Analyzing who is relevant to engage in environmental decision-making processes by interests, influence and impact: The 3i framework

M S Reed; E A Jensen; S Noles; D Conneely; H Kendall; M Raley; A Tarrant; N Oakley; C Hinson; V Hoare; K Marshall; L Pugliese

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123437

Analyzing who is relevant to engage in environmental decision-making processes by interests, influence and impact: The 3i framework

J Environ Manage. 2024 Dec 5:373:123437. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123437. Online ahead of print.

Authors

M S Reed¹, E A Jensen², S Noles², D Conneely³, H Kendall⁴, M Raley⁵, A Tarrant⁶, N Oakley⁷, C Hinson⁸, V Hoare⁸, K Marshall⁹, L Pugliese¹⁰

Affiliations

¹ Thriving Natural Capital Challenge Centre, Department of Rural Economy, Environment and Society, Scotland's Rural College, West Mains Road, Kings Buildings, Peter Wilson Building, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK. Electronic address: [email protected].
² Thriving Natural Capital Challenge Centre, Department of Rural Economy, Environment and Society, Scotland's Rural College, West Mains Road, Kings Buildings, Peter Wilson Building, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK; Institute for Methods Innovation, 77 Lower Camden Street, Dublin, D02 XE80, Ireland.
³ Thriving Natural Capital Challenge Centre, Department of Rural Economy, Environment and Society, Scotland's Rural College, West Mains Road, Kings Buildings, Peter Wilson Building, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK.
⁴ Centre for Rural Economy, School of Natural and Environmental Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon-Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK; Natural England, Area 5A, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3JR, UK.
⁵ Centre for Rural Economy, School of Natural and Environmental Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon-Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK.
⁶ School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, UK.
⁷ Thriving Natural Capital Challenge Centre, Department of Rural Economy, Environment and Society, Scotland's Rural College, West Mains Road, Kings Buildings, Peter Wilson Building, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK; Natural England, Area 5A, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3JR, UK.
⁸ Centre for Environmental Policy, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Imperial College London, UK.
⁹ Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Department, The James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB15 8QH, UK.
¹⁰ Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, Tjele, 8830, Denmark.

PMID: 39642833
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123437

Abstract

Outcomes in participatory environmental processes are strongly affected by choices about who is engaged. Inclusive engagement diversifies the range of interests and perspectives represented, including those from vulnerable and marginalized groups, ultimately contributing to more socially and environmentally sustainable and equitable outcomes. However, existing "stakeholder analysis" methods often bias participant identification away from disenfranchised groups with limited pre-existing interest or influence, instead favoring the most easily accessed and influential stakeholders. This paper draws on research impact theory and practice to propose a new, more inclusive approach, adding impact to the existing interest and influence criteria (which each begin with the letter "i", hence the 3i framework) that are typically used to identify, categorize and prioritize those who are relevant to be included or excluded from engagement processes. As part of this proposed 3i analysis approach, we articulate a new typology of relevant parties to engage in environmental decision-making processes, including: uninterested; uninterested and impacted; uninterested influencers; disinterested, influential and impacted; only interested; interested and impacted; interested influencers; and interested, influential and impacted. Except for the first group, all types of relevant parties should be considered for engagement wherever possible, with participation strategies tailored to their specific 3i profile. The approach was developed and refined through a series of workshops before developing it into a survey instrument that was piloted to gather 3i data efficiently across several national contexts. Survey findings are presented for a case study identifying those relevant to wetland and peatland restoration in a Scottish catchment. If widely adopted, the 3i framework would be the most consequential change in stakeholder analysis methods since the introduction of interest-influence matrices in the 1980s.

Keywords: Participatory processes; Public participation; Research impact; Stakeholder analysis; Stakeholder engagement; Stakeholder management.