Social learning is increasingly cited as an essential component of sustainable natural resource management and the promotion of desirable behavioural change. This paper attempts to contribute to the current debate about social learning and public participation by reviewing the many perspectives on social learning and associated claims and benefits. Based on this analysis the paper identifies conceptual and practical weaknesses of the concept of social learning and their implications for the design of participatory processes in natural resource management.social learning, natural resource management, participation,

No abstract

ABSTRACT. Public participation is increasingly viewed as a means to initiate social learning among stakeholders, resource managers, and policy makers rather than to ensure democratic representation. This growing understanding of participatory activities as learning platforms can be seen as a direct response to shifts in how natural resources management is framed, namely as uncertain, non-linear, and interlinked with the human dimensions. Social learning as it is discussed within the natural resources management (NRM) context features a process of collective and communicative learning that is thought to enable stakeholders to arrive at a shared understanding of a specific environmental situation and to develop new solutions as well as ways of acting together in pursuit of a shared ambition. Yet, although case-study research on social-learning processes provides multiple accounts of positive experiences, there are also reports of mistaken learning, the intensification of tensions or conflict, and failure to reach agreement or verifiable consensus. Based on results of a postal survey of stakeholder experiences in two involvement initiatives, we can draw two main conclusions: First, social learning is a multidimensional and dynamic process and, as such, evolves in stages and to various degrees. Second, stakeholder processes are shaped and affected by a multitude of factors that constrain the occurrence of learning processes and eventually limit the extent to which these can contribute to sustainable NRM. Foremost, the fact that the intensity of stakeholder learning differed in the two investigated initiatives reinforces the role organizational arrangements play in encouraging the type of communicative process necessary for stakeholder learning.

Soil quality is in decline in many parts of the world, in part due to the intensification of agricultural practices. Whilst economic instruments and regulations can help incentivise uptake of more sustainable soil management practices, they rarely motivate long-term behavior change when used alone. We are now beginning to pay attention to the complex social factors that affect uptake of sustainable soil management practices. To understand why some communities try these practices whilst others do not, we undertook a narrative review to understand how social capital influences adoption. We found that the four components of social capitaltrust, norms, connectedness and power -can all influence the decision of farmers to change their soil management. Specifically, information flows more effectively across trusted, diverse networks where social norms exist to encourage innovation. Uptake is more limited in homogenous, close-knit farming communities that do not have many links with non-farmers and where there is a strong social norm to adhere to the status quo. Power can enhance or inhibit uptake depending on how it is managed. Future research, policy and practice should consider whether a lack of effective social capital could hinder uptake of new practices and, if so, which aspects of social capital could be developed to increase adoption of sustainable soil management practices. Enabling diverse, collaborative groups (including farmers, advisers and government officials) to work constructively together could help build effective social capital, where they can co-define, -develop and -enact measures to sustainably manage soils.

Soils form the basis for agricultural production and other ecosystem services, and soil management should aim at improving their quality and resilience. Within the SoilCare project, the concept of soil-improving cropping systems (SICS) was developed as a holistic approach to facilitate the adoption of soil management that is sustainable and profitable. SICS selected with stakeholders were monitored and evaluated for environmental, sociocultural, and economic effects to determine profitability and sustainability. Monitoring results were upscaled to European level using modelling and Europe-wide data, and a mapping tool was developed to assist in selection of appropriate SICS across Europe. Furthermore, biophysical, sociocultural, economic, and policy reasons for (non)adoption were studied. Results at the plot/farm scale showed a small positive impact of SICS on environment and soil, no effect on sustainability, and small negative impacts on economic and sociocultural dimensions. Modelling showed that different SICS had different impacts across Europe—indicating the importance of understanding local dynamics in Europe-wide assessments. Work on adoption of SICS confirmed the role economic considerations play in the uptake of SICS, but also highlighted social factors such as trust. The project’s results underlined the need for policies that support and enable a transition to more sustainable agricultural practices in a coherent way.