Subjective well-being indicators

To understand the contribution of the marine environment to quality of life, we investigated subjective well-being derived by recreational users of marine areas. A set of non-monetary, subjective well-being indicators on themes such as identity, knowledge, health, connectedness to nature, social bonding were developed on the basis of a wide range of literature sources and implemented through a set of statements using a conventional 5-point Likert response scale from ‘strongly agree’ – ‘strongly disagree’. We addressed the following two questions: 1) What are the different types or dimensions of well-being expressed by recreational users of the marine

environment? 2) How did participation in deliberative processes influence perceived subjective well- being in comparison to an online survey?

Constructs of well-being that we a priori identified may be relevant to recreational users of marine sites (Table 38) were drawn from a wide range of sources, including literature on the benefits of green spaces and biodiversity in relation to concepts of sense of place and identity (Dallimer et al.

2012; Fuller et al. 2007; Irvine et al. 2010; Manzo, 2003), as well as conceptualisation of the benefits of cultural ES in the UK NEA (Church et al. 2011) and Max-Neef’s Human Development Matrix upon on which the UK NEA draws (Cruz et al. 2009; Max-Neef, 1989). We also drew from indicators used in Natural England’s (2012) Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment that has been implemented in UK NEAFO WP4, recent thinking on CES, goods and values (Chan et al. 2012) and the relation between cultural services, identity and landscapes (Tengberg et al. 2012). Selected

constructs of well-being and their measures were oriented on the place-based UK NEA cultural ES approach (Church et al. 2011), which conceives environmental settings themselves as cultural services, delivering a range of benefits such as health, knowledge and amenity goods. Potential measures were both adapted from previous research (Fuller et al. 2007; Dallimer et al. 2012) and developed specifically for this study. They were crosschecked against results from the MCS ‘Your Seas, Your Voice’ survey and discussed in four focus groups with divers and sea anglers. This process led to a novel instrument consisting of 15 indicator statements using a standard 5-point Likert response scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). While the instrument was designed for assessing the subjective well-being benefits of marine settings with marine beneficiaries, the instrument could easily be adapted for broader assessment of cultural ES.

Table 38. MPAs case study: subjective well-being indicator statements and a priori constructs.

Indicator statement A priori constructs;

links to literature & existing instruments 1. Visiting these sites clears my head. 1-4: Reflection and sense of wholeness

(Dallimer et al. 2012; Fuller et al. 2007; Irvine et al. 2010)

3: Connection to nature (MENE)

4: Spiritual value (NEA; Chan et al. 2012) 2. I gain perspective on life during my visits to these sites.

3. Visiting these sites makes me feel more connected to nature. 4. At these sites I feel part of something that is greater than myself.

5. These sites feel almost like a part of me. 5-8: Sense of place: place identity and continuity with past (Fuller et al. 2007; Dallimer et al. 2012; Tengberg et al. 6. I feel a sense of belonging in these sites.

165

Indicator statement A priori constructs;

links to literature & existing instruments 8. I miss these sites when I have been away from them for a long

time.

2012)

7: Transformative values (Chan et al. 2012);

5: Identity (MENE) 9. Visiting these sites has made me learn more about nature. Knowledge (NEA; MENE) 10. I have made or strengthened bonds with others through

visiting these sites.

Social bonds (HSDM)

11. I feel like I can contribute to taking care of these sites. Participation (NEME; HSDM) 12. I have felt touched by the beauty of these sites. Aesthetics (NEA)

Appreciation (MENE)

13. These sites inspire me. Inspiration (Chan et al. 2012)

14. Visiting these sites leaves me feeling healthier. Health (NEA; MENE) 15. Visiting these sites gives me a sense of freedom. Freedom (HSDM) HDSM: Human Scale Development Matrix (Cruz et al. 2009; Max-Neef, 1989)

MENE: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (Natural England, 2012) NEA: UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Cultural Services (Church et al. 2011)

Figure 33. MPAs case study: a sample subjective well-being question from the online survey.

Participants were first asked for responses to the set of well-being indicator statements as part of the MPA online survey (Kenter et al. 2013a). To investigate the influence of participating in a deliberative workshop, the same well-being indicator statements were presented a second time to participants at the end of each DMV and MCA workshop (Figure 31). Participants were prompted with the question: “The following questions are about the many ways in which the sites that you

166

indicated you visited might be important to you. Please indicate how much you agree with each statement in relation to these sites” (Figure 33). In the online survey, the responses were related to a set of specific sites that participants indicated they visited within their region of the UK, using an interactive mapping application. This allowed us to assign well-being values to specific locations; details on this are provided in Kenter et al. (2013a). Within the workshop setting the indicator statements referred to sites that participants visited in general rather than a specific list of regional sites; here we were mainly interested in whether scores would differ following the workshop

deliberations. This meant that in the survey, scores might vary both with individuals and with the set of sites they indicated they visited, and in the survey only with individuals. While it is reasonable to assume a degree of covariance between individuals and the sites they visit, we recognise that this might nonetheless have implications for the degree to which potential changes might be explained. Analysis included use of both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA). Details on this are provide in Annex 12.