Elsevier

Land Use Policy

Volume 25, Issue 4, October 2008, Pages 550-562
Land Use Policy

Approaching reality: Comparing stakeholder analysis and cultural theory in the context of natural resource management

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.11.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Increased pressure on ecosystems and enhanced competition over the use of natural resources makes it necessary to develop sustainable methods for natural resource management (NRM). However, NRM is a complicated issue. It involves numerous stakeholders, with different needs, resources and perceptions of nature. Stakeholder participation will necessarily be selective, based both on theoretical assumptions about who is a legitimate stakeholder and unevenly distributed power among stakeholders. Although stakeholder involvement is important, sometimes the theory appears to be rather blunt. It has been suggested that, since different categories of stakeholders embody different perceptions of nature, cultural theory could provide important additional criteria for stakeholder involvement. Based on field studies in Naivasha, Kenya, this paper analyses pros and cons of stakeholder analysis and investigates the usefulness of cultural theory for improved stakeholder analysis.

Introduction

To manage natural resources in a manner that is both economically and ecologically sustainable and also acceptable to those concerned is a delicate matter. Recent emphasis on stakeholder involvement and nature's intrinsic values raises a number of intricate questions about: Who is a legitimate stakeholder? How should stakeholders be involved? Who speaks for nature? The answers to such questions are seldom clear.

This paper aims at analyzing two commonly used approaches to natural resource management (NRM), namely (a) stakeholder analysis and (b) cultural theory. Stakeholder analysis is chosen considering its prominent usage in NRM. Cultural theory has been selected due to the works of, for example, Douglas (1982), Thompson, 1997, Thompson, 2005 and Gyawali and Dixit (2001) that states that the solidarities between people most likely have implications for NRM. This would make cultural theory a potentially forceful complement to stakeholder analysis. Their usefulness will be evaluated based upon a management situation of Lake Naivasha, a wetland area in Kenya. Our main concern is, however, not this specific wetland but rather the problems surrounding stakeholder selection and the theoretical assumptions underlying stakeholder analysis and cultural theory. Our aim is to contribute to improved stakeholder analysis in the belief that our conclusions have more general than specific bearing. These theories approach the complexity of the management situation differently, and provide dissimilar statements of what is at stake.

The management of the area surrounding Lake Naivasha is a highly debated issue. At stake is the lake environment, but also access to water. It concerns everyone from large-scale farmers and tourist operators to small-scale semi-subsistence farmers and fishermen that depend on the lake for their livelihood. Who should be given the mandate to manage the lake and who has the ability to do so? These are straightforward questions, with no simple answers. Our discussions and conclusions are based on fieldwork conducted during August 2005, involving interviews and observations with stakeholder representatives from the Naivasha community.

Section “Diverging interests—mounting pressures on Lake Naivasha ecosystem” provides a brief background to the issue concerning the management of Lake Naivasha; section “How to frame the problem: a theoretical and methodological approach to NRM” briefly presents and discusses the analytical tools: stakeholder analysis and cultural theory. In section “Implications of used theories and methods”, the theories are discussed in relation to the management of Lake Naivasha. Final discussions and conclusions are presented in section “Discussion”.

Section snippets

Diverging interests—mounting pressures on Lake Naivasha ecosystem

Naivasha is situated 80 km northwest from Nairobi. Lake Naivasha basin covers an area of approximately 3400 km2. It is part of a series of 23 lakes in the East Rift valley spanning from Ethiopia to Tanzania, though it is one of only four freshwater lakes (Everard et al., 2002). Water inflow to the lake comes from three rivers: the Gilgil, Malawi and Karati Rivers (Everard et al., 2002). The lake has no surface outlet and, consequently, the natural lake level fluctuation is high. This has lead to

How to frame the problem: a theoretical and methodological approach to NRM

Various social science theories can be used to explain how people perceive natural resources and the way resources should be managed. Stakeholder analysis is today one of the most commonly used approach to management issues. Another influential approach, cultural theory, originates from sociology/anthropology. It is used to explain, e.g. stakeholders’ perceptions of nature. Both theories are being used with the aim to improve NRM.

Implications of used theories and methods

Kenya, as most countries in the world, is not a sovereign state when it comes to NRM. Kenya is put under a lot of pressure to incorporate international agreements over natural resources. In the case of wetlands, this is obvious. In Kenya, the term wetland was not used in national legislation until 1990. It was first used after the Kenyan ratification of the Ramsar convention. Since then the term wetlands has been incorporated in official use (Gichuki, 2003). An institutional setting for

Discussion

So what is then the usefulness of SA and cultural theory? SA identifies the key participants and cultural theory highlights their values, beliefs, and worldviews. Theoretically, the theories can be used in conjunction to better inform resource managers how to make better policy choices.

SA is a powerful tool; however, it needs to be used in a manner that is transparent, and its grounds should be well-considered before used. Also, there is a need of understanding that stakeholders are never

Acknowledgment

Financially support of C. Billgren from Sida/Sarec is gratefully acknowledged. The paper benefited from comments of two anonymous referees.

References (61)

  • N. Bowie

    The moral obligations of multinational corporations

  • R. Brugha et al.

    Stakeholder analysis: a review

    Health Policy and Planning

    (2000)
  • M. Chapin

    A challenge to conservationists

    World Watch

    (2004)
  • Chevalier, J., 2001. Stakeholder analysis and natural resource management. Carleton University, Ottawa. Available from:...
  • Clarkson, M.B.E., 1994. A risk based model of stakeholder theory. Working Paper, University of...
  • M.B.E. Clarkson

    A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance

    Academy of Management Review

    (1995)
  • de Groot, R., Stuip, M., Finlayson, M., Davidson N., 2006. Valuing wetlands: guidance for valuing the benefits derived...
  • T. Donaldson

    Making stakeholder theory whole

    Academy of Management Review

    (1999)
  • T. Donaldson et al.

    The stakeholder theory of corporation: concepts, evidence and implications

    The Academy of Management Review

    (1995)
  • M. Douglas

    Natural Symbols—Explorations in Cosmology

    (1970)
  • M. Douglas

    Natural Symbols

    (1973)
  • Douglas, M., 1982. Cultural Bias. In: In the active voice. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp....
  • M. Douglas et al.

    Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers

    (1982)
  • M. Driscoll et al.

    The primordial stakeholder: advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment

    Journal of Business Ethics

    (2004)
  • M. Everard et al.

    The physical attributes of the Lake Naivasha Catchement rivers

    Hydrobiologia

    (2002)
  • R.E. Freeman

    Strategic Management—A Stakeholder Approach

    (1984)
  • E.R. Freeman

    The politics of stakeholder theory: some further research directions

    Business Ethics Quartley

    (1999)
  • Gichuki, N., 2003. Lake Victoria Research (VicRes) initiative: wetland research in the Lake Victoria Basin, Kenya Part....
  • G. Grendstad et al.

    Cultural theory and the new institutionalism

    Journal of Theoretical Politics

    (1995)
  • G. Grendstand et al.

    Socio-demographic effects on cultural biases

    Acta Sociologica

    (2003)
  • Cited by (88)

    • Power, perspective, and privilege: The challenge of translating stakeholder theory from business management to environmental and natural resource management

      2020, Journal of Environmental Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      These stakeholder categorisations are present in ENRM as: industry (the private sector, e.g. mining, energy, agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries, depending on the issue); jurisdictional governments; environmentalists or conservationists (NGOs) and; community (Carr and Tait, 1991; Beedell and Rehman, 2000; Kächele and Dabbert, 2002; Lewicki et al., 2003; Moore and Koontz, 2003; Wilson, 2004; Winter and Lockwood, 2004; Walker, 2006; Yasmi et al., 2006; Brummans et al., 2008; Bryan, 2008; Kash, 2008; Witt et al., 2009; Rastogi et al., 2010; Treffny and Beilin, 2011; Fox et al., 2013; Kindermann and Gormally, 2013; Redpath et al., 2013; Silverstri et al., 2013). As a result of the ‘usual suspects’ in ENRM stakeholder engagement being drawn from pre-existing social constituencies, organisations, and institutions, when stakeholders are categorised for engagement in an ENRM issue, the power, privileges, and vulnerabilities inherent in broader society are carried over into, and can influence, stakeholder analysis and engagement (Billgren and Holmén, 2008; Van Assche et al., 2017). Repeat identification of the ‘usual suspects’ via informal or formal stakeholder identification and analysis processes can intentionally or unintentionally entrench existing social roles and power dynamics even further through the process of stakeholder engagement (Colvin et al., 2016a, 2019).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text