Cluster analysis reveals latent structure in stakeholder interests relevant to the management of Blueskin Bay estuary, Otago, Aotearoa New Zealand

ABSTRACT

Community participation is increasingly embedded into environmental policy with the aim of accelerating transformative change towards sustainable management. A common approach to engaging with communities is through key stakeholders, who are still often selected ad hoc based on their activities. We tested an analytical approach for identifying distinct groups of community preferences as part of a case study to develop a community-led management plan for Blueskin Bay estuary and its catchment. We interviewed 36 community members to elicit their preferences for predefined management objectives following a standardised protocol. Using an agglomerative hierarchical analysis, we determined value-preference clusters for high-level management objectives and more specific objectives. At both levels combined, preference clusters were attributed to some of the commercial interests, such as cockle harvesting, forestry or tourism, which we also identified ad hoc based on their activities in the Blueskin Bay area. However, in addition, cluster analyses revealed five additional preference types: Urban Development Advocates, Cultural Environmentalists, Economic Environmentalists, Integrative Thinkers and those with Diverse Interests. We conclude that cluster analysis more objectively and specifically maps community preferences and, consequently, increases the robustness of collaborative environmental management processes, such as the one underway for Blueskin Bay estuary.

KEYWORDS:

• Blueskin Bay
• ecological quality
• estuary
• hierarchical cluster analysis
• integrative management
• multi-attribute value theory
• multi-criteria analysis
• National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management
• public participation
• stakeholder engagement

Acknowledgements

The written informed consent for publication of the participants’ preferences was obtained from the participants. The interviews were conducted according to the requirements of ethics and integrity in Article 34 of the H2020 Programme Multi-Beneficiary Model Grant Agreement (i.e. ethics approval to interview the participants was granted by the Human Ethics Committee of the University of Otago). The authors would like to thank everyone who attended the community workshops and who contributed their time, values, and expertise. The authors also appreciate the valuable comments from Jim Sinner, an anonymous reviewer and Joanne Clapcott, which considerably improved the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data availability statement

The interview protocol for the elicitation of community preferences that support the findings of this study is openly available in zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6821332.

Additional information

Funding

SDL and AL were supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 748625 and María de Maeztu excellence accreditation 2018–2022 (Ref. MDM-2017-0714), funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033. MS was supported by the University of Otago Zoology Department.