The current and continuing trends of global decline in biodiversity reflect the transgression of six planetary boundaries and the sixth major mass extinction event in the history of life on earth [21], [70]. Research agrees on the fact that the rapid acceleration and the severity of environmental issues are anthropogenic [40]. The associated negative consequences for the environment and humankind manifest the urgency of the need for action through a societal switch to sustainable development. The regional level is of particular importance for the concrete implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on the ground [5], [46], [89]. Here, regionally adapted concepts for the sustainable use of environmental resources must be developed and implemented together with relevant stakeholders [26], [37], [82], as specified by SDGs 17.16 and 17.17 [84]. In the case of environmental resources, these stakeholders are essentially resource users, conservation associations, public authorities, and local environmental academia. However, researchers report a lack of interdisciplinary information exchange and a high frequency of conflicts regarding land use and nature conservation between the stakeholders mentioned above [6], [42], [68]. These issues create obstacles in the way of successfully implementing cooperative projects [67], [91].
To overcome such obstacles, different approaches to "stakeholder management" are becoming increasingly important e.g., different case studies in Cambodia [19]; China [50]; Malaysia [61]. Stakeholder Analyses (SA) can be used to identify relevant regional actors or to map and optimize their resource and information flows [69], [63]. Social Network Analyses (SNA) can reveal gaps in regional collaborative networks, the marginalization of specific groups, or hotbeds of conflict [56], [62], [86]. A combination of SA and SNA was used by Przesdzink et al. [63], to optimize a collaborative network of regional stakeholders with regard to mutual complements in the availability of resources and knowledge. While this approach was mainly focused on social network characteristics, resource optimization and overall ratio-based aspects of promoting stakeholder interactions, others argue to focus on more “human” aspects of stakeholders [7], [58], [75], such as trust [92], [93], values [9], [17], [92], or attitudes [3], [22], [66]. In a case study in Northwest Germany, also, social factors like different ways of operating among organizations or different ideological attitudes toward the environment were named by numerous stakeholders as crucial factors for well-functioning collaborations or profound conflicts [64].
In this paper, we therefore analyze three psychological constructs (Organizational Culture, Environmental Worldview, Environmental Risk Perception) that may influence the existence of collaboration or conflict between environmental stakeholders. First, we examine these constructs regarding their expression among the stakeholders in the present sample. Second, we analyze correlations with the presence of collaboration and conflict between stakeholders. Although our results stem from a specific case study, the examined constructs are generalizable to Western societies. We anticipate that further case studies in the future will contribute to solidifying these constructs as a helpful complement to current more resource-oriented stakeholder analysis and -management approaches.
Theoretical background and hypotheses
Homophily in social networks
A well-documented occurrence in social networks is the principle of homophily, stating that persons or organizations with similar characteristics are attracted to one another and therefore more likely to positively interact with each other [4], [27], [62], [79]. Regarding organizations, homophily has been referred to factors such as founding date, geographical distance, or institutional preferences [4], [79], [81], regarding persons also to shared attitudes and beliefs [55]. Based on literature presented in the next sections and an interview study with 20 regional stakeholders [64], we focus in this paper on homophily regarding three psychological constructs that seem to be of particular interest in the context of environmental resource stakeholders: Organizational Culture, Environmental Worldview and Environmental Risk Perception. Each construct was analyzed in terms of its expression within the stakeholder categories conservation associations, land use associations, research groups, and public authorities, as well as for correlations with the existence of conflicts and collaboration between the stakeholders using inferential SNA [16].
A first very general research question RQ1 relates to four broad categories (land use associations, conservation associations, public authorities, research groups), which we generated from stakeholders' statements on distinct fields of operation: Can belonging to the same stakeholder category be correlated with the presence of collaborations and conflicts between stakeholders? As hypothesis H1 we assume, that equal categories of stakeholders are positively correlated to collaborations and negatively to conflicts between them.
Organizational Culture
In this study, Organizational Culture is interpreted according to Schein [76] as a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to external problems. Researchers described the construct of organizational culture as shared among organization members [28], influencing decision-making processes, the management style [83], the members' attitudes and behaviors [78], and consisting of enduring values, beliefs, and assumptions [15], [76]. The construct of Organizational Cultures is based on the “Competing Values Framework” (CVF) [65]. In CVF, organizational values are competitively conceptualized and integrated into a holistic framework. The framework consists of two basic value dimensions (“flexibility vs. stability”, and “internal focus vs. external focus”), which create axes of a matrix and form four quadrants with related organizational values (see Fig. 2). These four quadrants result in a typology of four culture types: Clan (internal focus, flexible; “do things together, collaborate”), Adhocracy (external focus, flexible; “do things first, create”), Market (external focus, stable; “do things fast, compete”), and Hierarchy (internal focus, stable; “do things right, control”). These culture types are characterized by Cameron and Quinn [15] and further described in supplementary material A. Statistical analysis demonstrated that organizations with different types of cultures differ in their organizational strategies, decision-making processes, and structures [15]. However, current research did not yet analyze influences of these organizational differences on the existence of collaboration or conflicts between organizations. However, in a regional study by Przesdzink et al. [64], aspects such as different ways of working, goal definitions, or project management styles, which can certainly be attributed to different organizational cultures, emerged as relevant factors for well or poorly functioning interactions with other organizations, which is why we included the construct Organizational Culture in this study.
Two research questions arise regarding organizational cultures: RQ 2.1: How do the four stakeholder categories differ regarding their organizational cultures and is there a significant correlation between membership of a stakeholder category and the dominant manifestation of a particular organizational culture? RQ 2.2: Can similar dominant organizational cultures be correlated to the presence of collaborations and conflicts between the stakeholders?
To the authors’ knowledge, there is no survey of the organizational cultures of different types of environmental stakeholders. However, organizations in the environmental sector of Western societies are generally described as inert and entrenched: For instance, Gunderson et al. [30] and Rogers et al. [74] observed that environmental stakeholders in the public sector often have an incapacity to restructure due to rigid bureaucracies, which lead to a certain resistance to change. They thus lack the competence to adapt to new forms of thinking, functioning, and structuring. Bureaucracy on the side of public authorities in particular is a frequently mentioned major problem in the German nature conservation and land use sector [20], [34], [48], which indicates the organizational culture of hierarchy in German public authorities.
Considering the previous findings, H 2.1 surmises, that hierarchical cultures, which value stability, consistency, and uniformity will be found especially among public authorities. Overall, the more "conservative" cultures of clan and hierarchy are expected to occur as dominant cultures in a majority of the stakeholders. We therefore do not expect a significant correlation between membership of a stakeholder category and the dominant manifestation of a particular organizational culture. Regarding H 2.2, we assume that equal dominant organizational cultures of stakeholders are positively correlated to collaborations and negatively to conflicts between them.
Environmental Worldview
The “advocacy coalition framework” (ACF) suggests, that actors with similar belief systems are more likely to form coalitions [88]. Based on this groundwork, several studies have already demonstrated strong links between similar "policy beliefs" and collaborative interactions of environmental stakeholders in their social networks [38], [39], [54], [88]. In an interview study in Northwest Germany, stakeholders reported that conservation associations and land use associations would support different general viewpoints on sustainability, which would lead to conflictual relationships [64]. Since our project does not refer to a specific policy, but to the interactions between regional environmental stakeholders in general, we decided to survey their general environmental worldview, as conceptualized by the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) [23]. The revised version of this concept includes the five facets “balance of nature,” “limits to growth,” “antianthropocentrism,” “anti-exemptionalism” (of humankind from nature), and “possibility of an eco-crisis,” which combined indicate a “pro-ecological worldview” [24]. The validity and reliability of the NEP are demonstrated in numerous studies [2016], [24], [36], [60]. Communicating differences in NEP-scores to the resolution of land use and conservation conflicts has already been suggested by Edgell & Nowell [25] and Kaltenborn et al. [45], even though no recent studies addressing this issue could been found by the authors.
This leads to the next set of research questions: RQ 3.1: How do the four stakeholder categories differ in terms of their environmental worldviews and is there a significant correlation between stakeholder categories and environmental worldviews? RQ 3.2: Can differences between stakeholders’ environmental worldviews be correlated to the presence of collaborations and conflicts between the stakeholders?
Edgell and Nowell [25], in a study in British Columbia, found high NEP-scores for environmentalists and the general public and low scores for commercial fishermen. Kaltenborn et al. [45], in Norway, found high scores for wildlife managers and research biologists and low scores for sheep farmers. Hawcroft and Milfont [36] reviewed that environmentalist samples score higher NEP values than representative population samples.
Based on this research, we assume significant differences between NEP scores of the different stakeholder categories (H 3.1). In more detail, relatively high NEP values among conservation actors, research actors, and government agencies, and lower values among land use associations. As H 3.2 we assume differences in NEP scores of stakeholders to be positively correlated to conflicts and negatively correlated to collaborations between them.
Environmental Risk Perception – Myths of Physical Nature
In the context of the ACF and environmental stakeholder interactions, “Cultural Theory” receives special attention [71], [80]. According to this concept, people follow one of four cultural biases or “myths” concerning human nature and environmental risk perception: The “hierarchical” view of humans is sinful but controllable by rules and that of nature is robust within limits. The “egalitarian” view of humans is caring and sharing and that of nature is ephemeral. The “fatalistic” view of humans is untrustworthy and that of nature is unpredictable. The “individualistic” view of humans is selfish and that of nature is benign [29], [77]. These cultural biases not only represent general worldviews but can also be used to derive individually preferred management styles for the human and natural world in general [85] and environmental resources in specific [33]. Different preferences in the management of environmental resources can easily lead to conflicts between stakeholders [32], which is why numerous studies have already shown connections between Cultural Theory and stakeholder interactions [11], [71], [80], [87]. The biases to human and physical nature are not necessarily correlated and therefore can be considered independently [29]. Therefore, in this study, we have limited ourselves to the myths of physical nature (MoN), which are more relevant in the environmental context.
This leads to the third set of research questions: RQ 4.1 How do the four stakeholder categories differ in terms of their myths of physical nature and is there a significant correlation between stakeholder categories and their myths of physical nature? RQ 4.2: Can similar myths of physical nature be correlated to the presence of collaborations and conflicts between the stakeholders?
A classical but oversimplified depiction of society categorizes the passive society as fatalist, the “active society” (e.g., NGOs) as egalitarian, government actors as hierarchist and the private sector as individualist [10], [51]. Grendstad & Selle [29], found predominantly hierarchical instead of egalitarian MoN in Norwegian environmentalists. Peter et al. [59], in a study in rural Germany, found individualist and fatalist MoN in agricultural and quarrying organizations, as well as hierarchical and egalitarian MoN in research groups and conservation associations. Sotirov et al. [80], in a study on forest policy actors in Germany, found individualist MoN in private and industrial actors, egalitarian MoN in research groups and conservation associations and predominantly hierarchical MoN in public authorities. Based on these sources, as hypothesis H 4.1, we assume a predominantly egalitarian MoN in research groups and conservation associations, a predominantly hierarchical MoN in public authorities and a predominantly individualist MoN in land use associations. As hypothesis H 4.2 we assume similar MoN of stakeholders to be positively correlated to collaborations and negatively to conflicts between them.
In summary, the following statistical considerations are relevant to answering the research questions: RQ 1 - Stakeholder Category vs. Social Networks, RQ 2.1 - Organizational Culture vs. Stakeholder Category, RQ 2.2 - Organizational Culture vs. Social Networks, RQ 3.1 - NEP vs. Stakeholder Category, RQ 3.2 - NEP vs. Social Networks, RQ 4.1 - MoN vs. Stakeholder Category and RQ 4.2 - MoN vs. Social Networks.