliberation into mapping methods and interpretive approaches to valuing the landscape. Participants in this study expressed that they experienced the mapping as satisfying, adding a more concrete element to the relatively abstract monetary valuation session. In discussions during the DMV, participants expressed positive things about their landscape (e.g. bird populations), but also contrasted it with more spectacular regions of Scotland. Here they placed conservation and landscape improvement in a context of fairness by considering that local people did not have the resources to go and recreate elsewhere. However, the deliberative group process in the mapping exercise served to articulate different values, influencing how participants viewed and felt about the Inner Forth. “I was surprised we came to much more green than red dots. This is not an area that people know for being attractive. It is not really beautiful in the way that people usually think about places like the Highlands or the west coast. But looking at it this way I feel quite proud of this place.”

6 Conclusions The integrated participatory methodology featuring monetary valuation, deliberation, systems modelling, psychometrics and participatory mapping grounded in a framework for understanding deliberative processes, the DVF model, provided a more comprehensive and in-depth assessment of the value of ecosystem services than a conventional survey based stated preference approach. This generated a combination of monetary and place-based outputs to help implement the Ecosystems Approach into environmental management, more effectively informing decisions by local practitioners on management of the Inner Forth and implementation of the IFLI project. The idiosyncratic, highly localised nature of many values expressed through the participatory mapping exercise suggests that much of these places-based cultural ecosystem service values would have been under-recognised by monetary valuation alone.

In the monetary valuation, there were marked differences between individual values and shared values expressed as deliberated group fair prices, with deliberated individual values falling between the two. The systems modelling intervention combined with explicit discussion of transcendental values generated significant learning, improved participants’ ability to deliberate and helped to better reflect transcendental values into an expression of monetary values. The deliberations and the fair price

33 framing appeared to shift participants’ perspectives away from either the utilitarian purchase model or the charitable contribution model of value expression towards a public policy perspective, balancing consideration of trade-offs with questions of fairness and responsibility. Future studies focused on providing evidence around ecosystem service values to inform landscape management could replicate the methodology applied here, maintaining the key elements of deliberative valuation, conceptual systems modelling and participatory mapping whilst streamlining the valuation exercises to focus on group-based values framed around this public policy perspective. More research is however needed to further investigate the theoretical and empirical implications of fair prices, including consideration of their aggregation and commensurability with other monetary measures, and their potential for group deliberation on fair prices to provide more robust estimates of welfare than conventionally elicited individual WTP.

Acknowledgements We thank Kate Studd and Scott Paterson (Inner Forth Landscape Initiative), Zoe Clelland (RSPB), and Ioan Fazey, Mark Reed, Niels Jobstvogt, Mandy Ryan and Michelle Pinard for their valuable input into design of this study and support for its execution; Kate Studd also for assisting in facilitating the research workshops. We also thank all the participants of our study for their effort, and Falkirk, Stirling, Clackmannanshire and Fife councils for logistical support. This work was funded through the UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-On (Work Package 6: Shared, Plural and Cultural Values), funded by the UK Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Welsh Government, the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC); and through NERC studentship NE/I528193/1. The completion of this paper was also supported by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n° 315925.

References Alvarez Farizo, B., Hanley, N., 2006. Improving the process of valuing non-market benefits: combining citizens' juries with choice modelling. Land Economics 82, 465.

Alvarez Farizo, B., Hanley, N., Barberán, R., Lázaro, A., 2007. Choice modeling at the market stall: Individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 60, 743–751. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.01.009

Arrow, K., 1950. A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economy 58, 328– 346.

Beall, A., Zeoli, L., 2008. Participatory modeling of endangered wildlife systems: Simulating the sage-grouse and land use in Central Washington. Ecological Economics 68, 24–33. doi:10.1016/J.Ecolecon.2008.08.019

Beverly, J.L., Uto, K., Wilkes, J., Bothwell, P., 2008. Assessing spatial attributes of forest landscape values: an internet-based participatory mapping approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research- Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 38, 289–303. doi:Doi 10.1139/X07-149

34

Bizikova, L., Dickinson, T., Pintér, L., 2009. Participatory scenario development for climate change adaptation. Participatory Learning and Action 60, 167–172.

Brown Gaddis, E.J., Vladich, H., Voinov, A., 2007. Participatory modeling and the dilemma of diffuse nitrogen management in a residential watershed. Environmental Modelling & Software 22, 619–629.

Brown, G., Kyttä, M., 2014. Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography 46, 122–136. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.11.004

Bryce, R., Irvine, K., Church, A., Fish, R., Ranger, S., Kenter, J.O. 2016. Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. This issue.

Bunse, L., Rendon, O., Luque, S., 2015. What can deliberative approaches bring to the monetary valuation of ecosystem services? A literature review. Ecosystem Services 14, 88–97. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.004

Carpenter, S.R., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Mooney, H.A., Polasky, S., Reid, W.V., Scholes, R.J., 2006. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Research needs. Science 314, 257–258. doi:10.1126/Science.1131946

Carson, R.T., Hanemann, W.M., 2005. Chapter 17 Contingent Valuation, in: Valuing Environmental Changes, Handbook of Environmental Economics. Elsevier, pp. 821–936. doi:10.1016/S1574- 0099(05)02017-6

CBD, 2004. The Ecosystem Approach, CBD Guidelines. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.

Chambers, R., 2002. Participatory Workshops. Earthscan, London.

Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., Kenter, J.O., 2012. An evaluation of monetary and non- monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecological Economics 83, 69–80.

Church, A., Burgess, J., Ravenscroft, N., Bird, W., Blackstock, K., Brady, E., Crang, M., Fish, R., Gruffudd, P., Mourato, S., Pretty, J., Tolia-Kelly, D., Turner, K., Winter, M., 2011. Cultural Services, in: UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

Church, A., Fish, R., Haines-Young, R., Mourato, S., Tratalos, J., Stapleton, L., Willis, C., Coates, P., Gibbons, S., Leyshon, C., Potschin, M., Ravenscroft, N., Sanchis-Guarner, R., Winter, M., Kenter, J.O., 2014. UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on. Work package report 5: Cultural ecosystem services and indicators. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

Cockerill, K., Daniel, L., Malczynski, L., Tidwell, V., 2009. A fresh look at a policy sciences methodology: collaborative modeling for more effective policy. Policy Sciences 42, 211–225.

Cooper, N., Brady, E., Attlee, A., Bryce, R., Steen, H. 2016. Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem 'services'. Ecosystem Services. This issue.

35

Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7, 21–28. doi:10.2307/25595034?ref=no-x- route:57bb775f5ec1707f60bde56cb604c75a

Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M., Costanza, R., Elmqvist, T., Flint, C.G., Gobster, P.H., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lave, R., Muhar, S., Penker, M., Ribe, R.G., Schauppenlehner, T., Sikor, T., Soloviy, I., Spierenburg, M., Taczanowska, K., Tam, J., der Dunk, von, A., 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 8812–8819.

Daniels, S.E., Walker, G.B., 1996. Collaborative learning: Improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16, 71–102.

Dietz, T., Stern, P.C., Dan, A., 2009. How Deliberation Affects Stated Willingness to Pay for Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Experiment. Land Economics 85, 329–347.

Fazey, I., Fazey, J.A., Fazey, D., 2005. Learning more effectively from experience. Ecology and Society 10.

Fazey, I., Fazey, J.A., Fischer, J., Sherren, K., Warren, J., Noss, R.F., Dovers, S.R., 2007. Adaptive capacity and learning to learn as leverage for social-ecological resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5, 375–380.

Fazey, I., Kesby, M., Evely, A., Latham, I., Wagatora, D., Hagasua, J.-E., Reed, M.S., Christie, M., 2010. A three-tiered approach to participatory vulnerability assessment in the Solomon Islands 20, 713–728. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.04.011

Feldman, A., 1987. Welfare economics, in: Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., Newman, P. (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. MacMillan, London, pp. 889–895.

Fish, R., Burgess, J., Chilvers, J., Footitt, A., Haines-Young, R., Russel, D., Turner, K., Winter, D.M., 2011a. Participatory and Deliberative Techniques to Embed an Ecosystems Approach into Decision Making: Full Technical Report. DEFRA, London.

Fish, R., Burgess, J., Church, A., Turner, K., 2011b. Shared Values for the Contributions Ecosystem Services Make to Human Well-being, in: UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

Garmendia, E., Stagl, S., 2010. Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. Ecological Economics 69, 1712–1722. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.027

Hanley, N., 2001. Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policymaking. Environment and Planning C 19, 103–118.

Hanley, N., Wright, R., Adamowicz, V., 1998. Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment. Environmental and Resource Economics 11, 413–428.

Hawcroft, L.J., Milfont, T.L., 2010. The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30, 143–158. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003

36

Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H., 2005. Applied Choice Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hockley, N., 2014. Cost-benefit analysis: a decision-support tool or a venue for contesting ecosystem knowledge? Environment and Planning C 32, 283–300. doi:10.1068/c1384j

Holland, A., 2002. Are choices tradoffs?, in: Bromley, D.W., Paavola, J. (Eds.), Economics, Ethics, and Environmental Policy Contested Choices. Blackwell, Oxford; Malden, MA, pp. 17–34.

Hosmer, D.W., Lemeslow, S., 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. Wiley, New York.

Jones, N.A., Perez, P., Measham, T.G., Kelly, G.J., díAquino, P., Daniell, K.A., Dray, A., Ferrand, N., 2009. Evaluating participatory modeling: Developing a framework for cross-case analysis. Environmental Management 44, 1180–1195.

Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., 1994. Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 5–37. doi:10.1007/BF01073401

Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., Schkade, D., 1999. Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 203–235.

Kallis, G., Videira, N., Antunes, P., Pereira, A.G., Spash, C.L., Coccossis, H., Quintana, S.C., Del Moral, L., Hatzilacou, D., Lobo, G., Mexa, A., Paneque, P., Matcos, B.P., Santos, R., 2006. Participatory methods for water resources planning. Environment and Planning C 24, 215–234. doi:10.1068/C04102s

Kay, J.J., Regier, H., 2000. Uncertainty, Complexity and Ecological Integrity: insights from an ecosystem approach, in: Crabbé, P., Holland, A., Ryszkowski, L., Westra, L. (Eds.), Implementing Ecological Integrity: Restoring Regional and Global Environmental and Human Health. NATO Science Series, Environmental Security. Kluwer, Deventer, pp. 121–156.

Kenter, J.O., 2016a. Deliberative and Non-Monetary Valuation, in: Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Turner, R.K. (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services. London.

Kenter, J.O., 2016b. Deliberative Monetary Valuation, in: Spash, C.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Ecological Economics. London.

Kenter, J.O., Hyde, T., Christie, M., Fazey, I., 2011. The importance of deliberation in valuing ecosystem services in developing countries—Evidence from the Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change 21, 505–521. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.001

Kenter, J.O., Reed, M.S., Everard, M., Irvine, K.N., O'brien, E.A., Molloy, C., Bryce, R., Brady, E., Christie, M., Church, A., Collins, T., Cooper, N., Davies, A., Edwards, D., Evely, A., Fazey, I., Goto, R., Hockley, N., Jobstvogt, N., Orchard-Webb, J., Ravenscroft, N., Ryan, M., Watson, V., 2014. UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-On. Shared, Plural and Cultural Values: A Handbook for Decision-Makers. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

Kenter, J.O., O'Brien, L., Hockley, N., Ravenscroft, N., Fazey, I., Irvine, K.N., Reed, M.S., Christie, M., Brady, E., Bryce, R., Church, A., Cooper, N., Davies, A., Evely, A., Everard, M., Fish, R., Fisher, J.A., Jobstvogt, N., Molloy, C., Orchard-Webb, J., Ranger, S., Ryan, M., Watson, V., Williams, S., 2015. What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecological Economics 111, 86–99. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006

37

Kenter, J.O., Jobstvogt, N., Watson, V., Attlee, A., Christie, M., Irvine, K. 2016a. The impact of narratives on individual and group deliberated preferences: Deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling. Ecosystem Services. This issue.

Kenter, J.O., Reed, M. S., Irvine, K.N., O'Brien, E., Bryce, R., Christie, M., Cooper, N., Hockley, N., Fazey, I., Orchard-Webb, J., Ravenscroft, N., Raymond, C.M , Tett, P., Watson, V. 2016b. Shared values and deliberative valuation: Key findings and future directions. Ecosystem Services. This issue.

Kenter, J.O., Reed, M., Fazey, I. 2016. The deliberative value formation model. Ecosystem Services. This issue.

Kumar, S., 2002. Methods for Community Participation. Practical Action Publishing, Rugby.

Lewicka, M., 2008. Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28, 209–231. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.001

Lienhoop, N., MacMillan, D., 2007a. Valuing wilderness in Iceland: Estimation of WTA and WTP using the market stall approach to contingent valuation. Land Use Policy 24, 289–295.

Lienhoop, N., MacMillan, D., 2007b. Valuing wilderness in Iceland: Estimation of WTA and WTP using the market stall approach to contingent valuation. Land Use Policy 24, 289–295.

Lo, A.Y., 2011. Analysis and democracy: The antecedents of the deliberative approach of ecosystems valuation. Environment and Planning C 29, 958–974.

Lo, A.Y., Spash, C.L., 2012. Deliberative monetary valuation: in search of a democratic and value plural approach to environmental policy. Journal of Economic Surveys 27, 768–789. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00718.x

Mason, K., 2015. Participatory Action Research: Coproduction, Governance and Care. Geography Compass 9, 497–507. doi:10.1111/gec3.12227

Mazar, N., Zhong, C.-B., 2010. Do Green Products Make Us Better People? Psychological Science 21, 494–498. doi:10.1177/0956797610363538

McCrum, G., Blackstock, K., Matthews, K., Rivington, M., Miller, D., Buchan, K., 2009. Adapting to climate change in land management: the role of deliberative workshops in enhancing social learning. Environmental Policy and Governance 19, 413–426. doi:10.1002/eet.525

Mendoza, G., Prabhu, R., 2005. Combining participatory modeling and multi-criteria analysis for community-based forest management. Forest Ecology and Management 207, 145–156. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.024

Mohammed, E.Y., 2014. Contingent valuation responses and hypothetical bias, in: Ninan, K.N. (Ed.), Valuing Ecosystem Service: Methodological Issues and Case Studies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 90–108.

Nunes, P.A., van den Bergh, J.C., 2001. Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? Ecological Economics 39, 203–222.

Orchard-Webb, J., Kenter, J.O., Bryce, R., Church, A. 2016. Democratic Deliberative Monetary Valuation to implement the Ecosystems Approach. Ecosystem Services. This issue.

38

Parks, S., Gowdy, J., 2013. What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review essay. Ecosystem Services 3, e1–e10. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.12.002

Patterson, T., Gulden, T., Cousins, K., Kraev, E., 2004. Integrating environmental, social and economic systems: a dynamic model of tourism in Dominica. Ecological Modeling 175, 121–136. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.09.033

Peacock, M., 1997. Rationality and social Norms, in: Foster, J. (Ed.), Valuing Nature? Ethics, Economics and the Environment. Routledge, London.

Prell, C., Hubacek, K., Reed, M., Quinn, C., Jin, N., Holden, J., Burt, T., Kirby, M., Sendzimir, J., 2007. If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail: traditional versus participatory model building. Interdisciplinary Science Review 32, 263–282.

Pretty, J.N., Guijt, I., Thompson, J., Scoones, I., 1995. Participatory learning and action: a trainer's guide. IIED.

Raymond, C., Kenter, J.O. 2016. Assessing and applying transcendental values to the management of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. This issue.

Raymond, C.M., Kenter, J.O., Plieninger, T., Turner, N.J., Alexander, K.A., 2014. Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 107, 145–156. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.033

Reed, M.S., Kenter, J., Bonn, A., Broad, K., Burt, T.P., Fazey, I.R., Fraser, E.D.G., Hubacek, K., Nainggolan, D., Quinn, C.H., Stringer, L.C., Ravera, F., 2013. Participatory scenario development for environmental management: A methodological framework illustrated with experience from the UK uplands. Journal of Environmental Management 128, 345–362. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.016

Richardson, K., 2005. The hegemony of the physical sciences: an exploration in complexity thinking. Futures 37, 615–653. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2004.11.008

Ryan, A.M., Spash, C.L., 2011. Is WTP an attitudinal measure? Empirical analysis of the psychological explanation for contingent values. Journal of Economic Psychology 32, 674–687. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2011.07.004

Sagoff, M., 1986. Values and Preferences. Ethics 96, 301–316.

Sagoff, M., 1998. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: A look beyond contingent pricing. Ecological Economics 24, 213–230.

Sandker, M., Campbell, B.M., Ruiz-Perez, M., Sayer, J.A., Cowling, R., Kassa, H., Knight, A.T., 2010. The Role of Participatory Modeling in Landscape Approaches to Reconcile Conservation and Development. Ecology and Society 15.

Schwartz, S.H., 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues 50, 19–45.

Scott, B.E., N, I.K., Byg, A., Gubbins, M., Kafas, A., Kenter, J.O., Macdonald, A., OHara Murray, R., Potts, T., Slater, A.M., Tweddle, J.F., Wright, K., Davies, I.M., 2016. The Cooperative Participatory Evaluation of Renewable Technologies on Ecosystem Services (CORPORATES). Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science 7, 1–88. doi:10.7489/1681-1

39

Scottish Government 2011 Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation Database (Online). www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD.

Spash, C.L., Urama, K., Burton, R., Kenyon, W., Shannon, P., Hill, G., 2009. Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology 68, 955–964. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.013

Standa-Gunda, W., Mutimukuru, T., Nyirenda, R., Prabhu, R., Haggith, M., Vanclay, J.K., 2003. Participatory modelling to enhance social learning, collective action and mobilization among users of the Mafungautsi Forest, Zimbabwe. Small-scale Forestry 2, 313–326.

Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., Abrahamse, W., 2005. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25, 415–425. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.003

Stern, P.C., 2000. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56, 407–424. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175

Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnanon, G.A., Kalof, L., 1999. A Social Psychological Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism 6, 81–97.

Szabó, Z., 2011. Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation. Ecological Economics. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.025

TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations, in: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London.

Tengberg, A., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Knez, I., 2012. Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosystem Services 1, 14–26.

Van den Belt, M., 2004. Mediated modeling: a system dynamics approach to environmental consensus building. Island press, Washington, DC.

Van den Belt, M., 2009. Multi-scale Integrated Modelling for Sustainable Adaptive Systems, in:. Proceedings of the System Dynamics Society Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico, July 26–31, 2009.

Van den Belt, M., Kenyan, J.R., Krueger, E., Maynard, A., Roy, M.G., Raphael, I., 2010. Public sector administration of ecological economics systems using mediated modeling. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1185, 196–210.

Varvasovszky, Z., Brugha, R., 2000. How to do (or not do) a stakeholder analysis. Health Policy and Planning 15, 338–345.

Videira, N., Antunes, P., Santos, R., 2009. Scoping river basin management issues with participatory modelling: The Baixo Guadiana experience. Ecological Economics 68, 965–978.

40

Online supplementary material

What's special about the Inner Forth - West 1:71,500 Scale on A4 paper E Wallace Monument Old Stirling Bridge Riverside walks C'kenneth Abbey NCN76 Stirling harbour Cambus walks Mudflats Alloa Tower Harbour Backwood Alloa Inch Clacks church and tower Bannockburn South Alloa Coastal path The Forth shore Airth castle Dunmore Dunmore village Moss The Pineapple Clacks Bridge Kincardine Bridge

Letham Moss NCN76

0 1.5 3 Km RSPB Reserve Copyright: ©2012 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2013

Key:

Inner Forth Landscape Initiative boundary Access Scenic Cultural heritage

Natural Heritage This project was part-financed by the Scottish Government and the European Community Forth Valley & Lomond LEADER 2007-2013 programme.

What's special about the Inner Forth - East 1:71,500 Scale on A4 paper E

Clacks Bridge Valleyfield woods Kincardine Bridge Valleyfield colliery NCN76 Culross RSPB Reserve Ash Lagoons / Preston Island

RNAB Crombie Charlestown Grangemouth Dockyard limekilns Kerse Bridge Bo'ness Harbour Kinneil foreshore Kinneil lagoons Carriden-Blackness path

Antonine Wall Kinneil estate Blackness Castle

Birkhill clay mine

0 1.5 3 Km Copyright: ©2012 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2013

Key:

Inner Forth Landscape Initiative boundary Access Scenic Cultural heritage

Natural Heritage This project was part-financed by the Scottish Government and the European Community Forth Valley & Lomond LEADER 2007-2013 programme.

Figure 7 Special features in the Inner Forth

41

Issues that need addressing - West 1:71,500 Scale on A4 paper E

Fungus at Black Grange Riverbank Chicken farm Flooding management Dangerous cycle route Invasive species Powerlines Limited places to cycle Proposed turbines Poor perception of landscape Limited access along bank River underused

Flooding The Pineapple Flooding Litter Possible Traffic noise fracking Woods needs management

Peat extraction

0 1.5 3 Km Flooding Longannet Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2013

Key:

Inner Forth Landscape Initiative boundary Pollution Impact on wildlife Visual impact Neglect Flood Risk Area

Restricted access Litter Disturbance This project was part-financed by the Scottish Government and the European Community Forth Valley & Lomond LEADER 2007-2013 programme.

1:71,500 Issues that need addressing - East Scale on A4 paper The Pineapple E Litter Fracking Traffic noise Woods need management

Peat extraction Litter Flooding Longannet Mosquitos breeding

No right of way Lack of access to river Harbour ruin Litter Harbour ruin Forth & Clyde Canal Motorway M9 Grangemouth refinery

Kinneil tip No access to Quadbikes on foreshore foreshore Motorbikes using grassland

Avondale tip

0 1.5 3 Km Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2013

Key:

Inner Forth Landscape Initiative boundary Pollution Impact on wildlife Visual impact Neglect Flood Risk Area

Restricted access Litter Disturbance This project was part-financed by the Scottish Government and the European Community Forth Valley & Lomond LEADER 2007-2013 programme.

Figure 8 Problematic features in the Inner Forth

42

43