{"title":"The Role of Multistakeholder Platforms in Environmental Governance: Analyzing Stakeholder Perceptions in Kalomo District, Zambia, Using Q-Method.","authors":"Freddie S Siangulube","doi":"10.1007/s00267-023-01806-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Multistakeholder platforms (MSPs) are increasingly applied in environmental governance as institutions to collectively negotiate challenges, opportunities, and policy options in contested landscapes. However, their contributions and effectiveness depend on how stakeholders perceive and frame the role of MSPs in addressing social and environmental challenges. Despite this dependence, stakeholder perceptions of MSPs are currently under-researched. Hence this empirical study carried out in Zambia's Kalomo District asks: how do stakeholder groups perceive the role of MSPs in addressing landscape challenges, given the context of the dual land tenure system, and what does this imply for the implementation of integrated landscape approaches? This study uses Q-methodology to analyze the perceptions of purposefully selected stakeholders from state institutions, civil society organizations, land users, and others familiar with existing MSPs at the district and village levels. The findings reveal three narratives. The first one presents MSPs as institutions that foster dialogue. The second narrative foregrounds the role of the government and private sector, despite acknowledging the diversity of stakeholders in MSPs. In this narrative, MSPs should focus on supporting market-driven solutions to resolve landscape challenges. The third narrative recognizes power imbalances and considers MSPs as institutions to identify policy gaps and needs. The first two narratives are positioned in Dryzek's discourse classification as environmental problem-solving, while the third inclines toward green radicalism. Despite this divergence, there was consensus that MSPs have the potential to harmonize policies in a dual governance system and encourage dialogue between stakeholders to reconcile landscape challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":543,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Management","volume":" ","pages":"13-30"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11208185/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01806-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Multistakeholder platforms (MSPs) are increasingly applied in environmental governance as institutions to collectively negotiate challenges, opportunities, and policy options in contested landscapes. However, their contributions and effectiveness depend on how stakeholders perceive and frame the role of MSPs in addressing social and environmental challenges. Despite this dependence, stakeholder perceptions of MSPs are currently under-researched. Hence this empirical study carried out in Zambia's Kalomo District asks: how do stakeholder groups perceive the role of MSPs in addressing landscape challenges, given the context of the dual land tenure system, and what does this imply for the implementation of integrated landscape approaches? This study uses Q-methodology to analyze the perceptions of purposefully selected stakeholders from state institutions, civil society organizations, land users, and others familiar with existing MSPs at the district and village levels. The findings reveal three narratives. The first one presents MSPs as institutions that foster dialogue. The second narrative foregrounds the role of the government and private sector, despite acknowledging the diversity of stakeholders in MSPs. In this narrative, MSPs should focus on supporting market-driven solutions to resolve landscape challenges. The third narrative recognizes power imbalances and considers MSPs as institutions to identify policy gaps and needs. The first two narratives are positioned in Dryzek's discourse classification as environmental problem-solving, while the third inclines toward green radicalism. Despite this divergence, there was consensus that MSPs have the potential to harmonize policies in a dual governance system and encourage dialogue between stakeholders to reconcile landscape challenges.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Management offers research and opinions on use and conservation of natural resources, protection of habitats and control of hazards, spanning the field of environmental management without regard to traditional disciplinary boundaries. The journal aims to improve communication, making ideas and results from any field available to practitioners from other backgrounds. Contributions are drawn from biology, botany, chemistry, climatology, ecology, ecological economics, environmental engineering, fisheries, environmental law, forest sciences, geosciences, information science, public affairs, public health, toxicology, zoology and more.
As the principal user of nature, humanity is responsible for ensuring that its environmental impacts are benign rather than catastrophic. Environmental Management presents the work of academic researchers and professionals outside universities, including those in business, government, research establishments, and public interest groups, presenting a wide spectrum of viewpoints and approaches.