The first part of the SPACES project involved populating ES-WB chains with data obtained from each of the 8 sites studied to help answer one of the overarching questions seeking to understand the complex and elastic relationship between ecosystem and wellbeing outcomes (ES – WB chains). This was aimed at helping us explore more dynamic and policy-relevant aspects of ES-WB links as we highlighted relationships and links between chains, feedbacks within chains and identified windows of opportunity where interventions could lead to ES benefits to those most in need. However after the first components of the project were realized, a few gaps were still apparent. Firstly, access had not been sufficiently explored for different goods perceived in the survey (what is needed to gain access to specific livelihoods/food sources). Secondly, the WB contribution of ES goods had not been explored in enough detail. For example, the income of fishermen does not necessarily solely contribute to their economic security but may have an impact on their subjective WB, respect, relationships, autonomy, etc. Since SPACES aimed to inform policy and suggest potential interventions and highlight windows of opportunity to improve the flow of ES benefits to those most in need (and hence improve their WB), we needed to ensure that proposed interventions didn’t have negative effects on aspects of individuals’ wider WB (as opposed to ES specific WB). Therefore, we also wanted to explore individuals’ general WB and perceived factors that influence it. The proposed methodology consequently aimed to (1) focus on a wide range of ES chains, not solely monetary or pre-defined ES benefits, (2) look at the contribution of ES goods/value attributes to different aspects of WB, (3) look at access mechanisms to each ES benefit, and (4) look at WB in a wider context (not solely linked to ES).This project aims to better understand the links between ecosystem services (ES) and wellbeing in order to design and implement more effective interventions for poverty alleviation. We do this in the context of coastal, social-ecological systems in two poor African countries; Kenya and Mozambique. Despite recent policy and scientific interest in ES, there remain important knowledge gaps regarding how ecosystems actually contribute to wellbeing, and thus poverty alleviation. Following the ESPA framework, distinguishing ecological processes, 'final ES', 'capital inputs', 'goods' and 'values', this project is concerned with how these elements are interrelated to produce ES benefits, and focuses specifically on how these benefits are distributed to (potentially) benefit the poor, enhancing their wellbeing. We thus address the ESPA goal of understanding and promoting ways in which benefits to the poorest can be increased and more people can meet their basic needs, but we also identify conflicted tradeoffs, i.e. those which result in serious harm to either the ecosystem or poor people and which need urgent attention. Several fundamental questions are currently debated in international scientific and policy fora, relating to four major global trends which are likely to affect abilities of poor people to access ES benefits: (1) devolution of governance power and its impacts on local governance of ecosystems and production of ES, (2) unprecedented rates and scales of environmental change, particularly climate change, which are creating new vulnerabilities, opportunities and constraints, 'shifting baselines', and demanding radical changes in behaviour to cope, (3) market integration now reaches the most remote corners of the developing world, changing relationships between people and resources and motivations for natural resource management, (4) societal changes, including demographic, population, urbanisation and globalisation of culture, forge new relationships with ES and further decouple people from direct dependency on particular resources. Study sites have been chosen so as to gather empirical evidence to help answer key questions about how these four drivers of change affect abilities of poor people to benefit from ES. We aim for direct impact on the wellbeing of poor inhabitants of the rapidly transforming coastal areas in Mozambique and Kenya, where research will take place, while also providing indirect impact to coastal poor in other developing countries through our international impact strategy. Benefits from research findings will also accrue to multiple stakeholders at various levels. Local government, NGOs and civil society groups - through engagement with project activities, e.g. participation in workshops and exposure to new types of analysis and systems thinking. Donor organizations and development agencies - through research providing evidence to inform strategies to support sector development (e.g. fisheries, coastal planning and tourism development) and methods to understand and evaluate impacts of different development interventions - e.g. through tradeoff analysis and evaluation of the elasticities between ecosystem services and wellbeing. International scientific community - through dissemination of findings via conferences, scientific publications (open access), and from conceptual and theoretical development and new understandings of the multiple linkages between ecosystem services and wellbeing. Regional African scientists will benefit specifically through open courses offered within the scope of the project, and through dissemination of results at regional venues. Our strategies to deliver impact and benefits include (1) identifying 'windows of opportunity' within the context of ongoing coastal development processes to improve flows of benefits from ecosystems services to poor people, and (2) identifying and seeking to actively mitigate 'conflicted' tradeoffs in Kenya and Mozambique.

Data were collected through in-depth interviews with a subsample of those who were part of the SPACES household survey and with a small number of focus groups focusing on different aspects. In Mozambique, key informants were interviewed as well. The purpose of the in-depth interviews was to get an understanding of general WB, which value attributes are perceived as important for the individuals’ WB and relational WB, in particular relational access issues with regards to their main occupation. The purpose of the focus groups was to map out how goods and their value attributes contribute to different aspects of WB and the different access mechanisms at play that moderate these links.