Aligning Motivations in Ecosystem Stakeholder Engagement (Part 2)

Stakeholder Engagement

A project's capacity is increased, and efforts are sustained by including stakeholders who provide their distinctive viewpoints and networks (Wells et al., 2021). This three-part Extension series builds on the framework for stakeholder engagement in ecosystem services developed by Schoonover and colleagues in 2019. As discussed in the first article, Creating Space for Ecosystem Stakeholder Engagement, to help direct efforts and integrate stakeholder engagement into your operation or project, it is essential to incorporate stakeholder engagement's aims, activities, and impacts (Kujala et al., 2022). It is critical to remember that engagement is an iterative, highly context-dependent, nonlinear process (Kujala et al., 2022, p. 1156).

Stakeholders’ Motivations

Some researchers believe that we are all stakeholders of the Earth and that in natural resource and environmental management projects, it is increasingly vital to center nature as a stakeholder (Kujala et al., 2022). This approach begins stakeholder engagement by questioning who speaks for the Earth and understanding how intentions, motivations, and commitments might guide decision-making and other forms of participation with natural resources. Trust and knowledge exchanges can contribute to stakeholders’ desire to sustain the project (Ford et al., 2020), and stakeholders verify the intentions of projects in spaces and trusted relationships, reinforcing the nonlinear nature of stakeholder engagement (Cumming et al., 2022).

However, when shared values are not respected or stakeholders perceive ecosystem professions to lack ethical decision-making, conflict can occur, and engagement declines (Goodson et al., 2022). Effective biodiversity conservation and economic prosperity are conflicting motivations that projects and stakeholders may face; transformation in one area may negatively impact the other (Goodson et al., 2022).

There can be many stakeholders related to ecosystem projects, and ecosystem professionals may not be able to serve all of them equally. Local or traditional knowledge and historically marginalized groups can also be excluded, with many diverging stakeholder groups gatekeeping or crowding access to participation efforts (Goodson et al., 2022; Kujala et al., 2022). Perceived lack of interest that stems from disengaged stakeholders may be related to barriers to participation, such as education, income, transportation, length of residency, and political orientation (Cross & Chappell, 2022).

Aligning Motivations with Stakeholders

Priorities may differ across stakeholders in natural resource or ecosystem projects. Stakeholders may be unfamiliar with the technical or scientific phrases relating to natural resources and the environment. However, they bring to the project an intuitive understanding of the area and its resources that can help decision-making (Schoonover et al., 2019). Ecosystem professionals may have different expectations about their ability to influence or participate in a project than stakeholders (Cumming et al., 2022). Additionally, stakeholders may not understand the benefits of involvement in a project or what is required to sustain changes generated in the collaboration stages (Schoonover et al., 2019). By taking stock of stakeholders' expectations and motivations and clearly communicating project motivations and objectives, ecosystem professionals bring all parties together and work toward a common goal, increasing the positive impacts and alleviating tensions and sources of conflict.

Identify stakeholders’ values and project motivations to set expectations and meet the needs of stakeholders (Schoonover et al., 2019). Understanding value structures and systems for stakeholders can help navigate moral conflicts and signal that ecosystem professionals will address issues equitably. This is essential to building trust in stakeholder engagement (discussed further in the final part of the series) (Kujala et al., 2022).

• Seek input on the extent to which stakeholders want to influence and define how the project will adjust with stakeholders’ influence.
• Listen to stakeholders’ expectations and explain the role of transparency, accessibility, and accountability in the project.
• Communicate differences in values and conflicting priorities to encourage co-created supportive policies with stakeholders.

Frame communications in ways that are culturally relevant and valued by stakeholders. This may mean skipping jargon, using websites or flyers, or engaging face-to-face in sharing outcome narratives (Cross & Chappell, 2022; Rubert-Nason et al., 2021).

• Discuss what sustainability means to stakeholders and, if needed, explore avenues for building capacity for sustainable involvement together.
• Utilize communication strategies and channels that reach stakeholders.
• Ensure communication is presented in appropriate language and methods that resonate with stakeholders.
• Discuss data governance and outline measures to ensure equitable access.

Acknowledge the goals and aims of various ecosystem stakeholders and set expectations by clearly stating goals and objectives related to the project (Schoonover et al., 2019). Schoonover and colleagues (2019) found this can be a challenging objective in an ecosystem and natural resource stakeholder engagement, as stakeholders may want to see more information before they offer to engage, while projects may depend on stakeholder input to meet local needs. This can also be where many conflicts arise if expectations of goals and involvement are not addressed in the initial stages of project planning (Cross & Chappell, 2022).

• Gather and integrate stakeholder goals and aims of the natural resource, seeking co-production or co-creation of policies, outcomes, and other support plans.
• Identify and outline the project’s goals and aims of the natural resource, being sure to identify possible unintended and negative impacts that could arise.
• Discuss decision-making expectations and processes with stakeholders, providing timelines and avenues or channels for input.

Recognize the impacts and benefits of the project, your operation, and stakeholders, including desired and unintended impacts. By including the benefits and impacts that stakeholders can expect from the project, stakeholders can decide their level of involvement, anticipate future interaction, and collaborate effectively (Cross & Chappell, 2022; Schoonover et al., 2019).

• Discuss the variability and change that could result from involvement in the operation or project, highlighting the benefits and takeaways for stakeholders themselves.
• Design workshops or engagement opportunities with stakeholders, allowing them to maximize benefits from the project.
• Plan with stakeholders by exploring ways to build agenda together and drafting sustainability plans that integrate diverse groups of stakeholders.
• Recognize and plan ways to mitigate burnout with stakeholders and lean on conduits identified in the first article to fill the gap when needed.

Summary

Stakeholder engagement involves the creation of physical and conceptual space for sharing and co-producing knowledge, aligning motivations through shared values between stakeholders and professionals, and building trust (Schoonover et al., 2019). In aligning motivations, the stakeholder engagement approach is more clearly shaped, defining the moral, strategic, and pragmatic elements needed for effective engagement (Kujala et al., 2022). This part of the stakeholder engagement process asks for internal reflection as much as it requires professionals to seek stakeholder input. By addressing ecosystems projects in ways that are meaningful to stakeholders (values, framing), controlling expectations and setting clear goals and objectives (goals), and recognizing the impacts on stakeholders (benefits), it is possible to align motives with ecosystem or natural resource stakeholders (Schoonover et al., 2019).

Resources

Cross, D. A., & Chappell, J. C. (2022). Highlighting assumptions of community engagement in urban stream restoration. Freshwater Science, 41(3), 532–538.

Cumming, G., Campbell, L., Norwood, C., Ranger, S., Richardson, P., & Sanghera, A. (2022). Putting stakeholder engagement in its place: How situating public participation in community improves natural resource management outcomes. GeoJournal, 87(Suppl 2), S209–S221.

Ford, J. K., Riley, S. J., Lauricella, T. K., & Van Fossen, J. A. (2020). Factors affecting trust among natural resources stakeholders, partners, and strategic alliance members: A meta-analytic investigation. In Frontiers in Communication (Vol. 5). Frontiers Media S.A.

Goodson, D. J., van Riper, C. J., Andrade, R., Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., & Hauber, M. E. (2022). Perceived inclusivity and trust in protected area management decisions among stakeholders in Alaska. People and Nature, 4, 758–772.

Kujala, J., Sachs, S., Leinonen, H., Heikkinen, A., & Laude, D. (2022). Stakeholder engagement: past, present, and future. Business and Society, 61(5), 1136–1196.

Rubert-Nason, K., Casper, A. M. A., Jurjonas, M., Mandeville, C., Potter, R., & Schwarz, K. (2021). Ecologist engagement in translational science is imperative for building resilience to global change threats. Rethinking Ecology, 6, 65–92.

Schoonover, H. A., Grêt-Regamey, A., Metzger, M. J., Ruiz-Frau, A., Santos-Reis, M., Scholte, S. S. K., Walz, A., & Nicholas, K. A. (2019). Creating space, aligning motivations, and building trust: A practical framework for stakeholder engagement based on experience in 12 ecosystem services case studies. Ecology and Society, 24(1).

Wells, E. C., Lehigh, G. R., & Vidmar, A. M. (2021). Stakeholder engagement for sustainable communities. In The Palgrave Handbook of Global Sustainability. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Further research: Building Trust with Ecosystem Stakeholders (Part 3)