Figure 1 illustrates the number of stakeholders in each typology and
depicts the perceived amount of stakeholder salience using the three
overlapping circles as defined by Mitchell et al (1997).
The stakeholders located in all three overlapping circles are labelled
definitive stakeholders, possessing the greatest salience, and are more
likely to influence management objectives in the course of the feasibility
analysis. The definitive stakeholders were the largest group including
the Tsimshian Nation, Land and Water British Columbia, a
government agency concerned with land and water usage, natural resource
industries and the transportation industry. Dangerous, dominant
and dependent stakeholders are those in two sets. These
stakeholders have less salience than the definitive stakeholders and include
government enforcement agencies, environmental groups, fisheries,
and the tourism and hospitality industry. The stakeholders with
the least amount of salience are described as latent stakeholders. In
the latent category, there are two discretionary stakeholders, local government
and local recreation interests, and two demanding stakeholders,
the aquaculture industry and Tourism Prince Rupert. The
stakeholders, which were determined to have no influence for the
purpose of a feasibility analysis, are listed outside the concentric circles
and are described as currently disinterested stakeholders. This
group included Industry Canada—Aboriginal Business Canada, and
Tourism British Columbia. Table 2 outlines a sample of the stakeholder
classification, detailing the attributes and reasons for theire no influence for the
purpose of a feasibility analysis, are listed outside the concentric circles
and are described as currently disinterested stakeholders. This
group included Industry Canada—Aboriginal Business Canada, and
Tourism British Columbia. Table 2 outlines a sample of the stakeholder
classification, detailing the attributes and reasons for their
assessment.