Stakeholder Analysis — A Worked Example

👥 Stakeholder Analysis — A Worked Example

A stakeholder is any individual, group or organisation that has an interest in or is affected by a geographical issue or decision. Different stakeholders often hold directly opposing views on the same issue — not because one is right and one is wrong, but because they are affected in different ways and prioritise different values.

Understanding stakeholder perspectives is not optional in Issue Evaluation — it is one of the main things that separates Level 2 from Level 3 answers. An answer that only discusses "the environment" and "the economy" as abstract ideas will score lower than one that identifies specific named stakeholder groups and explains exactly what they want and why.

Here is a worked example using a coastal management decision. The issue: a coastal town is losing 2 metres of cliff per year due to erosion. The council must choose between two options:

• Option A — Managed retreat: allow cliff erosion to continue naturally; relocate at-risk properties inland; create intertidal habitat on the eroded land.
• Option B — Hard engineering: build a concrete sea wall and rock armour revetment at an estimated cost of £4.7 million to halt erosion at the cliff face.

Stakeholder	Position	Reason
Cliff-top homeowners	Strongly FOR Option B (hard engineering)	Properties worth £200,000–£800,000 are at direct risk from erosion. Option A would require relocation and reduce property values. Hard engineering protects their investment in the short term.
Environmental NGOs (e.g., RSPB, Wildlife Trusts)	Strongly FOR Option A (managed retreat)	Hard engineering disrupts natural sediment transport — a sea wall reflects wave energy, causing accelerated erosion both in front of the wall and on beaches further along the coast ("terminal groyne effect"). Managed retreat creates intertidal habitat (salt marsh, mudflat) which supports biodiversity and provides natural coastal flood defence.
Local tourism businesses (hotels, restaurants, beach attractions)	FOR Option B, but uncertain	The beach and coastline are the reason tourists visit. Hard engineering protects the beach in the short term. However, sea walls can accelerate beach loss (by increasing wave reflection), which would ultimately harm tourism. The long-term outcome under Option B may actually be worse for tourism than managed retreat.
Council taxpayers in the wider district	Tend AGAINST Option B	The £4.7 million cost of hard engineering must come from the council budget — funded partly by all local taxpayers. People living 10 km inland who never use the beach do not benefit from the sea wall but would contribute to its cost. They may prefer the lower-cost managed retreat option.
Future generations / long-term planners	AGAINST Option B	Hard engineering delays erosion rather than stopping it permanently — and as sea level rises due to climate change, the sea wall will eventually be overwhelmed or require constant expensive maintenance. Managed retreat addresses the root cause rather than temporarily defending against it, making it more sustainable for future generations.
Local council (decision-maker)	Genuinely uncertain — faces competing pressures	Must balance the interests of cliff-top homeowners (politically vocal, high-value taxpayers) against the overall cost to the public purse and long-term environmental obligations. Council members may face electoral pressure from directly affected residents, creating tension between political incentives and rational cost-benefit analysis.
Marine biologists / coastal scientists	FOR Option A	Scientific consensus supports managed retreat as the most effective long-term coastal management strategy. The technical evidence on sediment cell interruption and sea level rise projections supports Option A as the more sustainable choice across a 50–100 year timescale.

Notice how the same decision looks completely different depending on your position. The cliff-top homeowner is not "wrong" to want Option B — their property really is at risk. The environmental NGO is not "wrong" to oppose it — the ecological damage from hard engineering is genuinely significant. A strong Issue Evaluation answer acknowledges these tensions and then explains which considerations should take priority and why.