Building Trust with Ecosystem Stakeholders (Part 3)

Approaching stakeholder engagement

To manage, protect, and sustain natural resources and environmental systems, a wide range of organizations, academics, professionals, and other groups should come together to discuss and develop shared goals.  An ecosystem project's capacity and sustainability are boosted by stakeholders offering their ideas and networks (Wells et al., 2021). According to Kujala et al. (2022), stakeholder engagement may not always lead to constructive interactions and outcomes due to the different challenges faced by ecosystem professionals. Approaching stakeholder engagement by creating space for knowledge sharing and aligning motivations with stakeholders allows ecosystem projects to honor local ways of doing and goals while creating sustainable solutions for long-term ecosystem management.

Some examples include: to engage stakeholders in the European wine industry, researchers needed to approach landowners and managers directly to help with farm-level decisions (Schoonover et al., 2019). In this case, researchers also found that on the retailer side, they needed to use culturally relevant business language (Schoonover et al., 2019). Researchers of Extension systems in the US found that agents and educators excel as a conduit, disseminating information about climate change to stakeholders but play little influence directly in farm decision-making (Prokopy et al., 2015). Goodson et al. (2022) found that stakeholders' perceptions of agency morality were crucial for engagement and that discussions on shared values helped pave the way for deliberation and decisions for land management. Interviewees in a study of marine resource management programs in the US and Canada expressed that "trust is the hardest to gain and easiest to lose" in stakeholder engagement (Mease et al., 2018, p. 252). Lastly, research with urban stream stakeholders in Texas and Georgia showed that assumptions about engagement could be influenced by social, political, and economic conditions, creating engagement barriers for researchers and stakeholders (Cross & Chappell, 2022).

Role of Trust in Stakeholders' Engagement

Trust is defined as the "willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another based on expectations that the other has positive intentions and actions toward the trustor" (Ford et al., 2020, p. 1).  Ford and colleagues (2020) determined seven precursors to trust (listed in order of highest correlation values): reputation, cooperation and support, shared norms and values, communication, service quality and satisfaction, past behaviors, and fairness. When these seven elements are balanced, trust can reinforce working relationships and credibility for conflict resolution and decision-making.

Is trust always positive?

Researchers found an inverse relationship between the amount of trust and stakeholder engagement levels (Prokopy et al., 2015, Smith et al., 2013, cited in Ford et al., 2020). Engagement can drop off when benevolence is high, as stakeholders may perceive researchers as acting in their best interests rather than needing to be involved in the decision-making (Ford et al., 2020). A decline in engagement risks the long-term sustainability of natural resources and limits the development of agency and empowerment of stakeholders. Trust with stakeholders helps to facilitate knowledge sharing and engagement but does not always lead to influencing decisions. For example, Extension agents were reported to be highly trusted, but decisions are more influenced by family, seed dealers, and Certified Crop Advisors (Prokopy et al., 2015). It is essential to check the intentions of project administrators, as trust does not equal influence or power (Eaton et al., 2021; Prokopy et al., 2015). Additionally, stakeholders' perceptions of trust and fairness are created and verified by their observations of actions with other groups and stakeholders. (Ford et at., 2020).

Building Trust with Stakeholders

Existing relationships can act as bridges to stakeholders, showing new connections that the ecosystem professional has a level of trust established (Crane, 2020; Schoonover et al., 2019). Existing relationships help to support stakeholders' socio-cultural values and embedded knowledge when building collaborative relationships (Rubert-Nason et al., 2021).

• Refer to grassroots organizations and other conduits as bridges and points of entry with stakeholders.
• During engagement, act benevolently and positively to ensure that the existing relationship maintains trust with stakeholders.

Relationships take time. Depending on historical interactions and established levels of trust with stakeholders, plan engagement with an understanding that it will take time to establish, develop, and rebuild collaborative relationships with stakeholders (Schoonover et al., 2019). If necessary, adjust the stakeholders’ expectations to account for your working timeframe and the ongoing nature of interactions (Kujala et al., 2022).

• In communities that value personal interaction, consider train-the-trainer approaches.
• Document an exit plan for stakeholder relationships and initiative aims and activities.

Approach each stakeholder with a method appropriate for their unique role, project duration, and scope of engagement (Schoonover et al., 2019). Organizations that take an approach with stakeholders that displays expertise while being values-driven and exhibiting integrity will be viewed more positively and build trust (Ford et al., 2020, p. 10).

• Moral – Ensure all stakeholders' intentions and efforts are aligned in decision-making.
• Pragmatic – Coproduced information, shared power, and stakeholders’ engagement generates decision-making.
• Strategic – Communications, technologies, and activities adopted during stakeholder engagement support positive relationships.

Reputation matters in relationship building. Remember, observations of interactions with other stakeholders verify that trust, fairness, and equity are present, each of which is vital action to enhancing collaboration and developing trust (Ford et al., 2020).

• Integrate reputation along with knowledge creation in your strategic aims.
• Train everyone to represent your organization and project in meaningful ways that exemplify the shared norms and values set with stakeholders.
• Aim for reasonable efforts beyond decision-making and participation; ensure opportunities for interaction are neutral with trusted authorities and that stakeholders are treated with benevolence.

Belonging and insider/outsider status make a difference in developing a trustworthy reputation with stakeholders (Schoonover et al., 2019).

• Local students or guides who understand the values of the area can help with interviews and engagement activities.
• Become familiar with local power structures and barriers.
• Set up a time for critical reflection to check assumptions with stakeholders to create open spaces for collaboration and co-production.

Summary

In summary, communication and engagement create relationships between ecosystem professionals and stakeholders that build resilient communities based on trust and sustainable action-taking of natural resources. Trust is necessary for effective collaborations generating inclusive decision-making and equitable access to information and resources. Assessing the right approach and level of engagement with each stakeholder takes time. Given the nonlinear, iterative engagement process, ecosystem professionals may need to adjust and re-engage goals, activities, and impacts with stakeholders at various project points.

Resources

Crane, B. (2020). Revisiting who, when, and why stakeholders matter: Trust and stakeholder connectedness. Business and Society, 59(2), 263–286.

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

Eaton, W. M., Brasier, K. J., Burbach, M. E., Whitmer, W., Engle, E. W., Burnham, M., Quimby, B., Chaudhary, A. K., Whitley, H., Delozier, J., Fowler, L. B., Wutich, A., Bausch, J. C., Beresford, M., Hinrichs, C. C., Burkhart-Kriesel, C., Preisendanz, H. E., Williams, C., Watson, J., & Weigle, J. (2021). A conceptual framework for social, behavioral, and environmental change through stakeholder engagement in water resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 34(8), 1111–1132.

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.

Mease, L. A., Erickson, A., & Hicks, C. (2018). Engagement takes a (fishing) village to manage a resource: Principles and practice of effective stakeholder engagement. Journal of Environmental Management, 212, 248–257.

Prokopy, L. S., Carlton, J. S., Arbuckle Jr, J. G., Haigh, T., Lemos, M. C., Mase, A. S., Babin, N., Dunn, M., Andresen, J., Angel, J., Hart, C., & Power, R. (2015). Extension′s role in disseminating information about climate change to agricultural stakeholders in the United States. Climatic Change, 130, 261–272.

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.