IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i15p11496-d1201961.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using a Phosphorus Flow Diagram as a Boundary Object to Inform Stakeholder Engagement

Author

Listed:
  • Ashton W. Merck

    (Department of Applied Ecology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
    North Carolina Plant Sciences Initiative, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
    Science and Technologies for Phosphorus Sustainability (STEPS) Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA)

  • Khara D. Grieger

    (Department of Applied Ecology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
    North Carolina Plant Sciences Initiative, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
    Science and Technologies for Phosphorus Sustainability (STEPS) Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA)

  • Alison Deviney

    (North Carolina Plant Sciences Initiative, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
    Science and Technologies for Phosphorus Sustainability (STEPS) Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA)

  • Anna-Maria Marshall

    (Science and Technologies for Phosphorus Sustainability (STEPS) Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
    Department of Sociology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA)

Abstract

Phosphorus (P) is essential for life on Earth, yet its current management is unsustainable. Stakeholder engagement is urgently needed to help ensure that scientific and technical solutions to improve P sustainability meet the needs of diverse groups, yet there are comparatively few studies that provide insights into stakeholder views, perceptions, or concerns. In this opinion, we use a mass flow diagram of P as a boundary object to understand the complex challenges of sustainable P management. In particular, we map US stakeholder groups onto the mass flow diagram to incorporate human factors into mass flows at a national scale. Our approach is grounded in well-established social–scientific methodologies, such as stakeholder mapping and social network analysis, but is applied in a novel way that can be generalized to other mass flows and geographic areas. We then suggest ways that researchers can use the annotated flow diagram to identify both knowledge gaps and research gaps in stakeholder engagement, especially in interdisciplinary or convergence research contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashton W. Merck & Khara D. Grieger & Alison Deviney & Anna-Maria Marshall, 2023. "Using a Phosphorus Flow Diagram as a Boundary Object to Inform Stakeholder Engagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-10, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:15:p:11496-:d:1201961
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11496/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11496/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrea E. Ulrich & Ewald Schnug, 2013. "The Modern Phosphorus Sustainability Movement: A Profiling Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(11), pages 1-23, October.
    2. Komalsingh Rambaree & Agneta Sundström & Zhao Wang & Sandra Ann Ingela Wright, 2021. "Qualitative Stakeholder Analysis for a Swedish Regional Biogas Development: A Thematic Network Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Jedelhauser, Michael & Binder, Claudia R., 2015. "Losses and efficiencies of phosphorus on a national level – A comparison of European substance flow analyses," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PB), pages 294-310.
    4. Alison Deviney & Khara Grieger & Ashton Merck & John Classen & Anna-Maria Marshall, 2023. "Phosphorus sustainability through coordinated stakeholder engagement: a perspective," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 371-378, September.
    5. Laura M. J. McCann & K. William Easter, 1999. "Differences between Farmer and Agency Attitudes Regarding Policies to Reduce Phosphorus Pollution in the Minnesota River Basin," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 21(1), pages 189-207.
    6. Kazuyo Matsubae‐Yokoyama & Hironari Kubo & Kenichi Nakajima & Tetsuya Nagasaka, 2009. "A Material Flow Analysis of Phosphorus in Japan," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 13(5), pages 687-705, October.
    7. Pingyang Liu & Juan M. Moreno & Peiying Song & Elona Hoover & Marie K. Harder, 2016. "The Use of Oral Histories to Identify Criteria for Future Scenarios of Sustainable Farming in the South Yangtze River, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-24, August.
    8. Marissa A. De Boer & Anjelika G. Romeo-Hall & Tomas M. Rooimans & J. Chris Slootweg, 2018. "An Assessment of the Drivers and Barriers for the Deployment of Urban Phosphorus Recovery Technologies: A Case Study of The Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, May.
    9. John M Bryson, 2004. "What to do when Stakeholders matter," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 21-53, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sandra Ricart & Antonio M. Rico-Amorós, 2022. "Can agriculture and conservation be compatible in a coastal wetland? Balancing stakeholders’ narratives and interactions in the management of El Hondo Natural Park, Spain," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 589-604, June.
    2. Alison Deviney & Khara Grieger & Ashton Merck & John Classen & Anna-Maria Marshall, 2023. "Phosphorus sustainability through coordinated stakeholder engagement: a perspective," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 371-378, September.
    3. Jedelhauser, Michael & Binder, Claudia R., 2015. "Losses and efficiencies of phosphorus on a national level – A comparison of European substance flow analyses," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PB), pages 294-310.
    4. Matsubae, Kazuyo & Webeck, Elizabeth & Nansai, Keisuke & Nakajima, Kenichi & Tanaka, Mikiya & Nagasaka, Tetsuya, 2015. "Hidden phosphorus flows related with non-agriculture industrial activities: A focus on steelmaking and metal surface treatment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PB), pages 360-367.
    5. Bert George, 2017. "Does strategic planning ‘work’ in public organizations? Insights from Flemish municipalities," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(7), pages 527-530, November.
    6. Martin Luštický & Martin Musil, 2016. "Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of Tourism Policy Priorities: The Case of the South Bohemian Region," Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2016(3), pages 3-23.
    7. Jolanta MAJ, 2015. "Diversity Management’S Stakeholders And Stakeholders Management," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 780-793, November.
    8. Franco-Trigo, L. & Fernandez-Llimos, F. & Martínez-Martínez, F. & Benrimoj, S.I. & Sabater-Hernández, D., 2020. "Stakeholder analysis in health innovation planning processes: A systematic scoping review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1083-1099.
    9. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    10. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    11. Christophe Favoreu & David Carassus & Christophe Maurel, 2015. "Strategic management in the public sector: a rational, political or collaborative approach? [Le management stratégique en milieu public : approche rationnelle, politique ou collaborative ?]," Post-Print hal-02152509, HAL.
    12. Ogunlowo, Olufemi O. & Bristow, Abigail L. & Sohail, M., 2017. "A stakeholder analysis of the automotive industry's use of compressed natural gas in Nigeria," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 58-69.
    13. Austen Agata, 2012. "Stakeholders management in public hospitals in the context of resources," Management, Sciendo, vol. 16(2), pages 217-230, December.
    14. Sandra Ricart & Anna Ribas & David Pavón, 2016. "Qualifying irrigation system sustainability by means of stakeholder perceptions and concerns: lessons from the Segarra‐Garrigues Canal, Spain," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(1-2), pages 77-90, February.
    15. Cathy Macharis & Peter Nijkamp, 2013. "Multi-actor and multi-criteria analysis in evaluating mega-projects," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 11, pages 242-266, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Lee, Young-Jae, 2008. "Theoretical Examination of the Conditions of Best Management Practices Adoption and the Easing of Trade Distortion for Sugar," 2008 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2008, Dallas, Texas 6826, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Maciej Dobrzyñski & Krzysztof Dziekoñski & Arkadiusz Jurczuk, 2015. "Stakeholders Mapping - A Case Of International Logistics Project," Polish Journal of Management Studies, Czestochowa Technical University, Department of Management, vol. 11(2), pages 17-26, June.
    18. Szymaniec-Mlicka Karolina, 2016. "Impact of strategic orientation adopted by an organisation on its performance, as shown on the example of public healthcare entities," Management, Sciendo, vol. 20(2), pages 278-290, December.
    19. Carolus, Johannes Friedrich & Hanley, Nick & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2018. "A Bottom-up Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 282-295.
    20. Mingers, John, 2011. "Soft OR comes of age--but not everywhere!," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 729-741, December.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:15:p:11496-:d:1201961. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.