Learning our way out of environmental policy problems: a review of the scholarship

Abstract

In acknowledgement of the complexity of environmental challenges, research on learning in environmental policy has grown substantially over the past two decades across a range of disciplines. Despite this growth, there are few comprehensive assessments of the literature on learning in environmental policy. This article fills this gap by providing insights on the overall coherence and impact of this body of scholarship. To do so, we analyze a sample of 163 articles from 2004 to 2014 using a standardized coding framework. The results provide an in-depth assessment of the status of the literature on learning in the context of environmental policy, as well as the quality of the literature. We demonstrate that despite the diversity in research questions and goals, the literature is lacking with respect to diversity in cases and context, theoretical development, clear conceptualization and operationalization of learning, and advancements in empirical approaches to study learning. From these insights, we discuss the challenges and opportunities for scholars in studying learning and provide recommendations for building the theoretical and methodological rigor of the field.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Codebook

	Coding fields	Decision rulesc	Type of entry	Percent agreement
1	Article ID (unique)		Text	–
2	Coder last name		Text	–
3	Author/s last name		Text	–
4	Year of Publication		Text	–
5a	Journal		Text	–
5b	Journal type: 1 = policy/politics, 2 = management/planning/EIA, 3 = resource-specific (land/water/energy/climate), 4 = ecology/natural resources 5 = other	Code based on description of journals from their websites	Typology	100b
6	Article title		Text	–
7a	Is the research question or goal around learning stated in the paper?	Look at Introduction for direct evidence of an objective around learning. If uncertain mark no	Yes or no	100a
7b	If yes, then what is the research question (or goal of the paper if a question is not stated)?	Quote text directly from article or paraphrase	Text	–
8	Is learning central to the paper or a key concept to study (as a key outcome, key IV or DV)?	Learning must be a variable, which may or may not be explicitly presented	Yes or no	97.55
9	Does the author state that developing theories and frameworks around learning is one of the goals of the paper?	Must be a primary goal of the paper. Theory or framework development constitutes a major contribution	Yes or no	85.22
10	Does the author intend to empirically test their theory or framework?	May be explicitly stated, or may be inferred from the explanation of the research design	Yes or no	82.80
11a	Is learning defined?	Explicit language must be used… Examples: “We define learning as…” “We see learning as…” “We borrow Smith’s definition of learning…” May be narrow or broad, and presented at any point in the article. Must define, not just describe. Must be relevant to article	Yes or no	100a
11b	If yes, provide description of definition.	Quote text directly from article	Text	–
12a	Do the authors identify specific venues associated with learning?	May be theoretical or part of empirical analysis. May include: Workshops, stakeholder forums, boundary/bridging organizations, environmental assessment process, policy game/experiment/modeling	Yes or no	100a
12b	Venue type: 0 = NA, 1 = meeting/workshop/forum/working group/focus group/training sessions/seminars, 2 = boundary/bridging org, 3 = environmental assessment process/scientific and policy assessments, 4 = policy game/experiment/modeling, 5 = network, 6 = multi-stakeholder (non-specific)/co-management process/collaborative process/non-specific participatory process, 7 = organizational body or bodies (watershed associations/farmer organizations/committees/business alliances/management bodies/technical review panels/advisory councils), 8 = other	Rely on text used by authors. May quote authors directly. Based on text, classify as specific venue type	Typology	100b
13a	Do the authors pinpoint a theory or framework that is a primary guide for their paper?	Look for language of “theory” or “framework” The theory or framework must guide paper. Must be explicit in approach and analyses. May be integrative, but not simply a list of different approaches	Yes or no	100a
13b	If yes, identify the theory or framework.	Quote text directly from article	Text	–
14a	Do the authors empirically demonstrate that explicit factors enable learning?	Factors that explicitly enable learning according to the study results. Not theoretical or conceptual factors but ones the author actually discusses in the findings or conclusion section. Examples may include some of the following, as well as other examples: Neutral facilitator, boundary object, internal leadership	Yes or no	100a
14b	If yes, identify the factors	May quote directly from the text	Text	–
15	What is the PRIMARY environmental issue? 1 = water; 2 = forests; 3 = species, including fish & biodiversity; 4 = agriculture or land or soil conservation; 5 = energy/climate; 6 = multiple resources; 7 = other or non-specific	This may be indicated in the research question or design. Can include context of case study or theoretical article. Apply typology.	Typology	100a
16a	Does the author explicitly state their hypotheses?	Authors must provide some proposed statement of expectation/explanation	Yes or no	90.32
16b	If yes, give text for hypotheses.	Flag if the hypotheses are not clearly presented	Text	–
17a	Is there a primary geographic scale at which the authors are working?	This may be indicated in the research question or research design. Includes both primarily theoretical as well as primarily empirical articles	Yes or no	78.79
17b	If yes, describe geographic scale	May quote directly from the text. This may be indicated in the research question or research design. Includes both primarily theoretical as well as primarily empirical articles	Text
17c	Geographic Scale: 0 = N/A; 1 = other; 2 = local, community, village, neighborhood; 3 = national; 4 = state or region/watershed within a country; 5 = region/watershed across country boundaries and international	Categorize text according to typology	Typology	100b
18a	What is the geographic location or locations of observations? 0 = N/A; 1 = North America; 2 = South America; 3 = Africa; 4 = Europe; 5 = Asia; 6 = Australia; 7 = Antarctica; 8 = multiple geographic locations	This may be indicated in the research question or research design. Designate using typology Code review articles as “multiple” (8). Code South Pacific islands as “multiple” (8). If unknown, code as “N/A” (0)	Typology	81.99
18b	Specify location	Indicate if the study focuses on a specific state, country, or region. Can quote directly from the text	Text	–
19	Is the research primarily empirical?	Does the article analyze data, cases, or evidence?	Yes or no	88.99
20	Is the intention of the paper to link learning to changed behavior?		Yes or no	63.98
21a	Are there specific types of learning the author refers to?		Yes or no	92.47
21b	If yes, what are the specific types of learning?	Quote text directly from article	Text
21c	Types of learning: 1 = social, 2 = policy/political, 3 = organizational/loop (single, double, triple), 4 = experiential/learning by doing/participatory action/action/simple action/problem-based learning, 5 = transformative/reflexive, 6 = collaborative/cooperative/collective/joint/mutual/group/shared, 7 = instrumental/scientific and technical, 8 = other, 0 = NA	Categorize text. (Similar types of learning are grouped together.) Note all types of learning mentioned by the authors, even if there are multiple types of learning in an article	Typology	100b
21c	Does the author identify multiple types of learning (multiple categories)?		Yes or no	–
22	What are the primary bodies of literature the author says they are drawing from in the paper?	What literature is discussed and used to identify major concepts?	Text	–
23a	Do the authors explicitly tease out specific phases or sub-processes of learning?	Are phases explicitly identified?	Yes or no	68.33
23b	If yes, how are phases discussed?	Quote text directly from article, or identify key words	Text	–
24	Do the authors equate learning with changed outcomes?		Yes or no	67.20
25	What is the primary unit of analysis at which the authors are trying to draw conclusions about learning? 1 = individual 2 = single organization 3 = multi-organizational/networks/subsystems 4 = society as a whole 5 = other; 0 = NA	This may be indicated in the research question or research design.	Typology	61.56
26	How many people or sub-units does the author draw data from in this paper?	Provide text to explain if sub-units are individuals, cases, or other. NA = 0	Text	–
27	Is it the author’s intention to empirically measure and demonstrate a linkage between learning and changed behavior?		Yes or no	56.67
28	Is it the author’s intention to empirically measure and demonstrate what leads to learning?		Yes or no	67.20
29	Is secondary analysis conducted on existing literature (e.g., coding, meta-analyses)?		Yes or no	82.80
30	Are data collected from oral interviews?		Yes or no	90.32
31	Are data collected from written surveys?		Yes or no	90.32
32	Are data collected from content analysis of documents?		Yes or no	73.12
33	Are data collected from focus groups/workshops?		Yes or no	86.02
34	Are descriptive statistics used for analysis?		Yes or no	87.10
35	Are advanced statistical techniques used for analysis (for example, regression analysis and modeling multiple variables, something beyond descriptive stats)? High threshold.		Yes or no	89.25
36	If qualitative methods are used, does the author describe them?		Yes or no	82.80
37	Are network analyses used?		Yes or no	100
38	List any other methods used (for example, game theory, participatory modeling, agent-based modeling, simulations or role playing games)? (NA, none = 0)		Text	–
39	What is the overall take-away message from the article?	What are the conclusions from the article, drawn from the discussion and conclusion sections	Text	–
40	What are the strengths of the article?	Assessment and interpretation by coder	Text	–
41	What are the limitations of the article?	Assessment and interpretation by coder	Text	–
42	Any additional notes or impressions?	Assessment and interpretation by coder	Text	–

1. ^a100% agreement reached through group discussion with all five coders, field re-coded
2. ^b100% agreement reached through discussion among two coders
3. ^cSome of the coding questions are not straightforward and therefore require an additional level of decision rule for coding. For example, the questions: “Do the authors pinpoint a theory or framework that is a primary guide for their paper?”, and “Does the author state that developing theories and frameworks around learning is one of the goals of the paper?” To answer these questions, the decision rule requires that he author explicitly name and identify a theory or framework early in the article and then use, apply, or develop that theory or framework throughout the paper

Appendix 2: Summary statistics of coded items

Variable	Frequency (% of total articles)
Journal: Policy/politics	25 (15.30)
Journal: Management/planning	44 (27.00)
Journal: Resource-specific	23 (14.10)
Journal: Ecology/natural resources	49 (30.10)
Journal: Other	22 (13.50)
Research question or goal stated around learning	122 (74.90)
Learning central or a key concept	159 (97.60)
Development of theories, frameworks on learning is a goal	41 (25.20)
Intention to empirically test theory, framework	30 (18.40)
Learning is defined	69 (42.30)
Article conceptually or empirically identifies venue	97 (59.5)
Venue: Not identified	66 (40.50)
Venue: Workshop, forum, meeting, working group, focus group, seminar, training session	43 (26.40)
Venue: Boundary/bridging organization	5 (3.10)
Venue: Environmental/scientific/technical assessment process/peer reviews/	12 (7.40)
Venue: Game/Experiment/Model	8 (4.90)
Venue: Network	7 (4.30)
Venue: Multi-stakeholder/co-management process/collaborative process/non-specific participatory process	31 (19.00)
Venue: Organizational body/bodies	10 (6.10)
Venue: Other	15 (9.20)
Pinpoint a theory, framework used	72 (44.20)
Empirically demonstrate factors that enable learning	93 (57.10)
Primary environmental issue: Water	34 (20.90)
Primary environmental issue: Forests	4 (2.50)
Primary environmental issue: Species	15 (9.20)
Primary environmental issue: Agriculture/land	18 (11.00)
Primary environmental issue: Energy/climate	18 (11.00)
Primary environmental issue: Multiple	19 (11.70)
Primary environmental issue: Other/non-specific	55 (33.70)
Explicitly state hypotheses	29 (17.80)
A primary geographic scale	106 (65.00)
Geographic scale: Not identified	47 (28.80)
Geographic scale: Other	8 (4.90)
Geographic scale: Local	35 (21.50)
Geographic scale: National	14 (8.60)
Geographic scale: State/Region within watershed	46 (28.20)
Geographic scale: Region/Watershed across boundaries/international	13 (8.00)
Geographic location: Not Identified	36 (22.10)
Geographic location: North America	24 (14.70)
Geographic location: South America	5 (3.10)
Geographic location: Africa	7 (4.30)
Geographic location: Europe	45 (27.60)
Geographic location: Asia	12 (7.40)
Geographic location: Australia	15 (9.20)
Geographic location: Multiple	19 (11.70)
Primarily empirical	112 (68.70)
Intention to link learning to changed behavior	81 (49.70)
Article identifies specific types of learning	134 (82.20)
Type of learning: Not identified	31 (19.00)
Type of learning: Social	75 (46.00)
Type of learning: Policy, Political	20 (12.30)
Type of learning: Organizational, Loop	24 (14.70)
Type of learning: Experiential, Learning by Doing, Action, Problem-Based	28 (17.20)
Type of learning: Transformative, Reflexive, Adaptive	15 (9.20)
Type of learning: Collaborative, Cooperative, Collective, Joint, Mutual, Group, Shared, Community	23 (14.10)
Type of learning: Instrumental, Scientific, Technical	12 (7.40)
Type of learning: Other	41 (25.20)
Article identifies multiple types of learning	64 (39.30)
Identify phases of learning	34 (20.86)
Equate learning with changed outcomes	115 (70.60)
Primary unit of analysis: Not identified	3 (1.80)
Primary unit of analysis: Individual	14 (8.60)
Primary unit of analysis: Single organization	24 (14.70)
Primary unit of analysis: Multiple organizations, networks, subsystems	91 (55.80)
Primary unit of analysis: Society	24 (14.70)
Primary unit of analysis: Other	7 (4.30)
Intention to empirically link learning to changed behavior	48 (29.50)
Intention to empirically demonstrate what leads to learning	70 (42.90)
Methods: Secondary analysis of literature	31 (19.00)
Methods: Oral interviews	65 (39.90)
Methods: Written surveys	27 (16.60)
Methods: Document analysis	49 (30.10)
Methods: Focus groups/Workshops	38 (23.30)
Methods: Descriptive statistics	31 (19.00)
Methods: Advanced statistics	17 (10.40)
Methods: Are methods described	54 (33.10)
Methods: Network analysis	3 (1.80)

Appendix 3: Articles included in the analysis

Albright, E.A. (2011). Policy change and learning in response to extreme flood events in Hungary: an advocacy coalition approach. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 485–511.

Allan, C., & Curtis, A. (2005). Nipped in the bud: Why regional scale adaptive management is not blooming. Environmental Management, 36(3), 414–425.

Allen, C.R., Fontaine, J.J., Pope, K.L., & Garmestani, A.S. (2011). Adaptive management for a turbulent future. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(5), 1339–1345.

Anderies, J.M., Rodriguez, A.A., Janssen, M.A., & Cifdaloz, O. (2007). Panaceas, uncertainty, and the robust control framework in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(39), 15194–15199.

Angelstam, P., Grodzynskyi, M., Andersson, K., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Khoroshev, A., Kruhlov, I., & Naumov, V. (2013). Measurement, collaborative learning and research for sustainable use of ecosystem services: Landscape concepts and Europe as Laboratory. Ambio, 42(2), 129–145.

Apostolopoulou, E., & Paloniemi, R. (2012). Frames of scale challenges in Finnish and Greek biodiversity conservation. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 9. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss4/art9/

Armitage, D., Marschke, M., & Plummer, R. (2008). Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 86–98.

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

Axelsson, R., Angelstam, P., Myhrman, L., Sadbom, S., Ivarsson, M., Elbakidze, M., Andersson, K., Cupa, P., Diry, C., Doyon, F., Drotz, M.K., Hjorth, A., Hermansson, J.O., Kullberg, T., Lickers, F.H., McTaggart, J., Olsson, A., Pautov, Y., Svensson, L., & Tornblom, J. (2013). Evaluation of multi-level social learning for sustainable landscapes: Perspective of a development initiative in Bergslagen, Sweden. Ambio, 42(2), 241–253.

Bardsley, D.K., & Rogers, G.P. (2010). Prioritizing engagement for sustainable adaptation to climate change: An example from natural resource management in South Australia. Society and Natural Resources, 24(1), 1–17.

Bardsley, D.K., & Sweeney, S.M. (2010). Guiding climate change adaptation within vulnerable natural resources management systems. Environmental Management, 45 (5), 1127–1141.

Bendt, P., Barthel, S., & Colding, J. (2013). Civic greening and environmental learning in public-access community gardens in Berlin. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 18–30.

Blackmore, C. (2005). Learning to appreciate learning systems for environmental decision making: A ‘work in progress’ perspective. System Research and Behavioral Science, 22(4), 329–341.

Bohnet, I., & Smith, D.M. (2007). Planning future landscapes in the Wet Tropics of Australia: A social-ecological framework. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80(1–2), 137–152.

Bomberg, E. (2006). Policy learning in an enlarged European Union: environmental NGOs and new policy instruments. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(2), 248–268.

Bond, A.J., Dockerty, T., Lovett, A., Riche, A.B., Haughton, A.J., Bohan, D.A, Sage, R.B., Shield, I.F., Finch, J.W., Turner, M.M., & Karp, A. (2011). Learning how to deal with values, frames and governance in sustainability appraisal. Regional Studies, 45(8), 1157–1170.

Bos, J.J., Brown, R.R., Farrelly, M.A., & de Haan, F.J. (2013). Enabling sustainable urban water management through governance experimentation. Water Science and Technology, 67(8), 1708–1717.

Bremer, S. (2013). Mobilising high-quality knowledge through dialogic environmental governance: A comparison of approaches and their institutional settings. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 16(1–2), 66–90.

Brock, W.A., & Carpenter, S.R. (2007). Panaceas and diversification of environmental policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(39), 15206–15211.

Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Henriksen, H.J., & van der Keur, P. (2011). More is not always better: Coping with ambiguity in natural resources management. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(1), 78–84.

Brugnach, M., & Ingram, H. (2012). Ambiguity: the challenge of knowing and deciding together. Environmental Science and Policy, 15(1), 60–71.

Brummel, R.F., Nelson, K.C., Souter, S.G., Jakes, P.J., & Williams, D.R. (2010). Social learning in a policy-mandated collaboration: Community wildfire protection planning in the eastern United States. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 53(6), 681–699.

Cashmore, M., Bond, A., & Cobb, D. (2007). The contribution of environmental assessment to sustainable development: Toward a richer empirical understanding. Environmental Management, 40(3), 516–530.

Castella, J.C. (2009). Assessing the role of learning devices and geovisualisation tools for collective action in natural resource management: Experiences from Vietnam. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2), 1313–1319.

Clark J.R.A., & Clarke R. (2011). Local sustainability initiatives in English National Parks: What role for adaptive governance?. Land Use Policy, 28(1), 314–324.

Clark J.R.A., & Semmahasak C. (2013). Evaluating adaptive governance approaches to sustainable water management in north-west Thailand. Environmental Management, 51(4), 882–896.

Collins, K., & Ison, R. (2009). Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: Social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(6), 358–373.

Colvin, J., Ballim, F., Chimbuya, S. Everard, M., Goss, J., Klarenberg, G., Ndlovu, S., Ncala, D., & Weston, D. (2008). Building capacity for co-operative governance as a basis for integrated water resource managing in the Inkomati and Mvoti catchments, South Africa. Water SA, 34(6), 681–689.

Crona, B.I., & Parker, J.N. (2012). Learning in support of governance: Theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 32. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss1/art32/

Cundill, G., Cumming, G.S., Biggs, D., & Fabricius, C. (2012). Soft systems thinking and social learning for adaptive management. Conservation Biology, 26(1), 13–20.

Dana, G.V., & Nelson, K.C. (2012). Social learning through environmental risk analysis and biodiversity and GM maize in South Africa. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(4), 238–252.

Daniels, S.E., & Walker, G.B. (2012). Lessons from the trenches: Twenty years of using systems thinking in natural resource conflict situations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29(2), 104–115.

Davidson-Hunt, I.J. (2006). Adaptive learning networks: Developing resource management knowledge through social learning forums. Human Ecology, 34(4), 593–614.

Davies, A.L., & White, R.M. (2012). Collaboration in natural resource governance: Reconciling stakeholder expectations in deer management in Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management, 112(December 2012), 160–169.

Dessie, Y., Wurzinger, M., & Hauser, M. (2012). The role of social learning for soil conservation: the case of Amba Zuria land management, Ethiopia. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 19(3), 258–267.

Dessie, Y., Schubert U., Wurzinger M., & Hauser M. (2013). The role of institutions and social learning in soil conservation innovations: Implications for policy and practice. Environmental Science and Policy, 27(March 2013), 21–31.

Dewulf, A., Craps, M., Bouwen, R., Taillieu, T., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2005). Integrated management of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors, and diverging frames. Water Science and Technology, 52(6), 115–124.

Diduck, A., Sinclair, A.J., Hostetler, G., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2012). Transformative learning theory, public involvement, and natural resource and environmental management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(10), 1311–1330.

Ducrot, R. (2009). Gaming across scale in peri-urban water management: contribution from two experiences in Bolivia and Brazil. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 16(4), 240–252.

Eakin, H., Eriksen, S., Eikeland, P.-O., & Oyen, C. (2011). Public sector reform and governance for adaptation: Implications of new public management for adaptive capacity in Mexico and Norway. Environmental Management, 47(3), 338–351.

Faysse, N., Errahj, M., Imache, A., Kemmoun, H., & Labbaci, T. (2014). Paving the way for social learning when governance is weak: Supporting dialogue between stakeholders to face a groundwater crisis in Morocco. Society and Natural Resources, 27(3), 249–264.

Feindt, P.H. (2010). Policy-learning and environmental policy integration in the common agricultural policy, 1973–2003. Public Administration, 88(2), 296–314.

Ferioli, F, Schoots, K., & van der Zwaan, B.C.C. (2009). Use and limitations of learning curves for energy technology policy: A component-learning hypothesis. Energy Policy, 37 (7), 2525–2535.

Fischer, C., & Newell, R.G. (2008). Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55(2), 142–162.

Fish, R.D., Ioris, A.A.R., & Watson, N.M. (2010). Integrating water and agricultural management: Collaborative governance for a complex policy problem, Science of the Total Environment, 408(23), 5623–5630.

Galaz, V. (2005). Social-ecological resilience and social conflict: Institutions and strategic adaptation in Swedish water management. Ambio, 37(7), 567–572.

Garmendia, E., & Stagl, S. (2010). Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. Ecological Economics, 69(8), 1712–1722.

Garmendia, E., Gamboa, G., Franco, J., Garmendia, J.M., Liria, P., & Olazabal, M. (2012). Social multi-criteria evaluation as a decision support tool for integrated coastal zone management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 53(7), 385–403.

Genskow, K.D., & Wood, D.M. (2011). Improving voluntary environmental management programs: Facilitating learning and adaptation. Environmental Management, 47(5), 907–916.

Gouldson, A., Hills, P., & Welford, R. (2008). Ecological modernisation and policy learning in Hong Kong. Geoforum, 39(1), 319–330.

Grainger, A. (2012). Forest sustainability indicator systems as procedural policy tools in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 147–160.

Hall, C.M. (2011). Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: from first- and second-order to third-order change?. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5), 649–671.

Haug, C., Huitema, D., & Wenzler, I. (2011). Learning through games? Evaluating the learning effect of a policy exercise on European climate policy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(6), 968–981.

Hayward, G., Diduck, A., & Mitchell, B. (2007). Social learning outcomes in the red river floodway environmental assessment. Environmental Practice, 9(4), 239–250.

Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A.K. (2013). Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 484–512.

Hezri, A.A. (2004). Sustainability indicator system and policy processes in Malaysia: A framework for utilisation and learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 73(4), 357–371.

Hezri, A.A., & Dovers, S.R. (2006). Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: Issues for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 86–99.

Hong, F., & Wang, S. (2012). Climate Policy, Learning, and Technology Adoption in Small Countries. Environmental and Resource Economics, 51(3), 391–411.

Howlett, M., & Joshi-Koop, S. (2011). Transnational learning, policy analytical capacity, and environmental policy convergence: Survey results from Canada. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 85–92.

Hughes, T.P., Gunderson, L.H., Folke, C., Baird, A.H., Bellwood, D., Berkes, F., Crona, B., Helfgott, A., Leslie, H., Norberg, J., Nystrom, M., Olsson, P., Osterblom, H., Scheffer, M., Schuttenberg, H., Steneck, R.S., Tengo, M., Troell, M, Walker, B., Wilson, J., & Worm, B. (2007). Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef and the Grand Canyon world heritage areas. Ambio, 36(7), 586–592.

Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rihoux, B, Schulter, M., Flachner, Z., Neto, S., Koskova, R., Dickens, C., & Kiti, I.N. (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), 145–163.

Ison, R., Blackmore, C., Collins, K, & Furniss, P. (2007). Systematic environmental decision making: designing learning systems. Kybernetes, 36(9–10), 1340–1361.

Ison, R., Roling, N., & Watson, D. (2007). Challenges to science and society in the sustainable management and use of water: investigating the role of social learning. Environmental Science and Policy, 10(6), 499–511.

Ison R., Blackmore C., & Iaquinto B.L. (2013). Towards systemic and adaptive governance: Exploring the revealing and concealing aspects of contemporary social-learning metaphors. Ecological Economics, 87(March, 2013), 34–42.

Jha-Thakur, U., Gazzola, P., Peel, D., Fischer, T.B., & Kidd, S. (2009). Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment - the significance of learning. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(2), 133–144.

Karp, L. (2012). The effect of learning on membership and welfare in an international environmental agreement. Climatic Change, 110(3–4), 499–505.

Kashyap, A. (2004). Water governance: Learning by developing adaptive capacity to incorporate climate variability and change. Water Science and Technology, 49(7), 141–146.

Kauffman, C.M., & Martin, P.L. (2014). Scaling up Buen Vivir: Globalizing local environmental governance from Ecuador. Global Environmental Politics, 14(1), 40–58.

Keen, M., & Mahanty, S. (2006). Learning in sustainable natural resource management: Challenges and opportunities in the Pacific. Society and Natural Resources, 19(6), 497–513.

Keith, D.A., Martin, T.G., McDonald-Madden, E., &Walters, C. (2011). Uncertainty and adaptive management for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 144 (4), 1175–1178.

Kiss, B., & Neij, L. (2011). The importance of learning when supporting emergent technologies for energy efficiency-A case study on policy intervention for learning for the development of energy efficient windows in Sweden. Energy Policy, 39(10), 6514–6524.

Kokkinakis, A.K., & Andreopoulou, Z.S. (2009). Teaching and learning sustainability in fisheries in lake ecosystems using ICT-based systems. International Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 10(2), 500–509.

Kolstad, C.D., & Ulph, A. (2011). Uncertainty, Learning and Heterogeneity in International Environmental Agreements. Environmental and Resource Economics, 50(3), 389–403.

Kooiman, J., & Jentoft, S. (2009). Meta-governance: Values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. Public Administration, 87(4), 818–836.

Krasny, M.E., Lundholm, C., & Plummer, R. (2010). Environmental education, resilience, and learning: reflection and moving forward. Environmental Education Research, 16(5–6), 665–672.

Kroger L. (2005). Development of the Finnish agri-environmental policy as a learning process. European Environment, 15(1), 13–26.

Lankester, A.J. (2013). Conceptual and operational understanding of learning for sustainability: A case study of the beef industry in north-eastern Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, 119, 182–193.

Larsen, S.C., Foulkes, M., Sorenson, C.J., & Thompson, A. (2011). Environmental learning and the social construction of an exurban landscape in Fremont County, Colorado. Geoforum, 42(1), 83–93.

Lee, T., & van de Meene, S. (2012). Who teaches and who learns? Policy learning through the C40 cities climate network. Policy Sciences, 45(3), 199–220.

Lehtonen, M. (2007). Environmental policy integration through OECD peer reviews: Integrating the economy with the environment or the environment with the economy? Environmental Politics, 16(1), 15–35.

Levrel, H., & Bouamrane, M. (2008). Instrumental learning and sustainability indicators: Outputs from co-construction experiments in West African biosphere reserves. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 28. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art28/

Lin, H. (2012). Strategic Alliances for Environmental Improvements. Business and Society, 51(2), 335–348.

Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., & Griffith, R. (2009). Multi-level Environmental Governance: Lessons from Australian natural resource management. Australian Geographer, 40(2), 169–186.

Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Hockings, M., Haward, M., & Kriwoken, L. (2012). Marine biodiversity conservation governance and management: Regime requirements for global environmental change. Ocean and Coastal Management, 69, 160–172.

Lof, A. (2010). Exploring adaptability through learning layers and learning loops. Environmental Education Research, 16 (5–6), 529–543.

Luks, F., & Siebenhuner, B. (2007). Transdisciplinarity for social learning? The contribution of the German socio-ecological research initiative to sustainability governance. Ecological Economics, 63 (2–3), 418–426.

Lundberg, K. (2011). A systems thinking approach to environmental follow-up in a Swedish central public authority: Hindrances and possibilities for learning from experience. Environmental Management, 48 (1), 123–133.

Lundholm, C., & Plummer, R. (2010). Resilience and learning: a conspectus for environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 16 (5–6) 475–491.

Lynam, T., de Jong, W., Sheil, D., Kusumanto, T., & Evans, K. (2007). A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecology and Society, 12 (1), 5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art5/

Mahanty, S., Stacey, N., Holland, P., Wright, A., & Menzies, S. (2007). Learning to learn: Designing monitoring plans in the Pacific Islands International Waters Project. Ocean and Coastal Management, 50 (5–6), 392–410.

Manring, S.L. (2007). Creating and managing interorganizational learning networks to achieve sustainable ecosystem management. Organization and Environment, 20 (3), 325–346.

Marschke, M., & Sinclair, A.J. (2009). Learning for sustainability: Participatory resource management in Cambodian fishing villages. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 206–216.

Maurel, P., Craps, M., Cernesson, F, Raymond, R., Valkering, P., & Ferrand, N. (2007). Concepts and methods for analysing the role of information and communication (IC-tools) in social learning processes for river basin management. Environmental Modelling and Software, 22 (5), 630–639.

McDaniels, T.L., & Gregory, R. (2004). Learning as an objective within a structured risk management decision process. Environmental Science and Technology, 38 (7), 1921–1926.

Measham, T.G. (2006). Learning about environments: The significance of primal landscapes. Environmental Management, 38 (3), 426–434.

Measham, T.G. (2009). Social learning through evaluation: A case study of overcoming constraints for management of dryland salinity. Environmental Management, 43 (6), 1096–1107.

Michaels, S., Goucher, N.P., & McCarthy, D. (2006). Policy windows, policy change, and organizational learning: Watersheds in the evolution of watershed management. Environmental Management, 39 (6), 983–992.

Michel, D. (2009). Foxes, hedgehogs, and greenhouse governance: Knowledge, uncertainty, and international policy-making in a warming world. Applied Energy, 86 (2), 258–264.

Mills, J., Gibbon, D., Ingram, J., Reed, M., Short, C., & Dwyer, J. (2011). Organising collective action for effective environmental management and social learning in Wales. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17 (1), 69–83.

Miranda, M., Dieperink, C., & Glasbergen, P. (2006). Costa Rican environmental service payment: The use of a financial instrumention participatory forest management. Environmental Management, 38(4), 562–571.

Mistry, J., Berardi, A., Roopsind, I., Davis, O., Haynes, L., Davis, O., & Simpson, M. (2011). Capacity building for adaptive management: A problem-based learning approach. Development in Practice, 21 (2), 190–204.

Muller, M., & Siebenhuner, B. (2007). Policy instruments for sustainability-oriented organizational learning. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16 (3), 232–245.

Munaretto S., & Huitema D. (2012). Adaptive comanagement in the Venice lagoon? An analysis of current water and environmental management practices and prospects for change. Ecology and Society, 17 (2), 19. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss2/art19/.

Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2012). Time to talk? How the structure of dialog processes shapes stakeholder learning in participatory water resources management. Ecology and Society, 17 (1), 3. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss1/art3/Accessed 25 April 2016.

Newig, J., Gunther D., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2010). Synapses in the network: Learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 24. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art24/Accessed 25 April 2016.

Nguyen, T.T.H., & Ford, A. (2010). Learning from neighbors: economic and environmental impacts from intensive shrimp farming in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. Sustainability, 2(7), 2144–2162.

Nguyen, N.C., Bosch, O.J.H., & Maani, K.E. (2011). Creating “learning laboratories” for sustainable development in biospheres: a systems thinking approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 28(1), 51–62.

Nilsson, M. (2005). The role of assessments and institutions for policy learning: A study on Swedish climate and nuclear policy formation. Policy Sciences, 38(4), 225–249.

Norgaard, R.B., Kallis, G., & Kiparsky, M. (2009). Collectively engaging complex socio-ecological systems: re-envisioning science, governance, and the California Delta. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(6), 644–652.

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 and Natural Resources, 27, 436–450.

Pahl-Wostl, C., & Hare, M. (2004). Processes of social learning in integrated resources management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14(3), 193–206.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., & Taillieu, T. (2007). Social learning and water resources management. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art5/

Pahl-Wostl, C., Tabara, D., Bouwen, R., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Ridder, D., & Taillieu T. (2008). The importance of social learning and culture for sustainable water management. Ecological Economics, 64 (3), 484–495.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Jeffrey, P., Isendahl, N., & Brugnach, M. (2011). Maturing the new water management paradigm: processing from aspiration to practice. Water Resources Management, 25, 837–856.

Petheram, L., High, C., Campbell, B.M., & Stacey, N. (2011). Lenses for learning: Visual techniques in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10), 2734–2745.

Pettersson, F., & Soderholm, P. (2009). The diffusion of renewable electricity in the presence of climate policy and technology learning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 13(8), 2031–2040.

Plant, R., & Ryan, P. (2013). Ecosystem services as a practicable concept for natural resource management: Some lessons from Australia. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystems Services and Management, 9 (1), 44–53.

Plummer, R., Armitage, D.R., & de Loe, R.C. (2013). Adaptive comanagement and its relationship to environmental governance. Ecology and Society, 18 (1), 21. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art21/.

Querol, M.A.P., Suutari, T., & Seppanen, L. (2010). Learning as the construction and remediation of activity Systems: Environmental management in biogas production. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension: Competence for Rural Innovation and Transformation, 16 (4), 373–384.

Querou, N., & Tidball, M. (2010). Incomplete information, learning, and natural resource management. European Journal of Operational Research, 204 (3), 630–638.

Raymond, C.M., & Cleary, J. (2013). A tool and process that facilitate community capacity building and social learning for natural resource management. Ecology and Society, 18 (1): 25. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art25/.

Rist, S., Chidambaranathan, M., Escobar, C., Wiesmann, U., & Zimmermann, A. (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.

Rivers, N., & Jaccard, M. (2006). Choice of environmental policy in the presence of learning by doing. Energy Economics, 28 (2), 223–242.

Robards, M.D., & Lovecraft, A.L. (2010). Evaluating Comanagement for Social-Ecological fit: Indigenous priorities and agency mandates for Pacific Walrus. Policy Studies Journal, 38 (2), 257–279.

Rodela, R., Cundill, G.,& Wals, A.E.J. (2012). An analysis of the methodological underpinnings of social learning research in natural resource management. Ecological Economics, 77, 16–26.

Rodriguez, S.D.A., & Vergara-Tenorio, M.d.C. (2007). Reflections on the social learning process for community work in rural areas of Mexico. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, 3 (1), 31–45.

Romijn, H., Raven, R.,& de Visser, I. (2010). Biomass energy experiments in rural India: Insights from learning-based development approaches and lessons for Strategic Niche Management. Environmental Science and Policy, 13 (4), 326–338.

Roome, N., & Wijen, F. (2006). Stakeholder power and organizational learning in corporate environmental management. Organization Studies, 27 (2), 235–263.

Ruddy, T.F., & Hilty, L.M. (2008). Impact assessment and policy learning in the European Commission. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28 (2–3), 90–105.

Sanchez, L.E., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2011). Learning about knowledge management for improving environmental impact assessment in a government agency: The Western Australian experience. Journal of Environmental Management, 92 (9), 2260–2271.

Sanginga, P.C., Kamugisha, R.N., & Martin, A.M. (2010). Strengthening social capital for adaptive governance of natural resources: A participatory learning and action research for bylaws reforms in Uganda. Society and Natural Resources, 23 (8), 695–710.

Schultz L., & Lundholm C. (2010). Learning for resilience? Exploring learning opportunities in biosphere reserves. Environmental Education Research, 16 (5–6), 645–663.

Schultz, C., & Nie, M.A. (2012). Decision-making triggers, adaptive management, and natural resources law and planning. Natural Resources Journal, 52, 443–521.

Secco, L., Pettenella, D., & Gatto, P. (2011). Forestry governance and collective learning process in Italy: Likelihood or utopia? Forest Policy and Economics, 13 (2), 104–112.

Siebenhuner, B. (2008). Learning in international organizations in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8 (4), 92–116.

Sinclair A.J., Diduck A., & Fitzpatrick P. (2008). Conceptualizing learning for sustainability through environmental assessment: critical reflections on 15 years of research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28 (7), 415–428.

Smajgl, A. (2010). Challenging beliefs through multi-level participatory modelling in Indonesia. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25 (11), 1470–1476.

Steele, W., Sporne, I., Dale P., Shearer, S., Singh-Peterson, L., Serrao-Neumann, S., Crick, F., Choy, D.L., & Eslami-Andargoli, L. (2014). Learning from cross-border arrangements to support climate change adaptation in Australia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57 (5), 682–703.

Steyaert, P., Barzman, M., Billaud, J.-P., Brives, H., Hubert, B., Ollivier, G., & Roche, B. (2007). The role of knowledge and research in facilitating social learning among stakeholders in natural resources management in the French Atlantic coastal wetlands. Environmental Science and Policy, 10 (6), 537–550.

Steyaert, P., & Jiggins, J. (2007). Governance of complex environmental situations through social learning: a synthesis of SLIM’s lessons for research, policy and practice. Environmental Science and Policy, 10 (6), 575–586.

Szarka, J. (2006). Wind power, policy learning and paradigm change. Energy Policy, 34 (17), 3041–3048.

Tabara, J.D., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). Sustainability learning in natural resource use and management. Ecology and Society, 12 (2), 3. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art3/

Taplin, R.E. (2004). Australian experience with ‘new’ environmental policy instruments: The Greenhouse challenge and Greenhouse friendly programs. Energy and Environment, 15(3), 437–449.

Tarui, N., & Polasky, S. (2005). Environmental regulation with technology adoption, learning and strategic behavior. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50 (3), 447–467.

Temenos, C., & McCann, E. (2012). The local politics of policy mobility: Learning, persuasion, and the production of a municipal sustainability fix. Environment and Planning A, 44 (6), 1389–1406.

Tompkins, E.L., & Adger, W.N. (2004). Does adaptive management of resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecology and Society, 9 (2), 10. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10/

Trimble, M., & Berkes, F. (2013). Participatory research towards co-management: Lessons from artisanal fisheries in coastal Uruguay. Journal of Environmental Management, 128, 768–778.

Underdal, A. (2013). Meeting common environmental challenges: The co-evolution of policies and practices. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 13(1), 15–30.

van de Kerkhof, M., & Wieczorek, A. (2005). Learning and stakeholder participation in transition processes towards sustainability: Methodological considerations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72 (6), 733–747.

van der Wal, M., De Kraker, J., Offermans, A., Kroeze, C., Kirschner, P.A., & van Ittersum, M. (2014). Measuring social learning in participatory approaches to natural resource management.. Environmental Policy and Governance, 24 (1), 1–15.

Videira, N., Antunes, P., Santos, R., & Lopes, R. (2010). A participatory modelling approach to support integrated sustainability assessment processes. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27(4), 446–460.

Wang E.T.G., Wei H.-L., Jiang J.J., & Klein G. (2006). User diversity impact on project performance in an environment with organizational technology learning and management review processes. International Journal of Project Management, 24(5), 405–411.

Watson, A. (2013). Misunderstanding the “nature” of co-management: A geography of regulatory science and indigenous knowledges (IK). Environmental Management, 52(5), 1085–1102.

Webster, M., Jakobovits, L.,& Norton, J. (2008). Learning about climate change and implications for near-term policy. Climatic Change, 89(1–2), 67–85.

Wei Y., Ison R., Colvin J., & Collins K. (2012). Reframing water governance: A multi-perspective study of an over-engineered catchment in China. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(3), 297–318.

Weible, C.M., Pattison, A., & Sabatier, P.A. (2010). Harnessing expert-based information for learning and the sustainable management of complex socio-ecological systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 13(6), 522–534.

Wheater, H., & Gober, P. (2013). Water Security in the Canadian Prairies: science and management challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(2002). http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/371/2002/20120409.full.pdf.

Williams, B.K. (2011). Adaptive management of natural resources-framework and issues. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(5), 1346–1353.

Wilner, K.B., Wiber, M., Charles, A., Kearney, J., Landry, M., & Wilson, L. (2012). Transformative learning for better resource management: The role of critical reflection. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(10), 1331–1247.

Witteveen, L., & Enserink, B. (2007). Visual problem appraisal—Kerala’s coast: a simulation for social learning about coastal zone management. Simulation and Gaming, 38(2), 278–295.

Wolsink, M. (2010). Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 302–311.

Zamudio, F., Bello-Baltazar, E., & Estrada-Lugo, E.I.J. (2013). Learning to hunt Crocodiles: Social organization in the process of knowledge generation and the emergence of management practices among Mayan of Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 9, 35.

Zito, A.R. (2009). European agencies as agents of governance and EU learning. Journal of European Public Policy, 16 (8), 1224–1243.