Approaching reality: Comparing stakeholder analysis and cultural theory in the context of natural resource management
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)
- et al.
In whose interest? An exploratory analysis of stakeholders in Norwegian coastal zone planning
Ocean & Coastal Management
(2004) - 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 principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities
Agricultural Systems
(1997) - et al.
Water and science: hydrological uncertainties, developmental aspirations and uningrained scientific culture
Futures
(2001) - et al.
From user-groups to stakeholders? The public interest in fisheries management
Marine Policy
(2001) - ACTS-UNEP, 2001. The making of a framework environmental law in Kenya. African Centre for Technological Studies (ACTS)...
- Ahlin, L., 2001. New age—konsumtionsvara eller värden att kämpa för? Hemmets journal och Idagsidan i Svenska Dagbladet...
The Middle East Water Question—Hydropolitics and the Global Economy
(2002)Water in the environment/socio-economic development discourse: sustainability, changing management paradigms and policy responses in a global system
Government and Opposition
(2005)- Becht, R., Odada, E.O., Higgins, S., 2005. Lake Naivasha: experience and lessons learned brief. World Lake Network....
The moral obligations of multinational corporations
Stakeholder analysis: a review
Health Policy and Planning
A challenge to conservationists
World Watch
A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance
Academy of Management Review
Making stakeholder theory whole
Academy of Management Review
The stakeholder theory of corporation: concepts, evidence and implications
The Academy of Management Review
Natural Symbols—Explorations in Cosmology
Natural Symbols
Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers
The primordial stakeholder: advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment
Journal of Business Ethics
The physical attributes of the Lake Naivasha Catchement rivers
Hydrobiologia
Strategic Management—A Stakeholder Approach
The politics of stakeholder theory: some further research directions
Business Ethics Quartley
Cultural theory and the new institutionalism
Journal of Theoretical Politics
Socio-demographic effects on cultural biases
Acta Sociologica
Cited by (88)
Combining multiple data sources to identify actor involvement in environmental governance: Wildfire in the American West
2023, Environmental Science and PolicyAn analysis of the stakeholders of groundwater resources management in Iran
2022, Environmental Science and PolicyDeliberating coral reef protection – Cultural Theory tested
2022, Marine PolicyPower, perspective, and privilege: The challenge of translating stakeholder theory from business management to environmental and natural resource management
2020, Journal of Environmental ManagementCitation 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).
Beneficiaries of free admission to scenic areas: A cost-benefit analysis of scenic areas for public welfare from the perspective of stakeholders
2020, Tourism Management Perspectives