stakeholders analysis and social network analysis · 2016-03-29 · and wellard 1997). stakeholder...
TRANSCRIPT
1
STAKEHOLDERS ANALYSIS AND SOCIAL
NETWORK ANALYSIS
Alessandro Paletto, Isabella De Meo
July 2014
2
INDEX
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Public participation in renewable energy planning .................................................................. 3
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Research methodology ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Stakeholders analysis .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Social network analysis ...................................................................................................................... 12
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 15
3.1 Mis and Maè valleys (Italy) ............................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Maritimes Alps National Park (Italy) ........................................................................................... 24
3.3 Triglav National Park (Slovenia) ..................................................................................................... 24
3.4 Leiblachtal (Austria) ............................................................................................................................ 33
4. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 37
5. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 38
3
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Public participation in renewable energy planning
Nowadays the relevance of public participation in land management and development (e.g.
renewable energy planning) is recognized widely, both at the political and technical level and
by the scientific community (Atmiş et al. 2007, Bourgoin 2012).
From the political point of view the relevance of public involvement in the decision making
process linked to the environmental management has gathered importance after the UN
Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972, and by the UN General
Assembly through the adoption of the World Charter for Nature in 1982 (Appelstrand 2002).
Subsequently, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) of 1992 and the
Åarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in
Environmental Matters in 1998 have entered the public participation at the heart of
environmental policy. Specifically, Åarhus Convention makes a potentially powerful statement
on the importance of public involvement in a wide range of decisions considering three stage
of public participation in decision-making process (Hartley and Wood 1995): decisions on
specific activities, plans, programmes and policies relating to the environment, and the
preparation of executive regulations and/or generally applicable legally binding normative
instruments. Since ‘90 years and increasing in the time, participatory planning was seen as a
way to increase social sustainability, to reduce the conflicts among users, and as an important
tool to support sustainable management (Kangas et al. 2006, Miron and Preda, 2009).
In general terms, the main objective of public participation are to provide relevant
environmental information for decision making and to create a public awareness and political
pressure that stimulate decision makers in governments to act (Primmer and Kyllönen 2006).
In the ambit of renewable energy planning, public participation can improve local
communities acceptance and reduce local hostility to renewable energy proposals. Infact,
despite public support for renewable energy in general, at local level there is frequently
community’s opposition to renewable energy systems – e.g. wind, solar or hydropower plants
(Higgs et al. 2008). This occurs for various reasons, that go from environmental impact to
social and economic one in reason of the fact that many governments are now adopting
ambitious targets for increasing the deployment of renewable energy, public engagement
with renewables is urgently required (Devine-Wright 2013). It appears clear that the
renewable energy technology development must take into consideration an ample range of
information related to different ambits and that involving the local populations in the decision
making process is a concrete way to reduce controversy and local conflict. According to
Dwivedi and Alavalapati (2009) and Gregory and Wellman (2001) incorporating perceptions
and preferences of such stakeholder groups is essential for ensuring successful formulation
and implementation of bioenergy policy.
New knowledge, new competences and skills are so required to decison makers, technicians
and planners.
4
Participatory planning is a multi-objective planning procedure that incorporates private
individuals’ and/or interest groups’ opinions and objectives concerning resources
management into the planning process (Kangas et al. 2001). To achieve these crucial
objectives the participatory process must be inclusive with respect to interests, voluntary, fair
and transparent to all participants, based on participants acting in good faith and
complementary to legal requirements (Buchy and Hoverman 2000).
A definition of participation was elaborated by the joint committee of the Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO), the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)
and the International Labour Organization (ILO): “Public participation is a voluntary process
whereby people, individually or through organized groups, can exchange information, express
opinions and articulate interests, and have the potential to influence decisions or the outcome
of the matter in hand” (FAO-ECE-ILO 2000, p. 9). This definition highlights that public
participation can enhance mutual understanding and consensus among the social actors and
encourage their accountability and commitment in the decision process by increasing their
potential to influence decision making (Mustajoki et al. 2004). Furthermore, the specific
objectives of participation may be different according to the historical period and to the
geographical and socio-economic context.
A main issues in participatory processes are the power, legitimacy, urgency, proximity of the
different stakeholders or interest groups (Slocum et al. 1995, Michell et al. 1997, Driscoll and
Starik 2004).
Power is defined as the past and present influence of a stakeholder in the decision and
implementation of either a program or a plan and may vary depending on stakeholders’
economic, political, or cultural relevance in a network. In other hands, power can be defined
the potential to influence and is a basic force in social relationships (Keltner et al. 2003),
influence can be considered the exercise of power (Turner 2005). The exercise of power
implies that a stakeholder has power to the extent that it can use coercive, utilitarian or
normative powers to impose its will in the relationship (Etzioni, 1964). Delegation of power is
a complex concept and it is strictly connected to the level of involvement wished for the public
participation process.
Legitimacy includes contractual relationship based on legal, moral or ownership rights, or
relationship based on the exchange of one or more critical resources (Evan and Freeman,
1988). Mitchell et al. (1997) consider legitimacy and power two important independent
variables, but from the practical points of view concerning the involvement of stakeholders in
decision-making process in many cases regarded as legitimate stakeholders which ones who
have power (Driscoll and Starik, 2004).
Urgency can be defined as the stakeholder’s claim for immediate attention based on the ideas
of time sensitivity or importance of the issue such as risks to human health associated with
critical and chronic long-term environmental problems.
Proximity indicates both the spatial proximity of stakeholders to the resource and the
stakeholders’ dependence for their livelihoods from resource. Besides, spatial nearness is an
important factor in the stakeholder recognition and interaction.
The four above mentioned attributes of the stakeholders can be used to classify the
stakeholders and to decide their level of involvement in the decision making process. At this
regard there has been much debate and different classifications, starting with the often
quoted Arnstein’s model (1969). This first classification of the public’s influence in
5
participatory process considered eight rungs on a ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein
1969): non participatory (manipulation and therapy), degree of citizen influence
(information, consultation and conciliation) and degree of citizen power (partnership,
delegated power and citizen control). Different levels of involvement are also foreseen by
other authors (IAP 2007, Pimbert and Pretty 1997, Tabbush 2004), who have considered the
issue from various perspectives. Public participation efforts can range from mere tokenism to
collaborative partnerships (Chess, 2000), it can be considered seven level of participation
(Pimbert and Pretty, 1997):
• Passive participation: participation is passive when people are merely told the plan
that was decided a priori by the decision makers without any input or contributions
from the people;
• Participation in information giving: participation in information giving when people
are being made to respond to a set of questionnaire with little influence on the
proceedings by the target group;
• Participation by consultation: people participating by being consulted and the decision
makers consider their knowledge and interests in the forest planning;
• Participation for material incentives: people participating by providing resources or
supporting decision makers in return for forest goods or other material incentives;
• Functional participation: participation by the people is an answer to predetermined
objectives made by decision makers;
• Interactive participation: people participating in joint analysis, which leads to action
plans and the formation of new local groups or the strengthening of existing ones;
• Self-mobilization: people participating by taking initiatives independent of external
institutions to change systems.
An interesting Spectrum of Public Participation has been developed by the International
Association for Public Participation (IAP2), to illustrate the possible types of involvement of
stakeholders (IAP2 use the term ‘public’ to refer to what we have called ‘stakeholders’). The
spectrum shows the increasing level of stakeholders’ power as you progress from ‘inform’
through to ‘empower’. (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Classification of different levels of public participation (source: IAP2)
6
Ultimately the different levels of delegation of power can be summarized into two categories,
corresponding to two different attitudes on the part of who is responsible for the
participation process: (1) giving the citizens the opportunity to influence the process (by
means of information, communication, consultation), (2) providing citizens with a real power
in the decision making process (partnership, joint set up of action plans, self-mobilization).
At the light of these premises it is evident that, in any case, public participation in renewable
energy planning is a complex process, because several social actors are involved and often
they have conflicting interests and different expectations (Webler et al., 2001). Therefore are
needed clear and objective steps to identify, characterize and classify the stakeholders in
order to determine the extent of their involvement in the decision-making process (Grimble
and Wellard 1997). Stakeholder analysis - in which different stakeholders, who are relevant
when planning the use of renewable energy, are recognized - is a fundamental stage of the
participation process.
Another valuable tool in the context of renewable energy planning is the social network
analysis (SNA). SNA is a formal theory to define and analyze the relationships that individuals
or organizations, have with each other (Wasserman and Faust 1994). The main goal of this
type of analysis is in increasing collective actions and thereby the success in managing natural
resource (Prell et al., 2009), particularly when decision makers have to face with different
social needs.
In the present report we describe the first steps of the participatory process developed in the
five Alpine pilot regions involved in the Recharge.green Project (Alpine Space Programme). A
sample of environment and forestry experts was identified in the pilot regions and through a
questionnaire they developed both the stakeholders analysis and the SNA.
7
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Research methodology
The method of stakeholder analysis used in the Recharge.green project was structured in
three steps: (1) identification of the super partes environment and forestry experts on the
basis of their expertise and knowledge of the local context; (2) identification of the local
stakeholders realized through the environment and forestry experts’ opinions; (3) analytical
categorization (classification) of the stakeholders identified by experts in the professional
relationship network.
In the first step, a sample of environment and forestry experts was selected by
representatives of public administrations (e.g. Academia, local authority, protected area
management body) in the pilot regions involved in the Recharge.green project: Mis valley,
Maè valley, Maritimes Alps National Park (Italy), Triglav National Park (Slovenia), and
Leiblachtal in Vorarlberg (Austria). The environment and forestry experts were identified
taking into account the three criteria: (i) balancing of expertise between two main fields
(renewable energies and ecosystem services), (ii) expertise and knowledge of local context,
(iii) no direct stake in the Recharge.green project.
The experts’ identification and categorization of stakeholders and the social network analysis
were conducted through a questionnaire survey. The questionnaire was finalized at the same
time at investigating experts’ perception of the negative and positive impacts of renewable
energies development in Alpine region.
The semi-structured questionnaire - subdivided in 6 thematic sections and composed by 20
questions (19 close-end question and 1 open-end question) - was administered through face-
to-face interviews to the 34 experts (Table 1) previously identified.
Table 1. Experts subdivided per field of experiences Country Pilot region Number of experts
Austria Leiblachtal (Vorarlberg Region) 10
Italy Mis valley (Veneto Region) Maè valley (Veneto Region) Maritimes Alps National Park (Piedmont Region)
11
Slovenia Triglav National Park 13
Total 34
Section 1 of the questionnaire deals with the sociodemographic information of the experts
(date of birth, gender, municipality of residence, occupation, level of education, past
professional expertise, etc..). Sections 2 and 3 focus on experts’ knowledge and opinions
concerning renewable energies development in the pilot region. Sections 4, 5 and 6
investigate experts’ perceptions of the negative and positive impacts of renewable energies
development in Alpine Region. Two main categories of impacts are considered: (1) ecological
impacts on ecosystem goods and services, (2) socio-economic impacts on local development.
Section 7 is focused on stahkeholders analysis and SNA, investigated through specific
8
questions (Fig. 2 and 3). The subdivision of the questionnaire into thematic sections allows for
the separate analysis of each section. To keep the questionnaire simple and support the
experts in their answers, the questions were closed. Furthermore, close-ended questions are
more easily analysed, and a statistical interpretation can be assessed. In some cases, a limit
could be that close-ended questions may not offer the respondents choices that actually
reflect their real opinions.
The question concerning stakeholders analysis (Fig. 2) examines the opinion of the experts
concerning the stakeholders (organization, association or other collective stakeholders) to be
involved in the scenario definition during the renewable energy systems development.
Moreover, environment and forestry experts are asked to indicate the level of involvement
they perceive to be adequate for the various stakeholders. Two possibilities are presented: a)
an active involvement corresponding to the level of consultation in public participation
process; b) a passive involvement, that corresponds to a simple information of the
stakeholder on the progress of the planning process. The first corresponds to the interactive
participation for the Pimbert and Pretty’s classification (1997), while the second one
corresponds to the participation by consultation. While for the IAP2’ classification (2007) the
first corresponds to the “inform” and the second corresponds to the “involve”.
The question focused on SNA analysis (Fig. 3) investigates professional formal relationships
among institutions, organizations and associations to which experts belong and that are active
in the pilot regions, with competencies in renewable energies field. Firstly the level of the
relationships is investigated, and six levels are considered, from the international to the
municipality level. Then a specific part of the question is posed to assess the strength of the
relationship via a 3-level scale based on the intensity of the relations (0= weekly, 1= monthly,
2=yearly).
The relationships between stakeholders are investigated with a specific focus on three issues
linked to the renewable energy development: (a) the coordination in the field for actions
development, (b) the joint realization of technical initiatives and scientific projects on the
territory and (c) the provision of grants and other economic aspects.
The social network was analyzed without distinguishing between the above mentioned
different aspects because the data indicated a complex network with a remarkable overlap
among single aspects.
The graphic elaboration and the main statistic features, were realized with the software
UCINET 6.504 (Borgatti et al., 2002).
9
Figure 2. Question used in the questionnaire for the stakeholders analysis
7.2 In your opinion which organization and association must be involved during the definition of the renewable energies systems development (scenario definition) of the pilot region? For each organization, please indicate which is the more suitable level of involvement.
Name of organization or
association
Specific field of activity Level of involvement
Active involvement in the scenarios’
definition (consultation)
Passive involvement in the scenarios’
definition (information)
Active involvement in the scenarios’
definition (consultation)
Passive involvement in the scenarios’
definition (information)
Active involvement in the scenarios’
definition (consultation)
Passive involvement in the scenarios’
definition (information)
Figure 3. Question used in the questionnaire for the stakeholders analysis
7.1 Does your organization/association collaborate with other organizations and associations
in the field of renewable energies in the pilot region? Can you list the name, the issue and the
intensity of these collaborations?
Name of organization or
association
Level Intensity Issue
International
National
State/Province
Trans-regional
Region
Municipality
Permanent (*/week)
Regularly (*/month)
Occasionally (*/year)
Coordination
Technical/scientific
support
Economic support
How much influence does this actor have on actual decision making regarding renewable energy?
Very high High Medium Low Very low
International
National
State/Province
Trans-regional
Region
Municipality
Permanent (*/week)
Regularly (*/month)
Occasionally (*/year)
Coordination
Technical/scientific
support
Economic support
10
2.2 Stakeholders analysis
Stakeholders analysis can defined as any group of people, organized or unorganized, who
share a common interest or stake in a particular issue or system can be defined as stakeholder
(Grimble and Wellard, 1997). Starting from this definition of stakeholder, the main objective
of the stakeholder analysis is to identify, to characterize and to classify the stakeholders in
order to determine the extent of their future involvement in the decision making process
(Grimble and Wellard 1997). The stakeholder analysis can be divided in two main steps (Reed
et al. 2009):
1. identification of all stakeholders;
2. analytical categorization (or classification) of the stakeholders previously identified.
In the first step, all the stakeholders who affect and/or are affected by the policies, decisions,
and actions of the system should be recognized. They can be individuals, communities, social
groups or institutions of any size, aggregation or level in society (Grimble and Chan 1995).
More simply, it can be argued that may be involved collective social actors (e.g. organizations,
associations and groups) and/or the individual social actors (e.g. people, members of local
community)
The second step – finalized to classify the stakeholders previously identified – can vary based
on the purposes of the analysis and the variables used in the classification-system (Grass et al.
1997, Walker and Daniels 1997, Hamersley et al. 2003). According to Grass et al., (1997) the
stakeholders can be subdivided in internal or external to the system, organization or study
area, internal stakeholders are those who live in proximity of the area, while the external
stakeholders are those who do not live in proximity of the study area. Another stakeholders
classification system that use the variable proximity is proposed by Hamersley Chambers and
Beckley (2003) and classify the stakeholders in three groups: local people, interest group that
may or may not be local, and general public. Considering the relevance in the decision making
process, the main categories of stakeholders are (ODA 1995, Mitchell et al. 1997): key
stakeholders (or definitive stakeholders), primary stakeholders (or expectant stakeholders)
and secondary stakeholders (or latent stakeholders). According to ODA (1995) the key
stakeholders are the main actors in the territory in terms of power and legitimacy. The
primary stakeholders are the beneficiaries of the plan with less power and legitimacy, and the
secondary stakeholders are the actors marginally involved in the issue (ODA 1995). Key
stakeholders should be able to represent the whole community, to have constructive dialogue
and be respected persons that enables diffusion of new information (Prell et al. 2009). This
step of the participation process is very delicate; if key stakeholders are left out the picture of
the context is incomplete, various interests are not take into account and the participatory
process is weakened (Nordström et al. 2010).
Conversely, Mitchell et al. (1997) considering three different categories of stakeholders
(definitive stakeholders, expectant stakeholders and latent stakeholders) according to the
presence/absence of three variables: power, legitimacy, urgency. Lupo Stanghellini (2010)
has further integrated the classification system of Mitchell et al. (1997) with an additional
variable: the proximity defined as the state, quality or fact of being near or close in space to
the natural resource.
11
Table 2. Main characteristics of different categories of stakeholders
VARIABLES USED CATEGORIES OF STAKEHOLDERS
Proximity Internal stakeholders
External stakeholders
Proximity and interest Local people
Interest group
General public
Power and legitimacy Key stakeholders
Primary stakeholders
Secondary stakeholders
Interest Primary parties
Secondary parties
Peripheral parties
Interest and power Primary stakeholders
Secondary stakeholders
Power, legitimacy and urgency
Definitive stakeholders
Expectant stakeholders
Latent stakeholders
Power, legitimacy, urgency and proximity
Definitive stakeholders
Expectant stakeholders
Latent stakeholders
Source: modified by FAO (2006), Grass et al. (1997), Hamersley Chambers and Beckley (2003), ODA (1995),
Walker and Daniels (1997), Mitchell et l., (1997), Lupo Stanghellini (2010).
As described above, in the present research the stakeholders analysis was conducted by local
environment and forestry experts for each case study involved in the Recharge.green project.
Considering the basic attributes of participatory process (power, legitimacy, urgency,
proximity) the local experts have identified the stakeholders to be involved in future decision-
making process.
12
2.3 Social network analysis
Social network analysis (SNA) is a formal theory to define and analyze the relationships that
individuals or organizations, have with each other (Wasserman and Faust 1994). This
technique typical of the social sciences represents a valuable tool in the context of natural
resource management in which multiple interests exist, representing the preferences of the
stakeholders (Harshaw and Tindall, 2005). The main goal of this type of analysis is in
increasing collective actions and thereby the success in managing natural resource (Prell et
al., 2009), particularly when decision makers have to face with different social needs,
objectives and interests.
Professional formal relationships among collective stakeholders (institutions, organizations
and associations) in the case studies of Recharge.green project, with competencies in
renewable energies field, were investigated. The graphic elaboration and the main statistic
features – such as density and ego network centralities (degree and betweenness) – were
realized with the software UCINET 6.504 (Borgatti et al., 2002).
In the section of the questionnaire dedicated to network analysis, a question was posed to
assess the strength of the relationship as well as a distinction of different relational aspects.
According to the rich source of literature that considers the strength of relationships
(Granovetter, 1973; Wasserman and Faust, 1994), a distinction between strong ties and weak
ties must be made.
Strong ties are comprised of all of those types of relationships in which either the
stakeholders are involved in an emotional manner, or where frequent and intense
communication among stakeholders occurs (Prell et al., 2007). The stakeholders involved in
such ties share a similar point of view, and are able to influence and support each other in
difficult moments. Moreover, they are able to transmit mutually complex information. These
sets of characteristics allow for the presence of strong ties in social relationships that are able
to contribute to a greater possibility of success in the shared management of a particular
resource and originate a reciprocal process of learning. Conversely, the main disadvantages of
strong ties include a diminished ability to transmit new ideas and information. The
psychological subordination of certain stakeholders towards other stakeholders is also a
major disadvantage.
Weak ties are those relationships established by different stakeholders among which
communication is sporadic and where emotional intensity is generally low or, occasionally
moderate. The principle advantage of weak ties resides in the fact that the spread of
knowledge and innovation is facilitated as the different stakeholders are rarely predisposed
to the same pool of information. Other advantages of weak ties include the ability to create
communicative bridges either among individuals or groups, to unify separate parts of a social
network and to transmit simple information in a working context (Granovetter, 1973). To the
contrary, weak ties are not structured to transmit complex information, and may be broken
with relative ease.
Density Density is a measure of social networks, and is expressed as the proportion of ties which are
effectively present within the network and the total number of possible ties based on the
number of stakeholders. Density is a structural property of the network, and can vary from
zero, if ties are completely absent, to one (Scott, 1991) if ties are strongly present.
13
The network density is directly proportional to the facility of information transmission within
the network itself. Normally, a high network density is a positive pre-condition for the
development of a collective action (Sandström 2008). Nevertheless, its efficiency increases
until a maximum because networks that are too dense become inefficient. The collective
action is more likely in groups whose social network is dense and cohesive, since stakeholders
in such networks typically internalize norms that discourage free riding and emphasize trust.
Viceversa, into the dense social network the individual are subordinate to social need and it
can be a deterrent to the spread of new ideas and innovations (Campos, 1996).
According to Borgatti et al. (2002) ego network density can be calculate as:
where:
actual ties = number of ties that exist in the ego network;
maximum number of pairs = number of possible ties within the ego network.
Centrality Centrality is key concept with which to analyze social networks. In order to understand the
centrality of a particular stakeholder, the proximity of the latter to all other stakeholders must
be observed. Then, the actor is considered as the sum of the adjacent points. Going into detail,
relative centrality is provided by the effective number of connections of one actor compared
to the maximum number of possible connections. According to Freeman (1979), global
centrality can be expressed in three different ways: degree centrality, closeness centrality and
betweenness centrality. The international literature on network centrality considered
sociocentric network data that provide information on relationships among all actors within a
bounded social network (Freeman, 1979). Egocentric design obtains information about only
that portion of a network in the immediate locality of a given social actor. This design does not
require a priori enumeration of a population (total number of stakeholders), and is often used
to measure social networks in survey-based studies (Marsden, 2002). In this study we used
the experts’ ego-network in order to categorize the stakeholders of TNP in three categories:
key stakeholders, primary stakeholders and secondary stakeholders.
Degree centrality is a fundamental concept in the network analysis because it is strictly
associated with an stakeholder’s social status, power, and satisfaction with group activities
(Mizruchi and Potts, 1998). The social status and the power of a stakeholder are two
fundamental aspects that must be considered in the participatory decision making process
(Paletto et al., 2014a). Considering the participatory approach, power quantifies the influence
that stakeholders have in the decision making process, and to what degree they can help
achieve, or block, the desired change. Degree centrality is measured simply as the number of
direct ties that involve a given stakeholder. This centrality expresses the number of
stakeholders with which a certain actor maintains relations and it can be considered an
appropriate indicator of stakeholder’s real power (Mizruchi and Potts 1998). According to
Everett and Borgatti (2005, 32) “degree centrality is a local property and the ego degree
centrality of ego is the same as the degree of the actor in the whole network there is no issue”,
while Marsden (2002) asserted that degree centrality measures based on egocentric and
sociocentric data are in principle identical. Consequently, we decided to use the size of each
14
stakeholder (ego) as indicator of the personal power.
Betweenness centrality measures the influence that a stakeholder has over the spread of
information through the network and therefore identifies those stakeholders who have an
intermediary role in the decision making process (Paletto et al. 2012). Thus, these
stakeholders have a real power in the control of information. In other hands, betweenness
centrality can be regarded as a measure of the extent to which a stakeholder has control over
information flowing between others (Newman 2005, 40). According to Marsden (2002)
egocentric betweenness often may be a reliable substitute for Freeman’s sociocentric
betweenness measure. Besides, some authors demonstrated that there is a connection
between the betweenness of the actor in the whole network (sociocentric betweenness) and
the betweenness of the actor in the ego network (egocentric betweenness) (Everett and
Borgatti, 2005).
Ego betweenness centrality was measured by the extent to which a stakeholder lies on paths
linking other stakeholders (Freeman 1979; Marsden 2002) and it can be calculated with the
following formula:
where: u and v = stakeholders in the ego network of stakeholder f; N = total number of stakeholders in the ego network; uv p = total number of network paths linking stakeholder u and stakeholder v; p ( f ) uv = represents the number of those paths that include stakeholder f.
15
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Mis and Maè valleys (Italy)
As previously mentioned, during the stakeholders analysis local experts of Mis and Maè
valleys have identified the stakeholders to be involved in future decision-making process.
Experts were required to indentify the collective stakeholders (institutions, organizations and
associations) to be involved during the definition of the renewable energies systems
development (scenario definition) of the pilot regions. Experts proposed a list of local
governments, private organizations and NGO-associations, who were involved in the
renewable energies field.
Subsequently, the representatives of Veneto Region updated the list of stakeholders in a
detailed way, specifying the single unit to be involved in future steps. The aim of this step was
to better characterize stakeholders who can have real interest in the project’s discussion and
results. As an example, experts indicated the Belluno Province as general institution and
Veneto Region focused the attention on three main departments – Department of energy
planning and management, Department of hunting and fishing, Department of soil protection
– more involved and interested in hydropower and forest biomass energy.
Several stakeholders are the same for both the valleys, while some stakeholders are specific
for each study are, for example the municipalities involved and the collective ownerships.
In Table 3 is compared the complete list of stakeholders identified by local experts in the Mis
valley (left column) with the detailel list by Veneto Region (right column).
Table 3. Mis Valley: list of stakeholders identified by experts and adjustments by Veneto Region
STAKEHOLDERS OF MIS VALLEY MORE DETAILS BY VENETO REGION
Superintendence for Cultural Heritage and
Landscape
Veneto Region (i.e. Forest Service, Hunting and
Fishing Service)
Forest Service Department
Civil Engineering Department
Hunting and Fishing Department
Environmental Impact Assessment Department
Energy Department
Belluno Province
Department of energy planning and management
Department of hunting and fishing
Department of soil protecion
Responsible for project Moreco - Alpine Space
Comunità Montane Agordina
16
Val Belluna
Municipalities Gosaldo
Sospirolo
Dolomiti National Park (PNDB)
Regional Environmental Agency (ARPAV)
BIM Consortium
ENEL (National Institution for Electric Energy)
Agricultural and trade associations
Forest enterprises/Confederation of Italian
Industries
Consorzio Legno Veneto
CoGeFor (Forest management consortium)
Small industries association Belluno (PMI - BL)
Chamber of Commerce Belluno
Social Cooperatives
Professional Association for agronomist and forestry to be added: Engineers, Architects, Lawyers, Agricultural
and Mining Experts
Private forest owners
Committe of Tiser community "Usi Civici"
Italian Association for agricultural and forest
energies (AIEL)
Archaeological site association (ARCA)
Dolomiti Unesco Foundation
Environmental associations
Mountain Wilderness
Acqua Bene Comune
Confini Comuni
WWF Belluno
Legambiente Belluno
Fishing basin institutions Fishing basin n. 5 - Agordino
Fishing basin n. 5 - Sospirolo
Hunting institutions
High School for agronomists
17
In the stakeholders analysis, experts also characterized and classified the stakeholders basing
on their power, legitimacy, urgency, proximity or interests. Experts’ categorization identified
the level of involvement, i.e. if stakeholders should actively take part of scenario definition or
they should only be informed of the results.
Figure 4 shows the frequency of identification of the various stakeholders (number of
preferences). It is important to highlight that experts consider that all stakeholders except
“social cooperatives” must be actively involved in the decision making process.
Figure 4. Mis Valley: frequency for stakeholders identified by experts and level of involvement
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Supe
rint
enda
nce
for c
ultu
ral h
e...
Ven
eto
Regi
onBe
lluno
Pro
vinc
e
Mou
ntai
n Co
mm
unit
ies
Mun
icip
alit
ies
Dol
omiti
Nat
iona
l Par
k
Regi
onal
Env
iron
men
tal A
genc
yBI
M C
onso
rtiu
m
ENEL
Agr
icol
tura
l and
tra
de a
ssoc
iatio
ns
Fore
st e
nter
pris
es/C
onfe
dera
t...
Soci
al C
oope
rati
ves
Prof
essi
onal
Ass
ocia
tion
for
ag...
Priv
ate
fore
st o
wne
rs
Com
mitt
ee o
f Tis
er c
omm
unit
y
AIE
L
Arc
haeo
logi
cal s
ite a
ssoc
iatio
n
Dol
omiti
Une
sco
Foun
datio
n
Envi
ronm
enta
l ass
ocia
tions
Fish
ing
basi
n in
stitu
tions
Shoo
ting
grou
nd (h
untin
g) in
sti..
.
Hig
h Sc
hool
for
agro
nom
ists
Fre
qu
en
cy
In the Mis Valley experts identified also other possible interlocutors for the scenario
definition:
- Italian Alpine Club (CAI)
- Military Forest Service (CFS)
- Angelini Foundation for studies on mountains
- Veneto Agricoltura - the Veneto Region Agency that promote and carries out
interventions for the modernisation of farms and agro-forestry soil conservation
The same procedure was applied in the Maè Valley. Table 4 and Figure 5 show the results.
Also for this case study, a more inclusive stakeholder analysis has been considered, so all the
identified stakeholders except two categories (Chamber of Commerce and Agricultural and
Trade representatives) will be involved in scenario definition. All these stakeholders were
invited to informative meetings in pilot areas, in June 2014, as shown in Fig.6.
Table 4. Maè Valley: list of stakeholders identified by experts and adjustments by Veneto Region
STAKEHOLDERS OF MAE’ VALLEY MORE DETAILS BY VENETO REGION
Military Forest Service (CFS)
Veneto Region (i.e. Forest Service, Hunting and Forest Service Department
18
Fishing Service) Civile Engineering Department
Hunting and Fishing Department
Environmental Impact Assessment Department
Energy Department
Belluno Province
Department of energy planning and management
Department of hunting and fishing
Department of soil protecion
Responsible for project Moreco - Alpine Space
Comunità Montane Cadore-Longaronese-Zoldo
Municipalities
Longarone
Forno di Zoldo
Zoldo Alto
Zoppè di Cadore
Dolomiti National Park
BIM Consortium
ENEL (National institution for Electric Energy)
Agricultural and trade associations
Forest enterprises/Confederation of Italian
Industries
Consorzio Legno Veneto
CoGeFor (Forest management consortium)
Small industries association Belluno
Chamber of Commerce
Veneto Agricolutra
Professional Association for agronomist and forestry To be added: Engineers, Architects, Lawyers,
Agricultural and Mining Experts
Collective ownerships "Usi Civici
"regole" Zoldo Alto/Forno di Zoldo
Italian Alpine Club "
Dolomiti Unesco Foundation
Angelini Foundation
19
Forest guard of the local municipality
Acqua Bene Comune Acqua Bene Comune
Mountain Wildness Mountain Wildness
Confini Comuni Confini Comuni
Legambiente Legambiente
WWF WWF
Fishing basin institutions
Hunting institutions
University of Padua - Hydraulics Department
Figure 5. Maè Valley : frequency for stakeholders identified by experts and level of involvement
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mili
tary
Fo
rest
Ser
vice
Ven
eto
Reg
ion
Bel
lun
o P
rovi
nce
Mo
un
tain
Co
mm
un
itie
s
Mu
nic
ipal
itie
s
Do
lom
iti N
atio
nal
Par
k
BIM
Co
nso
rtiu
m
ENEL
Agr
ico
ltu
ral a
nd
tra
de
Fore
st
Ch
amb
er o
f C
om
mer
ce
Ven
eto
Agr
ico
ltu
ra
Pro
fess
ion
al A
sso
ciat
ion
Co
llect
ive
Ow
ner
ship
s
Ital
ian
Alp
ine
Clu
b (
CA
I)
Do
lom
iti U
nes
co
Acq
ua
Ben
e C
om
un
e
Mo
un
tain
Wild
nes
s
Co
nfi
ni c
om
un
i
Lega
mb
ien
te
WW
F
An
gelin
i Fo
un
dat
ion
Fore
st g
uar
d o
f th
e lo
cal
Fish
ing
bas
in in
stit
uti
on
s
Sho
oti
ng
gro
un
d (
hu
nti
ng)
Un
iver
sity
of
Pad
ua
Fre
qu
en
cy
Also in the Maè Valley experts identified other possible interlocutors for the scenario
definition:
- Regional Environmental Agency (ARPAV)
- Superintendance for cultural heritage and landscape
- Basin Institution
- Italian Association for agricultural and forest energies (AIEL)
20
Figure 6. Veneto Region (Longarone municipality): informative meetings in pilot areas during the public participation process
With the stakeholders' analysis, 22 stakeholders were identified in the Mis valley and 26
stakeholders in the Maè valley.
The graphic representations (sociogram) of the relationships between the stakeholders is
shown in Fig.ure 7 (Mis valley) and Figure 8 (Maè valley).
In the social network of the Mis valley the main stakeholders, according to the size (Table 5),
are Dolomiti National Park (size = 11) and BIM consortium Piave Belluno (size = 9).
In the Maè valley, Regione Veneto (size = 8), BIM consortium of Belluno (size = 10) and all
local municipalities (size = 3) have the highest size. In this case study central stakeholders are
homogeneous from the point of view of the categories represented (three public
administrations). In order to involve key stakeholders in the participatory process it is
necessary that these stakeholders are invited to the focus groups where scenarios of
development of renewable energies will be discussed and shared.
According to the size and betweenness centrality the key stakeholders in Mis valley is the
Dolomiti National Park, while in Maè valley are the Urban Planning Department of Regione
Veneto and the BIM Consortium of Belluno.
21
Figure 7. Veneto Region: sociogram of Mis valley
The analysis of the key stakeholders shows that only oublic administrations are represented
in the two valley as key stakeholders. According to Denhardt (1999) public administrations
should pursue the “common good” favoring the goods and services that enhance the well-
being of citizens. Consequently, being the key stakeholders public bodies can be considered as
a guarantee of the fact that common interests are taken in consideration during renewable
energies planning processes in the pilot areas. Otherwise, the social network of the renewable
energy sector contained little structure among the Mis and Maè valley non isitutional actors.
In other words, a few stakeholders have a key role, whereas most actors occupied a marginal
position, either due to choice or a lack of opportunities. In the fact that public stakeholders
represent the central point of the decisional processes of the territories there are also
elements of weakness: the marginal role played by other categories of stakeholders
(organizations, associations, entrepreneurs of renewable energy chain, etc.) shows the
inability of the community to counterbalance the power of the public actors. This situation, if
not rationally and efficiently managed, may lead to an asymmetry of power and information
which, in turn, may result in the exclusion of some important actors in the territory.
22
Figure 8. Veneto Region: sociogram of Maé valley Table 5. Mis valley ego network features (size and betweenness).
Name of stakeholder Size Betweenness
Forest consultant/biodiveristy 2 1.00
Solar Expo-Tecnico e consulente Ambiente Italia 1
Dolomiti UNESCO 1
Dolomiti National Park 11 30.00
National Park Pollino 1
Municipalities 2 1.00
Forest consultant/environmental protection 4 6.00
Consortium BIM Piave Belluno 9 8.00
EN & EN 1
Professionals for power plants contriìuction 1
Brasilian municipalities 2 1.00
Energie Tirol 2 1.00
Dobbiaco Accademy 2 1.00
BIM Consortium Piave 2 1.00
Others BIM Consortia 2 1.00
CNR 2 1.00
IUAV 2 1.00
University of Padua 2 1.00
Forest consultant/forestry 4 6.00
Veneto Region 1
Forest companies 1
23
Citizens 1
Table 6. Maè valley ego network features (size and betweenness).
Name of stakeholder Size Density Betweenness
Regione Veneto - Urban planning department 8 3.57 27.00
Province Belluno 1
Consorzio/Distretto Bioedilizia TV 1
CESBA Conference 1
BIM Consortium Belluno 10 0.00 45.00
Pubblichenergie 1
Municipalities 3 33.33 2.00
Commons properties 1
Law office 0 0.00 0.00
University of Padua 1
Brasilian municipalities 1
Energie Tirol 1
Dobbiaco Accademy 1
BIM Consortium Piave 1
Others BIM Consortia 1
CNR 1
IUAV 1
Regione Veneto - Forest Service 4 16.67 5.00
Forest companies 1
Citizens 1
Forest consultant 3 0.00 3.00
Fondazione Montagna Europa Collesel 1
24
3.2 Maritimes Alps National Park (Italy)
Also in Piedmont Region, during the stakeholders analysis, local experts of Maritimes Alps
National Park have identified various collective stakeholders to be involved in future
definition of the renewable energies systems development (scenario definition) of the pilot
regions. Experts proposed a list of local governments, private organizations and NGO-
associations, who were involved in the renewable energies field.
In Table 7 is shown the complete list of stakeholders identified by local experts with the
corresponding category of interests (blue colour for public bodies, orange colour for the
private organizations, and green colour for the associations-NGOs). With the stakeholder
analysis 14 public administration, 3 private organizations, and 3 associations were identified
in the Maritimes Alps National Park , for a total of 20 stakeholders.
Table 7. Maritimes Alps National Park: list of stakeholders identified by experts.
In the stakeholders analysis, experts also characterized and classified the stakeholders.
Experts’ categorization identified the level of involvement, i.e. if stakeholders should actively
take part of scenario definition or they should only be informed of the results.
Figure 9 illustrates the number of preferences of the various stakeholders. It is important to
highlight that experts consider that all stakeholders must be actively involved in the decision
making process. The greater frequency is registered for the Region and the Province of
STAKEHOLDERS OF MARITIMES ALPS NATIONAL PARK CATEGORY OF
STAKEHOLDERS
Piedmont Region Public administration
Cuneo Province Public administration
Entracque Municipality Public administration
Limone p. Municipality Public administration
Valdieri Municipality Public administration
Vernante Municipality Public administration
Roaschia Municipality Public administration
Robilante Municipality Public administration
Roccavione Municipality Public administration
Maritimes Alps National Park Public administration
State Forestry Service Public administration
Regional Agency for the Protection of the Environment of
Piedmont Public administration
Comunità Montana delle Alpi del Mare Public administration
Association of local autorithies Public administration
IPLA - Forestry and environment Institute Private organization
Associations administrators of common rights Private organization
Agricultural and trade associations Private organization
Environmental associations Association
Fishers Association Association
Scientific Associations Association
25
Piedmont, the public actors characterized by the higher level of power, legitimacy, urgency,
proximity or interests.
It’s interesting to evidence that also environmental associations are considered as actors to be
actively involved.
Figure 9. Maritimes Alps National Park: frequency for stakeholders identified by experts and level of
involvement
Pie
dmo
nt R
egio
n
Cun
eo P
rovi
nce
Env
iro
nm
ent
al a
sso
cia
tio
ns
Mar
itim
es A
lps
N. P
ark
Ag
ricu
ltu
ral a
nd t
rade
ass
ocia
tio
ns
Com
uni
tà M
. de
lle A
lpi d
el M
are
Ass
oci
ati
ons
ad
min
istr
ato
rs o
f
com
mo
n ri
ghts
Re
gio
nal A
gen
cy f
or t
he
Pro
tect
ion
of
the
Env
iron
me
nt
IPLA
Fish
ers
Ass
oci
atio
n
Ass
oci
ati
on
of l
oca
l au
tori
thie
s
Stat
e F
ore
stry
Se
rvic
e
Scie
ntif
ic A
ssoc
iati
on
s
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Freq
uen
cy
In Figure 10 is shown the sociogram, which is the graphic representation of the relationships
between the stakeholders.
According to the size (Table 8), the main stakeholders in the social network of the Maritimes
Alps National Park, are Piedmont Region (size = 15) and Comunità Montana delle Alpi del
Mare (size = 12). In this case study central stakeholders are two public administrations.
The fact that the key stakeholders are public actors guarantees that common interests are
taken in consideration during renewable energies planning processes in the pilot areas. In fact
public administrations have the main objective of enhancing the well-being of citizens.
It is also interesting to evidence that also the Cooperative Alpiforest is a central actors, with a
size of 9.
Otherwise, the social network of the renewable energy sector contained little structure among
the other actors, both non institutional and institutional actors and most actors occupy a
marginal position.
The fact that two public stakeholders are the central point of the decisional processes of the
area also represents an element of weakness, infact shows the inability of the community to
counterbalance the power of the public actors. This situation highlights the need of a rational
management of policies, finalzed to the inclusion of all the actors in the scenario development,
ensuring that all the different types of interests could be considered. Only in this way the final
renewable energy scenario will be the result of an equilibrium between the parties, and an
important element contributing to the social sustainability of the decision process.
26
Figure 10. Piedmont Region: sociogram of Maritimes Alps National Park
27
Table 8. Maritimes Alps National Park ego network features (size, density and betweenness).
Name of stakeholder Size Density Betweenness
Comunità Montana delle Alpi del Mare 12 0.28 39.621
Entracque municipality 3 1 0.432
Limone p. municipality 3 1 0.432
Valdieri municipality 4 1 1.614
Vernante municipality 3 1 0.432
Roaschia municipality 3 1 0.432
Robilante municipality 3 1 0.432
Roccavione municipality 3 1 0.432
Piedmont Region 15 0.248 88.129
IPLA - Forestry and environment Institute 3 0.667 1.515
Cuneo province 4 0.167 35
Maritimes Alps National Park 3 1 0.333
Ministry (government) 1 0
Enterprises 1 0
Regional Agency for the Protection of the Environment of Piedmont 1 0
Basin Authority 1 0
Cooperative Alpiforest 9 0.194 25
Agricultural and trade associations (coldiretti, etc..) 1 0
Politecnico Turin (university) 0 0
Environmental associations 1 0
ASBUC - Frazione Andonno di Valdieri 4 0.667 2.197
28
3.3 Triglav National Park (Slovenia)
During the stakeholders analysis local experts of the Triglav National Park were required to
identify public administrations, private organizations and NGO-associations to be involved in
the definition of the renewable energies systems development. Experts proposed a list of local
governments, other public bodies, private organization of the sector and NGO-associations,
who were involved in the field of renewable energies with special regards to the forest
biomass use for energy purpose. In Table 9 is shown the complete list of stakeholders
identified by local experts in the Triglav National Park with the corresponding category of
interests (blue colour for public bodies, orange colour for the private organizations, and green
colour for the associations-NGOs). With the stakeholder analysis, 34 stakeholders were
identified in the Triglav National Park subdivided in: 18 public bodies, 8 private
organizations, 6 NGO-associations and 2 public-private organizations.
Table 9. Triglav National Park: list of stakeholders identified by experts.
STAKEHOLDERS OF TRIGLAV NATIONAL PARK Category of stakeholders1
Ministry of agriculture and the environment Public bodies
Public institution of Triglav national park Public bodies
Slovenian Forest Service Public bodies
Municipality of Bohinj Public bodies
Municipality of Gorje Public bodies
Municipality of Kranjska Gora Public bodies
Municipality of Bled Public bodies
The Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation Public bodies
Slovenian Forestry Institute Public bodies
Institute for the protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia Public bodies
Institute "Jozef Stefan" Public bodies
Fisheries Research Institute of Slovenia Public bodies
University of Ljubljana Public bodies
Fund for efficient use of energy Public bodies
Regional Development Agency of Gorenjska Public bodies
Slovenian environment Agency Public bodies
Local Energy Agency of Gorenjska Public bodies
GOLEA - Goriška Local Energy Agency Public bodies
Support Services (Energy Services) Private/public
Tourism organizations Private/public
Forest company GG Bled Private organization
Company EL-TEC Mulej (Society for Energy and Environmental Solutions) Private organization
Energy advisors Private organization
RAGOR - Upper Gorenjska development Agency Private organization
Agrarian communities Private organization
Slovenian small hydropower association Private organization
Association of forest owners Private organization
Association of hoteliers. Private organization
29
DOPPS - Birdlife Slovenia NGO
CIPRA Slovenia NGO
Alpine Association of Slovenia NGO
Archdiocese of Ljubljana Church association
Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia Association
Agricultural/Forest Cooperative Association
Figure 11 shows that the stakeholders identified through the stakeholders analysis were not
well balanced in the different categories, with 53% of stakeholders being public actors while
only 18% are NGO-associations. This imbalance could lead to the definition of renewable
energy scenario focused on a few objectives, representing the interests of few stakeholder
groups.
Figure 11. Distribution of the Triglav National Park’s stakeholders per category.
In the stakeholders analysis experts also characterized and classified the stakeholders basing
on their power, legitimacy, urgency, proximity or interests. Experts’ categorization identified
the level of involvement: a) stakeholders who are passive involved, that means simply
informed about scenario definition, b) active involvement of stakeholders, corresponding to
consultation in public participation process. Figure 12 shows the frequency of identification of
the various stakeholders and the colour identifies the level of involvement.
30
Figure 12. Triglav National Park: frequency for stakeholders identified by experts and level of involvement
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10Su
pp
ort
Ser
vice
sTh
e In
stit
ute
of
Ass
oci
atio
n o
fA
rch
dio
cese
of
Fore
st c
om
pan
yP
ub
lic in
stit
uti
on
Slo
ven
ian
Fo
rest
rySl
ove
nia
n F
ore
stA
gric
ult
ura
l/Fo
rest
Min
istr
y o
fFu
nd
fo
r ef
fici
ent
Ener
gy a
dvi
sors
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
of
Agr
aria
nSl
ove
nia
nIn
stit
ute
fo
r th
eD
OP
PS
- B
ird
life
CIP
RA
Slo
ven
iaM
un
icip
alit
y o
f M
un
icip
alit
y o
fM
un
icip
alit
y o
fC
om
pan
y EL
-TEC
Un
iver
sity
of
Inst
itu
te "
Joze
fFi
sher
ies
Res
earc
hSl
ove
nia
n s
mal
lTo
uri
smC
ham
ber
of
Loca
l En
ergy
GO
LEA
- G
ori
ška
RA
GO
R -
Up
per
Reg
ion
alA
sso
ciat
ion
of
Alp
ine
Ass
oci
atio
n
Freq
uen
cies
The graphic representation (sociogram) of the relationships between the stakeholders is
shown in Figures 13. In the Park network the most central stakeholders, according to the
degree centrality, are the Slovenian Institute for nature conservation (size = 14), the
Slovenian Forest Service (size = 9) and the Public Institution of Triglav national park (size =
8). In this case study central stakeholders of the network of renewable energy are not
balanced from the point of view of the categories represented because are all public
stakeholders.
31
Figure 13. Sociogram of stakeholders in the Triglav National Park
32
Table 10. Triglav National Park ego network features (size, density and betweenness).
Name of stakeholder Size Density Betweenness
Public institution of Triglav National Park (TNP) 8 0.821 5.50
Slovenian Forest Service 9 0.778 10.50
University of Ljubljana 0 0 0
Private entrepreneurship 2 1 0
Association of forest owners 3 0.667 2.00
Municipality of Bohinj 2 1.000 0
Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation 14 0.198 73.92
Agrarian community Dovje Mojstrana 5 1.600 0.67
Company EL-TEC Mulej (Society for Energy and Environmental
Solutions)
4 0 6
Agricultural/Forest Cooperative 7 1.048 4.42
Ministry of agriculture and the environment 1 0 0
Forest company GG Bled 6 0.333 12
DOPPS - Birdlife Slovenia 4 1.833 0
Slovenian Environment Agency 4 0.500 3
CIPRA Slovenia 1 0 0
Slovenian Forestry Institute 1 0 0
Bled-Tourist Association 10 0.622 23
Alpine Association of Slovenia 1 0 0
Institute for the protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia 1 0 0
LEAG - Local Energy Agency of Gorenjska 2 0 1
Fisheries Research Institute of Slovenia 0
Municipality of Gorje 1 0 0
Municipality of Kranjska Gora 1 0 0
Municipality of Bled 2 0 1
GOLEA - Goriška Local Energy Agency 1 0 0
Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia 0 0 0
RAGOR - Upper Gorenjska development Agency 0 0 0
Regional Development Agency of Gorenjska 0 0 0
Association of hoteliers 0 0 0
Archdiocese of Ljubljana 0 0 0
Fisheries Research institute of Slovenia 1 0 0
Slovenian small hydropower association 1 0 0
Company Lip Bohinj d.o.o. 1 0 0
Machine club Bled 1 0 0
33
3.4 Leiblachtal (Austria)
Local experts of the Leiblachtal pilot area, in the Vorarlberg region in Austria, identified 28
stakeholders during the stakeholders analysis. In Table 11 is shown the complete list of
stakeholders identified and the category to which they belong to (public administrations,
private organizations and NGO-associations). Public administrations are 46% of total
stakeholders, while private organizations and NGO-associations represent 25% and 21% of
total stakeholders.
Table 11. Leiblachtal: list of stakeholders identified by experts
STAKEHOLDERS OF LEIBLACHTAL CATEGORY OF STAKEHOLDERS
Energy Institute Vorarlberg Public administration
Energy Department of Vorarlberg Public administration
Chamber of commerce Public administration
Chamber of labour Public administration
Municipalities (Municipality Gaschurn-Partenen) Public administration
State of Austia Public administration
European Union Public administration
Naturschutzanwaltschaft Vorarlberg Public administration
Chamber of agriculture/forestry Public administration
Energy Region Leiblachtal Public administration
Schools/Education/research in field of R Public administration
Bezirkshauptmannschaften (administrative units of regions) Public administration
State of Vorarlberg Public administration
AEEV (working group renewable energies) Private organization
Lobby for small hydropower (Kleinwasserkraft Vorarlberg) Private organization
Reiba Leiblachtal (regional bank) Private organization
Energy Company (Illwerke/VKW) Private organization
ARGE Renewable Energy Private organization
Kommunalkredit (sponsor RE projects) Private organization
Klima & Energiefond (sponsor RE projects) Private organization
Construction professionals Consultant
Alpine Associations NGO-association
Naturschutzbund Vorarlberg (environmental NGO) NGO-association
Greenpeace NGO-association
Citizen movements NGO-association
Regionalentwicklung Vorarlberg (association for regional development) NGO-association
Verein Regio Leiblachtal (regional association Leiblachtal) NGO-association
Newspaper in Voralberg (VN) Mass media
Figure 14 shows that all the stakeholders means that experts are favourable to an active
involvement of all the actors identified.
34
Figure 14. Leiblachtal: frequency for stakeholders identified by experts and level of involvement
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9En
ergy
Inst
itu
te V
ora
rlb
erg
Ener
gy C
om
pan
y
Ener
gy D
epar
tmen
t o
f
Ch
amb
er o
f co
mm
erce
Ch
amb
er o
f la
bo
ur
Mu
nic
ipal
itie
s (M
un
icip
alit
y
New
spap
er in
Vo
ralb
erg
Co
nst
ruct
ion
pro
fess
ion
als
Nat
urs
chu
tzan
wal
tsch
aft
Ch
amb
er o
f
AEE
V (
wo
rkin
g gr
ou
p
Lob
by
for
smal
l
Alp
ine
Ass
oci
atio
ns
Nat
urs
chu
tzb
un
d
Stat
e o
f V
ora
rlb
erg
Gre
enp
eace
Cit
izen
mo
vem
ents
Stat
e o
f A
ust
ia
Euro
pea
n U
nio
n
Bez
irks
hau
ptm
ann
sch
afte
n
AR
GE
Ren
ewab
le E
ner
gy
Ener
gy R
egio
n L
eib
lach
tal
Sch
oo
ls/E
du
cati
on
/res
earc
h
Ko
mm
un
alkr
edit
(sp
on
sor
Klim
a &
En
ergi
efo
nd
Reg
ion
alen
twic
klu
ng
Ver
ein
Reg
io L
eib
lach
tal
Rei
ba
Leib
lach
tal (
regi
on
al
Freq
uen
cy
The graphic representation (sociogram) of the relationships between the stakeholders is
shown in Figures 15. In the Leiblachtal according to the degree centrality the main
stakeholders are: Illwerke/VKW Energy Company (size=10), Energy Institute Vorarlberg
(size=9), Naturschutzanwaltschaft Vorarlberg and State of Vorarlberg (size=8). In this case
study main stakeholders in terms of size are quite homogeneous from the point of view of the
categories represented (two public administrations, one private organization and one
environmental association). The fact that all groups are represented is important for ensuring
that all the different types of interests could be considered in the scenario development. It is
conceivable that with this distribution the final renewable energy scenario will be the result
of an equilibrium between the parties (interests), with a consequent enhancement of the
social sustainability of the decision-making process.
35
Figure 15. Sociogram of Leiblachtal (Vorarlberg region)
36
Table 12. Leiblachtal ego network features (size, density and betweenness).
Name of stakeholder Size Density Betweenness
Energy Institute Vorarlberg 9 19.44 27.17
Energy Company (Illwerke/VKW) 10 15.56 34.83
Energy Department of Vorarlberg 2 0 1.00
Chamber of commerce 3 100.00 0.00
Chamber of labour 1
Municipalities (Municipality Gaschurn-Partenen) 6 33.33 9.33
Newspaper in Voralberg (VN) 1
Construction professionals 1
Naturschutzanwaltschaft Vorarlberg 8 17.86 21.00
Chamber of agriculture/forestry 1
AEEV (working group renewable energies) 1
Lobby for small hydropower (Kleinwasserkraft Vorarlberg)
5 10.00 9.00
Alpine Associations 1
Naturschutzbund (environmental NGO) 2 100.00
State of Vorarlberg 8 35.71 13.17
Greenpeace 1
Citizen movements 1
State of Austia 1
European Union 1
Bezirkshauptmannschaften (administrative units of regions)
1
Ecology Department of State (e.g. limnology dep.) 1
ARGE Renewable Energy 2 100.00 0.00
Energy Region Leiblachtal 7 9.52 18.50
Schools/Education/research in field of R 1
Kommunalkredit (sponsor RE projects) 1
Klima & Energiefond (sponsor RE projects) 1
Regionalentwicklung Vorarlberg (association for regional development)
1
Verein Regio Leiblachtal (regional association Leiblachtal)
1
Reiba Leiblachtal (regional bank) 1
37
4. CONCLUSIONS
In the present report we discussed the use of stakeholders analysis and social network
analysis in the renewable energy sector planning.
These tools were used to support public participation process, in particular to identify
stakeholders and examine networking structures that affect consultation and scenario
definition patterns in the decision-making process.
Generally the SNA results facilitate the process that lead to choose which kind of participative
approach should be applied and we think that a correct application of SNA should be a
prerequisite to support participative decision making processes.
SNA was useful to ensure the correct identification of key-actors and their weak and strength
points, according to their position and representativeness in the social structure. On the
results of SNA it is possible to search the opportune integrations in the network and choose
suitable participation methods to give everyone the due consideration.
SNA was also a useful tool for identifying the emergent property of social network
relationships, and balancing the power among the stakeholders during the participatory
process (Paletto et al. 2012). We use size and ego betweenness centrality, to identify which
stakeholders in the network have most power to influence decisions and control information
and to categorize. Consequently, analyzing the nature of network relationships was also
important to understand the role and position of different categories of stakeholders that
exist in conjunction with the decision-making process structure.
The main issue and difficulty of the proposed tool is to consider also secondary stakeholders
in the decision-making process, perhaps choosing representatives for them. Infact a limitation
of this tools is that can happen that some interests and points of view are not take into
account, leading to a decrease of inclusiveness, and a general weakening of the decision-
making process.
From the practical point of view, SNA to support stakeholders categorization is a way to
balance time spent and inclusiveness in decision making processes. In fact, when numerous
stakeholders are involved, large amounts of time and resources are needed to carry on
decision process, often without a satisfactory compromise among different interests being
reached. Hence, to limit the number of stakeholders selecting representatives from categories
identified with SNA, is a way to overcome these limitations while guaranteeing that no
interest group which wishes to participate is excluded.
The idea is that the way in which the decision-making process will be developed should be
clear and transparent to all stakeholders, i.e. who will make the final decisions and what
chance the different stakeholders will have to influence management decisions.
Finally, the participatory approach in renewable energy sector is rapidly developing and the
context changing. Hence the authors recommend carrying out this kind of study with up-to-
date data with approaches to stakeholder analysis in different social, cultural and
environmental contexts.
38
5. REFERENCES
Appelstrand M. 2002. Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and
policy practitioners. Forest Policy and Economics 4: 281-290.
Arnstein S.R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners 4: 216-224.
Atmiş E, Özden S., Lise W. 2007. Public participation in forestry in Turkey. Ecological
Economics 62: 352-359.
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.
Buchy M., Hoverman S. 2000. Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review.
Forest Policy and Economics 1: 15-25.
Chess C. 2000. Evaluating Environmental Public Participation: Methodological Questions.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 6: 769-784.
Devine-Wright, P. (Ed.). 2013. Renewable Energy and the Public: from NIMBY to Participation.
Routledge.
Driscoll C., Starik M. 2004. The primordial stakeholder: 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.
Granovetter M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360-1380.
Grass G., Biggs S., Kelly A. 1997. Stakeholders, science and decision making for poverty-
focused rural mechanization research and development. World Development 25(1): 115–
126.
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., Wellard K. 1997. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a
review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems 55(2):
173-193.
Grimble R., Chan M.K. 1995. Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in
developing countries. Natural Resources Forum 19(2): 113-124.
Etzioni A. 1964. Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
FAO/ECE/ILO, 2000. Public participation in Forestry in Europe and North America. Report on
the Team of Specialists on Participation in Forestry. Geneva: Joint FAO/ECE/ILO
Committee on Forest Technology, Management and Training, International Labour Office.
Freeman L.C. 1979. Centrality in social networks. Conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1:
215-239.
Hamersley Chambers F., Beckley T. 2003. Public involvement in sustainable boreal forest
management. In: Burton P.J. (ed.) Towards sustainable management of the boreal forest,
Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada NRC Research Press, 113-154.
39
Hartley N., Wood C., 1995. Public participation in environmental impact assessment-
implementing the Aarhus Convention. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25: 319-
340.
Harshaw H.W., Tindall D.B. 2005. Social structure, identities, and values: a network approach
to understanding people's relationships to forests. Journal of Leisure Research 4: 426-449.
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.
IAP2 2007. IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation.
http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/spectrum.pdf
Kangas J., Hytönen L., Loikkanen T. 2001. Integrating the AHP and HERO into the process of
participatory natural resources planning. The Analytic Hierarchy Process in natural
resources and environmental decision making. Managing forest ecosystems 3: 131-148.
Kangas A., Laukkanen S., 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.
Lupo Stanghellini P.S. 2010. Stakeholder involvement in water management: the role of the
stakeholder analysis within participatory processes. Water Policy 12: 675-694.
Miron D., Preda M. 2009. Stakeholder Analysis of the Romanian Energy Sector. Review of
International Comparative Management 10(5): 877-892.
Mitchell R.K., Agle B.R., Wood D.J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and
salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management
Review 22: 853-886.
Mizruchi M.A., Potts, B.B. 1998. Centrality and power revisited: actor success in group
decision making. Social Networks 20: 353-387.
Mustajoki J., Hämäläinen R.P., Marttunen M. 2004. Participatory multicriteria decision analysis
with Web-HIPRE: a case of lake regulation policy. Environmental Modelling & Software 19:
537-547.
ODA (Overseas Development Administration) 1995. Guidance note on how to do stakeholder
analysis of aid projects and programmes. ODA, 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.
Pimbert M.P., Pretty J.N. 1997. Parks, people and professionals: Putting ‘participation’ into
protected area management. In Social change and conservation. Environmental politics
and impacts of national parks and protected areas, edited by Ghimire, K.B., and M.P.
Pimbert, 297-330, London: Earthscan.
Prell C., Hubacek K., Reed M. 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural
resource management. Society and Natural Resources 22: 501-518.
Primmer E., Kyllönen S. 2006. Goals for public participation impied by sustainable
development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme.
Forest Policy and Economics 8: 838-853.
Sandström A. 2008. Policy networks: the relation between structure and performance. Luleå:
Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences, University of Technology.
Scott J. 1991. Social network analysis: A handbook. Newbury Park: Sage.
Slocum R., Wichhart L., Rocheleau D., Thomas-Slayter B. 1995. Power process and
participation: tools for change. London: ITDG Publishing.
40
Tabbush P. 2004. Public money for public good? Public participation in forest
planning.”Forestry 2: 145-156.
Turner J.C. 2005. Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of
Social Psychology 35 (1): 1-22.
Walker G.B., Daniels S.E. 1997. Foundations of Natural Resource Conflict: Conflict Theory and
Public Policy. In: Solberg B., Miina S. (eds) Conflict Management and Public Participation in
Land Management, EFI Proceedings 14, Joensuu, European Forest Institute: 13-36.
Wasserman S., Faust K. 1994. Social network analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Webler T., Tuler S., Krueger R. 2001. What is a good public participation process? Five
perspectives from the public. Environmental Management 27(3): 435-450.