			Home About us Contact

Stakeholder Interaction (stakeholder + interaction)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Humanities and Social Sciences	50%

Selected Abstracts

Explaining Institutional Change in Tough Cases of Collaboration: "Ideas" in the Blackfoot Watershed

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, Issue 2 2009
Edward P. Weber
Current theories of community-based collaborative governance arrangements rely on the presence (or absence) of certain antecedent community conditions as well as incentives for institutional change deriving from the sociopolitical and economic environment. The combination of antecedent conditions and incentives is helpful in understanding why collaboratives emerge and succeed in "easy" cases (strong incentives, conducive antecedent conditions). Yet the combination is of little help in understanding the institutional change puzzle for collaboratives in "tough" cases (strong incentives, poor antecedent conditions). Examination of a "tough" case in the Blackfoot watershed (Montana), which eventually blossomed into a successful collaborative, shows the importance of a particular set of new ideas, or shared norms, around which participants coalesced. These new ideas for understanding public problems, the community itself, and the relationships among stakeholders, became a broad conceptual framework for guiding stakeholder interaction as they attempted to manage the many public problems facing the watershed. [source]

Cooperation at different scales: challenges for local and international water resource governance in South Africa

THE GEOGRAPHICAL JOURNAL, Issue 1 2010
N MIRUMACHI
Theory on environmental governance and water governance emphasises decentralised, devolved forms of interaction between stakeholders. As previously excluded actors are empowered to take part in governance, new forms of cooperation are created. This paper examines how the cooperative principle has influenced stakeholder interaction at the local and international scales of water governance in South Africa. Water policies and initiatives have been set up to promote multi-level governance that emphasises cooperation between various stakeholders. The emphasis on cooperation and inclusiveness is particularly pertinent to the South African context because of its apartheid past. The paper asks whether there have been new forms of cooperation between a wider array of actors, as the theory proposes. By using the case studies of the Sabie catchment and the Lesotho Highlands Water Project to examine local and international level governance, the paper finds challenges related to power disparity and interdependence of actors, and risk perceptions of inclusive decision-making. It is found that at both the local and international level, the state, which is a ,traditional' actor, still plays an influential role in decision-making. ,New' actors such as businesses, civil society, and regional institutions are more visible but have limited decision-making power. Non-linear, time-consuming forms of cooperation occur in water governance. [source]

Using framing parameters to improve handling of uncertainties in water management practice

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND GOVERNANCE, Issue 2 2010
Nicola Isendahl
Abstract Management of water resources is afflicted with uncertainties. Nowadays it is facing more and new uncertainties since the pace and dimension of changes (e.g. climatic, demographic) are accelerating and are likely to increase even more in the future. Hence it is crucial to find pragmatic ways to deal with these uncertainties in water management. We argue for an analytical yet pragmatic approach to enable decision-makers to deal with uncertainties in a more explicit and systematic way and allow for better informed decisions. Our approach is based on the concept of framing, referring to the different ways in which people make sense of the world and of the uncertainties. We apply recently developed parameters of the framing of uncertainty in two sub-basins of the Rhine, the Dutch Kromme Rijn and the German Wupper. We present and discuss the results of a series of stakeholder interactions in the two basins aimed at developing strategies for improving dealing with uncertainties. The strategies are amended and synthesized in a check-list based on the uncertainty framing parameters as a hands-on tool for systematically identifying improvement options when dealing with uncertainty in water management practice. We conclude with suggestions for testing the developed check-list as a tool for decision aid in water management practice. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. [source]

Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: Knowledge transfer for policy and practice

THE JOURNAL OF CONTINUING EDUCATION IN THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, Issue 2 2008
Kiera Keown MSc
Abstract Knowledge transfer and exchange is the process of increasing the awareness and use of research evidence in policy or practice decision making by nonresearch audiences or stakeholders. One way to accomplish this end is through ongoing interaction between researchers and interested nonresearch audiences, which provides an opportunity for the two groups to learn more about one another. The purpose of this article is to describe and discuss various stakeholder engagement opportunities that we employ throughout the stages of conducting a systematic review, to increase knowledge utilization within these audiences. Systematic reviews of the literature on a particular topic can provide an unbiased overview of the state of the literature. The engagement opportunities we have identified are topic consultation, feedback meetings during the review, member of review team, and involvement in dissemination. The potential benefits of including stakeholders in the process of a systematic review include increased relevance, clarity, and awareness of systematic review findings. A further benefit is the potential for increased dissemination of the findings. Challenges that researchers face are that stakeholder interactions can be time- and resource-intensive, it can be difficult balancing stakeholder desires with scientific rigor, and stakeholders may have difficulties accepting findings with which they do not agree. Despite these challenges we have included stakeholder involvement as a permanent step in the procedure of conducting a systematic review. [source]