Learning-based intervention for river restoration: analyzing the lack of outcomes in the Ljusnan River basin, Sweden

Abstract

We focus on a large and sustained stakeholder process for river restoration related to hydropower production that failed to reach any significant natural resource management outcomes. We explore to what extent the stakeholder process can be characterized as a learning-based intervention as well as the reasons for the lack of outcomes. The analysis draws on insights from existing literature of procedural and institutional factors identified to foster and hinder social learning in stakeholder processes. The analysis finds that the stakeholder process featured virtually all fostering procedural factors as well as various fostering institutional factors identified in the literature. The main hindering institutional element consisted of strong pre-existing water rights, granted by the legislation governing hydropower production and river restoration in Sweden. Existing legislation provided a key stakeholder with the power to successfully reach its objective through the unilateral action of exiting the stakeholder process. Our results demonstrate that various learning outcomes, including knowledge acquisition, trust building, and the creation of networks are possible in stakeholder processes that feature power imbalances. The results also suggest that, ultimately, the power imbalance limited the process from reaching significant natural resource management outcomes, both in the short and longer terms. Based on comparison with international cases, the results reveal the need to focus attention on the national scale to remediate power imbalances in stakeholder processes that arise from a share of stakeholders possessing strong prior rights to the use of natural resources. In such cases, sustainable management of natural resources could be better served by efforts to modify existing legislation, rather than investments in resource-intensive learning-based interventions.

The social learning potential of participatory water valuation workshops: A case study in Tasmania, Australia

“…For example, Rudberg and Smits (2018) reflect on a social learning process that ran for 10 years in Sweden, and conclude that no substantive outcomes emerged for natural resource management although other relational and knowledge outcomes were observed. Indeed, in our case as well, beyond a change in understanding of participants, the most tangible substantive outcome was the inclusion of a pre-planning learning approach within the water management planning process.…”

“…With the benefit of hindsight, we propose that a critical approach to evaluation (such as. Rudberg and Smits (2018) or Reynolds (2007) would help to identify contextual factors that prevent outcomes from being realized.…”

“…Shared understanding is perceived as a precursor for deliberation and arriving at consensus. However, a shared understanding and consensus may not be achievable, especially if highly contested issues are at stake, if values and beliefs are polarized or deeprooted (Van Bommel, Röling, Aarts, & Turnhout, 2009), if institutional commitments differ (Allan & Wilson, 2009;Cundill & Rodela, 2012) or if there are asymmetries in power relationships between participants (Lumosi et al, 2019;Rudberg & Smits, 2018). The situational context has a significant influence on behaviors, such that a shared understanding is not a predictor of social change.…”

Identifying leverage points for shifting Water-Energy-Food nexus cases towards sustainability through the Networks of Action Situations approach combined with systems thinking

“…However, because institutions tend to be self-reinforcing and resistant to change, institutional change such as the extension of the right to appeal can be difficult despite significant and dedicated processes of co-production of knowledge among stakeholders (Rudberg and Smits 2018). Therefore, the fifth deep leverage point-raising awareness of the impacts of climate change on Swiss water bodies-is essential to create a shared systemic problem understanding, which is crucial for system change and the implementation of the other leverage points (Kellner et al 2019;Enfors-Kautsky et al 2021).…”

Reconciling Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Governance: A Social Network Perspective

“…Thus, in spite of the observed and theorized benefits of cooperation in environmental governance, simply advocating collaborative environmental governance as an all-encompassing solution to all kinds of environmental problems without acknowledging the difficulties that exist in achieving fruitful cooperation is clearly not warranted (10). Moreover, even if a collaborative initiative is able to overcome some of these critical barriers so as to enhance deliberative and collective learning and understanding, this does not necessarily lead to any substantial behavioral changes or environmental improvements (42)(43)(44). Collaborative outcomes could be merely symbolic policies and/or actors agreeing on lowest common denominators (45,46).…”