E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 8 4 – 4 9 5

ava i l ab l e a t www.sc i enced i rec t . com

www.e l sev i e r. com/ l oca te /eco l econ

METHODS

The importance of social learning and culture for sustainablewater management

Claudia Pahl-Wostla,⁎, David Tàbarab, Rene Bouwenc, Marc Crapsc, Art Dewulf c,Erik Mostertd, Dagmar Riddera, Tharsi Taillieuc

aInstitute of Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabrück, Barbarastrasse 12, 49076 Osnabrück, GermanybIEST, Autonomous University of Barcelona, SpaincCentre for Organizational and Personnel Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, BelgiumdRBA Centre, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 541 9692536E-mail address: pahl@usf.uni-osnabrueck.d

0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevidoi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.007

A B S T R A C T

Article history:Received 9 September 2005Received in revised form 30 July 2007Accepted 16 August 2007Available online 19 September 2007

Currentlywater resourcesmanagement isundergoingamajorparadigmshift.Water resourcesmanagementhas a strong engineering tradition based on controlling environmental problemswith technical solutions. Themanagementof risks reliedon the ability topredict extremesandlimit their impact with technical means such as dikes, dams and reservoirs. In this paradigm,belief systems, human attitudes and collective behaviours are perceived as external boundaryconditions and not as integral part of management. However, the situation has started tochangedramatically.Over thepastyears, integratedwater resourcesmanagementhasbecomethe reigning paradigm. The importance of governance and cultural adaptation has become amajor issue of concern.At the same time, there is a paucity of adequate scientific concepts thatwould allow addressing these issues. This paper introduces a concept for social learningdeveloped in the European project HarmoniCOP and discusses its implications for the culturaland institutional context of water resources management. It aims to contribute to the newparadigm of integrated resource management by discussing the importance of processes ofculture and social learning for environmental resources management, in general, and waterresources management, in particular.

© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Sustainable water resourcesmanagementSocial learningInstitutional changeCultureParticipatory management

1. Introduction

Contemporary problems in water resources management andresources management in general, are characterized byincreasing complexity. Uncertainties due to climate and globalchange and changing socio-economic conditions provide newchallenges that cannot be tackled within the establishedmanagement paradigm which relies on a command andcontrol approach. In this paradigm, regulatory authoritiesimplement technical (often end-of-pipe) solutions to narrowly

; fax: +49 541 9692368.e (C. Pahl-Wostl).

er B.V. All rights reserved

defined environmental problems based on expert advice.Presently there is a growing awareness, in particular indeveloped countries, of the need for integrated approachesthat simultaneously take a whole range of trade-offs intoaccount and that involve stakeholders in the whole manage-ment process.

The need for a paradigm shift in water management hasbeen advocated by a couple of voices over the last decade(Cortner and Moote, 1994; Ward, 1995; Gleick, 2000; Pahl-Wostl, 2002, 2007a). Although they focus on different topics of

.

485E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 8 4 – 4 9 5

water management, they clearly agree on some elements ofthe new paradigm:

• participatory management and collaborative decisionmaking,

• increased integration of issues and sectors,• management of problem sources not effects,• decentralized and more flexible management approaches,• more attention to human behaviour by “soft” measures,• include environment explicitly in management goals,• open and shared information sources (including linkingscience and decision making),

• iterative learning cycles.

Most recent analyses emphasize that effective governancebased on principles of equity, efficiency and diverse knowl-edge integration is as important for dealing with waterresource management problems as technological solutions(GWP-TEC, 2000, 2004). Culture is advocated as crucial tounderstand barriers to the adoption of technologies and newmanagement strategies and a successful exchange of experi-ence between developed and developing countries. Thisreflects a shift in emphasis from focusing on “hard” technol-ogy based centralized approaches to a “soft” path in watermanagement embracing participatory approaches and deliv-ering diverse water services matched to the user's needs(Gleick, 2003; Pahl-Wostl, 2007a; SIWI, 2005).

As defined by the dialogue on effective water governance(Roger and Hall, 2002), water governance refers to the range ofpolitical, social, economic and administrative systems that arein place to regulate the development andmanagement of waterresources and theprovisions ofwater services at different levelsof society. One important aspect of governance is the role of“institutions”: the formal and informal rules that provide theframework for the behaviour of human beings. Formal institu-tions include laws and regulations, formal organizationalstructures and formal procedures. Informal institutions referto socially shared rules and norms that have developed in socialpractice. A strong interdependence and synergies betweenformal and informal institutions is an emergent feature ofmore collaborative governance styles and is particularly impor-tant for understanding institutional change and transitionstowards more adaptive water management regimes (Pahl-Wostl, 2002, 2007a; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2005). Participatoryprocesses may be formalized, but more importantly they playa key role in informal institutional settings and are often nucleifor social learning and institutional change.

Another key concept in the emerging new managementparadigm is social learning. Social learning in river basinmanagement refers to the capacity of different authorities,experts, interest groups and the public to manage their riverbasins effectively. Effective river basin management requirescollective action and the resolution of conflicts. This in turnrequires that people learn about their interdependence anddifferences and learn to deal with them constructively. Sociallearning refers to this learning process and to the resultingincreased management capacity. Social learning implies achange in governance style towards more collaboration and adifferent role of information as a means to support commu-nication instead of just providing expert advice. This reflects

the insight that management cannot be based on optimizingin a predictable environment but requires many instances oflearning in a fast changing world.

The new water management paradigm currently underconsideration also reflects a new understanding of the relation-ship between human activities and the environment. One couldargue that these changes inperceptioncanbe interpretedassignsfor amore fundamental cultural change regarding the awarenessof complexity and leadership styles (Pahl-Wostl, 2007b).

The argument of the paper is organized around thefollowing two questions addressing the relationship betweenculture and social learning:

- How do cultural differences influence social learning?- Howcan social learning lead to a transformation of culture?

To address these two questions, the paper is structured asfollows. A concept for social learning and a conceptualizationfor culture are introduced. These concepts lay the foundationfor exploring the relationship between culture and social learning –the influence of culture on social learning and vice versa – usingexamples from river basin management.

2. Social learning

The notion of social learning has been used in quite differentcontexts. The work of Bandura (1971) on social learning refersto individual learning based on observation of others and theirsocial interactionswithin a group e.g. through imitation of rolemodels. It assumes an iterative feedback between the learnersand their environment, the learner changing the environ-ment, and these changes affecting the learner.

Because of its focus on the individual, Bandura's work is oflimited value for understanding resources management. Inthe EU project HarmoniCOP (http://www.harmonicop.info) weadopted a broader concept for social learning in the context ofriver basin management influenced by authors like Wenger(1998). Social learning in this concept refers to the growingcapacity of social entities to perform common tasks relatedwith a river basin. It refers to both the learning process and toits outcome. In the following we summarize the key elementsof the social learning concept which is elaborated in moredetail in Pahl-Wostl et al. (2007).

Of major interest in this respect is the concept of “commu-nities of practice” developed by Wenger (1998) emphasizinglearning as participation in groups of people who engage in aprocess of collective learning in a shared domain of humanendeavour. Such interactions are influenced by and maychange social structure. At the same time the individual gainsexperience situated in the context of the group. Such learningprocesses confirm and shape the identity of the individual in itssocial surroundings. They confirm and change social practiceand the associated interpretation of the environment. Com-munities of practice require a clear objective and theycontinuously redefine themselves by processes of participation(e.g. membership, acting) and reification (e.g. forms, docu-ments, instruments). Communities of practice develop anidentity of their own that is distinct from the individualsparticipating in them.

486 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 8 4 – 4 9 5

The social learning process takes place in a natural/technical and a social (institutional, cultural) context. Also inthe process natural/ technical and social aspects are alwayspresent. In the process, social involvement (interaction) is asimportant as content management (e.g. the analysis of problemsand development of solutions). In fact, the two cannot beseparated: what is seen as a problem, what information isexchanged, which solutions are developed and chosen is infact the result of social interaction. The concept used in thiscontext enabling social learning is that of relational practices:shared task-centred practices among different actors thatallow interacting in a reciprocal way and/or reflecting on theinteractions among the actors.

The outcomes of themanagement processdonot only includetechnical qualities, such as an improved state of the environment,but also relational qualities, such as an improved capability of theactors in a basin to solve conflicts and come to cooperativeagreements. The outcomes feed back into the context and mayresult in a bettermutual tuning of the governance structure andthe state of the natural environment.

Social learning is an iterative and ongoing process thatcomprises several loops and enhances the flexibility of thesocio-ecological system to respond to change. The governancecontext is shaped both by cultural factors and macro-economic and regulatory frameworks and may be subject tochange during multi-scale social learning processes.

“Culture” is part of the social context of social learning. Assuch, the cultural characteristics in a river basin influencesocial learning. Through its feedback loop, social learning inturn influences these characteristics. But what do wemean by“culture”?

3. A conceptualization of culture

“Culture” is a term with many different meanings, connota-tions and scientific and social uses. “Culture” is derived fromthe Latin verb colere, which means to cultivate land or, in ametaphor, cultivation of the mind (Goudsblom, 1980). Cultureoften perceived to be opposed to nature, to the wilderness andto barbarism, has thereby derived positive connotations, hasbeen used to refer to human achievements (especiallyintellectual and cultural ones) and became synonymouswith civilization. Moreover, the concept is used as a definingcharacteristic of national or ethnic identity and to emphasizeor create differences with other groups and homogeneity inone's own group (cf. van Binsbergen, 1999).

A classical overview of theories of culture was provided byKeesing (1974). He distinguishes between culture as anideational system and culture as an integrated adaptivesocio-cultural system (most classical anthropological theoriesand schools). In the first case, culture is ultimately in the headof a collective mind and it only refers to perceptions, beliefs,norms and values. Culture in this sense can be used to explainsocial practices. Culture as an integrated system integrates thesocial practices in the concept. It emphasizes the interrelationbetween ideas and practices.

Culture as ideational system often explains culture interms of early socialization in childhood and at school (e.g.Hofstede, 2003) or, in some social discourses, in terms of

ethnic or religious background. Culture in this view is at thesame time an individual and a social phenomenon. It residesin the minds of the members of a specific group, who aresupposed to share similar beliefs etc. Culture is oftensupposed to be very stable, both at the individual and sociallevel, internally consistent and exclusive: every person issupposed to have only one fundamental (usually national,ethnic or religious) culture. Culture as an integrated system,on the other hand, is a characteristic of a group, whichmay bemuch smaller than society as a whole. It is enacted (reflected)in the interactions within this group context, rather thanengrained in the minds of its members. Each group developsits own culture as a result of the social interaction of itsmembers and shared experiences. Since people can partici-pate in different groups, they can also participate in differentcultures.

The point is not which is the one and only true concept ofculture, but how a certain concept helps people to understandand if necessary (e.g. as a result of a decision stemming from asocial learning process), eventually to intervene in a socialsystem. These “strategic” considerations are even moreimportant since the culture concept and cultural theoriesbecame an important (and popular) source of inspiration formanagement and organizational theories since the beginningof the 1980s (Allaire and Firsirotu, 1984; Smircich, 1983).

3.1. Cultural theories

Several authors have developed encompassing characteriza-tions of culture (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Thompsonet al., 1990; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1993; Hofstede,2003). Both Hofstede's and Thompson's concepts have beenused in environmental management and integrated assess-ment to capture the influence of cultural perspectives on, forexample, management practices or the shaping of expecta-tions of future developments or even the development ofintegrated simulation models (Patel and Stel, 2004; Van Asseltand Rotmans, 2002).

The different dimensions of Hofstede's framework refer todifferences in risk aversion, degree of social orientation,hierarchies and governance by formal rules that are all highlyrelevant for understanding governance styles and manage-ment practices. The four major dimensions are:

Power Distance Index (PDI) focuses on the degree of equality,or inequality, between people in a country's society. A HighPDI indicates that inequalities of power and wealth have beenallowed to grow within the society. A Low PDI rankingindicates the society de-emphasizing the differences betweencitizen's power and wealth.

In societies with a large PDI one expects the developmentof transparency and trust to be quite difficult. High powersocieties typically work with nepotism and bilateral deals.Social learning and institutional change may involve shifts inpower relationships. The resistance to change can be expectedto be higher if powerful groups are in danger of losing theirinfluence and if a changewill result in an overall change in thestructure of the society — e.g. from a more egalitarian societytowardsmore pronounced power relationships and vice versa.One would expect more pronounced use of power frameswhere disputants in a conflict typically emphasize power

487E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 8 4 – 4 9 5

differences such as different levels of expertise or thepossibility of enforcement of decisions by individual groups.

Individualism (IDV) focuses on the degree the societyreinforces individual or collective achievement and inter-personal relationships. A High Individualism ranking indi-cates that individuality and individual rights are paramountwithin the society. A Low Individualism ranking typifiessocieties of a more collectivist nature with close ties betweenindividuals.

A high degree of individualism influences the strength ofgroup identities. In societies with low individualism theimportance of group identities and group frames is morepronounced. An individual perceives herself largely as part ofa group. In such cases there will be a major difference of sociallearning within and between groups. Whereas the former isfacilitated the latter has to overcome group identities.Individuals serving as boundary spanners become of partic-ular importance. In general one can expect that in collectivesocieties social learning will more easily lead to an acceptanceof shared goals. However, socially shared perceptions mayalso be quite difficult to overcome.

Masculinity (MAS) focuses on the degree the societyreinforces, or does not reinforce, the traditional masculinework role model of male achievement, control, and power. AHigh MAS indicates a high degree of assertiveness andcompetitiveness. A Low MAS indicates a lower degree ofassertiveness and competition of both men and women, butespecially of men.

In very “masculine” social contexts, assertiveness, statusand competition are expected to play an important role. Thismakes social learning more difficult and has obvious implica-tions for the design and facilitation of participatory processes.

Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) focuses on the level oftolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity within the society. AHigh UAI characterizes a rule-oriented society that instituteslaws, rules, regulations, and controls in order to reduce theamount of uncertainty. A Low UAI characterizes a society thatis less rule-oriented, more readily accepts change, and takesmore and greater risks.

Societies with a low UAI are more innovative and willing totake individual risks. Societies with a high UAI wouldemphasise formal institutions and governmental interven-tion. In such societies social learning and change are quitedifficult since change and innovation are perceived as risksrather than opportunities. At the same time such societiesmay strongly support a precautionary principle as normativeapproach in environmental protection.

A couple of empirical investigations seem to confirm thatHofstede's dimensions correlate with the observed cross-cultural differences in behaviour. The preference for equitableversus equal allocation of rewards could be linked toHofstede's power distance index in a review of numerousstudies on that theme (Fischer and Smith, 2003). Elfenbein andAmbady (2003) analyzed numerous investigations of therelationship between Hofstede's dimensions and the abilityto recognise emotions. They showed that empirical evidencefor linking cultural profiles with absolute levels of emotionrecognition accuracy was weak. However, they found anincrease in the cultural distance between different groups tobe associated with greater discrepancy in the degree of

emotion recognition accuracy in inter-group communication.This would support the use of the Hofstede dimensions tocharacterize the proximity of different cultural groups tobetter understand barriers to inter-group communicationrather than assuming that specific cultural profiles are linkedto specific behavioural patterns.

However, anothermajor contribution to understand culturaltraits, cultural theory (Thompsonetal., 1990), argues in favouroflinking specific cultural profiles to individual perceptions.Cultural theory distinguishes four perspectives from whichpeople perceive the world and behave in it: the hierarchist, theegalitarian, the individualist, and the fatalist. These types arederived from two common social dimensions: one that mea-suressocial restrictionson individual autonomy(“grid”) andonethat signifies solidarity versus egocentrism (“group”). One cannote obvious similarities between the attributes used byHofstede. However, in contrast to Hofstede, cultural theorydefines logical coherent perspectives rather than independentdimensions of analysis. Each of these perspectives is also linkedto a view on nature and attitude towards risk.

Individualists define roles as little as possible and opposeauthority that would undermine their freedom. They thinkthat Nature is very robust and will recover from any humanimpact. They want to regulate the environment as little aspossible. They are risk seeking.

Egalitarians emphasize equality, solidarity and collectivebenefits. The deny status and hierarchies. They believe thatecosystems are exceedingly fragile. They are risk averse andfavour a concerted grassroots effort.

Hierarchists live in a social environment with strong rulesand clear group boundaries. Governmental control should bestrong. They think that Nature is stable within certaindiscoverable limits. They want to regulate the environmentfrom the top down with the help of experts' authority. Risksare perceived as being controllable.

Fatalists think that Nature is capricious and has no clearprinciples. They want to defect first. A large number offatalists would render social learning quite difficult and theattitude towards nature would be characterized by indiffer-ence and opportunism. Fatalists may easily be used by thosewho want to exercise power and need support.

In contrast to Hofstede's approach, cultural theory hasbeen used to characterize different groups in civil societyrather than national cultures. Empirical evidence showed thatindividuals hardly ever confirm with one cultural type butbehave differently according to the social context and the rolethey adopt (Jaeger et al., 1998). It can only explain some 5–10%of differences in risk perception (Sjöberg, 2000). Culturaltheory has been applied to interpret different perspectives inwater management, as shown in the work of Hoekstra (1998)and Hoekstra et al. (1997).

To describe and compare different national or religiouscultures at large scale it can be useful to use terminologies andconcepts as developed in these general approaches makingreference to dimensions that can be generalised. They can alsobe useful to understand barriers to social learning inherent inthe political culture (Patel and Stel, 2004). However, to analysethe implications of cultural frameworks on social learning in aspecific setting a context-sensitive approach should beemployed.

488 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 8 4 – 4 9 5

3.2. Culture as a context dependent system

As an alternative approach to describing culture by a fewgeneralised dimensions and ideal-types of cultural groups thatcanbeapplied inall contexts, onemayhold theassumption thatculture is entirely context and situation specific. In each socialcontext culture can develop and different people active indifferent social contexts can participate in different cultures atthe same time. Hence, culture is always “enacted”. We adopthere the approach that culture is a context dependent systemwith shared symbols and meanings, norms and expectations.This is why we advocate for a ‘bottom–up’, inductive andcontext-based approach to the study of culture that can shedlight on the role of social learning, rather than focusing on auniversal deductive grid that is to be applied to all differentsocial contexts.

Culture applies always to groups — the behaviour ofindividuals does not constitute a culture. One can summarizeall cultural elements under the umbrella of a culturalframework (Markus and Kitayama, 1997). A cultural frame-work comprises ideas and ideals (values, attitudes, beliefs,norms) and traditions and institutionalized social practices(e.g. behavioural rituals, language, rules, legal practices) thatcodify and objectify these ideas and ideals. Hence one candraw parallels to Wenger's communities of practice. Culturalframeworks refer to more long-lasting enduring frames oflarge collectives of societal groups. What is important to pointout is that cultural frames become manifest in norms,routines and social practices and are more than simplycognitive structures, ideas and ideals.

Leung et al. (2002) characterized culture frameworks by aset of beliefs about oneself, the social and physical environ-ment, or the spiritual world. They are in the form of assertionabout the relationship between two entities or concepts.Example:

Value/Attitude:—Environmentalprotection is good. //Makingmuchmoney is good.

Normative Belief: Everyone should consume less to protectthe environment.

Generalized Belief: Less consumption helps to protect theenvironment

A normative belief links a certain action with a valuejudgement. A generalized belief links an action with an effectwithout including a value judgement as well. Beliefs of thiskind can be very strong and constitute an impediment tolearning and change. Hence, any process of social learningmust support the recognition and communication of individ-ual and collective beliefs and must, in particular makenormative assumptions and cultural constructs transparent.

To do so it is important to avoid stereotyping themultiplicity cultural forms a priori and reducing them to apre-selected classification. In this conception, culture can onlybe described a posteriori – that is after the bottom–up analysisof the context at hand – and only in terms of the maincomponents present in all types of cultures. In this respect,culture can be understood as a set of perceptual abilities,norms, values and frames which are typical modes of actingthat characterize specific groups and that are enacted in socialpractices. Tàbara et al. (2004) defined the conceptual andmethodological approach of cultural framework analysis as a

coherent system of reference elements relative to the way ofrecognising, rationalising, evaluating and prescribing givenphenomena of social (or socio-environmental) reality in such away that they become significant and memorable for thedifferent social actors at stake. The origins of this methodo-logical development can be found in the works of thedramaturgical sociologist Erving Goffman (1974) who sawframes as scheme devises who allow ‘actors’ to interpret their‘roles’ in society so that reality becomes meaningful (see alsoEntman, 1993). An analysis of cultural frames has also beenused to understand environmental issues, such as thecommunication of nuclear power in the USA (Gamsom andModigliani, 1989), climate change (Trumbo, 1995; Mcright andDunlap, 2000) and other global environmental risk issues(Schreurs et al., 2001). A general common trait of these studiesis that they are based on the empirical content analysis oftexts such as writtenmedia or policy statements. This departsfrom the assumption that verbal language andwritten sourcesof texts are often key sources to understand how culture isproduced and reproduced in a context of action.

Cultural frameworks provide meaning to the informationand are the basis of discourses for collective action. For Showet al. (1992, 1986), the alignment to particular interpretativeframes is a condition tomobilisation (Zald and Useem, 1996).However, as indicated by its name, cultural frameworks donot refer so much to the content of messages, but to theways of selecting, interpreting and presenting such infor-mation. A cultural framework contains at least the followingelements:

a) A perceptivity: the cultural frameworks select those ele-ments of reality to which attention should be given. In thisway they emphasise what is outstanding or important toobserve, as well as what should be broadened, reduced,remembered or forgotten from public or individualconscience.

b) A rationality: they provide a structure to evaluate what islogic and illogic, and simultaneously they provide a systemof meaning to interpret reality. In this way, a culturalframework makes it possible to explain rationally thecauses as well as the consequences of a certain phenom-enon or process.

c) A morality: they present value judgements about what ismorally right or wrong from that selected part of reality.

d) A prescriptivity: they prescribe, implicit or explicit, thedesirable and undesirable aspects of possible courses ofaction, at the same time proposing and structuringprescriptions about how this should be handled in everysituation.

Consequently, every cultural framework fulfils four func-tions: discover (or hide) a given reality, make sense of thisreality, provide value judgements, and give recommendationsabout how to deal with it. The use and application of differentcultural frameworks in policy making have therefore differenteffects on the use of natural resources as they select andstructure particular relations between a social communitywith such natural resources and define them in a specific wayaccording to the situation (e.g. as problematic, dangerous,beneficial or mild). One of the main advantages of the cultural

489E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 8 4 – 4 9 5

framework methodology is its flexibility: it does not departfrom a given classification of cultures that can be observed inall social contexts–or institutions–but departs from theempirical analysis of a context to devise the different cultureswhich emerge from their discourses and practices.

A comparative study to analyse the discourses present inthe main national press of two water management processesin Spain and Holland (Van Woerden, 2001) serves to illustratethis theoretical approach. In the first case, the process ofnegotiation of the National Water Plan was examined throughthe analysis of 275 articles during a period of 11months beforeits approval in July 20011. In Holland, a total of 240 articlesfrom February 2000 to January 2001 were also examined inrelation to a water plan, ‘Space for the river’, oriented to createemergency river overflow areas. Using standard contentanalysis techniques (Flick, 2002; Silverman, 2001) a total oftwelve distinct cultural frameworks were identified in bothcontexts and compared. To do so, articles were taken from themain broadsheet papers by selecting a random sample ofnews that contained communication on these water issuesduring the same period in the two countries. All articles wereemptied in a decoding grid by an interpretative reading of itscontent and by classifying them according to what culturalframeworkwas used or not used to communicate themessageof its author (what was described, what was seen as logical,what was moralised, and what was prescribed). In order toobtain further characterisation of each of the cultural frame-work present in each of the two countries, key words wereselected for each framework and detailed information wasgathered on how these narratives used them to refer to othersperceptions, logics, moralities and prescriptions. A pilot stageof testing and refining the classification of different culturalframeworks was carried out before entering all the articles in afinal analysis grid. As an illustration, Table 1 shows thecontent of the different cultural frameworks identified in thecase of Spain.

Results showed that in Spain, water discourses tended tobe mostly around the pivotal frameworks of region–nation,growth, and water scarcity, while in Holland safety andscarcity – not of water but of space – tended to acquire themost prominent place. Some counter-intuitive findings werealso found: for instance, that the ‘sustainabilist’ framework inSpain was used across different actors as a means to gainpublic support and legitimacy while in Holland, watersustainability discourses were framed as a threat to localdemands. Moreover, environmentalists' use of the naturalistframework varied also in their content: while in Spainenvironmentalists tended to advocate for the ‘protection ofnature’ in Holland they tended to advocate for its ‘creation’.Fig. 1 looks more carefully at these results. Such comparisonmakes it clear that discourses with regard to ‘sustainabilism’,‘catastrophism’, ‘Europeanism’, the importance of technicalexpertise, and of local communities together with thosereferences to democracy were more present in Holland than

1 This controversial plan provoked the largest social mobilisa-tions in recent times in Spain as far as environmental problemsare concerned. It included “old paradigm dominant” measuressuch as building and transporting water through 900km of pipesout of and South to the Ebro river basin.

in Spain in framing issues about water management. Bycontrast, in Spain water management discussions were morecentred around purely naturalist discourses, framed oneconomic and growth logics, and with greater predominanceof frames about the importance of the Nation–State, Auton-omous Communities (‘territorial’) and of legal provisions,showing the ongoing debate which characterise the stilluncompleted nation-building regime of Spain affecting alsothe contents and shape of policies in other fields.

The approach of cultural frameworks helps to tackle thestudy of the complex issue of culture in different contexts in aflexible way. It can therefore be helpful to analyse theprocesses of social learning and public participation withinthe field of water management in river basins in a manneraway from a preconceived and rigid interpretation of culture.

In the case of Spain, for instance, Tàbara et al. (2004) foundout that the sustainability framework gained prominencealong the whole period of negotiation of the National WaterPlan, from being almost non-existent at the beginning of theprocess to become notably salient and used across differentsectors of society few weeks before its approval. Three yearslater themost controversial articles of the NationalWater Planwere derogated by the new government claiming that a ‘newwater culture’ needed to be implemented. Such culturalchange which later resulted in specific changes in policypractices, such as the approval of the new programme AGUA,intended to be based on the ‘NewWater Culture’ could also beunderstood as part of a social learning process within thewater domain.

The way Anthony Giddens conceives the complementaryfunctioning of structure and agency (e.g. Giddens, 1981) mayclarify the distinction between culture and social learning. Ifwe see social learning as the agency and culture as thestructural aspect, then we can say that culture is reproducedand eventually transformed through processes of sociallearning. A structural framework exists and can be identifiedbecause people in their mutual interactions on a micro-levelcommonly behave in a usual way, and so reproduce theculture on a macro-level. But there is always the possibilitythat (as a consequence of confrontation between differentperspectives, changing circumstances and/or critical reflec-tion) they start doing things in an alternative way, acciden-tally or systematically. The more systematic those changes,the stronger this is reflected in changes in the culturalframework. In the end such changes may lead to a realcultural, a paradigm shift as we currently observe in watermanagement.

4. Social learning across and withincultural boundaries

Are the two different approaches to conceptualize culturemutually exclusive? We consider them to be complementaryand both useful to understand the importance of culture onwater management and processes of social learning andinstitutional change at different spatial and temporal scales.The approaches using stereotypes emphasize the presence ofan internal logic characterizing culture and in particular alsocharacterizing artefacts generated and used in a cultural

Table 1 – Different cultural frameworks identified in the analysis of the National Water Plan in Spain (Tàbara et al., 2004)

Culturalframework

Component

Perceptibility(what is important or not)

Rationality(what is logical or illogical)

Morality (what is ethicallyright or wrong)

Prescriptibity(what has to be done)

Nationalist The main policy problemis the building of theNation–State. Water is anessential component inthe articulation of Spainas a single nation.

Water management mustcontribute to the buildingof Spain as a united nation(instead of creatingdivision between thecurrent 17 AutonomousCommunities).

It is immoral to createobstacles to the building ofthe single nation butcreating ecologicalimpediments ordifferences between thedifferent regions orcitizens of Spain withregard to the use of water.

The National WaterPlan must be used toarticulate the Spanishnation.

Naturalist Water is a component of alarger set of ecologicalriver basin relationships,values and species whichare part of the naturalheritage.

What is logical is topreserve the naturalheritage and it is illogicalthat the National WaterPlan does the opposite.

It is ethically immoral thatthe NWP contribute to thedestruction of natural richareas and heritage.

Nature must beprotected and humansmust adapt to nature,not the opposite. TheNWP must help torestore ecosystems andprotect natural species.

Territorialist(regionalistand localist)

Water, and rivers ingeneral, are part of theregional identity and ofeconomic regional andlocal articulation.

What is logical is topreserve the local waterassets both for economicbut also a good state of therivers for cultural reasons.

It is immoral to transfersuch a local and regionalkey resource towardsother regions which will,to a large extent, waste itor use it in their ownprofit.

‘Wehave to fight’ for thepreservation of theregional and local waterheritage.

Sustainability-ist

Water is a centralcomponent in the long-term well functioning ofsociety with nature. Asystemic view includingsocial and naturalrelationships must beused to understand waterissues.

Sustainability rationalitymust integrate differentsocial, ecological andeconomic rationalities anddomains. It is illogic tocarry out water policieswith negative irreversibleeffects on any of thosedomains.

Water policies must find along-term global balancebetween meeting natureand social needs for water.It is immoral to affectnegatively futuregenerations' rights to haveaccess to qualityfreshwater resources.

Social, economic andecological goals must beintegrated to make surethat future generations,both at global and localscales, can also enjoyand have access toquality freshwaterresources. The NWPmust do so.

Catastrophist Water is the source of bothrisks and securities, bothfor humans and for theenvironment.

What is most rational is tomanage the risks andprovide securities relatedto water, both for humansand the environment.

It would be immoral toexpose humans or theenvironment to waterrelated risks, such asrestricted availability andquality of water or floods.

Action must be taken toprotect humans and theenvironment to waterrelated risks.

Growth-ist Growth and the economyare the most importantthings to take whenthinking about water.Water is mainly aproduction factor.

What is most rational is tomaximise growth andwater GNP productivity.

It is ethically wrong tostop growth and economicdevelopment as it has adirect negative impacts onlarge sectors ofpopulation.

Water managementmust contribute to theimprovement ofeconomiccompetitiveness.Waterpublic works andinvestment mustcontribute to this goal.

Expert-economist

Water is an economicgood similar to any othermarket commodity: it canbe divided infinitely, put aprice, and use the marketrules for its optimalprovision.

Water prices mustinternalise provision andenvironmental costs,without affectingeconomic competitiveness.

It is immoral that wateruses do not pay a price forwater which includeprovision orenvironmental costs. Thisdistorts the market andexacerbatesenvironmental problems.

Provision andenvironmental costs mustbe internalised. Marketsshould be created whichinclude these costs.

Expert-legalist Water is mainly an objectof law, the property anduses of which are alreadyregulated.

It would be illogical andpointless to proposeactions which lay outsidewhat it is already regulatedby law with regard to watermanagement.

It would be illegal toimplement a NWP outsidethe existing laws,including those steamingfrom the EuropeanDirectives.

Law must be compliedfully. Current waterlaws can only bemodified by followingthe already establishedlegal procedures do toso.

490 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 8 4 – 4 9 5

Fig. 1 – Cultural frameworks present in Spain and Holland in the management of water resources Sept 2000–July2001 (VanWoerden, 2001).

491E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 8 4 – 4 9 5

context. Hence they refer to long-term stabilizing elementsand transferable traits. Cultural frameworks have a focus onstreams of discourse on specific themes, looking hence atmuch more dynamic elements and processes. One can expectthis approach to be far more sensitive to capture culturaldynamics and paradigm shifts whichmay express themselvesin changes in the main streams characterizing a discourse.

Social learning is needed to build and sustain the capacityfor communication across cultural boundaries. Otherwise thepresence of different perspectives may lead to unsolvableconflicts and an inability to come to shared agreements.Empirical evidence suggests that the type of social conflict byitself does not account for the selection of conflict-enhancingor conflict reduction techniques/strategies in coping withdisputes; its effects aremoderated by culture linked individualdifferences in construal of interdependence by disputants(Derlega et al., 2002; Gray, 2004). This is a strong support for thesocial learning concept introduced previously where the roleof relational practices is central to understanding how themanagement of content is linked to social involvement.Individuals belong to different social groups and thus operatewithin different cultures and institutional settings that belongto different national, regional or organizational boundaries.Framing is an interesting intermediary concept that can makethe link between cultural frameworks or societal discourses onthe one hand and specific problem situations on the otherhand. Lewicki, Gray and Elliot (2003) have identified arepertoire of frames adopted by environmental stakeholders.These include views of nature frames, social control frames,conflict management frames, characterization frames, powerframes, risk frames and identity frames. The specific relationthat persons or actors have to a problem situation or changeopportunity guides them in framing that situation (Dewulf,Craps & Dercon, 2004). People or actors involved will assembleframes by drawing on the cultural frameworks that are

available to them, and according to their stake in the situationsome (elements of) cultural frameworks may be more salientthan others. For example, for a country representative in a bi-national river basin management committee the nationalcultural framework may be more salient, while for a repre-sentative in a regional structure such a regional culturalframework may be more salient. From the point of view of theproblem situation, someone experiencing major problemsfrom unpredictable flooding will be more likely to use a riskframe than someone in a situation where this is not an issue.In sum, cultural frameworks can influence social learning bythe kinds of perceptivities, rationalities, moralities and pre-scriptivities theymake available to peoplewho are assemblingtheir understanding of specific problem situations intomeaningful frames. The crystallization of cultural frameworksinto specific frames for a situation can have importantconsequences for social learning, since certain types offrames, like strong identity and power frames, ormismatchingconflict management frames can lead to difficult conflicts(Gray, 2004).

At the same time processes of framing and reframing arenuclei of cultural transformation. Both the forms and contentsof culture are always subject to change. Such cultural changecan be the result of endogenous or exogenous social forces(that change existing system conditions) and becomes effec-tive by the acquisition of newways of perceiving, representing,valuing, and prescribing reality. Social learning occurs when-ever a community of practice becomes aware of new social andecological realities that are relevant for their owndevelopmentand well-being and at the same time is capable of generatingnew forms of agent collaboration and rules of interaction toachieve commongoalswhich could not be achieved otherwise.Social learning also entails developing critical competences ofindividuals in the existing cultural artefacts, hence ignitingand placing the conditions for future cultural change.

492 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 8 4 – 4 9 5

Social learning leads to a transformation of culture to theextent that it affects the core educational, communicative andsymbolic production institutions that generate the dominantsystems of references and which provide meaning, sense oforder, and coherence to a given society and orient its socialpractices. A cultural crisis occurs whenever a culture is unableto provide the majority of the community with theseintegrative references or when such cultural change is sofast or encompassing that it impedes agents from adaptingtheir behaviour to the new systems of values and beliefs. Atthe same time, social learning may help to prevent a culturalcrisis (e.g., expressed in situations of disorder or anomy) if itempowers agents with new references and tools to reorienttheir values and beliefs in a way that is better suited to theirneeds and system conditions inwhich a society now develops.

Given the importance of cultural differences and path-dependent historical settings for processes of social learningand stakeholder participation, it is evident that generic recipesfor the design of participatory processes and institutionalsettings are not applicable. Any design should rely on soundanalyses of social groups and their cultural identities. Thekind of culture and group identity encountered in differentprocesses can be expected to strongly depend on context andscale.

Fig. 2 – Organizational framework for collaborative watergovernance in transboundary water management. (fromMostert, 2005. How can international donors promotetransboundary water management? Report for DeutschesInstitut für Entwicklungspolitik, Berlin).

5. Water management in transition

The implementation of integrated management of riverbasins, in general, and of transboundary river basins, inparticular, poses major challenges to the integration ofdifferent administrative, legal, cultural, institutional andeconomic traditions at a range of scales from local tointernational. The change in water management paradigmwith a clearly stated desire to integrate over a wide range ofissues and to involve a wide range of stakeholders into thewholemanagement process is putting an even higher demandon the integration of different cultures. At the same time, theneed to engage into such learning processes can be instru-mental in implementing the advocated paradigm shift, astructural change in the culture that drive dominant practicesin water management.

The example of floodmanagement illustrates very well theprofound paradigm shift currently taking place (Pahl-Wostl,Berkamp and Cross, 2006; Pahl-Wostl, 2007a). In the yetprevailing command and control paradigm management isperceived as control. Solutions are technology driven. There isa firm belief that risks can be quantified and that optimalstrategies can be chosen. Zero-sum-games in closed decisionspace. This cultural framing supports the implementation ofcontrollable and predictable technical infrastructure (reser-voirs, dams) based on fixed regulations for acceptable risk-thresholds.

In recent years the command and control paradigm hasbeen replaced by a paradigm based on the notion of “Livingwith water”. In this paradigm the limits of control and theimportance of uncertainties are clearly acknowledged. Ac-ceptable risks and decisions are negotiated. This culturalframing supports integrated solutions and the implementa-tion of multi-functional landscape with an increased adaptive

capacity of the system. This new paradigm argues for anintegrated approach where flood protection and the restora-tion of a good ecological state of rivers are not framed asirreconcilable goals.

However, most international regimes focused on singleissues such as flood protection or water allocation whereas,the development and implementation of management plansthat are based on an integrated river basin managementconcept require a wide range of stakeholders to communicateand cooperate at different scales. The clearly perceived needto adapt to climate change requires a whole range ofmeasuresto be implemented. The processes by which adaptations to bejudged at different scales will involve new and challenginginstitutional processes (e.g. Adger et al., 2005). In the sameguise, water transboundary cooperation demands improvingprocesses of social learning to integrate distinct culturalframeworks that agents at different locations use to dealwith their issues at stake.

Fig. 2 illustrates the organizational framework withinwhich social learning unfolds. It needs to take place betweenformal governmental authorities and stakeholder groupsorganized formally or informally at different scales. Integratedwater management typically requires cooperation acrosssectoral boundaries. The development of river basin manage-ment plans requires for example coordination with regionalplanning which is generally impeded by sectoral fragmenta-tion. Since administrative boundaries hardly ever coincidewith biophysical scales new coordination groups are estab-lished with representatives from different administrativeunits and different sectors. In addition stakeholder processeshave to be organized to involve stakeholders on differentscales. This results in a remarkable complexity in the wholelearning process.

National cultures determine the nature of transboundarycooperation. They shape legislation and negotiation strategies

493E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 8 4 – 4 9 5

and influence the nature of the participatory processes (Pateland Stel, 2004). Regarding the distinction between context-sensitive cultural frameworks and anthropological theories ofculture based on a few idealized stereotypes onemay concludefor characterizing national cultures and their impacts onformal legal institutions and the roles of representatives ofthe regulatory system the more general approach seems to beuseful. One key distinctionwhichwas shown tohave influenceon the nature of participatory processes in many cases is theimportance of individualism versus collectivism.

An individual holds different social roles and belongs tomore than one social and thus cultural group. Hence, it ispossible that different cultural frames occur within individualpersons andmay be activated indifferent social contexts. At thelevel of commissions, negotiation processes between countriesand in processes of stakeholder participation of organizedgroups individuals act in their role as representatives of aninterest group and represent the cultural values of these groups(Kastens, Newig and Pahl-Wostl, in review). Here contextspecific approaches are more appropriate to characterize andunderstand negotiation strategies.

Professional cultures (e.g. farmers' beliefs and practices)may be more important than national cultures for somestakeholder groups and establish an identity across nationalscales. The influence of national cultures seems to be strongerthan the influence of the technology/expert culture character-izing the community of water resource practitioners acrossnational boundaries. Information management is a goodindicator on governance styles (Langaas and Timmerman,2003). Nilsson reported on studies of informationmanagementin transboundary water regimes in Europe (Nilsson, 2003;Nilsson and Langaas, 2003). The studies provide evidence thata technical/scientific paradigm and a hierarchical governancestyle still prevail in transboundary water regimes whichinfluences a wide range of factors of key importance for sociallearning. Information requirements are mainly determined bythe river basin commissions' own needs and not by therequirements of stakeholders. Such findings have beenconfirmed for national water management bodies and by theresults from the GIS working group on the implementation ofthe EuropeanWater Framework Directive (GISWorking Group,2002). The kind of information used and theway information isused refer mainly to state of the environment and potentialimpacts with little attention to response options. Nilsson andLangaas conclude that current information managementapproaches do not meet the requirements of integratedwater resources management and collaborative and moreadaptive governance styles. New information requirementsshould be defined taking into account the needs of stake-holders and other interest groups and more participatoryforums and mechanisms should be developed. In times ofincreasing uncertainties due to climate change and fastchanging socio-economic boundary conditions collaborativeproblem solving requires active involvement of stakeholdersand the public. Information production and exchange have tobe perceived as part of a mutual dialogue and not as a one-directional transfer of expert knowledge. It will imply a changein the role of the participants in the process of developing,taking ownership, implementing, monitoring and revising ariver basin management plan (Pahl-Wostl, 2002).

The example of the role of information shows that politicaldiscourse on innovation in water management is slow inentering operational implementation. At that level processesof social learning are needed to support the development ofnew shared practices reflecting the change in the watermanagement paradigm (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2006).

6. Conclusions

There is a growing recognition that in order to addressadequately current environmental problems it is necessaryto abandon many of the assumptions of the dominantparadigm of resource management about their perceivedcauses, explanations, and possible remedies and shift towarda more holistic and integrative approach. There is a need toembrace a more systemic understanding of environmentalproblems which means in practice that remedies must alsoinclude basic changes in belief and behaviour systems.

We started our argument by noting the current paradigmchange in watermanagement. To understand the dynamics ofthis change and to develop and implement innovativemanagement practices requires new methodologicalapproaches from the social sciences. The current paradigmchange in water management can be interpreted as sign of amore general change in societal cultural perspectives. Newparticipatory and adaptive water management approacheswill not be implemented in sustainable fashion unless theyare more deeply rooted in a cultural change in society. Thepaper developed the argument that we cannot understanddynamics and transition towards new management regimeswithout understanding the interdependence between sociallearning and culture at different scales.

Radical changes in resource management require sociallearning which necessarily includes changes in culture as wellas institutions, to eventuallymodify thematerial causeswhichprovoke the problems at different scales. This is why transfor-mations in the realm of culture need to be accompanied bychanges in social structure and vice versa. While for socialstructure we understand the whole set of economic, social andenvironmental institutions, rules and social arrangementswhich regulate individual and collective behaviour, for culturewe understand the set of beliefs, values, knowledge andreference systems which make sense to those behaviours andcontribute to the building of such institutions in particularcontexts. Changes in institutions can be triggered by externalforces – thus modifying their associated cultures – or/and bychanges occurring within its own institutional culture, forinstance, by a process of social learning. Hence, institutiona-lised norms – including those regulating the management ofnatural resources – are never static but reflect the dynamicsembedded in the existing cognitive and value systems.A strongargument for deepening in the study of the relationshipsbetween culture and social learning is that under the newparadigm of integrated resource management, environmentalproblems cannot be appropriately conceptualised otherwise.However, to do so requires an improved theoretical foundationfor understanding processes of social learning and institutionalchange in general, and in the specific context of integratedresources management, in particular. Such a theoretical

494 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 8 4 – 4 9 5

foundation has to build on contributions from a wide range ofsocial sciences — individual and social psychology, sociology,political science, institutional and resource economics to namethe most important ones. We have presented one attempt tomake a contribution in this direction and demonstrated itsimportance and usefulness for the sustainablemanagement ofriver basin. The HarmoniCOP project has developed a concep-tual framework for social learning embedding group processesand multi-party collaborations into a wider context of gover-nance in a river basin. Multi-party groups must develop ashared practice to become independent of individual member-ship. Such processes may lead to new emergent institutionsthat are more flexible than formal settings. We need a betterunderstanding of the interdependence of formal and informalinstitutions and the influence of culture in institutionaladaptation. Using the concept of context dependent culturalframeworks allows us to link processes of social learning andinstitutional change with societal discourses that reflect issuespecific cultural constructs and practices. This has beenillustrated under the analysis of cultural frameworks for thecase of water policies communication in Spain and TheNetherlands. One can expect that the nature of societaldiscourses will be different in entirely different culturalcontexts (e.g. Asia, Africa) with different roles of the variousactors in civil society and non-democratic traditions. Firstresults obtained from case studies in non-European countriesindicate that the conceptual approach chosen is capable tocapture these differences and analyse their influence on watermanagement institutions and their dynamics.

Such an approach emphasizing culture and context deviatesconsiderably from theneo-classical rational actor paradigmandformal decision theoretical approaches where cultural differ-ences are largely ignored and textbook recipes such as watermarkets are advocated as generic solutions to water manage-ment problems. Our analysis supports the participatory designand implementation of institutions tailored to the diversity ofcultural, legal, economic and environmental conditions of riverbasins (Becker andOstrom, 1995; Ostrom, 1999; Dietz et al., 2003,Tàbara and Giner, 2004). Despite the fact that culture is oftenreferred to as a key element to understand the contextspecificity of resource management remarkably little work hasbeen devoted to develop a sound foundation for investigatingthis relationship. We see this paper as an important step toremedy this unsatisfactory situation.Weare convinced that thisconcept or similar ones will gainmajor importance in the yearsto come. The implementation of Integrated Water Resourcesmanagement and innovative water policies require also inno-vativeconcepts for their implementation.Givenuncertainties insocio-economic conditions and climate change and in ourknowledge about ecosystem dynamics and measures influenc-ing them, water management goals cannot and should beoperationalised too narrowly. Instead a change towards moreflexible and adaptive management strategies is much moreappropriate and highly needed.

Acknowledgements

The ideas reported in this paper profited from the lively andintensive discussions in the HarmoniCOP project. The concepts

developed are based on the work of many project participants.More details can be found in the project reports.

The HarmoniCOP project is supported by the EuropeanCommission under the 5th Framework Programme (contractNo. EVKT1-CT-2002-00120).

R E F E R E N C E S

Adger, W.N., Arnell, N.W., Tompkins, E.L., 2005. Successfuladaptation to climate change across scales. Global EnvironmentalChange 15, 77–86.

Allaire, Y., Firsirotu, M., 1984. Theories of organizational culture.Organization Studies 5/3, 193–226.

Bandura, A., 1971. Social Learning Theory. General Learning Press,Morristown N.Y.

Becker, C.D., Ostrom, E., 1995. Human ecology and resourcesustainability: the importance of institutional diversity. AnnualReview of Ecological Systems 26, 113–133.

Cortner, H.J., Moote, M.A., 1994. Trends and issues in land andwater resources management: setting the agenda for change.Environmental Management 18, 167–173.

Derlega, V.J., Cukur, C.S., Kuang, J.C., Forsyth, D.R., 2002. Interde-pendent construal of self and the endorsement of conflictresolution strategies in interpersonal, intergroup, andinternational disputes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33,610–625.

Dewulf, A., Craps, M., Dercon, G., 2004. How issues get framed andreframed when different communities meet: case study of acollaborative soil conservation initiative in the EcuadorianAndes. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology14, 177–192.

Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., Stern, P.C., 2003. The struggle to govern thecommons. Science 302, 1907–1912.

Elfenbein,H.A.,Ambady,N., 2003. Cultural similarity's consequences:a distance perspective on cross-cultural differences in emotionrecognition. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 34,92–110.

Flick, U., 2002. Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage, London.Gleick, P.H., 2003. Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions

for the 21st century. Science 302, 524–528.Gray, B., 2004. Strong opposition: frame-based resistance to

collaboration. Journal of Community & Applied SocialPsychology 14, 166–174.

Giddens, A., 1981. Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theory ofStructuration. Polity Press, Cambridge UK.

GIS Working Group, 2002. Guidance document on implementingthe GIS elements of the WFD. European communities. 166 pp.

Gleick, P.H., 2000. The changing water paradigm: a look attwenty-first century water resources development. WaterInternational 25, 127–138.

Goudsblom, J., 1980. Nihilism and Culture. Blackwell, Oxford.GWP-TEC (Global Water Partnership — Technical Advisory

Committee), 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management.TAC Background Papers, vol. 4. GWP, Stockholm, Sweden.

Hoekstra, A.Y., 1998. Appreciation of water: four perspectives.Water Policy 1, 605–622.

Hoekstra,A.Y., Beusen,A.H.W.,Hinderink,H.B.M.,VanAsselt,M.B.A.,1997.Water in crisis: the water submodel: AQUA. In: Rotmans,J., de Vries, B. (Eds.), Perspectives on Global Change. TheTargets Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp. 107–134.

Hofstede, G., 2003. Culture's Consequences, Comparing Values,Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations,Second Edition. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Jaeger, C., Beck, A., Bieri, L., Dürrrenberger, G., Rudel, R., 1998.Klimapolitik: Eine Chance für die Schweiz, Zürich, vdf.

495E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 8 4 – 4 9 5

Keesing, R., 1974. Theories of culture. Annual Review of Sociology3, 73–94.

Langaas, S., Timmerman, J.G. (Eds.), 2003. The Role and Use ofEnvironmental Information in European Transboundary RiverBasin Management. IWA Publishing, London.

Leung, K., et al., 2002. Social axioms: the search for universaldimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions.Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 33 (3), 286–302.

Markus, H., Kitayama, S., 1997. The cultural construction of selfand emotion: implications for social behavior. In: Kitayama, S.,Markus, H. (Eds.), Emotion and Culture: Empirical Studies ofMutual Influence. American Psychological Association,Washington, USA, pp. 89–132.

Mcright, A.M., Dunlap, R.E., 2000. Challenging global warming as asocial problem: an analysis of the conservative movement'scounter-claims. Social Problems 47 (4), 499–522.

Nilsson, S., 2003. The Role and Use of Information in Trans-boundary Water Management. Licenciate Thesis, TRITA-LWRLIC: 2012. DepartmentofLandandWaterResourcesEngineering.Universityservice, US AB, Stockholm.

Nilsson, S., Langaas, S., 2003. A comparative study of informationmanagement in three transboundary water regimes in Europe.In: Langaas, S., Timmerman, J.G. (Eds.), The Role and Use ofEnvironmental Information in European Transboundary RiverBasin Management. IWA Publishing, London, pp. 228–244.

Ostrom, E., 1999. Coping with tragedies of the commons. AnnualReview of Political Science 2, 493–535.

Pahl-Wostl, C., 2002. Towards sustainability in the water sector:the importance of human actors and processes of sociallearning. Aquatic Sciences 64, 394–411.

Pahl-Wostl, C., 2007a. Transition towards adaptive managementof water facing climate and global change. Water ResourcesManagement 21 (1), 49–62.

Pahl-Wostl, C., 2007b. The implications of complexity for integratedresourcesmanagement. Environmental Modelling and Software22, 561–569.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Berkamp, G., Cross, K., 2006. Adaptive manage-ment of upland rivers facing global change: general insightsand specific considerations for the Rhone basin. Paperprepared for the Rosenberg International Forum on WaterPolicy, Banff, Sep 2006, Canada.

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

Patel, M., Stel, J. (Eds.), 2004. Public Participation in River BasinManagement in Europe. A National Approach and BackgroundStudy synthesizing experience of 9 European Countries. WP4report of the HarmoniCOP project. www.harmonicop.info.

Roger, P., Hall, A., 2002. Effective Water Governance. TECBackground Paper, vol. 7. GWP, Stockholm, Sweden.

Schreurs, M.A., Clark, W.C., Dickson, N.M., Jäger, J., 2001. IssueAttention, Framing, and Actors: An Analysis of Patterns AcrossArenas. Social Learning Group. Learning to Manage GlobalEnvironmental Risks, vol. 1. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,pp. 349–364.

Silverman, D., 2001. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods forAnalysing Talk, Text and Interaction. Sage, London.

SIWI, 2005. Technology? Policy? Both? Hard and Soft DevelopmentSolutions in Focus at 2005 World Water Week. StockholmWater Front, April 2005, p. 3.

Sjöberg, L., 2000. Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis 20, 1–11.Smircich, L., 1983. Concepts of culture and organizational analysis.

Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 339–358.Tàbara, D., Costejà, M., Van Woerden, F., 2004. Las culturas del

agua en la prensa española. Los marcos culturales en lacomunicación sobre el plan hidrológico nacional. The CulturalFrameworks in the Communication of the National HydrologicalPlan. Papers, Revista de Sociologia, vol. 73. Water Cultures in theSpanish Press, pp. 155–181.

Tàbara, D., Giner, S., 2004. Diversity, civic virtues and ecologicalausterity. Revue Internationale de Sociologie / InternationalReview of Sociology 14 (2), 262–283.

Trumbo, C., 1995. Constructing climate change: claims and framesin U.S. news coverage of an environmental issue. PublicUnderstanding of Science 5, 269–283.

Van Asselt, M., Rotmans, J., 2002. Uncertainty in integratedassessment modeling. From positivism to pluralism. ClimaticChange 54, 75–105.

van Binsbergen, W.M.J., 1999. ‘Cultures do not exist’: explodingself-evidences in the investigation of interculturality. Quest 13,37–114.

Van Woerden, 2001. A comparison of cultural frameworks forwater management between Holland and Spain. ‘The cases ofthe Spanish Hidrological Plan and ‘space of the river’.Unpublished master’s thesis on environmental sciences.Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona &Wageningen University.Supervised by David Tàbara & Arthur Mol.

Ward, R.C., 1995. Special issue on integrated watershed manage-ment — a new paradigm for water management? JournalContemporary Water Research and Education 100.

Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning andIdentity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Zald, M.Y., Useem, B., 1996. Culture, ideology, and strategicframing. In: McAdam, D., McCarthy, J.D., Zald, M.N. (Eds.),Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: PoliticalOpportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framing'.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 261–274.