|
Factor |
Total score for significance† |
Total number of case studies in which the factor was an issue |
| |
|
Lack of clarity about role of stakeholder involvement, e.g., form, timing, and
aims |
14 |
8 |
|
Stakeholders’ lack of resources |
13 |
6 |
|
Lack of adequate time and resources for the process |
13 |
6 |
|
Lack of stakeholders’ belief that their inputs would make a
difference |
13 |
6 |
|
Lack of clarity of the status and aims of the initiative |
12 |
5 |
|
Failure to include all stakeholders |
9 |
6 |
|
Difficulties in moving to a multiparty approach because of a reluctance to
change the governance structure |
9 |
4 |
|
Differences in the scale of the project and scale of interest of the
stakeholders |
9 |
3 |
|
Omission of important aspects, e.g., costs |
7 |
4 |
|
Overly technical language |
7 |
3 |
|
Contradictory expectations of the way stakeholders want to be
involved |
6 |
4 |
|
Lack of rules of representation |
6 |
4 |
|
Lack of clear and usable feedback on outcomes |
6 |
4 |
|
Lack of continuity, e.g., no transfer of knowledge among different representatives
of the same stakeholder organization |
6 |
3 |
|
Controversy concerning the legal authority over the area under
study |
5 |
3 |
|
Overly lengthy procedures |
5 |
3 |
|
Lack of opportunities for direct interaction and exchange among
stakeholders, e.g., too few, too far apart |
5 |
3 |
|
Fear of loss of confidentiality |
5 |
3 |
|
Fear of stakeholder involvement |
5 |
2 |
|
Inadequate governance structure |
4 |
3 |
|
Administrative procedures restricting the process |
4 |
3 |
|
No relationship between stakeholders and technical teams |
4 |
2 |
|
Complex and inadequate information and communication tools |
4 |
2 |
|
Lack of openness, e.g., minutes not made available |
4 |
2 |
|
Partial framing of the problems by the convener, i.e., ideas already
preformed |
4 |
2 |
|
Lack of process orientation of the stakeholders |
4 |
2 |
|
Pre-existing distribution of water rights |
4 |
2 |
|
Leading institute defends its own interests |
4 |
2 |