Applying social network analysis to stakeholder analysis in Japan’s natural resource governance: two endangered species conservation activity cases

Abstract

Stakeholders with diverse interests, concerns, and needs regarding the use and management of natural resources are involved in their governance process. Because of their diversity, policy practitioners need to manage their conflicting interests and establish a conservation strategy that reflects those needs. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the relevant stakeholders who should be involved in decision making. This study sought to ascertain the relevant stakeholders in Japan’s natural resource governance by using a social network analysis. The conservation activities involved in protecting two endangered species, Cypripedium guttatum (Spotted Lady’s-Slipper) and Cypripedium macranthos var. rebunense (Rebun Lady’s-Slipper), were chosen as case studies. With the data obtained from surveys, social networks were analyzed using centrality, core-periphery, and factions. Then, the stakeholders were categorized into three classes (key, primary, and secondary stakeholders) according to their location in the networks. Because the Spotted Lady’s-Slipper case included stakeholders from a wide range of activity fields and all the key stakeholders in the decision-making arena, it enjoyed a preferable condition in terms of representativeness and inclusiveness of diverse stakeholders. However, in the Rebun Lady’s-Slipper case, the guards and several key stakeholders working on on-site activities were excluded. Consequently, the analysis identified key stakeholders, who should be included in the decision-making arena. The study demonstrated the usefulness of the methodology, which would assist policy practitioners by identifying relevant stakeholders who should be involved in decision making when organizing the arena in Japan’s natural resource governance.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 30 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.