IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rom/terumm/v14y2019i1p53-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Supporting Stakeholder Analysis Within Iczm Process In Small And Medium-Sized Mediterranean Coastal Cities With The Use Of Q-Method

Author

Listed:
  • Spyros NIAVIS

    (Research Unit of Environment and Spatial Planning, University of Thessaly Pedion Areos, 38334, Volos, Greece)

  • Theodora PAPATHEOCHARI

    (Research Unit of Environment and Spatial Planning, University of Thessaly Pedion Areos, 38334, Volos, Greece)

  • Harry COCCOSSIS

    (Professor of Environment and Spatial Planning University of Thessaly Pedion Areos, 38334, Volos, Greece)

Abstract

Stakeholder engagement is considered essential in Integrated Coastal Zone Management. In this context, detailed stakeholder analysis can provide a useful support for decision-making. Such an analysis can be particularly useful when there may be capacity limits in terms of stakeholders and loose institutional structures, such as in the case of small and medium-sized coastal cities. This analysis utilizes the Q-method as a basic tool for stakeholder analysis within the context of ICZM in small and medium sized cities. The method is applied in Kavala and Heraklion (a small and a medium-size city) in Greece, where local stakeholders involved in waterfront activities and related decision making were asked to sort statements evaluating the socio-economic, spatial and environmental role of urban waterfront in their city. The results of the analysis were useful in the sense of identifying potential complementarities and synergies among groups of stakeholders on the basis of their perceptions towards the waterfront by using Q-method. This approach provides o more than a typical mapping of the cooperation channels among stakeholders and institutions. Finally, the method proved to be notably effective in small samples of stakeholders that usually participate in the decision-making process in small and medium sized cities.

Suggested Citation

  • Spyros NIAVIS & Theodora PAPATHEOCHARI & Harry COCCOSSIS, 2019. "Supporting Stakeholder Analysis Within Iczm Process In Small And Medium-Sized Mediterranean Coastal Cities With The Use Of Q-Method," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 14(1), pages 53-74, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:rom:terumm:v:14:y:2019:i:1:p:53-74
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://um.ase.ro/no141/3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Toddi A. Steelman & Lynn A. Maguire, 1999. "Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 361-388.
    2. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    3. van Kouwen, Frank & Dieperink, Carel & Schot, Paul P. & Wassen, Martin J., 2007. "Interactive Problem Structuring with ICZM Stakeholders," Natural Resources Management Working Papers 9555, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    4. Jae-hyuck Lee & Sung-hoon Kim & Hyuk-soo Kwon, 2017. "Mapping Interests by Stakeholders’ Subjectivities toward Ecotourism Resources: The Case of Seocheon-Gun, Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, January.
    5. Raum, Susanne, 2018. "A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research: Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 170-184.
    6. Frank van Kouwen & Carel Dieperink & Paul P. Schot & Martin J. Wassen, 2007. "Interactive Problem Structuring with ICZM Stakeholders," Working Papers 2007.52, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    7. Berghöfer, Augustin & Wittmer, Heidi & Rauschmayer, Felix, 2008. "Stakeholder participation in ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management: A synthesis from European research projects," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 243-253, March.
    8. Keith Bassett & Ron Griffiths & Ian Smith, 2002. "Testing Governance: Partnerships, Planning and Conflict in Waterfront Regeneration," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(10), pages 1757-1775, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nicola Cantasano & Tommaso Caloiero & Gaetano Pellicone & Francesco Aristodemo & Alessandra De Marco & Giuseppe Tagarelli, 2021. "Can ICZM Contribute to the Mitigation of Erosion and of Human Activities Threatening the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Coastal Landscape of Calabria?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    2. McNicholas, Grace & Cotton, Matthew, 2019. "Stakeholder perceptions of marine plastic waste management in the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 77-87.
    3. Christine Corlet Walker & Angela Druckman & Claudio Cattaneo, 2020. "Understanding the (non-)Use of Societal Wellbeing Indicators in National Policy Development: What Can We Learn from Civil Servants? A UK Case Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 911-953, August.
    4. Jeffrey E Black & Kathrin Kopke & Cathal O’Mahony, 2019. "Towards a Circular Economy: Using Stakeholder Subjectivity to Identify Priorities, Consensus, and Conflict in the Irish EPS/XPS Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Armatas, Christopher A. & Venn, Tyron J. & Watson, Alan E., 2014. "Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 447-456.
    7. Yésica Mayett-Moreno & Liz Farleidy Villarraga-Flórez & Sandra Rodríguez-Piñeros, 2017. "Young Farmers’ Perceptions about Forest Management for Ecotourism as an Alternative for Development, in Puebla, Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, June.
    8. Daamen, Tom A. & Vries, Isabelle, 2013. "Governing the European port–city interface: institutional impacts on spatial projects between city and port," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 4-13.
    9. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    10. Antonio Lopolito & Edgardo Sica, 2022. "Designing Policy Mixes to Address the World’s Worst Devastation of a Rural Landscape Caused by Xylella Epidemic," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, May.
    11. IOVINO, Giorgia, 2017. "Waterfront Urbani: Approcci Rigenerativi e Visioni di Città," CELPE Discussion Papers 148, CELPE - CEnter for Labor and Political Economics, University of Salerno, Italy.
    12. Elena Zepharovich & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Stephan Rist, 2020. "Land-Use Conflict in the Gran Chaco: Finding Common Ground through Use of the Q Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    13. Muhammad Asif, 2020. "Role of Energy Conservation and Management in the 4D Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-3, November.
    14. Loučanová, Erika & Paluš, Hubert & Báliková, Klára & Dzian, Michal & Slašťanova, Nikola & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2020. "Stakeholder's perceptions of the innovation trends in the Slovak forestry and forest based sectors," MPRA Paper 109679, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    16. Willis Ndeda Ochilo & Stefan Toepfer & Privat Ndayihanzamaso & Idah Mugambi & Janny Vos & Celestin Niyongere, 2022. "Assessing the Plant Health System of Burundi: What It Is, Who Matters and Why," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-19, November.
    17. Clare Hall & Anita Wreford, 2012. "Adaptation to climate change: the attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 207-222, February.
    18. Ahmad Salman & Mastura Jaafar & Diana Mohamad & Mana Khoshkam, 2023. "Understanding Multi-stakeholder Complexity & Developing a Causal Recipe (fsQCA) for achieving Sustainable Ecotourism," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 10261-10284, September.
    19. Swedeen, Paula, 2006. "Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 190-208, May.
    20. Suéskeviécs, Monika, 2010. "Legitimacy analysis of multi-level governance of biodiversity: Evidence from 12 case studies across the EU," UFZ Discussion Papers 10/2010, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rom:terumm:v:14:y:2019:i:1:p:53-74. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Colesca Sofia (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ccasero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.