Integrated stakeholder prioritization criteria for environmental management

Abstract

It is widely recognized that stakeholder engagement can lead to improved decision making. However, decision makers must identify and engage appropriate stakeholder groups. This can be challenging when there is a wide and diverse range of potential stakeholders, often the case in environmental management. Some fields, business and public relations for example, have proposed criteria or methodologies for prioritizing stakeholders for inclusion in decision making, but current methods of stakeholder evaluation in environmental management focus on stakeholder identification, categorization, and relationship analysis, none of which explicitly prioritize stakeholders. In this paper we propose a set of ten criteria, drawn from the literature, that can be used to prioritize stakeholders for environmental management decision making. These criteria are: level of interest, level of influence, magnitude of impact, probability of impact, urgency/temporal immediacy, proximity, economic interest, rights, fairness, and underrepresented/underserved populations. Not all criteria will be relevant to all decision makers, but we suggest this set of criteria encompasses those stakeholder engagement factors most commonly considered by decision makers. This paper proposes these criteria that form the basis of future decision support approaches in environmental management contexts and we argue for development and testing of these criteria to connect stakeholder prioritization and environmental decision making.

1. Introduction

Making environmental management decisions is challenging given a wide range of issues and interested and affected parties (stakeholders) who want to be involved in a given decision. There are a variety of ways to define and classify stakeholders, as well as a large amount of stakeholder input for a given decision. There is a need for a systematic approach to prioritize stakeholders and stakeholder input. Involving broader groups of stakeholders is important as stakeholder representatives can contribute valuable knowledge that complements scientific expertise, enriching the knowledge base (e.g., for technology development and risk assessments; Fiorino, 1990, NRC, 1996). Including interested and affected stakeholders should be incorporated throughout decision-making processes, including in environmental decision making (Kiker et al., 2005). Stakeholder involvement can shape how information is received, whether it will be accepted, and can lead to better informed and more legitimate decisions.

The success of stakeholder participation is linked to having an appropriately inclusive and representative group of stakeholders involved in a decision-making process (Smith Korfmacher, 2001; Mostert, 2003; Koontz and Johnson, 2004; Junker et al., 2007; Stenseke, 2009; Luyet et al., 2012; de Vente et al., 2016; Reed et al., 2018). Inclusion of all possible stakeholders is often not achievable. Out of necessity, decision makers must make choices about which stakeholders to include. The use of specific prioritization criteria could assist decision makers in identifying which representative stakeholders to include.

Stakeholder engagement often follows a sequence of define, identify, then engage. The effectiveness of stakeholder engagement for a given decision is related to both the process of stakeholder identification and prioritization and the outcome/result of the decision (Bourne, 2016). In environmental decision making, stakeholders may include scientists, natural resource managers, conservation groups, and local/community activists (Reed, 2008). When engaging this wide range of stakeholders, issues may include level of engagement (i.e., how often and how in depth to engage) and representation (i.e., who should represent a particular stakeholder group). Differences in socio-cultural factors, environmental factors, and resources need to be considered when determinizing level of engagement (Reed, 2008). Depending on context, such as objectives of the work and capacity for stakeholders to influence outcomes, different levels of engagement will be necessary (Reed, 2008). For example, a “ladder of participation” method describes a continuum of stakeholder involvement from passive to active engagement (Arnstein, 1969). A “wheel of participation” method emphasizes legitimacy of different degrees of stakeholder engagement (Davidson, 1998). Other methods focus on engagement through communication flow paths among parties (Rowe and Frewer, 2000). A stakeholder analysis is a useful method to identify who should participate in stakeholder engagement activities, and appropriate levels of engagement, because it can acknowledge marginalized and less powerful stakeholders (Reed, 2008). Once appropriate engagement levels and stakeholder groups are established, there may be a continuum of stakeholder engagement (e.g., inform, consult, partner) where practical limitations, including transaction costs, must be considered (Arnstein, 1969).

Over recent decades, stakeholder engagement in environmental decision making has been reinforced, in part to address public skepticism of science (Irwin, 1995 as cited in Reed, 2008). Recognition of the importance of, and interest in, stakeholder engagement within environmental management decision making has increased dramatically since 2003 (Fig. 1). This paper proposes a methodology to design and implement stakeholder prioritization for advancing environmental decision making, an important step towards improving transparency and defensibility of stakeholder engagement.

Fig. 1.

Trends in peer-reviewed publications on “stakeholder engagement” and “environmental management” over time (results from Google Scholar search for the two terms combined).

There are multiple justifications for inclusion of broader groups of stakeholders in environmental decision making, from substantive, normative, and instrumental perspectives (Fiorino, 1990, NRC, 1996). Substantively, stakeholders can contribute valuable local knowledge that complements scientific expertise. Normatively, affected stakeholder groups have the right to participate in deliberations. Instrumentally, including stakeholders in evaluation and decision-making processes can lead to sustainable, better informed, and more legitimate decisions (de Vente et al., 2016). Reed’s 2008 review of stakeholder participation identified eight best practices to avoid disappointment by decision makers and stakeholders, not realizing the above benefits. We argue that inclusion of an explicit stakeholder prioritization effort is another best practice. We compile prioritization criteria from literature and experience and argue that environmental managers could benefit from this expanded stakeholder prioritization criteria as a foundational part of their decision-making efforts.

2. Current methods for stakeholder analysis in environmental decision making

Stakeholder inclusion has become an accepted aspect of environmental decision making. Reed et al. (2009) reviewed stakeholder analysis methods in natural resources management and developed a typology categorizing methods for: 1) identifying stakeholders; 2) categorizing stakeholders; and 3) exploring relationships among stakeholders.

Methods for identifying stakeholders are critical for determining who could be included in stakeholder analysis/engagement activities. While projects may have different operational definitions for who is a stakeholder, once determined, these methods are used to find specific groups that should be represented. Stakeholder identification methods range from an ad hoc process (Creighton, 2005) to more time intensive and in-depth approaches, such as semi-structured interviews (Reed et al., 2009). Regardless of method, there is always the risk that not all relevant stakeholders will be identified (Reed et al., 2009), and there is always the likelihood that it will not be feasible to include all identified stakeholders (Mostert, 2003; Reed et al., 2009, Holifield and Williams, 2019).

Reed et al. (2009) grouped stakeholder categorization methods into top-down analytical categorizations (i.e., by observational analysis of stakeholders) and bottom-up reconstructive categorizations (i.e., stakeholders define themselves). Both methods use sets of criteria for sorting stakeholders. One type of analytical categorization popular with policy makers involves sorting stakeholders using levels of interest, influence, or other characteristics (Lindenberg and Crosby, 1981; ODA, 1995; De Lopez, 2001). Hare and Pahl-Wostl (2002) used a method in which stakeholders self-identified criteria to sort into groups. Categorizations are often used by policy and decision makers to determine how best to engage and manage stakeholder relationships or, for stakeholder-led categorizations, how stakeholders can better work together. While a wide range of criteria have been proposed for use, no set of criteria has, as of yet, been systematically applied. Rather, criteria selected vary widely with the project context (Luyet et al., 2012).

Finally, some methods explore relationships among stakeholders. Social Network Analysis (SNA), in which stakeholder relationships are represented via networks, is one commonly used method (Prell et al., 2009; Reed et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2011). Social Network Analyses use sociograms to represent stakeholders and relationships between them, including exploring a wide range of social structures (Scott, 1991; Bodin and Crona, 2009). Environmental management projects often find SNA useful in determining the best way to communicate among stakeholders and to identify stakeholders most likely to be influential in a decision-making process (e.g., Bradley et al., 2010; Harclerode et al., 2015; Alexandrescu et al., 2016).

While stakeholder identification, categorization, and relationship exploration methods vary in required resources and level of stakeholder participation (Reed et al., 2009), none explicitly prioritize stakeholders for environmental decision making. Some categorization methods take steps in the direction of prioritization (i.e., interest/influence matrices), but are not explicitly used as such, and criteria used in categorizations tend to vary among projects. Having a transparent, repeatable, and sharable set of prioritization criteria would be of value to environmental decision makers.

3. Stakeholder identification and prioritization for environmental decision makers

Given that environmental decisions are often centered around specific decision agencies, Shepherd and Bowler, 1997 argue for moving beyond boundaries of authorizing legislation on public involvement in a decision-making process. Many environmental decision-making contexts assume that stakeholders represent individuals who either can affect, or are affected by, a decision (Freeman, 1984 as cited in Depoe et al., 2004). Regardless of decision context, who gets “a seat at the table” and which voices get “heard through the noise” are recurring challenges.

The inherent regulatory nature of many environmental decision-making contexts involves the need to define and engage stakeholders at discrete steps. The delineation of specific stakeholders is often not strictly defined a priori. For example, some may use the term “interested parties” or “the public” rather than “stakeholder,” and definitions can vary based on the scenario. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. sections 4321–4347, as amended in 1970) involves multiple steps that involve stakeholder engagement, such as steps for developing a proposed action (e.g., CEQ, 2007, Slotterback, 2008). Highlighting the challenges in stakeholder identification, the regulations for the Environmental Analysis of Army Actions, which steers the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ activities in environmental management projects, defines “the public” that needs to be consulted relevant to an action (32 CFR Appendix D to Part 651, Public Participation Plan). These examples represent countless potential stakeholder groups, potentially too many for substantive engagement with each. The expansive definition of “the public” in these contexts underscores the value of having a systematic method of sorting through potential stakeholders.

Two other U.S. regulatory vehicles for examining potential effects of a proposed action on the environment are Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements that include a role for public participation and involvement. Shepherd and Bowler, 1997 identified two limitations: stakeholder engagement too late in the process to “influence the selection of alternatives or key project variables”; and limited temporal and spatial scope of public involvement. Our prioritization framework can help ameliorate these issues.

Finally, our proposed framework for stakeholder prioritization, and concomitant efforts on transparency and defensibility, is applicable to challenges in environmental management decisions globally. For example, this framework could be useful for addressing stakeholder knowledge gaps and transparency challenges in Chile’s Environmental Impact Assessment process (Lostarnau et al., 2011), the level and lack of engagement of stakeholders in Nigeria’s process (Aloni et al., 2015), and the introduction of bias and manipulation by stakeholders in Spain’s Environmental Impact Assessment process (Enriquez-de-Salamanca, 2018).

4. Stakeholder prioritization in other fields

Other fields have examined stakeholder prioritization, with substantial research conducted in business and public relations as to which stakeholders “really count.” Mitchell et al. (1997) reviewed various ways stakeholders were being discussed, identified, and defined, and proposed a theory of stakeholder salience that explains why business managers paid “certain types of attention to certain kinds of stakeholders.” Their paper was not arguing which groups managers should pay attention to, rather there are certain groups managers did pay attention to and that three attributes (legitimacy, power, urgency) were deterministic in that decision. Mitchell et al. (1997) argued that identifying “legitimate” stakeholders (e.g., the involvement is desirable, proper, or appropriate) is necessary for businesses to serve their interests and the more legitimate a stakeholder’s claim is, the greater priority it should be given. Further, they articulated the importance of stakeholder “power,” the extent that stakeholder groups can impose their will through coercive, utilitarian, or normative means, and “urgency,” the degree to which a stakeholder group is calling for action related to either time sensitivity or criticality of the action.

The theory of stakeholder salience was a significant contribution in the business literature. Mitchell et al. (1997), cited over 15,000 times, functions as the foundation to much of the stakeholder research, with researchers finding empirical support for the attributes proposed therein (Neville et al., 2011). Subsequent work expanded the initial set of attributes to include concepts such as “proximity” (spatially, in concept, or in practice; Driscoll and Starik, 2004), level of stakeholder support (Rawlins, 2006), and access to resources (Eesley and Lenox, 2006). Other researchers investigated further refinement of the original attributes (Neville et al., 2011), including how “urgency” depends on probability of a stakeholder making a claim on the decision maker (Driscoll and Starik, 2004) and how “power” depends on a stakeholder’s access to resources (Eesley and Lenox, 2006). The Stakeholder Circle ™ methodology is a visualization tool designed to help project managers prioritize stakeholders based on criteria of power, proximity (similar to pragmatic legitimacy), and urgency (Bourne, 2020). Rather than asking whether each stakeholder group has a particular attribute, their tool provides users a set of scoring metrics to determine the degree to which a stakeholder group has each attribute. Additionally, this tool allows for each attribute to be weighted instead of treating them as equally influential. Finally, in public relations, Rawlins (2006) developed a framework tailored to the needs of public relations professionals, adding additional attributes to stakeholder prioritization that captured a groups’ relationship to a given situation and the resultant communication strategy needed.

5. Suggested criteria for stakeholder prioritization

Balancing concerns and competing interests across stakeholders is not unique to business and public relations. Environmental managers meet this challenge with added complexities of a wider range of potential stakeholder groups and broader missions to meet. Many concerns businesses have for managing stakeholders focus on increasing the business’ value (Mitchell et al., 1997), prioritizing claims (Neville et al., 2011), or managing those involved (Bourne, 2020). Environmental managers have a wider range of overarching goals, often with competing interests, needing to balance multiple uses of management areas with economic, ecological, and social interests, and could benefit from an expanded set of stakeholder prioritization criteria. Based on the current methods used in environmental decision making, the stakeholder prioritization literature from business and public relations, and other stakeholder engagement guidance, we propose a set of ten stakeholder prioritization criteria for use by environmental managers (Table 1).

Table 1.

Suggested stakeholder prioritization criteria for specific decisions with an environmental management component.

Stakeholder prioritization criteria	Definition	Rationale
Level of interest	The amount of interest that the stakeholder group has in the decision-making process or the decision outcome	Levels of interest and influence are often used in natural resource management (De Lopez, 2001), are some of the most commonly used criteria for categorizing stakeholders (Lindenberg and Crosby, 1981; Olander, 2007), and have been found useful in distinguishing among stakeholder groups.
Level of influence	The amount of influence a stakeholder group has over the decision-making process
Magnitude of impact	The degree of potential impact to the stakeholder group as a result of the decision	Magnitude and probability of impact are identified as stand-alone criteria in business (Olander, 2007) and public policy (Varvasovszky and Brugha, 2000; Reed et al., 2018). They are also elements of moral legitimacy (Suchman, 1995).
Probability of impact	The likelihood of potential impact to the stakeholder group as a result of the decision
Urgency/temporal immediacy	The degree to which a stakeholder group would like to see a decision made or action taken	Originated in Mitchell et al.’s (1997) typology, urgency encompasses time sensitivity as well as criticality. These aspects of urgency should be considered separately. Our criterion focuses on time sensitivity, an element of Jones’s (1991) definition of moral legitimacy. The criterion of urgency has been found to be meaningful in discriminating among stakeholder groups (Nguyen et al., 2009).
Proximity	How frequently a stakeholder group comes in contact with the environment for which a decision is being made	Proximity is an element of both moral and pragmatic legitimacy (Jones, 1991; Suchman, 1995). Junker et al. (2007) found that, unless involved in the process, residents identify changes to their natural environment that they use intensely (or relate to significantly) as an intrusion. There is the potential for overlap between this and the criteria related to magnitude and probability of impact.
Economic interest	Whether a stakeholder group has an economic interest in the decision outcome (i.e., whether livelihoods or assets could be affected by the decision)	Economic interest is an aspect of legitimacy as defined by Mitchell et al. (1997). The criterion of “vested interest” has been used by managers in discriminating among stakeholder groups (Nguyen et al., 2009). Economic analysis has been a critical and formal part of decision making for agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, thus it is necessary to have a specific criterion to explicitly value and capture the influence of economic considerations.
Rights	Whether a stakeholder group has legal, property, consumer, or user rights associated with the decision-making process, decision outcome, or environment for which the decision is being made	This criterion is useful to ensure any rights that stakeholder groups may have related to the decision are explicitly recognized. The concept of rights is another element of moral legitimacy (Jones, 1991) and has been found by managers to be useful in discriminating among stakeholder groups (Harvey and Schaefer, 2001). There is the potential for overlap between this criterion and criteria related to level of influence.
Fairness	Whether exclusion of a stakeholder group from the decision-making process would lead to the process being viewed as unfair	Fairness is another element of moral legitimacy (Suchman, 1995) and fairness in stakeholder inclusion requires attention to avoid favoring one type of stakeholder at the expense of another (Clarkson, 1995). This criterion is important for decisions being made in the public arena and subject to public scrutiny. Proper inclusion of stakeholder groups can lead to the decision-making process being considered valid and resulting decisions more widely accepted and likely implemented (Reed, 2008; de Vente et al., 2016, Reed et al., 2018).
Underrepresented/underserved populations	Whether a stakeholder group includes underrepresented or underserved populations	Environmental justice has become an issue of concern for many decision makers and an explicit priority for many natural resource management agencies (EPA, 2011). Holifield and Williams (2019) argue that without extra attention, underrepresented groups may not be adequately recruited, and thus not afforded the right level of engagement. This criterion allows for explicit consideration of whether prioritization of a group will address any environmental justice concerns.

Our proposed criteria aim to be exhaustive in order to capture the full range of possible considerations that might reasonably play into managers’ considerations. Some criteria were merged into a single criterion under some of the prioritization approaches referred to above. Here, we pull the merged criteria apart to allow for their explicit and individual consideration. For example, Mitchell et al.’s (1997) concept of legitimacy encompasses moral, pragmatic, and cognitive legitimacy as laid out by Suchman (1995), with moral legitimacy alone encompassing consideration of magnitude of consequences, probability of effect, concentration of effect, temporal immediacy, proximity, social consensus, net benefits, fairness, and rights (Jones, 1991; Suchman, 1995). Using a criterion that encompasses multiple concepts can lead to a less transparent prioritization process due to a lack of clarity on which included concepts are the ones being considered by the decision maker. We aim to capture criteria at an elemental level rather than bundling them into larger concepts.

Relatedly, these criteria are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The goal in developing these prioritization criteria is to allow environmental managers to be explicit about which stakeholder groups are being prioritized and why. To do this, it was important to represent the full set of considerations managers are currently applying in an ad hoc fashion. This led to the inclusion of similar, but sufficiently divergent, criteria in our proposed set. Finally, these criteria are intended for use in prioritizing stakeholders around a specific decision rather than generally applied for all environmental decision-making contexts. The relative priority of stakeholder groups will vary with the specific decision context.

6. Operationalizing stakeholder prioritization criteria

Application of these formal criteria for a given environmental decision-making context needs to be explicitly considered, including the need to not complicate or lengthen the decision-making process. Operationally, application of these criteria can be as simple as the flow-chart in Fig. 2. We recommend using a decision tree, framework, decision support tool (e.g., Sharpe et al., 2020), or other structured process rather than an ad hoc examination of these criteria. A formalized approach to review potential stakeholders can improve defensibility of a stakeholder engagement process. Documenting the process for evaluating potential stakeholders is also important to support transparency in decision making. A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach, a type of decision analysis in which decision alternatives are evaluated in terms of explicitly stated criteria (Stewart, 1992; Kiker et al., 2005), could be particularly useful for incorporating these criteria into decision making. Multi-criteria decision analysis formalizes key criteria through clear definitions and scoping metrics, allowing for decision makers to consider a wide range of disparate criteria in a single, straightforward process with easy replication and justification of results.

Fig. 2.

Flow path for connecting stakeholder identification and prioritization steps needed for introducing stakeholder prioritization into a decision process.

Operationally, these criteria can be evaluated in an environmental decision-making context in a variety of ways. Each criterion can be treated as a binary choice (i.e., a given stakeholder group would or would not be interested in the decision-making process or outcome). This approach, taken in Mitchell et al.’s (1997) typology, is straightforward and simple to apply, but does not allow for further differentiation among stakeholder groups. Increasing in complexity, qualitative categories can be used to evaluate stakeholder groups for a given criterion. These qualitative categories can be relative (e.g., probability of impact on a stakeholder group is none, low, moderate, or high) or they can be objective (e.g., a stakeholder group can either have formal, informal, or no influence over a decision-making process) for a decision context. Finally, quantitative measures can be applied (e.g., economic value of the interest of a stakeholder group, or percentage of a stakeholder group that is an underrepresented or underserved population). These approaches can be used in combination and decision makers can use the application and evaluation approach most appropriate for their decision context.

Our goal was to develop stakeholder prioritization criteria that encompass the full range of issues that environmental managers often consider in an ad hoc fashion in the decision-making process. It is not expected that all criteria will be pertinent for every manager or for every decision, and the degree to which each criterion matters will vary as well. Application of these criteria will require a formal weighting step in which criteria are ranked relative to one another in terms of influence on the decision-making process. This step is subjective and context dependent but must be done to accurately reflect the decision makers’ values and to make existing processes transparent. A number of different weighting approaches, including swing weighting, expert opinion, and use of surveys, can be used individually or in combination (Goodwin and Wright, 1991; Smith et al., 2013). If an MCDA approach is taken, weighting is a formal step and can be as simple as dividing a set number of points amongst the total number of criteria (Ralls and Starfield, 1995).

The issue of context dependence is also one that must be addressed. The relative importance of stakeholder groups to a decision maker shifts with a range of external factors including type of decision being made (Pfarrer et al., 2008), type of organization making it Fottler et al., 1989, Jawahar and McLaughlin, 2001, where in the decision cycle they are (Mostert, 2003), or type of issue being addressed (Fottler et al., 1989). It is reasonable to conclude that shifts in importance of a particular stakeholder group in environmental decision making come not from changes to stakeholder groups, but rather from a shift in relative importance of the criteria used to prioritize stakeholder groups among different decision contexts. Therefore, relative weights of these criteria must be revisited for every decision context involving stakeholder identification and prioritization. Although the relative influence of a particular stakeholder group may not have shifted among different decision contexts, it is important to recognize that these weights will not be static.

The degree to which each group embodies a given criterion also can vary widely. Mitchell et al.’s (1997) typology uses a rigid approach, both in its attributes (e.g., either the group has power, or it does not) and its hierarchy (i.e., groups who embody more criteria will rank higher than groups who embody fewer criteria). Neville et al. (2011), however, suggested attributes could more appropriately be viewed as continua (i.e., among groups that have power, the amount of power they can have varies and increasing power should lead to an increased priority for that group). The Stakeholder Circle ™ methodology explicitly lays out scoring metrics for each criteria used in its prioritization approach (Bourne, 2020). We concur that criteria should be considered as continua and explicit scoring be developed for their use in a decision-making process. These metrics need not be elaborate; the Stakeholder Circle ™ methodology, for example, uses a simple ordinal scale paired with brief descriptions.

Finally, it is key to recognize the influence of manager perception of stakeholder groups in the prioritization process (Mitchell et al., 1997, Neville et al., 2011). It is not only the actual degree to which stakeholder groups embody these criteria, it is also the degree to which decision makers perceive them as embodying these criteria. The influence of these subjective perceptions can be difficult to recognize when the process is an ad hoc one. The use of a transparent, documented stakeholder prioritization criteria in a decision process can help correct any misperceptions. It does not, however, address the issue of values (e.g., whether or not a manager thinks an economic interest is important/influential).

7. Example applications

Here, we provide two examples applying prioritization criteria as part of an environmental management decision-making process; the first focused on identifying whom to engage in a decision process, and the second on who to involve in a communication strategy.

7.1. Prioritizing stakeholders for involvement in the decision-making process

In our first example, we look at how prioritization criteria could identify which stakeholder groups should be involved in the process of deciding what flood mitigation actions to take in a community located on a river. In this example, decision makers are taking action because heavy rain events have led to the river reaching flood stage several times in recent years. Here, decision makers know that their actions will impact the entire town, but they want to prioritize those most likely to feel repercussions. Given that, they might focus on a subset of the criteria: magnitude of impact, probability of impact, and proximity. If the river condition is connected to jobs, they may also decide to include the criterion of economic impact. Finally, if they know that flooding events disproportionately impact less affluent parts of town, they may also include underrepresented/underserved populations.

Once the decision makers have chosen and documented prioritization criteria meaningful to them for this decision, they must decide how to score each of the stakeholder groups on these criteria (Table 2) and determine the relative importance of the criteria to their prioritization process. In this example, since decision makers eliminated those criteria irrelevant to their decision, they might decide that all remaining criteria were of equal importance. In that case, groups could be prioritized simply by scoring them across all criteria and comparing the total number of points for each group. Because all criteria are set as equal, the differences in relative priority of these groups will be based on how they score across all the criteria.

Table 2.

A complete set of scoring metrics and rationale for the river flooding decision example. Depending on the aspects of criteria decision makers find most relevant, different scoring metrics are appropriate.

Criteria	Rationale	Suggested Metrics
Magnitude of impact	Decision makers want to prioritize groups who see more substantial impacts from the flooding and mitigation actions, but the breadth of potential impacts is long and uncertain.	A qualitative measure is recommended. Decision makers can categorize groups into those to whom the impact is: significant (100 points); moderate (75 points); minimal (25 points); or nonexistent (0 points).
Probability of impact	Decision makers want to prioritize groups who are more likely to be impacted by flooding and mitigation actions, but the breadth of potential impacts is long and uncertain.	A qualitative measure is recommended. Decision makers can categorize groups into those to whom the impact is: high (100 points); moderate (75 points); minimal (25 points); or none (0 points).
Proximity	Decision makers want to prioritize groups who are in greatest proximity to the river and to any potential flood mitigation structures.	A quantitative measure is recommended. The greater the group’s proximity to the river, the more points they receive. If a group owns property or primarily conducts activities on the river, they will be given 100 points. The number of points given will decline in a linear fashion across the floodplain so as a group’s property (or undertaken activities) is further away, they will receive fewer points. If the property and activities take place outside the floodplain, they will receive zero points.
Economic interest	Decision makers are interested in prioritizing groups that could have an economic interest in the decision, but they are not concerned about the level of interest because: 1) they do not want to conduct an economic analysis; and 2) they do not want to prioritize large businesses over small ones.	A binary approach is recommended. If a group has economic interest, they will be given 100 points; if they do not, they will be given 0.
Underrepresented/underserved populations	Decision makers are interested in prioritizing groups that are more vulnerable and have less resilience to flooding events but are not interested in distinguishing amongst these groups further.	A binary approach is recommended. If a group does contain underrepresented or underserved groups, they will be given 100 points; if they do not, they will be given 0.

7.2. Prioritizing stakeholders for information sharing activities

In our second example, we look at how prioritization criteria might be used when the prioritization goal is not to involve them in a process, but rather to inform them of a decision-making process or outcome. Consider the above example if the decision on flood mitigation actions was going to be made without stakeholder input, but that decision makers wanted to keep stakeholder groups informed about their decisions and progress. In this scenario, decision makers may decide to use the full set of prioritization criteria to identify as wide a suite of potentially relevant stakeholders as possible.

Given that wider set of criteria, and the reduced role of stakeholders in the process, instead of developing detailed metrics for each criterion, decision makers could take a binary approach to all criteria (Table 3). Given the number of criteria included, distinguishing their relative importance would be helpful. In this case, decision makers could give each criterion a weight ranging from 1 to 5, with a score of 5 meaning it is highly influential and important, and a score of 1 meaning that it is of minimal importance. Because all criteria are being scored in a binary fashion, the weights given to each criterion will be very influential in the prioritization process. In this case, the prioritization would be carried out by multiplying each “yes” point by the weight for that criterion before summing up the points given to each group across all criteria. Although communicating to all groups about the flood mitigation process, this exercise might give decision makers insight into which groups might benefit for a focused outreach effort or more targeted messaging in a strategic communication approach (Harwell et al., 2020).

Table 3.

A complete set of questions for determining whether a group should score for each criterion for the communication decision example. A “yes” answer would result in the group being given a point.

Criteria	Scoring Questions
Level of interest	Has the group demonstrated interest in the outcome of the process?
Level of influence	Does this group have the ability to alter any decisions made?
Magnitude of impact	Could this group be significantly impacted by the process?
Probability of impact	Is this group likely to be impacted by the process?
Urgency/temporal immediacy	Is this group calling for action to be taken immediately?
Proximity	Does this group own property or conduct activities on the river?
Economic interest	Does this group have an economic interest in the outcome of the process?
Rights	Does this group have the legal right to be informed of any actions taken?
Fairness	Will this group view the process as unfair if they are not informed about it?
Underrepresented/underserved populations	Does this group contain underrepresented or underserved populations?

8. Discussion

There has been a strong recognition of the importance of, role in, and mechanisms involved in incorporation of stakeholder engagement in environmental decision making over the past two decades (Kiker et al., 2005; Reed, 2008). Although the relative priority and use of our proposed stakeholder prioritization criteria may change among decisions, these criteria cover the full suite of attributes that environmental managers consider when prioritizing stakeholders.

We are laying the groundwork for advancing the field of stakeholder analysis in a new direction. Although the ideal goal of stakeholder engagement activities would be complete inclusion, reality often falls short. Having a set of criteria allows managers to be more strategic about inclusion efforts and provides external groups with a framework for analyzing those efforts. In addition, the use of formal criteria, rather than an ad hoc process, increases the transparency and defensibility of the stakeholder engagement process. These criteria are a critical starting point, but they must be tested in the field. The most pressing future research questions are:

• Are criteria proposed here complete, or do additional criteria need to be developed?

• Are any proposed criteria inappropriate and should be omitted?

• Are definitions of the criteria sufficiently explicit?

• Is a lack of mutual exclusivity an issue when applying criteria in a prioritization process?

Aside from research on criteria themselves, work is needed on methods for incorporating them into existing decision-making processes. Environmental management activities often have budget limitations and expansion of stakeholder engagement efforts must be cognizant of that. Structured decision-making tools are useful for incorporating stakeholder prioritization efforts in other fields (Bourne, 2020), suggesting that they could also benefit the field of environmental management. Incorporating these criteria into a tool would reduce the complexity inherent in consideration of a larger set of prioritization criteria. The example applications laid out frameworks for using criteria that could be described as simple decision support tools. Ideally, these tools would be easy to incorporate into existing decision-making processes. A first attempt to operationalize these criteria can be found in Sharpe et al. (2020); this approach describes a more complex MCDA approach focusing on prioritization of both stakeholders and relevant ecosystem services. Sharpe et al. (2020) presents a tool which contains specific scoring metrics for each prioritization criterion and uses these criteria to prioritize stakeholders in the context of how they benefit from the ecosystem impacted by the decision-making process. Sharpe et al. (2020) focuses, not on the criteria themselves, but how they were incorporated into a tool aimed at a specific management need. Future development and testing of tools that connect stakeholder prioritization criteria to environmental decision making will help address questions critical for making these criteria operational, such as identifying appropriate scoring metrics, and whether criteria are appropriate across different environmental decisions and temporal and spatial decision scales.

When decisions are being made to benefit the public, it can be difficult to acknowledge that some members of the public will factor more significantly into decision-making process than others, but it is neither practical nor realistic to engage all stakeholder groups identically. While both identification of stakeholders and application of these prioritization criteria in “good faith” is beyond the scope of this paper, these criteria provide managers with a method for making prioritization determinations deliberately rather than by default or other ad hoc means. Their use reinforces the importance of transparency in the decision-making process, including articulation of what factors influence stakeholder consideration and engagement approaches for a given environmental decision context.

9. Conclusion

Stakeholder prioritization is a valuable and necessary tactic in business and public relations. Making stakeholder prioritization an explicit part of environmental decision making is useful for managers, particularly given increasing complexity of environmental management decisions. Our set of prioritization criteria is grounded in the literature from business, public relations, and environmental policy and decision making. These criteria represent a solid starting point for development and refinement of environmental decision support tools and frameworks. By applying these criteria in the field, they can be tested for validity and further refined to support future advances in stakeholder engagement within environmental decision making.