Creating Space for Ecosystem Stakeholder Engagement (Part 1)

Introduction to Stakeholder Engagement

Creating a trusted relationship with stakeholders is critical, and a planned engagement approach can help ecosystem professionals collaborate with stakeholders to impact natural resources positively.  This three-part Extension series is based upon Schoonover and colleagues’ (2019) framework for stakeholder engagement in ecosystem services and ties in stakeholder engagement aims, activities, and impacts from Kujala and colleagues (2022) to guide efforts and help to integrate stakeholder engagement. Our second article helps align stakeholders’ motivation and effective use of natural resources through understanding values, achieving goals, framing communications, and setting project impacts. Our third article discusses trust as an important aspect of stakeholder engagement and how to build trusted relationships critical to successful projects.

In 2019, the United Nations called increased inclusivity in engagement processes an important step in climate action efforts and reaching global Sustainable Development Goals (UNDESA, 2019). Natural resources management and environmental systems require agencies, researchers, practitioners, and other groups called stakeholders to work to meet internal and external goals. Engaging stakeholders brings their unique perspectives and networks; leveraging resources, increasing a project’s capacity, and ensuring the sustainability of the environmental project (Wells et al., 2021). 

Stakeholder engagement comprises the "aims, activities, and impacts of stakeholder relations in a moral, strategic, and/or pragmatic manner" (Kujala et al., 2022, p. 1160). These activities differ from community engagement in that they acknowledge that professionals will interact with multiple groups in a community with competing goals and desires (Wells et al., 2021). Incorporating ecosystem stakeholder engagement in natural resource management, ecosystem professionals create opportunities to connect various persons, points of view, and academic fields in ways that encourage connections and conversations that may not otherwise exist or might be problematic in another context (Wells et al., 2021).

Stakeholder engagement is not always full of positive moments and impacts. Sometimes stakeholder engagement presents certain “dark sides” and local community challenges that ecosystem professionals can mitigate with their engagement plan (Kujala et al., 2022, p. 1163). Examples include conflict from distrust in an agency, groups excluded from engagement, and unintended negative impacts from engagement efforts and the project’s activities (Kujala et al., 2022).

Integrating Stakeholder Engagement

Kujala et al. (2022) indicates that integrating stakeholder engagement must be intentional because it allows organizational leaders to ensure moral, pragmatic, and strategic approaches. The authors suggested outlining the purpose and goals, activities (actions and structures) and impacts while remembering that engagement is not linear but iterative and deeply context-dependent (Kujala et al., 2022, p. 1156).

Creating a trusted space for stakeholder engagement

Creating a trusted space for knowledge co-production includes planning for the people, places, and knowledge involved in caring for and managing ecosystems or natural resources (Schoonover et al., 2019). It is important to consider the who, when, and where of stakeholder engagement to be intentional in addressing power structures and imbalances governing the project and aiding in success (Crane, 2020). Additionally, Eaton et al. (2021) suggested that ecosystem professionals consider the mode of interaction between parties, such as one-way interactions (consultation), two-way collaborations (deliberation), agency-led or community-led structures, and epistemologies ( p. 1113).

Define spaces for learning where stakeholders and ecosystem professionals can collaborate, exchange knowledge, develop understandings, and engage in problem-solving (Mussehl et al., 2022). These spaces for social learning can be structured or emerge organically depending on the project and stakeholders involved but should include a physical space and welcoming atmosphere for sharing (Schoonover et al., 2019; Wells et al., 2021).

• Identify stakeholders involved in the management and production of natural resources.
• Intentionally invite marginalized groups and oppositional groups to send representation.
• Identify spaces and meeting locations such as advisory boards or town halls to support creative problem-solving.
• Consider to what extent the project will bring together stakeholders who do not normally interact.

Identify conduits for dissemination, brokering, and exchanging. Working with stakeholders in knowledge exchanges bridges local epistemologies and integrates interdisciplinary approaches (Eaton et al., 2021). Extension educators and specialists are key resources as information disseminators and knowledge brokers. For example, organizations and industry partners working with Extension agents become conduits for discussing ecosystem and natural resource management practices and climate change information (Prokopy et al., 2015).

• Appoint or partner with individuals and organizations that can serve as facilitators between certain stakeholders.
• Outline responsibilities and recognition for knowledge co-production and exchange.
• Set up resources and communication channels, including anticipated timelines for key information discussions.

Critically reflect on institutions and frameworks that direct the ecosystem and engagement approaches. This includes questioning what is known regarding power imbalances, cultural-relevant practices, the inclusion of marginalized populations, and knowledge systems (Eaton et al., 2021; Mussehl et al., 2022; Rubert-Nason et al., 2021). This is achieved by defining the time and extent to which criticality can be exercised (Schoonover et al., 2019). Critical reflection also allows stakeholders to express alternative ideas for questions to be reflected upon and to adjust aims or goals if needed (Rubert-Nason et al., 2021).

• Arrange time and limits for critical discussion and addressing systemic or institutional barriers that play a part in the project.
• Include stakeholders in discussions and invite their thoughts to be shared (openly or anonymously) on these matters.
• Acknowledge that not all systems or stakeholders’ aims can be addressed in the project and plan to include or incorporate these in the future.

Summary

Stakeholder engagement includes the aims, activities, and impacts of intentional efforts to engage stakeholders (Kujala et al., 2022). When planning to incorporate stakeholder engagement into a natural resource or ecosystem management project, consider creating space (physical and emotional) that incorporates the people, places, and knowledge in the area (Schoonover et al., 2019). This is achieved through defining learning spaces, identifying conduits to share and facilitate knowledge coproduction, and critically reflecting on frameworks and institutions governing the resource and how stakeholders view engagement efforts and their impacts (Eaton et al., 2021; Rubert-Nason et al., 2021; Schoonover et al., 2019). Once the space is made, begin the work on aligning motivations and building trust with stakeholders to help achieve a sustainable natural resource project.

Resources

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

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.

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

Mussehl, M. L., Horne, A. C., Webb, J. A., & Poff, N. L. R. (2022). Purposeful stakeholder engagement for improved environmental flow outcomes. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9.

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).

UNDESA. (2019). Increased community-based engagement seen as critical to build climate action and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

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.