Content uploaded by Monika Suškevičs
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Monika Suškevičs on Apr 18, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usnr20
Society & Natural Resources
An International Journal
ISSN: 0894-1920 (Print) 1521-0723 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20
Process and Contextual Factors Supporting
Action-Oriented Learning: A Thematic Synthesis
of Empirical Literature in Natural Resource
Management
Monika Suškevičs, Thomas Hahn & Romina Rodela
To cite this article: Monika Suškevičs, Thomas Hahn & Romina Rodela (2019) Process and
Contextual Factors Supporting Action-Oriented Learning: A Thematic Synthesis of Empirical
Literature in Natural Resource Management, Society & Natural Resources, 32:7, 731-750, DOI:
10.1080/08941920.2019.1569287
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1569287
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
View supplementary material
Published online: 11 Mar 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 49
View Crossmark data
Process and Contextual Factors Supporting Action-Oriented
Learning: A Thematic Synthesis of Empirical Literature in
Natural Resource Management
Monika Su
skevi
cs
a,b
, Thomas Hahn
a
, and Romina Rodela
c,d
a
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden;
b
Institute of Agricultural and
Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia;
c
School of Natural Sciences,
Technology and Environmental Studies, S€
odert€
orn University, Huddinge, Sweden;
d
Laboratory of Geo-
Information Science and Remote Sensing, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands
ABSTRACT
Despite a long-term focus on learning in natural resource manage-
ment (NRM), it is still debated how learning supports sustainable
real-world NRM practices. We offer a qualitative in-depth synthesis of
selected scientific empirical literature (N¼53), which explores factors
affecting action-oriented learning. We inductively identify eight key
process-based and contextual factors discussed in this literature.
Three patterns emerge from our results. First, the literature discusses
both facilitated participation and self-organized collaboration as dia-
logical spaces, which bridge interests and support constructive con-
flict management. Second, the literature suggests practice-based
dialogs as those best able to facilitate action and puts a strong
emphasis on experimentation. Finally, not emphasized in existing
reviews and syntheses, we found multiple evidence about certain
contextual factors affecting learning, including social-ecological cri-
ses, complexity, and power structures. Our review also points at
important knowledge gaps, which can be used to advance the cur-
rent research agenda about learning and NRM.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 28 February 2018
Accepted 14 December 2018
KEYWORDS
Ecosystem governance;
intermediaries; qualitative
review; social-ecological
systems; social learning;
structural constraints
Introduction
Natural resource management (NRM) has shifted away from deterministic, top-down
thinking to integrative and participatory approaches, where learning is a key concept
guiding research and practice (Schusler, Decker, and Pfeffer 2003; Armitage et al. 2018).
Despite long-term attention to learning in NRM, a more precise account of how process
characteristics and contextual factors affect learning by NRM users, however, is still
lacking. The NRM literature commonly assumes that learning happens through inter-
active processes, either as part of facilitated participation (e.g., Diduck et al. 2012), or
by self-organized collaboration (Armitage, Marschke, and Plummer 2008). For example,
CONTACT Monika Su
skevi
cs monika.suskevics@emu.ee Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University,
Kr€
aftriket 2B, Stockholm SE-10691, Sweden.
Supplemental data for this article is available online at on the publisher’s website at https://doi.org/10.1080/
08941920.2019.1569287.
ß2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES
2019, VOL. 32, NO. 7, 731–750
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1569287
Diduck et al. (2012, 1313), argue that transformative learning occurs through “deliberate
interventions in which stakeholders in a complex NRM situation are brought together
to engage in an iterative, facilitated process of critical reflection and inquiry aimed at
provoking transformational changes in cognition and practice.”However, learning may
emerge from self-organized interactions as well, as often described by the adaptive
co-management (ACM) literature (e.g., Plummer, Armitage, and de Lo€
e2013). The con-
text within which learning takes place includes the socio-economic and political setting,
the governance arrangements, but also geographical and ecological conditions that vary
from case to case (Mostert et al. 2007; Pahl-Wostl 2015). Yet, while how context affects
learning has been addressed in individual empirical cases (e.g., Pahl-Wostl 2015), the
context has not been subject to more systematic knowledge synthesis methods, i.e.
reviewing how context is reported to be affecting learning (e.g., Rodela 2011). An excep-
tion to this is the review by Siebenh€
uner, Rodela, and Ecker (2016) which, for instance,
considers formal and informal institutions.
In this study, we aim to fill this gap. We address the following research question:
how are the factors (assumed to) support action-oriented learning constructed in the
empirical literature? To this end, we draw on one of the most recent reviews under-
taken in this field (Su
skevi
cs et al. 2018). We start from their sample (N= 53 empirical
articles), which we further analyze to find answers to our question. In doing so, first,
we intend to provide a synthesis of process-based and contextual factors affecting
action-oriented learning as found in the selected literature. We acknowledge that analyt-
ical frameworks applied in individual empirical studies take into account the process
and context; however, process/context was not subject to thorough assessment in earlier
knowledge syntheses (cf. Ensor and Harvey 2015). This we assume might have been due
to the limited opportunities some methods of knowledge synthesis offer for the analysis
of an evidence base that is often qualitative (e.g., in the NRM research field). Existing
literature reviews take a predominantly quantitative approach where quantification and
distribution across variables of interest are reported upon (e.g., Siebenh€
uner, Rodela,
and Ecker 2016). While quantitative approaches are useful to survey the breadth of
research, they are however limited in analytical depth. We take note of the observations
by Hannes and Macaitis (2012) on qualitative syntheses being promising but a poorly
used approach in the field of NRM. With this study, we intend to assess the suitability
of thematic synthesis, i.e., a method used to analyze and synthesize results from primary
qualitative research (Thomas and Harden 2008), for use in the field of NRM. Further,
earlier reviews have often focused on mapping the broader discourse and analytical
frameworks, while in this study we focus on the empirical evidence as reported in the
selected literature. This we believe is appropriate since all of the 53 articles report on
qualitative case study methodology. Additionally, earlier reviews have mostly focused on
the social learning concept (e.g., Cundill and Rodela 2012; Ensor and Harvey 2015;
Siebenh€
uner, Rodela, and Ecker 2016) but we include further learning concepts, to cre-
ate a wider basis for understanding the role of learning for NRM action (cf. Gerlak
et al. 2017;Su
skevi
cs et al. 2018).
Our approach to the analysis and synthesis is explicitly inductive. We use the next
section (background) only as a broad frame to (i) depict the state of the art on different
learning concepts currently used in the broader NRM literature, and (ii) summarize
732 M. SU
SKEVI
CS ET AL.
what the literature says about the factors affecting them. Thereafter we describe our
method, the thematic synthesis of 53 empirical articles, which have been identified and
selected by a recent review (i.e., Su
skevi
cs et al. 2018). After this, we summarize our
results: emergent themes of factors affecting action-oriented learning. We then discuss
how these themes relate to different sub-groups of NRM literature on learning, such as
from the ACM and participatory environmental governance domains. We conclude
with recommendations for further research and NRM practice.
Background
The NRM literature refers to learning in various ways. To set a general background for
our study, we give a brief overview of the main concepts used by some of the most
prominent and well-cited literature and summarize key factors, which are found to sup-
port learning. We also introduce the concept of action-oriented learning.
A Brief Overview of the Main Theoretical Approaches to Learning in the
NRM Literature
The construct of “social learning”(Rodela 2011) is probably among the most widely
used notions in the NRM literature but is also one of the fuzziest (Muro and Jeffrey
2012). It is used to refer to learning based on individual experiences, with changes often
observable at a cognitive, relational and moral level. Social learning is also used to refer
to wider social change processes, also sometimes termed “societal learning”(e.g., Reed
et al. 2010).
The NRM literature uses other theoretical frameworks as well, as is transformative
learning and policy learning. Transformative or transformational learning originates in
social psychology (e.g., Mezirow 1991) and the theory initially focused on individual adult
learning. Since then, the focus has broadened, e.g., according to Taylor (2008,10):
“transformative learning is as much about social change as individual transformation”.The
concept has been widely applied in the literature on ACM and participatory NRM (e.g.,
Keen and Mahanty 2006; Marschke and Sinclair 2009;Diducketal.2012). The literature
on ACM has explored transformational learning of individuals and groups, inclusive of
potential changes in management practices (e.g., Plummer, Armitage, and de Lo€
e2013).
Policy learning originates in studies on public policies (e.g., Bennett and Howlett
1992) and it conceptualizes how policy actors (e.g., state officials or policy networks)
learn about organizations, programs or policies (Heikkila and Gerlak 2013). This con-
cept has been taken up by the NRM literature more recently (Gerlak et al. 2017).
Other concepts are also used, such as “organizational learning”or “experiential
learning.”We do not focus on them here, as the theoretical basis of the empirical
articles included in this paper (i.e., the sample from Su
skevi
cs et al. 2018) mainly cov-
ered the three above-mentioned concepts.
What Affects Learning? A Critical Reflection on Existing Assumptions
The literature suggests that various process-based and contextual factors affect learning.
Based on current theoretical and empirical publications (Table S1) we summarize below
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 733
these assumptions. By “process”, we understand the internal factors to learning, includ-
ing the actors, facilitators or organizers, and social dynamics occurring in a group. By
“context”, we understand attributes that are external to processes, such as characteristics
of the issue and decision-making. Note that in this article, we use these the terms
“process”and “context”mainly as broad categories (i.e. “realms”) meant to structure
the findings found in the empirical literature in our synthesis (section Results).
Process characteristics in existing literature include various types of interactions
(e.g., deliberations) among different stakeholders and/or the public, which are moder-
ated by skilled facilitators. The literature sets several normative criteria to these
processes, such as the process has to be widely inclusive, promote unrestrained think-
ing, effective information exchange and support continuous interactions (Mostert
et al. 2007; Koontz and Newig 2014; Pahl-Wostl 2015). The literature on ACM often
describes cases where learning occurs through self-organizing processes and learning
by doing (e.g., Plummer et al. 2012;2013), in social networks or network governance
(e.g., Crona and Parker 2012). A focus on the role of networks in learning is also
characteristic of the environmental governance literature (e.g., Koontz and
Newig 2014).
Examples of contextual factors not only include organizational and political cultures
but also institutions, which are especially evident in the policy learning literature (e.g.,
Dunlop and Radaelli 2018). Other key contextual factors include resources (e.g., time)
available for the actors, and the nature of the topic under question. The latter is empha-
sized in the ACM literature (e.g., Folke et al. 2005) and in the literature using the social
learning construct (e.g., Mostert et al. 2007; Pahl-Wostl 2015).
Action-Oriented Learning
Attention has been directed to study the learning process, less to analyze the context
within which it takes place. However, researchers have matured interest in approaches,
methodologies, and tools with the potential to stir real-world changes (Collins and Ison
2009; Reed et al. 2010; Cundill and Rodela 2012). In this study, we are interested in a
specific type of learning that we term “action-oriented learning”. Action-oriented learn-
ing refers to not only changes observable at the levels of individuals and groups –learn-
ing outcomes (e.g., cognitive or relational advancement) –but also to changes in the
NRM domain (e.g., new management practices, policies or institutions) (Su
skevi
cs et al.
2018). While Su
skevi
cs et al. (2018) analyzed outcomes of action-oriented learning;
here, we focus on how action-oriented learning occurs.
Methods
Study Design and Literature Sample
The field of NRM on learning has been subject to several subsequent reviews. Given the
relevance to our objectives, we chose to use the sample of 53 papers identified by
Su
skevi
cs et al. (2018) over other reviews for the following reasons: (i) this is one of the
last systematic attempts to identify and select literature on learning and NRM, (ii) their
sample focuses on empirical papers, and (iii) their inclusion and exclusion criteria for
734 M. SU
SKEVI
CS ET AL.
paper selection focus on studies that reported on (successful) outcomes related to learn-
ing –a circumstance key to meet our objective to analyze the factors support-
ing learning.
Su
skevi
cs et al. (2018) undertook a systematic literature search (Figure 1) aimed to
map empirical NRM literature discussing learning effects as manifested in NRM. They
used: TS (Topic Search) = “social learning”or “experiential learning”or “participatory
learning”or “collaborative learning”or “societal learning”or “transformative learning”
or “policy learning”and forestor ecosystemor ecologyor water or biodiversity or
agricultureor wetland or landscapeor climate or “land use”or restore. The search
was done in the WoS database core collection (citation indexes: SCIE, SSCI, CPCI-Sci,
CPCI-SocSci and Hum, ESCI) in November 2015. No time limits were applied.
The final sample includes 53 articles listed under References and Table S2. For fur-
ther methodological details see Su
skevi
cs et al. (2018).
Data Analysis: Thematic Synthesis
Approach
Given that all 53 selected articles were qualitative case studies or comparative case stud-
ies, we chose to use thematic synthesis, which is a method suitable for in-depth explor-
ation of research questions. Thematic synthesis is a method for knowledge synthesis
that extracts data from primary studies through coding and then organizes the extracted
data into emerging themes (see: Thomas and Harden 2008, reformulated). Thematic
synthesis belongs to the family of qualitative meta-studies, i.e., interpretive translations
deriving from the integration and comparison of findings from qualitative studies
(Sandelowski et al. 1997, 366). As such, thematic synthesis combines principles
from meta-ethnography and grounded theory (see: Zimmer 2006; Hannes and
Macaitis 2012).
Steps
Our approach to the thematic synthesis is summarized in Figure 2. Thematic synthesis
inevitably raises questions about different levels of interpretation (Zimmer 2006).
Figure 2 illustrates our “interpretation of the interpretations of primary data by the ori-
ginal authors of the constituent studies”(Zimmer 2006, 312). The data for this paper
are the first-order constructs made by the authors of the included articles about the fac-
tors affecting action-oriented learning (Data for analysis, Figure 2).
Our synthesis includes two steps. The first step “Data-driven analysis”(Figure 2)isa
reciprocal translation of key concepts and themes from one article in another article’s
terms (Thomas and Harden 2008), using descriptive coding of line-by-line text passages
of the 53 articles. Descriptive coding relies on an open coding principle, where ultim-
ately descriptive themes –second-order constructs by the synthesists –are developed. We
organized text sections into eight factors, some of which concerned “process”and
some “context”.
The second step “Synthesis”(Figure 2) involves further interpretation of descriptive
themes. We systematically compared and contrasted the eight themes (groups of
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 735
text sections), based on our research questions. We synthesized key factors supporting
and hindering learning into key themes and sometimes sub-themes. These are third-
order constructs, i.e., new concepts and understandings. Table 1 summarizes the results
of our thematic synthesis.
Figure 1. Systematic search and study selection, modified from Su
skevi
cs et al. (2018).
Figure 2. The process of thematic synthesis.
736 M. SU
SKEVI
CS ET AL.
Table 1. Factors supporting action-oriented learning: results from the thematic synthesis of the 53
selected journal articles.
REALM
(no. of
articles)
Analytical themes
a
References to the reviewed articles
b
Key theme:
Decisive FACTOR
No. of
articles
SUB-THEMES: Links
to action-oriented
learning
No. of
articles
I - Process
(41 articles)
1. Participatory and
collaborative
arenas
24 1.1. Facilitated space
for dialog
13 Benson, Lorenzoni, and Cook (2016);
Hoverman et al. (2011); Huntjens et al.
(2011); Lebel, Grothmann, and
Siebenh€
uner (2010); McDougall et al.
(2013); Moellenkamp et al. (2010); Pahl-
Wostl et al. (2013); Rist et al. (2007);
Schneider et al. (2012); Sims and Sinclair
(2008); Wallis, Ison, and Samson (2013);
Watanabe et al. (2014); Yuen, Jovicich,
and Preston (2013)
1.2. Self-organizing
capacities
9 Armitage et al. (2011); Biedenweg and
Monroe (2013); Hahn et al.2006; Kumler
and Lemos2008; Lee and Krasny (2015);
Murillo, Norris, and Biernacki (2015);
Olsson, Folke, and Hahn (2004); Tidball
et al. (2010); Van Assche et al. (2013)
1.3. Conflicts trigger-
ing learning
5 Biedenweg and Monroe (2013); d’Angelo
and Brunstein (2014); Dana and Nelson
(2012); Maynard (2015); Yuen, Jovicich,
and Preston (2013)
2. Proximity to
praxis
18 3.1. Intentional
experimentation
12 Bos and Brown (2012); Cheng, Danks, and
Allred (2011); Cundill (2010); Hahn et al.
(2006); Hurlbert (2015); Leys and
Vanclay2011; Moellenkamp et al. (2010);
Nguyen, Seddaiu, and Roggero (2014);
Olsson, Folke, and Hahn (2004); Pahl-
Wostl et al. (2013); Puente-Rodr
ıguez
et al. (2015); Van Assche et al. (2013)
3.2. Practice-based dialogs
and boundary objects
8 Albert et al. (2012); Alkan-Olsson et al.
(2011); Cheng, Danks, and Allred (2011);
Cundill (2010); Madsen and Noe (2012);
Puente-Rodr
ıguez et al. (2015); Sinclair,
Kumnerdpet, and Moyer (2013);
Wise (2014)
3. Inter-mediaries 14 2.1. Bridging organiza-
tions and individuals
10 Bos and Brown (2012); Cundill (2010); Hahn
et al. (2006); Hoverman et al. (2011);
Johannessen and Hahn (2013); Leys and
Vanclay (2011); Moellenkamp et al.
(2010); Nykvist (2014); Olsson et al.
(2004); Pahl-Wostl et al. (2013)
2.2. Facilitative leadership 12 Albert et al. (2012); Bos and Brown (2012;
Cundill (2010); Hoverman et al. (2011);
Hurlbert (2015); Johannessen and Hahn
(2013); Leys and Vanclay (2011); Nykvist
(2014); Olsson, Folke, and Hahn (2004);
Pahl-Wostl et al. (2013); Secco, Pettenella,
and Gatto (2011); Sol, Beers, and
Wals (2013)
II - Context
(31 articles)
4. Power asymmetries 13 7.1. Balancing power
asymmetries
13 Balazs and Lubell (2014); Biedenweg and
Monroe (2013); Boyd et al. (2014); Hilden
(2011); Hordijk et al. (2014); Hoverman
et al. (2011); Leys and Vanclay (2011);
McDougall et al. (2013); Shaw and
Kristjanson (2014); Sol, Beers, and Wals
(2013); Van Assche et al. (2013); Van
Gossum et al. (2008); Vinke-de Kruijf,
Bressers, and Augustijn (2014)
(continued)
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 737
Limitations of the Methodology
Meta-methods, such as thematic synthesis belong to the interpretive research paradigm
and involve a certain degree of subjectivity (Hannes and Macaitis 2012). Therefore,
working with not well-defined concepts (e.g., social learning) affects the review process.
In such cases, we debated emerging themes among coauthors and disagreements were
resolved by discussion. The first author primarily did coding; we discussed the wording
of final themes among all until we reached agreements about each theme. Additionally,
while building themes, we regularly returned to the original articles, to keep our inter-
pretations as close as possible to the meanings in original articles.
Limitations of the Evidence Base
The articles included discuss learning processes and their outcomes, however, what was
regarded as an outcome, and what were the processes facilitating it, was occasionally
not very clear. For instance, network-building would be considered a factor affecting
learning, but also sometimes a learning outcome. This made it challenging for us to dis-
tinguish with clarity how the authors of the selected papers have conceptualized the dif-
ferent components, and the assumed relationships between them.
Table 1. Continued.
REALM
(no. of
articles)
Analytical themes
a
References to the reviewed articles
b
Key theme:
Decisive FACTOR
No. of
articles
SUB-THEMES: Links
to action-oriented
learning
No. of
articles
5. Social-ecological
crises
11 4.1. Crises as triggers for
learning and action
11 Armitage et al. (2011); Benson, Lorenzoni,
and Cook (2016); Head (2014); Huntjens
et al. (2011); Johannessen and Hahn
(2013); Menzel and Buchecker (2013);
Olsson, Folke, and Hahn (2004); Pahl-
Wostl et al. (2013); Sendzimir et al.
(2010); Van Gossum et al. (2008); Vinke-
de Kruijf, Bressers, and Augustijn (2014)
6. Time 11 6.1. Allowing sufficient
time learning effects to
become evident
11 Albert et al. (2012); Balazs and Lubell (2014);
Biedenweg and Monroe (2013); Hilden
(2011); Lebel, Grothmann, and
Siebenh€
uner (2010); Leys and Vanclay
(2011); Menzel and Buchecker (2013);
Moellenkamp et al. (2010); Puszkin-
Chevlin and Esnard (2009); Shaw and
Kristjanson (2014); Yuen, Jovicich, and
Preston (2013)
7. Complexity 6 8.1. Embracing the com-
plexity of SESs
6 Boyd et al. (2014); Huntjens et al. (2011);
Pahl-Wostl et al. (2013); Puszkin-Chevlin
and Esnard (2009); Van Assche et al.
(2013); Vinke-de Kruijf, Bressers, and
Augustijn (2014)
8. Identity 4 5.1. Addressing identity
differences
4 Boyd et al. (2014); Hahn et al. (2006);
Puente-Rodr
ıguez et al. (2015); Smith,
DuBois, and Krasny (2016)
a
Several articles have data clustered in more than one theme and multiple sub-themes.
b
An alphabetical list of the 53
reviewed articles is included in the reference list.
738 M. SU
SKEVI
CS ET AL.
Results
Methodologically, the 53 articles identified as relevant for our analysis report on mostly
qualitative case studies: 35 articles on a single case study and 66 articles on comparative
case studies. Several papers report on more than one case (in total these made up to
101 cases). Further, 32 articles report on interventions in the form of facilitated proc-
esses while 16 papers report on self-organizing, emergent processes.
The analysis of the evidence reported by the 53 papers led to the identification of
eight decisive factors or “key themes”in total (Figure 3 and Table 1). Specifically, we
identified three themes for the process: (i) participatory and collaborative arenas, (ii)
proximity to praxis, and (iii) intermediaries. We identified five themes for context: (i)
power asymmetries, (ii) social-ecological crises, (iii) time, (iv) complexity of social-
ecological systems (SESs), and (v) identity.
Realm I: Process
Factor 1: Participatory and Collaborative Arenas
Facilitated space for dialog. Thirteen reviewed articles discuss the importance of enabling
a space for extended dialog for learning and provide descriptive evidence of how that
turned out in their case studies. For instance, as Hoverman et al. (2011) put it: creating
“appropriate conditions to facilitate constructive engagements”. This was evident not
only in this sub-theme (organized participation) but also in the next sub-theme (self-
organized collaboration). Most of the reviewed articles under both sub-themes highlight
the importance of co-design of participation, whereby stakeholders can develop co-own-
ership in these processes.
Figure 3. Process-based and contextual factors found to affect action-oriented learning (the scheme
of learning outcomes is modified from Su
skevi
cs et al. 2018).
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 739
Self-organizing capacities of networks. Nine articles report on research where self-
organizing collaboration was explored and evidence was observed of how learning leads
to innovative ideas and collective-action towards sustainability practices. For instance,
Van Assche et al. (2013) found that internally defined goals for learning and preexisting
networks –rather than artificially created learning environments –have created favor-
able conditions for a continuous exchange and implementation of innovative ideas in
the ice-fishing communities (Canadian Arctic).
Conflicts triggering learning. Five publications in our sample discuss cases where con-
flictual processes have supported learning. Dana and Nelson (2012, 243) write about
“constructive conflicts”when facilitating learning through Environmental Risk Analysis
of biodiversity of genetically modified crops (South-Africa). Maynard (2015) reports a
similar circumstance (UK), occurring in relation to water management where conflicting
expectations were discussed in a competence group, leading to a collaborative solution.
Learning in such occasions meant that divergent opinions were recognized first, then
debated openly and finally accommodated until the issue was settled.
Factor 2: Proximity to Praxis
Eighteen articles report on learning processes being facilitated in situations where peo-
ple share a real concern about given problems. We refer to this as “proximity
to praxis”.
Intentional experimentation. Twelve articles connect the experimental nature of gov-
ernance processes to learning and the resultant changes. Three articles support the idea
that learning happens through intentional experimentation as it opens up actors’minds
to new ideas. For instance, Bos and Brown (2012) describe a long-term governance
experiment in the urban water sector in Australia, where open networks of actors and
their willingness to try something new enabled learning.
Practice-based dialogs and boundary objects. Eight articles suggest that boundary
objects facilitate discussions on real-world experiences and therefore have the potential
to initiate action towards NRM change. Different entities can have a boundary-role. For
instance, a conservation agreement discussed by Puente-Rodr
ıguez et al. (2015) served
as a boundary object as it brought together different identities associated with fishing
traditions, creating a common knowledge base among the actors and leading to certain
actions towards sustainable mussel fishery practices (Netherlands).
Factor 3: Intermediaries
Fourteen articles report on the significance of intermediary roles which key individuals
and organizations have for facilitating and promoting action-oriented learning.
Bridging individuals and/or organizations. Ten articles discuss examples of the import-
ance of bridging individuals and/or organizations. For instance, Bos and Brown (2012)
identify a bridging organization, which promotes sustainable water practices and shared
experiences in urban water governance experiment (Australia), and an important role in
the case(s) they worked on.
740 M. SU
SKEVI
CS ET AL.
Facilitative and transformational leadership. Twelve articles identify a role for individ-
ual leadership and provide evidence of ways it transmits new knowledge in learning
processes. For example, this is in the form of key individuals or groups putting forward
innovative ideas and act on them. Four papers in our sample discuss that a shared lead-
ership (rather than individual) is needed for more sustainable NRM practices (e.g., Leys
and Vanclay 2011; Johannessen and Hahn 2013).
Realm II: Context
Factor 4: Power Asymmetries
We found thirteen articles giving evidence of how power asymmetries between various
actors hinder learning. This concerns dominant coalitions (e.g., Van Gossum et al.
2008; Boyd et al. 2014; Balazs and Lubell 2014), or a lack of distributional justice (e.g.,
Biedenweg and Monroe 2013; Shaw and Kristjanson 2014). For example, differences in
commitment and power among policy officers and NGOs created tension and dimin-
ished trust within the rural planning network in the Netherlands (Sol, Beers, and Wals
2013). Three articles also discuss possible solutions to address power discrepancies (Leys
and Vanclay 2011; McDougall et al. 2013; Van Assche et al. 2013).
Factor 5: Social-Ecological Crises
Eleven articles attribute learning, and the subsequent outcomes, to social-ecological cri-
ses. Crises reported most commonly include environmental disturbances (e.g., floods or
droughts), but also contested aspects of biodiversity issues (e.g., disputes over fish stock
situations). Researchers found that such circumstances had the potential to engender a
reassessment of the status quo and subsequent change of the actions.
Factor 6: Time
Eleven articles highlight time as a key factor affecting the achievement of learning out-
comes. For example, several articles defend the view that sufficient time should be allo-
cated for preparing the interventions, e.g., workshops (Moellenkamp et al. 2010), and
for negotiation (Biedenweg and Monroe 2013). Balazs and Lubell (2014) emphasize that
certain long-term effects (e.g., structural changes in water governance institutions) may
become visible only over extended time.
Factor 7: Complexity
Six articles point at the oversimplification of complex problems as a factor hindering
action-oriented learning. Examples include the simplification of risk, adaptation options
and the complexity of socio-technical change (e.g., Puszkin-Chevlin and Esnard 2009;
Boyd et al. 2014). Certain authors emphasize misfits between top-down governance and
the bottom-up learning approach (e.g., Vinke-de Kruijf, Bressers, and Augustijn 2014),
together with difficulties in combining informal learning processes with formal deci-
sion-making (e.g., Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013; Van Assche et al. 2013).
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 741
Factor 8: Identity
Four articles point at the role of identities in affecting action-oriented learning. For
instance, when shared identity construction in a community does not occur, it can
inhibit learning processes. As Boyd et al. (2014, 140) note that social learning for adap-
tive governance requires attention to “competing understandings of risk and identity,”
in the context of urban planning where the informal settlements are currently largely
ignored by governmental bodies (Mozambique).
Discussion
We need a better understanding of how learning, intended to support changes in real-
world NRM occurs and can be triggered (e.g., Reed et al. 2010). With the present study,
we attempt to make a step forward in this direction. In the following, we outline core
lessons that emerge from our synthesis of the current empirical literature. These lessons,
which NRM practitioners and researchers may find useful for their work, concern two
broad realms: the learning processes and the contexts.
Lesson 1: Self-Organizing, As Well As Externally Facilitated Processes, Support
Action-Oriented Learning
This lesson connects different NRM study fields that discuss learning (e.g., ACM, par-
ticipatory environmental governance), suggesting that self-organizing governance net-
works for NRM are complementary to and nested in government regimes (Hahn 2011)
or other externally facilitated processes. Yet, several authors (e.g., Collins and Ison
2009) note that participation or collaboration should be used as diagnostic tools but not
a panacea for strategic planning. Here, a key role is on intermediaries and a concept of
shared leadership, which support facilitated as well as emerging group processes. Much
of the argument on intermediaries is based on the ACM literature, which discusses
“bridging organizations”as an approach to support learning (Folke et al. 2005).
A bridging organization is “an arena for trust-building, vertical and horizontal collabor-
ation, learning, sensemaking, identification of common interests, and conflict reso-
lution”(Hahn et al. 2006, 586). Concepts of shared leadership recognize similar ideas,
e.g., the notion of “transformational leadership”from the ACM literature (e.g., Olsson,
Galaz, and Boonstra 2014)or“facilitative leadership”from the literature on environ-
mental governance (e.g., Ansell and Gash 2007)
Lesson 2: If Treated Constructively, Social-Ecological Crises May Facilitate
Action-Oriented Learning
This lesson brings together several key findings from our review: namely environmental
crises, conflictive processes, and power asymmetries. Our results suggest a distinct link
between environmental crises and action-oriented learning if crises are regarded as
“windows of opportunities”(Olsson, Folke, and Hahn 2004). This pattern is especially
evident in the ACM literature, and also in articles that rely on policy learning theories,
which tend to draw direct links between learning and the resultant policy changes
742 M. SU
SKEVI
CS ET AL.
(Weible et al. 2012). The lesson also suggests that in addition to collaborative processes,
conflicts may support learning as well, provided that conflicts are treated constructively –an
idea found in earlier studies (mostly from the participatory resource management field, e.g.,
Schusler et al. 2003; Keen and Mahanty 2006). Yet, some studies from existing ACM litera-
ture suggest that learning processes may not always result in common visions (e.g., Olsson,
Galaz, and Boonstra 2014). This ultimately relates to how power relations are treated:
addressing power asymmetries may support learning. In general, existing reviews of the
NRM literature have only rarely examined the role of certain contextual factors, such as
power relations in relation to learning. Our synthesis strongly suggests that power asymme-
tries between actors hinder learning. This lesson mainly derives from the sub-groups of
NRM literature on environmental governance (e.g., Lemos and Agrawal 2006) or the ACM
scholarship (e.g., Sandstr€
om 2009; Crona and Parker 2012).
Lesson 3: Proximity to Practice Supports Action-Oriented Learning
Our synthesis suggests that intentional experimentation, as well as reflection through
hands-on self-emergent experiences, facilitates action-oriented learning. Experimentation
is a central theme in the ACM literature (e.g., Armitage, Marschke, and Plummer 2008)
where learning outcomes are meant to inform future policies. Our results further indi-
cate that different kinds of entities can facilitate action-oriented learning. These entities
are often termed as “boundary objects”, which relate to bridging organizations, denoting
“hybrid constructions”meant to “facilitate the negotiation and exchange of multiple
types of knowledge”(White et al. 2010, 221). Boundary objects are often discussed in
the ACM scholarship (e.g., Crona and Parker 2012) but also in the literature on collab-
orative/participatory resource governance (e.g., White et al. 2010).
Implications for Further NRM Research
This review has identified two key knowledge gaps in the current empirical literature.
These are relevant for both primary research and for research syntheses.
First, despite increasing attention to contextual factors affecting learning, contextual
issues are often addressed vaguely in the current empirical NRM literature. This is an
important knowledge gap. Given that many assume these aspects can significantly affect
the outcomes of learning, more in-depth research is needed to clarify questions around
these. For instance, further studies could clarify specific links between time, identity,
and action-oriented learning. Several studies, especially from the ACM literature, under-
line that learning outcomes often require longer time-scales, e.g., years or decades, to
become evident (Plummer and Armitage 2007; Armitage, Marschke, and Plummer
2008). Our synthesis highlights that the role of time might be different in cases of
organized and self-emerging processes. In the case of intervention-based learning, future
studies could benefit from research designs that integrate ex-ante and ex-post assess-
ments. In the case of studies exploring learning outcomes within self-emerging proc-
esses, it would be useful to explicate how time frames were accounted for and what
analytical criteria were used to reconstruct past events, and their effects.
However, methodological aspects are often debated in research on learning (Cundill and
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 743
Rodela 2012) and we did not systematically explore the methods used in the reviewed
studies. This is something future syntheses could focus on.
Second, the various sub-groups of NRM literature –i.e., literature which uses different
theoretical lenses to study NRM (e.g., ACM or collaborative governance) and also applies
different learning concepts (e.g., social learning or policy learning) –could benefit from a
tighter exchange. For instance, the ACM literature, with its pragmatic and instrumental
approach to learning, has recently but only partly converged to the environmental govern-
ance scholarship. At the same time, the problem-based environmental governance litera-
ture has brought new topics into the learning discourse. A more dynamic exchange
between these bodies of works may help to address some of the key challenges in contem-
porary environmental governance (Plummer, Armitage, and de Lo€
e2013), especially in
terms of learning outcomes in real-world situations. Our synthesis also suggests that the
various sub-groups of NRM literature have many aspects in common and, for instance,
they seem to share a position on how action-oriented learning occurs (e.g., the view on
self-organized and facilitated participation supporting learning). Future reviews of pub-
lished literature could systematically compare this and such comparisons could potentially
further reveal the specific links between learning and its implications to NRM practice.
Conclusions
Action-oriented learning, as used in the NRM research field, is a concept that focuses
on learning outcomes as well as their manifestations in real-world. The present review
of published empirical qualitative literature identified eight factors that are reported to
have a key effect on action-oriented learning. The sample of papers we surveyed
includes only empirical research, which allows to better comprehend how action-ori-
ented learning is suggested to emerge in real-world resource management situations.
Our review also points at important knowledge gaps, which can be used to further the
current research agenda about learning and NRM.
This study also has sought to test if thematic synthesis –as an analytical method to
describe, synthesize, and catalog evidence across the NRM literature –is well suited for the
task at hand. We found that thematic synthesis, as a qualitative review technique, allowed
us to investigate in a more in-depth way the ongoing discourse on learning. Thematic syn-
thesis proved especially useful for synthesizing evidence from qualitative studies, which
often have diverse designs and are not easy to compare by quantitative approaches (see:
Hannes and Macaitis 2012). While thematic synthesis allows grasping an in-depth narra-
tive about the evidence base, the method, however, is limited in generating specific man-
agement recommendations. Therefore, the lessons we are able to draw from our study
represent broad suggestions; their validity depends on the concrete management context.
Acknowledgments
The first author wishes to thank three anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback on the manu-
script and the Swedish Institute for a one-year visiting scholar grant to work at Stockholm
Resilience Centre (SRC), Sweden.
744 M. SU
SKEVI
CS ET AL.
Funding
Our research has been co-financed by the Formas research grant No. 2016-01556, and by the
Stiftelsen f€
or Milj€
ostrategisk Forskning (€
Ostersj€
ostiftelsen).
ORCID
Monika Su
skevi
cs http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5666-2623
Thomas Hahn http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6649-5232
Note
denotes references to the 53 included articles.
References
Albert, C., T. Zimmermann, J. Knieling, and C. von Haaren. 2012. Social learning can benefit
decision-making in landscape planning: Gartow case study on climate change adaptation, Elbe
valley biosphere reserve. Landscape and Urban Planning 105 (4):347–60. doi:10.1016/
j.landurbplan.2011.12.024.
Alkan-Olsson, J., A. Jonsson, L. Andersson, and B. Arheimer. 2011. A model-supported partici-
patory process for nutrient management: A Socio-Legal analysis of a bottom-up implementa-
tion of the EU water framework directive. Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9 (2):379–89.
doi:10.1080/14735903.2011.582361.
Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2007. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 18 (4):543–71. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032.
Armitage, D., F. Berkes, A. Dale, E. Kocho-Schellenberg, and E. Patton. 2011. Co-management
and the Co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global
Environmental Change 21 (3):995–1004. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006.
Armitage, D., A. Dzyundzyak, J. Baird, €
O. Bodin, R. Plummer, and L. Schultz. 2018. An approach
to assess learning conditions, effects and outcomes in environmental governance.
Environmental Policy and Governance 28 (1):3–14. doi:10.1002/eet.1781.
Armitage, D., M. Marschke, and R. Plummer. 2008. Adaptive co-management and the
paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change 18 (1):86–98. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.
2007.07.002.
Balazs, C. L., and M. Lubell. 2014. Social learning in an environmental justice context: A case
study of integrated regional water management. Water Policy 16 (S2):97. doi:10.2166/
wp.2014.101.
Bennett, C. J., and M. Howlett. 1992. The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy
learning and policy change. Policy Sciences 25 (3):275–94. doi:10.1007/BF00138786.
Benson, D., I. Lorenzoni, and H. Cook. 2016. Evaluating social learning in England flood risk
management: An ‘individual-community interaction’perspective. Environmental Science and
Policy 55:326–34. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.013.
Biedenweg, K., and M. Monroe. 2013. Teasing apart the details: How social learning can affect
collective action in the Bolivian Amazon. Human Ecology 41 (2):239–53. doi:10.1007/s10745-
012-9535-y.
Bos, J. J., and R. R. Brown. 2012. Governance experimentation and factors of success in socio-
technical transitions in the urban water sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79
(7):1340–53. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.006.
Boyd, E., J. Ensor, V. Cast
an Broto, and S. Juhola. 2014. Environmentalities of urban climate
governance in Maputo, Mozambique. Global Environmental Change 26:140–51. doi:10.1016/
j.gloenvcha.2014.03.012.
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 745
Cheng, A. S., C. Danks, and S. R. Allred. 2011. The role of social and policy learning in chang-
ing Forest governance: An examination of Community-Based forestry initiatives in the U.S.
Forest Policy and Economics 13(2):89–96. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.09.005.
Collins, K., and R. Ison. 2009. Jumping off arnstein’s ladder: Social learning as a new policy para-
digm for climate change adaptation. Environmental Policy and Governance 19(6):358–73. doi:
10.1002/eet.523.
Crona, B. I., and J. N. Parker. 2012. Learning in support of governance: Theories, methods, and a
framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance.
Ecology and Society 17 (1):32. doi:10.5751/ES-04534-170132.
Cundill, G. 2010. Monitoring social learning processes in adaptive comanagement: Three case
studies from South Africa. Ecology and Society 15 (3):1–19. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/
vol15/iss3/art28/.
Cundill, G., and R. Rodela. 2012. A review of assertions about the processes and outcomes of
social learning in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 113:
7–14. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.021.
Dana, G. V., and K. C. Nelson. 2012. Social learning through environmental risk analysis of bio-
diversity and GM maize in South Africa. Environmental Policy and Governance 22 (4):238–52.
doi:10.1002/eet.1587.
d’Angelo, M. J., and J. Brunstein. 2014. Social learning for sustainability: Supporting sustainable
business in Brazil regarding multiple social actors, Relationships and interests. International
Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 21:273–89. doi:10.1080/
13504509.2014.902868.
Diduck, A., A. J. Sinclair, G. Hostetler, and P. Fitzpatrick. 2012. Transformative learning theory,
public involvement, and natural resource and environmental management. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 55 (10):1311–30. doi:10.1080/09640568.2011.645718.
Dunlop, C. A., and C. M. Radaelli. 2018. The lessons of policy learning: Types, triggers, hindran-
ces and pathologies. Policy and Politics 46 (2):55–272. doi:10.1332/
030557318X15230059735521.
Ensor, J., and B. Harvey. 2015. Social learning and climate change adaptation: Evidence for inter-
national development practice. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 6 (5):509–22.
doi:10.1002/wcc.348.
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological sys-
tems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 (1):441–73. doi:10.1146/
annurev.energy.30.050504.144511.
Gerlak, A. K., T. Heikkila, S. L. Smolinski, D. Huitema, and D. Armitage. 2017. Learning our
way out of environmental policy problems: A review of the scholarship. Policy Sciences,
February 51 (3):335–71. doi:10.1007/s11077-017-9278-0.
Hahn, T. 2011. Self-organized governance networks for ecosystem management: Who is account-
able? Ecology and Society 16 (2):1–19. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art18/
Hahn, T., P. Olsson, C. Folke, and K. Johansson. 2006. Trust-building, Knowledge generation
and organizational innovations: The role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanage-
ment of a wetland landscape around kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecology 34 (4):573–92. doi:
10.1007/s10745-006-9035-z.
Hannes, K., and K. Macaitis. 2012. A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in
qualitative evidence synthesis: Update on a review of published papers. Qualitative Research 12
(4):402–42. doi:0.1177/1468794111432992.
Head, B. W. 2014. Managing urban water crises: Adaptive policy responses to drought and flood
in southeast Queensland, Australia. Ecology and Society 19 (2):33. doi:10.5751/ES-06414-
190233.
Heikkila, T., and A. K. Gerlak. 2013. Building a conceptual approach to collective learning:
Lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal 41 (3):484–512. doi:10.1111/psj.12026.
Hilden, M. 2011. The evolution of climate policies –The role of learning and evaluations.
Journal of Cleaner Production 19:1798–811. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.004.
746 M. SU
SKEVI
CS ET AL.
Hordijk, M., L. M. Sara, and C. Sutherland. 2014. Resilience, transition or transformation? A
comparative analysis of changing water governance systems in four Southern cities.
Environment and Urbanization 26 (1):130–46. doi:10.1177/0956247813519044.
Hoverman, S., H. Ross, T. Chan, and B. Powell. 2011. Social learning through participatory inte-
grated catchment risk assessment in the Solomon Islands. Ecology and Society 16 (2):1–22. doi:
10.5751/ES-04036-160217.
Huntjens, P., C. Pahl-Wostl, B. Rihoux, M. Schl€
uter, Z. Flachner, S. Neto, R. Koskova, C.
Dickens, and I. N. Kiti. 2011. Adaptive water management and policy learning in a changing
climate: A formal comparative analysis of eight water management regimes in Europe, Africa
and Asia. Environmental Policy and Governance 21 (3):145–63. doi:10.1002/eet.571.
Hurlbert, M. 2015. Learning, participation, and adaptation: Exploring agri-environmental pro-
grammes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58 (1):113–34. doi:10.1080/
09640568.2013.847823.
Johannessen, Å., and T. Hahn. 2013. Social learning towards a more adaptive paradigm?
Reducing flood risk in kristianstad municipality, Sweden. Global Environmental Change 23 (1):
372–81. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.009.
Keen, M., and S. Mahanty. 2006. Learning in sustainable natural resource management:
Challenges and opportunities in the pacific. Society & Natural Resources 19 (6):497–513. doi:
10.1080/08941920600663896.
Koontz, T. M., and J. Newig. 2014. From planning to implementation: Top-down and bottom-up
approaches for collaborative watershed management. Policy Studies Journal 42 (3):416–42. doi:
10.1111/psj.12067.
Kumler, L. M., and M. C. Lemos. 2008. Managing waters of the Paraiba do Sul river basin,
Brazil: A case study in institutional change and social learning. Ecology and Society 13 (2):
1–13. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art22/.
Lebel, L., T. Grothmann, and B. Siebenh€
uner. 2010. The role of social learning in adaptiveness:
Insights from water management. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and
Economics 10 (4):333–53. doi:10.1007/s10784-010-9142-6.
Lee, E., and M. E. Krasny. 2015. The role of social learning for Social-Ecological systems in
Korean village groves restoration. Ecology and Society 20 (1):42. doi:10.5751/ES-07289-200142.
Lemos, M. C., and A. Agrawal. 2006. Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment
and Resources 31 (1):297–325. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621.
Leys, A. J., and J. K. Vanclay. 2011. Social learning: A knowledge and capacity building
approach for adaptive co-management of contested landscapes. Land Use Policy 28 (3):574–84.
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.11.006.
Madsen, M. L., and E. Noe. 2012. Communities of practice in participatory approaches to envir-
onmental regulation. Prerequisites for implementation of environmental knowledge in agricul-
tural context. Environmental Science and Policy 18:25–33. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.12.008.
Marschke, M., and A. J. Sinclair. 2009. Learning for sustainability: Participatory resource manage-
ment in Cambodian fishing villages. Journal of Environmental Management 90(1):206–16. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.012.
Maynard, C. M. 2015. Accessing the environment: Delivering ecological and societal benefits
through knowledge integration –The case of water management. Applied Geography 58:
94–104. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.01.013.
McDougall, C., J. Jiggins, B. H. Pandit, S. K. T. M. Rana, and C. Leeuwis. 2013. Does adaptive
collaborative forest governance affect poverty? Participatory action research in Nepal’s commu-
nity forests. Society & Natural Resources 26 (11):1235–51. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.779344.
Menzel, S., and M. Buchecker. 2013. Does participatory planning foster the transformation
toward more adaptive Social-Ecological systems?. Ecology and Society 18 (1):13. doi:10.5751/
ES-05154-180113.
Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.
Moellenkamp, S., M. Lamers, C. Huesmann, S. Rotter, C. Pahl-Wostl, K. Speil, W. Pohl, and S.
Moellenkamp. 2010. Informal participatory platforms for adaptive management. Insights into
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 747
niche-finding, collaborative design and outcomes from a participatory process in the Rhine
Basin. Ecology and Society 15 (4):1–23. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art41/.
Mostert, E., C. Pahl-Wostl, Y. Rees, B. Searle, D. T
abara, and J. Tippett. 2007. Social learning in
European River-Basin management: Barriers and fostering mechanisms from 10 river basins.
Ecology and Society 12 (1):1–16. doi:10.5751/ES-01960-120119.
Murillo, J. D., L. Norris, and J. J. Biernacki. 2015. The Southern grassroots biofuels project: A
participatory study of conservationists and stakeholders from two upper cumberland counties.
Sociological Spectrum 35(4):349–71. doi:10.1080/02732173.2015.1043679.
Muro, M., and P. Jeffrey. 2012. Time to talk? How the structure of dialog processes shapes stake-
holder learning in participatory water resources management. Ecology and Society 17 (1):1–14.
doi:10.5751/ES-04476-170103.
Nguyen, T. P. L., G. Seddaiu, and P. P. Roggero. 2014. Hybrid knowledge for understanding
complex agri-environmental issues: Nitrate pollution in Italy. International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability 12 (2):164–82. doi:10.1080/14735903.2013.825995.
Nykvist, B. 2014. Does social learning lead to better natural resource management? A case study
of the modern farming community of practice in Sweden. Society & Natural Resources 27 (4):
436–50. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.861562.
Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T. Hahn. 2004. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem manage-
ment: The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in Southern
Sweden. Ecology and Society 9 (4):1–26. doi:10.5751/ES-00683-090402.
Olsson, P., V. Galaz, and W. J. Boonstra. 2014. Sustainability transformations: a resilience per-
spective. Ecology and Society 19 (4):1. doi:10.5751/ES-06799-190401.
Pahl-Wostl, C. 2015. Water governance - concepts, methods, and practice. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing.
Pahl-Wostl, C., G. Becker, C. Knieper, and J. Sendzimir. 2013. How multilevel societal learning
processes facilitate transformative change: A comparative case study analysis on flood manage-
ment. Ecology and Society 18 (4):1–28. doi:10.5751/ES-05779-180458.
Plummer, R., and D. Armitage. 2007. A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-
management: Linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world. Ecological
Economics 61 (1):62–74. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.025.
Plummer, R., B. Crona, D. R. Armitage, P. Olsson, M. Teng€
o, and O. Yudina. 2012. Adaptive
Comanagement: a Systematic Review and Analysis. Ecology and Society 17 (3):11. doi:10.5751/
ES-04952-170311.
Plummer, R., D. R. Armitage, and R. C. de Lo€
e. 2013. Adaptive comanagement and its relation-
ship to environmental governance. Ecology and Society 18 (1):1–15. doi:10.5751/ES-05383-
180121.
Puente-Rodr
ıguez, D., J. A. A. Swart, M. Middag, and H. J. Van der Windt. 2015. Identities,
communities, and practices in the transition towards sustainable mussel fishery in the Dutch
Wadden Sea. Human Ecology 43(1):93–104. doi:10.1007/s10745-014-9718-9.
Puszkin-Chevlin, A., and A.-M. Esnard. 2009. Incremental evolution and devolution of Florida’s
coastal high hazard area policy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52 (3):
297–313. doi:10.1080/09640560802703173.
Reed, M. S., A. C. Evely, G. Cundill, I. Fazey, J. Glass, A. Laing, J. Newig., B. Parrish, C. Prell, C.
Raymond, et al. 2010. What is social learning? Ecology and Society 15 (4):r1. http://www.ecolo-
gyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/resp1/.
Rist, S., M. Chidambaranathan, C. Escobar, U. Wiesmann, and A. Zimmermann. 2007. Moving
from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources: The role of social
learning processes in rural India, Bolivia and Mali. Journal of Rural Studies 23(1):23–37. doi:
10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.02.006.
Rodela, R. 2011. Social learning and natural resource management: The emergence of three
research perspectives. Ecology and Society 16 (4):30. doi:10.5751/ES-04554-160430.
Sandelowski, M., S. Docherty, and C. Emden. 1997. Focus on qualitative methods. Qualitative
metasynthesis: issues and techniques. Research in Nursing & Health 20 (4):365–71. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1098-240X(199708)20:4<365::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-E.
748 M. SU
SKEVI
CS ET AL.
Sandstr€
om, C. 2009. Institutional dimensions of comanagement: Participation, power, and pro-
cess. Society & Natural Resources 22 (3):230–44. doi:10.1080/08941920802183354.
Schneider, F., D. Steiger, T. Ledermann, P. Fry, and S. Rist. 2012. No-tillage farming: co-cre-
ation of innovation through network building. Land Degradation & Development 23:242–55.
doi:10.1002/ldr.1073.
Schusler, T. M., D. J. Decker, and M. J. Pfeffer. 2003. Social learning for collaborative natural
resource management. Society & Natural Resources 16 (4):309–26. doi:10.1080/
08941920390178874.
Secco, L., D. Pettenella, and P. Gatto. 2011. Forestry governance and collective learning process
in Italy: Likelihood or utopia? Forest Policy and Economics 13 (2):104–12. doi:10.1016/
j.forpol.2010.04.002.
Sendzimir, J., Z. Flachner, C. Pahl-Wostl, and C. Knieper. 2010. Stalled regime transition in the
upper Tisza river basin: The dynamics of linked action situations. Environmental Science and
Policy 13 (7):604–19. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.09.005.
Shaw, A., and P. Kristjanson. 2014. A catalyst toward sustainability? Exploring social learning
and social differentiation approaches with the agricultural poor. Sustainability 6 (5):2685–717.
doi:10.3390/su6052685.
Siebenh€
uner, B., R. Rodela, and F. Ecker. 2016. Social learning research in ecological economics:
A survey. Environmental Science and Policy 55 (1):116–26. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.09.010.
Sims, L., and A. J. Sinclair. 2008. Learning through participatory resource management pro-
grams: Case studies from Costa Rica. Adult Education Quarterly 58 (2):151–68. doi:10.1177/
0741713607309802.
Sinclair, A. J., W. Kumnerdpet, and J. M. Moyer. 2013. Learning sustainable water practices
through participatory irrigation management in Thailand. Natural Resources Forum 37 (1):
55–66. doi:10.1111/1477-8947.12012.
Smith, J. G., B. DuBois, and M. E. Krasny. 2016. Framing for resilience through social learning:
Impacts of environmental stewardship on youth in post-disturbance communities.
Sustainability Science 11 (3):441–53. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0348-y.
Sol, J., P. J. Beers, and A. E. J. Wals. 2013. Social learning in regional innovation networks:
Trust, commitment and reframing as emergent properties of interaction. Journal of Cleaner
Production 49:35–43. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.041.
Su
skevi
cs, M., T. Hahn, R. Rodela, B. Macura, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2018. Learning for social-eco-
logical change: A qualitative review of outcomes across empirical literature in natural resource
management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61 (7):1085–112. doi:
10.1080/09640568.2017.1339594.
Taylor, E. W. 2008. :5–17. Transformative learning theory. In Third update on adult learning the-
ory: New directions for adult and continuing education, ed. S. B. Merriam. San Francisco,
U.S.A: Jossey-Bass.
Thomas, J., and A. Harden. 2008. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in
systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 8:45. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45.
Tidball, K. G., M. E. Krasny, E. Svendsen, L. Campbell, and K. Helphand. 2010. Stewardship,
learning, and memory in disaster resilience. Environmental Education Research 16 (5–6):
591–609. doi:10.1080/13504622.2010.505437.
Van Assche, K., R. Beunen, J. Holm, and M. Lo. 2013. Social learning and innovation. Ice fish-
ing communities on Lake Mille Lacs. Land Use Policy 34:233–42. doi:10.1016/
j.landusepol.2013.03.009.
Van Gossum, P., L. Ledene, B. Arts, R. De Vreese, and K. Verheyen. 2008. Implementation fail-
ure of the Forest expansion policy in Flanders (Northern Belgium) and the policy learning
potential. Forest Policy and Economics 10 (7–8):515–22. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2008.07.001.
Vinke-de Kruijf, J., H. Bressers, and D. C. M. Augustijn. 2014. How social learning influences
further collaboration: Experiences from an international collaborative water project. Ecology
and Society 19 (2):61. doi:10.5751/ES-06540-190261.
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 749
Wallis, P. J., R. L. Ison, and K. Samson. 2013. Identifying the conditions for social learning in
water governance in regional Australia. Land Use Policy 31:412–21. doi:10.1016/
j.landusepol.2012.08.003.
Watanabe, M., L. R. da Rosa Gama Madruga, C. K. Yamaguchi, A. C. P. Vieira, and R.
Jenoveva-Neto. 2014. Decision making and social learning: The case of watershed committee
of the state of Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil. Water Resources Management 28 (11):3815–28. doi:
10.1007/s11269-014-0711-2.
Weible, C. M., T. Heikkila, P. deLeon, and P. A. Sabatier. 2012. Understanding and influencing
the policy process. Policy Sciences 45 (1):1–21. doi:10.1007/s11077-011-9143-5.
White, D. D., A. Wutich, K. L. Larson, P. Gober, T. Lant, and C. Senneville. 2010. Credibility,
salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: Water managers’assessment of a simulation
model in an immersive decision theater. Science and Public Policy 37 (3):219–32. doi:10.3152/
030234210X497726.
Wise, S. P. 2014. Learning through experience: Non-implementation and the challenges of pro-
tected area conservation in the Bahamas. Marine Policy 46:111–18. doi:10.1016/
j.marpol.2014.01.010.
Yuen, E., S. S. Jovicich, and B. L. Preston. 2013. Climate change vulnerability assessments as cat-
alysts for social learning: Four case studies in south-eastern Australia. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18 (5):567–90. doi:10.1007/s11027-012-9376-4.
Zimmer, L. 2006. Qualitative meta-synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of
Advanced Nursing 53 (3):311–18. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03721.x..
750 M. SU
SKEVI
CS ET AL.