Who’s in and Why a Typology of Stakeholder Analysis Methods for Natural Resource Management

Whos in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for naturalresource management

Mark S. Reed a,*, Anil Graves c, Norman Dandy d, Helena Posthumus c, Klaus Hubacek b, Joe Morris c,Christina Prell e, Claire H. Quinn b, Lindsay C. Stringer b

aAberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability and Centre for Planning and Environmental Management, School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen, St Marys,Aberdeen AB243UF, UKb Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS2 9JT, UKcNatural Resources Management Centre, Cranfield University, Bedford MK43 0AL, UKd Forest Research, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH, UKeDepartment of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield, Northumberland Road, Sheffield S10 2TU, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 17 March 2008Received in revised form2 October 2008Accepted 11 January 2009Available online 20 February 2009

Keywords:Stakeholder analysisTypologyMethodsIdentificationCategorisationInter-relationshipsParticipationRural Economy and Land Use programme

a b s t r a c t

Stakeholder analysis means many things to different people. Various methods and approaches have beendeveloped in different fields for different purposes, leading to confusion over the concept and practice ofstakeholder analysis. This paper asks how and why stakeholder analysis should be conducted for partic-ipatory natural resource management research. This is achieved by reviewing the development ofstakeholder analysis in business management, development and natural resource management. Thenormative and instrumental theoretical basis for stakeholder analysis is discussed, and a stakeholderanalysis typology is proposed. This consists of methods for: i) identifying stakeholders; ii) differentiatingbetween and categorising stakeholders; and iii) investigating relationships between stakeholders. Therange of methods that can be used to carry out each type of analysis is reviewed. These methods andapproaches are then illustrated through a series of case studies funded through the Rural Economy andLand Use (RELU) programme. These case studies show the wide range of participatory and non-partici-patory methods that can be used, and discuss some of the challenges and limitations of existing methodsfor stakeholder analysis. The case studies also propose new tools and combinations of methods that canmore effectively identify and categorise stakeholders and help understand their inter-relationships.

! 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Public participation is becoming increasingly embedded innational and international environmental policy, as decision-makers recognise the need to understand who is affected by thedecisions and actions they take, and who has the power to influ-ence 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 resultsand jeopardise long-term viability and support for the process. Forthis reason, interest is growing in a collection of methods that canbe used for stakeholder analysis. We define stakeholder analysisas a process that: i) defines aspects of a social and naturalphenomenon affected by a decision or action; ii) identifies

individuals, groups and organisations who are affected by or canaffect 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 thedecision-making process.

Stakeholder analysis has become increasingly popular witha wide range of organisations in many different fields, and it isnow used by policy-makers, regulators, governmental and non-governmental organisations, businesses and the media (Friedmanand Miles, 2006). Approaches to stakeholder analysis have changedas tools havebeenprogressivelyadapted frombusinessmanagementfor use in policy, development and natural resource management. Itis perhaps this variety of different approaches that has given rise towidespread confusion over what is really meant by stakeholderanalysis (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Stoney and Winstanley,2001). Weyer (1996) described it as a slippery creature, used bydifferent people to mean widely different things. Donaldson andPreston (1995) put this confusiondown to a muddling of theoreticalbases and objectives. This may partly be due to the long period of

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 44 1224 272 000.E-mail address: [email protected] (M.S. Reed).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jenvman

0301-4797/$ see front matter ! 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001

Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 19331949

timeoverwhich theseapproacheshavedeveloped inparallel fields. Itmay also be due to the continued attempt to aggregate differentmethods and approaches under the single banner of stakeholderanalysis. In an attempt to make sense of this confusion, Section 2 ofthis paper defines stakeholders and stakeholder analysis, and showshow the concept has evolved in different fields.

Although a broad range of methods have been developed oradapted for stakeholder analysis in these different disciplines, thereis little information regarding how,when andwhy they are effective.This paper therefore aims to provide an analysis of the history anddevelopment of stakeholder analysis and a disaggregation of thetheoretical bases uponwhich it is founded. It seeks to illustrate howmuch of the contemporary critique and debate over appropriatemethods is a reflection of the diverse reasons why stakeholderanalysis is used. This debate includes many questions aboutstakeholder representation, legitimacy, participation, power, andknowledge essentially whos in, andwhy? For example, how candiverse stakeholders be adequately represented? How can therelative interest and influence of different stakeholders be taken intoaccount? And if stakeholders are defined by the issues that are beinginvestigated, then who defines these issues?

The paper is organised as follows: Section 2 describes the originsof stakeholder analyses in literature. Section 3 discusses methodsfor stakeholder analysis that are common within research onnatural resource management. Section 4 presents four differentresearch projects from across the UK Research Councils RuralEconomy and Land Use programme1 that apply stakeholder anal-ysis. The last section presents conclusions on the use of stakeholderanalysis within natural resource management.

2. Origins and justification for stakeholder analysis

2.1. Who or what are stakeholders?

There is a difference of opinion over who or what exactlystakeholders are. Many recent definitions of stakeholders build onFreemans (1984) seminal work on stakeholder theory that distin-guished between those who affect or are affected by a decision oraction (sometimes referred to as active and passive stakeholders inthe natural resources stakeholder literature; Grimble and Wellard,1997). However, the concept of stakeholders predates Freemanswork (Rowley, 1997). According to Ramrez (1999) the wordstakeholder originates from the seventeenth century, where itwas used to describe a third party entrustedwith the stakes of a bet.Schilling (2000) argues that Follett (1918), writing in the businessmanagement literature, makes explicit much of what Freeman(1984) proposed several decades later.

Some stakeholder theories propose a narrower and moreinstrumental definition of stakeholders as those groups or indi-viduals without whose support the organisation would cease toexist (Bowie, 1988: 112), whilst other definitions proposea broader and more normative view of stakeholders as anynaturally occurring entity that is affected by organisationalperformance. This may include living and non-living entities, oreven mental-emotional constructs, such as respect for pastgenerations or the wellbeing of future generations (Starik, 1995;

Hubacek and Mauerhofer, 2008). Similarly, Checkland (1981)suggests that whoever owns a problem should be a co-owner ofthe process to solve it. Working on environmental pollution, Coase(1960) defined stakeholders as polluters and victims. Polluterscould affect change (in this case creating pollution) and the victimswere those who were affected. Victims could be directly or indi-rectly affected, leading to the identification of a wide range ofstakeholders.

The debate in literature on the definition of stakeholders is inpart due to the problem of defining what constitutes a legitimatestake. Freeman and Miles (2002) suggest that much of the liter-ature makes implicit assumptions about the legitimacy of stake-holders without explaining the difference between legitimate andillegitimate stakeholders. For example, in the business manage-ment literature, Friedman (1962) argues that the only duty ofbusiness managers is to maximise profits for stockholders, andconcluded therefore that there are no legitimate stakeholdersother than stockholders. Stakeholder analysis opposes this posi-tion by providing a diverse range of criteria that justify theinvolvement of other individuals and groups. These range fromthose based on notions of who or what affects or is affected by anorganisations activity (Freeman, 1984; Starik, 1995), to thosebased on theories of national capital investment (Schlossberger,1994), externalities (Freeman, 1994), and property rights(Donaldson and Preston, 1995). Frooman (1999) dismisses theneed for stakeholders to establish legitimacy over an organisa-tion, since the appropriateness of the stakeholders claim maynot matter nearly as much as the ability of the stakeholder toaffect the direction of the firm. Friedman and Miles (2006)concede that this is a valid point, but nevertheless suggest thatlegitimacy is an important basis of influence and that clarity istherefore still needed on what constitutes a legitimate andrightful stake.

2.2. The development of stakeholder analysis

In business management, the growing realisation that stake-holders could affect the success of a firm led naturally to thedevelopment of approaches to analyse stakeholders, in order tounderstand their interests and influence, and how these couldsupport or threaten the performance of the firm (Brugha and Var-vasovsky, 2000). As such, the business management communityprimarily used stakeholder analysis tomobilise, neutralise or defeatstakeholders, to meet the strategic objectives of firms. Howeverwithin policy, development, and natural resource management,stakeholder analysis was increasingly seen as an approach thatcould empower marginal stakeholders to influence decision-making processes. Although this broadened the role of stakeholderanalysis, enriching its theoretical basis and analytical methods, italso increased the complexity and difficulty of such research, sincemany additional conflicting and diverse agendas had now to beconsidered.

Policy analysts have long attempted to understand how infor-mation, institutions, decisions and power shape policy agendas forinterest groups in social networks. In policy research, stakeholderanalysis has been seen as a way of generating information on therelevant actors to understand their behaviour, interests, agendas,and influence on decision-making processes (Brugha and Varva-sovsky, 2000). Increasingly, the views of civil society groups havealso been solicited and there is growing appreciation of theimportance of political will. In political science, stakeholderresearch is used to work more effectively with stakeholders, facil-itate transparent implementation of decisions or objectives,understand the policy context, and assess the feasibility of futurepolicy options (Brugha and Varvasovsky, 2000).

1 The Rural Economy and Land Use programme is a collaboration between theEconomic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Biotechnology and BiologicalSciences Research Council (BBSRC) and Natural Environment Research Council(NERC). It has a budget of 24 million, with additional funding provided by theScottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department and the Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The programme funds interdisciplinaryand participatory research to understand rural change, informing UK policy andpractice concerned with managing the countryside and rural economies.

M.S. Reed et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 193319491934

The application of stakeholder analysis in development and thenatural resources management literature (sometimes referred toas diversity analysis, e.g., Pain, 2004) has partly been stimulatedby projects that did not adequately understand stakeholderdynamics and failed as a result. In these fields, stakeholder anal-ysis has focussed on understanding power dynamics andenhancing the transparency and equity of decision-making indevelopment projects. For example, Lindenberg and Crosby (1981)suggested making an inventory of those who could have a role indecision-making, gauging their importance through their level ofinfluence and their interest for a particular outcome, mapping therelationships between the actors, and understanding theirpotential for developing alliances. The 4Rs tool analyses howpeople relate to one another over natural resource use by splittingstakeholder roles into rights, responsibilities and revenues(benefits), and then assessing the relationship between theseroles (Tekwe and Percy, 2001; Salam and Noguchi, 2006). Stake-holder analysis in development and natural resource managementprojects has often focussed on inclusivity, being used to empowermarginal groups, such as women, those without access to well-established social networks, the under-privileged, or the sociallydisadvantaged, and those who are not easily accessible, becausefor example they live far away from main roads (Johnson et al.,2004). In the absence of stakeholder analysis, there is a dangerthat particularly powerful and well connected stakeholders canhave a greater influence on decision-making outcomes than moremarginalised groups; a problem that is especially acute in devel-opment projects (Chambers, 1994, 1997). Having said this,depending on the underlying agenda of those convening theprocess, stakeholder analysis can be abused to empower or mar-ginalise certain groups. In these disciplines, stakeholder analysishas developed in parallel with and been enriched by the devel-opment of participatory methods for project design and planning,for example, through rapid and participatory appraisal, actionresearch, social forestry, and land-use planning (Grimble andWellard, 1997).

Much of the business management literature provides a rela-tively static approach to stakeholder analysis, and fails to considerthat stakeholders, organisations, interventions and issues caninteract and change over time (Frooman,1999; Friedman andMiles,2002; Rowley and Moldoveanu, 2003). In contrast, participatorynatural resource management and development literature advo-cates on-going and evolving involvement of stakeholders beyondstakeholder analysis, at every stage of the project cycle (Fraser et al.,2006; Stringer et al., 2006). In this way, the dynamic nature ofstakeholder needs, priorities and interests can be capturedthroughout the duration of the project and beyond.

Stakeholder analysis is also used to understand the diverserange of potentially conflicting stakeholder interests (Friedman andMiles, 2006, 2004; Prell et al., 2007). Because of this, the process ofstakeholder analysis may in fact exacerbate and generate conflict(ODA, 1995). In some cases, hidden agendas or covert interests mayalso skew the analysis (ODA, 1995) and Gass et al. (1997) haveexpressed concern over the question of research objectivity, sincethose undertaking the analysis do so from a particular perspectiveor with particular outcomes in mind. Other potential problemsinclude the perceived lack of knowledge, skills, or resources toconduct stakeholder analysis, concerns over what the analysis willreveal, fears that the analysesmay be destabilising or manipulative;and ethical concerns about representing the views of other people(Bryson et al., 2002; Fraser and Hubacek, 2007).

It is partly for these reasons that stakeholder analysis isfrequently overlooked, yet a systematic, critical, and sensitiveapproach to stakeholder analysis is clearly essential. Only byunderstanding who has a stake in an initiative, and through

understanding the nature of their claims and inter-relationshipswith each other, can the appropriate stakeholders be effectivelyinvolved in environmental decision-making.

2.3. Normative versus instrumental approaches to stakeholderanalysis

There have been numerous attempts to classify the differentapproaches to stakeholder analysis (e.g. Donaldson and Preston,1995; Friedman and Miles, 2006). Perhaps the most significantdifference is between normative and instrumental approaches. Athird approach, descriptive stakeholder analysis, is rarely con-ducted for its own sake, since it has no purpose beyond describingthe relationship between a particular phenomenon and its stake-holders (Donaldson and Preston, 1995). However, since normativeand instrumental analyses require an understanding of the currentstate of affairs, descriptive analyses are in effect a necessaryprecursor to normative and instrumental analyses.

Normative approaches have been advocated increasingly asstakeholder analysis has been adopted in policy, development andnatural resource management circles, emphasising the legitimacyof stakeholder involvement and empowerment in decision-making processes. In this context, stakeholder analysis has beenused to legitimise the decisions that are made, through theinvolvement of key and/or representative figures (e.g. Donaldsonand Preston, 1995). Others have suggested that normative stake-holder theory needs to identify who decision-makers are morallyresponsible to in their legal and institutional context (Boatright,1994; Hendry, 2001; Friedman and Miles, 2006). Drawing on thedeliberative democracy literature (Elster, 1998), it can be arguedthat people have a right to participate in the management of theirenvironment.

Several normative stakeholder theories are influenced by Hab-ermas theory on communicative action (Habermas, 1984, 1987).Habermas distinguishes communicative rationality (peopleseeking to reach shared understanding and cooperate to solvea common problem on the basis of discussion and consensus), asopposed to instrumental rationality (where the goal is to controlby changing reality), or strategic rationality (where the goal is towin by making strategic moves) (Jonker and Foster, 2002; Roling,1996). The soft systems methodology (Checkland, 1999) agreeswith Habermas, as this approach features stakeholders whorecognize that they face a common problem which cannot besolved by hard system thinking,2 and subsequently negotiate theirconflicting goals and different perspectives in order to agreecollectively on action (Checkland, 1999; Roling, 1996). Naturalresource management typically deals with conflicting interests ofvarious stakeholders since they use the same resources for differentpurposes. It is therefore important to understand the differentperspectives of the actors involved. For this reason, in the devel-opment and natural resource management literature it is oftenargued that sustainable management of natural resources requiresa soft system, i.e. a space or platform that facilitates a learningamong stakeholders by sharing, and intersubjectively validating,their understanding of the situation in order to reach consensus(Roling and Jiggins, 1997; Rist et al., 2006). Stakeholder analysis initself does not create this platform for negotiation, but can be usedas a tool to contribute to this negotiation or learning between

2 Hard systems thinking assumes that real systems exist, independently from thehuman observer, and one can therefore model existing systems. Soft systems differfrom hard systems in two ways: 1) they are guided by reasons rather than driven bycauses; 2) they do not have assumed goals but instead attempt to come to sharedsystem goals (Roling, 1997).

M.S. Reed et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 19331949 1935

stakeholders. In this way, stakeholder analysis can facilitatea constructivist approach to stakeholder participation, whichrecognizes multiple perspectives of the truth, where reality issocially constructed.

Instrumental stakeholder research is more pragmatic, andlargely devoted to understanding how organisations, projectsand policy-makers can identify, explain, and manage the behav-iour of stakeholders to achieve desired outcomes. In the businessmanagement literature, instrumental approaches have soughtto understand and influence stakeholders in a variety of ways.For example, Freeman (1984) argued that stakeholder analysiscould improve the strategic management and thus the perfor-mance of an organisation. In the development and naturalresource management literature, stakeholder analysis has beenused instrumentally to overcome obstacles to the adoption of newtechnologies, adapt technologies to relevant user groups, or todisseminate the same technologies in different ways to differentgroups (Johnson et al., 2004). It has been argued that stakeholderanalysis can enable information and perspectives to be soughtfrom a far wider range of sources, providing a more robustknowledge base from which to build development or naturalresource management initiatives (Olsson et al., 2004; Berkes,1999; Woodhill and Roling, 1998). This may be particularly perti-nent when consensually agreed targets need to be reached (e.g.Arheimer et al., 2004) or when the relevant information is sparselyor unevenly distributed between different groups (Geurts andMayer, 1996). It may also be particularly important for identifyingexisting conflicts between stakeholders, to ensure that these arenot exacerbated by future work.

Finally, it should be noted that normative justifications forstakeholder analysis may lead to instrumental outcomes. Thenormative basis suggests that stakeholders should be involved indecision-making processes and thus feel some level of ownershipof these processes. By doing this, stakeholder analysis may serveinstrumental ends if it leads to the transformation of relationshipsand the development of trust and understanding between partici-pants. Although this may not necessarily lead to changes in atti-tudes and behaviour, it may enable diverse groups of potentiallyconflicting stakeholders to appreciate the legitimacy of each others

views and see new ways of working together (Mathews, 1994;Forester, 1999).

3. Stakeholder analysis methods in natural resourcemanagement research

3.1. A typology of stakeholder analysis methods

While the discussion above helps to rationalise the theoreticalbasis for stakeholder analysis, both normative and instrumentalapproaches have been applied in different disciplines and contextsusing awide variety of methods (Fig. 1). These can be categorised asmethods used for: i) identifying stakeholders (Section 3.2); ii)differentiating between and categorising stakeholders (Section3.3); and iii) investigating relationships between stakeholders(Section 3.4). Table 1 provides a summary description of each of themethods covered in the typology, including details of the resourcesrequired, level of stakeholder participation, and their strengths andweaknesses. Whilst some methods may be used for more than onepurpose for example, Social Network Analysis is primarily used toinvestigate relationships between stakeholders, but can also beused to categorise them most are generally used for one of thepurposes identified above.

Each of the research methods in this typology may be usedeither with or without the active participation of stakeholders.Where there is considerable documentary evidence or whereanalysts have an intimate knowledge of the individuals and groupswith a stake in the phenomenon under investigation (e.g. anorganisation, intervention, or issue), the stakeholder analysis canbe conducted without the active participation of the stakeholdersthemselves. However, active participation may be needed if it isunclear which issues are most pertinent to the investigation, or ifthere is incomplete knowledge on the population from which thestakeholders could be drawn. The level of participation in stake-holder analysis can also vary considerably from passive consulta-tion, where stakeholders simply provide information for theanalysis, to active engagement where there is a two-way exchangeof information between stakeholders and analysts as equal

Methods

Normative

Rationale

Instrumental

Typology

Step 1: Identifying stakeholders Step 2: Differentiating between andcategorising stakeholders

Step 3: Investigating relationshipsbetween stakeholders

FocusGroups

Semi-structuredinterviews

Snowballsampling

Analyticalcategorisation

(top-down)

Reconstructivecategorisation(bottom-up)

Interest-influencematrices

Radicaltransactive

-ness

Stakeholder-ledstakeholder

categorisation

Qmethodology

SocialNetworkAnalysis

KnowledgeMapping

Descriptive

Actor-linkage

matrices

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of rationale, typology and methods for stakeholder analysis.


partners, so that stakeholders can help to direct research aims andobjectives (c.f. Rowe and Frewer, 2000).

3.2. Methods for identifying stakeholders and their stakes

Much of the stakeholder analysis literature has presumed thatstakeholders are self-evident and self-construed, and has focusedon categorising pre-identified stakeholders to understand theirinterests and relationships. However, before this can be done, it isnecessary to identify who holds a stake in the phenomenon underinvestigation. This in itself necessitates a clear understanding of theissue under investigation so that the boundaries of the social andecological phenomenon can be established. From this clarification,a number of methods can then be used to identify the relevantstakeholders.

Identifying stakeholders is usually an iterative process, duringwhich additional stakeholders are added as the analysis continues,

for example, using expert opinion, focus groups, semi-structuredinterviews, snow-ball sampling, or a combination of these. If theboundaries of the phenomenon itself are clearly defined, thenstakeholders can be relatively easily identified. However, there isa risk that some stakeholders may be accidently omitted and asa consequence not all relevant stakeholders of the phenomenonmay be identified (Clarkson,1995). On the other hand, it is often notpossible to include all stakeholders and a line must be drawn atsome point, based on well-founded criteria established by theresearch analyst (Clarke and Clegg, 1998). These may include forexample, geographical criteria like the boundary of a National Parkor demographic criteria such as nationality or age, depending onthe focus of the analysis.

Each stakeholder involved in the analysis supposedly has a stakein the phenomenon under investigation. Nevertheless, a keyproblem lies in deciding whether the phenomenon under investi-gation should dictate which stakeholders are involved, or whether

Table 1Resources required, level of stakeholder participation, strengths and weaknesses of each of the methods identified in the typology.

Method Description Resources Strengths Weaknesses

Focus groups A small group brainstormstakeholders, their interests,influence and other attributes,and categorise them

High quality facilitation; roomhire; food and drink; facilitationmaterials e.g. flip-chart paperand post-its

Rapid and hence cost-effective;adaptable; possible to reachgroup consensus overstakeholder categories;particularly useful for generatingdata on complex issues thatrequire discussion to developunderstanding.

Less structured than somealternatives so requires effectivefacilitation for good results

Semi-structured interviews Interviews with a cross-sectionof stakeholders to check/supplement focus group data

Interview time; transportbetween interviews; voicerecorder

Useful for in-depth insights tostakeholder relationships and totriangulate data collected infocus groups

Time-consuming and hencecostly; difficult to reachconsensus over stakeholdercategories

Snow-ball sampling Individuals from initialstakeholder categories areinterviewed, identifying newstakeholder categories andcontacts

As above: successiverespondents in each stakeholdercategory are identified duringinterviews

Easy to secure interviewswithout data protection issues;fewer interviews declined

Sample may be biased by thesocial networks of the firstindividual in the snow-ballsample

InterestInfluence matrices Stakeholders are placed ona matrix according to theirrelative interest and influence

Can be done within focus groupsetting (see above), orindividually by stakeholderduring interviews (see above) orby researcher / practitioner

Possible to prioritisestakeholders for inclusion;makes power dynamics explicit

Prioritisation may marginalisecertain groups; assumesstakeholder categories based oninterestinfluence are relevant

Stakeholder-led stakeholdercategorisation

Stakeholders themselvescategorise stakeholders intocategories which they havecreated

Same as semi-structuredinterviews

Stakeholder categories are basedon perceptions of stakeholders

Different stakeholders may beplaced in the same categories bydifferent respondents, makingcategories meaningless

Q methodology Stakeholders sort statementsdrawn from a concourseaccording to how much theyagree with them, anlaysis allowssocial discourses to be identified

Materials for statement sorting;interview time; transportbetween interviews

Different social discoursessurrounding an issue can beidentified and individuals can becategorised according to theirfit within these discourses

Does not identify all possiblediscourses, only the onesexhibited by the interviewedstakeholders

Actor-linkage matrices Stakeholders are tabulated ina two-dimensional matrix andtheir relationships describedusing codes

Can be done within focus groupsetting (see above), orindividually by stakeholdersduring interviews (see above) orby researcher/ practitioner

Relatively easy, requiring fewresources

Can become confusing anddifficult to use if many linkagesare described

Social Network Analysis Used to identify the network ofstakeholders and measuringrelational ties betweenstakeholders through use ofstructured interview/questionnaire.

Interviewer, questionnaire,training in the approach andanalyses, time, software

Gain insight into the boundary ofstakeholder network; thestructure of the network;identifies influentialstakeholders and peripheralstakeholders

Time-consuming; questionnaireis a bit tedious for respondents;need specialist in the method.

Knowledge mapping Used in conjunction with SNA;involves semi-structuredinterviews to identifyinteractions and knowledges

Same as semi-structuredinterviews

Identifies stakeholders thatwould work well together aswell as those with powerbalances

Knowledge needs may still notbe met due to differences in thetypes of knowledge held andneeded by differentstakeholders.

Radical transactiveness Snow-ball sampling to identifyfringe stakeholders;development of strategies toaddress their concerns

Training in the approach, time Identifies stakeholders andissues that might otherwise bemissed and minimizes risks tofuture of project

Time-consuming and hencecostly


it should be the other way around. This problem is rarely consid-ered in stakeholder analyses, possibly due to the difficult dialecticbetween identifying stakeholders and identifying which aspect ofan organisations activities, which intervention, or which issue tofocus on. However, without knowing the issue, it is difficult to knowwhich stakeholders should be involved in identifying the focus(Dougill et al., 2006; Prell et al., 2008, in press). As a result, the focusis typically identified in a top-down manner by the team leadingthe stakeholder analysis and may therefore reflect their interestsand biases, which might not reflect the interests of stakeholders(Clarkson, 1995; Varvasovszky and Brugha, 2000). To address this,Dougill et al. (2006) and Prell et al. (2008, in press) proposed aniterative process comprising scoping interviews, focus groups, andfollow-up interviews to identify the organisations, interventions, orissues under investigation, and hence to identify the stakeholders(see Section 4.1 for details). Chevalier and Buckles (2008) listsa range of other ways to identify stakeholders, including3: identi-fication by experts or other stakeholders; by self-selection (inresponse to advertisements or announcements); through writtenrecords or census data which may provide information to catego-rise by age, gender, religion and residence; through oral or writtenaccounts of major events (identifying the people who wereinvolved); or using a checklist of likely stakeholder categories. Oncesorted into groups (e.g. using card-sorting techniques describedbelow), Chevalier and Buckles (2008) recommends placing stake-holders in a rainbow diagram that classifies them according tothe degree they can affect or be affected by a problem or action(Fig. 2).

Who is included and who is omitted may depend on themethod used for identifying stakeholders and purpose of thestakeholder analysis. This is important, as it affects who andwhat really counts (Mitchell et al., 1997). Bryson et al. (2002)argues that an inclusive view of stakeholders is important in theinterests of social justice, since the nominally powerless mustbe given a voice. Lewis (1991), on ethical grounds proposes that itis sensible to at least start with an inclusive perspective and ata practical level pluralism is also important, since the capacity fora policy, plan, or project to meet its objectives may depend onincluding all the appropriate stakeholders (Bryson and Bromily,1993; Tuchman, 1984). In broad terms, if the main concern of thestakeholder analysis is the equal distribution of the costs andbenefits of a project (e.g. in project planning and implementation),all stakeholders may need to be included (Grimble et al., 1995).When the main interest is the effectiveness of a project or orga-nisation (e.g. in a management context), only those stakeholderswho are most likely to affect the functioning of the project ororganisation given their interests, resources, and influence arenormally included (Grimble et al., 1995). In both cases, thestakeholder analysis can be improved by differentiating betweenand categorising stakeholders. A range of methods have beendeveloped for doing this, and these will be considered in the nextsection.

3.3. Methods for differentiating between and categorisingstakeholders

Methods to characterise and classify stakeholders tend to followtwo broad approaches: i) top-down analytical categorisationsand; ii) bottom-up reconstructive methods (Dryzek and Bereji-kian, 1993).

3.3.1. Analytical categorisationsAnalytical categorisations are a set of methods in which classi-

fication of stakeholders is carried out by those conducting theanalysis based on their observations of the phenomenon in ques-tion and embedded in some theoretical perspective on howa system functions (Hare and Pahl-Wostl, 2002, p. 50). Examples ofanalytical categorisations include those using levels of interest andinfluence (Lindenberg and Crosby, 1981), cooperation and compe-tition (Freeman, 1984), cooperation and threat (Savage et al., 1991),and urgency, legitimacy, and influence (Mitchell et al., 1997). Suchanalyses typically make use of matrices or Venn diagrams (e.g.Bianchi and Kossoudji, 2001; Salam and Noguchi, 2006) and arepopular with users in policy and development fields (Bryson et al.,2002; ODA, 1995; Eden and Ackermann, 1998).

One popular method used interest and influence to classifystakeholders into Key players, Context setters, Subjects andCrowd (e.g. Eden and Ackermann,1998; De Lopez, 2001). This canthen help to specify how stakeholders might be engaged, forexample, for instrumental ends. Key players for example arestakeholderswho should to be actively groomed, because they havehigh interest in and influence over a particular phenomenon.Context setters are highly influential, but have little interest.Because of this, they may be a significant risk, and should bemonitored and managed. Subjects have high interest but lowinfluence and although by definition they are supportive, they lackthe capacity for impact, although they may become influential byforming alliances with other stakeholders. These are often themarginal stakeholders that development projects seek to empower(Section 2.2). The Crowd are stakeholders who have little interestin or influence over desired outcomes and there is little need toconsider them in much detail or to engage with them. Interest andinfluence typically change over time and the impact of such changecan be considered. For example, stakeholders may form alliances toeither promote or defeat a particular outcome and a stakeholderanalysis can be used to identify where such alliances are likely toarise. The analytical power of categorisation approaches can beimproved by adding further attributes to the stakeholders. Patternsin these attributes can then be considered in terms of the catego-risation factors. For example, stakeholders located in an interestand influence matrix could also be labelled as supportive orunsupportive. This could be visually represented to determinewhether there are any clusters of supportive or unsupportivestakeholders and if so, the implications considered in the context ofinterest and influence. Any number of stakeholder attributes can beincluded in this way and the resulting patterns examined and theimplications assessed.

For environmental management and development work, one ofthemain drawbacks of such analytical categorisation is that it tends

Fig. 2. Rainbow diagram for classifying stakeholders according to the degree they canaffect or be affected by a problem or action (from: Chevalier and Buckles, 2008).

3 For a range of additional techniques, see http://www.sas2.net/index.php?pageactors.


to identify the usual suspects and there is a danger that this maylead to the under-representation of marginalised or powerlessgroups (Calton and Kurland, 1996; Grimble and Chan, 1995; Mac-Arthur, 1997). Whilst this can lead to the concerns of vulnerablestakeholders being ignored, such groups may form alliances toaffect significant change when they disagree with or feel threat-ened by the phenomenon under investigation. In both cases, it isimportant to include them. In addition, these methods are oftenused in the absence of direct stakeholder participation in theanalysis and therefore may reflect the biases of the researchersrather than the perceptions of the stakeholders themselves, leadingto questions about the legitimacy based on these categorisations.An alternative approach known as radical transactiveness (Hartand Sharma, 2004) reverses this, focussing instead on opening two-way dialogue with stakeholders who would otherwise be consid-ered peripheral. This typically includes those who are remote,weak, poor, uninterested, isolated, or non-legitimate, but whoseviews may be disruptive. Hart and Sharma (2004) argue that thisenables powerful and fringe stakeholders to influence each otherand avoid potentially disruptive relationships in the future. Theyrecognise that such fringe stakeholders may hold knowledge andperspectives that can help anticipate potential future naturalresource problems and identify innovative opportunities for futuremanagement.

3.3.2. Reconstructive categorisationsIn response to these limitations, more bottom-up, reconstruc-

tive methods (Dryzek and Berejikian, 1993) have been developed,which allow categorisations and parameters to be defined by thestakeholders themselves, so that the analysis reflects their concernsmore closely (Hare and Pahl-Wostl, 2002).

For example, Hare and Pahl-Wostl (2002) applied a card-sortingmethod used in experimental psychology in their stakeholder-ledstakeholder categorisation process for a sustainable watermanagement project. Each stakeholder was asked to sort cardslisting all the stakeholders in a city water system into groupsaccording to their own criteria. It was used as away of identify(ing)the structure of groupings and interactions between stakeholdersfrom the stakeholders perspectives so that the models developedduring the research would reflect the understanding of the stake-holders themselves.

An alternative, less direct method, also drawn from psychologybut widely used in political science alongside discourse analysis, isQ methodology. Discourse analysis identifies the ways in whichpeople think and talk about an issue and in particular the sharedperceptions and common ground between individuals. Q meth-odology is then employed to group individuals into socialdiscourses based on these shared perceptions and commonalities(Barry and Proops, 1999). Q methodology has been used in envi-ronmental policy research, where analysis of conflicting knowledgeclaims might lead to more effective policy solutions (Ockwell,2008). In both the card-sorting method and Q methodology thecategorisation of stakeholders is based on an empirical analysis ofstakeholder perceptions rather than on theoretical perspectives(Barry and Proops, 1999).

While card sorting and Q methodology can involve a largenumber of stakeholders, the difficulty of engaging meaningfullywith them means that in many cases, not everyone identified asa stakeholder can be involved in all aspects of the process. Thisleads inevitably to a need to identify a sub-set of stakeholderswhose views are representative of the larger stakeholder group(Prell et al., 2008, in press). If such stakeholder-led researchmethods are to be used, then greater flexibility in research andpolicy interventions is necessary. By defining their own categories,stakeholders make the analysis relevant to their own concerns and

circumstances. This may shift the original focus of research, whichcould lead to novel output, but might equally be distracting.

Finally, Strategic Perspectives Analysis (Dale and Lane, 1994)uses interviews or workshops with stakeholders to identify andcompare the goals of different groups, and the perceived oppor-tunities and constraints they have to reach their goals. In this way(often using repeat interviews), categories of stakeholders whoshare similar goals can be identified. The information collectedduring this process may also be a useful to negotiations betweenconflicting groups. This approach is similar to conflict mapping(Cornelius and Faire, 1989), which focuses on needs rather thanstated positions or goals.

3.4. Methods for investigating stakeholder relationships

Finally, there are a collection of methods that have beendeveloped to investigate the relationships that exist betweenstakeholders (as individuals and groups) in the context of a partic-ular phenomenon. There are three principal methods that havebeen used to analyse stakeholder relationships: i) Actor-linkagematrices ii) Social Network Analysis provides insights into patternsof communication, trust and influence between actors in socialnetworks, and; iii) Knowledge Mapping analyses the content ofinformation between these actors.

3.4.1. Actor-linkage matricesA commonly used means of describing stakeholder interrela-

tions is through actor-linkage matrices (Biggs and Matsaert, 1999;ODA, 1995). These require stakeholders to be listed in the rows andcolumns of a table creating a grid so that the interrelations betweenthem can be described, using key words. One popular method forexample is to determine whether the relationships between eachstakeholder are of conflict, complementary, or cooperation. Theadvantage of this approach is its simplicity of use and flexibility. Asactor-linkage matrices require no more than pen and paper, theyhave been particular valuable in development, where due toresource limitations, research may need to be conducted withoutthe use of computers.

3.4.2. Social Network Analysis (SNA)Similar to actor-linkage matrices, Social Network Analysis

makes use of matrices to organize data on the relational ties linkingstakeholders together. Rather than using key words in the matrixcells, SNA uses numbers to represent i) the presence/absence ofa tie; ii) the relative strength of the tie. Each matrix representsa unique relation, for example, communication; friendship; advice;conflict; trust, etc. Data is typically gathered through structuredinterview, questionnaire, or observation (Wasserman and Faust,1994). Thus, SNA captures not only different kinds of relations (bothpositive and negative), but also the strength of those relational ties,and records this information in quantitative form thatmakes it easyfor summarization and analysis. Analysis of these matricesuncovers the structure of the stakeholder network, thus identifyingwhich stakeholders are more central; which are marginal; and howstakeholders cluster together.

In natural resources management, Social Network Analysis(SNA) can be used to help identify stakeholders, ensure key groupsare not marginalised, identify conflict between stakeholders, andselect representatives based on the way that the network isstructured. Such information is especially important in naturalresources management initiatives that seek to influence thebehaviour of stakeholders through key influential individuals (c.f.Rogers, 1995; Prell, et al., 2008, in press). Both the social networkand resource management literature discuss how networks influ-ence individuals and groups. Research on the strength of ties


between individuals, for example, shows that strong ties producedifferent outcomes to weak ties. Strong ties (as defined byGranovetter, 1973) are based on a combination of characteristics,such as intimacy, emotional intensity, time, and reciprocity. Thehigher a tie scores on each of these characteristics, the stronger thetie. There are several advantages of strong ties for natural resourcesmanagement. Stakeholders who share strong ties are more likely toinfluence one another, and thus, creating strong ties among diversestakeholders can enhance mutual learning, and the sharing ofresources and advice (Newman and Dale, 2005; Crona and Bodin,2006; Newman and Dale, 2007). However, the benefits of strongties may be countered by the redundancy of information thattypically runs through them.

In contrast, diverse information and new ideas have been shownto travel best throughweak ties. Research has shown that weak tiestend to exist between dissimilar individuals, and as such, offerstakeholders access to diverse pools of information and resourcesby bridging otherwise disconnected segments of the network.Within the context of natural resource management, weak ties thatlink diverse individuals and groups together and bridge discon-nected segments of a network can make it more resilient andadaptive to environmental change. A potential drawback to weakties, however, is that they are easy to break. In addition, individualssharing weak ties may lack the trust and understanding that isneeded for meaningful dialogue over environmental issues (Gran-ovetter, 1973; Burt, 1992, 2000, 2001; Newman and Dale, 2005). Byquantifying the extent to which stakeholders trust one another,SNA can identify problematic relationships, and when supple-mented with qualitative data, can be used to identify the nature ofconflicts between individuals and groups. It may be possible toidentify specific individuals who are widely perceived by others inthe network to be untrustworthy. This information can be used toselect stakeholders to work together who are likely to trust oneanother, and may help avoid exacerbating conflicts betweenstakeholders (see Section 4.4 for an illustration).

Closely related to this is the way in which various stakeholderattributes influence which ties are established within a network.Homophily, where similar individuals are attracted to each anotherand thus choose to intensify their interaction, is well-documentedin social networks (Friedkin, 1998; Ruef et al., 2004; Skvoretz et al.,2004). Stakeholders who are similar to one another are better ableto communicate tacit, complex information, because there isa better level of understanding between them. However, homo-phily can also be problematic, because successful natural resourcemanagement projects require different views and opinions to berecognised and discussed (Crona and Bodin, 2006; Newman andDale, 2007). In such situations, it may be beneficial to increase thediversity of stakeholders engaged in the project.

A further concept of importance in the natural resourcemanagement literature is centralisation. A highly centralisednetwork is characterised by relatively few individuals holdingthe majority of ties with other individuals in the network.Although centralised networks are helpful for the initial phase offorming groups and building support for collective action(Olsson et al., 2004; Crona and Bodin, 2006), research suggeststhat centralised networks are also a disadvantage for long-termplanning and problem solving. Long-term goals in fact requirea more decentralised structure, where there are more ties, bothweak and strong, between all the stakeholders (Crona and Bodin,2006).

3.4.3. Knowledge mappingKnowledge mapping is an increasingly important tool within

businesses and organisations, particularly in terms of fosteringimproved innovation and competitive advantage (Cole, 1998).

Knowledge mapping evolved from organisational charts, whichwere tools for control and planning. However, in order tosuccessfully manage a natural resource system that is subject tonumerous changes, responses, and feedbacks from various sectorsof society (or in the case of business, a system that is subject to bothinternal and external changes), more flexible approaches areneeded in order to enhance communication and facilitate learning.Businesses have responded to this need by emphasising theimportance of knowledge management, within which knowledgemapping can play a useful role (Nissen and Levitt, 2004). To datehowever, it has been little applied to the natural resourcemanagement context, the exception being work on agriculturalnetworks and technology transfer (e.g. see FAO, 1995).

When used in conjunction with SNA, knowledge mapping mayprovide an important method for: i) extending the who knowswho of SNA by providing a visual representation of who knowswhat (Wexler, 2001) that captures the knowledge of differentstakeholders across time, people and locations (Nissen and Levitt,2004); ii) identifying the dominant flows of knowledge (Eppler,2001); iii) identifying knowledge bottlenecks and areas of latentknowledge; iv) locating and explaining knowledge seepage, forexample through themigration or loss of key stakeholder groups orindividuals; v) assisting individuals within the system to under-stand the other types of knowledge of different individuals andgroups within the system, and; vi) helping researchers to groupstakeholders more effectively in order to promote learning. Bymapping linkages in a knowledge system, information exchangemechanisms can be identified and evaluated, providing an over-view of power and control of the linkages and highlighting whoseinterests are being met (FAO, 1995).

It may be possible to use knowledge maps in conjunction withSNA to address the question of whose agenda is being met, byidentifying stakeholders who are particularly knowledgeable abouta specific issue and determining how their knowledge is being usedand by whom. For example, although knowledge maps mightindicate that a substantial proportion of stakeholders within thenetwork are knowledgeable, SNA might indicate that there arefew pathways through which that knowledge can be distributedacross the wider stakeholder network. Conversely, knowledgeneeds might become apparent from other stakeholders in theknowledge map and researchers could then structure focus groupsto bring together knowledgeable stakeholders with those needingthis knowledge. This is an important step towards fostering effec-tive collaboration and social learning, a well as innovation (Ram-rez, 1997) providing a means by which latent knowledge can bereleased within the appropriate social network. Used in this way,knowledgemapping is a novel method within stakeholder analysis,which can aid the development and diffusion of knowledge withinsocio-ecological systems.

4. Applying stakeholder analysis: experience from the RELUprogramme

The previous sections of the paper have examined the historyand theory of stakeholder analysis in the context of businessmanagement, policy, development, and natural resourcesmanagement. They have also examined which methods have beenused in three critical steps of stakeholder analysis, identifyingstakeholders and their stakes, differentiating between and cate-gorising stakeholders, and methods for investigating stakeholderrelationships. The following section of the paper uses four casestudy projects from the UK Rural Economy and Land Use Pro-gramme (RELU) that all use stakeholder analysis, to discuss how theanalysis was applied in each, what problems arose, and how theseproblems were overcome.


First, the RELU-Birds case study is used to clarify and illustratesome of the basic theoretical concepts and critically evaluate theuse of interest and influence as a means of categorising stake-holders. RELU-Floodplains considers how interestinfluencematrices can be used to analyse changes in the composition ofstakeholders associated with a phenomenon over time. RELU-DeerManagement goes beyond this to qualitatively explore stakeholderinterrelations through their common interests in deer manage-ment. RELU-Sustainable Uplands characterizes stakeholder rela-tionships more quantitatively, in the context of a qualitativestakeholder identification and categorisation.

The following sections describe how stakeholder analysis hasbeen applied in each of these projects, illustrating the rationalebehind their choice of methods to conduct different types ofstakeholder analysis, according to the typology described in Fig. 1.

4.1. Reviewing some basic theory: the development of a frameworkfor evaluating interest and influence on RELU-birds

The RELU-Birds project, Evaluating the Options for CombiningEconomically, Socially and Ecologically Sustainable Agriculture(20062009), aims to understand and predict how farmers makemanagement decisions on arable farms and how this affectsfarmland bird populations, which have declined dramatically sincethe 1970s. Within this, the stakeholder analysis seeks to identifyindividuals and groups with interest in and influence overfarmland bird populations (see discussion about using interest andinfluence to categorise stakeholders in Section 3.3.1) in order toprovide a research context for the project and future recommen-dations. A non-participatory approach was used, the justification

for this being based partly on resource limitations, and partlybecause farmland birds in the UK are well-researched, andevidence of the interest and influence of stakeholders is available inscientific papers, the electronic media, and through key informants(see discussion of participatory and non-participatory stakeholderanalysis in Section 3.1 and the levels of participation usuallyinvolved in different stakeholder analysis methods in Table 1).

Stakeholders were initially identified, using a focus group withresearchers, to ask which individuals and groups had interest inand influence over farmland bird populations in the UK. In recog-nition of the fact that stakeholder analyses are iterative, a stake-holder analysis tool was developed to facilitate the analysis(Fig. 3). This allowed stakeholders to be classified in an interestinfluence matrix, which displayed their attributes and inter-rela-tionships. The tool was subsequently used to map stakeholderinterest and influence with key informants from the research,policy, and farming sectors. Through this iterative process, a finalanalysis based on peer-reviewed literature, electronic media andkey informant interviews was established.

However, development of a framework for evaluating interestand influencewithin the stakeholder analysis tool raised significantdifficulties, since in the stakeholder literature, there is little guid-ance on how these can be assessed or measured. For example, mostdiscussions on interest focus on defining what constitutesa legitimate stake in the affairs of other individuals or groups (seeSection 2.1 for a discussion of what makes a legitimate stake).Legitimacy was here seen in terms of entitlement to the flow ofbenefits from land as defined by property rights (Donaldson andPreston, 1995). The ecosystems framework was then used toidentify and classify stakeholders according to their interest in the

Fig. 3. A screenshot of the Stakeholder Analysis Tool developed to aid the stakeholder analysis.


goods and services provided by the regulating, production, habitat,carrier, and information functions of agricultural land (de Grootet al., 2002, 2006).

The stakeholder literature does even less to provide an expla-nation of influence. In the social psychology literature, influenceis described as the process of affecting the thoughts, behaviour,and feelings of another and the capacity for influence is depen-dent on power (Nelson and Quick, 1994). There are many theo-retical descriptions of power that operate at different social scalesand it is surprising that stakeholder theories have not drawn morefrom these. Only Mitchell et al. (1997) have proposed use of theconcepts provided by Etzioni (1964), who suggested that powercould be coercive, utilitarian, and normative. Here, the analysisdeveloped by Galbraith (1983) was used. This proposes that thereare three instruments of power: condign, compensatory, andconditioning power, and three sources of power: personality,property, and organisation.

Condign power gains influence through emotional, financial,and physical threats and punishment. Compensatory power worksthrough symbolic, financial and material rewards, such as salaries,bribes, or gifts of land. Conditioning power works throughmanipulation of belief, for example, through peer groups, culturalnorms, education, advertising, or propaganda. These instruments ofpower are accessed through various sources, including personality/leadership (which provides access through charisma, physicalstrength, mental intelligence or charm), wealth or organisation.However, access to such instruments and sources of power does notin itself equate to influence, since stakeholders may choose not touse them.

From an iterative application of this conceptual framework(Table 1) and tool (Fig. 3) with key informants, and through use ofevidence in peer-reviewed literature and the electronic media,a graphical representation of the stakeholders was developed in aninterestinfluence grid (Fig. 4; see Section 3.3.1 for an introductionand discussion about technique). A benefit of this visual repre-sentation was the possibility of finding patterns in the distributionof various stakeholder attributes in the interestinfluence matrix.For example, stakeholders with production interests were generallymore influential than those with habitat interests, since productioninterests have been heavily supported by British and EU policy,especially the CAP.

As well as helping explain how current stakeholder interestsand influence have led to the current decline in farmland birdpopulations, the stakeholder analysis provided guidance on howstakeholders, institutions, and policies could be engaged to halt andreverse the decline of farmland birds. This decline has been linkedto agricultural intensification, and a rearrangement of stakeholderinterests and influence are needed if this is to be reversed.Fundamentally, this necessitates a realignment of property rightsand entitlement to the flow of benefits from agricultural land,a process that is occurring in a variety of ways. Stakeholders such asthe RSPB or theWildlife Trust, with broader ecosystem interests forexample, have formed alliances of power to make their interestsfelt through measures to protect biodiversity and the environment,such as the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), the Wildlife and Coun-tryside Act (1981), and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Morerecently, CAP payments have been made dependent on cross-compliance and Defra now holds a Public Service Agreement toreverse the decline of farmland birds by 2020.4 However, it is worthnoting that the balance of power between different stakeholders,and their entitlement to property rights, is in a state of dynamictension and shifts may occur with increasing rapidity, as thedemand for competing ecosystem goods and services grows.

4.2. Identifying and categorising dynamic stakeholders onRELU-floodplains

The RELU-floodplains project, Integrated Floodplain Manage-ment, seeks to determine the scope for achieving the multipleobjectives of agricultural production, biodiversity and landscapemanagement, flood risk management and support to the ruraleconomy in floodplain areas in England. It explores how waterregime management, namely the control of flooding and groundwater levels, can be used to achieve outcomes which serve a rangeof stakeholder interests. The project makes explicit links betweenecosystem functions and stakeholder interests (de Groot, 2006),evident for example between: production functions and farmers;regulation functions and flood risk managers; habitat functions andbiodiversity managers; carrier functions and floodplain residents;

Fig. 4. Interestinfluence matrix for Integrated Management of Floodplains RELU Project showing stakeholders with property rights.

4 http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/pdfs/ruraldelivery/chapter2.pdf.


and cultural functions and local authorities managing public accessto the countryside.

The floodplain study sites for this project were initially defendedagainst flooding and artificially drained during the 1960s and 1970sas part of programmes of public support to farming and foodproduction. At that time, agricultural production was synonymouswith the public good, and Government agencies, such as theMinistry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, used permissivepowers (i.e. empowered to intervene if appropriate but withoutany obligation) and public funds for this purpose. More recently,however, priorities in floodplains have moved away from agricul-tural primacy to a more diverse set of non-production orientedfunctions and related interests, such as flood regulation and habitatmanagement. These changes in priority reflect a redistribution ofstakeholder interest and influences and, in turn, changes in prop-erty rights that determine entitlement to flows of ecosystembenefits from floodplains (Table 2).

The floodplain case demonstrates how stakeholder analysis canbe used to explain the role of property rights in natural resourcemanagement, and the underlying tensions that arisewhen newandstrengthening interests cannot exert influence because of limitedentitlement. Indeed, property rights are not absolute, but ratherconditional on and derived from social preferences that changeover time (Tawney, 1948; Bromley and Hodge, 1990). The propertyrights embodied in agricultural tenure, for example, reflecta primacy given to production. Some agricultural entitlements havebeen attenuated in recent years by environmental regulation, withand without compensation to farmers.

These issues are being played out on the Beckingham Marshes,an agricultural floodplain along the River Trent opposite to thetown Gainsborough, and one of the eight case studies beingconsidered. Semi-structured interviews with the main stake-holders provided insights of changes in the land and watermanagement over time in response to changing policy drivers andthe motivation of key stakeholders, notably the hydrologicalregulator (the Environment Agency and its predecessors), farmers,and, more recently, environmental interest groups. Prior to 1939,the Marsh was down to wet grass and woodland, mostly willow.Some arable farming occurred during the WWII period. In the1960s and 1970s, successive improvements were made to flooddefences and drainage systems that provided enhancements foragricultural production with flood storage for the 1 in 10 year floodevent to help protect the adjacent urban area.

The majority of the Marsh has been held in public ownership bythe Environment Agency and its predecessors, reflecting thedominant interest of flood regulation. Farmer occupiers have life-long tenancy rights and derive benefits of flood protection to thedesign standard, paying land drainage fees to the Internal DrainageBoard for services rendered. Thus for three decades the maininterests have focussed on regulation functions (floodwater storageand drainage) and production functions (agriculture), with limitedattention given to other ecosystem functions and services. In the

last 10 years, however, declining profitability of conventionalfarming, increased importance given to nature conservation infloodplains, and the availability of agri-environment options forwet grassland, have promoted broader based interests in sites suchas Beckingham Marshes.

Information on the stakeholders was mainly collected throughsemi-structured interviews for this case study, but the stakeholdershad no active involvement in constructing the interestinfluencematrix which might have revealed less obvious dynamics orconflicts in addition. Table 3 gives an overview of the currentinterests in ecosystem uses of some stakeholders in the Becking-ham Marshes. Mapping stakeholders on an influence and interestmatrix shows that in the past stakeholders interested in regulationand production functions were key players, holding property rightsbestowed through land-ownership (Fig. 4; see Section 3.3.1 formore about technique). More recently, however, stakeholders withinterests in habitat and information functions are exerting influ-ence through strategic liaisons with key players with formal enti-tlement to land, including influence on agri-environmentprogrammes for floodplain wetlands. RSPB, for example, haspursued its interest by acquiring an agricultural tenancy with theEnvironment Agency for the purpose of wetland creation on 90 ha,qualifying for agri-environment payments in the process. As moreand diverse stakeholders seek entitlements to serve their interests,conflicts arise and stakeholders begin to bargain in order to achievedesired outcomes, often involving multiple ecosystem services.

The stakeholder analysis was applied instrumentally here toreveal the interests and influence of the stakeholders, in order tounderstand synergies and conflicts between the stakeholders andtheir demand for the ecosystem functions and services delivered byrural floodplains. Interest and power are not static, and as stake-holders change position (e.g. the RSPB), tensions arise when keyplayers have conflicting interests.

4.3. Exploring stakeholder relationships qualitatively on RELU-Deermanagement

The RELU-Deer Management project, Collaborative Frameworksin Land Management (20062009), aims to investigate the processof collaboration in natural resource management via a case study ofwild deer in Britain. Wild deer present a complex natural resourcemanagement issue and have the potential to affect increasingnumbers of actors across the contemporary British landscape. It iswidely accepted that the number and distribution of deer in thelandscape have been increasing in recent decades and are now attheir highest level, perhaps for centuries. Deer are a highly valuedeconomic and cultural resource and whilst the impact of wild deerupon agriculture and forestry (through their browsing, tramplingand other behaviours) have been acknowledged for some time,contemporary social phenomena such as increasing fragmenta-tion of land-ownership, increased attention to nature and itsconservation, increased demand for mobility and transport, and

Table 2The framework of analysis developed to evaluate the different dimensions of stakeholder interest and influence.

Interest Influence

Ecosystem function Instruments of power Sources of influence

Regulation Production Habitat Information Carrier Condign Compensatory Conditioning Personality Property Organisation

Arable farmers Bird spotters Butterfly conservation RSPB etc.

Note: high (), moderate (), low (), or insignificant () level of interest, access to source of power, or use of instrument of power to influence.


heightened concern for animal welfare now combine with thesegrowing populations to broaden and increase the range of ways inwhich people and deer interact. Deer can be highly mobile, movingacross the landscape, crossing ownership and jurisdictionalboundaries, interacting variously with an increasingly largenumber of actors. Within this contemporary scenario, those whohave a stake in relation to wild deer are numerous and wide-spread, certainly beyond those actors traditionally involved directlyin deer management. Collaboration between these many stake-holders, both old and new, is seemingly essential for effectiveaction. Here collaboration refers, essentially, to joint-workingbetween stakeholders a conceptualisation advanced in Grays(1985: 912) seminal work which defined collaboration as a poolingof appreciations and/or tangible resources . by two or morestakeholders to solve a set of problems that neither can solveindividually. The term is commonly used in parallel with, or inplace of, several others such as co-management and participation(Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2007).

This project has employed primarily qualitative methods,particularly semi-structured interviewing, to complete its stake-holder analysis. Interviewing is a core research method used acrossall social sciences and should be considered as a conversation. inwhich one person has the role of researcher (Gray, 2004: 213). Ina semi-structured interview the researcher is guided by a pre-setinterview protocol (or schedule a set of questions or a simple listof subjects for discussion), but does so flexibly, allowing the inter-viewee to respond in the order and manner of their choosing.Questions can be asked and answered in or out of sequence, andfurthermore, semi-structured interviewing allows the researcher toask additional questions that occur to them during the interviewbut which may not be on the protocol. Semi-structured interviewsare most useful where the researcher seeks information regardinga specific, defined phenomenon (such as an event or document) orsome aspect thereof, and can produce reasonably focused (hencecomparable) data, but with significant depth or richness.

Within this projects semi-structured interviewing, open ques-tions focused upon key issues relating to deer, collaboration, andinformation flow from an organisational point of view. Somequantitative methods, such as simple network analysis (Section3.4.2) and Likert scale questioning, have also featured in theprocess. For example, interviewees were asked to rank organisa-tional influence over deer-related issues. Similar to Chevalier andBuckless (2008) rainbow diagram (Section 3.2), a target diagramwas used to obtain interviewees perceptions of organisationalinterest in deer and shared interests. Conceptually, deer were at thecentre of the target surrounded by concentric rings representingthe core and periphery around them and their management.Respondents were asked to note how much interest an organisa-tion had in deer by placing them either within the core orperiphery, and, by placing organisations close together, indicatethe closeness of their interests. This proved to be a difficult taskfor several interviewees as these interests and relationships, uponclose consideration, proved complex. A stakeholder database

populated by a content analysis of published policy and positionstatements is also under development. This is designed to providea basis for comparison and categorisation, along with being a usefultool for the stakeholders themselves.

Within this project, stakeholder analysis has multiple objec-tives. Initially it has been used to identify the breadth of actors witha stake in relation to wild deer (i.e. the stakeholders). Deermanagement can sometimes be narrowly constructed dominatedby traditional groups, approaches and epistemologies and onlya few actors deemed legitimate or able to able act. A long-estab-lished legislative framework, combined with centuries of traditionand practice, ties the management of wild deer very closely to land-ownership and management. Primarily, this is because with land-ownership comes the right to kill, or authorise others to kill, deer.These core actors were the logical starting point for our analysis,but in order to move beyond this group, towards Freemans defi-nition (1984), the project team refocused the issue and debate onthe impacts that deer have upon society. This essentially allowedus to ask those at the core, as part of the semi-structured inter-views, to identify additional actors who affect or are affected bydeer, without challenging the legitimised institutions of directmanagement. This process directly identified more than sixtyorganisations as stakeholders. From this wewere able to attempt toengage another round of, more peripheral, stakeholders. Thus, likethe Sustainable Uplands case study, our stakeholder analysisadopted an iterative approach.

The primary objective of our stakeholder analysis has beeninstrumental, investigating existing and potential collaborativerelationships between stakeholders, and the barriers to and driversof these relationships. As has been noted, the collaborative processis the primary target of the research and through the stakeholderanalysis, we have been able to gauge the closeness and extent ofexisting collaboration, its objectives and basis. We are able toidentify which actors are currently considered key to the collabo-rative effort and why. Some are important financial supporters,other possess essential knowledge, whilst others still may havealready recognised appropriate linkages, shared interests andmadeefficiencies upon which further collaboration may be built. Thisthen allows us to consider which stakeholders are bypassed andhow their collaboration may benefit other stakeholders, along withhow such input may affect existing management objectives.

4.4. Exploring stakeholder relationships quantitatively onRELU-Sustainable Uplands

The RELU-Sustainable Uplands project (20042009) wasdesigned to combine knowledge from local stakeholders, policy-makers and social and natural scientists to anticipate, monitor andsustainably manage rural change in UK uplands. The projectcombines experience and ideas from local people with insightsfrom natural and social science to develop options for people toadapt in each of three upland study sites (Peak District NationalPark, Nidderdale Area of Outstanding National Beauty in the

Table 3Stakeholders interests in ecosystem functions and uses in the Beckingham Marshes.

Function Use Value Stakeholders

Production Agricultural production (incl. bio-fuel crops) Economic gains from crop and livestock production Farmers, DefraRegulation Flood water storage, drainage Avoided damage due to flooding EA-FRM, IDB, farmers, local industry, RSPBHabitat Enhancement wet habitats for breeding waders Contribution to UK BAP targets RSPB, OnTrent Initiative, NottinghamWildlife Trust,

local residentsCarrier Transport, industrial site and settlements Living space and revenues local industry Local residents, local industry, farmers, local

authorityInformation Amenity and landscape Open space and public access RSPB, local residents, local authority


Yorkshire Dales, and Galloway in southern Scotland), and identifyways policy-makers can support adaptation (for detailed context,see Prell et al., 2007).

Stakeholder analysis in this project was primarily instrumental,to achieve the short-term goals of the project which relied heavilyon stakeholder involvement, and to achieve the long-term goal ofdeveloping sustainable land management and policy options toadapt to future change in uplands. A range of participatorymethodswere used to conduct a stakeholder analysis that cut across all threedistinctions identified in our typology (Section 2.3) by identifyingstakeholders, categorising them and investigating the relationshipsbetween individuals and groups in the stakeholder network.

An iterative approach was taken to the stakeholder analysis,using focus groups, combined with semi-structured interviews,follow-up phone interviews with original focus group participants,and SNA (see Sections 3.2 and 3.4.2 for a more detailed discussionof these techniques). A focus group was conducted initially withmembers of a stakeholder organisation that had been involved inthe project from the beginning (the Moors for the Future partner-ship), and two key stakeholder organisations they had identified(the National Trust and Peak District National Park Authority). Toavoid bias arising from initial group composition (the organisationspresent were not able to represent all stakeholder interests), focusgroup data were triangulated through semi-structured interviewswith eight stakeholders identified during the focus group torepresent different land management perspectives. The aim of thefocus group and subsequent interviews was to evaluate and adaptthe proposed aims of the project in order to ensure it was focussingon relevant issues and subsequently to identify and categorisestakeholders. This led to the suggestion that the project shouldfocus more strongly on a single issue in order to achieve its aimswithin the time available. There was near unanimous agreementthat heather burning was the most pressing land managementissue due to the Governments ongoing and highly contentiousreview of the Heather and Grass Burning Code. By filling in a tableto evaluate each category of stakeholder in turn, this led to thefollowing outcomes: i) a list of stakeholders and their stakes inupland management (we identified over 200 relevant stakeholderorganisations); ii) a list of eight stakeholder categories; iii) infor-mation about how these categories of stakeholder related to oneanother; and iv) the most effective ways for researchers to gaintheir support and active involvement in the research (Table 4).

Although Stakeholder-Derived Stakeholder Categorisation (Hareand Pahl-Wostl, 2002) was attempted (Section 3.3.2), there was somuch overlap between the membership of different categories thatthe results were meaningless (all stakeholders were representedunder more than one category and many were represented undernumerous categories, depending uponwho did the categorisation).Categorisation was therefore done in the focus group and refinedthrough subsequent interviews and follow-up phone interviewswith focus group participants (to discuss proposed changes to theiroriginal categorisation) until consensus was reached. The stake-holder categories that were identified included: water companies;

recreational groups; agriculture; conservationists; grouse moorinterests (owners/managers and gamekeepers); tourism-relatedenterprises; foresters; and statutory bodies. Initial intervieweesfrom each stakeholder category were identified as part of thisprocess and (following a snow-ball sampling approach) thesepeople contacted others to see if theywere interested in taking partin the research. In this way it was possible to conduct interviewswith individuals from each stakeholder category to ensure thata cross-section of all relevant stakeholders had been included in theresearch. This approach also enhanced the likelihood that stake-holders would agree to be interviewed, as compared with coldcalling.

During a further eighty interviews in the Peak District NationalPark, stakeholders were asked about their relationships with otherstakeholders in the study area. These interviews were the basis fora Social Network Analysis (Section 3.4.2). This revealed the variousroles individuals played, and identified the more peripheralstakeholders. It was also possible to identify individuals who werewidely perceived to be untrustworthy by others in the network.Additional information about one such individual led theresearchers to de-select him from focus groups to avoid creatingconflict with some stakeholders and biasing other stakeholderswho would be afraid to express their opinions in his presence.Categories of stakeholder were then targeted on the basis of thisinformation for inclusion in the research process to reduce bias,strengthen the legitimacy of the sample group, and includea variety of knowledges relevant to the research process. Towardsthis end, the network of stakeholders was analysed on the basis ofwho communicated with whom on land management issues. Thisanalysis resulted in locating which stakeholders shared the sameposition (and thus role) within a network. In particular, individualswere seen as structurally equivalent if they had the same ties toand from the same individuals in the network (Wasserman andFaust, 1994). This information was then used to categorise stake-holders into structurally similar groups. In this case study, thisinformation was used to ensure maximum representation fromacross the stakeholder network, in a small working group.Combined with information about stakeholder categories andstakeholder centrality, it was possible to ensure that stakeholderschosen for involvement in the project came from different stake-holder categories, acted as brokers and held unique positionswithin the network, e.g. positions that represented one of thestructurally similar groups.

Stakeholder analysis in this project provided a basis forengaging a representative cross-section of stakeholders on issuesthat were often highly contentious. Due to existing conflictsbetween certain stakeholder groups, fair representation wasessential. The depth and breadth of representation was valued bystakeholders using the research. For example, the civil servant co-ordinating the Heather & Grass Burning Code consultation stated:

I have found the study very useful in itself its an excellentsnapshot of opinion, with a less formal response from the

Table 4Extendable stakeholder interestinfluence table with example data for one stakeholder.

Stakeholder Interest/Stake Influence over land use Likely perception of projectand way to approach

Key relationships with otherstakeholders

Initial/Key contact names

Organisation X Highly interested in uplandconservation, water andagriculture

The key have a statutorysay in any managementdecision on Sites of SpecialScientific Interest (SSSIs)

Likely to be positive contactvia email with projectinformation in first instanceand arrange meeting withteam leader

Work closely with DEFRA andother governmentorganisations but sometimescome into conflict with landmanagers over managementof SSSIs

Name 1 (Team leader); Name2; Name 3; email addresses


individuals reported on, which gives it an open dimension thatis sometimes difficult to capture with a formal consultationdocument, and also a depth of response which reveals a lotabout how people feel which is one of the benefits of a socialscience (almost ethnographic) approach, I would say. You geta sense of lived experience that is very vivid.

The next step in this project will be to use knowledge mappingto investigate the content of the information flows betweenstakeholders and identify knowledge brokers who can play keyroles during and after the life of the project.

5. Synthesis and conclusions

These case studies have shown the wide range of participatoryand non-participatory methods that can be used for stakeholderanalysis. They have highlighted some of the challenges and limi-tations of existing approaches and proposed some new tools andcombinations of methods that can more effectively identify andcategorise stakeholders and help understand their inter-relation-ships. Although the rationale for using stakeholder analysis in eachcase study was primarily instrumental, all the projects usedstakeholder analysis to represent the interests of diverse stake-holder communities. As such, they each shared the normative goalof legitimising the findings and decisions that arose from thenecessarily small sample sizes required for in-depth qualitativeresearch.

All of the case studies identified and categorised stakeholders,and a range of methods were used to identify stakeholders and thefocal phenomenon, around which the analysis was based. Catego-risations ranged from quantitative approaches (RELU-Birds) andcard sorting (RELU-Sustainable Uplands), to more qualitativemethods based on interestinfluence matrices (RELU-Floodplains).Interestinfluence matrices successfully and rapidly categorisedstakeholders in each of the case studies where this was used.However, if these categories are to be used as a basis for futuresampling, further work may be required to ensure that a sample oforganisations or individuals from each category would representthe overall stakeholder population. For example, to constructa stratified snow-ball sample, RELU-Sustainable Uplands usedfunctional categories suggested by stakeholders, describing theprinciple ways in which stakeholders related to the upland land-scape. The RELU-Sustainable Uplands project used an extendabletable that considered the interest and influence of each stakeholdermore qualitatively, alongside information about stakeholder rela-tionships and suggestions about how best to get each stakeholdergroup involved (Table 4). Although interestinfluence matricesprovide quantitative information about the relative interest andinfluence of different stakeholders, this information is subjective,contains many hidden assumptions that are not captured in theprocess of positioning stakeholders on the matrix, and as such havelimited replicability. By capturing qualitative information aboutwhy different stakeholders have a particular interest (and specifi-cally what this interest is), and why certain stakeholders havemoreinfluence than others (and in what contexts), the informationgathered is likely to be more useful and replicable. Such tables canbe extended with a variety of additional questions, and as such aremore flexible than interestinfluence matrices, providing userswith the capacity to adapt the tool to case-specific needs.

The case studies took two contrasting approaches to studystakeholder relationships. RELU-Deer Management took a qualita-tive approach, using a target diagram to arrange organisations inrelation to their relative interests in deer management. Organisa-tions in close proximity to each other shared similar interests, andthose closest to the centre of the diagram shared greater interest in

deer management than those at the periphery. In contrast,Sustainable Uplands used a more quantitative approach, exploringthe nature of stakeholder interactions using Social Network Anal-ysis (SNA). The qualitative approach used in RELU-Deer Manage-ment provided sufficient evidence to categorise stakeholders, andprioritise core

Documents

Who’s in and Why a Typology of Stakeholder Analysis Methods for Natural Resource Management