Invasive Species: Mapping Stakeholder Relationships
Assignment #2: Mapping Stakeholder Relations
Carnegie Mellon University, School of Design, Transition Design Seminar 2024
Background
Transition Design is a transdisciplinary approach that is aimed at addressing the many ‘wicked’ problems confronting 21st-century societies: climate change, forced migration, political and social polarisation, global pandemics, lack of access to affordable housing/healthcare/education and many others. These problems are interconnected, and interdependent and always manifest in place and culture-specific ways. Transition Design argues that new knowledge and skill sets are required to address these problems and that their resolution is a strategy for igniting positive, systems-level change and societal transitions toward more sustainable, equitable and desirable long-term futures. Transition Design Seminar 2024 is taught by Terry Irwin & Gideon Kossoff
Team Murmuration: Anthony Haynes, Eugina Chun, Kyla Fullenwider, Ruby Wu and Vanya Rawat
Introduction
Complex issues, known as wicked problems, are intricately intertwined with the social dynamics among various groups of people and living organisms. These problems stem from the clashes and disparities in power among stakeholders. Invasive species exemplify one of these wicked problems, as they disrupt ecosystems and economies alike. Addressing such challenges effectively demands collaboration among diverse groups with differing aspirations, concerns, and positions. It is essential to comprehend the intricate web of relationships among stakeholders to devise viable solutions. By navigating these complex dynamics and fostering cooperation, we can surmount obstacles and pave the way toward a shared vision of sustainable and preferable futures. We are continuing to build on the work we started in Assignment 1 where we mapped Invasive Species as a wicked problem in Pittsburgh.
In Assignment 2, we delineated the aspirations and concerns of four stakeholder groups, identifying areas of consensus and conflict. Regrettably, the time constraints of our class doesn’t allow for interview or extensive primary research, limiting our research to secondary sources on a select few stakeholders. Furthermore, we acknowledge that our group’s viewpoints and predispositions may have influenced our findings. Our group also had the unique opportunity to include non-human stakeholders in our mapping process which draws inspiration from the work of John Seed who developed a ritual approach called The Council of All Beings, to illustrate the interconnectedness of life on the planet and encourage humans to honor this ‘web of life’.
Our approach to mapping stakeholder relations
To create a map of stakeholder relationships related to the wicked problem of Invasive Species in Pittsburgh, we focused on the questions
“Who is benefiting from the problem?” , “Who has the least amount of power in the system?”, “Who is most affected by the problem?”, “What does each stakeholder group fear?”, “What does each stakeholder group hope for?”, and lastly, “what are the power imbalances between stakeholders?”.
To gain a deeper understanding of the stakeholders impacted by invasive plant species in Pittsburgh, we initiated by brainstorming the various parties involved in this complex issue. As a team we benefited from the 3 in class activities about stakeholders that allowed us to create a more holistic outlook in choosing stakeholders and ‘putting ourselves in their shoes’ to examine their thoughts and feelings.
Our brainstorming exercise aimed to encompass a broad spectrum of stakeholders, considering their differing levels of influence and power regarding the problem at hand.
We categorised these stakeholders into four overarching groups:
1. Groups most adversely affected by the wicked problem
2. Groups with a lot of power and privilege (who may or may not care about it being solved)
3. Groups that have leverage to help solve the problem
4. Groups that might be benefiting from the problem (don’t want to see it solved)
We brainstormed on the different ways in which systems of oppresssion are connect to the wicked problem of Invasive Species in Pittsburgh and uncovered some unique perspective which are overlooked but intersect with our problem like social power-archy which is organiseed around a central belief that a particular type of individual is more worthy than another, the judgement and scrutiny immigrants from ‘less desirable’ non-european countries face.
We mapped stakeholders on a power spectrum from most power to least with their issues. Creating a type of systems ‘triage’ by mapping stakeholders divides and noting what polarises them. By acknowledging the disparities between the power of different stakeholder groups affected by a wicked problem, we can better find ways to amplify voices with less power.
As a team we listed down all the stakeholder we believe are involved with the wicked problem of Invasive species and used our guiding questions to cull them down to 4 stakeholders which we mapped.
In our Stakeholder relation map, to better understand each stakeholder group’s attitudes, beliefs and assumptions we investigated the “Fears and Concerns” and “Hopes of Desires” for each group. This method elicited personal perspectives from these stakeholders, enriching the problem with multiple dimensions and insights. We used Red lines for conflict/ opposing agendas, Green lines for agreement/similar agenda and Grey lines for complex relations that are neither ‘good’ or ‘bad’. We chose Local Ecology (Non-Human), PA Department of Agriculture: Policymakers, Conglomerate Herbicide Corporation: C-Suite and Local Pittsburgh Residents as our four stakeholder groups.
PDF link to our map can be found here.
Our Findings
Local Ecologies
Including non-human stakeholders on a stakeholder map is, in many ways, a stretch of both the imagination and reason. Does a river have a voice? Does a plant have the right to reproduce? Do ash trees deserve legal protection from the Emerald Ash Borer that is rendering their species endangered and on the path to extinction? And can these needs be represented in any meaningful way for other-than-human species?
To some degree, we think so. At a minimum, these needs should be accounted for in some way when mapping who and what is impacted by this issue. In this particular case, we saw that the stakeholder most impacted (native ecologies) was also the one with the least amount of power in the system and had, quite literally, no voice. This understanding motivated us to try to give voice to the needs we could identify, and to the extent our imaginations, empathy, and reason allowed.
And while deciding to include local ecologies as a key stakeholder felt important and even obvious to some degree, it was also challenging (and at times awkward!). We grappled with questions like: What should be included? (Trees and rivers?) What should not be? (Moss and rocks?) Who decides? How do we avoid anthropomorphising non-human species and ecologies? Can a river have a voice?
The good news is that we are not the first to attempt to understand the needs of local ecologies or even to give them a voice. For thousands of years, Indigenous peoples have understood flora and fauna (and other non-human species) as so much more than just the sum of their parts. These depictions have helped create the conditions for a more equitable ecology, one where humans are not always at the centre. And one where an Ash tree can sit next to a government official on a stakeholder map.
More recently, “Rights of Nature” frameworks around the world are finding ways to represent more than human perspectives in legal cases of consequence. In our case, we found that including the first person perspective of local ecologies generated some of the most important and poignant questions to consider: Questions of extinction, relationship, vulnerability, and resilience. All questions that likely would not have come up in the way they did had we only included a human-centred perspective.
PA Department of Agriculture: Policymakers
The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is a cabinet-level agency led by the Secretary of Agriculture, who is appointed by the Governor. The department is tasked with supporting and safeguarding the state’s food supply, local farms, and the health of people, plants, animals, and the environment. Inherent in the complexity of these responsibilities are a number of conflicts that the PDA must deftly and successfully navigate to fulfil its mission. For example: What happens when current farming practices are at odds with the health of plants and animals? What if increasing food production also means increasing pesticide use that is harmful to maternal health? How are industry lobbying efforts managed ethically?
Many of these macro-level conflicts play out with more specificity in our stakeholder map, which includes the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture policymakers as a key stakeholder and decision-maker around the issue of invasive plant species in Pittsburgh. The PDA policymakers sit in a unique position in that it needs to address the competing (and often conflicting) concerns of countless other stakeholders including farmers, business owners, local residents, political leaders, and other government agencies (to name just a few). As part of our process, our team attempted to map what some of these concerns for PDA policymakers might include when addressing the myriad issues connected to invasive plants in the region. For example: How to garner the public support needed to put critical policies in place? How to ensure PA farmers can meet their production quotas while minimising the pesticide use that exacerbates algae growth in local waterways? How to align ecological and economic policy interests with other government agencies? And how to manage a truly wicked problem of this magnitude with a skeletal staff and budget?
To its credit, it appears the PDA is attempting to address some of these conflicts and complexities through the creation of the Governor’s Invasive Species Council, an interagency and cross-organisational effort whose aim is to “minimise the harmful ecological, economic, and human health impacts of invasive species by preventing and managing their introduction and dispersal in and from Pennsylvania”. This- along with other programmes such as the Partnership for Regional Invasive Species Management (PRISM)- are multi-stakeholder efforts meant to leverage a top-down and bottom-up approach to reduce invasive species that threaten the economy, environment, human, and other species health.
Conglomerate Herbicide Corporation: C-Suite
At the heart of Pittsburgh’s battle against invasive species sits an unexpected ally and adversary: the conglomerate herbicide corporations. These entities, steered by their C-Suite executives and bolstered by teams of researchers, find themselves in a complex dance of economics, ethics, and ecology.
The top brass at herbicide corporations, from CEOs to CFOs, grapple with a tapestry of hopes and fears. They hope the community sees the value in their products — not just as tools for convenience but as essential allies in safeguarding the local economy and environment. They dream of legislation that not only eases the regulatory path for pesticide use but also champions their cause, recognizing the jobs they create and the economic engine they fuel in Pennsylvania.
However, these hopes are shadowed by considerable fears. The specter of public backlash looms large, with concerns that negative perceptions could tarnish their brand and erode profits. They fret over environmental groups wielding political influence to curb their operations and the potential financial and reputational ruin brought by lawsuits over health or environmental damage. Amidst growing calls for ecological sensitivity, they worry their chemical solutions, once seen as panaceas, might now be viewed as pariahs.
Our stakeholder map illuminated the intricate web these corporations navigate. The push for supportive policies is entwined with their ability to sway public opinion and legislative bodies, ensuring their products remain in the market. Yet, their apprehensions about regulatory crackdowns and shifting public sentiment towards greener alternatives highlight a precarious dependency on societal and political goodwill. Speculating on potential alignments, one might envision scenarios where herbicide corporations find common ground with local farmers or governmental bodies, united by a shared goal of combating invasive species effectively. However, the path is fraught with conflicts, particularly with environmental advocates and concerned citizens wary of chemical interventions in nature.
The C-Suite’s narrative is one of navigating these turbulent waters, seeking a course that honors both their corporate mission and the pressing need for sustainable solutions. They stand at a crossroads, where every decision impacts not just their bottom line, but the very fabric of Pittsburgh’s ecological and social landscape.
Local Pittsburgh Residents
The city of Pittsburgh has a population of roughly 307,000 residents, with a broader population of nearly 2.3 million in the Pittsburgh metropolitan region. These residents were identified and selected as the third key stakeholder within the debate around invasive species as a pervasive and wicked problem. They were selected for their relationship of balanced interests between the most powerful stakeholder — C-Suite executives of pesticide corporations — and the most disenfranchised stakeholder — the native Pittsburgh ecology. As this stakeholder group is a primary constituent or consumer party of the resources and services provided by business, government, and natural stakeholders within the system, they are especially impactful in directing the conversations regarding what behaviours, systems, policies, and products are considered acceptable. Their values and shifting desires for the future of Pittsburgh may dictate what agricultural practices and chemicals are employed; through grassroots movements and civic engagement, they may also redefine how Pittsburgh engages with its environmental stakeholders.
Additional demographic characteristics about this stakeholder group include census data, with residents self-identifying as 64% White, 23% Black or African American, 5.5% Asian, and 4% Multiracial. These demographics are relevant as the magnitude and direct influence of invasive species may be disproportionately felt by select communities that have historically been exposed to greater environmental hazards.
Through the stakeholder mapping process, we attempted to frame these concerns from a perspective of what the average resident was most alarmed by and what type of Pittsburgh they hoped to preserve for their family and future generations. These key considerations for Pittsburgh’s residents broadly include the safety and viability of continuing to use pesticides, how might their government balance economic stability and environmental health, how to maintain their families’ health, and how might they be more conscious of their own behaviours that contribute to the spread of invasive species. In practical relation to other key stakeholders, these local residents share similar concerns as expressed by their government representatives within the Department of Agriculture and the embodied concerns of threatened species native to the region. Pittsburgh they hoped to preserve for their family and future generations. Most fundamentally, residents were asking: If these pesticides are necessary for use, how are we going to be kept safe from the health and environmental impacts? Given the region’s historically poor care for the environment, what kind of consideration is being given to the region we’ve come to call home? If changes in our behaviour or community need to be made, how are we going to be able to afford them?
Pittsburgh residents have directly engaged with the challenges presented by invasive species and the various indirect threats that emerge through intervening technologies, in this discussion through environmental non-profits, engaging on both civic and intra-community fronts. Several of the most notable among these are the Breathe Project, Phipps Conservatory, Global Links, and Grounded Strategies. Each of these entities serves as a platform for residents to engage in collaboratively representing their shared interests and to pool resources for broader representation and impact. The primary challenge that many of these organisations have encountered operating in the region has been navigating the seemingly adversarial dynamic between economic health and environmental health, constituting a current impasse for resolving two very legitimate concerns as residents seek to nurture the growth of their city.
Reflections and Next Steps
As a team, when we listed all the stakeholders involved, it was very difficult to narrow it down to just three. We started with six stakeholders, then narrowed it down to three before realizing that we needed four. Our main learning from this mapping exercise was also that you need to specify which individual or role you are referring to within a stakeholder group. We chose the Conglomerate Herbicide Corporation as a stakeholder group because they were contributing to creating the wicked problem, but all our hopes and fears were repetitive and barely scratched the surface. We knew we were doing something wrong, and after a discussion with Terry, we realized the importance of choosing a role within the stakeholder group because people have more diverse and dynamic hopes and fears. A business will only think of profit and public perception, but the CEO running the business will have more hopes and fears and possible ethical dilemmas that we would have missed.
By grasping the power dynamics among these four stakeholder groups, we gained insight into the intricate decision-making processes occurring at the non-human, personal, business, and institutional levels concerning invasive species. Incorporating these diverse perspectives enhances our understanding of the challenges posed by invasive species and their impact.
References
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4258050/
https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/GISC/Pages/default.aspx
https://emergencemagazine.org/essay/the-serviceberry/
https://www.garn.org/rights-of-nature/
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/pittsburgh-pa/#economy.
Marusic, “Environmental Injustice in Pittsburgh: Poor, Minority Neighborhoods See Higher Deaths From Air Pollution.”
