| Assessing stakeholders’ values and interests for Archaeological Park Matilo and Castellum Hoge Woerd, the Netherlands |
Figure 2. Castellum Hoge Woerd (Your Captain Luchtfotografie)
Methodology and data collection
Different kinds of stakeholder groups were
involved in the two projects, from people involved most obvious and largest stakeholder groups were
interviewed. Because of a possible subjectivity bias,
additional interviews were held that led to the same
volunteer representatives of groups of people (lay
stakeholders), and the wider public. To understand
their role in the development of the park, their values
at stake, and their interests in the park, interviews
were conducted, because they are sensitive to
contextual relationships and therefore indispensable
in research to heritage values (Mason 2002, 16).
Questions related to what they found successful and
less successful in the development of the park, their
role in the project, what they cared about in relation
to the park, and what recommendations they had for
future projects. during the interview phase were investigated during
an adjacent literature study.
Twenty interviews were conducted with selected
stakeholders of local organisations and businesses,
authoritative bodies, and community interest
groups. In order to get a solid grip on the viewpoints
of different stakeholders, representatives of the
To position the stakeholders, a division was made
between direct/primary stakeholders and indirect/
secondary stakeholders. In the development of
Castellum Hoge Woerd, the municipal project
manager, the State Service for Cultural Heritage
(RCE), and the four-partner coalition (museum,
theatre, restaurant, city farm) were the direct
stakeholders. In Archaeological Park Matilo, similar
parties formed the project management. They
were the key players that were directly involved
in governance, held power over decision-making,
and formed the programs. Other stakeholders were
indirect stakeholders. They had an interest in the
park and values at stake, but they lacked the power
to have a main voice in the decision-making process.
2017 | INTER-SECTION | VOL III | p.39