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

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