Managing offshore multi-use settings: Use of conceptual mapping to reduce uncertainty of co-locating seaweed aquaculture and wind farms.

The offshore Multi-use Setting (MUS) is a concept that aims to co-locate marine industrial activities, including wind farms and aquaculture. MUS is considered an innovative approach to promoting efficiency in space and resource use whilst contributing global policy priorities. However, the impacts of MUS development across social, economic, and environmental domains are uncertain, hindering the commercialisation of the concept. In this study, we initially demonstrate the potential consequences of co-locating seaweed aquaculture and a wind farm as a step towards MUS. Using a hypothetical case study and modified Delphi methodology, 14 subject matter experts predicted potential outcomes across social and environmental objectives. Five Cognitive maps and impact tables of 58 potential consequences were generated based on experts' perspective on co-locating seaweed aquaculture and a wind farm. The findings highlight the potential to exasperate pressures in the area, including those already attributed to wind farm operations, such as species mortality and stakeholder conflict. However, it may also enhance social-ecological conditions, such as resource provisioning and promoting habitat functionality in the region, through the addition of seaweed aquaculture. The cognitive maps demonstrate the complexity of managing MUS implementation, where high degree of variability and uncertainty about the outcomes is present. The findings of this study provide the vital entry point to performing further integrative assessment and modelling approaches, such as probabilistic analysis and simulations, in support of MUS decision-making. The research also strongly recommends alternative strategies in the pursuit of combining seaweed production and wind farms to avoid significant financial (among many other) trade-offs and risks. More broadly, we have found that our approach's ability to visually represent a complex situation while considering multiple objectives could be immensely valuable for other bioeconomy innovations or nature-based solutions. It helps mitigate the potential for expensive investments without a comprehensive evaluation of the associated risks and negative impacts, as necessitated by the principles of sustainability in decision-making.

Environmental volunteer well-being: Managers' perception and actual well-being of volunteers.

Background: Environmental volunteering can increase well-being, but environmental volunteer well-being has rarely been compared to participant well-being associated with other types of volunteering or nature-based activities. This paper aims to use a multidimensional approach to well-being to explore the immediately experienced and later remembered well-being of environmental volunteers and to compare this to the increased well-being of participants in other types of nature-based activities and volunteering. Furthermore, it aims to compare volunteer managers' perceptions of their volunteers' well-being with the self-reported well-being of the volunteers. Methods: Onsite surveys were conducted of practical conservation and biodiversity monitoring volunteers, as well as their control groups (walkers and fieldwork students, respectively), to measure general well-being before their nature-based activity and activity-related well-being immediately after their activity. Online surveys of current, former and potential volunteers and volunteer managers measured remembered volunteering-related well-being and managers' perceptions of their volunteers' well-being. Data were analysed based on Seligman's multidimensional PERMA ('positive emotion', 'engagement', 'positive relationship', 'meaning', 'achievement') model of well-being. Factor analysis recovered three of the five PERMA elements, 'engagement', 'relationship' and 'meaning', as well as 'negative emotion' and 'health' as factors. Results: Environmental volunteering significantly improved positive elements and significantly decreased negative elements of participants' immediate well-being, and it did so more than walking or student fieldwork. Even remembering their volunteering up to six months later, volunteers rated their volunteering-related well-being higher than volunteers rated their well-being generally in life. However, volunteering was not found to have an effect on overall mean well-being generally in life. Volunteer managers did not perceive the significant increase in well-being that volunteers reported. Conclusions: This study showed how environmental volunteering immediately improved participants' well-being, even more than other nature-based activities. It highlights the benefit of regarding well-being as a multidimensional construct to more systematically understand, support and enhance volunteer well-being.