Introduction

1Over the past two decades, there has been a shift in marine management, accompanied by the emergence of ecosystem approaches (Jay et al., 2013). Marine ecosystem-based management represents a move towards a holistic understanding of marine ecosystems as complex and dynamic networks of interactions, including humans and anthropogenic use of ocean spaces and resources, and how physical, biological and ecological processes are affected by this (Katsanevakis et al., 2011; Maes, 2008). In these approaches, the ecosystem is seen as the central unit (rather than a single species, issue or economic sector), bringing a spatial dimension that paves the way for the rise of marine spatial planning (MSP) (Jay et al., 2013). In its early days, MSP was seen as a promising tool for marine conservation and responding to growing human claims on this space, but it soon proved to be much more than just a management tool (Douvere, 2008). Today it has become a leading approach to coordinate practices and policies aimed at reconciling conservation and environmental protection objectives with anthropogenic use of maritime space, particularly in the Global North (Jay et al., 2013).

2The tropical Atlantic lies between the latitudes of 23.5° North and South. It is bordered by South and Central America to the west and Africa to the east (Hoyle and Duncan, 2019). Tropical Atlantic ecosystems are critically important to global ecological, biological and climatic processes and are characterised by high biological diversity. Many people locally depend on the wealth and services provided by the ocean and coastal resources for their livelihoods and well-being. In the tropical Atlantic, this is particularly the case for small-scale fisheries and coastal aquaculture/mariculture, which are essential for the well-being, food security and revenue of families and communities (Béné, 2006). Coastal tourism is also an important ecosystem service, a significant source of income for local and national economies, as well as an essential element in improving the quality of life of the populations concerned (Arkema et al., 2015). In addition, maritime activities such as industrial fishing, shipping, oil and gas exploitation, deep-sea mining and renewable energy production represent significant potential economic value, both for countries locally and beyond. For example, the European Union (EU) Atlantic Strategy has clearly stated ambitions for the Atlantic Ocean, including its tropical areas, such as the sustainable exploration of natural resources on the seabed (European Commission, 2013).

3Since the emergence of MSP, guidelines, studies and policies have highlighted the importance of stakeholder participation beyond the “routine” involvement of citizens in decision-making such as through elections in representative democracies (Fischer, 2009). The EU highlighted the need for such participation in its 2008 roadmap, and it is now included in its Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (2014/89/EU). At the international level, participation is encouraged, for example, by MSPGlobal, an international working group set up by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (IOC-UNESCO) and the EU. MSPGlobal emphasises that participation is one of the keys to effective marine spatial planning (IOC-Unesco, 2020a). Furthermore, experiences with integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) have shown that resource users often have a strong interest in participating in spatial planning, as their livelihoods and identities are often closely linked to coastal and marine places and spaces (UN, 1992). A resource user is an important stakeholder, which in its standard definition refers to “any group or individual who can influence or is affected by the achievement of an organisation’s objective” (Freeman and McVea, 2001).

4In addition to coastal stakeholders, a wider set of stakeholders have an interest in the spatial (re)organisation of coasts and seas, such as industry/market actors and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The tropical Atlantic is divided into exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and the “high seas”. This makes the space of concern to many different actors, with complex interactions at multiple levels (Toonen and Van Tatenhove, 2020). Jurisdiction, as enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), stipulates that the authority of a country diminishes with distance from the coast, thus international collaboration is essential, both between governments and with various non-governmental stakeholders.

5To apply MSP in the tropical Atlantic, first one needs to understand how different stakeholders are involved in the space. Improving this understanding is of academic interest in itself, but it is also necessary to create a dialogue both between different disciplines and between academics and policymakers. This chapter will discuss certain tools that can support participatory governance approaches to reconcile conservation and use of ocean space. It should be noted that the supposed “contribution” of participatory approaches is much criticised in social science literature, particularly for MSP. Participation is not easy to organise, and there is a real risk that it may remain tokenistic, whether intentionally or not (Flannery et al., 2016; Ritchie and Ellis, 2010; Smith and Jentoft, 2017). For example, if there is no space given to careful and meaningful consultation and deliberation beyond pre-established objectives, this could be a limitation to participatory governance. To address these potential pitfalls, our participatory approach incorporates ideas from literature on deliberative governance.

6This chapter first looks at the concepts of participatory and deliberative governance. It then presents two examples of tools linked to work carried out in the Paddle (“Planning in a liquid world with tropical stakes”) project: serious games and participatory mapping. It concludes with a discussion on the potential application of these tools in MSP processes.

MSP and participatory and deliberative modes of governance

7Before detailing the forms of participatory and deliberative governance, and what they mean for MSP in tropical seas, it is important to clarify our conceptualisation of MSP. Here, we adopt an analytical rather than a political definition, as MSP can be identified as a tool for marine governance. Marine governance is defined as “the sharing of policymaking authority in a system of negotiation between interlocking multi-level government institutions […] on the one hand, and state actors, stakeholders and civil society organisations on the other, in order to manage activities at sea and their consequences” (Van Tatenhove, 2011). This definition understands MSP not as a process per se, but as a complex interplay of steering, negotiation and decision-making at several levels (from local to international) by public authorities and non-state organisations (stakeholders, NGOs and community-based organisations). The important steering role of governments is recognised here: laws, regulations, policies and state bureaucracies are seen as important governance tools for reconciling human use and nature conservation through MSP. At the same time, this definition does not necessarily promote hierarchical steering by the state, but allows for a focus on alternative approaches to (re)organising marine space, either in joint efforts or by non-state actors alone (Calado et al., 2012; Toonen and van Tatenhove, 2020; Karnad and Martin, 2020). There is thus a need to consider forms of MSP in which it is not only governments that can, or should, take the lead in organising participation in the process.

8The need for participation in MSP has been emphasised by many academics. It is widely recognised that there are multiple socio-economic issues at stake in coastal and marine areas (see Box 1). Indeed, there is a wide variety of interests and aims (sometimes conflicting) of stakeholders from various sectors, large and small NGOs, local communities, and sometimes individuals. Beyond taking into account this complexity, stakeholder participation in decision-making processes promotes the efficiency and effectiveness of decisions (Papadopoulos and Warin, 2007; Rondinella et al., 2017). The democratic value of these participatory processes lies in the attempt to bring together all stakeholders who wish to influence policymaking at different levels and who hold relevant information (Fung and Wright, 2001). By participating in providing, sharing and influencing information, dominant stakeholders are identified as well as trade-offs and potential conflicts. The international MSPGlobal consortium is well aware of this: “the most important reason [for involving stakeholders] is that MSP aims to achieve multiple objectives (social, economic and ecological) and should therefore reflect as many expectations, opportunities or conflicts as possible in the MSP area” (IOC-Unesco, 2020b). A participatory approach also creates a sense of ownership; stakeholders will be more willing to take responsibility and comply with decisions if they are united around a common commitment (Reed, 2008; Fischer, 2009). MSPGlobal observes that participation helps to “encourage ‘ownership’ of the sea use planning process and the final plan, build confidence among stakeholders and decision-makers, and encourage voluntary compliance with rules and regulations” (IOC-Unesco, 2020b).

9However, participation is not easy to organise, as Reed (2008, p. 2426) points out: “the quality of decisions made through stakeholder participation is highly dependent on the nature of the process that leads to it. Failures in this process are most often attributed to shortcomings that lead to disillusionment with stakeholder participation”. MSPGlobal also recognises that participation can “not work well”, particularly if the timing and modalities of participation are not well defined (IOC-Unesco, 2009; 2020a). A more major drawback of participatory governance arrangements is that they often depend on an authority to be responsible for the process and for achieving an outcome, which limits the possibility of the emergence of alternative, critical or radically different views (Flannery et al., 2016). An emphasis on stakeholder inclusion and engagement makes the success of participation highly dependent on assumptions that a common goal can be formulated or clear rules defined, for example. If stakeholders have very different historical backgrounds, capacities and skills, and/or conflicting interests or incompatible worldviews, expectations will often be unrealistic (Dewulf and Elbers, 2018; Fischer, 2009; Ounanian et al., 2012). The participation process is then likely to fail, which may lead to undesired outcomes such as dissatisfied and disillusioned stakeholders who are then neither willing nor motivated to participate again (Reed, 2008).

10Social scientists distinguish between participatory and deliberative modes of governance (Escobar, 2017; Thompson, 2008). These two modes are not contradictory, but deliberative governance places more emphasis on the input of relevant expertise, whether science-based or practice-based or concerning knowledge, values or emotions. A deliberative process is first and foremost a process of communication, discussion, reflection and better understanding. While the final goal is always to reach a decision, the starting point is a “state of disagreement” (Thompson, 2008). Deliberative governance is not so much an inclusive process in terms of the people involved, but a communication process based on everyone having an equal voice (Escobar, 2017). Designing a deliberative process, however, is challenging. For example, there may be profound cultural differences in how to handle disagreement, which may not be obvious at the outset and are difficult to take into account in the design of the process (Thompson, 2008).

11It is thus neither simple nor straightforward to design participatory and/or deliberation processes. Furthermore, it is important to recognise that they cannot be considered a panacea for solving major societal and environmental issues, such as spatial conflicts at sea. While these counter-arguments should not be overlooked, those promoting participation clearly point to the need to shape MSP processes in a way that stakeholders can engage with them. So how can we best move forward with participatory and deliberative processes in MSP? One response is the development of specific tools that can support these processes in MSP. Two of these tools that we have been involved in developing are: (1) serious games, and (2) participatory mapping in an art-based ecosystem assessment. Both tools are intended for use in design workshops, a widely used method in participatory governance (Chambers, 2002). Participatory workshops have a specific, action-oriented objective. The social sciences provide rich literature on participatory methods and tools, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in terms of design, applications and outcomes (for more information, Simonsen and Robertson, 2012; Chambers, 2002). This chapter introduces two tools that we helped to design and that were used in the framework of the Paddle project. These examples help to clarify the concepts of participatory and deliberative governance, while providing practical information on how to use these tools.

The serious game “MSP Challenge”

12The development of this serious game was driven by the need for new and innovative tools to help shape the stakeholder consultation process in MSP. MSP Challenge is based on role play to facilitate communication and learning between stakeholders. Its rationale is based on the idea that stakeholders need to interact, practice and experience in a way that cannot be taught by books (Abspoel et al., 2019; Morf et al., 2014). Currently, MSP Challenge consists of three different types of serious games: a role play game, a boardgame and an interactive digital simulation platform (Abspoel et al., 2019; Mayer et al., 2013).

13The role play game was initially developed in 2011 by policymakers from the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (including one of the authors of this chapter, X. Keijser) and Dutch game designers (Abspoel et al., 2019). This successful collaboration led to the development of a number of board and computer games. These different games are now used worldwide in workshops, conferences, educational sessions and stakeholder consultations (Abspoel et al., 2019; Keijser et al., 2017; Mayer et al., 2013). The MSP Challenge boardgame was introduced in the framework of the MSPGlobal initiative, during a Paddle summer school held in Brest in September 2018 (co-facilitated by X. Keijser) (fig. 1). It was also introduced and used at the Paddle interdisciplinary seminar on MSP at the National Assembly of Senegal in Dakar in April 2022.

Figure 1. Use of the “MSP Challenge” boardgame during the Paddle summer school, Brest 2018

14“Serious” games, whether boardgames or their computer-based counterparts, are designed for a primary purpose other than entertainment. These games are used in different fields and for a wide variety of purposes, such as, for example, recruiting (in human resources), teaching (in education) or raising awareness (in a variety of contexts) (Den Haan et al., 2018). Mayer (2009) defines serious games as “experiments with interactive, rule-based environments where players learn by making decisions and experiencing their effects through feedback mechanisms deliberately built into and around the game” (Mayer, 2009, p. 825). One of the main benefits of serious games is that they allow players to experiment and make mistakes, test scenarios and interact with each other in a safe environment where actions are without consequences. Serious games also encourage collective awareness; players can reflect on what is happening in the game and what it would mean in a real situation (Mayer et al., 2013).

15By design, MSP Challenge is a tabletop strategy game that allows players to experience some of the dynamics and complex interactions of the MSP process. The game is designed to last one to three hours, and can involve 12 to 30 players, ideally from different backgrounds and cultures. During the game, players discuss planning options, share information and stories from their own experiences, and put forward arguments in order to jointly develop MSP for a fictitious marine space, while addressing the language, communication and information challenges of MSP (Abspoel et al., 2019). MSP Challenge is a generic game, so its principles are easily replicable for different maritime or political regions. Since 2016, several versions of this boardgame have been developed, the latest being “#MSP Global Edition”, a lighter travel version of MSP Challenge. The game has also been translated into different languages, including French, Italian, Portuguese and Chinese (Bohai edition) (Abspoel et al., 2019; Keijser et al., 2018). MSP Challenge focuses on spatial issues in the fictitious Rica Sea (fig. 1), represented on a large board (1.60 x 2.80 m), which is shared by three countries: Bayland, Peninsuland and Island. These countries have different profiles, but all have high-level political objectives regarding the future development of the Rica Sea. Players are assigned to a country and then take on the roles of maritime planners, conservationists or representatives of a maritime industry such as shipping, fishing, energy, tourism or recreation. They are given some basic background information about the sea and the high-level political objectives of their country. At the beginning of the game, sites of interest, such as ports, cultural sites and ecologically important areas (e.g. fish spawning or bird areas) are represented by tokens on the game board. However, most of the sea area remains unexploited, and it is up to the players to further develop it (by placing various tokens and connecting areas with threads, fig. 1). The game includes a moderator and is guided by a “game captain” – a political expert who can inform, decide or intervene on issues that are unclear or situations that arise from a game scenario (Abspoel et al., 2019; Keijser et al., 2017, 2018).

16At the beginning of the game, the players stand around the board and the moderator starts by instructing them: “Develop the Rica Sea together so that at the end of the game you are all comfortable with the state of the sea and how you have worked together.” To do this, the players have to use spatial planning for their marine area, taking into account economic, ecological and social objectives. Although the planning methods depend very much on the players, the moderator’s instruction highlights two objectives that require a participatory approach: one is result-oriented (“the state of the Rica Sea”) and the other is process-oriented (“how you worked together”). In the brief introduction, the moderator emphasises that, for the duration of the game, the “Rica Sea” is the players’ world, and they are responsible for what happens in it.

17After briefly discussing the rules, challenges and objectives of the game, the players start planning, placing tokens and connecting threads (fig. 2). The tokens symbolise a range of human activities (e.g. offshore wind power, offshore oil and gas production, fishing) and ecological features (e.g. fishing grounds, spawning grounds, etc.). The threads represent either linear infrastructure, such as cables and pipelines, or various types of ship lanes (e.g. cargo ships or ferries). It is up to the players to decide which tokens and threads to place on the board. As the game progresses and more and more elements are placed on the board, players may gradually discover that these may begin to interfere with each other. This leads to the need to start “thinking and talking together” about their goals and the interactions between the different activities and the ecosystem (Abspoel et al., 2019; Keijser et al., 2017, 2018).

Figure 2. MSP Challenge boardgame session during the Paddle summer school, Brest 2018

18The moderator pauses at certain points in the process to discuss the progress of the game and the challenges observed. The players who have the role of planners are then asked to briefly explain the situation in their country, and the stakeholders to say whether they are satisfied with the planning process. The game captain asks questions and informs the players based on real MSP experiences. At the end of the game, the moderator and game captain lead a discussion with the players, asking about their first impressions of the game and moving to more complex topics (“What specifically happened and why?” and “How is this similar to real life?”) (Keijser et al., 2017, 2018).

19The players are also asked to evaluate the game, so that the developers have an understanding of the experience – what worked and what did not – and any inconsistencies encountered, to improve the game. To date, MSP Challenge has been played in over 20 countries by over 1000 participants. Feedback from players in many sessions highlights that the “learning by doing” (or “learning by playing”) approach is relevant (Abspoel et al., 2019; Keijser et al., 2018). Most participants, regardless of their sector or background, enjoy the experience of and learn from this serious game. Whether participants understand MSP better after playing depends on the characteristics of the session (such as the quality of the moderation, the number of participants, the length of the session and the quality of role-playing) and the characteristics of the participants (such as their level of familiarity with MSP) (Keijser et al., 2017, 2018).

20In general, the boardgame format is of particular interest and is suitable for a wide range of people: planners, stakeholders and the general public. In contrast, the game developers have found that the computer simulation game is higher level and is more suitable for stakeholders already involved in MSP. The boardgame and the simulation game can be used in a complementary way. There are currently several versions of the MSP Challenge computer simulation platform (e.g. North Sea, Baltic Sea and Clyde Marine Region)1. There is not yet a version that focuses on tropical seas.

Participatory mapping, an art-based qualitative assessment of coastal/marine ecosystem services

21The second tool we will focus on here is participatory mapping. In our example, this is based on artistic methods combined with an ecosystem services assessment: specifically, the assessment matrix developed by Burkhard et al. Ecosystem services in coastal and marine areas contribute to human well-being worldwide, and the spatial identification of these services is important for spatial planning and environmental management (Vigerstol and Aukema, 2011). Ivarsson et al. (2017: 13) point out that “the assessment of ecosystem services in relation to maritime spatial planning scenarios has the potential to shape and foster a common understanding of ecosystem-based management of sustainable maritime development”. However, the mapping of terrestrial ecosystem services has received much more attention in the literature than coastal and marine ecosystem services (Nahuelhual et al., 2017). There is a wide variety of mapping methods, which makes the inclusion of economic, ecological and social values in management strategies complex (Martínez-Harms and Balvanera, 2012). Combining different mapping methods can thus help to (1) identify the spatial distribution of ecosystem services related to changes in use (Burkhard et al., 2012; Reilly et al., 2018) and (2) visualise the dynamics of various landscape (in our case, seascape) patterns and their relationships with the supply and demand of ecosystem services (Burkhard et al., 2012; Troy and Wilson, 2006).

22The assessment matrix developed by Burkhard et al. (2009) allows for a qualitative assessment of the capacity of the landscape to provide ecosystem services. This was the basis for the tool (developed by P. Bachmann-Vargas) used for the Paddle project and also employed in four workshops (August 2019) at the Federal University of Pernambuco (Recife, Brazil) with 47 undergraduate and graduate students in biology and oceanography (fig. 3). Artistic approaches were included to give the necessary attention to visualisation.

23The two-hour workshops were conducted in five stages. The first stage, the introduction, lasts about 20 minutes. Depending on the target audience (beginners, advanced), this introductory phase can address different concepts/applications related to coastal/marine ecosystem services and marine spatial planning2. The specific objective of the university workshops was to introduce students to the concepts of ecosystem services, the evaluation matrix and qualitative evaluation (e.g. Potschin and Haines-Young, 2016).

Figure 3. Undergraduate and graduate students participating in workshops on qualitative assessment of coastal ecosystem services

24In the second stage, participants individually draw the coastal/maritime space for approximately 20 minutes. Drawing is considered an artistic method of visualizing and sharing individual and/or collective perceptions of a social or physical phenomenon (Mitchell et al., 2011). In the university workshops, drawings were used as a means to find out the participants’ perception of the coastal area of the state of Pernambuco. In terms of spatial analysis, marine areas are difficult to draw in 3D, but participants are encouraged to include the different coastal/marine uses on vertical and horizontal profiles. To assist them, a provisional list of the different categories in the assessment matrix (e.g. beach, coastal vegetation, benthic vegetation, breeding areas) can be provided. The participants are then invited to share their drawings and learn more about the geographical area of interest. This moment of sharing helps to both (1) give a common meaning to what participants are expressing through their drawings (Mitchell et al., 2011) and (2) reveal how and to what extent participants perceive the same landscape differently. For example, some people tend to draw the landscape from above, while others draw it from the side; some draw very roughly, others in more detail. In our workshops, students discussed different conceptualisations of the coastal space (fig. 4). The sharing and comparing of drawings proved to be a deliberative process, a way of revealing “difference” (rather than “disagreement”, Thompson, 2008).

25While this is an inclusive participatory tool, participants need to be given confidence in their drawings. During this hands-on activity, we found that some participants focused more on the artistic quality of their drawing than on its content based on their (inherent) knowledge. Although this was not the case in our workshops, particular attention needs to be paid to the drawing implements used according to the social characteristics of the participants (Mitchell et al., 2011). For example, some may not be familiar with certain types of markers, such as fineliners; in this case, chalk or coloured pencils may be more appropriate.

26The third stage starts when the drawings are completed and shared. Participants are asked to identify four or five types of coastal and marine cover (e.g. beach, coastal vegetation, benthic vegetation, breeding areas). They are then asked to identify how they, or other specific users, benefit from these features. In our workshops, it was very clear that beaches were immediately linked to recreation, both for local people and tourists.

27The fourth stage is to construct the evaluation matrix from the drawings. The matrix correlates coastal/marine use types with ecosystem services. The use types identified by the participants are the rows of the matrix, and the identified ecosystem services the columns. To construct the matrix, we used a broad definition of ecosystem services as “benefits that people derive from ecosystems” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, p. 40). Depending on the target audience and the specific objectives of the workshops, a more detailed typology of ecosystem services can be introduced (see Ivarsson et al., 2017, p. 29). For example, in another application, the assessment matrix was based on the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) (Cenre, 2016); the matrix was then completed with values from 0 to 5, with 0 representing “no relevant capacity to produce services” and 5 representing a “very high relevant capacity” in relation to land use types (Burkhard, et al., 2009; Burkhard et al., 2012). Regardless of the type of assessment, the joint analysis of this phase allows for dialogue between the participants.

28The fifth and final stage is a group discussion. Depending on the target audience and the specific objective of the workshop, the facilitator prepares a series of questions to start the discussion. In general, participants are asked to share their qualitative assessment and to explain why they have assigned certain values. Contrasting assessments provide an arena for discussion; a large group can be divided to ensure this. The workshop ends with a general discussion and conclusion. In our workshops with students from the Federal University of Pernambuco, the group discussion was guided by five questions aimed at collecting their opinions on the concept of ecosystem services, the hands-on activity, the use of the evaluation matrix for their own studies/research, and the local situation. Specifically, these questions were: (1) What is your opinion on the concept of ecosystem services? (2) What do you conclude from this practical activity (e.g. mapping, conflicts)? (3) How could you use this tool in your research? (4) Who are the main beneficiaries of coastal ecosystem services in Pernambuco? (5) What are the main problems and challenges in the coastal areas of Pernambuco? The students, as knowledgeable inhabitants and stakeholders of the coastal areas of Pernambuco, were not only very interested in the workshops, but were also willing to analyse the results. By combining spatial analysis with the concept of ecosystem services, they came to the collective conclusion that access to coastal ecosystem services is largely determined by social status.

29A very important point of the assessment matrix, informed by the drawings and discussions, is that it can feed into the next step, which is the discussion and prioritisation of future actions. If possible and desired, the assessment matrix can be supplemented with information from scientific experts and quantitative computer modelling tools. For example, spatial and functional interpretations of the drawings and the assessment matrix can be transferred to GIS platforms.

30This drawing-based approach is an inclusive method because of its simplicity. Workshops are inexpensive and can be conducted on site; there is no need for PowerPoint or other software, only coloured pencils and paper, although markers and post-it notes are useful. One drawback of participatory processes in general is that they can be perceived as tiring and time-consuming, but we found that this two-hour workshop, divided into five stages, worked well, especially as it is centred around a hands-on activity.

Figure 4. Drawings from the workshops

Discussion

31These two examples are tools that can be used to enhance participation and deliberation in MSP processes. Both tools are designed to facilitate knowledge exchange and to provide the opportunity to share experiences, not only by talking, but by listening and responding. A common and essential feature of these tools is that they are used in workshops that offer participants a practical “do-it-yourself” activity, through which they learn from themselves and from others. The two tools do this in different ways. MSP Challenge is a boardgame that requires participants to work as a team from the outset, guided by their roles and the material reality of the game board, its tokens and threads. In playing, participants contribute their knowledge, skills and expertise on the content, but are also called upon to plan, collaborate and negotiate. In contrast, participatory mapping is an artistic and progressive approach, in which each participant focuses on his/her own knowledge before moving on to social interaction.

32Both tools can be useful in exploring MSP processes. For example, they can be useful in identifying and anticipating conflicts. With MSP Challenge, conflicting interests become visible on the game board, and discussions can also reveal conflicting views on how to collaborate and negotiate. Participatory mapping can also reveal commonalities and differences in the understanding of coastal/maritime space and its qualitative evaluation, again not only in content, but also in perceptions and feelings, as the drawings literally add a personal touch. Furthermore, by introducing the concept of ecosystem services, the focus is on the different uses, users and trade-offs, which are discussed in the assessment phase. As the assessment matrix requires collective prioritisation, it also calls on the debate skills of the participants.

33For both tools, the final stage, in which participants are invited to reflect, is of paramount importance. This requires participants to step out of the game or evaluation, and apply the lessons to their own reality. However, it is too early to draw conclusions about the extent to which participants take these lessons away with them. The MSP Challenge boardgame has now been used in many contexts, and participants are generally very positive about how the game has stimulated their MSP learning (Keijser et al., 2018). The fact that the game was developed and taken up by the international MSPGlobal consortium also indicates its value. Indeed, the game can be seen as having gained legitimacy in the field of MSP, creating a link for learning, transmitting and exchanging not only content, but views on how to collaborate and negotiate. It would be of interest to use this game at a future Paddle event on the tropical Atlantic and learn from what arises. However, it is essential to have clear predefined objectives (Reed, 2008). In a given context, is the purpose of the game to raise awareness about the particular challenges of the MSP process, or as a strategic tool to improve collaboration and negotiation? The participatory mapping tool has not yet been used in a formal MSP process, but in our experience, it has the potential to aid participation and deliberation. Another advantage is that this tool is inexpensive to implement and does not require formal arrangements as is the case with the MSP Challenge boardgame.

34In understanding MSP as an act of marine governance, it should be noted that it takes place at several levels. Most often, MSP is seen as a national policy process, with a focus on international collaboration in a regional sea. The MSP Challenge boardgame and the conditions of use are clearly in line with this. Moreover, the possibility for the moderator and the game captain to take a break during the game resembles a situation in which an authority organises participation. However, the use of this game at a local level is also possible. Playing MSP Challenge in its current form with local stakeholders would, for example, help raise awareness about planning issues in a marine space. It would also improve understanding around the discussions that arise when trying to reconcile spatial conflicts; the lessons learned could then be transferred to the local level. This tool could also be useful in the operational phase of MSP, after the scoping phase in which objectives are defined, and the strategic phase, in which the means to achieve these objectives are identified (Flannery and McAteer, 2020). Participatory mapping, on the other hand, is more suitable in a preliminary phase, to help formulate objectives and define priorities. It can be used from the local to the global level, although it is essential to predefine a geographical scale in order to identify and assess the ecosystem services in that space in a meaningful way. Participants should have some level of knowledge of the coastal/marine area concerned.

35It should also be noted that MSP is part of a wider range of steering, negotiation and decision-making processes, in which many different stakeholders are involved. The MSP Challenge boardgame is an interesting tool that is available both to governments, but also to non-state actors such as industry and (large) NGOs. To date, specific sessions with this boardgame have been organised with NGOs and representatives of the maritime sector. The participatory mapping tool can also be used by different stakeholders, including local communities, as it is inexpensive and very accessible. However, promoting discussions that lead to a better understanding of the coastal/maritime space and ensuring respectful and relevant debates on the different views and values of ecosystem services requires skilled and well-trained facilitators. This applies not only to the participatory mapping tool and the boardgame; as Reed (2008) points out, good facilitation is imperative for any type of successful participation.

36The two tools presented in this chapter are by no means the only instruments available to support participatory and deliberative processes in MSP. Our aim here is simply to provide a detailed description of how they have been designed to meet certain objectives and to illustrate how their use can contribute to achieving these goals. Those steering the MSP process should think carefully about which tool can best assist participation and deliberation in order to make the most relevant choice.