Advertisement

The role of social learning in adaptiveness: insights from water management

  • Louis Lebel
  • Torsten Grothmann
  • Bernd Siebenhüner
Original paper

Abstract

The article introduces the notion of adaptiveness and discusses the role of social learning in it. Adaptiveness refers to the capacity of a social actor or social–ecological system to adapt in response to, or in anticipation of, changes in the environment. We explore arguments both from a theoretical perspective and through illustrations from case studies of water management in the Alps of Europe and Mekong in southeast Asia. We propose and illustrate that social learning processes are important for building adaptiveness in several ways and at different scales. Social learning can help cope with informational uncertainty; reduce normative uncertainty; build consensus on criteria for monitoring and evaluation; empower stakeholders to take adaptive actions; reduce conflicts and identify synergies between adaptations; and improve fairness of decisions and actions. Findings in the case studies provide some support for these generalizations but often with caveats related to diversity of stakeholder interests, levels of shared understanding versus contested knowledge and scale of coordination. For this reason, we suggest that future work pays greater attention to issues of agency, knowledge and scale: What strategies have individuals and organizations pursued in successful examples of social learning? How are the boundaries and interactions between science, policy and practice managed? How does social learning occur across spatial and temporal scales?

Keywords

Adaptation European Alps Fairness Social learning Mekong River Uncertainty Water management 

Abbreviations

BDP

Basin Development Plan

DSF

Decision Support Framework

EU

European Union

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IUCN

World Conservation Union

IWRM

Integrated Water Resources Management

M-POWER

Mekong Program on Water Environment and Resilience

MRC

Mekong River Commission

WFD

Water Framework Directive

Notes

Acknowledgments

The case study in the Mekong Region was carried out with support from IFAD and Echel Eau for financial support through the Challenge Program on Water and Food for project PN50 (M-POWER). The analysis is also a contribution to the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 226571 for the Twin2Go project. The case studies in the European Alps were carried out and partly analysed in the context of a study conducted by a consortium of various European partners including Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany; Umweltbundesamt Germany; Umweltbundesamt Austria; Accademia Europea di Bolzano (EURAC), Italy; Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Switzerland; Institut de la Montagne, France; ARSO Ljubljana, Slovenia. The study was funded by the European Environment Agency, UBA Dessau and UBA Vienna. Finally, thanks to the two anonymous reviewers and the special issue editors Frank Biermann and Ruben Zondervan for their constructive feedback.

References

  1. Adger, N. W. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 268–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M. M. Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit, B., & Takahashi, K. (2007). Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 717–743). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  3. Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A. & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society, 9, 18. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss11/art18.
  4. Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55, 115–125.Google Scholar
  5. Armitage, D., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R., Charles, A., Davidson-Hunt, I., et al. (2009). Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 7, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baran, E., & Myschowoda, C. (2009). Dams and fisheries in the Mekong Basin. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 12, 227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baran, E., Schwartz, N., & Kura, Y. (2009). Climate change and fisheries: Vulnerability and adaptation in Cambodia. Penang: WorldFish Center.Google Scholar
  8. Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1692–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berkes, F., Hughes, T. P., Steneck, R. S., Wilson, J. A., Bellwood, D. R., Crona, B., et al. (2006). Globalization, roving bandits and marine resources. Science, 311, 1557–1558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biermann, F. (2007). ‘Earth system governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change. Human and Policy Dimensions, 17(3–4), 326–337.Google Scholar
  11. Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Schroeder, H., Siebenhüner, B., & Zondervan, R. (2010). Earth system governance: A research framework. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4).Google Scholar
  12. Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Schroeder, H., & Siebenhüner, B. with contributions from Conca, K., da Costa Ferreira, L., Desai, B., Tay, S., & Zondervan, R. (2009). Earth system governance: People, places and the planet. Science and implementation plan of the Earth System Governance Project. Earth System Governance Report 1, IHDP Report 20. IHDP: The Earth System Governance Project, Bonn.Google Scholar
  13. Browder, G. (2000). An analysis of the negotiation for the 1995 Mekong agreement. International Negotiation, 5, 237–261.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, I. (2007). Perceptions, data, and river management: Lessons from the Mekong River. Water Resources Research, 43, WO2407.Google Scholar
  15. Costa-Cabral, M., Richey, J., Goteti, G., Lettenmaier, D., Feldkotter, C., & Snidvongs, A. (2007). Landscape structure and use, climate, and water movement in the Mekong River basin. Hydrological Processes, 22, 1731–1746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dore, J. (2007). Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPS): Unfulfilled potential. In L. Lebel, J. Dore, R. Daniel, & Y. Koma (Eds.), Democratizing water governance in the Mekong region (pp. 197–226). Chiang Mai: Mekong Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dore, J., & Lazarus, K. (2009). Demarginalising the Mekong River Commission. In F. Molle, T. Foran, & M. Käkönen (Eds.), Contested waterscapes in the Mekong Region: Hydropower, livelihoods and governance (pp. 357–382). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  18. Dore, J. & Lebel, L. (2010). Deliberation, scale and the governance of water resources in the Mekong Region. Environmental Management, 46, 60–80.Google Scholar
  19. Dryzek, J. S. (2001a). Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29, 651–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dryzek, J. S. (2001b). Resistance is fertile. Global Environmental Politics, 1, 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eastham, J., Mpelaskoka, F., Mainuddin, M., Ticehurst C, Dyce, P., Hodgson, G., Ali, R., & Kirby, M. (2008). Mekong River Basin water resources assessment: Impacts of climate change. CSIRO water for a healthy country national research flagship report.Google Scholar
  22. European Environment Agency (Ed.). (2009). Regional climate change and adaptation. The Alps facing the challenge of changing water resources. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
  23. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foran, T., & Lebel, L. (2007). Informed and fair? Water and trade futures in the border regions of mainland Southeast Asia. USER working paper WP-2007-02. Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai. Online: http://www.mpowernet.org/download_pubdoc.php?doc=3730.
  25. Friend, R. M. (2009). Fishing for influence: Fisheries science and evidence in water resources development in the Mekong basin. Water Alternatives, 2, 167–182.Google Scholar
  26. Friend, R., Arthur, R., & Keskinen, M. (2009). Songs of the doomed: The continuing neglect of capture fisheries in hydropower development in the Mekong. In F. Molle, T. Foran, & M. Käkönen (Eds.), Contested waterscapes in the Mekong Region: Hydropower, livelihoods and governance (pp. 307–332). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  27. Frommer, B. (2008). Regionale Anpassungsstrategien an den Klimawandel: Ansätze aus Theorie und Praxis. WAR Schriftenreihe, 196, 115–126.Google Scholar
  28. Gallopin, G. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, 16, 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Geels, F. W. (2005). Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72, 681–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grothmann, T. (2009). The regional perspective: Overview and methodology of regional case studies. In European Environment Agency (Ed.), Regional climate change and adaptation: The Alps facing the challenge of changing water resources (pp. 63–65). EEA technical report no 9/2009, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  32. Grothmann, T., Nenz, D., & Pütz, M. (2009). Adaptation in vulnerable alpine regions—lessons learnt from regional case studies. In European Environment Agency (Ed.), Regional climate change and adaptation: The Alps facing the challenge of changing water resources (pp. 96–108). EEA technical report no 9/2009, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Online: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/alps-climate-change-and-adaptation-2009.
  33. Guangin, C., & Liyao, M. (2010). Climate change to blame for Mekong drought. China Daily. Google Scholar
  34. Haas, P. M. (2004). When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11, 569–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hallegatte, S. (2009). Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19, 240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hirsch, P., Jensen, K. M., FitzGerald, S., Boer, B., Lyster, R., & Carrard, N. (2006). National interests and transboundary water governance in the Mekong. Australia: Australian Mekong Resource Centre, Danish International Development Assistance.Google Scholar
  37. Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Huitema, D., Cornelisse, C., & Ottow, B. (2010). Is the jury still out? Towards greater insight in policy learning in participatory decision processes. The case of Dutch citizens’ juries on water management in the Rhine basin. Ecology and Society, 15, 16. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss11/art16.
  39. Huitema, D., van de Kerkhof, M., Bos-Gorter, L., & Ovaa, E. (2009). Public participation in water management. An analysis of innovative approaches from The Netherlands. In H. Folmer & S. Reinhard (Eds.), Water problems and policies in The Netherlands (pp. 225–248). Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future Press.Google Scholar
  40. Huitema, D., van de Kerkhof, M., & Pesch, U. (2007). The nature of the beast: Are citizens’ juries deliberative or pluralist? Policy Sciences, 4, 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. IUCN, TEI, IWMI & M-POWER. (2007a). Exploring water futures together: Mekong Region waters dialogue. Report from regional dialogue. World Conservation Union, Thailand Environment Institute, International Water Management Institute, and Mekong Program on Water, Environment & Resilience, Vientiane. [online available: http://www.mpowernet.org/download_pubdoc.php?doc=3274].
  42. IUCN, TEI, IWMI & M-POWER. (2007b). Exploring water futures together: Mekong Region waters dialogue. Resource papers from regional dialogue, Vientiane, Lao PDR, World Conservation Union, Thailand Environment Institute, International Water Management Institute, Mekong Program on Water, Environment & Resilience (p. 129). Available on-line: http://www.mpowernet.org/download_pubdoc.php?doc=4059).
  43. Jacobs, J. W. (2002). The Mekong River Commission: Transboundary water resources planning and regional security. The Geographical Journal, 168, 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Käkönen, M., & Hirsch, P. (2009). The antipolitics of Mekong knowledge production. In F. Molle, T. Foran, & M. Käkönen (Eds.), Contested waterscapes in the Mekong region: Hydropower, livelihoods and governance (pp. 333–365). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  45. Karl, H. A., Susskind, L. E., & Wallace, K. H. (2007). A dialogue not a diatribe: Effective integration of science and policy through joint fact finding. Environment, 49, 20–34.Google Scholar
  46. Kates, R. W., Parris, T. M., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values and practice. Environment, 47, 8–21.Google Scholar
  47. Keskinen, M., Chinvanno, S., Kummu, M., Nuorteva, P., Snidvongs, A., Varis, O., & Västilä, K. (2010). Climate change and water resources in the Lower Mekong River Basin: Putting adaptation into context. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 1, 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lebel, L. (2009). Scenarios as boundary objects in the allocation of water resources and services in the Mekong region. USER working paper WP-2009-03, Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai.Google Scholar
  49. Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T., & Wilson, J. (2006). Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 11, 19. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss11/art19/.
  50. Lebel, L., Dore, J., Daniel, R., & Koma, Y. S. (Eds.). (2007). Democratizing water governance in the Mekong region. Chiang Mai: Mekong Press.Google Scholar
  51. Lebel, L., Foran, T., Garden, P., & Manuta, B. J. (2009a). Adaptation to climate change and social justice: Challenges for flood and disaster management in Thailand. In F. Ludwig, P. Kabat, H. van Schaik, & M. van der Valk (Eds.), Climate change adaptation in the water sector (pp. 125–141). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  52. Lebel, L., Sinh, B. T., Garden, P., Seng, S., Tuan, L. A., & Truc, D. V. (2009b). The promise of flood protection: Dykes and dams, drains and diversions. In F. Molle, T. Foran, & J. Kakonen (Eds.), Contested waterscapes in the Mekong region (pp. 283–306). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  53. Lebel, L, Xu, J., Bastakoti, R. C. & Lamba, A. (2010) Pursuits of adaptiveness in the shared rivers of Monsoon Asia. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4).Google Scholar
  54. Leeuwis, C., & Pyburn, R. (Eds.). (2002). Wheelbarrows full of frogs. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  55. Molle, F. (2008). Nirvana concepts, narratives and policy models: Insights from the water sector. Water Alternatives, 1, 23–40.Google Scholar
  56. Molle, F., Foran, T., & Käkönen, M. (Eds.). (2009a). Contested waterscapes in the Mekong region: Hydropower, livelihoods and governance. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  57. Molle, F., Lebel, L., & Foran, T. (2009b). Contested Mekong waterscapes: Where to next? In F. Molle, T. Foran, & M. Käkönen (Eds.), Contested waterscapes in the Mekong region: Hydropower, livelihoods and governance (pp. 383–413). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  58. Mostert, E., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rees, Y., Searle, B., Tabara, D., & Tippett, J. (2007). Social learning in European river-basin management: Barriers and fostering mechanisms from 10 river basins. Ecology and Society, 12, 19 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss11/art19/.
  59. MRC. (2003). Guidelines for stakeholder participation. Phnom Penh: Mekong River Commission.Google Scholar
  60. MRC. (2005). The MRC basin development plan. Stakeholder participation. BDP Library Volume 5. Mekong River Commission.Google Scholar
  61. MRC. (2006). Basin development plan. Programme phase 2. 20062010. August 2006. Mekong River Commission.Google Scholar
  62. MRC. (2008a). Flood situation report, August 2008. MRC technical paper no. 21, 1 September 2008, Mekong River Commission Secretariat, Vientianne.Google Scholar
  63. MRC. (2008b). Stakeholder consultation on MRC’s basin development plan phase 2 (BDP2) and its inception report. In Consultation proceedings. 12–13 March 2008, Vientiane, Lao PDR. Vientiane: Mekong River Commission.Google Scholar
  64. MRC. (2009a). Climate change adaptation in the Lower Mekong Basin countries. Regional synthesis report. Climate change and adaptation initiative. Mekong River Commission, Vientiane.Google Scholar
  65. MRC. (2009b). Stakeholder participation and communication plan for basin development planning in the lower Mekong basin. Basin Development Plan Programme Phase 2. July 2009, Mekong River Commission, Vientiane.Google Scholar
  66. MRC (2010). Mekong Prime Ministers agree to prioritise climate change as summit ends. Media Release. 5 April 2010. Mekong River Commission, Vientiane.Google Scholar
  67. MRCS. (2008a). Approach and process to formulate and assess basin-wide development scenarios. BDP2 Discussion Paper Number 1. Draft 4 July 2008. Mekong River Commission Secretariat, Vientiane.Google Scholar
  68. MRCS. (2008b). Assessment framework for the development of the IWRM-based Basin Development Plan. BDP2 Discussion Paper Number 2 (Part 1—Assessment of Development Scenarios). Draft 18 July 2008. Mekong River Commission Secretariat, Vientiane.Google Scholar
  69. MRCS. (2010). Stakeholder analysis for the MRC Basin Development Plan Programme Phase 2 (BDP2). Complementary document to the stakeholder participation and communication plan for the Basin Development Planning in the Lower Mekong Basin. Final report, March 2010, Mekong River Commission Secretariat, Vientiane.Google Scholar
  70. Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51, 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Nenz, D., Grothmann, T., Schauser, I., Hain, B., Sandei, P. C., Houi, D. & Lavaud, J. (2009). Adaptation at the European scale—cooperation with alpine water towers. In European Environment Agency (EEA) (Ed.), Regional climate change and adaptation: The Alps facing the challenge of changing water resources (pp. 109–121). EEA technical report no 9/2009, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Online: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/alps-climate-change-and-adaptation-2009.
  72. Newig, J. (2007). Does public participation in environmental decisions lead to improved environmental quality? Towards an analytical framework. Communication, Cooperation, Participation (International Journal of Sustainability Communication), 1, 51–71.Google Scholar
  73. Newig, J., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Sigel, K. (2005). The role of public participation in managing uncertainty in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. European Environment, 15, 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Newig, J., Voß, J.-P., & Monstadt, J. (Eds.). (2008). Governance for sustainable development: Steering in contexts of ambivalence, uncertainty and distributed power. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  75. Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., & Holling, C. S. (2006). Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11, 18 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss11/art18/.
  76. Paavola, J., & Adger, N. W. (2006). Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecological Economics, 56, 594–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resources Management, 21, 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analyzing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19, 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., & Taillieu, T. (2007). Social learning and water resources management. Ecology and Society, 12, 5.Google Scholar
  80. Pahl-Wostl, C., & Hare, M. (2004). Processes of social learning in integrated resources management. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Plummer, R., & Armitage, D. (2007). A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: Linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world. Ecological Economics, 61, 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schusler, T. M., Decker, D. J., & Pfeffer, M. J. (2003). Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 309–326.Google Scholar
  84. Siebenhüner, B. (2005). The role of social learning on the road to sustainability. In J. N. Rosenau, E. U. Weizsäcker, & U. Petschow (Eds.), Governance and sustainability (pp. 86–99). Sheffield: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
  85. Siebenhüner, B. (2008). Learning in international organizations in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8, 92–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sneddon, C., & Fox, C. (2007). Power, development, and institutional change: Participatory governance in the lower Mekong basin. World Development, 35, 2161–2181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sneddon, C., & Fox, C. (2008). River-basin politics and the rise of ecological and transnational democracy in Southeast Asia and Southern Africa. Water Alternatives, 1, 66–88.Google Scholar
  89. Social Learning Group. (2001). Learning to manage global environmental risks: A comparative history of social responses to climate change, ozone depletion and acid rain. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  90. Talisse, R. B. (2005). Deliberativist responses to the activist challenges: A continuation of Young’s dialectic. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 31, 423–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Thomas, D. S. G., & Twyman, C. (2005). Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural-resource-dependent societies. Global Environmental Change, 15, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. TKK & SEA-START RC. (2009). Water and climate change in the lower Mekong basin: Diagnosis and recommendations for adaptation. Water and Development Research Group, Helsinki University of Technology (TKK) and Southeast Asia START Regional Center (SEA-START RC), Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar
  93. Walker, B., Carpenter, S. R., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G. S., Janssen, M. A., Lebel, L., Norberg, J., Peterson, G. D., & Pritchard, L. (2002). Resilience management in social-ecological systems: A working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology, 6, 14. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss11/art14.
  94. Warner, J. F. (2006). More sustainable participation? Multi-stakeholder platforms for integrated catchment management. Water Resources Development, 22, 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Weingartner, R., Viviroli, D., & Schädler, B. (2007). Water resources in mountain regions: A methodological approach to assess the water balance in a highland–lowland system. Hydrological Processes, 21, 578–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. World Bank & Asian Development Bank. (2006). WB/ADB joint working paper on future directions for water resources management in the Mekong River Basin: Mekong Water Resources Assistance Strategy (MWRAS). June 2006. The World Bank and Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
  97. Young, I. M. (2001). Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29, 670–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis Lebel
    • 1
  • Torsten Grothmann
    • 2
    • 3
  • Bernd Siebenhüner
    • 3
  1. 1.Unit for Social and Environmental ResearchChiang Mai UniversityChiang MaiThailand
  2. 2.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany
  3. 3.University of OldenburgOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations