Living Labs for Sustainable Protected Area Management in Greece: The Prespa Lakes Case

Abstract

Effective implementation of the new Greek governance system for Natura 2000 site protection and conservation relies on adopting innovative local participation methods. The remote and transboundary nature of Prespa Lakes presents unique challenges to environmental protection and efficient management of this protected area. Within the framework of the Horizon 2020 ARSINOE project, NECCA supervised three national workshops in the Greek part of the Prespa Lakes watershed, bringing together stakeholders from all relevant sectors that were selected based on their interest in and influence on the challenge of water management. These stakeholders mapped the complex interconnections between climate change; water management; and local issues like vegetation changes, population decline, and economic activities, revealing synergies as well as conflicts, eventually identifying innovation pathways for future climate resilience in Prespa and highlighting the importance of participatory governance for freshwater ecosystems. This paper explores the application of the System Innovation Approach and Living Labs methodology that produced mental maps, future visions, and identified innovations, thus fostering a comprehensive, multistakeholder approach to climate adaptation in water resources management. The future goal is to examine the transferability of experience and insights gained in Prespa to other Greek Protected Areas with similar ecosystem characteristics and challenges.

1. Introduction

The management of Protected Areas (PAs) that belong to the Natura 2000 network includes various actors ranging from governmental agencies, local authorities, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to state-owned and private enterprises [1]. However, the involved parties often tend to perceive the management of Natura 2000 sites, established under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) [2], as a regulatory top-down process [3]. Despite the partial assignment of PAs’ administration to NGOs, overcoming the dominance of top-down approaches has still not been achieved [1]. Nonetheless, it is estimated that stakeholders’ participation is essential for adding the bottom-up aspect to efficiently managed PAs. The idea of involving diverse actors and multiple perspectives highlights the assumption that local participation is interlinked with the social and ecological success of PAs [4]. Increasing the role of local communities and including them in planning and activities has been implemented in PAs around the world; these range from reporting systems, community patrols, and volunteer training [5] to co-management involving households, communities, the state, and the private sector [6]. The lack of local stakeholders’ involvement has been identified as an important shortcoming in the Balkan PAs’ management; therefore, an increase in involvement is suggested through partnerships including NGOs, local authorities, and international bodies [7].

The governance of PAs is determined by the generation, implementation, and enforcement of socially binding agreements, producing ecological and social effects. While involving communities may generate complex and diverse results [8], the management of PAs by both state and community actors is more likely to lead to benefits for local communities [9]. Furthermore, building informal relationships and holding discussions within trusted regional or local environments increases the acceptance of measures and provides opportunities to share information and best practices [10]. Participatory governance may be especially critical for multi-use PAs due to trade-offs between ecosystem services and social demands, as well as limitations for simultaneously financing the conservation of natural capital and the sustainable capture of its benefits [11]. For the successful management of complex socioecological landscapes, collective low-level actions are required between public agencies, local authorities, NGOs, enterprises, and other stakeholders influencing ecological processes. Nonetheless, they need to be stimulated by a central actor [1] in terms of identifying methodologies, selecting stakeholders, and coordinating workshops, especially in areas with transboundary water bodies in which many different sectors depend directly on water management and interact with each other. Such cases can be found in the Balkan peninsula: for Lake Ohrid, public participation, including stakeholder mapping and activities such as interviews, focus group discussions, and workshops, was part of developing a common management plan for the watershed [12].

The importance of using innovative methods is often acknowledged, since successful management requires both bottom-up and top-down approaches, representing different sectors and often divergent points of view. The “lower” governance levels have a greater awareness of the local affairs and complexities, while the “higher” levels ensure a strategic perspective and possess wider network development potential [10]. Constant and sustained involvement of local communities could further contribute to fruitful discussion and effective management of environmental issues, especially in vulnerable socioecological systems such as the PAs of the Natura 2000 Network. Conflict of incentives can lead to coordination gaps, which are even greater in the case of transboundary PAs, where shared action comes from countries with different environmental protection and conservation systems; opposed political priorities and legislation (such as one state giving more weight to biodiversity protection and applying laws for land restitution, whereas in the other state, the removal of local residents contradicts national legislation [6] or different prioritization of challenges among stakeholders in each country [13]); and varying methodologies for the assessment of the state of the environment. Dissimilarities in the status and extent of protection between neighboring states have also been identified in the Balkan peninsula, hindering common planning, which is considered necessary for achieving connectivity between PAs and meeting biodiversity goals [14].

Initiatives for transboundary conservation involving various local stakeholders have emerged in PAs around the world, and the importance of engaging diverse stakeholders across state borders has been identified [15]. Transdisciplinary participatory methods have been implemented in environmental protection and sustainable development, e.g., in coastal rural areas [16], in areas with water management issues [17], and in transboundary areas facing serious challenges related to climate change [13]. Stakeholder engagement in Living Labs (LLs) can also foster the successful implementation of nature-based solutions (NBS) and contribute to disaster risk reduction related to climate change; however, synergies and trade-offs between NBS and LLs remain a knowledge gap [18]. Furthermore, the engagement of stakeholders in the design of public policies either tends to improve outcomes through participation or seek democratic legitimacy by empowering the participants. The key is to integrate these two approaches by achieving a balance between avoiding a random design and allowing creativity [19]. The pressure to conform to a specific participatory method can prevent in-depth discussion of the burning issues, leaving stakeholders dissatisfied [20].

Although these methods have contributed to the identification of different drivers of pressures in neighboring countries, knowledge cocreation [13], and the understanding of interconnections within specific geographic or political contexts [21], the synthesis of the outcomes in a common vision is often missing. Methodologies involving researchers and local stakeholders in mapping the system [17,22] or envisioning [20] have been applied in rural areas dealing with water management issues. The development of mental models using fuzzy-logic cognitive mapping in agricultural areas facing water scarcity led to mutual understanding of the system and social learning. However, the inclusion of farmers and decision makers only as stakeholders [22] could be insufficient for the case of a PA in Greece, where actors such as environmental NGOs or private enterprises have important roles to play. Moreover, it is questionable whether stakeholders acting as separate groups without interacting with each other will succeed in reassuring the local citizens of their involvement in governance. While the organization of focus groups with diverse stakeholders increases the likelihood of interactions between policy making and research, actors have different foci depending on their specific functions or institutional legacies [21]. Conflicts and power imbalances are often overlooked in methods related to decentralized management [23].

Scenario workshops with direct interaction between stakeholders have been implemented on the island of Naxos. However, while this methodology proved to be useful for the initiation of dialogue and common learning, it did not contribute decisively to the formulation of action plans and support of decision making [20]. The participants’ visions provided a general direction and produced ideas for potential action. However, the limited time and representation of participants did not support a deep understanding of the actions [20] that could lead to actual solutions. Moving from thinking to action and producing direct policy outcomes remains a challenge [17], especially with complex policy problems, where the empowerment of participants is a parallel goal [19].

The case study of the Ohrid/Prespa Lakes area was developed in the framework of the European Union (EU) funded project Horizon 2020 ARSINOE (grant agreement No. 101037424), which aims to induce innovative approaches for dealing with climate-related issues. This study investigates whether participatory methods can efficiently contribute to finding solutions to complex challenges such as climate adaptation in PAs. It explores the ways that the Living Labs (LLs) methodology, an innovative user-centered approach applied in real life operational environments, can achieve the best possible representation of stakeholders, foster their engagement and co-creation, identify and address competing interests and power imbalances, and enable the evaluation of solutions (including NBS) to particular problems and needs, while aiming to advance the sustainable management of PAs.

The Natura 2000 network of Greece consists of 446 sites covering 35% of its terrestrial and 18% of the Greek marine territory. The previous management system of PAs via the independent Local Management Bodies created various difficulties, such as a lack of coordination, discontinuities in funding, and an incomplete legal framework, as indicated by stakeholders involved in the management of PAs [24], as well as by the management bodies themselves [25]. The results of similar studies also revealed serious gaps in the adoption of effective participation processes [26] and identified a lack of knowledge sharing and consultation with local communities [26], which often lead to low levels of acceptance [25]. The stakeholders engaged in PAs’ management could not trace a shared vision and efficiency of the procedures [24], which indicates the absence of a common approach.

The year 2020 marks a key milestone for the Greek Natura 2000 areas, as that was when the new governance system for PAs was adopted. The Natural Environment and Climate Change Agency (NECCA) was established (law No. 4685/2020) [27] as a centralized coordinating governmental agency for environmental actions, projects, and procedures on the implementation of national policies, aiming to ensure conservation of biodiversity and sustainable management of the Greek PAs. The NECCA administration scheme consists of the headquarters in Athens and 24 decentralized Protected Area Management Units (PAMUs) that cover the entire area of the Natura 2000 network in Greece, thus enabling the coordination of policies. Compared to the previous system, it aims to develop a common approach for the collection of environmental data and implementation of management plans. In neighboring countries, different management approaches within national territories [1] and fragmentation in the nature conservation system due to political problems [7] have led to inconsistencies not only in the enforcement and monitoring of conservation, but also in the involvement of local communities. The existence of management bodies with clear responsibilities has been identified as a prerequisite for the proper implementation of conservation measures [7].

Acting as a multi-level governance system [28], NECCA’s institutional approach to stakeholder participation was initially expressed by the appointment of Local Management Committees (LMCs). The LMCs are comprised of 9 members representing the scientific community, local and regional public authorities, forestry or port authorities, environmental NGOs, and local/regional professional associations. They focus on the implementation of the relevant PA management plan and monitoring scheme; the conservation of protected habitats and species; and participation in any other action related to sustainable development, mitigation, and adaptation to climate change [29] and serve as consultation bodies of the 24 PAMUs in their area of responsibility. The NECCA’s management system recognizes the importance of local dimension in the 24 decentralized PAMUs, allowing degree(s) of decentralization in the shadow of hierarchy [10]; at the same time, it maintains connection to centralized coordination and decision making. Informal approaches do not substitute for formal arrangements such as LMCs, but can supplement and make them more efficient in policy implementation, especially in transboundary PAs [15]. The use of tools such as LLs can contribute not only to harnessing knowledge, but also to identifying and prioritizing actions to be taken [16]. Such methods have not been applied consistently in Natura 2000 sites in Greece.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area: The Prespa Lakes

The Prespa Lakes area is well known for its natural beauty and significant ecological, historical (e.g., Byzantine monuments), and architectural value. The Prespa Park, which is the first transboundary PA in the Balkans, was founded in 2000 by Greece, Albania, and North Macedonia. The Prespa National Park in Greece was declared in 2009 and comprises two Natura 2000 sites, covering a total area of 32.686 ha. The Prespa Basin is of high importance for the protection of biodiversity, including several endemic and/or protected species; among others, it hosts one of the largest colonies of the globally Near Threatened Pelecanus crispus. Lake Lesser Prespa is also included in the Greek Ramsar site list [30].

The Prespa lakes watershed extends through three countries (Greece, Albania, and North Macedonia). Prespa Lake and the Lesser Prespa Lake are connected through a narrow channel flowing from Lesser Prespa to Prespa, which lies in the Greek territory. The outflow is regulated through a man-made sluice [31], whereas there is also groundwater flow through the alluvial sediment of the isthmus [32,33]. Although there is no natural surface outflow from Prespa Lake, there is groundwater flow to Ohrid Lake [32,34]. While the water level of Lesser Prespa is regulated and remains relatively stable, a significant depletion of the water level in Prespa has been recorded since 1995 [32]. Water management affects economic sectors such as agriculture [35], fisheries [36], and tourism, which rely on water availability in several ways. The main challenge is to ensure ecological functions [37] as well as economic activities while further considering climate change impacts [38] and planning for climate resilience.

From an administrative point of view, the Greek part of the Prespa watershed belongs to the Municipality of Prespa (Figure 1). The protection of the Greek part of the aquatic ecosystem of the Prespa Lakes area has been assigned to the “Prespa National Park and Protected Areas of Western Macedonia” Management Unit of NECCA. However, dealing with challenges effectively necessitates the reinforcement of transboundary cooperation, since measures applied solely in one country can only have limited effects in shared water bodies. Under the framework of the Agreement on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park Area [39], which was approved by the Greek Government in 2017 [40] (Law 4453/2017) and entered into force in 2019, the establishment of a transboundary Working Group on Water Management has been foreseen (Art. 14 of the Agreement). An important obligation of the involved parties (Albania, Greece, the Republic of North Macedonia, and the EU) is to prudently manage the water quality and quantity of the Prespa Lakes, giving special attention to the water level of both lakes (Art. 3 of the Agreement).

Although the agreement entering into force is a new form of cooperation, transboundary initiatives between stakeholders of the three countries started many years ago. In particular, a research group drafted an expert proposal for a transboundary water monitoring system for Prespa Park back in 2011 [41]. Furthermore, environmental NGOs from the three countries provided recommendations for transboundary water governance [42]. The implementation of innovative participatory methods can provide an important additional contribution to more efficient water management.

2.2. Participatory Methodologies: SIA and LL

The involvement of local communities working on predefined environmental issues can enhance communication, address tensions, mitigate conflicts, and lead to convergence between diverse groups. Participatory methods have already been tested in similar contexts to Prespa (i.e., a rural Mediterranean environment with water management issues) and have demonstrated their potential to improve understanding and foster a collaborative spirit, as well as to identify limitations and barriers [17,20]. While in a transboundary process, there is usually less room for local interests to be considered [10], establishing an informal network of stakeholders can improve the previously limited role of local communities. Conducting national as well as international workshops can render the establishment of a network that includes scientists, local community members, and practitioners. The networking facilitates links, sharing of experiences, and consolidation of knowledge, thus developing best practice guidance and enabling comprehensive co-management [26].

The growing complexity of interdependencies and interconnectedness between modern societies and economies can be addressed by the Systems Innovation Approach (SIA), which focuses on the functions of the cross-sectoral system as a whole and on the variety of actors, instead of solely targeting specific functions or individual/sectoral benefits [43]. This focus makes it suitable for facing multi-dimensional problems, such as the management of water scarcity [44] and adaptation to climate change. Climate-related problems are complex and have a dynamic nature; their separation into smaller parts poses a risk of missing key relationships among system components [45,46]. SIA’s broader view helps to identify the structural causes of issues and where to work to address them. In this way, the governance of PAs facing challenges in climate resilience and water management, as in the case of Prespa Lakes, could be improved.

In this paper, SIA is applied in the form of LLs, a user-centered participatory research tool often used in planning and innovation, which brings together a group of key stakeholders to explore a focal issue [43]. The concept of LLs as open innovation networks that integrate user-centered research [47,48,49] can foster cocreation with users. Results are expected to provide joint value and better address user needs, as the stakeholders work together to assess the state of their system themselves [45,46]. The main innovative element of LLs, compared to other participatory tools implemented in PAs, is that they focus explicitly on collaboration and involvement of the specific territory and its actors from the very beginning [50].

Before conducting the workshops, it is important to select stakeholders based on their influence and interest through a stakeholder matrix [45] (Figure 2). This starts by detecting the main sectors (e.g., water management, agriculture, and tourism) related to the challenges on which the LL focuses. The next step is to identify the stakeholder categories (Business/Industry, Government/Policy Makers, Research/Academia, Local Citizens, and NGO/Association), which represent each of these sectors, and then determine key stakeholders in each category and sector. It is important to involve economic enterprises in an LL for a PA, as this promotes the sustainability and the inclusivity of the local economy [50]. The identified stakeholders are then classified according to their estimated influence on affecting change and their estimated interest in the central challenge of the LLs. The stakeholders of both high influence and high interest form the core group to be invited to the LLs and are supplemented by stakeholders fulfilling at least one of the two criteria. It is crucial to include all identified sectors, as well as stakeholders representing different scales (local, regional, and national). The result is validated by external experts with knowledge of the local situation. The stakeholder selection is a long-lasting procedure, but it is worth the effort; both the in-depth involvement and the participation of stakeholders at an early stage have been identified as success factors for LLs [51].

Once stakeholders have been selected, the LLs can be implemented [43,52]. LLs consist of three main steps (Figure 3), with each being the main subject of a separate workshop:

The first step is mental mapping; keywords that denote primary ideas are placed in nodes to depict beliefs or early impressions. This is facilitated by the assigned team from NECCA headquarters trained in SIA [43] in collaboration with the local PAMU personnel possessing local knowledge. The main challenge is placed in the center, and the stakeholders are invited to propose issues related to this challenge, describe the relationships between them, and initiate a discussion. The keywords are placed on the map, and the links between them are drawn, as reflected from the discussion and approved by the stakeholders. The facilitators try to reach consensus; in the case of controversial points, they are further discussed, reformulated, or eventually not included in the map. The systematic mapping process promotes a collective understanding of problems as part of the combined system assessment and makes use of the collective intelligence and credibility of a community [53]. In complicated systems, there is a risk of finding the right solution for the wrong problem; therefore, it is vital to identify the right problem first [54].

The next step is to reach a shared future vision in the form of a common narrative. Guiding principles, which are extracted from the United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), are identified based on the mental map and are used as an inspiration [43]. The envisioning is based on picturing the desirable future and describing what it might look like. It helps stakeholders to identify possibilities that they were not aware of, and to avoid limiting themselves to obvious thought patterns and existing structures; in this way, it can enable fundamental changes [54]. A shared vision has been identified as one of the critical factors to success by enabling the generation of impacts from LLs [51]. The vision of a common future motivates stakeholders and leads them to realize common ground, rather than focus on their differences [20].

Developing draft innovation pathways for climate adaptation finalizes the process. The technique of backcasting urges participants to start from the future vision developed in the previous workshop and then return to the present to identify and assess changes or actions necessary for that scenario to be realized. Some advantages of this technique are as follows: (a) it shows the participants that the future can have many alternative outcomes depending on decisions or external events; (b) it prevents them from restricting themselves to solve problems as they are perceived today, only with solutions already at hand; and (c) it is a fast and visual tool [54]. Attention should be given to ideas and proposals coming not only from scientists and policy makers, but also from local citizens and water users, who bring their local knowledge to the table [20]. However, it can be difficult to convince stakeholders to think in this way, as starting in the future and moving backwards can be perceived as contrary to common sense [54].

Each of the national workshops was followed by transboundary workshops organized in collaboration with case study partners from North Macedonia and Albania [52]. Three national workshops in total took place in the Greek part of Prespa, in the local language, enabling the participation and interaction of a wide range of stakeholders. At the end of the whole procedure, a PESTLE Analysis (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental) was conducted on the innovations that had been confirmed at a transboundary level. As a result, barriers and enablers for every innovation were identified [55]. While this process has been completed at a transboundary and not a national level and is therefore not described in detail in this paper, it was mainly based on the stakeholders’ comments during the national workshops.

3. Results of Implementing Living Labs in the Prespa Area

3.1. Findings During the Workshops’ Preparation

As a remote rural area, Prespa required different approaches than the ones structured for urban environments [56]: factors such as its low population density and aging population, who are not always familiar with modern technologies or keen on participatory activities, played a prominent role in the selection of processes. While there is a need for a “smart rural development” approach [57] and digital innovation, reality in rural areas poses difficulties due to technical deficiencies such as limited connectivity to broadband internet [58]. Thus, it was important that the applied methodology ensured that the Prespa area would not be disadvantaged. The workshops were conducted in person. Complementary to the digital tools (Miro visual workspace, Mentimeter polls, and email communication/exchange of material), analogue tools, such as whiteboards, post-its, and printed-out materials (maps, query forms, and tables) were also utilized. Stakeholders were given the option to provide their input verbally during the workshops or write on post-its. Whenever that was needed, they were asked to provide additional feedback through e-mails or discuss it over the phone. Both options were given to them, since not all stakeholders had an e-mail address. The adjustment to local contexts via the implementation of participatory methods is one of the most important lessons learned from the experience in transboundary cases [13].

The heterogeneity of actors in LLs can enable and support innovation [47]. Therefore, stakeholders were carefully selected with the assistance of local PAMU staff so as to ensure the representation of all identified relevant sectors (administration/water management, environment, agriculture, fishery, tourism, education, forestry, and engineering), categories, and scales (local, regional, and national) [43], with a strong focus on local actors: 11 out of the 17 stakeholders were based in the Prespa Municipality (Figure 4). At the same time, the total number of stakeholders had to be limited, since there is a trade-off between the extension of stakeholder coverage and the operability of workshops [20]. It was helpful that many stakeholders had previously worked together in the Greek Wetland Management Committee, which had operated from 2008 to 2022 under the auspices of the former Management Body of Prespa National Park [59].

Stakeholder selection turned out to be a dynamic process; representatives of sectors missing in the first workshop were identified on the basis of the suggestions of the present stakeholders and were invited to the second and third workshops (

Table 1. National workshops (working groups): scope, methods, and outcomes (based on [43]).

Workshop	Scope	Methods	Outcomes
1st	- Defining system boundaries (spatial, temporal, conceptual), setting focus/objectives - Mapping of the system (stakeholders, issues, and challenges)	Mental mapping	- Mental map - Problem statement (draft) - Identification of new stakeholders
2nd	- Defining the problem through isolation and challenge statement - Outlining the desired future state/goal	Envisioning	- Refined mental map - Problem statement (consensus) - Future vision 2050
3rd	- Identification of innovation pathways to resilience	Backcasting	- Draft innovation pathways

). Distrust in new processes and questioning of the sincerity of the bottom-up approach were partly overcome by the engagement of the local PAMU staff, who maintained personal contact and community relations through their active local presence. In order to avoid overexpectations and following disengagement, the goals and scope of the methodology were made transparent from the very beginning [20]: consent forms and an accompanying information sheet were distributed for all participants to fill and sign, and a factsheet was sent to them prior to the workshop.

Furthermore, there were obstacles to physical attendance due to the geographical characteristics of Prespa, which is a mountainous border region that is hard to access from other parts of Greece. Occasionally, unfavorable weather conditions posed further problems for regional and national stakeholders based outside of the Prespa Municipality, which partly explains their relatively low presence in the national workshops. In order to overcome these difficulties, complementary online sessions were organized, and stakeholder input was also gathered through personal interviews.

3.2. National Workshop Implementation Results

3.2.1. First National Workshop

The first national workshop took place at the Thematic Center of Pyli, Prespa, in July 2022. The main task of the first workshop was to draw a mental map of the current state of the system in the Greek part of Prespa (Figure 5). “Decrease in lake water quantity” was defined by the facilitators as the main challenge and was placed in the center of the whiteboard to initiate the discussion. The stakeholders mentioned further keywords and described the relationships between them while the facilitators drew new information on the whiteboard; in the case of disagreements, the map was modified to better reflect the opinions of the stakeholders. After the workshop, the result was converted to a digital form and sent to the participants for validation. Every node was assigned to a different sector, and distinct colors were used for each sector (e.g., green for biodiversity) to enable better visualization.

Key challenges related to the decrease in lake water quantity and climate change were identified, such as the loss of biodiversity, vegetation changes around and inside the lakes, population decrease and related changes in the economy, degradation of water quality in lakes, and possible negative effects on tourism related to the above issues. Ongoing projects such as drop irrigation, water supply improvement, and biological sewage treatment were mentioned as possible positive factors, as well as scientific research, agro-environmental nature-based solutions, and alternative forms of tourism based on synergies between sectors. The above issues are interconnected in complex ways, which have been identified and included in the mental map. New insights were gained through this method, such as the strong link between decreasing water quantity and water quality, with the latter also interacting with various other sectors, such as biodiversity, fishery, and tourism: as a result, and contrary to the original draft, water quality was also placed in the center of the mental map.

Based on this mapping activity, the first workshop concluded with the formulation of a draft problem statement related to climate adaptation: sectors such as biodiversity, agriculture, fishery, livestock farming, tourism, and protection of natural and cultural heritage are affected by climate change in several ways, including possible water scarcity in the future. There are already institutions and ongoing projects, but they must be supported, expanded, and enriched with new measures and ideas for climate adaptation.

3.2.2. Second National Workshop

The second national workshop took place at the Old City Hall, Laimos, Prespa, in February 2023. The first objective of this workshop was to validate the mental map formulated during the previous workshop and reach consensus on the problem statement. Through this process of refinement, further challenges were identified, such as wildfires, the installation of renewable energy infrastructure, and landscape issues. The key role of forest management was stressed by new stakeholders, as it was linked both to climate change mitigation and the protection of biodiversity. Moreover, following stakeholders’ suggestions, the Working Group on Water Management of Transboundary Prespa Park was placed on the mental map as an institution with a key role (Figure 6).

The second step was using these outcomes to build a future vision in the form of a common narrative for the Prespa area. The timeframe for transformation was defined by the stakeholders in 2050. The vision was therefore titled “Prespa 2050” and was based on guiding principles derived from the SDGs. The SDGs were preselected from the facilitators based on the mental map, which was produced in the first workshop, and the selection was confirmed or modified through the participants (Appendix A,

Table A1. Guiding principles based on SDGs (the guiding principles additionally proposed by the stakeholders are marked with italics).

SDG	Target	Guiding Principle
6	6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally	- Improve water quality; reduce untreated wastewater
6	6.4 By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity	- Increase water-use efficiency across all sectors - Address water scarcity
6	6.5 By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate	- Protect and restore water-related ecosystems
8	8.9 By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products	- Promote sustainable tourism, creating new jobs
11	11.4 Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage	- Safeguard cultural and natural heritage
13	13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries	- Build resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards
12	12.1 Implement the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns, all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries	- Sustainable production and consumption

). The goal was to encourage stakeholders to go beyond business as usual and focus on positive visions rather than blockers. This has the potential to inspire participants, promote cross-sectoral dialogue, and highlight future collaboration opportunities [16].

Convincing stakeholders to think in this positive way was a difficult task. Complaints about corruption and unfair implementation of environmental legislation were made, indicating reluctance to accept new environmental measures. The discussion also revealed some conflicting perspectives, e.g., the agriculture sector is not necessarily influenced in a negative way by a lower water level, whereas for fishers, it is vital that the water level is high enough. To overcome these difficulties, the facilitators highlighted the positive relationships and shared views that had emerged from the discussion. In the end, the stakeholders agreed on the future vision “Prespa 2050” (Appendix B).

More specifically, stakeholders envisaged a reversed trend of decreasing water level in Prespa, which is accompanied by good water quality without wastewater and pesticides ending up in the lake. Research and transboundary cooperation would lead to a better understanding of the connections between the three lakes and other factors influencing their water level, such as human pressures, as well as the nexus between water quantity and quality. However, further issues not originally expected, such as the duplication of the local population compared to its present one, as well as tourism growth, have been highlighted.

3.2.3. Third National Workshop

The third national workshop took place at the Thematic Center of Pyli, Prespa, in July 2023 and was based on the technique of backcasting. The stakeholders identified the milestones that are needed to achieve the future vision, going back from 2050 to the present (Appendix C,

Table A2. Milestones.

Description	Timing	Theme(s)/Sector(s)
Plan educational system and producing educational material	2025	Education–Social Cohesion
Empower local society: local educational activities, including environmental education and traditional local practices, both for children and adults	2030	Education–Social Cohesion, Institutional–Legal Framework
Participatory governance	2035	Education–Social Cohesion, Institutional–Legal Framework
Collective work—Environment of collaboration	2025–2030	Education–Social Cohesion, Employment
Promote the touristic value of Prespa	2025	Tourism
Improve infrastructure (e.g., road network and pathways) to increase accessibility of Points of Interest (POIs) and support crisis management (e.g., wildfires)	2025–2030	Tourism, Forestry
Manage visitors, aiming to achieve equal distribution in space and time	2030–2035	Tourism
Research agriculture and water consumption	2025–2030	Agriculture
Increase effectivity in irrigation (reducing water losses)	2030	Agriculture
Promote grazing around the lakes	2025–2030	Livestock Farming, Fishery
Research invasive alien species, especially in lakes	2025–2030	Water–Environment–Biodiversity, Fishery
Increase quantity of fish to be caught	2030–2035	Fishery
Synergies among and between sectors (primary sector and tourism)	2030	Agriculture, Livestock Farming, Fishery, Tourism, Employment, Education-Social Cohesion
Transboundary crisis management (bird plagues, extreme weather events, and wildfires)	2030	Water–Environment–Biodiversity, Forestry
Modify institutional–legal framework for PAs	2030	Water–Environment–Biodiversity, Institutional–Legal Framework
Plan transboundary monitoring system; inventory of existing data	2025	Water–Environment–Biodiversity
Operate transboundary unified monitoring system/data harmonization	2030	Water–Environment–Biodiversity
Possible river diversion to Small Prespa	2030–2035	Water–Environment–Biodiversity
Limit lake vegetation/countering eutrophication	2030–2035	Fishery, Agriculture, Water–Environment–Biodiversity
Restore wet meadows	2035	Water–Environment–Biodiversity, Livestock Farming, Fishery
Economic incentives for activities in Natura 2000 PAs	2030	Water–Environment–Biodiversity, Employment
Study alien species in the lakes	2025–2030	Fishery, Water–Environment–Biodiversity
Manage invasive alien species in the lakes, substantially reducing their population	2035	Fishery, Water–Environment–Biodiversity
Administrative re-organization of mechanism	2025–2030	Institutional–Legal Framework
Immigration of population as part of decentralization	2035-onwards	Employment

), and placed them in an “innovation funnel”, which was visualized on the whiteboard (Figure 7). The most urgent milestones were prioritized for 2025 and the near future of 2030. Prior to the third workshop, a blank innovation list was forwarded to the stakeholders, prompting them to add their own ideas or suggestions. A preliminary list of selected innovations was distributed to the participants during the workshop, considering limitations in the use of digital technologies. The next step was to identify the innovations that could be useful for reaching these milestones (Appendix C,

Table A3. Innovations.

Innovation	Related Milestone(s)	Associated Actors
Drop Irrigation Smart Irrigation Systems Diversification of agriculture with less water-demanding crops	Increased effectiveness in irrigation (reducing water losses)
Grazing Management Plan	Promote grazing around the lakes	Public authorities; private companies
Transboundary Crisis Management Plan	Crisis Management Plan (bird plagues, extreme weather events, and wildfires)	Ministry of Environment, NECCA
Transboundary updated Management Plan for PAs	Modification of institutional–legal framework for PAs	Transboundary Park Committee
Advanced grazing systems (NBS)	Promote grazing around the lakes; wet meadows restoration
Innovative fishing methods and equipment	Management of invasive alien species in the lakes, substantially reducing their population
Economic incentives for fishing invasive alien fish (e.g., cat food production from Lepomis gibbosus)	Management of invasive alien species in the lakes, substantially reducing their population
Educational activities for environmental awareness targeted at professionals, seminars for children, and common educational activities	Empowering local society: local educational activities, including environmental education and traditional local practices, both for children and adults
Programs of maintenance/creation of network of pathways for POIs	Improvement in infrastructure (e.g., road network and pathways) to increase accessibility of POIs and support crisis management (e.g., wildfires)
Subsidy system for specific activities in Natura	Economic incentives for activities in Natura 2000 PAs
Transboundary Visitor (Tourism) Management Plan	Management of visitors aiming to equal distribution in space and time

and Figure 7). The stakeholders were urged to further consider technical readiness and the availability of resources and funds for the proposed innovations when attaching them to a particular milestone and year. Wherever possible, they were also asked to name agencies that are or could be responsible for the implementation of these innovations (Table A3: Column “Associated actors”).

Convincing the stakeholders to start from the future and then move backwards to the present proved to be challenging. Their tendency was to focus on actions needed in the present or the near future. This is also reflected in the final result: no milestones were proposed for a year later than 2037–2038, thus leaving this part of the “innovation funnel” empty (Figure 7). Furthermore, some of the proposed innovations, such as fish enrichments, could not be included in the final draft, as there were strong objections regarding their sustainability from other stakeholders.

The results of the third national workshop were used by project partners to define transboundary innovation pathways [43,52]. The milestones and the corresponding innovations that are needed to achieve the future vision for 2050 in the transboundary area were extracted [55]. The innovations were either technological (e.g., smart irrigation system) or related to governance (e.g., crisis management plan) and social transformation (e.g., innovation hub); many of them were identified in the national workshops and were further elaborated or modified during the transboundary workshop. At the end of the project, the innovation pathways will be bundled together with financing pathways into innovation packages.

4. Discussion

Understanding the interaction of actors with various interests through the process of validated mental mapping rendered a solid foundation for the subsequent activities of envisioning the future and defining the pathways to it. Insights gained through mental mapping, such as the possible links between water level drop and deterioration of water quality, can be confirmed through prior studies [34,60], thus identifying further research fields. Discussion about the importance of the actual social transformation process taking place, rather than the technological change pursued, was provoked by the stakeholders themselves; during the third workshop, the lack of education and collaborative attitude was mentioned as a serious obstacle to climate change adaptation. The stakeholders proposed a theme/sector titled “Education-Social Cohesion”, and included milestones related to the educational system, the empowerment of local society, and the participatory governance (Appendix C, Table A2).

Participatory planning has not only substantive goals (production of concrete policy products), but also procedural goals, such as learning and in-depth discussion [20]. The future vision, “Prespa 2050”, is an important outcome of this socially innovative process, encompassing mutual aspirations toward a common future. However, during the workshops, differing views were also expressed, reflecting conflicts of interest between sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, and tourism. The need to reach consensus led to the exclusion of controversial points. In previous studies, it was also observed that the preferences for policy instruments differ between various stakeholder groups [21]. Nonetheless, the process of backcasting proved to be useful in the identification of innovations, which are accepted by different sectors (including NBS such as advanced grazing systems), as well as their links to institutional measures, e.g., a grazing management plan (Appendix C, Table A3).

The will to keep the outcomes realistic, practical, and feasible enough [54] is difficult to balance with the vision of an ideal future. While most stakeholders tended to be reserved in their expectations, overly optimistic views, such as the duplication of population, were also mentioned. It should be noted that according to the latest census in Greece (2021), the population of Prespa Municipality decreased by 44% in 20 years [61], following a general depopulation trend in remote rural and mountainous areas [62]. While the development of clear actions for climate adaptation in the form of milestones and innovations is a step forward, the adoption of the most ambitious proposals is dependent on social and political changes in the political system [17]. This uncertainty could lead to disappointment and disengagement, undermining the whole process.

Continued stakeholder involvement should be based on a respective roadmap. The implementation of participatory methods without a follow-up could undermine the belief in them [20]. The ongoing active participation of local communities is a prerequisite for achieving benefits from the LLs in PA management [50]. Therefore, it is important to build on the LLs to ensure stakeholders’ continuing interest in environmental management, while acknowledging future real-world challenges such as sustainable funding, potential cooptation risks with powerful actors leading to divergence of interests, and community fatigue.

LMCs are expected to contribute to the participation of local communities; however, LLs focusing on specific issues and engaging a wider community of stakeholders could act as a valuable supportive tool to them [63]. Through the establishment and maintenance of informal networks of all stakeholders related to a specific challenge, LLs may increase public acceptance of measures for environmental protection and climate resilience. It has been observed that LLs and the consideration of socioeconomic factors that they entail can aid the implementation of NBS and increase trust in local governance [18]. The use of tools such as mental mapping and envisioning favors the development of system thinking amongst local actors, as long as they are engaged in every step of the whole process [16]. This task is not easy to achieve, as witnessed in the national workshops in Prespa, where several stakeholders took part in just one or two of them. In order to motivate the participants, it is important that the facilitators are experienced and well-trained in such methodologies, as well as anchored in the local territory [16]. Therefore, a prerequisite for the successful implementation of such methodologies is to provide training for local staff.

Dealing with the water management issues of the Prespa area is essential to sustain ecosystem services and biodiversity protection, as well as local economic activities (agriculture, fisheries, and tourism). Integrated water management approaches require the engagement of all competing water users and their contribution to the sustainability of the high-value aquatic system of Prespa Lakes; thus, they increase its resilience to climate change. The need for such approaches is even greater, considering that these aquatic systems are transboundary and require coordinated governance in three countries. The issue of integrated water management was stressed by the stakeholders themselves, and specific milestones and innovations were mentioned, such as a transboundary monitoring system, a crisis management plan, and innovations in irrigation and diversification of agriculture (Appendix C). The quest for transboundary coordination and collaboration in water management was included in all future visions produced in the three countries [52]. This is in alignment with the Agreement on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park Area [39]; a transboundary water monitoring system has already been proposed, described [41], and favored by environmental NGOs in all three countries [42]. Other suggested innovations (e.g., cat food production from alien fish and other economic incentives) also correspond to basic obligations of the Agreement (Art. 3) [39], such as the prevention of alien animal and plant species.

The organization of national workshops under a common coordination can contribute to the identification of differences in neighboring countries within complex geopolitical settings [13], but it is not enough to bridge the gaps. In the case of the Prespa Lakes presented in this paper, the national workshops were followed by transboundary ones, in which stakeholders from all three countries worked together. The outcomes from each national workshop were combined to form common drafts, which were approved by stakeholders from all three countries sharing the Prespa Lakes [43,52]. Although this approach had its limitations (the stakeholders who were not very fluent in English could not easily participate in the transboundary LL), the preceding national workshops offered them a possibility of expressing their views in an environment in which they felt more comfortable. The involvement of marginalized stakeholders in LLs is important for reflecting diverse perspectives and aligning with the expectations of the wider community [23]; language issues should not be a factor for exclusion. This principle can be adopted in other transboundary contexts of PA management.

The sequence of national workshops followed by transboundary ones has established links and a flow of knowledge between local, regional, national, and transboundary levels. The local community was able to interact with stakeholders operating at a regional or national level, despite the difficulties of geographic isolation and accessibility. Additionally, the outcomes of these workshops can support the work of the transboundary Prespa Park Management Committee and the Working Group on Water Management through their focus on climate resilience and identification of relevant innovations.

5. Conclusions

The implementation of the national workshops in the Greek part of Prespa, according to the SIA methodology, raised interest in climate adaptation both by stakeholders and the project’s research community. Furthermore, this participatory process established a good tradition in the empowerment of local people, setting future expectations for shaping the area’s resilience and sustainable well-being. The engagement of the PAMU staff, standing out with their knowledge of the local reality and people’s views, has proven very helpful in communicating the advantages of the methodology. Difficulties encountered due to the geographical isolation of the Prespa area and various levels of familiarity with digital technologies were partly overcome by using a combination of analogue and digital tools and methods. For example, many local stakeholders preferred using analogue tools, while regional and national stakeholders tended toward using digital tools. However, limitations in the implementation of LLs, such as the difficulty in achieving a balance between the inclusion of all stakeholders’ comments and the need to reach consensus, as well as between envisioning an ideal future and the need to be realistic, still need to be addressed. While the production of pathways with specific milestones and innovations is a major step forward, their actual implementation or inclusion in planning by decision-makers has not been guaranteed.

Working with innovative bottom-up approaches revealed that collaborating and networking are of greater significance than any preconceived objectives; final outcomes may be different than the ones expected and shed light on overlooked issues, such as the connections between economic changes and vegetation changes. Relationships and synergies, as well as differences in perceptions, were revealed, enabling a deeper understanding of the entire system. An important outcome was that human activities can contribute to the climate resilience of a valuable ecosystem, such as that of Prespa Lakes, provided that the economic aspect is integrated in an approach that has the protection of ecosystems at its core.

The experience gained through the process and results of LLs in Prespa can be used as a guideline for future projects. It could be further re-evaluated and implemented as a pilot in PAs’ management; this will be particularly useful for ecosystems with similar characteristics and dealing with complex hazards such as those related to climate change. At the same time, the assessment of potential ecological, cultural, and economic differences between PAs is crucial for adjusting the methodology and the stakeholder selection process. Finally, the fact that all PAs in Greece are under the supervision of a national agency (NECCA) provides a common governance framework.