Elsevier

Journal of Environmental Management

Volume 113, 30 December 2012, Pages 7-14
Journal of Environmental Management

Review
A review of assertions about the processes and outcomes of social learning in natural resource management

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.021Get rights and content

Abstract

Social learning has become a central theme in natural resource management. This growing interest is underpinned by a number of assertions about the outcomes of social learning, and about the processes that support these outcomes. Yet researchers and practitioners who seek to engage with social learning through the natural resource management literature often become disorientated by the myriad processes and outcomes that are identified. We trace the roots of current assertions about the processes and outcomes of social learning in natural resource management, and assess the extent to which there is an emerging consensus on these assertions. Results suggest that, on the one hand, social learning is described as taking place through deliberative interactions amongst multiple stakeholders. During these interactions, it is argued that participants learn to work together and build relationships that allow for collective action. On the other hand, social learning is described as occurring through deliberate experimentation and reflective practice. During these iterative cycles of action, monitoring and reflection, participants learn how to cope with uncertainty when managing complex systems. Both of these processes, and their associated outcomes, are referred to as social learning. Where, therefore, should researchers and practitioners focus their attention? Results suggest that there is an emerging consensus that processes that support social learning involve sustained interaction between stakeholders, on-going deliberation and the sharing of knowledge in a trusting environment. There is also an emerging consensus that the key outcome of such learning is improved decision making underpinned by a growing awareness of human–environment interactions, better relationships and improved problem-solving capacities for participants.

Highlights

► We trace the origins of different approaches to social learning in natural resource management. ► We synthesise assertions about social learning and assess consensus on these assertions. ► Social learning is supported by sustained interaction and on-going deliberation among actors. ► Outcomes include improved decision making, growing awareness and improved relationships.

Introduction

Learning has become ubiquitous in natural resource management. One is hard pressed to find recent writings on the subject of natural resource management that do not include at least some reference to learning, and in recent years specifically to social learning. The burgeoning interest in social learning is reflected in recent edited volumes (Keen et al., 2005a; Wals, 2007; Blackmore, 2010) and special issues (e.g. Environmental Science and Policy Vol. 10 2007; Ecology and Society Vol. 10 2009; Environmental Policy and Governance Vol. 19 2009; Environmental Education Research Vol. 16 2010). This growing interest is fuelled by recurrent, but often untested, assertions about the outcomes of social learning for people and ecosystems, and about the processes that support these outcomes.

In an era of interdisciplinary science, where researchers increasingly borrow ideas, and sometimes just words, from other disciplines, a growing sense of concern has emerged about the myriad ways in which the term social learning is used. This concern is reflected in a critical review of social learning in the participatory literature (Muro and Jeffrey, 2008), and in a multi-authored response article seeking to highlight the need for a common definition (Reed et al., 2010). In an attempt to shift the social learning discourse towards greater empirical analysis, the latter authors define social learning as “a change in understanding that goes beyond the individual to become situated within wider social units or communities of practice through social interactions between actors within social networks” (2010: r1). Despite these calls for greater empirical rigour, efforts at empirical evaluation of social learning have been hindered by the rapidly growing literature on this topic, which is replete with contrasting assertions about the outcomes and processes that support social learning. These contrasting assertions make it difficult for researchers and practitioners to decide where to focus their attention.

The objective of this paper is to identify the roots of current assertions about the processes and outcomes of social learning in natural resource management, and to assess the extent to which there is an emerging consensus on these assertions. By synthesising these assertions, and by revealing their many roots within different management paradigms, we hope to assist researchers and practitioners who are interested in either facilitating a social learning process, or who seek to evaluate the outcomes of such a process. We do not assess evidence for or against these assertions here, but hope that this review will spark an interest in doing so. We begin by tracing the emergence of social learning as a central concern in natural resource management, contextualise the assertions that have been made over time, and reveal significant differences in understanding about how social learning takes place (processes), and what the anticipated outcomes are. Based on this historical review, we synthesise the dominant claims about the processes and outcomes of social learning into five core assertions, and assess the extent to which there is emerging consensus around them.

Section snippets

Material and methods

The scope of this review is limited to the natural resource management literature. This does not negate the importance of the other bodies of literature on this topic, most notably in pedagogy and politics. Rather, the limited scope of this review indicates the challenge of summarising a large and rapidly growing discourse. The review was conducted in an iterative manner, involving a number of activities that were largely, but not always, sequential.

  • (1)

    An initial analysis of the social learning

Social learning in historical perspective

Over time, social learning has been advanced for different reasons in natural resource management. In order to fully understand the ways in which social learning is conceptualised in different management paradigms, and why these differences exist, it is important to understand the historical context from which each approach emerged. Here, attention is paid to the broader discourses and theoretical orientations that have influenced the emergence of different management paradigms over time (Fig. 1

Following the thread: prevalence of assertions and emerging research directions

Table 1 contains five distinguishable assertions regarding the processes and outcomes of social learning, these can be stated as follows, with the first three relating to processes and the last two relating to outcomes: (1) Social learning takes place through deliberative processes involving sustained interaction between individuals, and the sharing of knowledge and perspectives in a trusting environment; (2) Learning takes place through deliberate experimentation and reflective practice

Conclusions

The term social learning is used in different ways in the natural resource management literature. Key differences can be traced to the different reasons behind the perceived need for learning within different management paradigms. In the case of adaptive management, ecological complexity, and the resultant uncertainty faced by resource managers, has been the major factor driving an interest in learning. As a result, the term social learning in this literature has been used increasingly to

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge funding received from the following bodies and/or programmes: Rhodes University post doctoral fellowship, SANPAD and the IDRC (Georgina Cundill) and the FP7-Marie Cure Actions-IEF of the European Commission (Romina Rodela). An earlier version of this work was presented on the 22th September 2011 at the “Researching learning professional development workshop” organised by the Environmental Learning Research Centre at Rhodes University. The authors would like to

References (73)

  • T. Allen et al.

    Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity

    (1982)
  • D. Armitage et al.

    Introduction: moving beyond co-management

  • F. Berkes

    Common Property Resources: Ecological and Community Based Sustainable Development

    (1989)
  • C. Blackmore

    Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice

    (2010)
  • G. Borrini-Feyerabend et al.

    Sharing Power. Learning by Doing in Co-management of Natural Resources throughout the World

    (2004)
  • D. Brockington

    Fortress Conservation: the Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania

    (2002)
  • D.W. Bromley

    Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy

    (1991)
  • H.C. Brown et al.

    Governance and social learning in the management of non-wood forest products in community forests in Cameroon

    International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology

    (2008)
  • R.F. Brummel et al.

    Social learning in a policy-mandated collaboration

    Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

    (2010)
  • L. Buck et al.

    Social learning in the collaborative management of community forests: lessons from the field

  • A.S. Cheng et al.

    Place-based planning as a platform for social learning: insights from a national forest landscape assessment process in western Colorado

    Society & Natural Resources

    (2010)
  • G. Cundill et al.

    Soft systems thinking and social learning for adaptive management

    Conservation Biology

    (2011)
  • J. Curruthers

    Creating a national park: 1910 to 1926

    Journal of Southern African Studies

    (1989)
  • N. Dale

    Getting to co-management: social learning in the redesign of fisheries management

  • T. Dedeurwaerdere

    Social learning as a basis for cooperative small-scale forest management

    Small-Scale Forestry

    (2009)
  • R. Ducrot

    Gaming across scale in peri-urban water management: contribution from two experiences in Bolivia and Brazil

    International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology

    (2009)
  • S. Elstub

    The third generation of deliberative democracy

    Political Studies Review

    (2010)
  • C. Fabricius

    The fundamentals of community-based natural resource management

  • M. Fernandez-Gimenez et al.

    Adaptive management and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: a study of five community-based forestry organisations in the western USA

    Ecology and Society

    (2008)
  • C. Folke et al.

    Adaptive governance of social–ecological resources

    Annual Review of Environment and Resources

    (2005)
  • P. Frost et al.

    Landscape-scale approaches for integrated natural resource management in tropical forest landscapes

    Ecology and Society

    (2006)
  • A. Gaylard et al.

    Surface water availability: implications for heterogeneity and ecosystems processes

  • L.H. Gunderson et al.

    Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions

    (1995)
  • G. Hardin

    The tragedy of the commons

    Science

    (1968)
  • C.S. Holling

    Resilience and stability of ecological systems

    Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic

    (1973)
  • C.S. Holling

    Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management

    (1978)
  • Cited by (195)

    • Shifting power through participation in post-disaster recovery: A scoping review

      2023, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text