Stakeholder analysis in the biomass energy development based on the experts’ opinions: the example of Triglav National Park in Slovenia

Open access

Abstract

The paper presents a method for identifying and classifying local stakeholders involved in renewable energy development. The method is based on the expert assessment and comprises three main steps: (1) identification of the independent experts considering their expertise and knowledge of the local context; (2) identification of the local stakeholders based on expert assessment; and (3) analytical categorisation of stakeholders taking into account the professional relationship network. Using forest biomass (bioenergy) production as example, the stakeholder analysis is illustrated on the case study of Triglav National Park, which is characterised by a high potential of woody biomass production and a large number of stakeholders involved in land use and management. The first stage of stakeholder analysis identifies the key stakeholders to be involved in bioenergy development, through a survey with local experts. The results highlight eight key stakeholders and several primary and secondary stakeholders that should be involved to ensure socially acceptable decision-making about the renewable energy development in the Triglav National Park.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Bavelas A. 1950. Communication patterns in task oriented groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 22 271–282.

  • Beurskens L.W.M. Hekkenberg M Vethman P. 2011. Renewable energy projections as published in the national renewable energy action plans of the European Member states. ECN and EEA.

  • Blennow K. Persson E. Lindner M. Pacheco Faias S. Hanewinkel M. 2014. Forest owner motivations and attitudes towards supplying biomass for energy in Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy 67 223–230.

  • Bodin Ö. Crona B.I. 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change 19 366–374.

  • Borgatti S.P. Everett M.G. Freeman L.C. 2002. UCINET for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.

  • Bourgoin J. 2012. Sharpening the understanding of socio-ecological landscapes in participatory land-use planning. A case study in Lao PDR. Applied Geography 34 99–110.

  • Brass D.J. 1984. Being in the right place: a structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly 29 518–539.

  • Cantiani M.G. 2012. Forest planning and public participation: a possible methodological approach. iForest 5 72–82.

  • Carnol M. Baeten L. Branquart E. Gregoire J.-C. Heughebaert A. Muys B. Ponette Q. Verheyen K. 2014. Ecosystem services of mixed species forest stands and monocultures: comparing practitioners’ and scientists’ perceptions with formal scientific knowledge. Forestry 87 (5) 639–653.

  • Čiegis R. Gineitiene D. 2008. Participatory aspects of strategic sustainable development planning in local communities: experience of Lithuania. Ukio Technologinis ir Ekonominis Vystymas 14 (2) 107–117.

  • Craig G. 2007. Community capacity-building: something old something new? Critical Social Policy 27 335–359.

  • Driscoll C. Starik M. 2004. The primordial stake-holder: advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics 49 55–73.

  • Dwivedi P. Alavalapati J.R.R. 2009. Stakeholders’ perceptions on forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US. Energy Policy 37 1999–2007.

  • Evan W.M. Freeman R.E. 1988. A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In: Ethical Theory and Business (eds.: T. Beauchamp N. Bowie) Englewood Cliffs Prentice Hall.

  • Everett M. Borgatti S.P. 2005. Ego network betweenness. Social networks 27 31–38.

  • Ernstson H. Sörlin S. Elmqvist T. 2008. Social movements and ecosystem services – the role of social network structure in protecting and managing urban green areas in Stockholm. Ecology and Society 13 (2) 39.

  • Etzioni A. 1964. Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs Prentice Hall.

  • Freeman L.C. 1979. Centrality in social networks: I. Conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1 215–239.

  • Granovetter M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 6 1360–1380.

  • Gregory R. Wellman R. 2001. Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study. Ecological Economics 39 (1) 37–52.

  • Grimble R. Chan M.K. 1995. Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in developing countries. Natural Resources Forum 19 (2) 113–124.

  • Grimble R. Wellard K. 1997. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles contexts experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems 55 (2) 173–193.

  • Hahn T. Olsson P. Folke C. Johansson K. 2006. Trust-building knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad Sweden. Human Ecology 34 573–592.

  • Hamersley Chambers F. Beckley T. 2003. Public involvement in sustainable boreal forest management. In: Towards sustainable management of the boreal forest (ed.: P.J. Burton) National Research Council of Canada NRC Research Press Ottawa 113–154.

  • Higgs G. Berry R. Kidner D. Langford M. 2008. Using IT approaches to promote public participation in renewable energy planning: Prospects and challenges. Land Use Policy 25 (4) 596–607.

  • Kangas A. Laukkanen S. J. Kangas J. 2006. Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management – a review. Forest Policy and Economics 9 77–92.

  • Keltner D. Gruenfeld D.H. Anderson C. 2003. Power approach and inhibition. Psychological Review 110 265–284.

  • Korhonen K. Hujala T. Kurttila M. 2013. Diffusion of voluntary protection among family forest owners: decision process and success factors. Forest Policy and Economics 26 82–90.

  • Krackhardt D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape: structure cognition and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 342–369.

  • Kraxner F. Yang J. Yamagata Y. 2009. Attitudes towards forest biomass and certification – a case study approach to integrate public opinion in Japan. Bioresource Technology 100 4058–4061.

  • Leavitt H.J. 1951. Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46 38–50.

  • Lisec A. Drobne S. 2009. The influence of protected natural and cultural heritage on land management/market: the case of Slovenian natural protected areas. Spatium 20 41–48.

  • Lupo Stanghellini P.S. 2010. Stakeholder involvement in water management: the role of the stakeholder analysis within participatory processes. Water Policy 12 675–694.

  • Marsden P.V. 2002. Egocentric and sociocentric measures of network centrality. Social Networks 24 407–422.

  • Miron D. Preda M. 2009. Stakeholder Analysis of the Romanian Energy Sector. Review of International Comparative Management 10 (5) 877–892.

  • Mitchell R. Agle B. Wood D. 1997. Towards a theory of stakeholder identification: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22 (4) 853–886.

  • Mizruchi M.S. Potts B.P. 1998. Centrality and power revisited: actor success in group decision making. Social Networks 20 353–387.

  • Newman M.E.J. 2005. A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Social Networks 27 39–54.

  • Neal J.W. 2009. Network ties and mean lies: A relational approach to relational aggression. Journal of community psychology 37 (6) 737–753.

  • Nichiforel R. 2011. Stakeholder analysis of the Romanian forest sector. The USV Annals of Economics and Public Administration 11 (1) 114–125.

  • ODA. 1995. Guidance note on how to do stakeholder analysis of aid projects and programmes. Overseas Development Administration London UK.

  • Paletto A. Ferretti F. De Meo I. 2012. The Role of Social Networks in Forest Landscape Planning. Forest Policy and Economics 15 132–139.

  • Paletto A. Balest J. De Meo I. Giacovelli G. Grilli G. 2014a. Perceived influence and real power of stake-holders in forest management: a case study in Italy. In: Proceedings “Adaptation in forest management under changing framework conditions” 19th-23th May 2014 (eds.: E. Schiberna M. Stark) Foundation for Sustainable Forest Management Sopron 163–175.

  • Paletto A. Giacovelli G. Grilli G. Balest J. De Meo I. 2014b. Stakeholders’ preferences and the assessment of forest ecosystem services: a comparative analysis in Italy. Journal of Forest Science 60 472–483.

  • Paletto A. Hamunen K. De Meo I. 2015. The social network analysis to support the stakeholder analysis in participatory forest planning. Society and Natural Resources 28 (1) 1108–1125.

  • Pirlogea C. Cicea C. 2012. Econometric perspective of the energy consumption and economic growth relation in European Union. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (8) 5718–5726.

  • Prell C. Hubacek K. Reed M. 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 22 501–518.

  • Pristov J. Pristov N. Zupančič B. 1998. Klima v Triglavskem narodnem parku. Razprave in raziskave 8 Triglavski narodni park Bled.

  • Proscovia Mutekanga F. Kessler A. Leber K. Visser S. 2013. The use of stakeholder analysis in integrated watershed management. Mountain Research and Development 33 (2) 122–131.

  • Reed M.S. Graves A. Dandy N. Posthumus H. Hubacek K. Morris J. Prell C. Quinn C.H. Stringer L.C. 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90 1933–1949.

  • Rinaldi F. Jonsson R. Sallnäs O. Trubins R. 2015. Behavioral modelling in a Decision Support System. Forests 6 311–327.

  • SFS. 2012. National forest inventory data. Ljubljana Slovenian Forest Service.

  • Simpson J.A. Farrell A.K. Oriña M.M. Rothman A.J. 2014. Power and social influence in relationships. In: APA handbook of personality and social psychology (eds.: M. Mikulincer P.R. Shaver) American Psychological Association Washington 393–420.

  • Stubelj Ars M. 2013. Evaluation of hikers’ pro-environmental behavior in Triglav National Park Slovenia. eco.mont – Journal on Protected Mountain Areas Research and Management 5 (1) 35–42.

  • Svadlenak-Gomez K. Badura M. Kraxner F. Fuss S. Vettorato D. Walzer C. 2014. Valuing Alpine ecosystems: the recharge.green project will help decision-makers to reconcile renewable energy production and biodiversity conservation in the Alps. eco.mont – Journal on Protected Mountain Areas Research and Management 5 (1) 59–62.

  • Turner J.C. 2005. Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology 35 (1) 1–22.

  • Walz A. Lardelli C. Behrendt H. Grêt-Regamey A. Lundström C. Kytzia S. Bebi P. 2007. Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling. Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (1/2) 114–131.

  • Wasserman S. Faust K. 1994. Social network analysis. Cambridge University Press Cambridge.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.67

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.312
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.569

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 576 321 7
PDF Downloads 243 147 4