Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management
Introduction
Public participation is becoming increasingly embedded in national and international environmental policy, as decision-makers recognise the need to understand who is affected by the decisions and actions they take, and who has the power to influence their outcome, i.e. the stakeholders (as defined by Freeman, 1984). Although this is a vital first step in any participatory exercise, stakeholders are often identified and selected on an ad hoc basis. This has the potential to marginalise important groups, bias results and jeopardise long-term viability and support for the process. For this reason, interest is growing in a collection of methods that can be used for “stakeholder analysis”. We define stakeholder analysis as a process that: i) defines aspects of a social and natural phenomenon affected by a decision or action; ii) identifies individuals, groups and organisations who are affected by or can affect those parts of the phenomenon (this may include non-human and non-living entities and future generations); and iii) prioritises these individuals and groups for involvement in the decision-making process.
Stakeholder analysis has become increasingly popular with a wide range of organisations in many different fields, and it is now used by policy-makers, regulators, governmental and non-governmental organisations, businesses and the media (Friedman and Miles, 2006). Approaches to stakeholder analysis have changed as tools have been progressively adapted from business management for use in policy, development and natural resource management. It is perhaps this variety of different approaches that has given rise to widespread confusion over what is really meant by stakeholder analysis (Donaldson and Preston, 1995, Stoney and Winstanley, 2001). Weyer (1996) described it as a “slippery creature”, “used by different people to mean widely different things”. Donaldson and Preston (1995) put this confusion down to a “muddling of theoretical bases and objectives”. This may partly be due to the long period of time over which these approaches have developed in parallel fields. It may also be due to the continued attempt to aggregate different methods and approaches under the single banner of stakeholder analysis. In an attempt to make sense of this confusion, Section 2 of this paper defines stakeholders and stakeholder analysis, and shows how the concept has evolved in different fields.
Although a broad range of methods have been developed or adapted for stakeholder analysis in these different disciplines, there is little information regarding how, when and why they are effective. This paper therefore aims to provide an analysis of the history and development of stakeholder analysis and a disaggregation of the theoretical bases upon which it is founded. It seeks to illustrate how much of the contemporary critique and debate over appropriate methods is a reflection of the diverse reasons why stakeholder analysis is used. This debate includes many questions about stakeholder representation, legitimacy, participation, power, and knowledge – essentially “who's in, and why?” For example, how can diverse stakeholders be adequately represented? How can the relative interest and influence of different stakeholders be taken into account? And if stakeholders are defined by the issues that are being investigated, then who defines these issues?
The paper is organised as follows: Section 2 describes the origins of stakeholder analyses in literature. Section 3 discusses methods for stakeholder analysis that are common within research on natural resource management. Section 4 presents four different research projects from across the UK Research Councils' Rural Economy and Land Use programme1 that apply stakeholder analysis. The last section presents conclusions on the use of stakeholder analysis within natural resource management.
Section snippets
Who or what are stakeholders?
There is a difference of opinion over who or what exactly stakeholders are. Many recent definitions of stakeholders build on Freeman's (1984) seminal work on stakeholder theory that distinguished between those who affect or are affected by a decision or action (sometimes referred to as active and passive stakeholders in the natural resources stakeholder literature; Grimble and Wellard, 1997). However, the concept of stakeholders predates Freeman's work (Rowley, 1997). According to Ramírez (1999)
A typology of stakeholder analysis methods
While the discussion above helps to rationalise the theoretical basis for stakeholder analysis, both normative and instrumental approaches have been applied in different disciplines and contexts using a wide variety of methods (Fig. 1). These can be categorised as methods used for: i) identifying stakeholders (Section 3.2); ii) differentiating between and categorising stakeholders (Section 3.3); and iii) investigating relationships between stakeholders (Section 3.4). Table 1 provides a summary
Applying stakeholder analysis: experience from the RELU programme
The previous sections of the paper have examined the history and theory of stakeholder analysis in the context of business management, policy, development, and natural resources management. They have also examined which methods have been used in three critical steps of stakeholder analysis, identifying stakeholders and their stakes, differentiating between and categorising stakeholders, and methods for investigating stakeholder relationships. The following section of the paper uses four case
Synthesis and conclusions
These case studies have shown the wide range of participatory and non-participatory methods that can be used for stakeholder analysis. They have highlighted some of the challenges and limitations of existing approaches and proposed some new tools and combinations of methods that can more effectively identify and categorise stakeholders and help understand their inter-relationships. Although the rationale for using stakeholder analysis in each case study was primarily instrumental, all the
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Prof. Tim Burt, Prof. Phillip Lowe, Dr Jeremy Phillipson and four anonymous reviewers for constructive feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
References (110)
- et al.
Landscape planning to reduce coastal eutrophication: agricultural practices and constructed wetlands
Landscape and Urban Planning
(2004) - et al.
Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology
Ecological Economics
(1999) Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): challenges, potentials and paradigm
World Development
(1994)- et al.
Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management
Journal of Environmental Management
(2006) - et al.
Stakeholders, science and decision making for poverty-focused rural mechanization research and development
World Development
(1997) - et al.
Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of concepts, contexts, experiences and opportunities
Agricultural Systems
(1997) Function analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable multifunctional landscapes
Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning
(2006)- et al.
A topology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem goods and services
Ecological Economics
(2002) - et al.
Future generations: economic, legal and institutional aspects
Future
(2008) - et al.
Evaluating capacity development for participatory forest management in Bangladesh's Sal forests based on ‘4Rs’ stakeholder analysis
Forest Policy and Economics
(2006)