Abstract
Ecosystem services are a telling concept to discuss the integrated management of natural resources, such as integrated water and soil, with non-academic stakeholders. Stakeholders have different perceptions regarding the management of various ecosystem services, which is challenging when aiming to develop and foster sustainable ecosystem management. We performed a stakeholder analysis as part of a social-ecological study in preparation of a decision support system for integrated water management within the Lake Manyara sub-basin (LMSB), Tanzania. The area includes a National Park and UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. A group discussion listed 26 stakeholders, categorized according to the sector, influence, and interest. The stakeholders were grouped into six functional categories: local Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), other civil society groups, Belgian and international NGOs, authorities, academics associated to international donors and the private sector. We empirically identified advantages, shortcomings and associated risks when performing a stakeholder analysis with an interest–influence matrix. Confounding factors may include, e.g., the omission of important stakeholders, a different understanding of ‘influence’ and ‘interest’, or the omission of fragile groups. Instead of ‘low’ or ‘high’ interest and influence, we propose the terms ‘supportive’, ‘potentially supportive’, ‘unsupportive’, ‘not interested’, ‘low or no influence’ and ‘antagonistic’. Further, we consider stakeholders who directly extract resources from the social-ecological system (SES) as a separate category, because of their direct dependence and impact on the SES. This improved stakeholder analysis framework for developing decision support systems in water basins can contribute to better analysis, understanding and management of aquatic social-ecological systems in general.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Adem Esmail B, Geneletti D (2017) Design and impact assessment of watershed investments: an approach based on ecosystem services and boundary work. Environ Impact Assess Rev 62:1–13
Adem Esmail B, Geneletti D (2018) Multi‐criteria decision analysis for nature conservation: a review of 20 years of applications. Methods Ecol Evolution 9(1):42–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12899
Asah ST, Bengston DN, Wendt K, Nelson KC (2020) Diagnostic reframing of intractable environmental problems: case of a contested multiparty public land-use conflict. J Environ Manag 108:108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.041
Bardosh K, Inthavong P, Xayaheuang S, Okello AL (2014) Controlling parasites, understanding practices: the biosocial complexity of a One Health intervention for neglected zoonotic helminths in northern Lao PDR. Soc Sci Med 120:215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.030
Brugha R, Varvasovszky Z (2000) Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plan 15:239–246. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/15.3.239
Calhoun S, Conway F, Russell S (2016) Acknowledging the voice of women: implications for fisheries management and policy. Mar Policy 74:292–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.033
Chambers R (1997) Whose reality counts? Intermediate Technology Publications, London
Clarke T, Clegg S (2000) Changing paradigms: the transformation of management knowledge for the 21st century. Harpercollins Pub Ltd, London
Clarkson ME (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20, 1. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994
Cong L, Zheng H, Li S, Chen X, Li J, Zeng W, Liang Y, Polasky S, Feldman MW, Ruckelshaus M, Ouyang Z, Daily GC (2014) Impacts of conservation and human development policy across stakeholders and scales. PNAS 112(24):7396–7401. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406486112. June 16, 2015
Corbett J, Rambaldi G (2009) Geographic Information Technologies, Local Knowledge, and Change. In: Qualitative GIS. SAGE Publications Ltd, London England, pp. 75–92. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024541.n5
Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, Tàbara JD, Jäger J, Chabay I, de Wit B, Langlais R, Mills D, Moll P, Otto IM, Petersen A, Pohl C, van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environ Sci Policy 28:60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.008
Daw TM, Brown K, Rosendo S, Pomeroy R (2011) Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ Conserv 38:370–379
Denney JM, Case PM, Metzger A, Ivanova M, Asfaw A (2018) Power in participatory processes: reflections from multi-stakeholder workshops in the Horn of Africa. Sustain Sci 13:879–893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0533-x
Donaldson T, Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manag Rev 20:65–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/258887
Duncan R, Robson-Williams M, Edwards S (2020) A close examination of the role and needed expertise of brokers in bridging and building science policy boundaries in environmental decision making. Palgrave Commun 6:64. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0448-x
Ferretti V (2016) From stakeholders analysis to cognitive mapping and Multi-Attribute Value Theory: an integrated approach for policy support. Eur J Operational Res 253:524–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.02.054
Fraser E, Hubacek K (2007) The challenge of land use change: international dimensions. In: Steininger K, Cogoy M (Eds.) The economics of sustainable development: international perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Grimble R, Chan M-K (1995) Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in developing countries. Nat Resour Forum 19:113–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.1995.tb00599.x
Grimble R, Wellard K (1997) Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agric Syst 55:173–193
Hartter J, Goldman A (2011) Local responses to a forest park in western Uganda: alternate narratives on fortress conservation. Oryx 45:60–68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605310000141
Hugé J, Mukherjee N (2018) The nominal group technique in ecology & conservation: application and challenges. Methods Ecol Evol 9:33–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12831
Janssens de Bisthoven L, Vanhove MPM, Rochette A-J, Hugé J, Verbesselt S, Machunda R, Munishi L, Wynants M, Steensels A, Malan-Meerkotter M, Henok S, Nhiwatiwa T, Casier B, Kiwango YA, Kaitila R, Komakech H, Brendonck L (2020) Social-ecological assessment of Lake Manyara basin, Tanzania: A mixed method approach. J Environ Manag 267:110594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110594
Kideghesho J, Rija A, Mwamende K, Selemani I (2013) Emerging issues and challenges in conservation of biodiversity in the rangelands of Tanzania. NC 6:1–29. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.6.5407
Kurland N, Calton J (1996) A theory of stakeholder enabling: giving voice to an emerging postmodern praxis of organizational discourse. In Boje D, Gephart R Jr., Joseph T (eds) Postmodern management and organizational theory. Sage, 1995. pp. 154–177
Martin DM, Piscopo AN, Chintala MM, Gleason TR, Berry W(2018) Developing qualitative ecosystem service relationships with the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework: a case study on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Ecol Indic 84:404–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.08.047
Mukherjee N, Zabala A, Huge J, Nyumba TO, Adem Esmail B, Sutherland WJ (2018) Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision‐making Methods Ecol Evol 9:54–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12940
Nunan F, Cepic D, Mbilingi B, Odongkara K, Yongo E, Owili M, Salehe M, Mlahagwa E, Onyango P (2017) Community cohesion: social and economic ties in thepersonal networks of fisherfolk. Soc Nat Resour 31:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1383547
Nyumba OT, Wilson K, Derrick CJ, Mukherjee N(2018) The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods Ecol Evol 9:20–32
ODA (Overseas Development Administration) (1995) Guidance note on how to do stakeholder analysis of aid projects and programmes [online]. Available on the World Wide Web at: https://sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/ODA%201995%20Guidance%20Note%20on%20how%20to%20do%20a%20Stakeholder%20Analysis.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2020
Ostrom E, Janssen MA, Anderies JM(2007) Going beyond panaceas. PNAS 104(39):15176–15178
Payne G, Payne J (2004) Group Discussions/focus groups. In: Key concepts in social research. SAGE Publications, London, pp 103–107
Peh KS-H, Balmford A, Bradbury RB, Brown C, Butchart SHM, Hughes FMR, Stattersfield A, Thomas DHL, Walpole M, Bayliss J, Gowing D, Jones JPG, Lewis SL, Mulligan M, Pandeya B, Stratford C, Thompson JR, Turner K, Vira B, Willcock S, Birch JC (2013) TESSA: a toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance. Ecosyst Serv 5:51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.003
Raum S (2018) A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research: Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK. Ecosyst Serv 29:170–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.001
Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90:1933–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001
Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90:1933–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001
Rosso M, Bottero M, Pomarico S, La Ferlita S, Comino E (2014) Integrating multicriteria evaluation and stakeholders analysis for assessing hydropower projects. Energy Policy 67:870–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.007
Salam M, Noguchi T (2006) Evaluating capacity development for participatory forest management in Bangladesh’s Sal forests based on ‘4Rs’ stakeholder analysis. For Policy Econ 8:785–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.12.004
Schut M, Klerkx L, Rodenburg J, Kayeke J, Hinnou LC, Raboanarielina CM, Adegbola PY, van Ast A, Bastiaans L (2015) RAAIS: Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (Part I). A diagnostic tool for integrated analysis of complex problems and innovation capacity. Agric Syst 132:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.08.009
Tallis H, Kennedy CM, Ruckelshaus M et al. (2015) Mitigation for one & all: an integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Environ Impact Assess Rev 55:21–34
Van Asselen S, Verburg PH, Vermaat JE, Janse JH(2013) Drivers of wetland conversion: a global meta-analysis PLoS ONE 8:e81292
Verran H (2002) A postcolonial moment in science studies: alternative firing regimes of environmental scientists and aboriginal landowners. Soc Stud Sci 32:729–762
Wilson KA, Auerbach NA, Sam K, Magini AG, Moss ASL, Langhans SD, et al. (2016) Conservation Research Is Not Happening Where It Is Most Needed. PLoS Biol 14(3):e1002413. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002413
Wynants M, Millward G, Patrick A, Taylor A, Munishi L, Mtei K, Brendonck L, Gilvear D, Boeckx P, Ndakidemi P, Blake WH (2020) Determining tributary sources of increased sedimentation in East-African Rift Lakes. Sci Total Environ 717:137266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137266
Young JC, Searle K, Butler A, Simmons P, Watt AD, Jordan A (2016) The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biol Conserv 195:196–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.030
Zimmermann I, Joubert D, Smit GN (2008) A problem tree to diagnose problem bush. Agricola 27–33. http://ir.nust.na/jspui/handle/10628/92.
Acknowledgements
We wish to address a special thanks to all stakeholders present at the two workshops in 2015 and 2016. This work has been co-financed by a North South South Project of VLIR-UOS (financed by the Belgian Development Cooperation, DGD), and by the EVAMAB project (Belgian Science Policy BELSPO). Esther Roux (CEBioS) is acknowledged for bibliographical editing. MPMV is supported by the Special Research Fund of Hasselt University (BOF20TT06).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Janssens de Bisthoven, L., Vanhove, M., Rochette, AJ. et al. Stakeholder Analysis on Ecosystem Services of Lake Manyara Sub-basin (Tanzania): How to Overcome Confounding Factors. Environmental Management 69, 652–665 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01466-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01466-x