{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018554062699936022, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.770562770562771, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ecosystem Service Assessments within the EU Water Framework Directive: Marine Mussel Cultivation as a Controversial Measure

To combat the persistent eutrophication in coastal waters, sustainable sea-based measures are recommended. Yet, they are the subject of controversial stakeholder discussion, which hampers the implementation and planning process. The aim of this study is to evaluate if a participatory mapping (PM) approach and ecosystem service assessments (ESA) can be suitable tools within Water Framework Directive (WFD) implementation to support the communication with different target groups to improve and accelerate the planning and realization of new sea-based mitigation measures. We conducted three stakeholder-based PMs to visualize the perception of sea-based mitigation measures in coastal waters and seven different ESAs to investigate the perceptions of different mussel cultivation scenarios as mitigation measures. The PMs showed that ecological measures were preferred. The ESA approach showed that, while experts rated mussel cultivation scenarios positively overall, non-expert stakeholders still seemed skeptical and preferred alternative measures like floating wetlands. The methodological results indicate that PM can be a cost-effective tool to visualize stakeholders’ perceptions, but it needs to be applied with an ESA to be beneficial for the WFD implementation process. A web-based ESA improves the discussion with stakeholders and can reveal potential misperceptions and concerns faster and lead to a more focused discussion.