Social Learning for Facilitating Dialogue and Understanding of the Ecosystem Services Approach: Lessons from a Cross-Border Experience in the Alboran Marine Basin

Abstract

Social learning (SL) appears to have considerable potential to enhance the impact of the ecosystem services approach (ESA) discourse on policy and society. However, empirical research to better understand the processes that support SL, the effects it generates, and the conditions that enable such learning is limited. This study assesses the ability of SL to enhance dialogue and understanding of the ESA to support transformative social change in governance practice in the Alboran Marine Basin. To do so, we conducted a specifically designed SL process oriented towards the ESA as a governance approach in this marine region. The SL process was developed through three interlinked workshops involving scientists, decision-makers and local users from Spain and Morocco, the two countries that share the governance of this social-ecological system. The results revealed that the SL process progressively facilitated (i) a more inclusive and constructive ecosystem services dialogue, (ii) a better understanding of the social-ecological system in which the actors were embedded, (iii) an enhanced recognition of science-policy-society complementarities to address sustainability issues, and (iv) a gradual social transformation towards more sustainable and equitable governance. Via the SL process, a variety of factors were identified as contributing to the creation of four relevant conditions that facilitated its successful operationalisation. These conditions included (i) the generation of trust and shared understanding, (ii) the facilitation of knowledge exchanges between actor groups across frontiers, (iii) the promotion of more democratic participation, and (iv) the co-production of practical outcomes. These contextual insights provided empirical evidence of the prominent role SL can play to enhance dialogue and understanding of the ESA for supporting its adoption as governance practice. On this basis, it is argued that operationalising SL in those processes focused on making the ESA relevant to policy and society is pivotal to its implementation in governance practice.

Full text

sustainability
Article
Social Learning for Facilitating Dialogue
and Understanding of the Ecosystem Services
Approach: Lessons from a Cross-Border Experience
in the Alboran Marine Basin
María D. López-Rodríguez 1, 2, * , Javier Cabello 1, Hermelindo Castro 1and Jaime Rodríguez 3
1Andalusian Center for the Assessment and Monitoring of Global Change,
Department of Biology and Geology, Universidad de Almeria, Ctra. Sacramento, s/n, 04120 Almeria, Spain;
jcabello@ual.es (J.C.); hcn068@caescg.org (H.C.)
2Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3), Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Av. Friedrich Gauss 5,
08860 Castelldefels, Spain
3Department of Ecology, Universidad de Malaga, Andalucía Tech, Campus de Teatinos s/n,
29071 Malaga, Spain; jaime@uma.es
*Correspondence: mlr538@ual.es; Tel.: +34-950-015-641
Received: 13 August 2019; Accepted: 18 September 2019; Published: 24 September 2019


Abstract:
Social learning (SL) appears to have considerable potential to enhance the impact of
the ecosystem services approach (ESA) discourse on policy and society. However, empirical research
to better understand the processes that support SL, the effects it generates, and the conditions
that enable such learning is limited. This study assesses the ability of SL to enhance dialogue
and understanding of the ESA to support transformative social change in governance practice in
the Alboran Marine Basin. To do so, we conducted a specifically designed SL process oriented towards
the ESA as a governance approach in this marine region. The SL process was developed through three
interlinked workshops involving scientists, decision-makers and local users from Spain and Morocco,
the two countries that share the governance of this social-ecological system. The results revealed
that the SL process progressively facilitated (i) a more inclusive and constructive ecosystem services
dialogue, (ii) a better understanding of the social-ecological system in which the actors were embedded,
(iii) an enhanced recognition of science-policy-society complementarities to address sustainability
issues, and (iv) a gradual social transformation towards more sustainable and equitable governance.
Via the SL process, a variety of factors were identified as contributing to the creation of four relevant
conditions that facilitated its successful operationalisation. These conditions included (i) the generation
of trust and shared understanding, (ii) the facilitation of knowledge exchanges between actor groups
across frontiers, (iii) the promotion of more democratic participation, and (iv) the co-production of
practical outcomes. These contextual insights provided empirical evidence of the prominent role SL
can play to enhance dialogue and understanding of the ESA for supporting its adoption as governance
practice. On this basis, it is argued that operationalising SL in those processes focused on making
the ESA relevant to policy and society is pivotal to its implementation in governance practice.
Keywords:
social learning; communication; ecosystem services dialogue; knowledge co-production;
social transformation; sustainable governance
1. Introduction
The ecosystem services approach (ESA) is a well-recognised principle with which to articulate policies
for conservation and the sustainable use of ecosystems [
1
]. The scientific foundation of the ESA supports
Sustainability 2019,11, 5239; doi:10.3390/su11195239 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 2 of 23
governance models that encompass the complex interconnectedness and interdependence of social
and ecological systems to be managed from an integral and sustainable perspective [
2
]. As a conceptual
framework, the ESA stresses the benefits that people derive from the functions and processes of ecosystems,
and emphasises the links between nature and human well-being [
3
]. This framework contrasts with
the traditional governance approach that focused on managing isolated components of ecosystems but
ignored their interactions with social systems [
4
]. Scientists consider that such piecemeal governance has
a negative impact on safeguarding the Earth’s ecosystems [
3
,
5
,
6
], and have encouraged the adoption of
the ESA as a reference framework to re-orient policies towards ecosystem-based governance [1,7–9].
While a considerable amount of scientific knowledge has been generated over the last few
decades to support the formulation of evidence-based policies from the ESA around the world [
10
],
such knowledge has only slowly permeated to policy and society [
11
–
13
]. In order to catalyse
the impact of scientific knowledge and translate it into action on the ground, an increasing number of
academics have increased their efforts to strengthen the science-policy-society interface around the ESA.
The publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [
3
], the constitution of the Ecosystem
Services Partnership (ESP) network, in 2008 and the creation of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in 2012 are examples of efforts to mainstream
ecosystem service science to the global community. Concurrently, significant progress in this direction
has been made through recent research focused on participatory approaches to raise awareness
and elicit more direct public engagement [
14
]. These efforts have already delivered early results to
guide policies around the world [
15
]. Despite its importance, various challenges have continued to
prevent the adoption of the ESA as standard governance practice [
13
]. Such challenges have led to
the development of new research directions to understand specifically what factors may be limiting
the incorporation of the ESA into decision-making processes.
Within this context, a major constraint to increasing the impact of ecosystem service research
is the limited knowledge and understanding of scientific discourse on the ESA by policymakers
and the general public [
16
], particularly, on how ESA concepts can inspire dialogue and cooperation
across social groups [
17
–
19
]. This may be attributed to the different meanings and interpretations
that ES concepts elicit amongst people with a plurality of perspectives, knowledge and values [
15
].
These different understandings are largely derived from the market-oriented connotation attached to
ecosystem services concepts [
20
], the complex scientific terminology of the ESA [
11
] and the general
lack of a standardised ecosystem services lexicon [
21
]. It is recognised that unless there is an effective
communication process for ESA, it will be difficult to catalyse its inclusion in decisions and policies. For
this reason, the ecosystem service community has called for suitable approaches to strengthen dialogue
and understanding amongst scientists, decision-makers and the general public across contexts [19].
Social learning (SL, also referred to as sustainability or transdisciplinary learning) is a tool to
facilitate constructive dialogue between scientists and non-scientists [
22
–
25
], with the potential to
enhance the ESA discourse in society. Among the multiple interpretations of SL in the scientific
literature [
26
], SL can be understood as the collective learning dynamics around the ESA, which are
built upon shared reflection and a common understanding of the principles of sustainability and its
consequences [
22
,
23
]. One of the most relevant aspects of this type of SL is that the individuals involved
can interact in terms of “communicative action” [
27
]. Communicative action implies that actors
establish a communication pattern based on a common understanding of the principles of sustainability,
and jointly define action-relevant situations [
23
]. This type of communication is recognised as pivotal
to raise awareness of ecosystem services, taking responsibility, and making changes in individual
behaviours and institutional practices [
23
,
25
,
28
]. Therefore, based on communicative action, SL can
contribute by strengthening the links amongst the scientific community and other parts of society,
thus generating transformative social change to re-orientate existing governance practice towards
the ESA. Although significant progress has been made in the theoretical conceptualisation of SL over
recent decades [
26
,
29
], empirical research to better understand the processes that support SL, the effects

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 3 of 23
it generates, and the conditions that enable such learning under specific contexts is limited [
30
],
especially in the ESA field (see, e.g., [31,32]).
ESA implementation can be especiallychallenging in socio-ecological systems that cross geo-political
boundaries given the significant cultural and socio-economic differences amongst populations,
and competing interests and trade-offs between uses of ecosystem services by the bordering
countries [
33
,
34
]. In this context, we developed a study focused on assessing the applicability of
SL to enhance dialogue and understanding of the ESA to support transformative social change in
governance practice in the Alboran Marine Basin (a marine ecosystem with high biodiversity values
and geopolitical importance, the governance of which is shared by Spain and Morocco). To develop
the study, we conducted a specifically designed SL process oriented towards the ESA as a governance
approach in this marine region to (1) analyse the societal effects that such a process generates in individuals
involved and (2) identify key factors that facilitate SL in this governance context. The SL process was
developed through three interlinked workshops involving scientists, decision-makers and local users
from Spain and Morocco. As a result of this process, we observed changes in interaction patterns
and understanding and different social aspects that emerged progressively amongst the individuals
involved. We identified key operative conditions that positively influenced the SL process, and reported
the evaluation of the SL process by the participants themselves. Practical lessons and limitations are
described and discussed. We believe that these insights provide a contextual orientation for both scholars
and non-scholars interested in designing learning strategies for making the ESA relevant to policy
and society.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
The Alboran Marine Basin (AMB) is located at the westernmost side of the Mediterranean
Basin in the interface between Europe and Africa (Figure 1a,b). Specifically, the study focused on
the marine area basin bounded by the coastline of Spain and Morocco (571 and 540 km, respectively).
From an ecological point of view, the AMB is characterised by conspicuous hydrodynamic effects driven
by the inflow of Atlantic Ocean water through the Strait of Gibraltar [
35
] (Figure 1c). These ecological
conditions determine its high biodiversity, which accounts for 28% of the world’s endemic species,
7.5% of the world’s fauna species, and 18% of the world’s marine flora species [
36
]. In recent decades,
the increased intensification of human impacts in the Mediterranean region (e.g., overfishing, habitat
loss and pollution) has led to a decline in biodiversity [
37
], which threatens the maintenance of
ecosystem services provided to inhabitants from the north and south shores. The AMB is an area
of importance and concern at the social, geopolitical, and strategic levels. It is characterised by
the contrasting cultural and living standards between Spain (EU) and Morocco (non-EU member) [
36
].
Governance of the AMB is shared by these bordering countries and largely managed by different
government institutions (from local to national scale) in both countries (Figure 1d). This complex
socio-cultural, economic and political mosaic hinders the articulation of conservation policies that
ensure equitable and sustainable governance of the region.

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 4 of 23
Figure 1.
(
a
) Location of the study area: the Alboran Marine Basin (AMB); (
b
) External borders of
the AMB; (
c
) Main hydrodynamic structures (simplified from [
35
]); and (
d
) Marine jurisdictional
boundaries by country [38].
2.2. Methodological Approach
2.2.1. Social-Ecological System Overview and Participants
We initiated the study by exploring the AMB to provide a general overview of the social-ecological
system context. In doing so, we interviewed fifteen key informants (April 2013) from academic
entities (e.g., the University of Malaga and Tetuan), governmental institutions (e.g., the Andalusian
Regional Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality and the National Ministry of Agriculture
and Fisheries on behalf of Spain and Morocco, respectively) and NGOs (e.g., the International Union
for Conservation Nature Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation) (Table S1). Through the interviews,
we identified several contextual factors that laid the foundation for designing a practical SL exercise
related to the ESA in the study area. Such factors included the existence of (1) previous experience
in theoretical meetings focused on the sustainability of the AMB; (2) limited culture of collaboration
amongst science, policy and society; (3) limited perception of the AMB as a socio-ecological system;
(4) limited knowledge of ESA concepts (especially outside the scientific community); and (5) legal
requirements from Spain and Morocco for the implementation of marine conservation policies grounded
in an ecosystem-based approach (see, e.g., [39,40]).
Following the interviews, we mapped the stakeholders for the SL process using the snowball
technique in which each key informant was also asked what other people considered as key in
the scientific, political and societal context of the AMB [
41
]. More specifically, each participant was
invited to propose up to fifteen (1) scientists with experience in the AMB; (2) decision-makers from
governmental institutions with regulatory competencies in the study area at the local, regional, national
and international levels; and (3) local users who had lived and worked on both shores of the marine
basin. In addition, we analysed the actors and institutions who had been involved in cooperation
projects, studies and activities focused on sustainable governance in the AMB. By comparing both

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 5 of 23
information sources, we were able to derive a final list of potential stakeholders to be involved in
the SL process.
Based on this list, we established a cross-border community of practice based on the integration
of scientific, policy and societal dialogue. This type of community is defined as groups of actors who
share common interests in a particular area through exchanging knowledge and experiences to enable
members to learn from one another and to strengthen trust and mutual understanding [
42
]. To organise
the community of practice, a formal invitation to participate in the exercise was extended to those
stakeholders—representatives from universities, governmental institutions, and society—who had
been identified in the previous phase. With the intention of involving a balanced representation of
actors in the learning exercise, an equal number of participants from each stakeholder group from
both countries were invited to participate (225 people in total, 75 from each group). The invitation was
initially open to those whose participation did not require economic support, and the final participation
list was determined by the available budget and logistics considerations. Ultimately, 28 scientists,
50 decision-makers, and 25 local users from Spain, Morocco and international entities participated in
the exercise (Table S1).
2.2.2. Structure and Operation
We created a specifically designed SL process oriented towards an understanding of
the ESA as a governance approach in the AMB, based on reflexivity and collective deliberation
about sustainability issues by the community of practice [
23
]. To guide the SL process, we used
the ESA developed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) as a conceptual framework [
3
]
(Figure 2). The selection of this framework was based on its recognition as an organising model
to frame conservation policies between bordering countries that share governance over a unique
ecosystem [
33
,
34
]. The rationale for this selection is that it provides a means for linking multiple
services and assessing trade-offs between uses of services. Conceptually, this framework is based
on the identification of multiple cause-and-effect relationships amongst drivers of global change,
ecosystem conditions and functions, ecosystem services, human well-being and action management.
Although the ESA inspired the entire SL process, only some portions of this framework were
established for comprehensive analysis, collective deliberation, and outcome co-production by
the participants: drivers of global change and ecosystem services. These elements provided the basis
upon which participants could propose indicators for monitoring each component and supporting
the alignment of conservation policies between Spain and Morocco through the geoportal located
at http://www.iucn-geoportalboran.org/es/. The indicators were established as practical outcomes that
could be applied to progress towards ESA implementation in the AMB.
The SL process involved a sequence of three three-day workshops from June 2013 to June 2014 aimed
at the community of practice who would experiment with SL in the ESA. All workshops were built upon
co-learning and knowledge co-production approaches aimed to generate outcomes based on a balance
of trade-offs amongst individuals involved in the SL process [
43
]. In taking this approach, we created
SL processes that established a neutral space based on open dialogue and oriented towards building
participants’ capacity to (1) learn and express their interests and (2) build outcomes by consensus
to avoid bias in the generated outcomes [
44
]. To address unbalanced perspectives, power relations
and asymmetries derived from unequal involvement of the participants from stakeholder groups
and countries, all participants agreed to reach a consensus on workshop outcomes as a rule for
the workshop activities. To promote information flow and mutual learning amongst participants,
we used a knowledge brokering approach [
45
] coordinated by two knowledge brokers, one from Spain
and another from Morocco. Both have social skills and experience in facilitating participative processes
in the AMB.

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 6 of 23
Figure 2.
Conceptual framework adopted to guide the social learning (SL) experience. Adapted from
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MEA [3].
Operationally, all workshops shared the same structure. Before each workshop, the individuals
involved were provided with a synopsis of the conceptual framework of the process, the specific
workshop goals and the work scheme. Each workshop started with knowledge brokers introducing
the rationale of the SL experience and the mode of workshop operation, describing their neutral
role in the process, and defining the learning exercise as a voluntary, equitable and collaborative
social experience oriented towards sustainable governance of the AMB. The workshops continued
with two experts in socio-ecological system science providing training lectures to build capacity in
the ESA. Then, knowledge brokers guided sessions to simultaneously develop workgroup activities
through the creation of four groups. Each workgroup included individuals with heterogeneous profiles,
specialisations and nationalities to promote a view of the study area from multiple perspectives.
The groups were separated into worktables with a translator to render comprehensive simultaneous
interpretation between participants and an observer in charge of monitoring the SL process (more details
in Section 2.2.3). The members of each group designated a moderator to take minutes on the topics
discussed and to explain the outcomes to the other groups. After each group activity, a plenary
session was then conducted to promote the exchange of feedback and synergies amongst work groups.
During the workshops, coffee breaks and common lunches were organised to promote participants’
informal networking and exchange of impressions. Once each workshop concluded, knowledge
brokers compiled the outcomes and drafted a report that was sent to participants for corrections or
suggestions to ensure consensus building. A final conference was held to present the outcomes of
the workshops.
Workshop 1 was designed to collectively define priority direct drivers of global change [
3
]
for the study area. To accomplish this goal, the four work groups were invited to identify five main

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 7 of 23
direct drivers of ecosystem change in the AMB. The selected drivers were grouped in MEA categories
and ranked according to the number of times regional drivers were identified by work groups
(absolute frequency). A score of 1 was assigned for each identified driver. Twenty-one scientists,
20 decision-makers, and 12 local users from Spain (75%), Morocco (21%) and international entities (4%)
participated in the workshop (Table S1).
Workshop 2 was focused on characterising the marine ecosystem services negatively impacted
by the regional drivers identified in workshop 1. To guide this workshop, we used a modified
list of 19 ecosystem services from the MEA [
3
], which was provided as supporting material to
the participants (Figure S1). This list included the definition of each ecosystem service, with examples
and related pictures [
46
]. Each work group elaborated on a list of the ecosystem services affected
by the previously selected regional drivers of change. A score of 1 was assigned for each identified
ecosystem service. The data were then resampled via the bootstrapping method (10,000 replicates)
to estimate the parameters of the probability distribution and to rank ecosystem services according
to the number of times ecosystem services were identified by work groups (absolute frequency).
After the workshop, the results were illustrated through a network model using the CMAP Tools
version 5.05.01 software programme based on the workshop meeting minutes (Figure S2). Ten scientists,
12 decision-makers, and 10 local users from Spain (72%) and Morocco (28%) participated in this
workshop (Table S1).
Workshop 3, aimed at the community of practice, proposed potential indicators (both pressure
and state indicators) for monitoring both the regional drivers and the highest-ranked ecosystem services
that had been previously identified. As criteria, we established that the co-produced indicators were
scientifically valid, useful for decision-making and socially robust [
47
]. A list of example indicators was
provided to the participants as supporting material (Table S2). This workshop included 14 scientists,
32 decision-makers, and 10 local users from Spain (52%) and Morocco (48%) (Table S1).
2.2.3. Monitoring and Assessment
The monitoring of the SL experience was based on a qualitative research perspective [
48
] using
data from participatory observation techniques and informal interviews with individuals involved
and during workshops. This type of qualitative research approach enabled an understanding of
social changes that occurred as a result of a specific social processes through analysing the social
constructs, beliefs and behaviours that operate in that context [
22
,
25
,
48
]. The qualitative data were
collected through a standard template with the following variables: (1) changes in dominant patterns
of interaction and communication amongst actors, (2) main social aspects that began to emerge
amongst stakeholder groups through the workshops, and (3) key operative factors that enabled the SL
process [
23
,
25
,
49
]. After each workshop, we (the research team) held sequenced group discussions
between the knowledge brokers, observers, experts in building ESA capacity, and translators to analyse
and systematise the collected data. All of the research team were involved in designing, coordinating,
integrating, and disseminating the outcomes of the SL process, and thus, we were not active participants
in the SL process. This separation helped us avoid potential bias in data collection, pre-empted possible
obstacles and conflicts that may arise from social interactions and increased in-depth knowledge about
the experience [23,50].
To assess the SL, we used an online questionnaire that was completed by the participants.
This questionnaire allowed us to obtain an external evaluation from each individual involved in the SL
process. The questionnaire was piloted prior to its use in the field with a researcher, decision-maker
and local user from entities involved in the study to ensure that the questions were formulated as clearly
as possible and relevant to all stakeholder groups [
51
]. The questionnaire included twelve generic
questions inspired by normative, cognitive and relational dimensions [
52
] to capture whether the SL
process had supported social change for re-orientating governance practices towards the ESA in
the study area. The questions included: (1) Are you in favour of holistic and sustainable management of
the AMB? (2) Do you think that the current governance system could be improved in the AMB? (3) In your

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 8 of 23
opinion, should governance in the AMB be based on ecological rather than socio-political boundaries? (4) Do you
believe that coordinated management between bordering countries could help to the sustainability of the AMB?
(5) Should sustainability issues be addressed through transboundary and science-policy-society interface
approaches in the AMB? (6) Would you like to continue participating in transboundary platforms formed
amongst science-policy-society entities to address sustainability issues in this marine region? (7) Do you consider
that the social learning process helped you to acquire new knowledge about ESA as a governance practice?
(8) Is the ESA a suitable framework for transboundary conservation? (9) Do you think that capacity building is
needed when working with the ESA? (10) Do you believe that monitoring of drivers of global change and ecosystem
services is useful for conservation policies? (11) Should a common set of drivers and ecosystem services indicators
be harmonised across boundaries for aligning marine conservation policies? and (12) Do you believe that
a harmonised system of drivers and ecosystem services could promote sustainable and equitable governance in
the AMB? Each question included four standard replies that participants could choose (i.e., yes, no,
do not know/no answer, and other). Apart from the professional profile and nationality information,
the questionnaire was made anonymous to generate an impartial environment for collecting opinions
from those surveyed. Given that a period of time is required for people to reflect on and form their
opinions about such a process [
50
], participants were invited to complete the questionnaire through
the online application “Google Forms” up to one month after the final conference. Subsequently,
the participants’ responses were evaluated by quantitative analysis and expressed as a percentage of
the total sample, distinguishing professional profile and nationality.
3. Results
3.1. Workshop Outcomes
As part of the SL process the community of practice produced the following outcomes:
3.1.1. Main Regional Drivers of Marine Ecosystem Change in the AMB and Indicators
for Its Monitoring
The community of practice identified six direct drivers of ecosystem change as major human
pressures on the AMB (Table 1). The overexploitation of fishing resources, marine coastal pollution,
intensive coastal urbanisation, and the intensification of maritime traffic were found to be the most
relevant issues, followed by the invasive of alien species and climate change. In accordance with these
findings, the community of practice proposed six pressure indicators for monitoring each regional
driver (Table 1).
3.1.2. Marine Ecosystem Services Impacted by the Regional Drivers and Indicators for Its Monitoring
The community of practice characterised eight ecosystem services as the most heavily affected by
regional drivers, based on an absolute frequency over the cut-offvalue (15.52) determined through
bootstrap resampling (Table 2). These services included provisioning and cultural services: (1) food
(fish), (2) recreational activities, (3) environmental education, (4) scientific knowledge, (5) aesthetic
enjoyment of landscapes, (6) biotic materials, (7) sense of place or cultural identity, and (8) natural
medicine and biotechnology. To monitor these ecosystem services, the community of practice proposed
eight state indicators (Table 2). Indicators were not defined for the remainder of the ecosystem services,
which had frequencies below the cut-offvalue (9–19) (Table S3).

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 9 of 23
Table 1.
Main regional drivers of marine ecosystem change in the AMB. Each regional driver is
ranked based on the number of times that each was mentioned by work groups, and is complemented
with the indicators assigned and examples of measurements for their monitoring as proposed by
the workshop participants (workshop 1 and 3).
Regional Drivers
of Global Change
(Workshop 1)
Number of Times Regional
Drivers were Identified by Work
Groups (Absolute Frequency)
(Workshop 1)
Indicators Proposed for
Monitoring Regional Drivers
of Global Change
(Workshop 3)
Measuring Examples for Its Monitoring
(Workshop 3)
Overfishing 4 Fish capture Biomass of fish species landed
Marine coastal pollution
from land resources 4
Wastewater treatment in coastal
cities with more than
10,000 inhabitants
Number of coastal cities with more than
10,000 inhabitants without
wastewater treatments
Intensive coastal
urbanisation 4Urban settlement in coastal
municipalities
Km2of urban settlement in coastal
municipalities/Km2of total area of
coastal municipalities
Intensification of
maritime traffic4
Transit for transporting
merchandise (e.g., oil tanker,
goods platform) sailing in
the marine basin
Number of merchant ships sailing in
the marine basin
Invasive alien species 2 Areas identified with presence of
invasive alien species
Number of areas identified with presence of
invasive alien species
Climate change 2
Regional contributions (Andalusia
and Rif) of total CO2emissions Tonnes of total CO2emissions
Table 2.
Marine ecosystem services impacted by the regional drivers. Each marine ecosystem is
ranked based on the number of times that each was considered negatively impacted by regional drivers
and is complemented with the indicators assigned and examples of measurements for their monitoring
as proposed by the workshop participants (workshop 2 and 3). The ranking of ecosystem services
was based on an absolute frequency over the cut-offvalue determined through bootstrap resampling
(more details in Table S3).
Main Ecosystem Services
Negatively Impacted by
the Regional Drivers
(Workshop 2)
Number of Times Ecosystem Services were
Considered Negatively Impacted by the Regional
Drivers by Work Groups
(Absolute Frequency over the Cut-OffValue)
(Workshop 2)
Indicators Proposed for
Monitoring Ecosystem Services
(Workshop 3)
Measuring Examples for Its
Monitoring (Workshop 3)
Food (fish) 20 Fish capture Biomass of fish species landed
Recreational activities
and nature tourism 20
Ecotourism businesses with
recreational activities in
the marine
and coastal environment.
Number of ecotourism businesses
with recreational activities in
the marine
and coastal environment.
Environmental education 19
Active participation in
environmental education
programs on the coast.
Number of people involved in
environmental education
programs related to
coastal environment.
Scientific knowledge 18
Cross-border cooperation research
project in the marine basin.
Number of cross-border
cooperation research projects in
the coastal and marine basin.
Aesthetic enjoyment of
seascapes and landscapes 17 Tourism in coastal protected
natural areas.
Number of visitors in coastal
protected natural areas.
Biotic materials 17 Phytomass production for
aquaculture, industry, and food.
Number of factories of phytomass
production for aquaculture,
industry, and food.
Natural medicine
and biotechnology 16 Phytomass production for
research and biotechnology.
Number of factories of phytomass
production for research
and biotechnology.
Sense of place
or cultural identity 16 Historical and cultural patrimony
on the coast.
Number of interests in historical
and cultural goods on the coast.
Legend
Provisioning
ecosystem service
Cultural ecosystem service
3.2. Evolution of Key Variables Monitored throughout the SL Process
The monitoring of the SL process revealed that the patterns of interaction and communication
amongst the participants changed gradually and different social aspects emerged as the process
evolved (Table 3). The initial position of the participants involved was based on a certain level of
scepticism and distrust towards interaction with one another. This moved to (1) more proactive

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 10 of 23
and trusting interaction across social groups and frontiers, and (2) a constructive dialogue on the basis
of a communicative action pattern to address sustainability issues from the ESA (Table 3). In addition,
a total of 10 operative factors that positively influenced the SL process were identified. Table 3describes
the evolution of the patterns of interaction and communication during the workshops, the main social
aspects that emerged through the SL process, and the key operative factors that positively influenced
the social learning experience.
3.3. Assessment of the SL Experience by the Participants
Forty-three questionnaires were completed by the participants once the SL process concluded
(30% scientists, 48% decision-makers and 22% local users, of which 52% were from Spain and 48%
were from Morocco) (Table 4). Most respondents perceived that they had acquired new capacities in
ecosystem services concepts and the ESA as a suitable framework for cross-boundary conservation.
Accordingly, they expressed their willingness to continue to participate in transboundary platforms
formed amongst science-policy-society entities to address sustainability issues in this marine region.
Participants also stated that capacity building is needed when working with the ESA. There was a high
level of similarity in the replies from stakeholder groups and countries.

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 11 of 23
Table 3.
Evolution of key variables monitored throughout the SL process: patterns of interaction and communication, social aspects that emerged amongst the actors
throughout the SL process and enabling factors that contributed to operationalise such processes. Changes in interaction and communication patterns are described
based on the initial social pattern and its evolution in each workshop, including the main social aspects, derived from each social pattern, that began to emerge
amongst the actors. The key operative factors that positively influenced the SL process are presented transversally through the three workshops.
Social Changes in Interaction and Communication Patterns amongst the Actors throughout the SL Process Main Social Aspects that Emerged amongst
the Actors throughout the SL Process
Key Operative Factors that Positively
Influenced the SL Process 1
Workshop Initial Social Pattern Evolution of the Social Pattern
W1
Actors from both countries initially showed a sceptical
attitude towards the planned SL experience and a certain
level of distrust of interacting with each other. More intense
interaction was observed amongst actors of the same
nationality than amongst actors belonging to the same
stakeholder group (e.g., science, policy, and society).
In the communication process, the actors showed a reserved
attitude towards opining about the topics discussed.
Asymmetries in education and training could have
influenced this initial communication process. Several
actors publicly expressed their concern about expressing
their points of views without sufficient foundation in
ESA (this was especially argued by the decision makers
and local users). They manifested a feeling of insecurity
and inequality.
Progressively greater interaction started to emerge amongst
the actors. They started to positively value the efforts undertaken by
the research team to (1) increase capacity building in ESA, and (2)
create a space based on inclusiveness, collective learning, consensus,
and transparency. The participants began to show a more confident
attitude towards expressing their opinion. They established
a respectful dialogue marked by the exchange of ideas from their
own perspective. This helped actors to progressively increase their
understanding of the AMB from different standpoints (e.g., ecological,
governance, social, cultural, economic) and formulate a wider
and integrated image of the AMB. The initial atmosphere of distrust
between actors from both countries shifted, and the interaction
and communication patterns became more recurrent.
Recognising a limited and varying degree of
knowledge of ESA concepts.
Beginning to feel more comfortable by
personally experiencing participation in
a process based on horizontal equality
and inclusiveness.
Starting to envision the AMB
as a social-ecological system.
Developing a more positive attitude towards
cross-boundary interaction.
Generating an incipient climate of mutual
confidence between actors from
both countries.
Shared leadership between knowledge
brokers from Spain and Morocco.
Clear communication of goals and outcomes
of the study and researchers’ intended roles
in the exercise.
Statement of a flexible, transparent, inclusive,
adaptive and consultative transdisciplinary
learning process.
Training activities on ESA to build capacity
in previous workshops’ activities.
W2
More positive attitude towards the learning process
and better interaction amongst actors’ groups. Several
participants expressed satisfaction with the structure
and functioning of the previous workshop
and the procedure to obtain consensus outcomes. It was
identified that scientists initially dominated the dialogue
marked by the inherent complexity of ecosystem services
concepts (especially with regulating ecosystem services).
Decision- makers and local users showed more reserved
conduct in expressing their opinion due to their perceptions
about limitations of their own knowledge.
The intensive training activities and the mutual learning process
guided by the knowledge brokers helped to increase familiarity
and knowledge on ecosystem services concepts. As actors increased
their capacity in ESA, decision makers and local users became part of
the interaction with researchers in a less hierarchical way. They began
to express their values, worldviews and knowledge. Stakeholders’
groups started to recognise the enrichment of individual perspectives
and co-produced context-based knowledge based on science, policy
and society support. As a consequence, more intense interaction
and efficient dialogue began to dominate the workshop.
Elucidating the contributions from different
types of knowledge and values to co-produce
context-based knowledge.
Recognising complementarities amongst
science, policy, and society.
Connecting actors through a culture of
collective action for sustainability.
Improving trust and mutual understanding
across stakeholder groups.
Presence of translators to offer the possibility
of actors expressing themselves in their
native tongue.
Informal meetings between and after
workshop activities to build
personal relationships.
Workshops based on a horizontal structure to
avoid power imbalances
and hierarchical structures.
Information and communication
technologies outside meetings to facilitate
constant communication.
W3
The interaction and communication patterns were more
fluent and trusting amongst stakeholder groups.
The participants became to realise that it was a process in
which all opinions were taken into account to address
sustainability issues through mutual learning
and consensus. During the workshop activities actors
established an open and constructive dialogue beyond
the exchange of individual opinions.
The proposition of common indicators throughout the workshop
helped actors clearly articulate actions in both countries that could
generate adverse effects on the other. They understood that
sustainability of the AMB and, hence, their well-being, could be
driven in terms of mutual interest for diverse stakeholders from both
countries (rather than the interest of each individually) and by
coordinated management actions. This showed that (1)
an environment of confidence and mutual understanding had begun
to consolidate across knowledge domains and countries, and (2)
a culture of collective construction for sustainability emerged
gradually. Proactive interaction moving towards a communicative
action pattern amongst the actors developed by the close of
the workshop. Such constructive dialogue resulted in identifying
win-win strategies amongst the institutions involved in order to
obtain funding for their implementation in the medium-term.
Consolidating trust and understanding
amongst actors.
Elucidating the benefits of collaboration
and synergies across knowledge domains
and frontiers.
Transforming attitudes towards collective
action for a more sustainable
and equitable governance.
Emergence of a positive willingness to be
involved in further processes focused on
sustainability with policy implications.
Consensus over ground rules to ensure
inclusive environment and co-produce
consensus outcomes.
Generation of practical outcomes that could
be transferred to policy as a starting point to
begin aligning conservation policies.
1The operative factors were identified throughout the three workshops.

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 12 of 23
Table 4.
Number and percentage of questionnaire replies classified by respondent profile (scientist, decision maker and social actor), country (Spain and Morocco)
and the type of reply (yes, no, do not know/do not answer and other).
Question Respondent Profile
Questionnaire Replies by Respondent Profile (No./%)
Yes No Do Not Know/
Do Not Answer Other
Spain Morocco Spain Morocco Spain Morocco Spain Morocco
1. Are you in favour of holistic and sustainable management of the AMB?
Scientist 1/2 5/12 1/2 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Decision maker 8/19 4/9 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Social actor 20/46 2/5 1/2 0/0 1/2 0/0 0/0 0/0
Total 40/93 2/5 1/2 0/0
2. Do you think that the current governance system could be improved in the AMB?
Scientist 2/5 3/7 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 2/5
Decision maker 8/19 4/9 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Social actor 21/48 2/5 0/0 0/0 1/2 0/0 0/0 0/0
Total 40/93 0/0 1/2 2/5
3. In your opinion, should governance in the AMB be based on ecological rather than
socio-political boundaries?
Scientist 1/2 5/12 1/2.5 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Decision maker 8/19 2/5 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 2/5
Social actor 20/45 2/5 1/2.5 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2 0/0
Total 38/88 2/5 0/0 3/7
4. Do you believe that coordinated management between bordering countries could help
to the sustainability of the AMB?
Scientist 1/2 4/9 1/2.5 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2.025
Decision maker 7/16 3/7 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2.025 1/2.025
Social actor 20/47 2/5 1/2.5 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2.025 0/0
Total 37/86 2/5 0/0 4/9
5. Should sustainability issues be addressed through transboundary
and science-policy-society interface approaches in the AMB?
Scientist 1/2 4/9 1/2.5 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2
Decision maker 6/14 3/7 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 2/6 1/2
Social actor 20/47 2/5 1/2.5 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2 0/0
Total 36/84 2/5 0/0 5/12
6. Would you like to continue participating in transboundary platforms formed amongst
science-policy-society entities to address sustainability issues in this marine region?
Scientist 2/5 4/9 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2.03
Decision maker 7/16 3/7 0/0 0/0 1/2.5 0/0 0/0 1/2.03
Social actor 21/49 1/2 0/0 0/0 1/2.5 0/0 0/0 1/2.03
Total 38/88 0/0 2/5 3/7
7. Do you consider that the social learning process helped you to acquire new
knowledge about ESA as a governance practice?
Scientist 2/5 2/5 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 3/7
Decision maker 8/19 2/5 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 2/5
Social actor 21/49 1/2 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2 1/2
Total 36/84 0/0 0/0 7/16
8. Is the ESA a suitable framework for transboundary conservation?
Scientist 1/2 3/7 1/2 0/0 0/0 1/2 0/0 1/2
Decision maker 6/14 4/9 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 2/5 0/0
Social actor 20/47 2/5 1/2 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2 0/0
Total 36/84 2/5 1/2 4/9
9. Do you think that capacity building is needed when working with the ESA?
Scientist 1/2 4/9 1/2 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2
Decision maker 5/12 3/7 1/2 1/2 0/0 0/0 2/5 0/0
Social actor 18/42 2/5 2/5 0/0 0/0 0/0 2/5 0/0
Total 33/77 5/12 0/0 5/12

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 13 of 23
Table 4. Cont.
Question Respondent Profile
Questionnaire Replies by Respondent Profile (No./%)
Yes No Do Not Know/
Do Not Answer Other
Spain Morocco Spain Morocco Spain Morocco Spain Morocco
10. Do you believe that monitoring of drivers of global change and ecosystem services is
useful for conservation policies?
Scientist 2/5 4/9 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2
Decision maker 6/13 3/7 1/2.5 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2 1/2
Social actor 17/40 2/5 1/2.5 0/0 2/5 0/0 2/5 0/0
Total 34/79 2/5 2/5 5/11
11. Should a common set of drivers and ecosystem services indicators be harmonised
across boundaries for aligning marine conservation policies?
Scientist 2/5 4/9 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2
Decision maker 7/16 3/7 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2 1/2
Social actor 18/42 2/5 2/5 0/0 0/0 0/0 2/5 0/0
Total 36/84 2/5 0/0 5/11
12. Do you believe that a harmonised system of drivers and ecosystem services could
promote sustainable and equitable governance in the AMB?
Scientist 2/5 4/9 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/2
Decision maker 6/13 3/7 1/2 0/0 0/0 0/0 2/5 1/2
Social actor 17/40 2/5 1/2 0/0 0/0 0/0 3/7 0/0
Total 34/79 2/5 0/0 7/16

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 14 of 23
4. Discussion
The study provided empirical evidence that the specifically designed SL process successfully
facilitated dialogue and understanding of the ESA, thereby supporting its adoption as a governance
practice for a marine ecosystem that is managed by two different countries with significant cultural
and socio-economic differences. By and through the SL process, the individuals involved moved
from a limited perception of the AMB as a socio-ecological system and a poor understanding of
ecosystem services concepts (Table 3) to perceiving the ESA as a suitable framework for aligning
conservation policies in this marine region (Table 4). These findings are in accordance with other
contextual studies that have shown evidence of SL as a means to create the conditions for establishing
a constructive and effective dialogue that contributes to generating transformative social change for
sustainability (see, e.g., [
22
–
25
]). However, unlike these contextual studies, we were able to empirically
show that this transformation of traditional attitudes of communication emerged through a specifically
designed SL process in the ESA field (Table 3) that could support the re-orientation of policies towards
ecosystem-based governance in the study area (Table 4).
As the research was exploratory in nature, the study contributed to a better understanding of
the learning outcomes in the ESA field and the contextual conditions that facilitate such learning in this
marine region [
23
]. Specifically, the main social effects on the individuals involved that were generated
by the SL process, the key factors that enabled such a process under these specific cross-border
circumstances, and the prominent role that SL can play in facilitating dialogue and understanding of
the ESA for supporting its adoption as a governance practice, are described and discussed below.
An inherent limitation of the study is that its replicability may be limited depending on different
socio-economic, cultural and political contexts. While this study provides insights arising from
the particular case of the AMB, such insights provide a useful contextual orientation to other SL
experiences [
24
,
26
,
44
]. The relevance of these empirical studies lies in the recognition that there are no
standard SL processes for sustainability due to its dependence on context [
53
]. SL practices require
participatory processes that are carefully structured, sequenced and oriented towards common goals
through social research methods adapted to the context and actors involved [
54
]. Therefore, identifying
context-specific needs and practices for SL is crucial to producing experience-based guidelines in other
contexts [
55
]. Although much has been discussed about the challenges of the application of this type
of insight in other cases, recent research suggests that replicability is possible by analogy, i.e., assessing
whether the cases in question are sufficiently similar in relevant aspects [
56
]. Further research identifying
similarities and dissimilarities across cases and contexts for assessing the applicability of SL processes
will assist in applying such insights beyond generalisability and enter into the collective process of
knowledge accumulation to support learning and social transformation towards sustainability [57].
4.1. Societal Effects of the SL Process in the Individuals Involved
The assessment of the societal effects of SL is considered to be an under-researched field of
study [
26
,
52
], and this is particularly evident in the ESA field, where few empirical studies have
addressed such topics (see, e.g., [
31
,
32
]). In this study, we identified the following main effects that the SL
process in the ESA generated for the individuals involved. As described in previous studies [
22
,
25
],
these effects did not appear simultaneously. On the contrary, they emerged progressively as the SL
process evolved.
1.
A more inclusive and constructive dialogue on the ESA. Patterns of communication amongst the members
of the community of practice changed gradually throughout the SL process and moved towards
a more inclusive and constructive dialogue on the ESA (Table 3). At the beginning, we observed that
the communication process was constrained by the asymmetries in education and misunderstanding
of ESA concepts amongst individuals (Table 3). These limitations are likely influenced by a variety
of factors that scientific literature suggests can hinder the communication process when the ESA is
employed as a common language [
19
]. Amongst these factors are the market-oriented connotation

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 15 of 23
attached to the ecosystem services concept [
20
] and the complex scientific terminology of the ESA [
11
].
Throughout the SL process, we observed that the intensified collective debates about drivers of
change and ecosystem services helped the actors to acquire cognitive and practical competencies
that facilitated dialogue about the ESA and a common understanding of its importance to support
the governance model (Table 3). This allowed individuals to gradually become better informed
and acquire more fluency in the language of the ESA to address the sustainability issues at stake
(Table 3) [
58
]. The generation of this effective dialogue amongst individuals with a plurality of
perspectives and values facilitated the effective statement of their positions and promoted more
equal participation in the sustainability debate [59,60].
2.
A better understanding of the interconnectedness and interdependence of the social-ecological system in
which actors are embedded. This effect became apparent through the co-produced inventory of
regional drivers of global change and ecosystem services by the community of practice (Table 1).
One such example was when the actors addressed the relationship between fishing (corresponding to
the ‘food’ category of the provisioning ecosystem services) (Table 2) and overfishing (corresponding
to the ‘overexploitation’ category of the regional drivers) (Table 1). The monitoring of both issues
was considered a priority for the AMB ( Table 1; Table 2) for two main reasons: (1) the Spanish
and Moroccan fishing sectors make up just over 1% and 2.5% of each country’s annual GDP
(Gross Domestic Product), respectively, and (2) historical conflicts exist between Spain and Morocco
related to the overexploitation of fish stocks in Moroccan waters by Spanish fishing fleets [
61
].
Although this was a sensitive topic initially, a social shift occurred once the community of
practice understood the current status of small pelagic species, such as Sardina pilchardus
and Engraulis encrasicolus which are declining in number and suffer from overexploitation [
62
].
Following discussion, participants acknowledged that the adverse effects of human activities from
both sides on the marine ecosystem’s ecological integrity can result in disparate consequences across
socio-political borders [
33
]. This acknowledgement led to a demonstrable shift in the participants’
general perceptions of a governance system based on ecological rather than socio-political
boundaries, and they acquired progressively wider notions of the importance of cross-border
collaboration between the countries to progress towards sustainability in the AMB (Table 4).
3.
Enhanced recognition of science-policy-society complementarities to address sustainability issues.
This argument was endorsed by the results of the questionnaire administered after the completion
of the SL process, in which the participants showed willingness to continue to participate
in transboundary platforms formed by science-policy-society representatives to address
sustainability issues in this marine region (Table 4). The recognition of complementarities
resulted from a slow and progressive change in pre-defined perceptions across science, policy
and society throughout the process. Initially, we observed general uncertainty regarding the roles
that the researchers, decision-makers and local users would play in the SL process, which was
shaped by the need to reconcile different knowledge, interests and values [
43
]. The co-production
of context-based knowledge to generate outcomes from the integration of multiple disciplines
and backgrounds such as ecology, governance and socio-economic sectors (Table S1) led to
the diverse actors gradually recognising the enrichment of their individual perspectives (Table 3).
As mutual understanding increased amongst the participants, they began to clarify their respective
roles in the sustainability debate and recognise science-policy-society complementarities to
address issues at stake. For instance, the role of scientists became prominent when the community
deliberated on regulating ecosystem services. Most actors had shown a limited understanding
of these types of ecosystem services (Table 3), which led to the prioritisation of provisioning
and cultural services (Table S3). These findings showed that the existence of knowledge gaps
could be related to the global assumption that people tend to identify tangible ecosystem services
more easily than intangibles [
63
]. This discrepancy could be one of the reasons why fishing
resources (provisioning services) and recreation values (cultural services) are usually the most
easily perceived ecosystem services provided by marine ecosystems [
64
]. To address these

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 16 of 23
knowledge gaps, the community of practice called for researchers to build more capacity in
ecological processes and ecosystem functions in this marine region.
4.
A gradual social transformation towards more sustainable and equitable governance. The results
confirmed that the SL process through the ESA progressively generated a shift in social perception
towards more sustainable and equitable governance of the AMB. Such social change was initially
conditioned by the participant’s different value systems and mental models associated with
the traditional models of governance. This starting position gradually shifted throughout
the SL process, as evidenced by the ESA indicators co-produced by the community of practice.
As indicators represent a simplified picture of factors crucial to understanding and managing
complex social-ecological systems [
65
], these tools helped individuals to easily envision different
and similar means of monitoring specific ecological processes across socio-political borders [
33
].
Most of the actors supported the implementation of a harmonised system of ESA indicators
in the bordering countries, as reflected in the responses to the questionnaire. They perceived
the common indicators dataset as a key tool for advancing towards equitable and sustainable
governance of this marine region (Table 4). This statement was based on such indicators being
scientifically adequate, robust, and useful for aligning conservation policies [
47
] to complement
and align management strategies framed into conservation policies to protect and conserve
the AMB in each country [39,40].
4.2. Factors that Facilitated the SL Process in the Governance Context of the AMB
Previous studies have demonstrated that SL cannot be imposed upon actors, but they can be
positively influenced by the creation of the conditions that facilitate its emergence [
23
,
25
]. Identifying
these conditions, and factors that act as driving forces for SL arise under specific situations is considered
critical to assess if they can be transferred, adapted and applied in other cases [
53
]. We found that
a variety of operative factors contributed to the creation of four relevant conditions that, in turn,
facilitated a successful SL process.
1.
Generation of trust and shared understanding. The creation of an atmosphere of trust and shared
understanding is widely recognised as one of the most important factors to enable SL [
25
].
To attain this goal, we combined face-to-face interactions through the three workshops with
the use of electronic communications (such as email and online platforms). This combination
helped build proximity and ensure a constant flow of communication between the groups
involved in the SL process [
66
]. In addition, we incorporated well-recognised factors that
contributed to the generation of trust and common understanding from different dimensions.
These included (1) the clarification of the goals and outcomes of the study from the beginning,
which helped avoid unfounded expectations [
43
]; (2) the establishment of a validation procedure
of the generated outcomes that promoted transparency, flexibility, and adaptive capacity in
the exercise [
67
]; (3) the implementation of workgroup activities and plenary sessions that
facilitated a sense of collective construction of outcomes [
59
]; and (4) the organisation of informal
meetings, which allowed building personal interactions [
25
]. Acknowledging that the emergence
of trust and shared understanding is crucial to establishing collaboration [
68
], the creation
of such conditions became evident at the end of the SL process when win-win strategies
were established amongst institutions from both countries to obtain funding for programme
implementation in the medium term to continue to advance the sustainability of the AMB
(Table 3).
2.
Facilitation of knowledge exchanges between actor groups across frontiers. A major challenge for
SL is to enhance knowledge exchange and knowledge co-production between diverse actor
groups to jointly generate outcomes to achieve a common purpose [
69
]. Throughout the SL
process, we identified two key factors, which were not mutually exclusive, that contributed
to surmounting this challenge. First, a knowledge-brokering approach [
45
] based on shared
leadership between Spain and Morocco was used. In addition to promoting knowledge transfer

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 17 of 23
amongst the participants, we observed that this shared leadership led to a balanced representation
of both countries and strengthened relationships between the participants from the bordering
countries. Considering that knowledge-brokering approaches can be adapted based on the context,
actors and desired goals (see, e.g., [
67
,
70
]), our results suggested that a shared approach between
brokers of different countries can be a key factor for facilitating knowledge exchange and building
confidence in cross-border contexts. Second, the development of a clearly structured, systematised
and timed learning process focused the collective deliberations on specific areas [
71
]. In our
case, such areas encompassed some parts of the ESA: drivers and ecosystem services. This focus
facilitated the progressive co-evolution of the participants’ understanding of these social–ecological
issues, helping them to accommodate diverse perspectives and gain in-depth knowledge to
co-produce knowledge on these topics [
69
]. As a result, the community of practice generated
an inventory of drivers that was coherent with the conceptual model of the MEA (2005), as well
as other similar evaluations (see, e.g., [72]) ( Table 1; Table 2).
3.
Promotion of more democratic participation. An increasing number of scholars have drawn attention to
the need to ensure symmetrical opportunities so that everyone can contribute to the sustainability
debate [
23
,
73
]. We observed three key factors that positively influenced more democratic
participation in the process by the individuals involved: (1) the training lectures on the ESA, (2)
the presence of translators, and (3) the implementation of “consensus rules”. First, we found
that the training lectures by specialists in socio-ecological systems to build capacity for relative
newcomers in the lexicon and ESA concepts, also helped the participants acquire new cognitive
competences in these matters (Table 4). This competency led to the most of the participants
perceiving that capacity building is needed when working with the ESA (Table 4). This recognition
is in line with recent studies that underline that capacity building as part of a social process can help
actors to better understand the complexity of the issue at stake and become familiar with it [
74
].
Second, we tested whether the integration of qualified translators with experience in the AMB
would help the participants express their positions more precisely and effectively in their home
language [
58
]. This process allowed everyone to participate fluently in the ongoing discussions
throughout the SL process. Finally, we observed that the participants’ approbation of formal
rules in workshops that required that all results reach a consensus allowed the representation
of everyone’s perspectives and interests in the workshops’ outcomes. This approach helped to
avoid bias in the generated outcomes despite the unbalanced participation of stakeholder groups
involved in the SL process due to resources and time constraints (Table S1).
4.
Co-production of practical outcomes. The provision of results that are translatable to real outcomes
is recognised as an incentive for SL processes [
75
]. The direct relationship between effort
and time invested by actors in participating, and the usefulness of the generated outcomes
resulting from their participation is usually the reason behind this incentive [
68
]. Under this
assumption, we developed a SL process oriented towards the ESA as a governance approach in
the AMB with the aim of co-producing indicators that could be used to align conservation policies
between Spain and Morocco. To clarify the intention of generating practical outcomes, first,
some of the training lectures were focused on increasing the normative capacities of the actors.
The reason for this approach is that such capacities are recognised as a key element to link
knowledge and policy action [
76
]. To ensure these capacities do so, the experts explained the legal
frameworks that call for the implementation of marine conservation policies based on an ecosystem
approach in Spain and Morocco. These frameworks are the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive [
39
] and the Ecosystem Approach Strategy for all Mediterranean Countries [
40
].
Second, we presented a geoportal as an on-line repository to collect and promote information
exchange for more sustainable governance of the AMB (http://www.iucn-geoportalboran.org/es/).
We informed the participants that this repository included a specific section focused on indicators
in which the co-produced outcomes could be applied as an input for aligning conservation policies
between both countries. This ability was considered important to helping the actors envision

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 18 of 23
the practicability and usefulness of the outcomes generated from the SL process. As a result,
questionnaires evidenced that most of respondents supported that a common set of drivers
and ecosystem services indicators be harmonised across boundaries to align marine conservation
policies (Table 4).
4.3. The Potential of SL in the ESA to Make It Relevant to Policy and Society
This case study demonstrated that the SL process offers a means to generate more productive
and effective dialogue amongst the individuals involved, based on a communicative action pattern
(Table 3). This insight is in accordance with previous studies that evidence SL as a means to create
space for more communicative action [
22
,
23
,
25
]. This type of communication is the opposite of
strategic action, which refers to a communication pattern based on negotiations amongst individual
preferences and interests. This is usually the dominant pattern in participatory processes for natural
resources governance [
23
]. In the area of sustainable governance, it is increasingly recognised that
establishing communicative action between scientists and non-scientists is pivotal to awareness of
the ESA, and taking responsibility and changing behaviours and institutions accordingly [
23
,
24
,
53
].
This social change is required to re-orient policies towards ecosystem-based governance for biodiversity
conservation and the sustainable use of ecosystems [28,54].
In the ESA area, the establishment of a communicative action pattern between scientists
and non-scientists by and through SL is particularly relevant for two main reasons. First, this type
of communication contributes to informing and educating people on complex issues to ensure that
everyone has equal opportunities to contribute to the sustainability debate and provide comprehensive
and well-informed answers [
22
]. As a result, communicative action can play a crucial role in preparing
actors to participate effectively in the decision-making process and, thus, facilitate more democratic
participation in sustainable governance. Second, communicative action is required to produce
three interdependent forms of knowledge to engage different stakeholder groups in the sustainability
debate [
23
,
60
]. Such forms of knowledge refer to (i) system knowledge (focused on the analysis of complex
sustainability issues from integrative perspectives), (ii) target knowledge (based on the determination of
common goals for better addressing these sustainability challenges, and (iii) transformation knowledge
(aimed at the identification of pragmatic pathways to solve them) [
54
,
77
]. These forms of knowledge
lay the foundation for linking scientific advances, policy needs and societal concerns with the aim of
developing a culture of shared responsibility and collective action for sustainability.
Hence, incorporating SL in the processes focused on making ESA relevant to policy and society
can be a crucial step in progressing towards its implementation in governance practice. To attain
such implementation, such processes must be integrated into transdisciplinary research work-schemes
oriented towards sustainable transitions [
78
] through which scientists can adopt a more active role in
the science, policy and social dialogue in the ESA. Such approaches should be conceived as iterative,
open and ongoing processes embedded within institutional settings that evolve and change over time
to enhance sustainable governance of social-ecological systems [
79
]. The operationalisation of SL
can be especially suitable for the practice of assessing ecosystem services, in which transdisciplinary
approaches based on reflection and learning are considered a prerequisite for promoting the recognition
of a transformative vision of nature–human relationships by different actor groups [80].
5. Conclusions
A major constraint to the adoption of the ESA as a reference framework for ecosystem-based
governance is attributed to the decision-makers’and general public’s limited knowledgeand understanding
of scientific discourse on this approach. This study reveals the ability of an SL process to enhance
dialogue and understanding of the ESA to support its adoption as a governance practice in a marine
ecosystem managed by two different countries with significant cultural and socio-economic differences
(Spain and Morocco). Specifically, the results showed that using the SL process, participants from
bordering countries gradually acquired theoretical and practical competencies to (1) dialogue regarding

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 19 of 23
the ESA and (2) facilitate a shared understanding of the importance of progressing towards ecosystem-based
governance. As a result of this process, the study revealed that the SL dynamic facilitated (i) a more
inclusive and constructive ecosystem services dialogue, (ii) a better understanding of the social-ecological
system in which the participants were embedded, (iii) an enhanced recognition of science-policy-society
complementarities to address sustainability issues, and (iv) a gradual social transformation towards more
sustainable and equitable governance. In addition, the results demonstrated that four relevant conditions
to facilitate successful operationalisation of the SL process across borders. These conditions included
(i) the generation of trust and shared understanding, (ii) the facilitation of knowledge exchanges between
actor groups acrossfrontiers, (iii) the promotion of more democratic participation, and (iv)the co-production
of practical outcomes. These contextual insights provide empirical evidence for the prominent role SL
can play in facilitating a shift in general perception to re-orientate existing governance practice towards
the ESA. On this basis, it is argued that the operationalisation of SL in those processes focused on making
the ESA relevant to policy and society is pivotal in order to progress towards its implementation in
governance practice.
Supplementary Materials:
The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5239/s1,
Figure S1: General list of ecosystem services used in workshop 2, Table S1: Participants of the social learning
process, Figure S2: Network model from workshop 2, Table S2: Supporting material used in workshop 3, Table S3:
Ranking of ecosystem services from workshop 2.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualisation, M.D.L.-R., J.C., H.C. and J.R.; Formal analysis, M.D.L.-R.; Funding
acquisition, H.C. and J.C.; Investigation, M.D.L.-R., J.C., H.C. and J.R.; Methodology, M.D.L.-R., J.C., H.C. and J.R.;
Writing—original draft, M.D.L.-R.; Writing—review & editing, M.D.L.-R., J.C., H.C. and J.R.
Funding:
This research was financially supported by the Alboran POCTEFEX Project (2013–2015) and funded
by the Cross-border Cooperation Spain-External Borders Programme in the context of the objective of European
territorial cooperation.
Acknowledgments:
The authors thank all of the scientists, decision makers and local users from Spain and Morocco
who participated in the social learning experience. The University of Malaga provided support for J.R.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Guerry, A.D.; Polasky, S.; Lubchenco, J.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Daily, G.C.; Griffin, R.; Ruckelshaus, M.;
Bateman, I.J.; Duraiappah, A.; Elmqvist, T.; et al. Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services Informing
Decisions: From Promise to Practice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2015
,112, 7348–7355. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resour. 2005,30, 441–473. [CrossRef]
3.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystem and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Millenium Ecosystem
Assessment: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
4.
Katsanevakis, S.; Stelzenmüller, V.; South, A.; Sørensen, T.K.; Jones, P.J.S.; Kerr, S.; Badalamenti, F.;
Anagnostou, C.; Breen, P.; Chust, G.; et al. Ecosystem-Based Marine Spatial Management: Review of
Concepts, Policies, Tools, and Critical Issues. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2011,54, 807–820. [CrossRef]
5.
Steffen, W.; Grinevald, J.; Crutzen, P.; McNeill, J. The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives.
Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2011,369, 842–867. [CrossRef]
6.
Foley, M.M.; Halpern, B.S.; Micheli, F.; Armsby, M.H.; Caldwell, M.R.; Crain, C.M.; Prahler, E.; Rohr, N.;
Sivas, D.; Beck, M.W.; et al. Guiding Ecological Principles for Marine Spatial Planning. Mar. Policy
2010
,
34, 955–966. [CrossRef]
7.
Sander, J.; Nicolas, D.; Berta, M.-L.; Nicholas, B.D.; Erik, G.-B.; Fanny, B.; Francesca, M.L.; Kati, V.; Davide, G.;
Katharina, S.J.; et al. A New Valuation School: Integrating Diverse Values of Nature in Resource and Land
Use Decisions. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016,22, 213–220. [CrossRef]
8.
Costanza, R.; Arge, R.; De Groot, R.; Farberk, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; Neill, R.V.O.;
Paruelo, J.; et al. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature
1997
,387, 253–260.
[CrossRef]

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 20 of 23
9.
Daily, G.C.; Polasky, S.; Goldstein, J.; Kareiva, P.M.; Mooney, H.A.; Pejchar, L.; Ricketts, T.H.; Salzman, J.;
Shallenberger, R. Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ.
2009
,7, 21–28.
[CrossRef]
10.
Abson, D.J.; von Wehrden, H.; Baumgaertner, S.; Fischer, J.; Hanspach, J.; Haerdtle, W.; Heinrichs, H.;
Klein, A.M.; Lang, D.J.; Martens, P.; et al. Ecosystem Services as a Boundary Object for Sustainability.
Ecol. Econ. 2014,103, 29–37. [CrossRef]
11.
Reyers, B.; Nel, J.L.; O’Farrell, P.J.; Sitas, N.; Nel, D.C. Navigating Complexity through Knowledge
Coproduction: Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services into Disaster Risk Reduction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2015,112, 7362–7368. [CrossRef]
12.
Nesshoever, C.; Vandewalle, M.; Wittmer, H.; Balian, E.V.; Carmen, E.; Geijzendorffer, I.R.; Goerg, C.; Jongman, R.;
Livoreil, B.; Santamaria, L.; et al. The Network of Knowledge Approach: Improving the Science and Society Dialogue
on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Europe. Biodivers. Conserv. 2016,25, 1215–1233. [CrossRef]
13.
Carmen, E.; Watt, A.; Carvalho, L.; Dick, J.; Fazey, I.; Garcia-Blanco, G.; Grizzetti, B.; Hauck, J.; Izakovicova, Z.;
Kopperoinen, L.; et al. Knowledge Needs for the Operationalisation of the Concept of Ecosystem Services.
Ecosyst. Serv. 2018,29, 441–451. [CrossRef]
14.
Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Braat, L.; Kubiszewski, I.; Fioramonti, L.; Sutton, P.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M. Twenty
Years of Ecosystem Services: How Far Have We Come and How Far Do We Still Need to Go? Ecosyst. Serv.
2017,28, 1–16. [CrossRef]
15.
Maes, J.; Burkhard, B.; Geneletti, D. Ecosystem Services Are Inclusive and Deliver Multiple Values.
A Comment on the Concept of Nature’s Contributions to People. One Ecosyst. 2018,3, e24720. [CrossRef]
16.
Jetzkowitz, J.; van Koppen, C.S.A.; Lidskog, R.; Ott, K.; Voget-Kleschin, L.; Wong, C.M.L. The Significance of
Meaning. Why IPBES Needs the Social Sciences and Humanities. Innovation 2018,31, S38–S60. [CrossRef]
17.
Schröter, M.; van der Zanden, E.H.; van Oudenhoven, A.P.E.; Remme, R.P.; Serna-Chavez, H.M.; de Groot, R.S.;
Opdam, P. Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: A Synthesis of Critique and Counter-Arguments.
Conserv. Lett. 2014,7, 514–523. [CrossRef]
18.
Steger, C.; Hirsch, S.; Evers, C.; Branoff, B.; Petrova, M.; Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Wardropper, C.; van Riper, C.J.
Ecosystem Services as Boundary Objects for Transdisciplinary Collaboration. Ecol. Econ.
2018
,143, 153–160.
[CrossRef]
19.
Schleyer, C.; Lux, A.; Mehring, M.; Görg, C. Ecosystem Services as a Boundary Concept: Arguments from
Social Ecology. Sustainability 2017,9, 1107. [CrossRef]
20.
Kusmanoff, A.M.; Fidler, F.; Gordon, A.; Bekessy, S.A. Decline of ‘biodiversity’ in Conservation Policy
Discourse in Australia. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017,77, 160–165. [CrossRef]
21.
Munns, W.R., Jr.; Rea, A.W.; Mazzotta, M.J.; Wainger, L.A.; Saterson, K. Toward a Standard Lexicon for
Ecosystem Services. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2015,11, 666–673. [CrossRef]
22.
Rist, S.; Chidambaranathan, M.; Escobar, C.; Wiesmann, U.; Zimmermann, A. Moving from Sustainable
Management to Sustainable Governance of Natural Resources: The Role of Social Learning Processes in
Rural India, Bolivia and Mali. J. Rural Stud. 2007,23, 23–37. [CrossRef]
23.
Rist, S.; Chiddambaranathan, M.; Escobar, C.; Wiesmann, U. “It Was Hard to Come to Mutual
Understanding...”—The Multidimensionality of Social Learning Processes Concerned with Sustainable
Natural Resource Use in India, Africa and Latin America. Syst. Pract. Action Res.
2006
,19, 219–237.
[CrossRef]
24.
Schneider, F.; Rist, S. Envisioning Sustainable Water Futures in a Transdisciplinary Learning Process:
Combining Normative, Explorative, and Participatory Scenario Approaches. Sustain. Sci.
2014
,9, 463–481.
[CrossRef]
25. Schneider, F.; Ledermann, T.; Rist, S.; Fry, P. Social Learning Processes in Swiss Soil Protection—The “From
Farmer–To Farmer” Project. Hum. Ecol. 2009,37, 475–489. [CrossRef]
26.
Reed, M.; Evely, A.; Cundill, G.; Fazey, I.; Glass, J.; Laing, A.; Newig, J.; Parrish, B.; Prell, C.; Raymond, C.; et al.
What Is Social Learning? Ecol. Soc. 2010,15, r1. Available online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/
iss4/resp1/(accessed on 23 September 2019). [CrossRef]
27. Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action; Beacon Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1984; Volume 1.
28.
T
à
bara, J.D.; Chabay, I. Coupling Human Information and Knowledge Systems with Social–Ecological
Systems Change: Reframing Research, Education, and Policy for Sustainability. Environ. Sci. Policy
2013
,
28, 71–81. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 21 of 23
29.
T
à
bara, J.D.; Pahl-Wostl, C. Sustainability Learning in Natural Resource Use and Management. Ecol. Soc.
2007,12, 5. [CrossRef]
30.
Cundill, G.; Rodela, R. A Review of Assertions about the Processes and Outcomes of Social Learning in
Natural Resource Management. J. Environ. Manag. 2012,113, 7–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31.
Cowling, R.M.; Egoh, B.; Knight, A.T.; O’Farrell, P.J.; Reyers, B.; Rouget, M.; Roux, D.J.; Welz, A.;
Wilhelm-Rechman, A. An Operational Model for Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services for Implementation.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008,105, 9483–9488. [CrossRef]
32.
Moreau, C.; Barnaud, C.; Mathevet, R. Conciliate Agriculture with Landscape and Biodiversity Conservation:
A Role-Playing Game to Explore Trade-Offs among Ecosystem Services through Social Learning. Sustainability
2019,11, 310. [CrossRef]
33.
Dallimer, M.; Strange, N. Why Socio-Political Borders and Boundaries Matter in Conservation. Trends Ecol.
Evol. 2015,30, 132–139. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34.
L
ó
pez-Hoffman, L.; Varady, R.G.; Flessa, K.W.; Balvanera, P. Ecosystem Services across Borders: A Framework
for Transboundary Conservation Policy. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2010,8, 84–91. [CrossRef]
35.
Le
ó
n, P.; Blanco, J.M.; Flexas, M.M.; Gomis, D.; Reul, a.; Rodr
í
guez, V.; Jim
é
nez-G
ó
mez, F.; Allen, J.T.;
Rodr
í
guez, J. Surface Mesoscale Pico–Nanoplankton Patterns at the Main Fronts of the Alboran Sea.
J. Mar. Syst. 2015,143, 7–23. [CrossRef]
36. Robles, R. Conservation and Sustainable Development of the Alboran Sea; IUCN: Grand, Switzerland, 2010.
37.
Coll, M.; Piroddi, C.; Albouy, C.; Ben Rais Lasram, F.; Cheung, W.W.L.; Christensen, V.; Karpouzi, V.S.; Guilhaumon, F.;
Mouillot, D.; Paleczny, M.; et al. The Mediterranean Sea under Siege: Spatial Overlap between Marine Biodiversity,
Cumulative Threats and Marine Reserves. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2012,21, 465–480. [CrossRef]
38.
De Vivero, J.L.S.; Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union (European Parliament).
Aguas Jurisdiccionales en el Mediterr
á
neo y el Mar Negro; EU Publications: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. [CrossRef]
39.
EU (European Union). Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 17 June 2008,
Establising a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy
Framework Directive); EU: Official Journal of the European Union: Strasbourg, France, 2008; pp. 19–40.
40.
UNEP-MAP. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of
the Mediterranean and Its. In Proceedings of the 15th Ordinary Meeting of the Contracting Parties to
Protocols, Almeria, Spain, 15–18 January 2008; pp. 15–17.
41.
Bernard, H.R. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches; Altamira Press:
Walnut Creek, FL, USA, 2005.
42.
Wenger, E. Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization
2000
,7, 225–246. [CrossRef]
43.
Hegger, D.; Lamers, M.; Van Zeijl-Rozema, A.; Dieperink, C. Conceptualising Joint Knowledge Production
in Regional Climate Change Adaptation Projects: Success Conditions and Levers for Action. Environ. Sci.
Policy 2012,18, 52–65. [CrossRef]
44.
Medema, W.; Adamowski, J.; Orr, C.; Furber, A.; Wals, A.; Milot, N. Building a Foundation for Knowledge
Co-Creation in Collaborative Water Governance: Dimensions of Stakeholder Networks Facilitated through
Bridging Organizations. Water 2017,9, 60. [CrossRef]
45.
Hering, J.G. Do We Need “More Research” or Better Implementation through Knowledge Brokering?
Sustain. Sci. 2016,11, 363–369. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46.
Mart
í
n-L
ó
pez, B.; Iniesta-Arandia, I.; Garc
í
a-Llorente, M.; Palomo, I.; Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Del Amo, D.G.;
G
ó
mez-Baggethun, E.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Palacios-Agundez, I.; Willaarts, B.; et al. Uncovering Ecosystem
Service Bundles through Social Preferences. PLoS ONE 2012,7, e38970. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
Cash, D.W.; Clark, W.C.; Alcock, F.; Dickson, N.M.; Eckley, N.; Guston, D.H.; Jäger, J.; Mitchell, R.B.
Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2003
,100, 8086–8091.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Ritchie, J.; Lewis, J. The Foundations of Qualitative Research. Qual. Res. Pract. 2003,2, 52–55. [CrossRef]
49.
Mostert, E.; Pahl-wostl, C.; Rees, Y.; Searle, B.; T
à
bara, D.; Tippett, J. Social Learning in European River-Basin
Management: Barriers and Fostering Mechanisms from 10 River Basins. Ecol. Soc.
2007
,12, 1–16. [CrossRef]
50.
Walter, A.I.; Helgenberger, S.; Wiek, A.; Scholz, R.W. Measuring Societal Effects of Transdisciplinary Research
Projects: Design and Application of an Evaluation Method. Eval. Program Plan.
2007
,30, 325–338. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 22 of 23
51.
Bradburn, N.; Sudman, S.; Wansink, B. Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design.
Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2004,14, 72. [CrossRef]
52.
Baird, J.; Plummer, R.; Haug, C.; Huitema, D. Learning Effects of Interactive Decision-Making Processes for
Climate Change Adaptation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014,27, 51–63. [CrossRef]
53.
Tinch, R.; Balian, E.; Carss, D.; de Blas, D.E.; Geamana, N.A.; Heink, U.; Keune, H.; Nesshöver, C.; Niemelä, J.;
Sarkki, S.; et al. Science-Policy Interfaces for Biodiversity: Dynamic Learning Environments for Successful
Impact. Biodivers. Conserv. 2016,27, 1679–1702. [CrossRef]
54.
Hadorn, G.H.; Biber-Klemm, S.; Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W.; Hoffmann-Riem, H.; Joye, D.; Pohl, C.;
Wiesmann, U.; Zemp, E. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2008.
55.
T
à
bara, J.D. A New Vision of Open Knowledge Systems for Sustainability: Opportunities for Social Scientists.
In World Social Science Report 2013; OECD: Paris, France, 2013; pp. 112–118.
56.
Adler, C.; Hirsch Hadorn, G.; Breu, T.; Wiesmann, U.; Pohl, C. Conceptualizing the Transfer of Knowledge
across Cases in Transdisciplinary Research. Sustain. Sci. 2018,13, 179–190. [CrossRef]
57.
Flyvbjerg, B. Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qual. Inq.
2006
,12, 219–245. [CrossRef]
58.
Weber, T. Language Matters in Transdisciplinarity. Available online: https://i2insights.org/2018/10/02/
language-matters/(accessed on 4 October 2018).
59.
Akpo, E.; Crane, T.A.; Vissoh, P.V.; Tossou, R.C. Co-Production of Knowledge in Multi-Stakeholder Processes:
Analyzing Joint Experimentation as Social Learning. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2015,21, 369–388. [CrossRef]
60.
Herweg, K.; Rist, S.; Liniger, H.; Prasuhn, V.; Schneider, F.; Ledermann, T.; Fry, P.; Zimmermann, A.; Hurni, H.;
Wiesmann, U. Transdisciplinarity—An Option for Applied Landscape Ecology in Complex and Uncertain
Contexts. Erde 2010,141, 321–339.
61.
Iglesias, M. Conflict and Cooperation between Spain and Morocco (1956–2008); Andalusian Studies Centre
Foundation, Andalusian Studies Center, Government of Andalusia: Sevilla, Spain, 2010; ISBN 9788493785598.
62.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Profiles of Fisheries and Aquaculture Country;
FAO: Valencia, Spain, 2011.
63.
Costanza, R. Ecosystem Services: Multiple Classification Systems Are Needed. Biol. Conserv.
2008
,
141, 350–352. [CrossRef]
64.
Cognetti, G.; Maltagliati, F. Ecosystem Service Provision: An Operational Way for Marine Biodiversity
Conservation and Management. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010,60, 1916–1923. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65.
Nel, J.L.; Roux, D.J.; Driver, A.; Hill, L.; Maherry, A.C.; Snaddon, K.; Petersen, C.R.; Smith-Adao, L.B.;
Van Deventer, H.; Reyers, B. Knowledge Co-Production and Boundary Work to Promote Implementation of
Conservation Plans. Conserv. Biol. 2016,30, 176–188. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66.
Sutherland, W.J.; Fleishman, E.; Mascia, M.B.; Pretty, J.; Rudd, M.A. Methods for Collaboratively Identifying
Research Priorities and Emerging Issues in Science and Policy. Methods Ecol. Evol.
2011
,2, 238–247. [CrossRef]
67.
L
ó
pez-Rodr
í
guez, M.D.; Castro, A.J.; Castro, H.; Jorreto, S.; Cabello, J. Science-Policy Interface for Addressing
Environmental Problems in Arid Spain. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015,50, 1–14. [CrossRef]
68.
Ansell, C.; Gash, A. Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory
2007
,
18, 543–571. [CrossRef]
69.
Roux, D.J.; Nel, J.L.; Cundill, G.; O’Farrell, P.; Fabricius, C. Transdisciplinary Research for Systemic Change:
Who to Learn with, What to Learn about and How to Learn. Sustain. Sci. 2017,12, 711–726. [CrossRef]
70.
L
ó
pez-Rodr
í
guez, M.D.; Castro, H.; Arenas, M.; Requena-Mullor, J.M.; Cano, A.; Valenzuela, E.; Cabello, J.
Exploring Institutional Mechanisms for Scientific Input into the Management Cycle of the National Protected
Area Network of Peru: Gaps and Opportunities. Environ. Manag. 2017,60, 1022–1041. [CrossRef]
71.
Wiesmann, U.; Biber-Klemm, S.; Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W.; Hadorn, G.H.; Hoffmann-Riem, H.; Joye, D.;
Pohl, C.; Zemp, E. Enhancing Transdisciplinary Research: A Synthesis in Fifteen Propositions. In Handbook of
Transdisciplinary Research; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 433–441.
72.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment of Spain. Evaluaci
ó
n de los Ecosistemas del Milenio en España; Millenium
Ecosystem Assessment; Ministerio de Medio Ambiente: Madrid, Spain, 2011.
73.
D
í
az, S.; Pascual, U.; Stenseke, M.; Mart
í
n-L
ó
pez, B.; Watson, R.T.; Moln
á
r, Z.; Hill, R.; Chan, K.M.A.;
Baste, I.A.; Brauman, K.A.; et al. Assessing Nature’s Contributions to People. Science
2018
,359, 270–272.
[CrossRef]
74.
Karrasch, L.; Maier, M.; Kleyer, M.; Klenke, T. Collaborative Landscape Planning: Co-Design of Ecosystem-Based
Land Management Scenarios. Sustainability 2017,9, 1668. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2019,11, 5239 23 of 23
75.
Dedeurwaerdere, T.; Admiraal, J.; Beringer, A.; Bonaiuto, F.; Cicero, L.; Fernandez-Wulff, P.; Hagens, J.;
Hiedanpää, J.; Knights, P.; Molinario, E.; et al. Combining Internal and External Motivations in Multi-Actor
Governance Arrangements for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Environ. Sci. Policy
2016
,58, 1–10.
[CrossRef]
76.
Wyborn, C. Connectivity Conservation: Boundary Objects, Science Narratives and the Co-Production of
Science and Practice. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015,51, 292–303. [CrossRef]
77.
Pohl, C.; Hadorn, G.H. Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research; Oekom: Munich, Germany, 2007;
pp. 36–40.
78.
Brandt, P.; Ernst, A.; Gralla, F.; Luederitz, C.; Lang, D.J.; Newig, J.; Reinert, F.; Abson, D.J.; Wehrden, H. Von.
A Review of Transdisciplinary Research in Sustainability Science. Ecol. Econ. 2013,92, 1–15. [CrossRef]
79.
Pahl-Wostl, C.; T
à
bara, D.; Bouwen, R.; Craps, M.; Dewulf, A.; Mostert, E.; Ridder, D.; Taillieu, T.
The Importance of Social Learning and Culture for Sustainable Water Management. Ecol. Econ.
2008
,
64, 484–495. [CrossRef]
80.
Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; D
í
az, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Ba ¸sak Dessane, E.; Islar, M.;
Kelemen, E.; et al. Valuing Nature’s Contributions to People: The IPBES Approach. Curr. Opin. Environ.
Sustain. 2017,26, 7–16. [CrossRef]
©
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).