Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management

Integrating knowledge exchange and the assessment of dryland management alternatives – A learning-centered participatory approach

“…In participatory processes, special attention has to be paid to the adequacy and representativeness of the stakeholders involved, avoiding biases in the identification and selection of the participants (Luyet et al, 2012;Newig and Fritsch, 2009;Stanghellini, 2010). The PRACTICE protocol relies on the combination of analytical (top-down, primed by pre-identified stakeholders) and reconstructive (bottom-up, identified through the referral process) stakeholder identification methods, which can be efficient with respect to time and resources needed, but also effective in the identification of traditionally marginalized or peripheral stakeholder groups (Reed et al, 2009). However, bias is still possible and there is risk of reproducing existing homogeneous networks.…”

“…It must be stressed however that the proposed protocol shares with existing participatory frameworks a variety of potential risks, including the potential for resulting in a costly and time consuming process, generating stakeholder frustration, identifying and bringing new conflicts to the surface, involving stakeholders that are not relevant to the issue addressed, ignoring individual and relative levels of power within the group of participating stakeholders, etc. (Armah et al, 2009;Luyet et al, 2012;Mitchell et al, 1997), which can largely influence the outcomes of a participatory process (De Vente et al, 2016;Reed et al, 2009;Rowe and Frewer, 2005). Furthermore, land management decision-making is influenced by many situational factors such as financial resources, land tenure, and social norms, so that high level of knowledge and positive attitude alone did not always result in behavior change (Kong et al, 2014;Leeuwis, 2000).…”

“…Baseline stakeholder perspectives are confronted with both assessment data and the perspectives of other stakeholders, and this is done through interactions and dialogue in a favorable environment for individual and social learning, as well as for reflections on the learning process itself (Finger and Verlaan, 1995;Keen et al, 2005;Reed et al, 2010). However, such a participatory environment may still fail to result in relevant changes in either individual or collective understanding and attitudes.…”

Analysis and Mapping of Stakeholders in Traditional Use Zone within Marine Protected Area

“…Key informants were selected hierarchically from village, sub-district, district, and province, representing all interest that influence TUZ-MPA. The stakeholder analysis is conducted by following the guidelines of Bryson (2003) and Reed et al (2009), i.e. by: (1) identifying stakeholders and their interest/influence, (2) grouping and categorizing stakeholders, and (3) investigating the relationships among stakeholders.…”

“…A matrix-plot analysis was then used to examine the interest and influence of stakeholders on the management activities of TUZ-MPA. Then, the results of interest and influence scales from plot analysis were divided into 2 to make 4 quadrants of stakeholders' interest and influence (Reed et al 2009;Bryson et al 2011) (Figure 1) The position of stakeholders in the 4 quadrans depicts interest and influence of each stakeholder on the sustainability of TUZ-MPA governance, i.e. as: (1) subject (high interest but low influence), (2) key players (high interest and influence), (3) crowd (low interest and influence), and (4) context setters (low interest but high influence).…”