Multi-level Stakeholder Influence Mapping: Visualizing Power Relations Across Actor Levels in Nepal’s Agricultural Climate Change Adaptation Regime

Sova, Chase; Helfgott, Ariella; Chaudhury, Abrar; Matthews, David; Thornton, Thomas F.; Vermeulen, Sonja J.

doi:10.1007/s11213-014-9335-y

Cited by 41 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Stakeholder influence mapping (Sova et al . ) and stakeholder analysis (Reed et al . ) begin to form structure for developing robust stakeholder groups.…”

Section: Tools For Conservation Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The care needed in choosing stakeholders increases with the degree of conflict or divergence in values and objectives among groups that control decisions envisioned by the planning team. Stakeholder influence mapping (Sova et al 2015) and stakeholder analysis (Reed et al 2009) begin to form structure for developing robust stakeholder groups. Identifying threats has been a primary preoccupation of conservation research (Fazey et al 2005).…”

Section: Gaps and Complexities In Planning Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Decision Support Frameworks and Tools for Conservation

Schwartz

Cook

Pressey

et al. 2017

CONSERVATION LETTERS

174

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The practice of conservation occurs within complex socioecological systems fraught with challenges that require transparent, defensible, and often socially engaged project planning and management. Planning and decision support frameworks are designed to help conservation practitioners increase planning rigor, project accountability, stakeholder participation, transparency in decisions, and learning. We describe and contrast five common frameworks within the context of six fundamental questions (why, who, what, where, when, how) at each of three planning stages of adaptive management (project scoping, operational planning, learning). We demonstrate that decision support frameworks provide varied and extensive tools for conservation planning and management. However, using any framework in isolation risks diminishing potential benefits since no one framework covers the full spectrum of potential conservation planning and decision challenges. We describe two case studies that have effectively deployed tools from across conservation frameworks to improve conservation actions and outcomes. Attention to the critical questions for conservation project planning should allow practitioners to operate within any framework and adapt tools to suit their specific management context. We call on conservation researchers and practitioners to regularly use decision support tools as standard practice for framing both practice and research.

show abstract

“…Stakeholder influence mapping (Sova et al . ) and stakeholder analysis (Reed et al . ) begin to form structure for developing robust stakeholder groups.…”

Section: Tools For Conservation Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Gaps and Complexities In Planning Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision Support Frameworks and Tools for Conservation

Schwartz

Cook

Pressey

et al. 2017

CONSERVATION LETTERS

174

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Firstly, improved recognition, understanding and modelling of the policy-making process should be prioritised. This can be achieved through ongoing research into governance structures and mechanisms, including the effects of cross-scale interactions from national to state to regional levels 77,78 , and compilation of a wide range of relevant case studies including by expert elicitation and comparative analyses of political processes 14,73,79 . Meanwhile, the development of agent-based land use models towards representations of political decision-making can contribute by generating empirically-based projections that inform policydevelopment, replacing misleading assumptions 80,81 .…”

Section: Ensuring Achievabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Achievement of Paris climate goals unlikely due to time lags in the land system

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Achieving the Paris Agreement's aim of limiting average global temperature increases to 1.5⁰C requires substantial changes in the land system. However, individual countries' plans to accomplish these changes remain vague, almost certainly insufficient and unlikely to be implemented in full. These shortcomings are partially the result of avoidable 'blind spots' relating to time lags inherent in the implementation of landbased mitigation strategies. Key blind spots include inconsistencies between different land system policies, spatial and temporal lags in land system change, and detrimental consequences of some mitigation options. We suggest that improved recognition of these processes is necessary to identify achievable mitigation actions, avoiding excessively optimistic assumptions and consequent policy failures.

show abstract

“…Typologies included those developed on the basis of both empirically observed adaptation responses (Biagini et al, 2014) and conceptual frameworks for identifying types of adaptation options in planning exercises [for example, the resilience framework (Nelson et al, 2007) and the Exposure-Sensitivity-Adaptive Capacity assessment framework (IPCC,, 2007)]. Commonly used characteristics include the domain of adaptation activity (Biagini et al, 2014); the goal of adaptation; the degree of intent and planning (Fankhauser et al, 1999;Adger et al, 2005;Grüneis et al, 2016); the type of agent and level of agency (Tompkins and Eakin, 2012;Sova et al, 2014;Bradley and Steele, 2015;Pecl et al, 2019); the degree of system change the adaptation would produce (Stafford Smith et al, 2011;Mushtaq, 2018); and the extent of path dependency between adaptation responses (Haasnoot et al, 2013;Wise et al, 2014; see Supplementary Table S2).…”

Section: Characterization Of Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responding to Climate Change: Participatory Evaluation of Adaptation Options for Key Marine Fisheries in Australia’s South East

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Planned adaptation to climate impacts and subsequent vulnerabilities will necessarily interact with autonomous responses enabled within existing fisheries management processes and initiated by the harvest and post-harvest components of fishing industries. Optimal adaptation options are those which enable negative effects to be mitigated and opportunities that arise to be maximized, both in relation to specific climate-driven changes and the broader fisheries system. We developed a two-step participatory approach to evaluating adaption options for key fisheries in the fastwarming hotspot of south-eastern Australia. Four fisheries (southern rock lobster, abalone, snapper, and blue grenadier) were selected as case studies on the basis of their high to moderate vulnerability to climatic effects on species distribution and abundance. Involved stakeholders undertook a "first pass" screening assessment of options, by characterizing and then evaluating options. In the characterization step potential adaptation options for each fishery, contextualized by prior knowledge of each species' climate change exposure and sensitivity, were described using a characterization matrix. This matrix included: the specific climate vulnerability/challenges, the implications of each option on the fishery system as a whole, the temporal and spatial scales of implementation processes, and realized benefits and costs. In the evaluation step, semi-quantitative evaluation of options was undertaken by stakeholders scoring the anticipated performance of an option against a pre-determined set of criteria relating to perceived feasibility, risk (inclusive of potential costs), and benefit. Reduction of the total annual commercial catch as well as reductions in both effort and catch through spatial and temporal closures were the options scored as having the highest level of expected benefit and of feasibility and the lowest level of risk of negative outcomes overall. Our screening assessment represents a pragmatic approach to evaluate and compare support for and the effects of alternative adaptation options prior to committing to more detailed formal and resource intensive evaluation or implementation.

show abstract

Multi-level Stakeholder Influence Mapping: Visualizing Power Relations Across Actor Levels in Nepal’s Agricultural Climate Change Adaptation Regime

Cited by 41 publications

References 29 publications

Decision Support Frameworks and Tools for Conservation

Decision Support Frameworks and Tools for Conservation

Achievement of Paris climate goals unlikely due to time lags in the land system

Responding to Climate Change: Participatory Evaluation of Adaptation Options for Key Marine Fisheries in Australia’s South East

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About