Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multiple conservation criteria, discursive conflicts and stakeholder preferences in the era of ecological modernization

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Implementation of conservation plans as the final stage of a long process of institutionalization of modern strategic environmental management theory meets with difficulties in real world conditions. When actual application of scientific principles is confronted with public appreciation and engagement on the ground, the perception per se of—and reaction to—the scientific discourse and technical arguments regarding conservation value(s) of designated areas, it often turns into a critique by local communities of the preponderant role of experts and the dominance of a western scientific worldview in the ecological modernization era. In this paper, we develop the formalism—and use variations—of a multiplicative model of conservation value, involving concepts that are central to the IPBES decomposition of values into interacting meanings: principles and preferences. Technically, overall valuation after a suite of conservation criteria of an exemplary designated site, i.e. the Natura 2000 Kalloni Gulf, Greece, is decomposed into the product of two factors, technical score and appreciation, as perceived by a series of local influential stakeholder groups. We use a multi-criteria valuation profile adopted and promoted by scientific experts as reference to which respective valuations of stakeholder groups are contrasted. The study refers to a case where a two decade-long fierce social conflict drove to stagnation the implementation process. Divergence(s) in scoring and appreciation of conservation criteria between scientific experts versus local stakeholder groups are measured using our models variables and classic decomposition analysis techniques. Our model(s) treat the following problems: (1) the relative effects of singular conservation criteria when only one conservation criterion in one site is considered; (2) the relative effects of multiple conservation criteria when applied in one site. A narrative story is attempted regarding discursive conflicts between social groups in the studied case: (1) a pattern of mistrust of the public against scientific discourse on conservation planning: scientists are perceived just as ‘another stakeholder group’ promoting their own pro-conservation agenda; (2) a NIMBY-like reaction based on individuals’ property-defence discourse; and, (3) the by-effects of poor governance in downscaling decision-making from centralized to regional/local level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ando A, Camm J, Polasky S, Solow A (1998) Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279:2126–2128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade GSM, Rhodes JR (2012) Protected areas and local communities: an inevitable partnership toward successful conservation strategies? Ecol Soc 17(4):14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05216-170414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang BW (2004) Decomposition analysis for policy-making in energy: which is the preferred method? Energy Policy 32:1131–1138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apostolopoulou E, Adams WM (2015) Neo-liberal capitalism and conservation in the post-crisis era: the dialectics of “green” and “un-green” grabbing in Greece and the UK. Antipode 47(1):15–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apostolopoulou E, Bormpoudakis D, Paloniemi R, Cent J, Grodzińska-Jurczak M, Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A, Pantis JD (2014) Governance rescaling and the neoliberalization of nature: the case of biodiversity conservation in four EU countries. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 21(6):481–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2014.979904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arponen A, Cabeza M, Eklund J, Kujala H, Lehtomäki J (2010) Costs of integrating economics and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 24:1198–1204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baaijens S, Nijkamp P (2000) Meta-analytic methods for comparative and exploratory policy research: an application to the assessment of regional tourist multipliers. J Policy Model 22(7):821–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry J, Ellis G, Robinson C (2008) Cool rationalities and hot air: a rhetorical approach to understanding debates on renewable energy. Global Environ Polit 8(2):67–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blicharska M, Orlikowska EH, Roberge J-M, Grodzinska-Jurczak M (2016) Contribution of social science to large scale biodiversity conservation: a review of research about the Natura 2000 network. Biol Conserv 199:110–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botetzagias I, Malesios C, Kolokotroni A, Moysiadis Y (2015) The role of NIMBY in opposing the siting of wind farms: evidence from Greece. J Environ Plan Manag 58(2):229–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridge G, Bouzarovski S, Bradshaw M, Eyre N (2013) Geographies of energy transition: space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy 53:331–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttel FH (2000) Ecological modernization as social theory. Geoforum 31:57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commoner B, Ehrlich P, Holdern JP (1972) On “the closing circle”: response vs critique. Bull At Sci 16–56

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farberk S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cucchiella F, D’Adamo I, Koh SCL, Rosa P (2015) Recycling of WEEEs: an economic assessment of present and future e-waste streams. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 51:263–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dear M (1992) Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. J Am Plan Assoc 58(3):288–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGroot R, Brander L, Costanza R, Bernard F, Braat L, Christie M, Crossman N, Ghermandi A, Hein L, Hussain S, Kumar P, McVittie A, Portela R, Rodriguez LC, tenBrink P, vanBeukering P (2012) Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst Serv 1:50–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Baldi A, Bartuska A, Baste IA, Bilgin A, Brondizio E, Chan KMA, Figueroa VE, Duraiappah A, Fischer M, Hill R, Koetz T, Leadley P, Lyver P, Mace GM, Martin-Lopez B, Okumura M, Pacheco D, Pascual U, Perez ES, Reyers B, Roth E, Saito O, Scholes RJ, Sharma N, Tallis H, Thaman R, Watson R, Yahara T, Hamid ZA, Akosim C, Al-Hafedh Y, Allahverdiyev R, Amankwah E, Asah ST, Asfaw Z, Bartus G, Brooks LA, Caillaux J, Dalle G, Darnaedi D, Driver A, Erpul G, Escobar-Eyzaguirre P, Failler P, Fouda AMM, Fu B, Gundimeda H, Hashimoto S, Homer F, Lavorel S, Lichtenstein G, Mala WA, Mandivenyi W, Matczak P, Mbizvo C, Mehrdadi M, Metzger JP, Mikissa JB, Moller H, Mooney HA, Mumby P, Nagendra H, Nesshover C, Oteng-Yeboah AA, Pataki G, Roue M, Rubis J, Schultz M, Smith P, Sumaila R, Takeuchi K, Thomas S, Verma M, Yeo-Chang Y, Zlatanova D (2015) The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14(1):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2011) The EU Biodiversity strategy to 2020. ISBN 978-92-79-20762-4 https://doi.org/10.2779/39229

  • European Commission (2016) Next steps for a sustainable European future: action for sustainability. COM(2016) 390. https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/communication-next-steps-sustainable-europe-20161122_en.pdf

  • European Commission (2017) Implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan. COM(2017) 33. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/implementation_report.pdf

  • European Commission (2017) Second Report on the State of the Energy Union. COM(2017) 53. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/2nd-report-state-energy-union_en.pdf

  • Evagelopoulos A, Koutsoubas D (2008) Seasonal community structure of the molluscan macrofauna at the marine-lagoonal environmental transition at Kalloni solar saltworks (Lesvos Island, NE Aegean Sea, Greece). J Nat Hist 42(5–8):507–618

    Google Scholar 

  • Few R (2001) Containment and counter-containment: planner/community relations in conservation planning. Geogr J 167:111–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer A, Young JA (2007) Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biol Conserv 136:271–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Rodrigues ASL (2003) Reserve selection in regions with poor biological data. Conserv Biol 17(1):188–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GeSI (2012) GeSI SMARTer 2020: the role of ICT in driving a sustainable future. http://gesi.org/assets/js/lib/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/ajaxfilemanager/uploaded/

  • Gieryn TF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 48:781–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodland R, Daly H (1996) Environmental sustainability: universal and non-negotiable. Ecol Appl 6(4):1002–1017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer M (1995) The politics of environmental discourse. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Homer P, Kahle L (1988) A structural equation test of the ‘value-attitude behaviour hierarchy. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:638–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPBES (2016) The methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services. ISBN: 978-92-807-3569-7. Bonn, Germany

  • James A, Gaston K, Balmford A (2001) Can we afford to conserve biodiversity? Bioscience 51:43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jepson P, Canney S (2003) Values-led conservation. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:271–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns D (2007) Like it or not, politics is the solution. Conserv Biol 21(2):287–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karampela S, Papazoglou C, Kizos T, Spilanis I (2017) Sustainable local development on Aegean Islands: a meta-analysis of the literature. Island Stud J 12(1):71–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsland SE (2002) Creating a science of nature reserve design: perspectives from history. Environ Modell Assess 7(2):61–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leroi AM (2014) The lagoon: how aristotle invented science. Viking. ISBN 978-0670026746

  • MacDonald K (2010) Business, biodiversity and new “fields” of conservation: the world conservation congress and the renegotiation of organizational order. Conserv Soc 8:256–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier DS, Feest A (2016) The IPBES Conceptual Framework: an unhelpful start. J Agric Environ Ethics 29:327–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9584-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mascia MB, Pailler S (2011) Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications. Conserv Lett 4:9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCallum ML, Bury GW (2013) Google search patterns suggest declining interest in the environment. Biodivers Conserv 22:1355–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meir E, Andelman S, Possingham HP (2004) Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecol Lett 7:615–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memtsas DP, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Troumbis AY (2002) Incorporating multiple ecological criteria in classical zero one selection algorithms. Web Ecol 3:48–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merigot B, Batjakas IE, Letourneur Y (2006) Fish community structure of two Greek close gulfs (Lesvos Island, Aegean Sea). Cybium 30(1):79–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Mushove P, Vogel C (2005) Heads or tails? Stakeholder analysis as a tool for conservation area management. Global Environ Change 15(3):184–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neemo/LIFE Team (2016) LIFE: contributing to employment and economic growth. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/generalpublications/documents/jobs_growth_study.pdf

  • Oikonomou V, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Troumbis AY (2010) Incorporating ecosystem function concept in environmental planning and decision making by means of multi-criteria evaluation: the case-study of Kalloni, Lesbos, Greece. Environ Manag 47(1):77–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9575-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual P, Balvanera P, Diaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, Watson RT, Dessane EB, Islar M, Kelemen E, Maris V, Quaas M, Subramanian SM, Wittmer H, Adlan A, Ahn S, Al-Hafedh Y, Amankwah E, Asah ST, Berry P, Bilgin A, Breslow SJ, Bullock C, Caceres D, Daly-Hassen H, Figueroa E, Golden CD, Gomez-Baggethun E, Gonzalez-Jimenez D, Houdet J, Keune H, Kumar R, Ma K, May PH, Mead A, O’Farrell P, Pandit R, Pengue W, Pichis-Madruga R, Popa F, Preston S, Pacheco-Balanza D, Saarikoski H, Strassburg BB, van den Belt M, Verma M, Wickson F, Yagi N (2017) Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26:7–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlis E (2017) North Aegean island landscapes as ecomuseums: the case of Lesvos Island. Island Stud J 12(1):135–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellizzoni L (2011) The politics of facts: local environmental conflicts and expertise. Environ Polit 20(6):765–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL, Tully SL (1994) The cost of ad hoc reservation: a case study in western New South Wales. Aust J Ecol 19:375–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL, Possingham HP, Margules CR (1996) Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: when does it matter and how much? Biol Conserv 76(3):259–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raskin PD (1995) Methods for estimating the population contribution to environmental change. Ecol Econ 15:225–233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reid TS, Murphy DD (1995) Providing a regional context for local conservation action. BioScience Supplement:84–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rekola M, Pouta E, Kuuluvainen J, Tahvonen O, Li C-Z (2000) Incommensurable preferences in contingent valuation: the case of Natura 2000 Network in Finland. Environ Conserv 27(3):260–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose GL (2011) Gaps in the implementation of environmental Law at the National, Regional and Global Level. First Preparatory Meeting of the World Congress on Justice, Governance and Law for Environmental Sustainability. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: UNEP. http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2684&context=lhapapers

  • Schmeller DS, Niemela J, Bridgewater P (2017) The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): getting involved. Biodivers Conserv 26(10):2271–2275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith PD, McDonough MH (2001) Beyond public participation: fairness in natural resource decision making. Soc Nat Resour 14(3):239–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920120140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svankara LK, Brannon R, Scott JM, Groves CR, Noss RF, Pressey RL (2005) Policy-driven versus evidence based conservation: a review of political targets and biological needs. Bioscience 55(11):989–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takacs D (1996) The idea of biodiversity: philosophies of paradise. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Tegou L-I, Polatidis H, Haralambopoulos DA (2012) A multi-criteria framework for an isolated electricity system design with renewable energy sources in the context of distributed generation: the case study of Lesvos Island,Greece. Int J Green Energy 9(3):256–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troumbis A (2017) Declining Google Trends of public interest in biodiversity: semantics, statistics or traceability of changing priorities? Biodivers Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1294-z

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsadila E, Evangelou L, Tsadilas C, Giourga C, Stamatiadis S (2012) Land-Use effect on selected soil quality parameters. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 43(3):595–604

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vattenfall (2007) Power for renewal. https://corporate.vattenfall.com/globalassets/corporate/investors/annual_reports/2007/vattenfalls_annual_report_2007.pdf

  • Wolsink M (2007) Planning of renewables schemes: deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy 35:2692–2704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • York R, Rosa EA (2003) Key challenges in ecological modernization theory. Organ Environ 16(3):273–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zkeri E, Aloupi M, Gaganis P (2015) Natural occurrence of arsenic in groundwater from Lesvos Island, Greece. Water Air Soil Pollut 226 (9), Article Number: 294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-015-2542-z

  • Zouros N (2004) The European Geoparks Network—Geological heritage protection and local development. Episodes 27(3):165–171

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Aknowledgements

The authors as members of the scientific team which tried without success to implement the Kalloni Gulf conservation plan wish to dedicate this paper to the loving memory of Prof Leonidas Louloudis (Agricultural University of Athens) and Prof Evan Vlahos (Colorado State University) who participated in the agitated public debates. C. Mandylas, a professional graduate of the Department of Environmental Studies and its associates were the authors of the conservation plan.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biodiversity Conservation Laboratory, School of the Environment, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Greece

    Andreas Y. Troumbis & Georgios K. Vasios

  2. Department of Food Science and Nutrition, School of the Environment, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Greece

    Georgios K. Vasios

  3. Section of Environmental Social Sciences, Department of Environmental Studies, School of the Environment, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Greece

    Maria N. Hatziantoniou

Authors
  1. Andreas Y. Troumbis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Georgios K. Vasios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria N. Hatziantoniou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Y. Troumbis.

Additional information

Communicated by David Hawksworth.

This article belongs to the Topical Collection: Biodiversity appreciation and engagement.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 944 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Troumbis, A.Y., Vasios, G.K. & Hatziantoniou, M.N. Multiple conservation criteria, discursive conflicts and stakeholder preferences in the era of ecological modernization. Biodivers Conserv 27, 1139–1156 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1484-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1484-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation