IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i12p2324-d1007240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rapid Characterisation of Stakeholder Networks in Three Catchments Reveals Contrasting Land-Water Management Issues

Author

Listed:
  • Kathleen C. Stosch

    (Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK)

  • Richard S. Quilliam

    (Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK)

  • Nils Bunnefeld

    (Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK)

  • David M. Oliver

    (Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK)

Abstract

Catchments are socio-ecological systems integrating land, water and people with diverse roles and views. Characterising stakeholder networks and their levels of influence and interaction within catchments can help deliver more effective land and water management. In this study, we combined stakeholder analysis and social network methods to provide a novel stakeholder-mapping tool capable of identifying interactions among the land and water management communities across three contrasting study catchments. The overarching aim was to characterise the influence of different stakeholders involved in catchment management based on the perceptions of participants from four key stakeholder groups (Environmental Regulators, Water Industry Practitioners, the Farm Advisor Community, and Academics). A total of 43 participants identified 28 types of specific catchment management stakeholder groups with either core or peripheral importance to our three case study catchments. Participants contributed 490 individual scores relating to the perceived influence of these different stakeholder groups and categorised whether this influence was positive, negative or neutral for the management of catchment resources. Local Government, Farmers and Environmental Regulators were perceived to have the greatest level of influence. Social network analysis further determined which stakeholders were most commonly connected in all of the study catchments and hence formed the core of stakeholder networks in each catchment. Comparing outputs from the analysis of three contrasting river catchments, as well as between participants from four key stakeholder groups allowed identification of which stakeholders were more central to the catchment management networks. Such analyses could help facilitate effective communication within land and water management stakeholder networks by targeting highly connected opinion leaders or promoting peer learning via distinct catchment subgroups.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathleen C. Stosch & Richard S. Quilliam & Nils Bunnefeld & David M. Oliver, 2022. "Rapid Characterisation of Stakeholder Networks in Three Catchments Reveals Contrasting Land-Water Management Issues," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:12:p:2324-:d:1007240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/12/2324/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/12/2324/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kathleen C. Stosch & Richard S. Quilliam & Nils Bunnefeld & David M. Oliver, 2022. "Catchment-Scale Participatory Mapping Identifies Stakeholder Perceptions of Land and Water Management Conflicts," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Barnes, A.P. & Willock, J. & Hall, C. & Toma, L., 2009. "Farmer perspectives and practices regarding water pollution control programmes in Scotland," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(12), pages 1715-1722, December.
    3. Cebrián-Piqueras, M.A. & Karrasch, L. & Kleyer, M., 2017. "Coupling stakeholder assessments of ecosystem services with biophysical ecosystem properties reveals importance of social contexts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 108-115.
    4. van den Heuvel, Lotte & Blicharska, Malgorzata & Masia, Sara & Sušnik, Janez & Teutschbein, Claudia, 2020. "Ecosystem services in the Swedish water-energy-food-land-climate nexus: Anthropogenic pressures and physical interactions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    5. Brunet, Lucas & Tuomisaari, Johanna & Lavorel, Sandra & Crouzat, Emilie & Bierry, Adeline & Peltola, Taru & Arpin, Isabelle, 2018. "Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-34.
    6. Aude Zingraff-Hamed & Frank Hüesker & Gerd Lupp & Chloe Begg & Josh Huang & Amy Oen & Zoran Vojinovic & Christian Kuhlicke & Stephan Pauleit, 2020. "Stakeholder Mapping to Co-Create Nature-Based Solutions: Who Is on Board?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-23, October.
    7. Liang Emlyn Yang & Faith Ka Shun Chan & Jürgen Scheffran, 2018. "Climate change, water management and stakeholder analysis in the Dongjiang River basin in South China," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(2), pages 166-191, March.
    8. Thomas Berger & Regina Birner & Nancy Mccarthy & JosÉ DíAz & Heidi Wittmer, 2007. "Capturing the complexity of water uses and water users within a multi-agent framework," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(1), pages 129-148, January.
    9. Raum, Susanne, 2018. "A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research: Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 170-184.
    10. Job Ochieng Ogada & George Okoye Krhoda & Anne Van Der Veen & Martin Marani & Pieter Richards van Oel, 2017. "Managing resources through stakeholder networks: collaborative water governance for Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 271-290, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daile Zeng & Boya Chen & Jingxin Wang & John L. Innes & Juliet Lu & Futao Guo & Yancun Yan & Guangyu Wang, 2024. "Determinants of Public Participation in Watershed Management in Southeast China: An Application of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-23, November.

    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. Nápoles-Vértiz, Sonia & Caro-Borrero, Angela, 2024. "Conceptual diversity and application of ecosystem services and disservices: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    2. Humberto Silva-Hidalgo & Ignacio Martín-Domínguez & María Alarcón-Herrera & Alfredo Granados-Olivas, 2009. "Mathematical Modelling for the Integrated Management of Water Resources in Hydrological Basins," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(4), pages 721-730, March.
    3. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    4. Gerd Lupp & Aude Zingraff-Hamed & Josh J. Huang & Amy Oen & Stephan Pauleit, 2020. "Living Labs—A Concept for Co-Designing Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    5. Lenka Slavíková & Vítězslav Malý & Michael Rost & Lubomír Petružela & Ondřej Vojáček, 2013. "Impacts of Climate Variables on Residential Water Consumption in the Czech Republic," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 27(2), pages 365-379, January.
    6. Mehri Abdi-Dehkordi & Omid Bozorg-Haddad & Abdolrahim Salavitabar & Erfan Goharian, 2021. "Developing a sustainability assessment framework for integrated management of water resources systems using distributed zoning and system dynamics approaches," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16246-16282, November.
    7. Okumah, Murat & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Chapman, Pippa J. & Novo, Paula & Cassidy, Rachel & Lyon, Christopher & Higgins, Alex & Doody, Donnacha, 2021. "The role of experiential learning in the adoption of best land management practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    8. Coronese, Matteo & Occelli, Martina & Lamperti, Francesco & Roventini, Andrea, 2023. "AgriLOVE: Agriculture, land-use and technical change in an evolutionary, agent-based model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    9. Shang, Linmei & Heckelei, Thomas & Gerullis, Maria K. & Börner, Jan & Rasch, Sebastian, 2021. "Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies - integrating farm-level evidence and system interaction," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    10. Yaofeng Yang & Yajuan Chen & Zhenrong Yu & Pengyao Li & Xuedong Li, 2020. "How Does Improve Farmers’ Attitudes toward Ecosystem Services to Support Sustainable Development of Agriculture? Based on Environmental Kuznets Curve Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    11. Laterra, Pedro & Weyland, Federico & Auer, Alejandra & Barral, Paula & González, Aira & Mastrángelo, Matías & Rositano, Florencia & Sirimarco, Ximena, 2023. "MARCHI: A serious game for participatory governance of ecosystem services in multiple-use protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    12. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà, N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    13. Shang, Linmei & Heckelei, Thomas & Börner, Jan & Rasch, Sebastian, 2020. "Adoption and Diffusion of Digital Farming Technologies – Integrating Farm-Level Evidence and System-Level Interaction," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305586, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    14. Omweri, F.S. & Motari, YO, 2024. "Policy Networks and Relationship between Multiple Streams Approach and Implementation of Road Safety Policy Measures in Kenyan Counties," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(4), pages 445-456, April.
    15. Grovermann, Christian & Schreinemachers, Pepijn & Berger, Thomas, 2015. "Evaluation of IPM adoption and financial instruments to reduce pesticide use in Thai agriculture using econometrics and agent-based modeling," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211690, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Carauta, Marcelo & Troost, Christian & Guzman-Bustamante, Ivan & Hampf, Anna & Libera, Affonso & Meurer, Katharina & Bönecke, Eric & Franko, Uwe & Ribeiro Rodrigues, Renato de Aragão & Berger, Thomas, 2021. "Climate-related land use policies in Brazil: How much has been achieved with economic incentives in agriculture?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    17. Chakaphon Singto & Martijn Vries & Gert Jan Hofstede & Luuk Fleskens, 2021. "Ex Ante Impact Assessment of Reservoir Construction Projects for Different Stakeholders Using Agent-Based Modeling," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(3), pages 1047-1064, February.
    18. Willis Ndeda Ochilo & Stefan Toepfer & Privat Ndayihanzamaso & Idah Mugambi & Janny Vos & Celestin Niyongere, 2022. "Assessing the Plant Health System of Burundi: What It Is, Who Matters and Why," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-19, November.
    19. Thayalakumaran, T. & Roberts, A. & Beverly, C. & Vigiak, O. & Norng, S. & Stott, K., 2016. "Assessing nitrogen fluxes from dairy farms using a modelling approach: A case study in the Moe River catchment, Victoria, Australia," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 37-51.
    20. Daxini, Amar & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Buckley, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2018. "Factors influencing farmers' intentions to adopt nutrient management planning: accounting for heterogeneity," 166th Seminar, August 30-31, 2018, Galway, West of Ireland 276183, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:12:p:2324-:d:1007240. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.