Network of Conservation Educators & Practitioners
Stakeholder Analysis in Environmental and Conservation Planning
Author(s): Donna Vogler, Suzanne Macey, and Amanda Sigouin
Source: Lessons in Conservation, Vol. 7, pp. 5–16
Published by: Network of Conservation Educators and Practitioners, Center for Biodiversity and
Conservation, American Museum of Natural History
Stable URL: ncep.amnh.org/linc/
This article is featured in Lessons in Conservation, the oicial journal of the Network of Conservation
Educators and Practitioners (NCEP). NCEP is a collaborative project of the American Museum of Natural
History’s Center for Biodiversity and Conservation (CBC) and a number of institutions and individuals
around the world. Lessons in Conservation is designed to introduce NCEP teaching and learning resources
(or “modules”) to a broad audience. NCEP modules are designed for undergraduate and professional level
education. These modules—and many more on a variety of conservation topics—are available for free
download at our website, ncep.amnh.org.
To learn more about NCEP, visit our website: ncep.amnh.org.
All reproduction or distribution must provide full citation of the original work and provide a copyright notice
as follows:
“Copyright 2017, by the authors of the material and the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation of the
American Museum of Natural History. All rights reserved.”
Illustrations obtained from the American Museum of Natural History’s library: images.library.amnh.org/digital/
5
LESSONS IN CONSERVATION ISSUE NO. 7 JANUARY 2017
SYNTHESIS
Stakeholder Analysis in Environmental and Conservation
Planning
Donna Vogler
1
, Suzanne Macey
2
, and Amanda Sigouin
2
1
Biology Department, State University of New York at Oneonta, New York, USA;
2
Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural
History, New York, USA
ABSTRACT
Stakeholders are dened as the people and organizations who are involved in or aected by an action or policy and can be
directly or indirectly included in the decision making process. In environmental and conservation planning, stakeholders
typically include government representatives, businesses, scientists, landowners, and local users of natural resources. These
groups of stakeholders oen have very dierent positions and values that may be diicult to reconcile with each other and the
planned project. This synthesis provides a brief overview of why it is important to incorporate dierent stakeholders, including
underrepresented groups and “hidden” stakeholders, in the planning process and discusses the potential benets of inclusion.
Before involving stakeholders, conducting a stakeholder analysis can help to identify relevant stakeholders and to assess their
views and interests on a proposed project. The synthesis describes specic techniques for conducting a formal stakeholder
analysis, such as the use of stakeholder tables and a stakeholder inuence/interest grid. Finally, the synthesis also highlights
some approaches and strategies that can help to facilitate a fair and productive participatory process.
1. INTRODUCTION
Figure 1 shows a collection of headlines in newspapers
from just the United States. Do you see a common theme?
From this small sample it is clear that environmental,
natural resource, and conservation plans or decisions
are complicated and involve many dierent people
with diering opinions and values. Decisions about
environmental and conservation projects like these
are being made all over the world at multiple scales:
from a small community deciding whether a parcel
of land should be protected from development, to a
multinational debate on whether there should be a total
trade ban on ivory.
But what is the process by which dierent people, or
stakeholders, are involved in making these decisions?
Who exactly is a stakeholder, and how can stakeholders
be identied and fairly involved in a project? In the
following three sections, this module explores these key
questions. First, it provides a brief overview of what a
stakeholder is and why it is important to include them
in the planning of environmental and conservation
projects. Next, it describes several tools that can be
used to systematically identify and beer understand
the set of stakeholders relevant to a particular project.
Lastly, it describes some approaches for successfully
engaging stakeholders in project planning. While not
a comprehensive guide of all possible methods for
identifying and engaging stakeholders, this module
is intended to provide an introduction to the topic as
well as some useful tools for performing a stakeholder
analysis. For further information on the subject, we
have included an appendix with suggested resources,
including stakeholder engagement toolkits and guides.
2. IDENTIFYING AND INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS
Environmental and conservation project planning and
management oen involve striking a balance between
the protection and use of natural resources. Who
decides what natural resources should be conserved
or used? Landowners? Federal or local government?
Scientists? The public? Such a diverse group of people
is likely to bring together a variety of perspectives,
motivations, past experiences, and interests to a given
project (Madden & McQuinn 2014). When the scale of a
natural resource project is large (e.g., construction of a
mega dam or a pipeline) or spans country borders (e.g.,
creation of an international marine protected area),
the list of private and/or public stakeholders can be
expansive. In this section, we discuss dierent types of
stakeholders and explore why it is important to involve
them in the decision making process.
6 SYNTHESIS
LESSONS IN CONSERVATION ISSUE NO. 7 JANUARY 2017
2.1. Who is a Stakeholder?
Broadly speaking, stakeholders are dened as the people
and organizations who are involved in or aected by an
action or policy and can be directly or indirectly included
in the decision making process (Freeman 1984; Annan
2007; Sterling et al. 2017). A particular organization may
further dene situation-specic groups of stakeholders
for its projects. For example, the U.S. National Park
Service denes a stakeholder as a group or individual
that should be present in order to reach the desired
outcome or overall team purpose (U.S. National Park
Service, www.nps.gov/ncrc), while the United Nations
Environment Programme identies and engages with
nine specic major stakeholder groups for sustainable
development projects under their oversight: farmers,
women, scientic and technological community, children
and youth, indigenous peoples and their communities,
workers and trade unions, business and industry, non-
governmental organizations, and local authorities (UNEP
2015).
2.2. Why Engage Multiple Stakeholders?
The idea of involving multiple stakeholders in a
project may at rst seem daunting and possibly
counterproductive. This is because bringing together
individuals with dierent perspectives, interests, and
positions has the potential to slow the implementation
of a project and create conict. Resource managers
oen prefer to avoid lengthy negotiations and political
stagnation and thus have traditionally turned to methods
described as a “theory-driven approach” to research
and evaluation (sensu Chen & Rossi 1980). Under this
Figure 1. Sample headlines about environmental and conservation issues in the U.S.
B 1: H S
“Hidden stakeholders” are those whose incomes and/or livelihoods depend on the use of a natural resource, but whose
participation in public stakeholder decisions is not normally considered. For example, when discussing a topic such as the
trade in a particular species, hidden stakeholders could include hunters, collectors, shers, and squaers. Illegal poachers
and dealers in black market wildlife trade represent a more extreme category of “hidden stakeholders,” and their inuence
on the conservation of endangered species may span multiple international boundaries.
Grizzly bears in California:
Reintroduction push ignites
strong emotions
Mercury News, September 6, 2016
North Dakota Oil Pipeline
Battle: Who’s Fighting and Why
The New York Times, August 26, 2016
Coyotes Create Dangers and
Divisions in New York Suburbs
The New York Times, June 23, 2016
Public meetings held on the
expansion of Papahanaumokuakea
National Monument
KHON 2, August 1, 2016
Residents share concerns over
Monterey Dam removal
GazetteXtra, November 11, 2016
Environmental nuisance or grocery-
store necessity? California voters to
decide fate of plastic bags
The Sacramento Bee, October 8, 2016
7
LESSONS IN CONSERVATION ISSUE NO. 7 JANUARY 2017
SYNTHESIS
method, managers leading a project make decisions by
consulting prior research on similar projects to identify
likely outcomes. Use of a theory driven approach alone,
however, fails to involve relevant stakeholders who can
provide their dierent views and perspectives, resulting
in a more successful and fair outcome. Thus an inclusive
process that engages stakeholders is important for both
pragmatic and democratic reasons (Sterling et al. 2017).
On the practical side, integrating stakeholder input
into an initiative’s planning process can be benecial
by providing early feedback and gathering consensus
before a new rule, plan, or decision takes eect. This
can lead to a more harmonious process and avoidance
of unnecessary conict. Oen stakeholders oppose
a project if they have been le out of the process, or
were not informed about the numerous factors and
compromises made before their participation (Mascia et
al. 2003; Jones & Burgess 2005; Peterson et al. 2007).
When stakeholders perceive (rightly or wrongly) that
their views were not given fair consideration, hostilities
can develop and possibly doom a project (Jento &
McCay 1995; Madden & McQuinn 2014). As a result,
fostering stakeholder ownership in the process can lead
to increased support for, and improved implementation
of, the project (Richards et al. 2004).
Stakeholder engagement throughout a project can also
lead to higher quality decisions by incorporating more
sources of information (Reed 2008). By considering a
range of perspectives, engaging stakeholders can lead
to a wider set of more creative options (Richards et
al. 2004). Further, including the perspectives of local
stakeholders can allow for solutions beer suited for the
social and cultural context of a region (Richards et al.
2004). Large organizations, such as the United Nations
Environment Programme, recognize that “broad and
balanced participation of [stakeholders]… plays a central
role in providing expertise and scientic knowledge,
informing governments of local needs and opinions, as
well as identifying the ‘on the ground’ realities of policy
decisions” (UNEP 2015).
Consideration of stakeholder values and opinions
regarding an environmental or conservation project
is also important from a democratic perspective. In a
democratic, fair process, those most impacted by a project
should have a say in its formation and implementation.
In this context, stakeholder engagement can be
seen as taking into account a diversity of values and
facilitating empowerment, trust, and equity by including
local communities in the decision making process
(see Sterling et al. 2017 and references therein; Reed
2008). An inclusive stakeholder engagement process
should comprise relevant actors and thus reduce the
marginalization of underrepresented groups (Reed
2008). Another potential benet of engagement from
this perspective is social learning, where stakeholders
can learn from each other and develop new relationships
along the way (Reed 2008).
In any situation, it is important to consider which
stakeholders to engage, as the most eective approach
will balance the benets of including a wide range
of opinions and perspectives without being overly
burdensome, to the point of hindering success of the
engagement process (Sterling et al. 2017).
3. CONDUCTING A FORMAL STAKEHOLDER
ANALYSIS
Given the importance of engaging stakeholders,
governmental agencies or project managers may
perform a stakeholder analysis prior to the planning
and development of a conservation or environmental
project. A stakeholder analysis is a group of techniques
used as part of the planning process to identify and
assess the relevant viewpoints of key people, groups,
or institutions on a project or proposed activity. This
type of upfront analysis can provide useful insights into
stakeholder motivations and illuminate ways to facilitate
a productive and successful engagement process for all
involved parties. The most basic stakeholder analysis
simply involves the identication of people, groups, and
institutions that have some interest in a project or will be
aected by it. As a pre-proposal technique, this analysis
can be extended to anticipate the level of inuence
and support (either for or against) each group will have
regarding a project or initiative. While any stakeholder
or individual involved in a project could complete
stakeholder analyses, stakeholder analyses completed
by a team of project planners working together may
achieve the best result.
8 SYNTHESIS
LESSONS IN CONSERVATION ISSUE NO. 7 JANUARY 2017
3.1. Stakeholder Analysis Table
One stakeholder analysis technique used and modied
by many, including UNICEF (available at hp://bit.
ly/2jd69XY), involves a table to aggregate information
on the dierent stakeholders (Table 1).
When adding potential stakeholders and their interests
to the table, it is important to consider the benets the
stakeholders may receive from the project, changes the
project might require the stakeholders to make, and
project activities that might cause damage or conict for
the stakeholders. Project planners should also include
whether each individual, group, or institution would
likely agree or disagree with the initiative, and describe
their level of support or opposition for the project. A
nal step is to consider the actions or project revisions
that could be taken to obtain stakeholder support and/
or reduce opposition.
A stakeholder analysis encourages planners to include a
diversity of viewpoints and incorporate the perspective
of potentially underrepresented stakeholders. Further,
by listing strategies to gain the support of stakeholders
likely to oppose the action, this analysis provides the
opportunity to consider changes to the proposed action.
3.2. Example: Analyzing a Stakeholder Table to
Determine Strategies
For this example, a hypothetical watershed management
proposal was modeled from several dam construction
projects in locations as diverse as Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, and the Amazon (Tocantins River Basin) in
Brazil. Typically, new dam construction (or renovation)
provides downstream stakeholders safety benets
(e.g., reduction of ooding), and broader recreational
or hydropower benets to dierent stakeholder groups,
depending on the specic project. In contrast, upstream
stakeholders incur loss of land and natural river dynamics
are altered, oen to the detriment of wildlife and water
quality. In some instances, there are further concerns
regarding relocation of local peoples and political
instability, which may add to the complexity of a project
(see example in NCEP module, Environmental Climate
Justice along the Brahmaputra River in Northeast India,
accessible at ncep.amnh.org).
Table 2 shows a stakeholder analysis table for this
hypothetical watershed management proposal. In this
simplied example, the city government has proposed
a new dam on the Pine River. This dam is proposed for
hydropower, to prevent downstream ooding, and the
city government proposes creation of a new city park
with waterfowl habitat upstream. The city government’s
project planners have completed the below stakeholder
analyses.
3.3. Stakeholder Grid
A stakeholder grid is a tool that can be used to visualize
the relative inuence (on one axis) and level of interest—
either positive or negative—(on the other axis) of each
of the stakeholder groups. This technique can be used
either alone or in conjunction with the previously
discussed table. A stakeholder grid can assist a project
planner by visualizing which stakeholders share similar
goals or have similar interests. A stakeholder grid is also
useful for stakeholder groups to identify unexpected
alliances, that is, groups that do not regularly share an
interest, but which may join eorts to advocate for a
singular position that both share.
An example of a stakeholder grid for the dam construction
Table 1. Pre-planning stakeholder analysis table template.
STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER
INTEREST(S) IN THE
PROJECT
LEVEL OF SUPPORT
/ OPPOSITION FOR
PROJECT
NOTES AND STRATEGIES
FOR OBTAINING
SUPPORT OR REDUCING
OBSTACLES
9
LESSONS IN CONSERVATION ISSUE NO. 7 JANUARY 2017
SYNTHESIS
Table 2. A hypothetical pre-planning stakeholder table for a dam construction project.
STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER
INTEREST(S) IN THE
PROJECT
LEVEL OF SUPPORT
/ OPPOSITION FOR
PROJECT
NOTES AND STRATEGIES
FOR OBTAINING
SUPPORT OR REDUCING
OBSTACLES
Downstream Resident Currently pays ood
insurance costs
In favor No new taxes would
be used to subsidize
construction
Upstream Landowner Loss of land use of wet
pasture
Strongly against Financially compensate
loss of use
City Government Reduce ood potential,
open up recreational use,
possible hydropower
generation could reduce
air pollution and energy
costs
In favor Hydropower use could
subsidize construction;
needs strong support
from other government
agencies and oices
Bird Watching Group Loss of riparian bird
habitat
Strongly against Mitigate loss by restoring
adjacent habitat
Boating Group Gain beer boating access Strongly in favor Include development of
boat ramp
Army Corps of Engineers Stabilize ood cycles,
but would also reduce
wetlands
Somewhat neutral to
mildly in favor
Mitigation of wetland loss;
needs strong government
support
State Department of
Environment
Stabilize ood cycles, but
also reduce water quality
and native habitats
Somewhat neutral to
mildly against
Mitigation of wetland loss;
needs local government
support
Regional River Commission Improved water quality,
for ecological, as well as
human benets
Moderately against Fish ladders, water level
management, downstream
water user plan
City Parks and Recreation
Department
Development of river park In favor Zoning and land use
mitigation
Fishing Group Public access to shing,
water quality for sh
habitat
Mixed; members of group
are split
Provide boat launch,
mitigate upstream damage
by habitat restoration, sh
ladders
Energy Development
Corporation
Develop hydropower plant Strongly in favor Will make proposal only
aer city support for dam
announced
project is presented in Figure 2. Note that the placement
of each of these hypothetical stakeholders depends on
the specic project (e.g., city parks would become a
low inuence stakeholder if no recreational uses were
planned).
Stakeholder grids can help identify potential group
coalitions. Coalition building is an especially important
tactic for stakeholders of low inuence and high interest.
Consider the bird watching group in the stakeholder
grid above. The bird watching group and the upstream
10 SYNTHESIS
LESSONS IN CONSERVATION ISSUE NO. 7 JANUARY 2017
landowner have similar (negative) views about a dam
that would ood pastureland and destroy grassland
bird habitat. Even if the upstream resident is not a bird
enthusiast, he or she might be inclined to join forces
with the bird watching group to gain a stronger voice in
the debate.
Education and media coverage can also be used to
possibly increase the interest level of other low inuence
groups. A coalition may eventually gain a higher level of
inuence than separate stakeholder groups, eectively
moving to a new position in the grid. With greater
numbers of informed stakeholders, coalitions can
leverage that inuence by appealing to stakeholders
of even greater inuence. In this example, coalitions of
stakeholder groups with low inuence but high interest
could use their powerful collective voice to contact
oicials of groups with higher inuence, such as the
Department of Environment. Although perhaps not
integral in the decision making process in this scenario,
the Department of Environment may respond to a large
public outcry and help to articulate these collective
concerns to project organizers.
This ow of interest and inuence can be visualized on
the stakeholder grid as a backwards “Z” linking marginally
interested stakeholders in the lower le quadrant, to the
groups in the lower right through education and media,
who use that empowerment to gain the assistance of
stakeholders in the upper le, who ultimately advocate
to the stakeholders holding the highest inuence in the
upper right quadrant (Figure 3). The dam proposer, the
city government, could use this tool as well to identify
and convene project supporters and opposition for early
discussions.
3.4. “3 Rs” Approach: Rights, Risks, Responsibilities
Before assembling stakeholders, the project planners or
meeting facilitators should consider acknowledging each
stakeholder’s individual rights, risks, and responsibilities.
This “3 Rs” approach has been championed by the United
Nations and is currently a part of their decision making
process for the funding and planning of dam construction
(Bird et al. 2005). Large water projects, especially those
that span cultural or political borders provide good
examples of how a 3 Rs stakeholder analysis early in the
Figure 2. Stakeholder grid: an example
using a hypothetical dam project.
Downstream
Resident
Boating Group
Energy
Development
Corporation
City Parks
River
Commission
Army Corps
Fishing Group
Bird Watching
Group
City
Government
Dept. of
Environment
INFLUENCE
INTERESTLow
Low
High
High
Upstream
Landowner
11
LESSONS IN CONSERVATION ISSUE NO. 7 JANUARY 2017
SYNTHESIS
planning stages is vital to the well-being of upstream
human communities and ecosystems, as well as to the
success of the project (see World Commission on Dams
2000).
In this approach, project planners acknowledge and
characterize stakeholder:
• rights (e.g., rights to extractable resources, rights
of land tenure, human rights)
• risks associated with a project (e.g., loss of
reputation, economic loss, loss of cultural integrity)
• responsibilities in planning and executing the
project (may be included in a formal agreement or
contract).
A 3 Rs approach may be used to inform the initial project
planning, as an extension of a stakeholder analysis
table. Can you envision what the rights, risks, and
responsibilities could be for each of the stakeholders in
Table 1?
Additionally, the 3 Rs approach may be used throughout
a project as an independent and evolving document.
As new stakeholders are brought into a project, or as
the dierent agencies agree on specic responsibilities,
the 3 Rs document can be modied. As the document
develops, the responsibilities section can become the
template for a legal contractual agreement or multi-
party coalition (Bird et al. 2005).
4. FACILITATING INCLUSIVE STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
Following a pre-planning stakeholder analysis, a project
proposal is typically announced and stakeholders
are invited to participate in the process. Involving
stakeholders early in the planning process is an
important strategy to obtain support for an initiative
and reduce obstacles to successful implementation
(Jento & McCay 1995; Jones & Burgess 2005; Jupiter
et al. 2014).
There are multiple ways in which stakeholders can
be engaged. Some depictions of engagement have a
normative framing, in which more participatory forms
are viewed as beer, such as Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder
Downstream
Resident
Boating Group
Energy
Development
Corporation
City Parks
River
Commission
Army Corps
Fishing Group
Bird Watching
Group
City
Government
Dept. of
Environment
INFLUENCE
INTERESTLow
Low
High
High
Figure 3. Stakeholder grid completed with
backward “Z” included. Colors indicate
possible coalitions or groups with
common interests or concerns.
Upstream
Landowner
12 SYNTHESIS
LESSONS IN CONSERVATION ISSUE NO. 7 JANUARY 2017
of Citizen Engagement. As shown in Figure 4, this
framing lists non-participation as the lowest rung; non-
participation can take many forms including situations
where no provisions are made for participation at all or
situations where stakeholders appear to have inuence
but actually have no say (i.e., manipulation). The ladder
depicts increasing levels of stakeholder participation
all the way to the top rung of “citizens decide” in which
stakeholders hold the ultimate decision making power.
Some have argued against such normative concepts,
however, contending that optimal engagement methods
should vary depending on the type and stage of a given
project (Richards et al. 2004; Reid et al. 2009; Sterling
et al. 2017). This more exible approach eliminates
a hierarchical framing and proposes that dierent
stakeholder groups are likely to participate in dierent
ways throughout the process. For example, in the Pine
River dam case, it is possible that the area residents
(upstream and downstream) are provided information,
and asked for their input at dierent stages of the
process, but not necessarily involved in making decisions
at every step along the way.
Reviews of conservation actions involving stakeholders
show that engagement of stakeholders per se does not
necessarily always correlate with project success (Reed
2008; Mountjoy et al. 2013; Sterling et al. 2017). For this
reason, it is important to evaluate key factors that lead
to success across stakeholder engagement projects. A
comprehensive review of the stakeholder engagement
literature by Sterling et al. (2017) identied six key factors
associated with successful conservation outcomes in
stakeholder engagement projects (see Box 2).
4.1. Strategies for Engaging Stakeholders at Face-to-
Face Meetings
Bringing stakeholders to the table is an important step
of the engagement process. Facilitated discussion
among stakeholders is one method that has been
shown to help foster collaboration and the willingness
to participate (Danielsen et al. 2005). This involves
having a skilled, outside facilitator (a non-stakeholder)
who can help encourage eective communication
across the varying groups as well as set common goals
and reduce conict. Some governments have certied
facilitators to moderate stakeholder discussions.
For example, the State of Pennsylvania’s Center for
Collaboration and Environmental Dispute Resolution
and the United Kingdom’s Centre for Eective Dispute
Resolution both maintain sta available to facilitate
or mediate stakeholder meetings. In any case, the
role of the facilitator is to maintain order and guide
the discussion at arm’s length, ensuring broad and
meaningful participation by all while not advocating for
a particular outcome. These mediators set the agenda
and pace of discussion, and may solicit alternate views
and counterpoints, especially in large group seings.
Scenario planning is a type of planning process that
seeks to nd innovative solutions to complex problems
by allowing stakeholders to develop and share their
mental models of the future (Benne et al. 2015).
Scenario planning can help stakeholders to consider
desirable and undesirable future aspects and relevant
tradeos as well as determine appropriate collective
action (Benne et al. 2015). Capacity development
is another approach, which involves building the
Figure 4. Examples of
levels in the ladder of
citizen participation
(adapted from
Arnstein 1969).
NON-PARTICIPATION: participants have no decision making power
INFORMING AND CONSULTING: those in power consult with participants
and make decisions
PARTNERSHIP: participants actively engage in discussion and decision
making
CITIZENS DECIDE: participants have full decision making power
Increased levels of stakeholder involvement
13
LESSONS IN CONSERVATION ISSUE NO. 7 JANUARY 2017
SYNTHESIS
capacity of stakeholders to understand and solve
the issue at hand and has been associated with more
successful project outcomes (Brooks et al. 2013). It can
include training workshops, courses, or professional
development for key stakeholder groups to provide
them with the necessary knowledge, skills, and tools for
more productive engagement.
In the spirit of inclusion, a new approach for stakeholder
input called a charree has emerged out of a community
of urban planners and architects. It was created to
engage stakeholders who may not be able to meet at
specic times due to their daily schedules, but yet want
to participate in the design of a project. A charree is
an open, collaborative process that lasts at least three
to four days, during which stakeholders oer input and
feedback. A “design team” organizes the event, and
works day and night to produce successive iterations
of the design, as individual stakeholders cycle into and
out of the process as their schedules allow. For more
information, see Appendix 1.
Lastly, in the interest of civil and fair participation,
stakeholders should agree to a common set of rules or
principles of engagement at the onset and post them
for reference during the actual discussion. An outside
facilitator may provide an especially important service
in maintaining adherence to these rules.
One example of such guidelines or principles are those
proposed in the Brisbane Declaration (2005) by the
Government of Queensland, Australia, in conjunction
with a United Nations conference (Box 3). This model
for inclusive stakeholder engagement recognizes four
core principles of engagement in the creation of policy,
particularly focused on addressing the inequity typically
suered by underrepresented indigenous and low-
income groups (Brisbane Declaration 2005).
Can you envision a process whereby the multiple
stakeholders in the Pine River Dam project would be
able to engage in the decision making process, adhering
to each of these four principles?
5. CONCLUSION
Conservation and environmental planning initiatives
are best developed with key stakeholders identied
and diverse viewpoints considered even before the
stakeholders formally meet. Inclusion of stakeholders is
important for both pragmatic and democratic reasons.
A range of stakeholders should be encouraged to
B 2. K F A S E-D P*:
1. Identifying stakeholders. It is important to foster inclusiveness without having so many stakeholders that it
undermines the process.
2. Timing and degree of stakeholder engagement. Incorporating stakeholders early in the process can be benecial.
The manner in which stakeholders are engaged can also have an impact on overall project success; stakeholders
should be appropriately involved while not overly burdened by engagement.
3. Recognizing and respecting stakeholder values and institutions. One important dimension of engagement is the
recognition and integration of the values and institutions of stakeholders—keeping in mind that within a particular
stakeholder group there can be a range of perspectives.
4. Stakeholder motivation for engagement. Understanding what drives stakeholders to participate can help to ensure
adequate resources for their continued participation. Motivations could be economic or socially driven, which require
dierent management approaches.
5. Eective leadership. Strong leadership and local champions are associated with project success, making it important
to foster and support leadership among local stakeholders.
6. Eective partnerships. Strong positive relationships between stakeholders and project managers are important;
trust can be built through open communication and transparency.
*Derived from Sterling et al. 2017.
Note: Externally-driven stakeholder engagement projects are those that are led by an outside group or organization (e.g.,
a national or international NGO) that is organizing local stakeholders.
14 SYNTHESIS
LESSONS IN CONSERVATION ISSUE NO. 7 JANUARY 2017
participate, including underrepresented groups, not only
because they are the people most likely to be impacted
by an action, but also because consideration of diverse
perspectives can lead to higher quality decisions that
are beer suited to the local context. A stakeholder
analysis is a useful tool in developing strategies for a
conservation plan, including identifying representative
stakeholders, their likely positions and potential
mitigation strategies. Ideally, a balanced—inclusive, but
manageable—set of relevant parties should be brought
to the table, and collectively agree to a common set of
principles of engagement. While project success is not
guaranteed by merely involving stakeholders, following
key engagement principles can promote an inclusive
engagement process and help achieve the best outcome.
6. REFERENCES
Annan, K. 2007. How to engage stakeholders and mainstream
biodiversity. Pages 155–225 in Hesselink F., W. Goldstein, P.
P. van Kempen, T. Garne, J. Dela, editors. Communication,
education and public awareness (CEPA): a toolkit for national
focal points and NBSAP coordinators. Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity and IUCN, Montreal,
Canada.
Arnstein, S. R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the
American Institute of Planners 35:216–224.
Benne, N. J., A. Kadfak, and P. Dearden. 2015. Community-based
scenario planning: a process for vulnerability analysis and
adaptation planning to social-ecological change in coastal
communities. Environment, Development and Sustainability
18:1–29.
Bird, J., L. Haas, and L. Mehta. 2005. “Rights, Risks and
Responsibilities” approach to implementing stakeholder
participation: a scoping report commissioned by the former
commissioners of the World Commission on Dams. Available
at hp://www.internationalrivers.org/sites/default/les/
aached-les/world_commission_on_dams_nal_report.pdf
(Accessed December 2016).
Brooks, J., K. A. Waylen, and M. B. Mulder. 2013. Assessing
community-based conservation projects: a systematic review
and multilevel analysis of aitudinal, behavioral, ecological,
and economic outcomes. Environmental Evidence 2:1.
Chen, H. -T., and P. H. Rossi. 1980. The multi-goal, theory-driven
approach to evaluation: a model linking basic and applied
social science. Social Forces 59:106–122.
Danielsen, F., N. D. Burgess, and A. Balmford. 2005. Monitoring
maers: examining the potential of locally-based approaches.
Biodiversity & Conservation 14:2507–2542.
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, U.K.
Jento, S., and B. McCay. 1995. User participation in sheries
management: lessons drawn from international experiences.
Marine Policy 19:227–246.
Jones, P. J., and J. Burgess. 2005. Building partnership capacity
for the collaborative management of marine protected areas
in the UK: a preliminary analysis. Journal of Environmental
Management 77:227–243.
Jupiter, S. D., A. P. Jenkins, W. J. L. Long, S. L. Maxwell, T. J.
Carruthers, K. B. Hodge, H. Govan, J. Tamelander, and J. E.
Watson. 2014. Principles for integrated island management in
the tropical Pacic. Pacic Conservation Biology 20:193–205.
Madden, F., and B. McQuinn. 2014. Conservation’s blind spot:
the case for conict transformation in wildlife conservation.
Biological Conservation 178:97–106.
Mascia, M. B., J. P. Brosius, T. A. Dobson, B. C. Forbes, L. Horowitz,
M. A. McKean, and N. J. Turner. 2003. Conservation and the
social sciences. Conservation Biology 17:649–650.
Mountjoy, N. J., E. Seekamp, M. A. Davenport, and M. R. Whiles.
2013. The best laid plans: community-based natural resource
management (CBNRM) group capacity and planning success.
Environmental Management 52:1547–1561.
B 3: C P S E*
Core principles of integrity, inclusion, deliberation, and inuence apply in many situations where conservation goals and
human needs may conict, and reect the following:
• Integrity: when there is openness and honesty about the scope and purpose of engagement;
• Inclusion: when there is an opportunity for a diverse range of values and perspectives to be freely and fairly expressed
and heard;
• Deliberation: when there is suicient and credible information for dialogue, choice, and decisions; and when there is
space to weigh options, develop common understandings, and to appreciate respective roles and responsibilities; and
• Inuence: when there is the opportunity for stakeholders to have input in designing how they participate, when
policies and services reect the stakeholders’ involvement, and when the stakeholders’ impact is apparent.
*Derived from the Brisbane Declaration (2005), available at: hp://www.ncdd.org/exchange/les/docs/brisbane_
declaration.pdf
15
LESSONS IN CONSERVATION ISSUE NO. 7 JANUARY 2017
SYNTHESIS
Peterson, A., C. A. Mcalpine, D. Ward, and S. Rayner. 2007. New
regionalism and nature conservation: lessons from South East
Queensland, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 82:132–
144.
Reed, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental
management: a literature review. Biological Conservation
141:2417–2431.
Reid, R., D. Nkedianye, M. Said, D. Kaelo, M. Neselle, O. Makui,
L. Onetu, S. Kiruswa, N. O. Kamuaro, and P. Kristjanson.
2009. Evolution of models to support community and policy
action with science: balancing pastoral livelihoods and wildlife
conservation in savannas of East Africa. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 113:4579–4584.
Richards, C., C. Carter, and K. Sherlock 2004. Practical approaches
to participation SERG policy brief no. 1. Macauley Land Use
Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland.
Sterling, E. J., E. Betley, A. Sigouin, A. Gomez, A. Toomey, G.
Cullman, C. Malone, A. Pekor, F. Arengo, M. Blair, C. Filardi, K.
Landrigan, and A. L. Porzecanski. 2017. Assessing the evidence
for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation.
Biological Conservation 209:159-171.
Brisbane Declaration. 2005. Brisbane, Australia. Available at hp://
www.ncdd.org/exchange/les/docs/brisbane_declaration.pdf
(Accessed December 2016).
[UNEP] United Nations Environmental Programme. 2015. Handbook
for stakeholder engagement. Available at hp://www.unep.
org/civil-society/Handbook (Accessed December 2016).
World Commission on Dams. 2000. Dams and development:
a new framework for decision-making: the report of the
World Commission on Dams. Available at hp://www.
internationalrivers.org/sites/default/files/attached-files/
world_commission_on_dams_nal_report.pdf (Accessed
December 2016).
APPENDIX 1. ADDITIONAL TOOLS FOR
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSES & STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
• U.S. National Park Service, River Trails and
Conservation Assistance
Their Community Tool Box website has concise
downloadable guides to Facilitation, Stakeholder
Analysis, Charrees, Consensus Building and
related tools. www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/
helpfultools/Toolbox/index_comtoolbox.htm
• National Audubon Society
Audubon Tools of Engagement: A Toolkit for
Engaging People in Conservation. The toolkit
provides “20 steps to success” that take the
reader through a detailed overview of how to
plan for successful stakeholder engagement in a
conservation project. hp://web4.audubon.org/
educate/toolkit/toolkit.php.
• Convention on Biological Diversity
Communication, Education and Public Awareness
(CEPA) Toolkit: How to engage stakeholders and
mainstream biodiversity. Part 3 of this toolkit has
information on how to engage stakeholders in
conservation projects and also includes checklists
and numerous examples of engagement. hps://
www.cbd.int/cepa/toolkit/2008/doc/CBD-
Toolkit-Complete.pdf
• Victoria Department of Environment, Land,
Water and Planning (DELWP)
DELWP was created in 2013 from the Australian
governmental department previously known
as the Department of Sustainability and
Environment. Their Eective Engagement Toolkit
website provides an alphabetical list of over
40 tools to guide stakeholder participation in
decision making including a dozen case studies
involving stakeholders where these tools were
deployed. hp://www.dse.vic.gov.au/eective-
engagement/toolkit
• World Bank Group
The stakeholder resources website of this nancial
and global assistance group provides examples
stakeholder grids and other analysis tools used in
supporting economic and environmental initiatives
in developing countries. hp://www1.worldbank.
org/publicsector/anticorrupt/PoliticalEconomy/
stakeholderanalysis.htm
• Nature Conservancy Water Funds Toolbox
While the website is targeted specically to water
projects, the examples involving multiple sectors
from private, academic, public and international
organizations demonstrate application of the
tools of stakeholder analysis and downloadable
templates. hp://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/
habitats/riverslakes/wftoolkit-stakeholder-
analysis.xml
• The Sonoran Institute
Examples are provided from their own programs
16 SYNTHESIS
LESSONS IN CONSERVATION ISSUE NO. 7 JANUARY 2017
where multiple partners or stakeholder groups
were brought together to develop conservation
plans. Their Resilient Communities Starter Kit
is a downloadable “road map for communities”
specic to climate change preparation, but should
be adaptable to other community engagement
activities. hps://sonoraninstitute.org/resource/
resilient-communities-starter-kit-08-29-2015/
• National Charree Institute (NCI)
The NCI provides training for teams to organize
a Charree event for stakeholders. Their website
provides details on conducting a Charree with
examples focusing on regional planning that can
be modied for specic conservation planning
goals. hp://www.charreeinstitute.org/
• CARE Climate Change
This organization provides a short powerpoint
on SlideShare as an introduction to Participatory
Scenario Planning (PSP). It is followed by a case
study of developing risk reduction in Kenyan
communities under climate change scenarios.
http://www.slideshare.net/CANSA2014/psp-
southern-voices-workshop
• U.S. Agency of International Development
(USAID)
An Adaptive Management Tool for Conservation
Practitioners provides a guide to develop, implement
and test assumptions while using results to learn
and adapt. It is available as a free download from
the USAID Natural Resources Management and
Development Portal. hps://rmportal.net/library/
content/tools/biodiversity-conservation-tools/
putting-conservation-in-context-cd/adaptive-
management-resources/5-5-a.pdf
• United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP)
UNEP handbook provides guidance and
recommendations for stakeholder engagement
http://www.unep.org/civil-society/Handbook.
The UNEP website is also a good source for specic
programs, such as Agenda 21 for the Conservation
of Biodiversity. hp://www.unep.org/Documents.
Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=52&Article
ID=63&l=en
