Climatic Change

, Volume 128, Issue 3–4, pp 201–214 | Cite as

Stakeholder integrated research (STIR): a new approach tested in climate change adaptation research

  • Marc GrambergerEmail author
  • Katharina Zellmer
  • Kasper Kok
  • Marc J. Metzger


Ensuring active participation of stakeholders in scientific projects faces many challenges. These range from adequately selecting stakeholders, overcoming stakeholder fatigue, and dealing with the limited time available for stakeholder engagement, to interacting with, and integrating, the research itself. At the same time, stakeholder participation is seen as a key component in developing research results that are conclusive to political and societal decision-making, and conducive to practical application. This article puts forward the Stakeholder Integrated Research (STIR) approach, designed to address these challenges by proving a structured method for stakeholder engagement in research. An assessment of the stakeholder engagement process within the CLIMSAVE project, including evaluations by participating stakeholders, is used to illustrate the STIR approach, highlighting its value for improving stakeholder involvement within two case studies of a highly complex climate change adaptation project. In comparison to other approaches, STIR directly addresses major stakeholder engagement challenges and simultaneously covers new ground to provide an encompassing and structured approach for integrating stakeholder engagement in research. Further attention needs to be given to involving stakeholder in project set-up and over the course of multiple years, as well as to improving stakeholder-science data translation.


Climate Change Adaptation Adaptation Option Stakeholder Engagement Engagement Process Workshop Series 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to express their thanks to the participating stakeholders for their active and continued engagement.

Supplementary material

10584_2014_1225_MOESM1_ESM.docx (25 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 25 kb)


  1. Alcamo J (2008) The SAS approach: combining qualitative and quantitative knowledge in environmental scenarios. In: Alcamo J (ed) Environmental futures: the practice of environmental scenario analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 123–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcamo J, Henrichs T (2008) Towards guidelines for environmental scenario analysis. In: Alcamo J (ed) Environmental futures: the practice of environmental scenario analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 13–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chambers S (2003) Deliberative democratic theory. Annu Rev Sci 6:307–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen J (1997) Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In: Bohman J, Rehg W (eds) Deliberative democracy: essays on reason and politics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 406–437Google Scholar
  5. Gramberger M (2001) Citizens as partners: OECD handbook on information, consultation and public participation in policy-making, governance. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Gramberger M (2008) The Prospex-CQI method for stakeholder identification and selection. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  7. Haasnoot M, Middelkoop H (2012) A history of futures: a review of scenario use in water policy studies in the Netherlands. Environ Sci Policy 19–20:108–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harrison PA, Holman IP, Cojocaru G, Kok K, Kotnogianni A, Metzger MJ, Gramberger M (2013) Combining qualitative and quantitative understanding for exploring cross-sectoral climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability in Europe. Regional Environmental Change 13:761–780Google Scholar
  9. Harrison PA, Holman IP, Berry PM (submitted for this issue) Assessing cross-sectoral climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation: an introduction to the CLIMSAVE project. Climatic ChangeGoogle Scholar
  10. Henrichs T, Zurek M, Eickhout B, Kok K, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Ribeiro T, Van Vuuren D, Volkery A (2010) Scenario development and analysis for forward-looking ecosystem assessments. In: Ash N, Blanco H, Brown C, Garcia K, Henrichs T, Lucas N, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Simpson RD, Scholes R, Tomich TP, Vira B (eds) Zurek M (ed) Ecosystems and human well-being: a manual for assessment practitioners. Island, Washington, DC, pp 151–220Google Scholar
  11. Hirsch Hadorn G, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E, Hoffmann-Riem H (2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holman IP, Harrison PA, Metzger MJ (2014) Cross-sectoral impacts of climate and socio-economic change in Scotland: implications for adaptation policy. Reg Environ Change. doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0679-8
  13. Hoppe R (2011) Institutional constraints and practical problems in deliberative and participatory policy making. Policy Polit 39:163–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jolibert C, Wesselink A (2012) Research impacts and impact in research in biodiversity conservation: the influence of stakeholder engagement. Environ Sci Policy 22:100–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kasemir B, Schibli D, Stoll S, Jaeger CC (2000) Involving the public in climate and energy decisions. Environ 42:32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kok K, Patel M, Rothman DS, Quaranta G (2006) Multi-scale narratives from an IA perspective: part II, participatory local scenario development. Futures 38:285–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kok K, Van Vliet M, Bärlund I, Dubel A, Sendzimir J (2011) Combining participative backcasting and explorative scenario development: experiences from the SCENES project. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78:835–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kok K, Bärlund I, Flörke M, Holman I, Gramberger M, Sendzimir J, Stuch B, Zellmer K (2014) European participatory scenario development: strengthening the link between stories and models. Clim Chang. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1143-y Google Scholar
  19. Lebel L, Thongbai P, Kok K (2006) Sub-global scenarios. In: Capistrano D, Samper CK, Lee MJ, Rauseppe-Hearne C (eds) Ecosystems and human well-being (vol 4): multiscale assessments. Findings of the Sub-global Assessments Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island, Washington, DC, pp 229–259Google Scholar
  20. Lemos MC, Morehouse BJ (2005) The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Glob Environ Chang 15:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lövbrand E (2011) Co-producing European climate science and policy: a cautionary note on the making of useful knowledge. Sci Public Policy 38:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Phillipson J, Lowe P, Proctor A, Ruto E (2012) Stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research. J Environ Manag 95:56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Priess JA, Hauck J (2014) Integrative scenario development. Ecol Soc 19:12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rounsevell MDA, Metzger MJ (2010) Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment. Wiley Interdisciplin Rev: Clim Chang 1:606–619Google Scholar
  25. UK NEA (2011) The United Kingdom national ecosystem assessment: technical report. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Notten PWF, Rotmans J, Van Asselt MBA, Rothman DS (2003) An updated scenario typology. Futures 35:423–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vervoort J, Thorton PK, Kristjansson P, Foerch W, Ericksen PJ, Kok K, Ingram JS, Herrero M, Palazzo A, Helfgott AES, Wilkinson A, Havlik P, Mason-D’Croz D, Jost C (2014) Challenges to scenario-guided adaptive action on food security under climate change. Glob Environ Change.  10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.001
  28. Walz A, Lardelli C, Behrendt H, Grêt-Regamey A, Lundström C, Kytzia S, Bebi P (2007) Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling. Landsc Urban Plan 81:114–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wesselink A, Paavola J (2011) Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners’ perspectives. Environ Plan A 43:2688–2704CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Gramberger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katharina Zellmer
    • 1
  • Kasper Kok
    • 2
  • Marc J. Metzger
    • 3
  1. 1.Prospex bvbaKeerbergenBelgium
  2. 2.Soil Geography and Landscape GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.School of GeoSciencesThe University of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations