Process and Contextual Factors Supporting Action-Oriented Learning: A Thematic Synthesis of Empirical Literature in Natural Resource Management

Figures & data

Figure 1. Systematic search and study selection, modified from Suškevičs et al. (2018).

Figure 2. The process of thematic synthesis.

Table 1. Factors supporting action-oriented learning: results from the thematic synthesis of the 53 selected journal articles.

REALM (no. of articles)	Analytical themes^a				References to the reviewed articles^b
	Key theme: Decisive FACTOR	No. of articles	SUB-THEMES: Links to action-oriented learning	No. of articles
I - Process (41 articles)	1. Participatory and  collaborative  arenas	24	1.1. Facilitated space for dialog	13	Benson, Lorenzoni, and Cook (2016); Hoverman et al. (2011); Huntjens et al. (2011); Lebel, Grothmann, and Siebenhüner (2010); McDougall et al. (2013); Moellenkamp et al. (2010); Pahl-Wostl et al. (2013); Rist et al. (2007); Schneider et al. (2012); Sims and Sinclair (2008); Wallis, Ison, and Samson (2013); Watanabe et al. (2014); Yuen, Jovicich, and Preston (2013)
			1.2. Self-organizing capacities	9	Armitage et al. (2011); Biedenweg and Monroe (2013); Hahn et al.2006; Kumler and Lemos2008; Lee and Krasny (2015); Murillo, Norris, and Biernacki (2015); Olsson, Folke, and Hahn (2004); Tidball et al. (2010); Van Assche et al. (2013)
			1.3. Conflicts triggering learning	5	Biedenweg and Monroe (2013); d'Angelo and Brunstein (2014); Dana and Nelson (2012); Maynard (2015); Yuen, Jovicich, and Preston (2013)
	2. Proximity to  praxis	18	3.1. Intentional experimentation	12	Bos and Brown (2012); Cheng, Danks, and Allred (2011); Cundill (2010); Hahn et al. (2006); Hurlbert (2015); Leys and Vanclay2011; Moellenkamp et al. (2010); Nguyen, Seddaiu, and Roggero (2014); Olsson, Folke, and Hahn (2004); Pahl-Wostl et al. (2013); Puente-Rodríguez et al. (2015); Van Assche et al. (2013)
			3.2. Practice-based dialogs and boundary objects	8	Albert et al. (2012); Alkan-Olsson et al. (2011); Cheng, Danks, and Allred (2011); Cundill (2010); Madsen and Noe (2012); Puente-Rodríguez et al. (2015); Sinclair, Kumnerdpet, and Moyer (2013); Wise (2014)
	3. Inter-mediaries	14	2.1. Bridging organizations and individuals	10	Bos and Brown (2012); Cundill (2010); Hahn et al. (2006); Hoverman et al. (2011); Johannessen and Hahn (2013); Leys and Vanclay (2011); Moellenkamp et al. (2010); Nykvist (2014); Olsson et al. (2004); Pahl-Wostl et al. (2013)
			2.2. Facilitative leadership	12	Albert et al. (2012); Bos and Brown (2012; Cundill (2010); Hoverman et al. (2011); Hurlbert (2015); Johannessen and Hahn (2013); Leys and Vanclay (2011); Nykvist (2014); Olsson, Folke, and Hahn (2004); Pahl-Wostl et al. (2013); Secco, Pettenella, and Gatto (2011); Sol, Beers, and Wals (2013)
II - Context (31 articles)	4. Power asymmetries	13	7.1. Balancing power asymmetries	13	Balazs and Lubell (2014); Biedenweg and Monroe (2013); Boyd et al. (2014); Hilden (2011); Hordijk et al. (2014); Hoverman et al. (2011); Leys and Vanclay (2011); McDougall et al. (2013); Shaw and Kristjanson (2014); Sol, Beers, and Wals (2013); Van Assche et al. (2013); Van Gossum et al. (2008); Vinke-de Kruijf, Bressers, and Augustijn (2014)
	5. Social-ecological  crises	11	4.1. Crises as triggers for learning and action	11	Armitage et al. (2011); Benson, Lorenzoni, and Cook (2016); Head (2014); Huntjens et al. (2011); Johannessen and Hahn (2013); Menzel and Buchecker (2013); Olsson, Folke, and Hahn (2004); Pahl-Wostl et al. (2013); Sendzimir et al. (2010); Van Gossum et al. (2008); Vinke-de Kruijf, Bressers, and Augustijn (2014)
	6. Time	11	6.1. Allowing sufficient time learning effects to become evident	11	Albert et al. (2012); Balazs and Lubell (2014); Biedenweg and Monroe (2013); Hilden (2011); Lebel, Grothmann, and Siebenhüner (2010); Leys and Vanclay (2011); Menzel and Buchecker (2013); Moellenkamp et al. (2010); Puszkin-Chevlin and Esnard (2009); Shaw and Kristjanson (2014); Yuen, Jovicich, and Preston (2013)
	7. Complexity	6	8.1. Embracing the complexity of SESs	6	Boyd et al. (2014); Huntjens et al. (2011); Pahl-Wostl et al. (2013); Puszkin-Chevlin and Esnard (2009); Van Assche et al. (2013); Vinke-de Kruijf, Bressers, and Augustijn (2014)
	8. Identity	4	5.1. Addressing identity differences	4	Boyd et al. (2014); Hahn et al. (2006); Puente-Rodríguez et al. (2015); Smith, DuBois, and Krasny (2016)

^aSeveral articles have data clustered in more than one theme and multiple sub-themes. ^bAn alphabetical list of the 53 reviewed articles is included in the reference list.

Figure 3. Process-based and contextual factors found to affect action-oriented learning (the scheme of learning outcomes is modified from Suškevičs et al. 2018).

Suškevičs, M., T. Hahn, R. Rodela, B. Macura, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2018. Learning for social-ecological change: A qualitative review of outcomes across empirical literature in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61 (7):1085–112. doi:10.1080/09640568.2017.1339594.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Benson, D., I. Lorenzoni, and H. Cook. 2016. Evaluating social learning in England flood risk management: An ‘individual-community interaction’ perspective. Environmental Science and Policy 55:326–34. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hoverman, S., H. Ross, T. Chan, and B. Powell. 2011. Social learning through participatory integrated catchment risk assessment in the Solomon Islands. Ecology and Society 16 (2):1–22. doi:10.5751/ES-04036-160217.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Huntjens, P., C. Pahl-Wostl, B. Rihoux, M. Schlüter, Z. Flachner, S. Neto, R. Koskova, C. Dickens, and I. N. Kiti. 2011. Adaptive water management and policy learning in a changing climate: A formal comparative analysis of eight water management regimes in Europe, Africa and Asia. Environmental Policy and Governance 21 (3):145–63. doi:10.1002/eet.571.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Lebel, L., T. Grothmann, and B. Siebenhüner. 2010. The role of social learning in adaptiveness: Insights from water management. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 10 (4):333–53. doi:10.1007/s10784-010-9142-6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*McDougall, C., J. Jiggins, B. H. Pandit, S. K. T. M. Rana, and C. Leeuwis. 2013. Does adaptive collaborative forest governance affect poverty? Participatory action research in Nepal’s community forests. Society & Natural Resources 26 (11):1235–51. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.779344.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Moellenkamp, S., M. Lamers, C. Huesmann, S. Rotter, C. Pahl-Wostl, K. Speil, W. Pohl, and S. Moellenkamp. 2010. Informal participatory platforms for adaptive management. Insights into niche-finding, collaborative design and outcomes from a participatory process in the Rhine Basin. Ecology and Society 15 (4):1–23. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art41/.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Pahl-Wostl, C., G. Becker, C. Knieper, and J. Sendzimir. 2013. How multilevel societal learning processes facilitate transformative change: A comparative case study analysis on flood management. Ecology and Society 18 (4):1–28. doi:10.5751/ES-05779-180458.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Rist, S., M. Chidambaranathan, C. Escobar, U. Wiesmann, and A. Zimmermann. 2007. Moving from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources: The role of social learning processes in rural India, Bolivia and Mali. Journal of Rural Studies 23(1):23–37. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.02.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Schneider, F., D. Steiger, T. Ledermann, P. Fry, and S. Rist. 2012. No-tillage farming: co-creation of innovation through network building. Land Degradation & Development 23:242–55. doi:10.1002/ldr.1073.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Sims, L., and A. J. Sinclair. 2008. Learning through participatory resource management programs: Case studies from Costa Rica. Adult Education Quarterly 58 (2):151–68. doi:10.1177/0741713607309802.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Wallis, P. J., R. L. Ison, and K. Samson. 2013. Identifying the conditions for social learning in water governance in regional Australia. Land Use Policy 31:412–21. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.08.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Watanabe, M., L. R. da Rosa Gama Madruga, C. K. Yamaguchi, A. C. P. Vieira, and R. Jenoveva-Neto. 2014. Decision making and social learning: The case of watershed committee of the state of Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil. Water Resources Management 28 (11):3815–28. doi:10.1007/s11269-014-0711-2.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Yuen, E., S. S. Jovicich, and B. L. Preston. 2013. Climate change vulnerability assessments as catalysts for social learning: Four case studies in south-eastern Australia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18 (5):567–90. doi:10.1007/s11027-012-9376-4.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Armitage, D., F. Berkes, A. Dale, E. Kocho-Schellenberg, and E. Patton. 2011. Co-management and the Co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change 21 (3):995–1004. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Biedenweg, K., and M. Monroe. 2013. Teasing apart the details: How social learning can affect collective action in the Bolivian Amazon. Human Ecology 41 (2):239–53. doi:10.1007/s10745-012-9535-y.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hahn, T., P. Olsson, C. Folke, and K. Johansson. 2006. Trust-building, Knowledge generation and organizational innovations: The role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecology 34 (4):573–92. doi:10.1007/s10745-006-9035-z.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Kumler, L. M., and M. C. Lemos. 2008. Managing waters of the Paraiba do Sul river basin, Brazil: A case study in institutional change and social learning. Ecology and Society 13 (2):1–13. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art22/.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Lee, E., and M. E. Krasny. 2015. The role of social learning for Social-Ecological systems in Korean village groves restoration. Ecology and Society 20 (1):42. doi:10.5751/ES-07289-200142.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Murillo, J. D., L. Norris, and J. J. Biernacki. 2015. The Southern grassroots biofuels project: A participatory study of conservationists and stakeholders from two upper cumberland counties. Sociological Spectrum 35(4):349–71. doi:10.1080/02732173.2015.1043679.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T. Hahn. 2004. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in Southern Sweden. Ecology and Society 9 (4):1–26. doi:10.5751/ES-00683-090402.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Tidball, K. G., M. E. Krasny, E. Svendsen, L. Campbell, and K. Helphand. 2010. Stewardship, learning, and memory in disaster resilience. Environmental Education Research 16 (5–6):591–609. doi:10.1080/13504622.2010.505437.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Van Assche, K., R. Beunen, J. Holm, and M. Lo. 2013. Social learning and innovation. Ice fishing communities on Lake Mille Lacs. Land Use Policy 34:233–42. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.03.009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*d'Angelo, M. J., and J. Brunstein. 2014. Social learning for sustainability: Supporting sustainable business in Brazil regarding multiple social actors, Relationships and interests. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 21:273–89. doi:10.1080/13504509.2014.902868.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Dana, G. V., and K. C. Nelson. 2012. Social learning through environmental risk analysis of biodiversity and GM maize in South Africa. Environmental Policy and Governance 22 (4):238–52. doi:10.1002/eet.1587.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Maynard, C. M. 2015. Accessing the environment: Delivering ecological and societal benefits through knowledge integration – The case of water management. Applied Geography 58:94–104. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.01.013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Bos, J. J., and R. R. Brown. 2012. Governance experimentation and factors of success in socio-technical transitions in the urban water sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79 (7):1340–53. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Cheng, A. S., C. Danks, and S. R. Allred. 2011. The role of social and policy learning in changing Forest governance: An examination of Community-Based forestry initiatives in the U.S. Forest Policy and Economics 13(2):89–96. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.09.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Cundill, G. 2010. Monitoring social learning processes in adaptive comanagement: Three case studies from South Africa. Ecology and Society 15 (3):1–19. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art28/.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hurlbert, M. 2015. Learning, participation, and adaptation: Exploring agri-environmental programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58 (1):113–34. doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.847823.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Leys, A. J., and J. K. Vanclay. 2011. Social learning: A knowledge and capacity building approach for adaptive co-management of contested landscapes. Land Use Policy 28 (3):574–84. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.11.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Nguyen, T. P. L., G. Seddaiu, and P. P. Roggero. 2014. Hybrid knowledge for understanding complex agri-environmental issues: Nitrate pollution in Italy. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 12 (2):164–82. doi:10.1080/14735903.2013.825995.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Puente-Rodríguez, D., J. A. A. Swart, M. Middag, and H. J. Van der Windt. 2015. Identities, communities, and practices in the transition towards sustainable mussel fishery in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Human Ecology 43(1):93–104. doi:10.1007/s10745-014-9718-9.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Albert, C., T. Zimmermann, J. Knieling, and C. von Haaren. 2012. Social learning can benefit decision-making in landscape planning: Gartow case study on climate change adaptation, Elbe valley biosphere reserve. Landscape and Urban Planning 105 (4):347–60. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.024.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Alkan-Olsson, J., A. Jonsson, L. Andersson, and B. Arheimer. 2011. A model-supported participatory process for nutrient management: A Socio-Legal analysis of a bottom-up implementation of the EU water framework directive. Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9 (2):379–89. doi:10.1080/14735903.2011.582361.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Madsen, M. L., and E. Noe. 2012. Communities of practice in participatory approaches to environmental regulation. Prerequisites for implementation of environmental knowledge in agricultural context. Environmental Science and Policy 18:25–33. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.12.008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Sinclair, A. J., W. Kumnerdpet, and J. M. Moyer. 2013. Learning sustainable water practices through participatory irrigation management in Thailand. Natural Resources Forum 37 (1):55–66. doi:10.1111/1477-8947.12012.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Wise, S. P. 2014. Learning through experience: Non-implementation and the challenges of protected area conservation in the Bahamas. Marine Policy 46:111–18. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.010.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Johannessen, Å., and T. Hahn. 2013. Social learning towards a more adaptive paradigm? Reducing flood risk in kristianstad municipality, Sweden. Global Environmental Change 23 (1):372–81. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Nykvist, B. 2014. Does social learning lead to better natural resource management? A case study of the modern farming community of practice in Sweden. Society & Natural Resources 27 (4):436–50. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.861562.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Secco, L., D. Pettenella, and P. Gatto. 2011. Forestry governance and collective learning process in Italy: Likelihood or utopia? Forest Policy and Economics 13 (2):104–12. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.04.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Sol, J., P. J. Beers, and A. E. J. Wals. 2013. Social learning in regional innovation networks: Trust, commitment and reframing as emergent properties of interaction. Journal of Cleaner Production 49:35–43. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.041.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Balazs, C. L., and M. Lubell. 2014. Social learning in an environmental justice context: A case study of integrated regional water management. Water Policy 16 (S2):97. doi:10.2166/wp.2014.101.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Boyd, E., J. Ensor, V. Castán Broto, and S. Juhola. 2014. Environmentalities of urban climate governance in Maputo, Mozambique. Global Environmental Change 26:140–51. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.012.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hilden, M. 2011. The evolution of climate policies – The role of learning and evaluations. Journal of Cleaner Production 19:1798–811. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hordijk, M., L. M. Sara, and C. Sutherland. 2014. Resilience, transition or transformation? A comparative analysis of changing water governance systems in four Southern cities. Environment and Urbanization 26 (1):130–46. doi:10.1177/0956247813519044.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Shaw, A., and P. Kristjanson. 2014. A catalyst toward sustainability? Exploring social learning and social differentiation approaches with the agricultural poor. Sustainability 6 (5):2685–717. doi:10.3390/su6052685.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Van Gossum, P., L. Ledene, B. Arts, R. De Vreese, and K. Verheyen. 2008. Implementation failure of the Forest expansion policy in Flanders (Northern Belgium) and the policy learning potential. Forest Policy and Economics 10 (7–8):515–22. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2008.07.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Vinke-de Kruijf, J., H. Bressers, and D. C. M. Augustijn. 2014. How social learning influences further collaboration: Experiences from an international collaborative water project. Ecology and Society 19 (2):61. doi:10.5751/ES-06540-190261.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Head, B. W. 2014. Managing urban water crises: Adaptive policy responses to drought and flood in southeast Queensland, Australia. Ecology and Society 19 (2):33. doi:10.5751/ES-06414-190233.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Menzel, S., and M. Buchecker. 2013. Does participatory planning foster the transformation toward more adaptive Social-Ecological systems?. Ecology and Society 18 (1):13. doi:10.5751/ES-05154-180113.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Sendzimir, J., Z. Flachner, C. Pahl-Wostl, and C. Knieper. 2010. Stalled regime transition in the upper Tisza river basin: The dynamics of linked action situations. Environmental Science and Policy 13 (7):604–19. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.09.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Puszkin-Chevlin, A., and A.-M. Esnard. 2009. Incremental evolution and devolution of Florida’s coastal high hazard area policy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52 (3):297–313. doi:10.1080/09640560802703173.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Smith, J. G., B. DuBois, and M. E. Krasny. 2016. Framing for resilience through social learning: Impacts of environmental stewardship on youth in post-disturbance communities. Sustainability Science 11 (3):441–53. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0348-y.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar