1.4 Conceptual Model Figure A2. Conceptual Model with Threat Rankings 1.4 Stakeholder Analysis Table A3. Stakeholder Analysis Direct Threat Stakeholders and their Motivations Feasibility of Stakeholder Key? or Factor Contribution to the Contributing to Threat Reduction Threat Illegal clearing 1. Individual property Personal High accounts for only a small Yes – owners undertaking (recreation, proportion of the clearing that clearing (legal or illegal) firebreaks, occurs, however has significant on their property etc.) influence over what occurs on their individual wetland site. Need for education Yes 2. Companies/ Profit Medium has a relatively high level – businesses undertaking of control over activities occurring illegal clearing on their on their own land; Not very property interested in environmental issues though Yes 3. Legal officials not Environmental High has an interest and stake in – enforcing law protection stopping illegal clearing, just needs more time and resources Yes Clearing for 1. Land Developers Profit High Have an opportunity to go – residential planning new residential above and beyond legal development developments where requirements to conserve and wetlands are involved manage wetlands within development sites Yes 2. Decision makers Environmental High Responsible for – (Department of protection environmental laws and can ensure Environment and enforcement. Conservation and relevant local govt) providing advice/ approval to developments Maybe 3. Individuals wishing to Shelter, Medium Driving force behind – purchase new home security, clearing for development but needs
1.4 Conceptual Model Figure A2. Conceptual Model with Threat Rankings 1.4 Stakeholder Analysis Table A3. Stakeholder Analysis Direct Threat or Factor Stakeholders and their Contribution to the Threat Motivations Feasibility of Stakeholder Contributing to Threat Reduction Key? Illegal clearing 1. Individual property owners undertaking clearing (legal or illegal) on their property Personal (recreation, firebreaks, etc.) High – accounts for only a small proportion of the clearing that occurs, however has significant influence over what occurs on their individual wetland site. Need for education Yes 2. Companies/ businesses undertaking illegal clearing on their property Profit Medium – has a relatively high level of control over activities occurring on their own land; Not very interested in environmental issues though Yes 3. Legal officials not enforcing law Environmental protection High – has an interest and stake in stopping illegal clearing, just needs more time and resources Yes Clearing for residential development 1. Land Developers planning new residential developments where wetlands are involved Profit High – Have an opportunity to go above and beyond legal requirements to conserve and manage wetlands within development sites Yes 2. Decision makers (Department of Environment and Conservation and relevant local govt) providing advice/ approval to developments Environmental protection High – Responsible for environmental laws and can ensure enforcement. Yes 3. Individuals wishing to purchase new home Shelter, security, Medium – Driving force behind clearing for development but needs Maybe
SYLLABUS-DEFINE-120413.docx