Fig 1.
Geographical location of the 10 case studies (background map data from OpenStreetMap contributors).
Case study 1 [27]; Case study 2 [28], [29]; Case study 3 [30]; Case study 4 [31]; Case study 5 [32]; Case study 6 [33]; Case study 7 [34]; Case study 8 [35]; Case study 9 [36]; Case study 10 [37].
Fig 2.
Conceptual scheme of the methodology used to analyse MU in the case studies.
Table 1.
Scoring system for drivers and barriers and definition of MU Potential.
Table 2.
Scoring system for added values and impacts and definition of MU Effect.
Table 3.
Stakeholders engaged across cases.
Stakeholders had the option to comment on more than one MU combination, therefore: total stakeholders = number of persons engaged; total contributions = number of inputs to DABI catalogues (factors identification and scoring).
Table 4.
Characteristics used to describe the MU combinations (for words in bold see the definitions given in the methods).
Table 5.
MU combinations identified as most promising in the case studies and their major characteristics.
Table 6.
Brief description of the combinations identified as most promising.
Fig 3.
Average MU Potential and MU Effect for combinations and total number of DABI factors identified by stakeholders.
Fig 4.
Average scores according to stakeholders for different categories of (a) Drivers, (b) Barriers, (c) Added Values, and (d) Impacts across all combinations.
Fig 5.
Average MU Potential and MU Effect provided by stakeholder perception in the 10 case studies (results from all combinations considered in each case are averaged together), and total number of DABI factors identified by stakeholders.
Fig 6.
Average scores according to stakeholders for different categories of (a) Drivers, (b) Barriers, (c) Added Values, and (d) Impacts across cases.
Fig 7.
Comparison of MU Potential and MU Effect between different characteristics of combinations: (a) Nearshore vs Offshore, (b) Hard vs Soft, and (c) Renewables-driven vs Tourism-driven.
Fig 8.
Comparison of MU Combinations: (Top) ranked by Drivers—Highest to lowest, and (Bottom) ranked by Added Values—Highest to lowest.