## 3 Results
### Ecosystem Service Assessments
#### 3.2.5 Comparison between Different Assessment and Discussion Strategies  
The application of the two assessment strategies--paper-based vs. web-based--showed that the web-based application could benefit the assessment speed as well as the level of engagement. During the web-based assessment, it was noticed that the visualization of the results in real time as well as a set time limit for responding forced participants to answer more rapidly. The instant display of ratings enabled different discussion strategies (e.g., after every single ecosystem service or ecosystem service division).  
In contrast, during the paper-based assessment, the participants tended to overthink their ratings, increasing the total time of the assessment or skipping the assessment of single services. During the paper-based method, real-time visualization was hard to accomplish, disabling different discussion strategies. The display of the preliminary results was also timely, since the results had to be transferred to a computer and had to be visualized first.  
The use of different discussion strategies has shown that the strategy of discussing each division individually (assessment and discussion of the provisioning ESs of a first scenario followed by the assessment and discussion of the provisioning ESs of the second  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Beach Mussel Farm**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Floating Wetlands**} & \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(Germany)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(Germany)**} & \\ \hline Provisioning Ecosystem Services & Mean & Median & St. Dev. & Mean & Median & St. Dev. & Diff. in Mean & Diff. in Median \\ \hline Wild food & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1.3\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(0.8\) & \(1\) & \(0\) \\ Livestock and aquaculture & \(2\) & \(2\) & \(0.9\) & \(1\) & \(0\) & \(0.9\) & \(-1\) & \(-2\) \\ Crop plants & \(0\) & \(0\) & \(0.2\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1.1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) \\ \hline Regulating Ecosystem Services & & & & & & & & \\ Nutrient regulation & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1.0\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(0.8\) & \(0\) & \(0\) \\ Water quality improvement & \(2\) & \(1\) & \(0.8\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(0.8\) & \(0\) & \(0\) \\ Biodiversity and habitats & \(2\) & \(1\) & \(1.2\) & \(2\) & \(3\) & \(0.7\) & \(1\) & \(2\) \\ \hline Cultural Ecosystem Services & & & & & & & & \\ Recreation and tourism & \(0\) & \(-1\) & \(1.5\) & \(2\) & \(2\) & \(1.1\) & \(2\) & \(3\) \\ Landscape aesthetics & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & \(1.4\) & \(2\) & \(1\) & \(1.0\) & \(2\) & \(2\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Comparison of a mussel farm application and floating wetland, assessing the impacts on ecosystem services. The mussel farm applications were a beach mussel farm and floating wetland, both located in Greifswalder Bodden. The assessment was conducted by local non-expert stakeholders. The mean and median values were calculated based on the aggregated number of ratings.  
scenario) was the most suitable to generate a common understanding (overall changes after the discussion: 26%) and led to few changes in the assessment of the second scenario (overall changes after the discussion: 8%).