Stakeholders’ Perceptions Concerning Greek Protected Areas Governance

Abstract

In this paper, we are interested in assessing the Greek protected areas’ (PAs) operation, and in particular, to what extent the stakeholders engaged in their management consider that the “good environmental governance” criteria are met. Through the use of Q-methodology, we find that, despite the very different circumstances of each PA, the stakeholders’ views cluster around four distinctive main perspectives (or factors). Furthermore, we find that stakeholders do not consider, overall, that the Greek PAs management strongly meets any of the “good environmental governance” criteria, with particularly poor assessments on crucial governance aspects such as a shared vision guiding the PA management, the rule of law, and the effectiveness/efficiency of the procedures, which suggests that the environmental governance of Greek PAs is suboptimal at least.

1. Introduction

Protected areas (PAs) are widely acknowledged as a tool to protect biodiversity and to promote conservation [1]. Starting with the first modern PA site, the iconic Yellowstone National Park in the USA (1872), PAs were (thought of as) stretches of land to be “left alone”, scenic habitats where Nature follow her course while Man is banned [2]. Yet, this “island” mentality [3] “ignores the relevance of location, context, connectivity both ecological and socioeconomic” [4] (p. 1709), and has often been proven as ineffective in delivering the anticipated results [5,6,7] and in achieving conservation goals [8]. Thus, nowadays, PAs are considered as complex social–ecological systems (see [8,9]) and, as such, inseparable from the context in which they exist and interact [10,11]. They need to deliver social, economic, and environmental benefits [12] and to incorporate, in their design and operation, human and/or social dimensions [13] since they are not instituted in a social–political vacuum [14] (p. 239).

In order to deliver on these novel demands, theorists have argued that PAs (management) should ascribe to, and operate along, the principles of “environmental governance” [15]. “Governance”, as a term, is much wider than government and more inclusive than management. It includes the state and its actions, but it also encompasses other actors such as communities, businesses, and NGOs [16] (p. 298). The UNDP defines it as the “exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprises of mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations, and mediate their differences” ([17], pp. 2–3). More plainly, it refers to the ways and means that a given society has employed to make collective decisions, set collective goals, and act to achieve those goals [18]. “Environmental governance” entails the methods and strategies applied specifically on environment-related policies [19] and dictates “how power and responsibilities are exercised, how decisions are taken and how citizens have their say” [20] (p. 2).

Environmental governance is considered a key factor for PA effectiveness for a series of reasons. Indicatively, it is considered a determinant of appropriateness and equity of decisions, it ensures that protected areas are better embedded in society, and it affects the effectiveness and efficiency of management [21]. Furthermore, it helps improve ecological indicators, facilitates the participation of civil society in PA management, and enhances the long-term sustainability of PAs [22]. It is also associated with good biodiversity conservation outcomes [23], whereas weak governance (or poor application) has been identified as the root of implementation weaknesses. Finally, it is considered to establish institutions and norms that foster responsibility and accountability, and to build trust, capacity, and cooperation in policy-making, decision-making, implementation, and enforcement [24]. Thus, governance has been identified as an overarching means to address the complexities of environmental problems [25].

When one talks about the environmental governance of PAs, one implies “good” environmental governance. Good environmental governance is considered to be a “new governance paradigm” which rests upon a number of principles and criteria, such as legitimacy, accountability, inclusiveness, fairness, connectivity, resilience (see [20,26]), while its practice involves ‘participatory dialogue, flexibility, inclusiveness, transparency, institutionalized consensus-building practices, and, at least to some extent, a shift from hierarchy to heterarchy” [27] (p. 145). This initial list has further expanded/elaborated and has developed into a number of governance assessment frameworks that include various principles and criteria [24,25,28,29].

In the environmental governance literature, the participation and involvement of stakeholders are considered paramount for successful environmental management and governance [30,31]. This fosters commitment [32], enhances engagement [33], builds trust [31], can resolve conflict, and reveal management alternatives [34] through detecting areas of consensus [35]. Furthermore, conservation projects’ success cannot occur without understanding the viewpoints of stakeholders and local communities [36] and without ensuring positive social perceptions by stakeholders [37]. To add to the above, another benefit of stakeholder inclusion, according to Backstrand (2006), is its ability to respond to the democratic deficit and thus increase legitimacy [38]. This lies in the realization that PAs “are not politically neutral instruments for conservation. They interfere in people’s livelihoods and social relationships. They tend to reconfigure the economic, social, and political action space of stakeholders” [39] (p. 195).

In this paper, we are interested in understanding how the stakeholders engaged in the management of Greek PAs evaluate the latter’s “environmental governance”. Answering this research question is important for two reasons. First, since “conservation is a social endeavor” [34], understanding the stakeholders’ views on how the “environmental governance” of PAs occurs in the ground is part and parcel of “engaging with the human dimensions of conservation and environmental management [which] is needed to produce robust and effective conservation policies, actions and outcomes” [13] (p. 93). Second, by juxtaposing the stakeholders’ real-life evaluations to the theoretically established prerequisites for “good governance” (see

Table 1. Final set of statements used—the Q-set.

B. Governance Quality
B1. Acknowledgement of Rights, Local Knowledge, Values, and Laws
1. Within the governance scheme of our PA, the rights of stakeholders and of actors are acknowledged and respected.
2. To govern our PA, knowledge of all sorts (scientific, experiential, local) is taken into account.
3. Within the governance scheme of our PA, the values of all stakeholders are considered and respected.
B2. Procedural Characteristics/Elements of Participation
4. All stakeholders participate fully and substantially in the decision-making processes.
5. Decision-making processes are collaborative, i.e., they take place in the spirit of consensus and with all interested parties/stakeholders’ participation.
6. Participation of stakeholders concerns all governance-related decisions (decisions on projects/plans/programs).
7. Participation of stakeholders is stipulated and secured during policy designation and during respective strategies and laws.
8. The public’s and the stakeholders’ participation is stipulated and ensured during licensing for projects and for respective actions in our PA.
9. Procedures and institutions that concern PA governance are decentralized.
10. The active participation of the public in issues, decisions, initiatives, or other actions connected to the PA is stipulated and secured.
11. Information on participation is available, for example, stakeholders and the public know in what ways they can act/engage.
12. Environmental NGOs participate actively in the governance of the PA.
B3. Effectiveness—Efficiency
13. The legislative framework that is connected to the PA’s operation is absolutely clear, for example, there are no ambiguities or overlaps.
14. The PA’s management plans are embedded in a wider management plan covering the surrounding area.
15. PA management is effective.
16. The system of environmental management and governance is adaptable—it can, in other words, adapt and expand its actions according to any given needs/conditions.
17. All collaborating authorities (coastal guard, police, forest services, etc.) maintain good managerial capacity.
18. Information is diffused through all governance levels and within all stakeholders in the PA.
19. The performance of the PA in achieving environmental, social, and economic goals is systematically monitored and assessed through specific indicators.
20. Within the PA management plan, there is correspondence between the tools that are used and the problems that accrue (correspondence of means/purpose).
21. Senior management is distinguished by capability and credibility.
22. Staffing levels occupied in the PA management is adequate.
23. Funding to finance the PA’s management body is adequate.
B4. Justice—Equality—Equity
24. Justice, equality, and equity characterize all procedures connected to the PA governance of our PA.
B5. Reliability
25. PA’s governance procedures are reliable/credible.
26. The legislative framework that binds the PA’s operation clearly stipulates accountability institutions.
27. Responsibility to govern our PA is shared and belongs to all stakeholders.
B6. Transparency and Access to Information
28. All PA governance-related procedures are transparent.
29. All stakeholders are timely informed and access to information concerning our PA, is guaranteed.
30. PA’s management responds and satisfies demands that concern information, and access to information, is secured for most interested parties/stakeholders.
31. Information provided by the PA management to all interested parties is reliable.
B7. Access to Justice
32. The legislative framework that binds the PA’s operation includes procedures for resolving differences.
33. Greek justice system may provide effective/viable solutions on issues connected to the PA governance.
34. The legislative framework that binds the PA’s operation foresees access to justice for issues that concern the PA governance.
35. Difficulties in accessing justice (cost/prerequisites) over issues that concern the governance of our PA are significant.
36. Information concerning access to justice over issues that concern the governance of our PA is available and accessible.
B8. Legitimacy & Law Implementation
37. There is trust among stakeholders in our PA.
38. In our area, the public trusts the institutions.
39. Cases of corruption that are connected to environmental issues (licensing, natural resource use) are resolved effectively in our PA.
40. Law implementation is undisputed, effective, and absolute in our PA.
41. Abidance to law is systematically monitored with our PA boundaries.
42. Economic and other activities that develop within our PA comply with the law.
B9. Performance
43. While managing our PA, there is coordination throughout respective administrative levels (national, peripheral, local).
44. In our PA, the management body and services responsible for imposing the law (police, forest service, coast guard) collaborate.
45. In the case of decisions that may affect the management body’s operation, the necessary corrective actions/interventions are foreseen. For example, in order to avoid protests/complaints by businesses regarding some restrictions to their operation, thorough briefing and/or compensation/offsets are offered.
B10. Vision—Direction
46. There is a shared vision among all stakeholders concerning the goals and targets of our PA.
47. The PA’s goals and objectives are absolutely clear.
48. Sustainability goals (economical, environmental, social aspect) have been incorporated during the designation process.
C. Outcomes
49. Benefits that derive from the PA are dispersed to all stakeholders of the community.
50. There exist provisions for reducing any negative impacts by our PA’s operation to particular social groups/businesses’.
51. Our PA’s operation meets environmental goals and ensures biodiversity conservation and nature protection within the area of its responsibility.

) we can conduct a quality assessment of Greek PAs’ governance. This is both of theoretical and of practical importance since, as Lockwood (2010) notes, “The potential contributions of governance quality assessment are three-fold. First, it can provide performance accountability and establish a platform from which the confidence of constituencies and investors, including governments, can be established and sustained. Second, it can stimulate reflexive and continual improvement in governance as part of an adaptive cycle approach—relevant to situations when the gap between actual performance and desired outcomes can be readily bridged. Third, it can drive governance system redesign or quantum organizational improvement—relevant to situations where there is a large gap between performance and desired outcomes” [20] (pp. 763–765). Thus, this research’s results will not only offer insights into the burgeoning discussion regarding the potential of “environmental governance” to enhance PAs’ performance, but will also contribute to the still limited research concerning the challenges that environmental governance is facing in Greece.

2. Case Study Background

Greece is a country extremely rich in areas of high biodiversity value [40] and is considered an ecological hotspot [41]. Nevertheless, the efficient management of the country’s biodiversity has been poor [42,43,44,45,46]. Weak tradition on environmental policy [47,48,49] coupled with low prioritization of environmental issues [46] has resulted in nature preservation and biodiversity conservation not receiving the appropriate attention [50,51]. However, due to its participation in international and supranational formations such as the UN and, most importantly, the European Union, Greece has developed a legislative framework that includes a number of innovative tools for the environmental governance and management of its natural capital [52]. Such a novel tool, established by Law 2742/1999 (Government Gazette A207/7-10-1999), was the creation of decentralized management bodies which were established to manage the country’s natural “protected areas”. These management bodies, 28 in total, encompassed (i) all areas designated as “National Parks” (marine and terrestrial), (ii) most of the areas which were under any kind of environmental protection under Greek law (i.e., forested areas, endangered species habitats, threatened ecosystems and so on), and (iii) 28% of the Greek NATURA 2000 area. This limited inclusion of the Natura 2000 areas was considered a major shortcoming of this management scheme. Law 4519/2018 (Government Gazette 25/20-2-2018) came to answer this shortcoming by expanding the area of responsibility of the existing management bodies while creating new ones. Consequently, 36 management bodies were established through this law and covered all the Greek NATURA 2000 area. The management bodies’ were governed by boards of seven to ten individuals from various stakeholder groups: central government bureaucrats, regional and local government delegates, environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) representatives, members of the academia and also local stakeholders (such as representatives of local farmers, fishermen, businesses, and so on).

3. Methodology

Unlike other research evaluating environmental governance, which have employed either quantitative (e.g., [22,53,54]) or qualitative analysis techniques (e.g., [55,56,57,58]), in this paper, we employ the Q-methodology, a mixed-methods tool, in order to assess/map stakeholders’ perceptions concerning protected area governance.

Q-methodology, invented in 1953 by William Stephenson (1953) [59], is considered to combine the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative methods [60]. Q aims at analyzing human subjectivity in a way that is structured and statistically interpretable [61] (p. 626), doing so through revealing the “subjective structures, attitudes, and perspectives from the standpoint of the person or the persons being observed” [60] (p. 565). Q accepts the assumption of “finite diversity”, which means that “discourses” (structures, attitudes, and perspectives) are not as many as participants and aims at identifying these shared perspectives through factorial analysis [62]. Yet, contrary to normal factor analysis (which is based on correlations between variables, e.g., one’s gender in relation to his/her agreement with a particular opinion), Q explores “correlations between persons or aspects of persons” [63] (e.g., a set-of-opinions held by person A in relation to set-of-opinions held by person B). This is the main reason for our choice of the particular method since it will allow us to extract out of the individual responses the shared viewpoints regarding the environmental governance of the Greek PAs.

Q is particularly suited to studying social phenomena, around which there is much debate, conflict, and contestation, such as the environment [62]. It has been acknowledged as an effective method in exploring environmental discourses, and it has been used to support effective natural resource management and policy-making [64] to pinpoint hindrances that may constrain implementation and affect outcomes negatively [65], to promote understanding among stakeholders [34,36,66,67], to suggest case-specific policy development/remedies [35,68] to identify, engage, and facilitate communication between stakeholders [61], to trace frames, identify problems and offer a new understanding of persisting problems [69] to tackle stalemates by reframing problems [69] and/or uncovering discourses and understanding what is socially acceptable [70] as well as to resolve conflicts, assess management alternatives, appraise policies, facilitate critical reflection [34]. More specifically relating to PAs, Q has been used to identify discourses of public participation in protected area governance [71] in marine protected areas (MPAs) [72], to determine non-material importance of cultural ecosystem services in MPAs [73] to identify perceptions on (marine) biodiversity conservation among various stakeholders [36], to investigate and classify diverse attitudes toward biodiversity conservation [74] and toward conservation actions [67].

The basic steps that Q-methodology include, as identified by Curry et al. [61] (p. 627) are: identification of the research topic, identification of respondents, statement generation, key statement identification, q sort completion, factor analysis of Q sorts, and the interpretation of factor analysis results. We present each of those, regarding this study, in the following sub-sections.

3.1. Identification of the Research Topic and of Respondents

The research aim of this paper is to assess to which extent the actual operation of Greece’s 36 Management bodies corresponds to the criteria of “good environmental governance” (as described in Table 1). In Q-methodology, the number of participants does not have to be large [64,75,76], nevertheless sampling in Q is usually non-random and the sampling strategy followed is usually purposive [34]. Thus, we opted for studying the opinions of those individuals who have been actively involved in the PAs operation, that is the management bodies’ members of board. Thus, our pool of potential respondents include approximately 200 individuals serving as members of the board in the 36 PAs’ management bodies.

3.2. Concourse and Statement Generation (Q-Set)

In order to systematically map the various viewpoints around an issue in the context of a Q-methodology study, first, one needs to compile a list of statements that are relevant to the topic of interest, as they lay in the “concourse” of the issue. According to Brown (1993), the “concourse” refers to “the flow of communicability surrounding any topic… [and it derives from] the ordinary conversation, commentary, and discourse of everyday life” [77] (p. 94). Thus, Q researchers usually commence by interviewing selected participants in order to construct the “concourse” around the topic and they then extract relevant statements based on some selection criteria. Nevertheless, statements may (and have) also be extracted through literature review [53,71,76,78]. In this study statement generation relied on extensive literature review regarding (good) environmental governance [17,19,20,21,22,24,25,26,28,29,79,80,81]. Through this literature review, we initially mined 80 statements relating to environmental governance, which fall into three broad and distinct categories: (i) Governance type, (ii) Governance quality/characteristics, and (iii) Governance results. All statements pertaining to “Governance type” category were removed since they are not relevant to the topic of this research, while the list was further refined by rejecting statements that overlapped. This process resulted in 51 final statements, which may be broken down into ten (10) subcategories (Figure 1), presented in Table 1 This list is the “Q-set”, the statements-to-be-presented to the participants of this study for their evaluation (or, “sorting” in Q terminology).

3.3. Selecting the Participants (P-Set)

The next step is selecting the “P-set”, i.e., the participants who will subsequently “sort” (i.e., rank-order) the Q-set statements. In February 2021, an email was sent to all Greek PAs Management Bodies’ secretariats as well as to those individual board members whose contact details we had been able to find. In these emails, we explained the goal of our research and we invited the members of board to participate in it. A second round of reminding emails was sent in May 2021. Participants who accepted the invitation were also asked to propose other board members. Of the approximately 200 Greek PA Management Bodies’ members, 19 agreed to participate in the research, coming from the following 14 management bodies (in alphabetical order): Management Body of Alonissos and Nothern Sporades National Marine Park (2 participants); of Amvrakikos Gulf and Lefkada (1 participant); of Dadia, Lefkimi, Soufli Forest (2 participants); of Evros Delta and Samothraki (4 participants); of Kalamas, Acheron and Corfu (1 participant); of Messolonghi Lagoon and Akarnanika Mountains (1 participant); of Mt Oiti National Park (1 participant); of Parnon, Moustos, Mainalon and Monemvasia (1 participant); of Pamvotis Lake (1 participant), of Prespes Lakes National Park (1 participant); of Schinias—Marathon National Park (1 participant); of Strofylia Wetland National Park (1 participant); of Rodopi Mountain Range National Park (1 participant); and of Voras, Paikos, Vermion (1 participant).

3.4. Q-Sorting

The basic unit of analysis in Q-methodology is the Q—sort, i.e., each participant’s ordering of the Q-set statements based on his/her level of (dis-)agreement with each. Prior to the data collection, four pilot Q-sortings (two with academic colleagues and another two with former PA bodies’ members) were conducted, and their insights helped in addressing any ambiguities/misunderstandings relating to the meaning of the Q-set statements. The participants’ Q-sortings were conducted online, over the period February to November 2021, through the Q Method Software. The respondents were navigated through the online program with the assistance of the researchers, and they were presented with the 51 statements of the Q-set to be “q-sorted” according to the prompt question (in Greek): “To what extent do you find that the following statements describe/are representative of the Governance of the Protected Area where you serve as a member of the Management Body?”. Each participant had to express his/her opinion per statement on an 11-point Likert scale ranging from “−5: Very little agree/unrepresentative” to “+5: Very much agree/representative”. Participants were given verbal and written instructions concerning the Q-sorting task, and they were restricted in the number of items they could place in each Likert-scale category (i.e., the number of cells per column in Figure 2). This forced quasi-normal distribution aims in enabling the respondents to think critically about each statement and not only to “assess it” (i.e., agree/disagree) per se but also in relation to all the other statements in the Q-set [82,83]. Change of statement’s positioning in the grid’s columns was allowed indefinitely until the participant was satisfied with the overall result. Furthermore, any comments, justifications, explanations offered by the participants were welcomed and recorded during the process by the researchers.

4. Analysis

The nineteen participants’ Q-sorts were analyzed through the Q Method Software (qmethodsoftware.com last accessed on 20 December 2021). In particular, we performed principal components analysis on the correlation matrix of the respondents’ Q-sorts and extracted eight factors, the maximum option available by the software. That solution had to be rejected since two of the eight resulting factors had an Eigenvalue lower than 1.00.

Next, we examined a 6-factor solution, applying Varimax rotation. The ensuing rotated factor matrix was “Q-analyzed”, a procedure through which the “factor arrays” are computed. Each “factor array” represents the ideal Q-sort of a hypothetical respondent who, in effect, would demonstrate “perfect agreement” with that particular factor [84]. Thus, the respondent’s “loading” on every factor indicates his/her level of agreement with this particular factor (or viewpoint) and may range from −1 (perfect disagreement) to +1 (perfect disagreement). A respondent’s loading on a factor is statistically “significant” when it is sufficiently high to assume that a relationship exists between the respondent’s and the particular factor’s Q-sorts, and it is “pure” if it loads significantly on only one factor. The notions of “significance” and “purity” are important statistical cues for deciding how many of the initially calculated factors (or viewpoints) the researcher should ultimately keep for further analysis and interpretation. Thus, according to Watts and Stenner (2005), it is a standard rule that an interpretable Q factor must contain at least two pure loadings since the latter “exemplify the shared item pattern or configuration that is characteristic of that factor” [83] (p. 81). For this study, the threshold of statistical significance is set at p < 0.05, and” accordingly” the “pure loading” threshold is 0.274 (as calculated through the relevant formula, 1.96/(√number of statements) [82].

Based on the aforementioned statistical considerations, we had to reject the 6-factor since not all ensuing factors contained at least two pure loadings. This was also the reason for rejecting the 5-factor solution as well. Thus a 4-factor solution containing 6, 5, 2, and 2 “pure” loadings, respectively, was considered the most appropriate. This solution accounts for 66.48% of the variance (

Table 2. Participants’ loadings on factors after Varimax rotation (entries in grayed cells denote a statistically significant (at 0.05) loading; * denote a pure loading).

Participants’ Affiliation	Factor A	Factor B	Factor C	Factor D
Local Business	0.85401 *	0.12924	0.05408	−0.22611
Local Government	−0.03041	0.59209 *	0.21896	0.11642
Local Government	0.16994	0.68266 *	−0.2315	0.03578
National ENGO	0.64059	0.49420	−0.21115	−0.14959
Central Government	−0.07619	0.11400	−0.05998	0.74832 *
Local resident	0.40022	0.52871	0.51307	−0.33608
Scientist	−0.13038	−0.06128	0.75515 *	0.02617
Local resident	0.40022	0.52871	0.51307	−0.33608
Scientist	0.88754 *	0.13963	0.10394	−0.05774
Scientist	0.43084	0.21055	0.42463	0.48662
National ENGO	0.15341	0.71843 *	−0.2724	0.10705
National ENGO	0.79999 *	0.23394	−0.08854	−0.11052
National ENGO	0.27498	0.36646	−0.62614	−0.15602
Scientist	0.02529	0.72086 *	−0.04005	0.2698
National ENGO	0.19599	−0.01516	0.48629 *	0.02177
Scientist	0.68267	−0.01709	0.08177	0.30831
Local Businesses	−0.18704	0.23175	0.10627	0.51732 *
Scientist	0.85329 *	0.01629	0.00758	−0.16217
National ENGO	0.2716	0.33561 *	0.05798	0.12842
“Pure” loadings	4	5	2	2
Explained Variance (%)	29.88	12.43	11.17	6.98

).

5. Results

5.1. Explaining Factor A: Governance Is … ‘Legally Vested but Insensitive to Stakeholders’

Discourse A explains 29.9% of the variance with six out of 19 participants loading statistically significantly on this factor: they include representatives of ENGOs (2 participants), the scientific community (3 participants), and of the local businesses (1 participant). The distinctive viewpoint of Factor A may be deduced by examining the “distinguishing” statements (i.e., statements for which the Factor’s ranking differs statistically significantly from the rankings associated with the other Factors) in conjunction with the statements for which the factor most strongly (dis-)agrees with.

Based on these rankings (shown in

Table 3. Most (dis-)agreeing (−5 to +5 scale) and distinguishing (*) statements for Factor A.

		Factor Scores
	Most Agreeing Statements	A	B	C	D
12	Environmental NGOs participate actively in the governance of the PA.	5	2	5	2
31	Information provided by the PA management to all interested parties is reliable.	4	5	−1	0
9	Procedures and institutions that concern PA governance are decentralized.	4	−2	4	−3
28	All governance related procedures are transparent.	4	4	1	2
	Most Disagreeing Statements
7	Participation of stakeholders is stipulated and secured during policy designation and during respective strategies and laws.	−5 *	−1	2	1
8	The public’s and the stakeholders’ participation is stipulated and ensured during licensing for projects and for respective actions in our PA.	−4 *	0	3	0
22	Staff occupied in the PA management is adequate.	−4	−5	2	−5
46	There is a shared vision among all stakeholders concerning the goals and targets of our PA.	−4	−3	−3	−1
	Other Distinguishing statements for factor A
6	Participation of stakeholders concerns all governance related decisions (decisions on projects/plans/programs).	−3 *	−1	1	4
35	Difficulties in accessing justice (cost/prerequisites) over issues that concern the governance of our PA are significant.	−3 *	1	2	0
50	There exist provisions for reducing any negative impacts by our PA’s operation to particular social groups/businesses’.	−3 *	−1	1	0
45	In the case of decisions that may affect the n the case of decisions that may affect the management body’s operation, the necessary corrective actions/interventions are foreseen. For example, in order to avoid protests/complaints by businesses regarding some restrictions to their operation, thorough briefing and/or compensation/offsets are offered.	−3 *	−1	0	0
14	The PA’s management plans are embedded in a wider management plan covering the surrounding area.	−1 *	−3	1	3
11	Information on participation is available, for example, stakeholders and the public know in what ways they can act/engage.	−1 *	1	2	2
20	Within the PA management plan there is correspondence of means/purpose/problems.	−1 *	−3	−4	1
24	Justice, equality, and equity characterize all procedures connected to the PA governance of our PA.	0 *	2	−5	2
26	The legislative framework that binds the PA’s operation clearly stipulates accountability institutions.	2 *	−3	0	−1
36	Information concerning access to justice over issues that concern the governance of our PA, is available and accessible.	2 *	−2	−2	0
2	To govern our PA, Knowledge of all sorts (scientific, experiential, local) is taken into account.	2 *	0	4	-3
34	The legislative framework foresees access to justice for issues that concern the PA governance.	2 *	−2	−3	−1
30	PA’s management responds and satisfies demands that concern information and access to information is secured for most interested parties/stakeholders.	2 *	4	−1	1
32	The legislative framework that binds the PA’s operation includes procedures for resolving differences.	3 *	−4	0	−2
33	Greek justice system may provide effective/viable solutions on issues connected to the PA governance.	3 *	−1	−1	−3

), we maintain that Factor A considers that the governance of Greek PAs is “Legally vested but insensitive to stakeholders”. This assessment is corroborated by the fact that Factor A is the only one which agrees (while all other factors disagree) on statements such as that “The legislative framework, that binds the PA’s operation clearly stipulates accountability institutions” (St. no 26) while it “foresees access to justice for issues that concern the PA governance” (St. no 34) as well as “[…] procedures for resolving differences” (St. no 32). In similar vein, only Factor A agrees that “Greek justice system may provide effective/viable solutions on issues connected to the PA governance” (St. no 33) while disagreeing that “Difficulties in accessing justice (cost/prerequisites) over issues that concern the governance of our PA, are significant” (St. no 35).

On the other hand, Factor A strongly disagree that the “Participation of stakeholders is stipulated and secured during policy designation and during respective strategies and laws” (St. no 7) as well as that “Participation of stakeholders concerns all governance-related decisions (decisions on projects/plans/programs)” (St. no 6), and these are also distinguishing statements. Factor’s A view that stakeholders are not taken into account is corroborated by a number of other distinguishing statements. Thus, and unlike other factors, Factor A disagrees that “Participation of stakeholders concerns all governance-related decisions (decisions on projects/plans/programs)” (St. no 6), that “There exist provisions for reducing any negative impacts by our PA’s operation to particular social groups/businesses” (St. no 50) or “In the case of decisions which may affect the management body’s operation, the necessary corrective actions/interventions are foreseen ...” (St. no 45).

5.2. Explaining Factor B: Governance Is of … “High Management Quality in Spite of Contextual Deficiencies and Unclear Stakeholders’ Involvement”

Five out of 19 participants load on Factor B (two local government and ENGO representatives and one scientist), which explains 12% of the total variance. The most (dis-)agreeing and/or distinguishing statements for this factor are reported in

Table 4. Most (dis-)agreeing (−5 to +5 scale) and distinguishing (*) statements for Factor B.

		Factor Scores
	Most Agreeing Statements	A	B	C	D
31	Information provided by the PA management to all interested parties is reliable.	4	5	−1	0
21	Senior management is distinguished by capability and credibility.	−1	4 *	−2	−1
28	All PA governance-related procedures are transparent.	4	4	1	2
30	PA’s management responds and satisfies demands that concern information and access to information is secured for most interested parties/stakeholders.	2	4 *	−1	1
	Most Disagreeing Statements
22	Staff, occupied in the PA management, is adequate.	−4	−5	2	−5
23	Funding, to finance the PA’s management body, is adequate.	2	−4	1	−4
13	The legislative framework that is connected to the PA’s operation, is absolutely clear, for example, there are no ambiguities or overlaps.	1	−4 *	3	−2
32	The legislative framework that binds the PA’s operation includes procedures for resolving differences.	3	−4	0	−2
	Other Distinguishing statements for factor A
15	PA management is effective.	1	3 *	0	−1
48	Sustainability goals (economical, environmental, social aspect) have been incorporated during the designation process.	−1	2 *	−2	−1
47	The PA’ s goals and objectives are absolutely clear.	0	1 *	−1	−3
10	The active participation of the public in issues, decisions, initiatives, or other actions connected to the PA is stipulated and secured.	−3	1 *	3	−3
2	To govern our PA, knowledge of all sorts (scientific, experiential, local) is taken into account.	2	0 *	4	−3
6	Participation of stakeholders concerns all governance related decisions (decisions on projects/plans/programs).	−3	−1 *	1	4
7	Participation of stakeholders is stipulated and secured during policy designation and during respective strategies and laws.	−5	−1 *	2	1
17	All collaborating authorities (coastal guard, police, forest services, etc) own good managerial capacity.	0	−2 *	2	1
14	The PA’s management plans are embedded in a wider management plan covering the surrounding area.	−1	−3 *	1	3

. Based on those, we maintain that for Factor B, the PAs’ governance of the Greek PAs is of “High managerial quality in spite of contextual deficiencies and unclear stakeholders’ involvement”. Thus, Factor B is set apart from the other factors due to its (strong) agreement that the PAs management is effective (St. no 15), it “responds and satisfies demands that concern information” (St. no 30) while ‘senior management capability and credibility is quite satisfying’ (St. no 21)—all of them also distinguishing statements. This positive assessment of management is accompanied by positive scores regarding the transparency over procedures (St. no 28) and the reliability of the information provided (St. no 31).

In addition, Factor B viewpoint differs from the other factors’ by the fact that it has a highly critical perception of the wider framework. It highlights other collaborating authorities’ lack of “good managerial capacity” (St. no 17), the absence of a “wider management plan” (St. no 14) and the ambiguities/overlaps of “The legislative framework that is connected to the PA’s operation” (St. no 13), all also distinguishing statements, as well as the latter’s lack of “procedures for resolving differences” (St. no 32). All these are coupled by a negative assessment, which nevertheless Factor B shares with other factors concerning the adequacy of staff and funding (St. no 22 and 23), both belonging to the purview of the central government.

Finally, another distinctive characteristic of Factor B is its rather mute position on stakeholder involvement. On a number of statements regarding the public/stakeholder participation (e.g., “The active participation of the public in issues, decisions, initiatives or other actions connected to the PA is stipulated and secured” (St. no 10); “Participation of stakeholders concerns all governance-related decisions…” (St. no 6); “Participation of stakeholders is stipulated and secured during policy designation and during respective strategies and laws” (St. no 7), Factor B scores oscillate around the “neutral” zero-point score, contrary to other Factors which exhibit a stronger (dis-)agreement.

5.3. Explaining Factor C: Governance Is … “Participatory and Inclusive but Societally Contentious”

Discourse C explains 11% of the variance and it is defined by three out of 19 participants who load significantly on it: two national ENGO representatives and one scientist. The most (dis-)agreeing and distinguishing statements for Factor C are shown in

Table 5. Most (dis-)agreeing (−5 to +5 scale) and distinguishing (*) statements for Factor C.

		Factor Scores
	Most Agreeing Statements	A	B	C	D
12	Environmental NGOs participate actively in the governance of the PA.	5	2	5	2
2	To govern our PA, knowledge of all sorts (scientific, experiential, local) is taken into account.	2	0	4 *	−3
9	Procedures and institutions that concern PA governance are decentralized.	4	−2	4	−3
3	Within the governance scheme of our PA, the values of all stakeholders are considered and respected.	0	3	4	1
	Most Disagreeing Statements
24	Justice, equality, and equity characterize all procedures connected to the PA governance of our PA.	0	2	−5 *	2
29	All stakeholders are timely informed and access to information concerning our PA is guaranteed.	3	3	−4	−4
20	Within the PA management plan there is a correspondence of means/purpose/problems.	−1	−3	−4	1
37	There is trust among stakeholders in our PA.	0	0	−4	−2
	Distinguishing statements for factor A
4	All stakeholders participate fully and substantially in the decision-making processes.	0	0	3 *	−2
10	The active participation of the public in issues, decisions, initiatives, or other actions connected to the PA is stipulated and secured.	−3	1	3 *	−3
8	The public’s and the stakeholders’ participation is stipulated and ensured during licensing for projects and for respective actions in our PA.	−4	0	3 *	0
22	Staff, occupied in the PA management, is adequate.	−4	−5	2 *	−5
6	Participation of stakeholders concerns all governance related decisions (decisions on projects/plans/programs).	−3	−1	1 *	4
44	In our PA, the management body and services responsible for imposing the law (police, forest service, coast guard) collaborate.	1	1	−1 *	4
30	PA’s management responds and satisfies demands that concern information and access to information is secured for most interested parties/stakeholders.	2	4	−1 *	1

, and based on them we argue that for this factor the governance of Greek PAs is “participatory and inclusive but societally contentious”.

This assessment is based on Factor C’s distinctiveness concerning the formally stipulated inclusion of stakeholders. Thus, this viewpoint (strongly) agrees that “Knowledge of all sorts (scientific, experiential, local) is valued and acknowledged” (St. no 2), “participation of stakeholders is considered as substantial in decision-making processes” (St. no 4) while “The active participation of the public in issues, decisions, initiatives or other actions connected to the PA is stipulated and secured” (St. no 10) and “The public’s and the stakeholders’ participation is stipulated and ensured during licensing for projects and for respective actions in our PA” (St. no 8), all of them also distinguishing statements. This participatory character of governance is further corroborated by Factor C’s strong agreement on other similar statements such as the view that “Within the governance scheme of our PA, the values of all stakeholders are considered and respected” (St. no 3) or that “Environmental NGOs participate actively in the governance of the PA” (St. no 12) (see also St. no 6).

Yet this formal inclusiveness is coupled with poor relations between the stakeholders. Thus, Factor C strongly disagrees that “Justice, equality, and equity characterize all procedure connected to the PA governance of our PA” (St. no 24), a negative view which sets it apart from all other factors. High negative assessments are also given to other statements pertaining to stakeholders’ amiable participation in PA governance, such as St. no 37 (‘There is trust among stakeholders in our PA’) as well as St. no 29 (“All stakeholders are timely informed and access to information, concerning our PA, is guaranteed” (See also St. no 30).

5.4. Explaining Factor D: Governance Is … “Focused on Law Enforcement and Collaborative”

Factor D explains 7% of the variance and two out of 19 participants load on this factor, one representative of the central government and one local businessperson. As it follows from

Table 6. Most (dis-)agreeing (−5 to +5 scale) and distinguishing (*) statements for Factor D.

		Factor Scores
	Most Agreeing Statements	A	B	C	D
5	The decision-making process is collaborative, i.e., it takes place in the spirit of consensus and with all interested parties/stakeholders’ participation.	1	1	3	5
6	Participation of stakeholders concerns all governance related decisions (decisions on projects/plans/programs).	−3	−1	1	4 *
44	In our PA, the management body and services responsible for imposing the law (police, forest service, coast guard) collaborate.	1	1	−1	4 *
40	Law implementation is undisputed, effective, and absolute in our PA.	−2	−2	−1	4 *
	Most Disagreeing Statements
22	Staff, occupied in the PA management is adequate.	−4	−5	2	−5
23	Funding to finance the PA’s management body is adequate.	2	−4	1	−4
29	All stakeholders are timely informed and access to information concerning our PA, is guaranteed.	3	3	−4	−4
39	Cases of corruption that are connected to environmental issues (licensing, natural resource use) are resolved effectively in our PA.	−1	−2	0	−4
	Distinguishing statements for factor A
41	Abidance to law is systematically monitored with our PA boundaries.	1	1	0	3 *
38	In our area, the public trusts the institutions.	−2	0	−2	3 *
27	Responsibility to govern our PA is shared and belongs to all stakeholders.	−2	0	−2	2 *
20	Within the PA management plan there is correspondence of means/purpose/problems.	−1	−3	−4	1 *
30	PA’s management responds and satisfies demands that concern information, and access to information, is secured for most interested parties/stakeholders.	2	4	−1	1 *
13	The legislative framework that is connected to the PA’s operation is absolutely clear, for example, there are no ambiguities or overlaps.	1	−4	3	−2 *
2	To govern our PA, knowledge of all sorts (scientific, experiential, local) is taken into account.	2	0	4	−3 *

, Factor D’s perspective has two characteristics that set it apart from the others: its emphasis on law enforcement, on the one hand, and on collaboration, on the other hand. This claim is supported by the Factor’s (strong) agreement on distinguishing statements such as “Law implementation is undisputed, effective and absolute in our PA” (St. no 40) and “Abidance to law is systematically monitored with our PA boundaries” (St. no 41) with “the management body and services responsible for imposing the law (police, forest service, coast guard) collaborate in our PA” (St. no 44). This strong emphasis on meeting the law requirements may explain Factor D’s distinctive admission that “To govern our PA, knowledge of all sorts (scientific, experiential, local) is [rather not] taken into account” (St. no 2): such a “soft” good governance requirement would seem rather superficial (and thus less likely to be used) by people who emphasize abiding to the “hard” (i.e., legally-bounding) aspects of governance.

Factor D is also distinguished from other factors by its agreement that “Participation of stakeholders concerns all governance related decisions…” (St. no 6) and “Responsibility to govern our PA is shared and belongs to all stakeholders” (St. no 27), thus the “Decision making process is collaborative….” (St. no 5). While it is true that collaboration is stipulated in the legal framework regulating the Greek PAs’ management bodies, for Factor D this collaborative ethos seems not to be merely a side-effect of its legalistic focus. Its distinguishing agreement that “In our area, the public trusts the institutions” (St. no 38) hints to the societal prerequisite which makes collaboration a distinct trait of this Factor.

5.5. Consensus Statements

There also exist a number of “consensus” statements—that is, statements whose rankings by the various factors do not differ in a statistically significant degree. These are St. no 39 (“Cases of corruption that are connected to environmental issues (licensing, natural resource use) are resolved effectively in our PA”), on which all Factors (rather) disagree to various degrees; St. no 42 (“Economic and other activities that develop within our PA comply to the law” to which all Factors give rather neutral sores; St. no 46 (“There is shared vision among all stakeholders concerning the goals and targets of our PA”, for which there exists overall moderate disagreement; St. no 28 (“All PA governance related procedures are transparent”, where we find overall moderate agreement; and, St. no 51 (“Our PA’s operation meets environmental goals, and ensures biodiversity conservation and nature protection, within the area of its responsibility”, with overall neutral rankings.

6. Discussion

This paper set out to establish how the stakeholders engaged in the management of Greek protected areas (PAs) evaluate the latter’s “environmental governance”. Answering this research question is important for two reasons. First, it would allow us to understand the stakeholders’ perspectives concerning the Greek PAs management. Second, by juxtaposing the stakeholders’ real-life evaluations to the theoretically established prerequisites for “good governance”, we would be able to conduct a quality assessment of Greek PAs’ governance. Addressing those two points is of practical and of theoretical importance since it would offer us an insight on existing weaknesses (or strong points), relating both the performance of environmental governance systems cf. [25], but also to the achievement of conservation outcomes cf. [85].

In order to answer our research question, we first compiled a list of 51 statements which tap on the notion of “good governance” as this is described in the relevant literature. We then presented these statements to a purposefully selected sample of Greek PAs Management Bodies’ board members, asking them to rank order these statements based on the extent each of them “describes/is representative of the governance of the protected area you serve as a member of the management body?”. A total of 19 individuals (coming from 14 of the 36 Greek PAs’ management bodies participated, and their replies were analyzed through Q-methodology, a mixed-methods approach which allow the researcher to extract shared perspectives (or “discourses”) based on individual responses.

We found four different main stakeholders’ perspectives concerning the governance of Greek PAs, whose main narrative points are summarized in

Table 7. Summary of Factors’ discourse regarding protected areas governance in Greece.

Factor	A	B	C	D
Governance is …	Legally vested but insensitive to stakeholders	High management quality in spite of contextual deficiencies and unclear stakeholders’ involvement	Participatory and inclusive but societally contentious	Focused on law enforcement and collaborative
Narrative main points	Transparency of governance procedures, Decentralized character, Reliability of the info provided Active involvement of ENGOs in the PAs. But… Shortages of staff Lack of a shared vision between stakeholders. Positive acknowledgment of the judicial shielding of PA governance no consideration to stakeholders	PA management adequately effective, Senior management capability and credibility quite satisfying. Transparency of procedures, Reliability of information Ease of access to information secured to most interested parties But… Shortages in staff and funding, absence of management plans Weak managerial capacity of collaborating authorities. Ambiguities in the legislative framework Procedures for resolving differences are [not] included.	Decentralized character Stakeholders participate fully and substantially in the decision-making processes Stakeholder participation concerns all decisions connected to governance The public is also involved in many governance-related decisions (licensing) NGOs are active actors Knowledge of all sorts (scientific, experiential, local) is valued and acknowledged Underlying values are considered and respected But… Justice, equality, and equity is not satisfied Lack of trust among stakeholders Mismatches among means, solutions, and problems Inconsistent calls for participation	Services cooperate Stakeholders participate Decisions are taken collaboratively There is abidance to law Monitoring is systematic Trust towards institutions seems to be present Responsibility to govern the PA is being shared among all stakeholders But… Cases of corruption on issues that concern the environment are not dealt with effectively or should be dealt with more efficiently Poor funding Mismatches among means and specific problems Untimely call for stakeholder participation Shortages in staff

. In brief, for Factor A, the governance of the Greek PAs’ is firmly established on legal provisions yet does not take into account the stakeholders’ priorities. The second perspective (Factor B) contends that the PAs are managed in a very good manner, in spite of contextual deficiencies in terms of legislation, master planning and supportive authorities, yet the stakeholders’ involvement in the PA governance is unclear. In Factor C’s discourse, the PAs governance meets all the formal requirements for participation and collaboration, yet the relations between the stakeholders are tense. Finally, in Factor D’s view, the governance focuses primarily on enforcing the law within the premises of the PA, in good cooperation and collaboration both with other authorities, as well as the various stakeholders.

These results offer us much more insights than a mere description of the different realities of Greek PAs management, as perceived by the actual people involved in it. First, one should note that, despite the plethora as well as the diversity of the PAs analyzed (14 out of the total 36 PAs, including marine, mountainous, forested, fluvial and riparian areas), there exist a very small number of distinctive views (just four) which explain almost two thirds of the variance (i.e., the summative diversity of all the individualistic perspectives on PA governance reality). Second, the fact that no stakeholder type loads exclusively on any of the factors (with the sole exception of the single ‘government representative’ participant) suggests that the viewpoints “expressed” in the factors are not particularistic but rather represent sets of opinions that cut across interest groups. Finally, it turned out that of the eleven “good governance” criteria identified in Table 1, only the one pertaining to stakeholders’ involvement consistently differentiates the Factors’ perspectives on PA governance. In particular, for Factor A, the way the Greek PAs are governed is “insensitive to stakeholders”; in Factor’s B discourse, the stakeholders’ involvement in PA governance is unclear; for Factor C, stakeholders participate in governance yet their relations are contentious; while Factor D sees a cordial collaboration amongst participating stakeholders. The persistent occurrence of this particular criterion testifies to its great relevance for governance, as highlighted by many scholars, e.g., [86,87]. Yet, the fact that most Factors find the stakeholders’ participation (at best) suboptimal suggests that this is a governance aspect that needs to be remedied) through targeted policies and interventions.

Our results also allow us to perform a quality assessment of PAs’ governance. A first clue comes from the consensus statements, and it points to serious shortcomings. To start with, the neutral ranking of St. no 51 (“Our PA’s operation meets environmental goals, and ensures biodiversity conservation and nature protection…”) (scores ranging between −1 and +2 for the different factors) suggest that the most important outcome of environmental governance, safeguarding the natural capital, is still far from being fully achieved. Whether this is due to encroaching activities (St. no 42) not dealt with effectively enough (St. no 39), or to a lack of shared vision concerning what the PAs’ main goals should be (St. no 46), or to some combination of both, is an open question.

A more detailed overview emerges from

Table 8. Respondents’ ranking of the existence of “good governance” principle in Greek PAs (scale ranging from ‘−5’: “Strongly absent” to ‘+5’: “Strongly present”).

Good Governance Principles (Statements #)	Respondents’ Average Ranking (‘−5’ to ‘+5’)
Rights, local knowledge, values (Sts. 13)	0.8
Procedural/Participation (Sts. 4–11)	−0.1
Effectiveness & Efficiency (Sts. 12–23)	−0.4
Justice, equity & equality (St. 24)	−0.2
Reliability (Sts. 25–27)	0.1
Transparency& Access to info (Sts. 28–31)	2.0
Access to Justice (Sts. 32–36)	0.2
Legitimacy/ law implementation (Sts. 37–42)	−0.6
Performance (Sts. 43–45)	0.1
Vision-Direction (Sts. 46–47)	0.8
Outcomes (Sts. 49–51)	0.2

, where each cell entry represents the average score for each “good governance” principle based on the rankings it received from all participants (See

Table A1. Statement Scores for each factor.

	Statement	Factor A	Factor B	Factor C	Factor D
1	Within the governance scheme of our PA, the rights of stakeholders and of actors are acknowledged and respected.	0	2	0	2
2	To govern our PA, Knowledge of all sorts (scientific, experiential, local) is taken into account.	2	0	4	−3
3	Within the governance scheme of our PA, the values of all stakeholders are considered and respected.	0	3	4	1
4	All stakeholders participate fully and substantially in the decision-making processes.	0	0	3	−2
5	Decision making process is collaborative, a.k.a it takes place in the spirit of consensus and with all interested parties/stakeholders’ participation.	1	1	3	5
6	Participation of stakeholders concerns all governance related decisions (decisions on projects/plans/programs).	−3	−1	1	4
7	Participation of stakeholders is stipulated and secured during policy designation and during respective strategies and laws.	−5	−1	2	1
8	The public’s & the stakeholders’ participation is stipulated and ensured during licensing for projects and for respective actions in our PA.	−4	0	3	0
9	Procedures and institutions, that concern PA governance, are decentralized.	4	−2	4	−3
10	The active participation of the public in issues, decisions, initiatives or other actions connected to the PA is stipulated and secured.	−3	1	3	−3
11	Information on participation is available, for example, stakeholders and the public know in what ways they can act/engage.	−1	1	2	2
12	Environmental NGOs participate actively in the governance of the PA.	5	2	5	2
13	The legislative framework that is connected to the PA’s operation, is absolutely clear, for example, there are no ambiguities or overlaps.	1	−4	3	−2
14	The PA’s management plans are embedded in a wider management plan covering the surrounding area.	−1	−3	1	3
15	PA management is effective.	1	3	0	−1
16	The system of environmental management and governance is adaptable—it can, in other words, adapt and expand its actions according to any givenneeds/conditions.	−2	0	2	−2
17	All collaborating authorities (coastal guard, police, forest services etc) own good managerial capacity.	0	−2	2	1
18	Information is diffused through all governance levels and within all stakeholders in the PA.	−2	3	−3	3
19	The performance of the PA in achieving environmental, social, and economical goals is systematically monitored and assessed through specific indicators.	1	−3	−3	1
20	Within the PA management plan there is correspondence between the tools that are used and the problems that accrues (correspondence of means/purpose).	−1	−3	−4	1
21	Senior management is distinguished by capability and credibility.	−1	4	−2	−1
22	Staff, occupied in the PA management is adequate.	−4	−5	2	−5
23	Funding, to finance the PA’s management body is adequate.	2	−4	1	−4
24	Justice, equality, and equity characterize all procedure connected to the PA governance of our PA.	0	2	−5	2
25	PA’s governance procedures are reliable/credible.	3	3	−2	−2
26	The legislative framework, that binds the PA’s operation clearly stipulates accountability institutions.	2	−3	0	−1
27	Responsibility to govern our PA is shared and belongs to all stakeholders.	−2	0	−2	2
28	All PA governance related procedures are transparent	4	4	1	2
29	All stakeholders are timely informed and access to information, concerning our PA, is guaranteed.	3	3	−4	−4
30	PA’s management responds and satisfies demands that concern information, and access to information is secured for most interested parties/stakeholders.	2	4	−1	1
31	Information provided by the PA management to all interested parties is reliable.	4	5	−1	0
32	The legislative framework that binds the PA’s operation includes procedures for resolving differences.	3	−4	0	−2
33	Greek justice system may provide effective/viable solutions on issues connected to the PA governance.	3	−1	−1	−3
34	The legislative framework that binds the PA’s operation, foresees access to justice for issues that concern the PA governance.	2	−2	−3	−1
35	Difficulties in accessing justice (cost/prerequisites) over issues that concern the governance of our PA are significant.	−3	1	2	0
36	Information concerning access to justice, over issues that concern the governance of our PA, is available and accessible.	2	−2	−2	0
37	There is trust among stakeholders in our PA.	0	0	−4	−2
38	In our area, the public trusts the institutions.	−2	0	−2	3
39	Cases of corruption that are connected to environmental issues (licensing, natural resource use) are resolved effectively in our PA.	−1	−2	0	−4
40	Law implementation is undisputed, effective and absolute in our PA.	−2	−2	−1	4
41	Abidance to law is systematically monitored with our PA boundaries.	1	1	0	3
42	Economic and other activities that develop within our PA comply to the law.	−2	−1	1	0
43	While managing our PA, there is coordination throughout respective administrative levels (national, peripheral, local).	−1	−1	1	3
44	In our PA, the management body and services responsible for imposing the law (police, forest service, coast guard) collaborate.	1	1	−1	4
45	In the case of decisions that may affect the management body’s operation, the necessary corrective actions/interventions are foreseen. For example, in order to avoid protests/complaints by businesses regarding some restrictions to their operation, thorough briefing and/or compensation/offsets are offered.	−3	−1	0	0
46	There is a shared vision among all stakeholders concerning the goals and targets of our PA.	−4	−3	−3	−1
47	The PA’s goals and objectives are absolutely clear.	0	1	−1	−3
48	Sustainability goals (economical, environmental, social aspect) have been incorporated during the designation process.	−1	2	−2	−1
49	Benefits that derive from the PA are dispersed to all stakeholders of the community.	3	2	−3	−1
50	There exist provisions for reducing any negative impacts by our PA’s operation to particular social groups/businesses’. Negative impacts that derive from the PA operation are reduced.	−3	−1	1	0
51	Our PA’s operation meets environmental goals, and ensures biodiversity conservation and nature protection, within the area of its responsibility.	1	2	−1	1

in the Appendix A). These scores were calculated by averaging the respondents’ ranking of each statement pertaining to the particular governance principle and then dividing these rankings’ sum by the number of statements. Scores range from −5 (the specific principle is “strongly missing” from the PA’s management) to +5 (‘strongly present’) with 0 as the middle point.

As it follows from Table 8, none of the good governance principles is strongly present (or absent for that matter) in the Greek PAs operation. This finding is not surprising if we consider that each protected area’s management faces different challenges (depending on the ecological specificities of their site, the threats they are supposed to check, the time they have been operational, the socioeconomic activities occurring within and around them, the competences and commitment of the staff they employ, the willingness of local stakeholders to engage and their appraisal of the PA, to name just a few), thus an averaging of opinions is bound to return dampened scores. To that extent, Table 8 offers a broad brush image of the governance of Greek PAs, demonstrating that, overall, crucial criteria, such as a vision guiding the PA management, the rule of law and the effectiveness/efficiency of the procedures, are in the red, while others (such as the assessment of “performance” and “outcomes”) barely pass the zero-line.

7. Conclusions

In this study, we identified the main perspectives which stakeholders hold for the governance of the Greek environmental protected areas. Although, as Bennet and Satterfield (2018) rightly argue, “ecological systems and social contexts are unique” [25] (p. 9), we have demonstrated that nevertheless there exist a small number of different governance “paradigms”, each exhibiting (or lacking) different “good governance” characteristics, with stakeholders’ participation/engagement being the single most divisive issue. Furthermore, we found that none of the “good environmental governance” principles, as identified in the relevant literature, is overall strongly present. Rather a number of crucial principles such as a shared vision guiding the PA management, the rule of law, and the effectiveness/efficiency of the procedures were found lacking, suggesting that, overall, the environmental governance of Greek PAs is suboptimal at least.

As a final note, we would like to point a limitation of the present study. The findings herein presented, speak of the views of those actors who are de jure involved in the governance of the Greek PAs. Future research would benefit by examining the views also of “external” societal stakeholders (i.e., those who are not involved in the PAs’ formal management), in order to gain a fuller understanding of the strengths (and weaknesses) of environmental governance in Greece.