IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v3y2013i3p343-356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diverse Perceptions of Stakeholder Engagement within an Environmental Modeling Research Team

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth Allen
  • Chad Kruger
  • Fok-Yan Leung
  • Jennie Stephens

Abstract

Integrating stakeholder perspectives is increasingly important in environmental science as a growing number of research projects are justified with a “solutions” orientation prioritizing societal relevance. In earth systems modeling, there is potential for model developers to engage with stakeholders who may use modeling results to inform decisions about resource management and policy. Challenges associated with stakeholder engagement relate to how researchers perceive the role of stakeholders and how they view the utility of integrating knowledge and perspectives from outside academia in model development. This study analyzes researchers’ perceptions of stakeholder engagement within BioEarth, a large collaborative regional earth systems modeling project designed to integrate input from agriculture and forestry sector decision-makers. The project addresses the impact of climate change on water, nitrogen and carbon cycling in the US Pacific Northwest. Surveys and semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess perceptions of stakeholder engagement among the 18principal investigators (PIs). Results reveal that PIs have varying perceptions of the role of stakeholders in earth systems modeling and diverse assessments of the optimal type and timing of stakeholder engagement. As funding agencies and research institutions promote increased collaboration with stakeholders from outside academia, these findings demonstrate fundamental differences of opinion among environmental scientists regarding the value of stakeholder engagement. This research has implications for transdisciplinary research projects that seek to address sustainability challenges by involving stakeholders in technical academic modeling. Facilitating learning opportunities for researchers who are new to stakeholder engagement is essential, as is close collaboration among researchers with different levels of prior stakeholder engagement experiences. Copyright The Author(s) 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth Allen & Chad Kruger & Fok-Yan Leung & Jennie Stephens, 2013. "Diverse Perceptions of Stakeholder Engagement within an Environmental Modeling Research Team," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(3), pages 343-356, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:3:y:2013:i:3:p:343-356
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-013-0136-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s13412-013-0136-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-013-0136-x?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. Allyson M. Beall & Andrew Ford, 2010. "Reports from the Field: Assessing the Art and Science of Participatory Environmental Modeling," International Journal of Information Systems and Social Change (IJISSC), IGI Global, vol. 1(2), pages 72-89, April.
    2. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    3. Godin, Benoit & Gingras, Yves, 2000. "The place of universities in the system of knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 273-278, February.
    4. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    5. Kalambokidis, Laura, 2003. "Identifying The Public Value In Extension Programs," Staff Papers 13409, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    6. Rhoten, Diana & Pfirman, Stephanie, 2007. "Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 56-75, February.
    7. Allyson Beall & Fritz Fiedler & Jan Boll & Barbara Cosens, 2011. "Sustainable Water Resource Management and Participatory System Dynamics. Case Study : Developing the Palouse Basin Participatory Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(5), pages 1-23, April.
    8. Karin Bäckstrand, 2003. "Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts, Policy-Makers and Citizens in Environmental Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 3(4), pages 24-41, November.
    9. Voinov, Alexey & Gaddis, Erica J. Brown, 2008. "Lessons for successful participatory watershed modeling: A perspective from modeling practitioners," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 197-207.
    10. Maria Carmen Lemos & Christine J. Kirchhoff & Vijay Ramprasad, 2012. "Narrowing the climate information usability gap," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(11), pages 789-794, November.
    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. Denise E. DeLorme & Sonia H. Stephens & Scott C. Hagen, 2018. "Transdisciplinary sea level rise risk communication and outreach strategies from stakeholder focus groups," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(1), pages 13-21, March.
    2. Emilija Žilinskaitė & Malgorzata Blicharska & Martyn Futter, 2021. "Stakeholder Perspectives on Blue Mussel Farming to Mitigate Baltic Sea Eutrophication," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.
    3. Jennifer Adam & Jennie Stephens & Serena Chung & Michael Brady & R. Evans & Chad Kruger & Brian Lamb & Mingliang Liu & Claudio Stöckle & Joseph Vaughan & Kirti Rajagopalan & John Harrison & Christina , 2015. "BioEarth: Envisioning and developing a new regional earth system model to inform natural and agricultural resource management," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 129(3), pages 555-571, April.
    4. A. Paletto & G. Giacovelli & G. Grilli & J. Balest & I. De Meo, 2014. "Stakeholders' preferences and the assessment of forest ecosystem services: a comparative analysis in Italy," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 60(11), pages 472-483.
    5. Mercy Serwah Owusu Ansah & Emmanuel Oppong Peprah, 2022. "The Link between Stakeholder Engagement and Strategic Planning in the Ghana Forestry Sector: A Systematic Literature Review," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 6(5), pages 907-914, May.

    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. Kenny, Daniel C. & Bakhanova, Elena & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Voinov, Alexey, 2022. "Participatory modelling and systems intelligence: A systems-based and transdisciplinary partnership," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    2. Elena Bakhanova & Jaime A. Garcia & William L. Raffe & Alexey Voinov, 2023. "Gamification Framework for Participatory Modeling: A Proposal," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1167-1182, October.
    3. Nordström, Eva-Maria & Eriksson, Ljusk Ola & Öhman, Karin, 2010. "Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: Experience from a case study in northern Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(8), pages 562-574, October.
    4. Samuel Sandoval-Solis & Jose Pablo Ortiz Partida & Lindsay Floyd, 2022. "Multi-Objective Water Planning in a Poor Water Data Region: Aragvi River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-16, March.
    5. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    6. Hamburg Ileana, 2023. "Some Emerging Trends in Cybersecurity Education and Training for Entrepreneurs," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 17(1), pages 971-975, July.
    7. Manning, Stephan, 2017. "The rise of project network organizations: Building core teams and flexible partner pools for interorganizational projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1399-1415.
    8. Hayashi, Takayuki, 2003. "Effect of R&D programmes on the formation of university-industry-government networks: comparative analysis of Japanese R&D programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1421-1442, September.
    9. Liang Liu & Cong Feng & Hongwei Zhang & Xuehua Zhang, 2015. "Game Analysis and Simulation of the River Basin Sustainable Development Strategy Integrating Water Emission Trading," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-21, April.
    10. Antonio J. Castro & Cristina Quintas-Soriano & Jodi Brandt & Carla L. Atkinson & Colden V. Baxter & Morey Burnham & Benis N. Egoh & Marina García-Llorente & Jason P. Julian & Berta Martín-López & Feli, 2018. "Applying Place-Based Social-Ecological Research to Address Water Scarcity: Insights for Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    11. Julia Olmos‐Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro‐Martínez, 2015. "Exploring the factors related with scientists’ willingness to incorporating external knowledge," CHEPS Working Papers 201504, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    12. Rachel Levy & Pascale Roux & Sandrine Wolff, 2009. "An analysis of science–industry collaborative patterns in a large European University," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 1-23, February.
    13. Gillespie, Stuart & van den Bold, Mara, 2015. "Stories of change in nutrition: A tool pool:," IFPRI discussion papers 1494, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Xueke Li & Amanda H. Lynch, 2023. "New insights into projected Arctic sea road: operational risks, economic values, and policy implications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 1-16, April.
    15. Saskia C. Hin, 2013. "Interdisciplinary research collaboration as the future of ancient history? Insights from spying on demographers," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2013-002, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    16. Bach Quang Ho & Yuki Inoue, 2020. "Driving Network Externalities in Education for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    17. Meijun Liu & Sijie Yang & Yi Bu & Ning Zhang, 2023. "Female early-career scientists have conducted less interdisciplinary research in the past six decades: evidence from doctoral theses," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    18. Chris Knudson & Zack Guido, 2019. "The missing middle of climate services: layering multiway, two-way, and one-way modes of communicating seasonal climate forecasts," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 171-187, November.
    19. Jose-Luis Molina & Sergio Martos-Rosillo & Crisanto Martín-Montañés & Suzanne Pierce, 2012. "The Social Sustainable Aquifer Yield: An Indicator for the Analysis and Assessment of the Integrated Aquifers Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(10), pages 2951-2971, August.
    20. Mehryar, Sara & Sasson, Idan & Surminski, Swenja, 2022. "Supporting urban adaptation to climate change: what role can resilience measurement tools play?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113367, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:spr:jenvss:v:3:y:2013:i:3:p:343-356. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.