In the context of our climate adaptation projects in Ghana, I found that government agencies like NADMO and the EPA hold the highest structural influence due to their role in policy and resource allocation. However, the stakeholders who benefit the most are the local farming and fishing communities, whose livelihoods are directly tied to the project’s success in building resilience against hazards like tidal surges in Keta or droughts in the North. While the government provides the framework and organizations like Rotaract contribute technical expertise and grassroots mobilization, there is a clear dependency where communities rely on these external actors for "adaptive capacity." In my mapping, researchers from institutions like UHAS play a critical role in providing the evidence base (such as cardiotoxic or environmental health data), but their influence is often limited by a lack of direct decision-making power in the final implementation phases.
A significant power imbalance remains evident between institutional voices and marginalized local groups, particularly rural women who are often "overlooked voices" despite being the primary managers of household water and food security. In determining power and influence, I used a Power-Interest Matrix, categorizing stakeholders based on their legal authority versus their direct vulnerability. This revealed that while local residents have the highest "interest" or stake in the project, their "influence" over the project’s design is frequently overshadowed by donor requirements or top-down government mandates. Comparing this to the reference provided in the module, my mapping emphasizes that non-environmental factors, such as land tenure systems and political patronage, significantly shift influence away from those who are most physically exposed to climate risks, making institutional reform as vital as technical solutions.