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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper《Implementation of Living Labs for sustainable management of Protected Areas in Greece. Imagining Prespa Lakes in 2050》taking the Greek Prespa Lakes Reserve as the research subject, this study explores sustainable management strategies for transboundary waters under climate change by employing the "System Innovation Approach" (SIA) and the participatory governance model of "Living Labs," combined with three national-level workshops and stakeholder collaboration.Based on methods such as psychological mapping, future vision construction and retrospective analysis, the research systematically evaluated the complex correlation between water resource management and ecosystem services, and proposed innovative paths. The results show that the life laboratory approach effectively promotes cross-departmental cooperation among stakeholders, clarifies the synergy among water shortage, biodiversity conservation and economic development, and at the same time provides a practical framework for climate adaptation and ecological resilience improvement in cross-border protected areas by formulating a common vision for 2050 and specific action milestones. This study achieves the stable solidification of lead through a triple synergistic effect of biochar adsorption-apatite mineralization-gel transport, providing an innovative technical strategy for the green and sustainable remediation of heavy metal contaminated soil.

 

 

The paper primarily draws the following conclusions：

（1）The life laboratory approach has successfully aroused strong interest among stakeholders and research teams, and significantly enhanced local participation in the sustainable management of lake systems, promoting the formation of an integrated management path.

（2）The participatory process has enhanced residents' ability to plan for the sustainable future of the region. PAMU staff, with their profound understanding of local realities and public opinions, have effectively conveyed the practical value of this approach.

（3）By integrating analog and digital tools, the challenges of geographical isolation and uneven penetration of digital technology faced by the Prespa region have been overcome.

（4）The actual results have highlighted the importance of stakeholder collaboration, whose value may exceed the initial goals.

（5）If economic activities are integrated with the core of ecosystem protection, human activities can help enhance the climate resilience of precious ecosystems such as Lake Prespa.

（6）The experience and achievements of the life laboratory method can provide guidance for future projects and are expected to be used as pilot applications in the management practices of other protected areas, especially for complex challenges related to climate change.

 

 

The format of this paper basically conforms to academic norms. The content is clear and coherent, the methods are reasonable, the research design is explicit, and the objectives are clearly defined. This paper systematically expounds the research background and core issues, constructs a complete participatory governance assessment framework, and conducts a multi-dimensional analysis of the sustainable management of the Lake Prespar Reserve in Greece. The research findings provide innovative methodological support for climate adaptation and ecological resilience improvement in cross-border protected areas. This research has made substantive contributions to the participatory governance practice of nature reserves and provided an operational practical paradigm and policy reference for the integrated management of similar ecosystems. The entire text is logically clear, and the analysis of the data in the report is thorough and detailed, demonstrating a high level of professional knowledge and research ability. The author has mastered the basic knowledge and theories of the relevant field and is capable of applying this knowledge to analyze and study related issues.

 

Revision suggestions：

1. Figure 4 partially obscures the line numbers on the right side. The figure should be scaled down and adjusted to maintain uniform illustration proportions.
2. Some references lack page numbers. It is recommended to supplement the missing page numbers for all incomplete references.
3. General revision suggestions: Ensure consistent usage of technical terms and key concepts throughout the manuscript. Clearly define them upon first occurrence and maintain uniformity in subsequent text.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your valuable and helpful comments and suggestions. Please find attached the responses to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major Revision – The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic, with a solid participatory methodology. However, clearer articulation of research aims, improved methodological transparency, and stronger evidence for feasibility and transferability are needed before publication.

Title & Abstract

Lines 1–26

• Line 1–3: Title is too long and could be simplified for clarity and indexing. The “Imagining Prespa Lakes in 2050” part could be moved to the abstract or conclusion.
• Lines 8–24: Abstract uses broad statements (“clearly demonstrated,” “expected that results…”) without specifying measurable outcomes or data.
• Line 14: “focusing on climate adaptation in water resources management” is good, but the abstract doesn’t explain how adaptation is actually measured.
• Lines 21–23: Claim of transferability to other Protected Areas is made without presenting evidence—should be toned down or supported.

Introduction

• Lines 31–34: States that the Habitats Directive “does not specify obligations” but does not cite more recent interpretations or EU guidance updates—could be misleading if newer frameworks exist.
• Lines 49–53: Suggests a “central actor” is needed but does not explain why this is the case for Prespa specifically. Could be seen as an assumption.
• Lines 63–67: Mentions “opposed political priorities” but gives no examples or evidence—risk of overgeneralization.
• Lines 70–74: The study aim is implied but not explicitly stated as a research question or hypothesis—this makes the study’s analytical focus unclear.

NECCA Governance Background

• Lines 78–80: Lists previous management failures but does not provide references or data quantifying “reduced absorption capacity of EU funds” or “minor distribution of achievements.”
• Lines 85–90: Describes NECCA but lacks explanation of how this new system addresses the shortcomings of the old one—reads like a policy summary rather than critical analysis.

Materials and Methods

• Lines 134–137: Mentions stakeholder selection via matrix but doesn’t explain exact criteria, scoring, or decision-making process—important for transparency.
• Lines 138–145: Describes mental mapping but omits who facilitated it, how consensus was reached, or how disagreements were resolved.
• Lines 154–159: Backcasting advantages are listed, but the limitations or potential biases of this approach are not acknowledged.
• Overall: No description of how qualitative data from workshops were analyzed (coding, thematic analysis, etc.), which is a methodological gap.

Results – Prespa Lakes Area

• Lines 164–175: Reads more like an extended background section rather than results—should be moved to Introduction or Methods.
• Lines 183–184: States “lowest levels since 1917” but doesn’t cite the specific dataset or measurement authority.
• Lines 189–193: Notes need for “reinforcement of transboundary cooperation” but does not link this to actual Living Labs findings—disconnect from the main results.

Results – Workshop Preparation

• Lines 230–232: Mentions “Prespa area would not be disadvantaged” but doesn’t explain how bias from digital exclusion was mitigated in analysis.
• Lines 245–247: Strong focus on local actors is stated but the proportion of local vs. non-local participants is not given.
• Lines 256–261: States “goals and scope made transparent” but does not show how—no evidence such as participant consent forms or briefing documents.

Results – Workshop Implementation

• Lines 276–293: Mental map figure is mentioned, but not provided in a way that clearly links each node to data from stakeholder statements—traceability is missing.
• Lines 302–313: Mentions refined mental map but doesn’t explain what criteria were used for adding or removing nodes.
• Lines 314–338: Vision narrative is positive but lacks feasibility assessment—e.g., doubling the population in 2050 seems unrealistic without demographic evidence.
• Lines 339–353: Backcasting results are listed, but there’s no prioritization or evaluation of which innovations are most feasible given current resources.

Discussion

• Lines 372–374: States “importance should be equally attributed to social transformation rather than technological change”—this is a strong claim but not backed by data from the study.
• Lines 379–383: Suggests future engagement via NECCA but doesn’t consider risks such as funding loss, political shifts, or community fatigue.
• Lines 390–396: Stresses integrated water management but offers no concrete plan for implementation—missed opportunity to link to milestones in Appendix B.

Conclusions

• Lines 404–407: Notes overcoming digital divide issues but doesn’t quantify how many participants used analogue vs. digital tools—weak evidence.
• Lines 409–412: States outcomes “may take a completely different form” without explaining whether this was positive or negative in the Prespa case.
• Lines 417–420: Transferability to other ecosystems is asserted again without discussing differences in governance, culture, or ecology.

Appendices

• Appendix A (445–474): Vision includes “population double its present one” but there’s no demographic modelling to support this.
• Appendix B (476–478): Milestones and innovations are listed but not evaluated for cost, funding sources, or responsible agencies—limits practical applicability.

Figures and Traceability

• Lines 276–293 & 302–313: Figures 3 and 4 are mentioned but the link between each node in the mental maps and the underlying stakeholder data is not explained—add a short description in captions or text.

Language and Tone

• Some phrases are overly certain given the qualitative nature of the study (e.g., “clearly demonstrated,” “will be transferred”). Consider using more cautious language such as “suggests” or “is likely applicable.”

Formatting and Structure

• Ensure all acronyms (e.g., PAMU, LMC) are defined upon first use in the main text and used consistently.
• Move long governance descriptions (Lines 76–98) to the Methods or Introduction for better flow.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your valuable and helpful comments and suggestions. Please find attached the responses to your comments.

Kind regards,

Orfeas Roussos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. First of all, the text must not be hyphenated. 
2. The abstract mentions three national workshops but does not describe their structure, participant selection criteria, or how consensus was achieved. A brief clarification on methodology would strengthen reproducibility.
3. While the paper claims to have drafted "innovation pathways," there is no indication of what these entail. Are they policy recommendations, technological solutions, or governance models? A hint at their nature would improve clarity.
4. Given that Prespa Lakes is shared by three countries, the abstract does not explain how the Living Labs approach addresses cross-border coordination, a critical gap in managing such ecosystems.
5. The introduction extensively discusses generic PA governance (Natura 2000, NECCA) but delays Prespa’s unique context (transboundary, rural depopulation, climate vulnerabilities) until later. 
6. Overemphasis on institutional descriptions (e.g., NECCA’s structure) without linking them to research gaps or theoretical debates.
7. The introduction currently reads more like a policy report than a research article due to its descriptive, institutional focus and lack of a clear research narrative.
8. Global examples (e.g., transboundary PAs in Africa/Asia) and regional comparisons (e.g., Balkan governance models) are missing.
9. I clearly can not see any literature review to support the research gap/ novelty. at least 10 previous relevant reserach work should be discussed to conclude your research gap and aim/objectives of the study.
10. The significance of the study can also be added in the last of the introduction section.
11. The material and methods section is completely difficult to understand. 
12. There must be a flowchart to easily explain the procedure adopted in the study.
13. Lines 163-213 can be added under a separate heading, i.e., study area.
14. Figure 1 has no longitude and latitude, and its quality is very low.
15. Figure 2 (a and b) is very poorly formatted, and it gives non-professional vibes. Figures are unable to depict the context and units of the numbers in the graphs.
16. I simply could not understand the linkage between the workshops and the sustainable management of Protected Areas in Greece and the Implementation of Living Labs. This urges me to suggest that the authors rewrite their whole manuscript for better understanding.
17. While mentioned briefly (lines 395-396), the discussion doesn't sufficiently explore how the Greek Living Labs experience could inform or coordinate with Albanian/North Macedonian approaches.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The introduction currently reads more like a policy report than a research article.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your valuable and helpful comments and suggestions. Please find attached the responses to your comments.

Kind regards,

Orfeas Roussos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript uses the Prespa Lakes region in Greece as a case study, combining the System Innovation Approach with the Living Labs concept to explore pathways for promoting stakeholder engagement and advancing sustainable management in transboundary protected areas. The research topic is of practical significance and policy relevance, and the case itself is representative. However, there are several areas that require revision:

(1) While the introduction outlines the research background, it lacks a systematic synthesis of the current state of international research and its shortcomings. It is recommended to add more references and expand the review of the application of Living Labs in protected area management, transboundary water governance, and climate adaptation. In addition, the authors should identify limitations in existing studies in terms of methodology, data, and stakeholder engagement outcomes, thereby highlighting the novelty and positioning of this work.

(2) In Section 2. Materials and Methods, it is advised to provide more details on the criteria and process for stakeholder selection, particularly how representation across different sectors and regions was balanced. The procedures for mental map creation and the coding or classification methods used for result analysis should be described in greater detail to enhance reproducibility.

(3) The description of the study area (natural, social, and institutional background of the Prespa Lakes) is currently placed at the beginning of the Results section, which is not appropriate. It is suggested to move this content to Materials and Methods as a standalone subsection (e.g., “Study Area”), so that readers can understand the research context when reviewing the methodology and data.

(4) The manuscript currently contains relatively little substantive content, with most of the length devoted to background information and process description. There is a lack of in-depth analysis of key findings, comparison with existing studies, and synthesis of theoretical or methodological contributions. The authors are encouraged to provide more analysis of differences in perspectives among stakeholder groups, points of conflict, and mechanisms for coordination; assess how the workshop outcomes align with existing policies or management measures; and incorporate more analytical figures and tables.

(5) The discussion section should be expanded to include comparisons with international cases, clearly identifying the advantages and limitations of the Living Labs approach in managing transboundary protected areas.

Specific points:

(6) Figure 1 is somewhat blurred and lacks clarity.

(7) Figures 3 and 4 are interesting, but the meaning of different font colors and line types should be explained to help readers better understand the diagrams.

(8) Figure 5 is also blurred; readers can gain only a general impression without access to detailed information.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your valuable and helpful comments and suggestions. Please find attached the responses to your comments.

Kind regards,

Orfeas Roussos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

n/a

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions of the first round, which were of great help and indeed improved the manuscript significantly.

Kind regards,

Orfeas Roussos

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions of the first round, which were of great help and indeed improved the manuscript significantly.

Kind regards,

Orfeas Roussos

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have incorporated some of the suggestions, and the quality of the manuscript has been better than before. But there are still some gaps to improve the manuscript further to align with the journal standards.

1. The literature review is still not up to the mark. How the authors have extracted the research gap is still not clear!
2. The authors responded that the literature review is from line 33. However, there is a difference between background/introduction and discussing the research methodologies and findings of the previous studies to find the research gap. The authors have to discuss the recent developments and adopted methodologies, and findings of the previous literature. 
3. I can not understand the necessity of writing p10, p110, p9, etc., along with the in-text citations. That needs to be modified. I don't think it is suitable to write like this.
4. For Comment 8: Global examples (e.g., transboundary PAs in Africa/Asia) and regional comparisons (e.g., Balkan governance models) are missing. """The author's response is: References to global examples were added (lines 41-45 & 79-81 of the revised manuscript).""" This clearly shows they have ignored the second part of the comment by the reviewer.
5. There is no need for a subheading in line 109.
6. There are no limitations of the study mentioned in the conclusions.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript again and for your valuable comments and suggestions. Please find attached the point-by-point response to your comments.

Kind regards,

Orfeas Roussos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have carefully addressed the reviewer comments, adding relevant literature, methodological details, and improving the structure, figures, and discussion. The manuscript has been substantially improved and now meets the standards for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions of the first round, which were of great help and indeed improved the manuscript significantly.

Kind regards,

Orfeas Roussos