The Dynamism of Stakeholder Engagement

Whereas stakeholder theory deals with determining which stakeholders are to be involved in issues, e.g., airport planning, stakeholder engagement deals with determining which tools can be chosen to optimize interaction with the stakeholders. To date, little effort has been made to specify the link between stakeholder salience (as discussed in the previous chapter) and stakeholder engagement, which will be discussed in this chapter. Either subject is often treated separately from the other, even though most authors recognize the apparent link between the two. For example, Carroll (1989) used the principle of stakeholder engagement as a final step in the stakeholder analysis framework, thereby showing the importance of the link between the classification or differentiation of stakeholders and the resulting different engagement strategies.

Communicative planning is an umbrella term for a number of planning processes that emphasize discourse, communication, and consensus building (Olsson 2009). It has become an established normative goal in planning theory and practice (Verma 2007). In turn, a ‘planning process’ is an ongoing and multi-faceted process that is publicly or privately undertaken (Olsson 2009).

The previous chapters on stakeholder theory, stakeholder engagement and communicative planning have shown that stakeholders are important to any decision-making and planning process. This is particularly true for contentious projects where significant problems demand solutions, yet where stakeholders are not satisfied with their options by working alone, and where acceptable solutions are not emerging from traditional decision-making processes (Booher and Innes 2002). These problems often coincide with a complex social, economic and environmental setting. Such contentious projects attract large numbers of stakeholders, each with different backgrounds, perspectives, and objectives (Crocker 2007). This leads to a complex set of stakeholders holding many different positions with respect to the problem itself, and with respect to other stakeholders. A simple polarized dichotomy of for and against does not, as a consequence, exist in these contexts. This complicates the analysis and, subsequently, the classification and categorization of the stakeholders (Ashworth and Skelcher 2005; Achterkamp and Vos 2007; Greenwood 2007). The question thus becomes: how can these stakeholders be differentiated from each other and different attention be given to different stakeholders? In other words, how can the stakeholders be analysed to understand the uniqueness of each stakeholder. By examining the available literature on the topic, three main components that define a stakeholder will be identified: stakeholder salience, stakeholder interests, and stakeholder relations with each other.

To create a thorough understanding of the Australian context to the book, a historical review of the evolution of the earliest airfields to the current state of the modern airports will be given. This review allows for a clearer understanding of why Australian airports are located where they are, and how the mismatch between on- and off-airport planning came to exist.

Adelaide officially opened its first aerodrome just after WWI, in 1921. Captain Butler’s Aerodrome, as it was called, was nine kilometres north-west of the city in the suburb of Hendon. It provided the facilities for airmail services between Adelaide and Sydney (AAL 2009). A move to a second airfield was undertaken in 1927 as aviation continued to grow, and Parafield was acquired by the government. By 1941, however, it became evident that Parafield was too small for the future aviation needs of Adelaide. 785 hectares of marshy land in West Torrens, also known as West Beach, were chosen for Adelaide Airport in 1944 (LINC 2006). Construction started in 1947 and, within the next 10 years, Adelaide International Airport was developed, with the first flights commencing in 1954. It would not be until 1957 before the first passenger terminal was officially opened, funded by the Federal government. Designed to be only a temporary terminal, it remained in use until 2005. As with other airports in the world, the introduction of the jet engine prompted the need to extend the runway in the mid-1960s. In 1982, Adelaide Airport’s International Terminal was opened and the first scheduled international services into and out of Adelaide commenced (AAL 2007).

The last chapter had set out an overview of the stakeholders identified in the Adelaide airport stakeholder network. The three main metrics are discussed, salience, frames of reference, and network centrality. The chapter has indicated to a degree of how complex and intricate the data involved is. There is no relation between either one of the main metrics, which presents evidence that the context and environment to the Adelaide stakeholder arena is indeed complex and multifaceted. After reading this case study, one cannot look at the data and pick ‘the most important’ stakeholder, nor ‘the least important’ stakeholder. In fact, the data is so complex that it defies categorization. This implicates that stakeholder engagement within complex and dynamic environments, such as airports, requires a more contingent, and specialized approach, and one which is based on each stakeholder being considered separately. The information compiled using the three pronged approach of the three component stakeholder analysis is for that purpose a rich source of reference that can assist in drafting meaningful and personalized engagement policies.