Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 383–409 | Cite as

Multi-level Stakeholder Influence Mapping: Visualizing Power Relations Across Actor Levels in Nepal’s Agricultural Climate Change Adaptation Regime

  • Chase A. Sova
  • Ariella Helfgott
  • Abrar S. Chaudhury
  • David Matthews
  • Thomas F. Thornton
  • Sonja J. Vermeulen
Original Paper

Abstract

Where power lies and how it is conceived in studies of governance and institutions is often not discussed. This is due to the ubiquitous nature of the topic. Power is shaped by a variety of institutional factors, including the architecture of governing structures, questions of scale and level, and access to key resources including knowledge and capital, among other factors. To date, there are relatively few tools available that allow policy makers, researchers, and development practitioners to render these power dynamics explicit and thus take steps to mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of power orientations. This paper proposes a methodology, multi-level stakeholder influence mapping (MSIM), for elucidating power dynamics between actors in complex system regimes. MSIM departs from existing power mapping techniques in that it relies on individual interviews conducted across multiple actor levels and utilizes a participatory mapping process for shared system boundary critique. MSIM was piloted in Nepal’s agricultural climate change adaptation regime with actors from the central, regional, and local operational levels. The results suggest that without proper consideration of the role of power in agricultural adaptation regimes, the resulting interventions will likely be insufficient in catalyzing adaptation pathways and moderating the negative impacts of climate change. Furthermore, power analyses produced from the perspective of a single actor level or respondent type can risk sub optimization of adaptation outcomes and can misdirect the lobbying efforts of those agencies utilizing mapping outputs.

Keywords

Climate change Adaptation Agriculture Nepal Power Influence Mapping 

References

  1. Adger WN (2001) Scales of governance and environmental justice for adaptation and mitigation of climate change. Int Dev 13(7):921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger WN (2003) Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Econ Geogr 79(4):387–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adger WN, Vincent K (2005) Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. Comptes Rendus Geosci 337(4):399–410. doi:10.1016/j.crte.2004.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL, Dessai S, Lu X, Risbey JS, Conway D, Thomas DSG, Twyman C, Noess LO, Bang G, Eriksen S, Vevatne J, Brooks N, Kelly PM, Haddad BM (2005) Adaptation to climate change: perspectives across scales. Glob Environ Change 15(2):77–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett MN, Duvall R (2005) Power in international politics. Int Org 59:39–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biermann F, Betsill MM, Gupta J, Kanie N, Lebel L, Liverman D, Schroeder H, Siebenhüner B, Zondervan R (2010) Earth system governance: a research framework. Int Environ Agreem 10(4):277–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourne L, Walker DHT (2005) Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Manag Decis 43(5/6):649–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryson JM (2004) What to do when stakeholders matter: a guide to stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Manag Rev 6(1):21–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cash D, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young OR (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11(2):8Google Scholar
  10. Churchman CW (1968) The systems approach. Dell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Churchman CW (1971) The design of inquiring systems: basic concepts of systems and organisation. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Churchman CW (1974) Philosophical speculations on systems design. Int J Manag Sci 2:451–465Google Scholar
  13. Churchman CW (1979) The systems approach and its enemies. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Clegg SR (1989) Frameworks of power. Sage, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coleman JS (1986) Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. Am J Sociol 91(6):1309–1335. doi:10.2307/2779798 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dulal HB, Brodnig G, Thakur HK, Green-Onoriose C (2010) Do the poor have what they need to adapt to climate change? A case study of Nepal. Local Environ 15(7):621–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eden C, Ackermann F (1998) Making strategy: the journey of strategic management. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Emirbayer M (1997) Manifesto for a relational sociology. Am J Sociol 103(2):281–317. doi:10.1086/231209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferguson J (1990) The anti-politics machine: development, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Flood RL, Romm NRA (1996) A typology of power supporting intervention. Systems Practice 9(4):339–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibson C, Ostrom E, Ahn TK (2000) The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecol Econ 32(2):217–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Government of Nepal (2010) National adaptation programme of action (NAPA). Kathmandu, NepalGoogle Scholar
  23. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Håkansson H (ed) (1982) International marketing and purchasing of industrial goods: an interaction approach. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  25. Helfgott A (2011) Resilience, adaptation and development. University of Oxford, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Hitch C (1953) Suboptimisation in operations problems. Oper Res 1:87–99Google Scholar
  27. Kant I (1781) Critique of pure reason (trans: Kemp SN). Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Knoke D, Yang S (2008) Social network analysis, quantitative applications in the social sciences, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  29. Lebel L (2006) Reflections on power. USER breifing BN-2006-10. Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Chiang MaiGoogle Scholar
  30. MacKinnon D (2011) Reconstructing scale: towards a new scalar politics. Prog Hum Geogr 35(1):21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matthews D (2008) Metadecision making: rehabilitating interdisciplinarity in the decision sciences. Syst Res Behav Sci 25:157–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mattsson L-G (1984) An application of a network approach to marketing: defending and changing market positions. In: Dholakia N, Arndt J (eds) Changing the course of marketing: alternative paradigms for widening marketing theory. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp 263–288Google Scholar
  33. Mayers J, Vermeulen S (2005) Stakeholder influence mapping. Power tools. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Mendelow A (1991) Stakeholder mapping. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on information systems, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  35. Midgley G (1992) The sacred and profane in critical systems thinking. Systems Practice 5:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology. Practice Kluwer Academic, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Midgley G, Munlo I, Brown M (1998) The theory and practice of boundary critique: developing housing services for older people. J Oper Res Soc 49(5):467–478. doi:10.2307/3009885 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oliga J (1996) Power, ideology, and control. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Oliver C (1990) Determinants of interorganizational relationships: integration and future directions. Acad Manag Rev 15(2):241–265. doi:10.2307/258156 Google Scholar
  40. Paliwoda SJ, Thomson P (1986) Industrial product class and market behavior: a study in the French packaging market. In: Turnbull PW, Paliwoda SJ (eds) Research in international marketing. Croom Helm, London, pp 326–354Google Scholar
  41. Prosser J (2011) Visual methodology: toward more seeing in research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative researth, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 479–495Google Scholar
  42. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ritter T, Gemünden HG (2003) Interorganizational relationships and networks: an overview. J Bus Res 56(9):691–697. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00254-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smit H (1993) Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Westview, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  45. Sova CA, Chaudhury AS (2013) State of agricultural climate change adaptation policy in Nepal. CGIAR research program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Working Paper No. 44. Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  46. Thornton TF, Comberti C (2013) Synergies and trade-offs between adaptation, mitigation and development. Clim Change 2013:1–14Google Scholar
  47. Thornton TF, Manasfi N (2010) Adaptation—genuine and spurious: demystifying adaptation processes in relation to climate change. Environ Soc 1(1):132–155. doi:10.3167/ares.2010.010107 Google Scholar
  48. Tracy SJ (2013) Qualitative research methods: collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Wiley-Blackwell, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  49. Ulrich W (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning: a new approach to practical philosophy. Paul Haupt, Bern, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  50. Ulrich W (1987) Critical heuristics of social systems design. Eur J Oper Res 31:276–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Gigch JP (2003) Metadecisions: rehabilitating epistemology. Kluwer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chase A. Sova
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ariella Helfgott
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Abrar S. Chaudhury
    • 1
    • 3
  • David Matthews
    • 3
  • Thomas F. Thornton
    • 3
  • Sonja J. Vermeulen
    • 1
  1. 1.CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)CopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)CaliColombia
  3. 3.Environmental Change Institute (ECI)University of OxfordOxfordUK
  4. 4.University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations