IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v57y2015icp93-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A stakeholder analysis of U.S. marine aquaculture partnerships

Author

Listed:
  • Siddiki, Saba
  • Goel, Shilpi

Abstract

U.S. states are increasingly using multi-stakeholder groups to advise on marine aquaculture policy and research development. Such groups typically include some mix of government (e.g., tribal, federal, state, or local) and non-governmental (e.g., private, non-profit, or university) stakeholders. The engagement of such multi-stakeholder groups in the marine aquaculture policy process allows governments to harness the expertise of vested policy stakeholders and ensure that policy solutions are contextually appropriate. Taking stock of the participants in these groups is an important first step in understanding the broader role they play in the aquaculture policy process. In this article, a stakeholder analysis of ten multi-stakeholder groups engaged in aquaculture policy development, referred to as aquaculture partnerships, is conducted based on conceptual guidance from the Advocacy Coalition Framework. In the context of these 10 partnerships, partnerships’ participant compositions as well as inter-sectoral differences relating to (i) aquaculture policy beliefs; (ii) problem perceptions; (iii) resources; (iv) trust perceptions; (v) coordination patterns; and (vi) factors based upon which individuals coordinate with others in their partnerships are identified. Results from the stakeholder analysis show that partnerships have substantial representation from government and non-government policy stakeholders, that leveraging expertise through the collaborative policymaking process is critical, and that even within these multi-stakeholder groups, government actors maintain a critical position.

Suggested Citation

  • Siddiki, Saba & Goel, Shilpi, 2015. "A stakeholder analysis of U.S. marine aquaculture partnerships," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 93-102.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:57:y:2015:i:c:p:93-102
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X1500055X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William D. Leach & Neil W. Pelkey & Paul A. Sabatier, 2002. "Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(4), pages 645-670.
    2. William Resh & Saba Siddiki & Will R. McConnell, 2014. "Does the Network Centrality of Government Actors Matter? Examining the Role of Government Organizations in Aquaculture Partnerships," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(6), pages 584-609, November.
    3. Häring, Anna Maria & Vairo, Daniela & Dabbert, Stephan & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2009. "Organic farming policy development in the EU: What can multi-stakeholder processes contribute?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 265-272, June.
    4. Gopnik, Morgan & Fieseler, Clare & Cantral, Laura & McClellan, Kate & Pendleton, Linwood & Crowder, Larry, 2012. "Coming to the table: Early stakeholder engagement in marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 1139-1149.
    5. Dallas J. Elgin & Christopher M. Weible, 2013. "A Stakeholder Analysis of C olorado Climate and Energy Issues Using Policy Analytical Capacity and the Advocacy Coalition Framework," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(1), pages 114-133, January.
    6. Saba Siddiki, 2014. "Assessing Policy Design and Interpretation: An Institutions-Based Analysis in the Context of Aquaculture in Florida and Virginia, United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(4), pages 281-303, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stukach, Victor & Grishaev, Egor, 2008. "Агропродовольственный Рынок Региона: Классификация Институтов, Административные Барьеры, Трансакционные Издержки, Неэффективные Посредники [The region's agro-food market: the classification of inst," MPRA Paper 79290, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Apr 2017.
    2. Natali, Starovoytova & Victor, Stukach, 2017. "Продовольственное Обеспечение Нуждающихся: Концепция Социально Ориентированного Сельского Хозяйства, Институциональная Среда Продовольственной Помощи Населению, Потенциал Органического Земледелия, Пил," MPRA Paper 81808, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Oct 2017.
    3. Mark Lubell & Adam Douglas Henry & Mike McCoy, 2010. "Collaborative Institutions in an Ecology of Games," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 287-300, April.
    4. Hiroaki Sugino & Tatsuya Sekiguchi & Yuuki Terada & Naoki Hayashi, 2023. "“Future Compass”, a Tool That Allows Us to See the Right Horizon—Integration of Topic Modeling and Multiple-Factor Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, June.
    5. Aerang Nam & Christopher M. Weible & Kyudong Park, 2022. "Polarization and frames of advocacy coalitions in South Korea's nuclear energy policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 387-410, July.
    6. Axel Marx, 2008. "Limits to non‐state market regulation: A qualitative comparative analysis of the international sport footwear industry and the Fair Labor Association," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 253-273, June.
    7. Sangmin Kim, 2016. "The workings of collaborative governance: Evaluating collaborative community-building initiatives in Korea," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(16), pages 3547-3565, December.
    8. Ya Li & Zhichang Zhu & Catherine M. Gerard, 2012. "Learning from Conflict Resolution: An Opportunity to Systems Thinking," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 209-220, March.
    9. Mockshell, Jonathan & Birner, Regina, 2020. "Who has the better story? On the narrative foundations of agricultural development dichotomies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    10. Manuel Fischer & Philip Leifeld, 2015. "Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 363-382, September.
    11. Ralph V Tafon, 2018. "Taking power to sea: Towards a post-structuralist discourse theoretical critique of marine spatial planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(2), pages 258-273, March.
    12. Han Wang & Yueli Xu, 2024. "Achieving Neighborhood-Level Collaborative Governance through Participatory Regeneration: Cases of Three Residential Heritage Neighborhoods in Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, March.
    13. Porter, Madeleine & Franks, Daniel M. & Everingham, Jo-Anne, 2013. "Cultivating collaboration: Lessons from initiatives to understand and manage cumulative impacts in Australian resource regions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 657-669.
    14. Payán, Denise D. & Lewis, LaVonna B. & Cousineau, Michael R. & Nichol, Michael B., 2017. "Advocacy coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate: Exploring coalition structure, policy beliefs, resources, and strategies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 78-86.
    15. Joshua Newman & Emi Patmisari & Ida Widianingsih, 2022. "Policy analytical capacity and "Eastern" styles of policy analysis: evidence from West Java Province, Indonesia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 469-485, September.
    16. Verburg, René & Selnes, Trond & Verweij, Pita, 2016. "Governing ecosystem services: National and local lessons from policy appraisal and implementation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 186-197.
    17. Aurore Flipo & Madeleine Sallustio & Nathalie Ortar & Nicolas Senil, 2021. "Sustainable Mobility and the Institutional Lock-In: The Example of Rural France," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    18. John Selsky & Barbara Parker, 2010. "Platforms for Cross-Sector Social Partnerships: Prospective Sensemaking Devices for Social Benefit," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 21-37, July.
    19. Janmaat, Johannus A., 2007. "Stakeholder Engagement in Land Development Decisions: A Waste of Effort?," MPRA Paper 6147, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Alba Linares Quero & Uxue Iragui Yoldi & Oriana Gava & Gerald Schwarz & Andrea Povellato & Carlos Astrain, 2022. "Assessment of the Common Agricultural Policy 2014–2020 in Supporting Agroecological Transitions: A Comparative Study of 15 Cases across Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-23, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:57:y:2015:i:c:p:93-102. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.