IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i14p7744-d592478.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Sustainability as Social Learning: Insights from Multi-Stakeholder Environmental Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Tasos Hovardas

    (Research in Science and Technology Education Group, University of Cyprus, Nicosia 1678, Cyprus
    CALLISTO-Wildlife and Nature Conservation Society, Thessaloniki 54621, Greece)

Abstract

Social sustainability has for long been either neglected or downplayed in scientific literature and policy making and it remains an unsettled concept. The present paper critically examines several explanations for the unequal development of the social component of sustainability and suggests that social learning can serve as an insightful anchor for conceptualizing and operationalizing social sustainability. Collaborative governance is used to showcase this approach, specifically, a targeted review of multi-stakeholder schemes in natural resource management, wildlife conservation, and protected area governance. These schemes can exemplify a wide array of commonalities between the fields of social sustainability and social learning and reveal a fruitful cross-fertilization of the two concepts. The paper wishes to make two contributions. First, a specific dialectic between stakeholder collaboration and conflict under power asymmetries will be illustrated, which is characteristic in the operation of many multi-stakeholder governance schemes. Second, the need for scaffolding social learning in such schemes will be demonstrated so that a process-oriented account of social sustainability is attained. The way out offered by the present paper is that the dynamics between collaboration and conflict, properly managed by means of a toolkit with social learning templates for multi-stakeholder environmental governance schemes, may serve as a precondition for innovations sought.

Suggested Citation

  • Tasos Hovardas, 2021. "Social Sustainability as Social Learning: Insights from Multi-Stakeholder Environmental Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-20, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:14:p:7744-:d:592478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7744/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7744/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Fougère & Nikodemus Solitander, 2020. "Dissent in Consensusland: An Agonistic Problematization of Multi-stakeholder Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(4), pages 683-699, July.
    2. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    3. Richard Bull & Judith Petts & James Evans, 2008. "Social learning from public engagement: dreaming the impossible?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(5), pages 701-716.
    4. Rodela, Romina & Cundill, Georgina & Wals, Arjen E.J., 2012. "An analysis of the methodological underpinnings of social learning research in natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 16-26.
    5. Robert H. W. Boyer & Nicole D. Peterson & Poonam Arora & Kevin Caldwell, 2016. "Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-18, September.
    6. Lara B. Fowler & Xiaoxin Shi, 2016. "Human conflicts and the food, energy, and water nexus: building collaboration using facilitation and mediation to manage environmental disputes," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(1), pages 104-122, March.
    7. John S. Dryzek & Simon Niemeyer, 2006. "Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 634-649, July.
    8. Jens Nilsson & Annica Sandström & Daniel Nohrstedt, 2020. "Beliefs, social identity, and the view of opponents in Swedish carnivore management policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 453-472, September.
    9. Valeria Salvatori & Estelle Balian & Juan Carlos Blanco & Xavier Carbonell & Paolo Ciucci & László Demeter & Agnese Marino & Andrea Panzavolta & Andrea Sólyom & Yorck von Korff & Juliette Claire Young, 2021. "Are Large Carnivores the Real Issue? Solutions for Improving Conflict Management through Stakeholder Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, April.
    10. Siebenhüner, Bernd & Rodela, Romina & Ecker, Franz, 2016. "Social learning research in ecological economics: A survey," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P1), pages 116-126.
    11. Benson, David & Lorenzoni, Irene & Cook, Hadrian, 2016. "Evaluating social learning in England flood risk management: An ‘individual-community interaction’ perspective," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P2), pages 326-334.
    12. Jennifer Garard & Larissa Koch & Martin Kowarsch, 2018. "Elements of success in multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, December.
    13. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    14. Laura Galuppo & Mara Gorli & Giuseppe Scaratti & Cesare Kaneklin, 2014. "Building social sustainability: multi-stakeholder processes and conflict management," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(4), pages 685-701, September.
    15. Marita Basson & Henriette van Rensburg & Michael Cuthill & Michael O. Erdiaw-Kwasie, 2018. "Is regional government-governance nexus delivering on social sustainability promises? Empirical evidence from Moranbah in Australia," Local Government Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(6), pages 826-847, November.
    16. Fikret Berkes, 2017. "Environmental Governance for the Anthropocene? Social-Ecological Systems, Resilience, and Collaborative Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-12, July.
    17. Fred Saunders & Michael Gilek & Anda Ikauniece & Ralph Voma Tafon & Kira Gee & Jacek Zaucha, 2020. "Theorizing Social Sustainability and Justice in Marine Spatial Planning: Democracy, Diversity, and Equity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, March.
    18. M. Muro & P. Jeffrey, 2008. "A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(3), pages 325-344.
    19. Michael Cuthill, 2010. "Strengthening the ‘social’ in sustainable development: Developing a conceptual framework for social sustainability in a rapid urban growth region in Australia," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(6), pages 362-373, November/.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrea K. Gerlak & Tanya Heikkila & Sharon L. Smolinski & Dave Huitema & Derek Armitage, 2018. "Learning our way out of environmental policy problems: a review of the scholarship," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 335-371, September.
    2. Anna Ernst, 2018. "Does Participation Foster Transformation Processes towards Sustainable Energy Systems? A Case Study of the German Energy Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-27, November.
    3. Niko Schäpke & Ines Omann & Julia M. Wittmayer & Frank Van Steenbergen & Mirijam Mock, 2017. "Linking Transitions to Sustainability: A Study of the Societal Effects of Transition Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-36, May.
    4. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    5. Robin Hogrefe & Sabine Bohnet-Joschko, 2023. "The Social Dimension of Corporate Sustainability: Review of an Evolving Research Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-22, February.
    6. Einsiedel, Edna F. & Boyd, Amanda D. & Medlock, Jennifer & Ashworth, Peta, 2013. "Assessing socio-technical mindsets: Public deliberations on carbon capture and storage in the context of energy sources and climate change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 149-158.
    7. Merlina Missimer & Patricia Lagun Mesquita, 2022. "Social Sustainability in Business Organizations: A Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-13, February.
    8. Robert-Jan Den Haan & Mascha C. Van der Voort, 2018. "On Evaluating Social Learning Outcomes of Serious Games to Collaboratively Address Sustainability Problems: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-26, December.
    9. Ison, Ray & Blackmore, Chris & Iaquinto, Benjamin L., 2013. "Towards systemic and adaptive governance: Exploring the revealing and concealing aspects of contemporary social-learning metaphors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 34-42.
    10. Sarah Clement, 2022. "Knowledge governance for the Anthropocene: Pluralism, populism, and decision‐making," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(S3), pages 11-23, December.
    11. Allain, Sandrine & Plumecocq, Gaël & Leenhardt, Delphine, 2017. "How Do Multi-criteria Assessments Address Landscape-level Problems? A Review of Studies and Practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 282-295.
    12. E. M. Nkoana & T. Waas & A. Verbruggen & C. J. Burman & J. Hugé, 2017. "Analytic framework for assessing participation processes and outcomes of climate change adaptation tools," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 1731-1760, October.
    13. Kaori Kitagawa, 2021. "Disaster risk reduction activities as learning," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(3), pages 3099-3118, February.
    14. Rodela, Romina & Cundill, Georgina & Wals, Arjen E.J., 2012. "An analysis of the methodological underpinnings of social learning research in natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 16-26.
    15. Godfred Addai & Matthew Abunyewah & Michael Odei Erdiaw-Kwasie & Seth Asare Okyere & Michael Asiedu Gyensare & Lawrence Guodaar, 2023. "Application of the Rural Web Framework within the Context of Sustainable Development: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, February.
    16. Feliciano, D. & Blagojević, D. & Böhling, K. & Hujala, T. & Lawrence, A. & Lidestav, G. & Ludvig, A. & Turner, T. & Weiss, G. & Zivojinovic, I., 2019. "Learning about forest ownership and management issues in Europe while travelling: The Travellab approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 32-42.
    17. Roope Husgafvel, 2021. "Exploring Social Sustainability Handprint—Part 2: Sustainable Development and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-35, October.
    18. Rehana Shrestha & Johannes Flacke & Javier Martinez & Martin Van Maarseveen, 2018. "Interactive Cumulative Burden Assessment: Engaging Stakeholders in an Adaptive, Participatory and Transdisciplinary Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-23, February.
    19. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    20. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf & Burton St. John & Pragati Rawat & Michelle Covi & Janet Gail Nicula & Carol Considine, 2019. "The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 409-418, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:14:p:7744-:d:592478. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.