Originating from the management theory (Hargrove 2002), triple-loop learning builds on the double-loop learning concept developed by Argyris and Schon (1978). This is by increasing the time scales for change by considering different management and governance levels that provide direction and stability in social contexts (Fabricius & Cundill 2014; Pahl-Wostl 2009). It differs from single-loop learning, which results in the incremental advances from action strategies without questioning underlying assumptions (Pahl-Wostl 2009). Single-loop learning involves a continuation of, with concurrent improvements to, established practices and routines in targeting the achievement of goals (McLoughlin & Thoms 2015; Pahl-Wostl 2009).

In comparison, double-loop learning refers to a change in the actual frame of reference and includes a re-visitation of initial underlying assumptions of any action (Fabricius & Cundill 2014; Pahl-Wostl 2009). Social learning processes (see below) – trust, cooperation and buy-in between stakeholders, for example – are vital in double-loop learning (Pahl-Wostl 2009; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2011a). The reframing process commonly occurs within stakeholder networks characterising the resource governance regime, and improvements are achieved by experimenting with innovative approaches. Stakeholders involved in double-loop learning normally explore reframing in the context of structural constraints of governance systems, such as regulatory frameworks (Pahl-Wostl 2009).

Triple-loop learning refers to a change in the structural constraints. It includes transformation of the factors that determine the frame of reference of issues and a transformation of the entire governance regime itself (Pahl-Wostl 2009). This style of transformation necessitates an acknowledgement that paradigms and structural constraints inhibit effective reframing of resource governance and management practices. Thus, triple-loop learning implies a paradigm shift, as well as changes in the norms and values underlying the processes of governance (Pahl-Wostl 2009; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2011a).

Social learning assists natural resource practitioners to deal with complex situations by building a shared understanding amongst stakeholders, cooperation and trust (Cundill et al. 2011; Daniel & Walker 1996). Acquiring of new information and experiences, via participation and social interactions, can lead to changes in the perception of individuals (Reed et al. 2010). However, such change should go beyond individuals and include relational (e.g. improved sense of community), cognitive (e.g. change of perspectives) and technical (e.g. communication skills) dimensions (Muro & Jeffrey 2012).

There are two prominent constructs to social learning in natural resource management (cf. Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007; Pahl-Wostl, Mostert & Tàbara 2008). Firstly, processing of factual information involves a problem task or content management about a specific problem. Secondly, engagement in social exchange emphasises social relations, which are inextricably connected to management problems, because managers must consider whose problems to solve and how to frame them. Integration of the ‘social’ and ‘content’ components is facilitated via ‘relational practices’, for example, quality of interaction, shared ownership of tasks, transparency for mutual testing of options and contradiction, and suitable opportunities for reflexive sessions (McLoughlin et al. 2020) in problem-solving activities. Thus, natural resource management is not only composed of technical qualities, for example, improvement in the condition of ecosystems, but relational qualities too, for example, improved capacity of stakeholders to solve conflicts by achieving consensus through cooperation.

A number of key criteria have been found to influence social learning dynamics in a group of stakeholders practising adaptive resource management; these criteria are summarised and described in Table 1 across three categories. The first category includes a set of preconditions for social learning to take place (cf. Mostert et al. 2007). The second category relates to the emergence of a stakeholder ‘community-of-practice’ (sensu Wenger 1998), as a vital mechanism driving social learning. Evolution of a community of practice depends on a number of criteria, as displayed in Table 1 (cf. Iaquinto, Ison & Faggian 2011; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2008). The third category relates to key capacities, which enable social learning to occur (cf. Cundill et al. 2011; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007; Pahl-Wostl & Hare 2004), and often these capacities emerge from within a community of practice.

Generally, a context of trust, network building, shared understanding and conflict resolution shape stakeholder’s social learning (Ernst 2019), emergent within processes of single-, double- and triple-loop learning (Pahl-Wostl 2009). Success results from ongoing learning and negotiation through communication within trusted networks, perspective sharing and development of adaptive group strategies (Huxham & Vangen 2000; Pahl-Wostl & Hare 2004). Notably, ‘reframing’ required during double- into triple-loop learning would be difficult to achieve without social learning (Fabricius & Cundill 2014; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2011a). Active involvement of stakeholders and building of a sense of ownership during decision-making processes strengthen commitment, thus promoting consensus for achieving agreed outcomes in natural resource management (Pahl-Wostl 2009).

The SAM cycle framework (McLoughlin & Thoms 2015) is designed primarily to complement the SAM (Roux & Foxcroft 2011) variant of adaptive resource management. Each SAM cycle has two phases: an adaptive planning and an adaptive implementation phase (Figure 1). The adaptive planning phase (represented in the black boxes in Figure 1) is focused on developing objectives, culminating in the explicit, measurable end-point goals of the SAM cycle. End-point goals are the thresholds of potential concern (TPCs), and they recognise the natural variability of selected response indicators by incorporating upper and/or lower levels (thresholds) of acceptable change (McLoughlin et al. 2011b). Thresholds of potential concern are viewed as hypotheses of acceptable change, and open to challenge and refinement forming an inductive approach to adaptive management (Biggs & Rogers 2003; Rogers & Biggs 1999). The adaptive implementation phase includes five components (represented in the grey boxes in Figure 1). These are concerned with processes of selecting the best intervention options to meet goals, determining inputs for planning (associated with meeting goals), operationalising inputs via implementation of the plans, checking adequacy of plan implementation by response to operational outputs, assessing suitability of the operational outputs by auditing strategic outcomes (against TPCs) and testing achievement of the broader objectives within the adaptive management system.

The learning component in the heuristic SAM cycle framework is structured as an essential nested and ongoing process, rather than a distinct step (Figure 1). There are two learning potentials recognised – adaptive and transformative learning – facilitated by the SAM cycle adaptive feedback system (McLoughlin & Thoms 2015). Adaptive learning includes single- and double-loop learning. Two types of single-loop learning – lower and upper – allow for, respectively, more immediate responses to check operational outputs (thin, solid arrows in Figure 1), and adaptive assessments to audit strategic outcomes against explicit and measurable end-point goals (hashed arrows in Figure 1). Adaptive feedbacks for single-loop learning are mandatory because this is the actual doing, where progress is made within adaptive management (Fabricius & Cundill 2014). Double-loop learning (dotted arrows in Figure 1) is about reframing problems and solutions, which is facilitated by adaptive reflection to test achievement of the agreed objectives, considering the occurrence of any surprises. The skill lies in achieving a balance between the use of single-loop and double-loop learning (Fabricius & Cundill 2014). Reviewing values and objectives along with transformation of governance arrangements (Folke et al. 2005) is triple-loop learning (thick, solid arrows in Figure 1). Transformative (triple-loop) learning is important because if governance remains too rigid, this impedes the reframing potentials of double-loop learning (Pahl-Wostl 2009). Time scales for these feedbacks might include daily or weekly (single loop, lower), 1–3 years (single loop, upper), 4–6 years (double loop) and 8–10 years (triple loop).

The main objective of this research study was to explore the role of adaptive (single-loop and double-loop) learning and transformative (triple-loop) learning in Crocodile River management, related to the reasonable success with Ecological Reserve delivery in KNP, over a decade since 2009. We deployed the heuristic SAM cycle framework as a tool for guiding our learning investigation, integrating adaptive and transformative learning processes into the SAM system (Roux & Foxcroft 2011). Another objective was to include a stakeholder social learning assessment, because this learning is integral whilst progressing through the modes of single-, double- and triple-loop learning (Ernst 2019; Pahl-Wostl 2009). We used a quantitative assessment based on stakeholder responses (from interviews) to statements, concerning the key criteria for social learning taken from the literature (see Table 1). Assessment results offered valuable insights into ‘potentials’ for social learning amongst the Crocodile River stakeholders, although the authors concede that there were no definitive answers – further social learning research is needed. Still, improved understanding on social learning potentials helped to support the Ecological Reserve related learning narrative presented in this article. With this learning narrative, the final objective of this study was to offer lessons from the accompanying experiences for Ecological Reserve delivery in other catchments and water management areas of South Africa.

The Crocodile River is one of three river systems of the Inkomati Water Management Area (IWMA) located in the north-eastern region of South Africa (Figure 2). The water management area has a catchment size of 28 757 km², of which the Crocodile River Catchment is 10 400 km². Rainfall is strongly influenced by topography, varying from over 1200 mm per annum in the west over the Drakensberg Escarpment to as low as 400 mm per annum over the lowland plains in the east. Natural mean annual runoff in the IWMA is estimated at 3188 million m³ per annum, whilst present-day conditions yield 2058 million m³ per annum (Bailey & Pitman 2016). The Crocodile River flows eastward and confluences with the Komati River just before entering Mozambique, when it becomes the Incomati River flowing into the Indian Ocean (Figure 2). Consumptive water uses associated with the Crocodile River include industry, irrigated agriculture, domestic water supply and plantation forestry. The non-consumptive water uses are the specified minimum flow requirement to Mozambique and the South African Ecological Reserve, which is critical for maintaining biodiversity values of the KNP (see Rountree & Rogers 2004; Russell 1997; Van Coller, Rogers & Heritage 2000).

The Crocodile River is important ecologically as it forms the southern boundary of KNP (Figure 2), a world-renowned protected area whose river landscapes contribute markedly to aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity (Rountree & Rogers 2004; Russell 1997; Van Coller et al. 2000). The KNP has a well-developed history of SAM (Pollard & Du Toit 2007; Roux & Foxcroft 2011): There are river-related TPCs (e.g. Todd & Thirion 2011), which are explicit and measurable end points (operational and biodiversity) of an Objectives Hierarchy (see Biggs et al. 2011a; McLoughlin et al. 2011b) linked to KNP’s vision for maintaining biodiversity in all its natural facets and fluxes (Rogers & Bestbier 1997). The TPCs are indicators that assist management to respond to biodiversity change resulting from human-induced pressures within the catchment, predominantly upstream and outside the protected area (Biggs & Rogers 2003; Kingsford et al. 2017b). The majority of the Crocodile River catchment is dominated by unregulated river reaches, but the main stem is regulated by the Kwena Dam in the upper catchment (Figure 2). The dam has a gross storage capacity of 158 million m³, and the primary use is to supplement water supplies for irrigated agriculture in the middle and lower reaches (DWA 2010). There are smaller dams, weirs and water supply schemes throughout the catchment, which transfer water to towns, and these alter river flow and water quality, and also increase sedimentation rates. Management interventions are designed to maintain or return TPC indicators towards more natural ranges, necessitating cooperation and integration of management activities between different catchment institutions (Kingsford et al. 2017b).

Potential for social learning within the CROCOC was assessed based on stakeholder values, experiences and perceptions concerning the forum. A total of 12 stakeholders were purposefully sampled from a cross-section of sectors represented in the CROCOC forum: Inkomati–Usuthu CMA (3), Crocodile River Major Irrigation Board (2), South African National Parks (3), Silulumanzi – Mbombela Local Municipality water supplier (1), Komati Basin Water Authority (1) and IWR Water Resources (2).

After obtaining ethics approval and informed consent from all participants, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders in 2013. Each stakeholder was interviewed individually where the dialogue about the managed system was initiated. Discussions focused on key criteria taken from the literature (Table 1), which, for this study, were grouped into three relevant categories, as displayed in Table 1: ‘preconditions for social learning’, ‘community-of-practice’ and ‘key capacities for social learning’ often evolving from within a community of practice. On conclusion of each discussion session per social learning criterion (per category), the stakeholder was asked to indicate how much they agreed (or not) with a statement related to that criterion (Online Appendix 1), based on his or her experiences within the forum. For example, ‘There is mutual engagement between the various stakeholders, and this is ongoing’. Quantitative data were collected by employing a Likert-scale scoring system ranging from 1 to 10, where 1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 5 = ‘neutral’ and 10 = ‘agree completely’. Mean scores were calculated per criterion across the three categories and presented graphically in bar charts. Qualitative data were also collected during the 2013 stakeholder interviews; however, these data were not used for the purposes of this research study and its objectives, although valuable for future study (see Discussion).

In order to centre our narrative on adaptive and transformative learning capacity, initially, we selected key Ecological Reserve-related elements (e.g. TPCs, ecological monitoring and hydrological modelling) from Crocodile River management, which existed at the beginning of the period 2009–2019 (Online Appendix 2). We then assigned the selected elements to applicable components of the SAM cycle framework (McLoughlin & Thoms 2015; Figure 1). Adaptive Planning: Summary objectives of the KNP Water in the Landscape Objectives Hierarchy (see McLoughlin et al. 2011b) includes maintaining the ‘C’ Ecological Category river. The objectives culminate in the TPCs (Online Appendix 2; see McLoughlin et al. 2011b). Adaptive Implementation: Current management interventions and planning inputs to apply the Ecological Reserve, including operational and strategic monitoring, governance arrangements, actions to deliver the Ecological Reserve, monitoring of ecological conditions, checking operational outputs and auditing of strategic outcomes or TPCs (Online Appendix 2).

The Ecological Reserve-related elements selected (Online Appendix 2) are by no means an exhaustive set. For instance, water quality is excluded, yet recognised and used as an important ecosystem driver, and examples of monitoring (related to biodiversity objectives or TPCs) stem from the KNP river reaches, although monitoring occurs upstream (outside) of the protected area (Roux et al. 2018). Moreover, social and economic objectives of the broader Crocodile River SAM system (Jackson 2015; Rogers & Luton 2011) are important and recognised, but not taken further in this study (achieving these objectives entails comparable and concurrent learning processes). Nonetheless, we consider the selected elements to be sufficient for presenting a succinct but informative learning narrative.

We then identified key experiences from within the Crocodile River SAM system (related to Ecological Reserve management) over the period 2009–2019 and categorised these into observations of change according to the SAM cycle framework: single-loop, double-loop and triple-loop learning (Figure 1). We sourced information from journal articles, research or technical reports (e.g. Water Research Commission), internal South African National Parks documents or reports (and discussions with staff) and, importantly, from our personal experiences with the SAM system. The adaptive and transformative learning capacity narrative was then constructed around these observations (examples) – representing key learning experiences (single-, double- and triple-loop learning) – and also outcomes from the social learning assessment. Notably, any adaptive management system is an ongoing evolutionary process (Allan & Stankey 2009); hence, the narrative of this study makes reference to promising future single-, double- and triple-loop learning processes, where appropriate.

Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee, Ethics Office, Research Development & Integrity Research Division of the University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia – HE13-240.

A large part of this learning occurs because of operations of the RRS in the Crocodile River SAM, which gets feedbacks working as quickly as possible ideally before river flows decline to unacceptable levels (Figure 4). These feedbacks are vital because uncertainties exist; for instance, the hydrological models are built on imperfect data and assumptions; therefore, errors will always exist when predicting river flow behaviour. Typically, lower-grade single-loop learning improves understanding on the quantity and timing of the Kwena Dam water releases for implementing the Ecological Reserve in conjunction with irrigation and water restrictions imposed. Whilst this article is framed around Ecological Reserve implementation, there is a concomitant process undertaken by the commercial irrigation sector, who themselves proactively monitor river flows at their specific target points, implement restrictions or strategies where necessary, and/or request releases from Kwena Dam. Critically, RRS-related understanding is growing whilst Ecological Reserve flows are actually being implemented, and this ‘learning-by-doing’ is likely the key factor promoting ability to make timely decisions on river flow operations and the adjustments when needed.

In the authors’ view, success of the RRS would not be possible without champions – people who initiate and facilitate significant stakeholder interactions via more informal interactions and operational feedbacks, often using pragmatic communication mechanisms (e.g. via WhatsApp^TM). The champion role has been taken up by the River Systems Planning and Operations Manager of the Inkomati-Usuthu CMA and the KNP freshwater team, and more recently the CRMIB themselves who value the Ecological Reserve as a sustainability metric. By streamlining operations of the RRS and the now quarterly CROCOC meetings, these champions are arguably the most important catalyst building social learning potentials (e.g. exchange of ideas, trust, cooperation) in Crocodile River SAM. This point is significant, given typical (formal) structural constraints imposed on Ecological Reserve practitioners and stakeholders at the catchment-scale in South Africa, from national water policy (see Pollard & Du Toit 2011a). Overall, the RRS is an operational conduit illustrating how progressive and adaptive implementation of the Ecological Reserve can be realised in South African rivers.

The TPC-related auditing process (cf. McLoughlin et al. 2011b) is the prominent instigator of feedbacks for this learning in Crocodile River SAM; its intention is to support stakeholders in making purposeful decisions related to implementation of Ecological Reserve. The process involves collating TPC audit reports via the TPC maintenance system where TPCs are tabled if or when they are exceeded, or close to being exceeded (see Biggs & Rogers 2003). The TPCs are measurable end points ultimately alerting stakeholders to risk of the ‘C’ Ecological Category river being lost. If so, increased effort is directed towards technicalities (e.g. RRS procedures) for getting expected Ecological Reserves delivered. To this end, the reporting of the Ecological Reserve ‘worry levels’ has to be amended from time to time, as mentioned previously. This is to account for new compliance targets, including international flow obligations (the triple-loop related change, see below), and that in itself is an adaptive process.

Attention often skews towards the Ecological Reserve operations (RRS), that is, at the expense of the upper-grade single-loop learning feedbacks. However, implementing the Ecological Reserve is not an end in itself but a recommended flow regime (hypothesis) to maintain the ‘C’ Ecological Category river based on the best available knowledge. This is then one constructive critique of Crocodile River SAM, because monitoring outcomes are needed to test the generally precautionary estimates of required flows – against the real Ecological Categories which result – thus, enhancing understanding of the relationship between river flow patterns and ecological conditions (McLoughlin et al. 2011a). A greater appreciation of such feedbacks and outcomes can be strengthened by improved group understanding of system complexity (vis-à-vis low-relative score – Figure 3c), in particular appreciation of the range of interwoven interests, influences and needs. Such a favourable outcome can be achieved if stakeholders co-construct conceptual ‘systemic’ diagrams of the managed system (cf. Biggs et al. 2008; Pollard, Biggs & Du Toit 2014) and/or with mental model analyses (see Adams et al. 2018; Biggs et al. 2011c). Importantly, learning processes in Crocodile River SAM need to accommodate changing circumstances across water-use sectors, and factor any change into future medium to long-term river operations and decision-making.

Overall, single-loop learning (lower- and upper-grade) is the basis for double-loop (reframing; changing practice) into triple-loop (reviewing; transforming governance) learning in the Crocodile River SAM (McLoughlin & Thoms 2015). Notably, in order to avoid the trap of ‘learning for the sake of learning’ (Fabricius & Cundill 2014), there must not be a disproportionate amount of time spent on double- and/or triple-loop learning (e.g. Biggs et al. 2011b; Pollard et al. 2011a; Varady et al. 2013), that is, at the expense of the ‘actual doing’ (single-loop learning). Hence, within environmental water programmes, finding an appropriate balance between modes of single-, double- and triple-loop learning is encouraged (McLoughlin & Thoms 2015).

Adaptive reflection-related feedbacks in Crocodile River SAM foster a more deliberate and lengthy evaluation (cf. Biggs et al. 2011b) concerning the Ecological Reserve, which is linked to biodiversity objectives and the explicit measurable end-points or TPCs. Construction of TPCs uses existing knowledge (formal scientific and local/tacit), however, incomplete this is (Biggs et al. 2011a; McLoughlin et al. 2011b) based on stakeholder values. Following principles of requisite simplicity (see Stirzaker et al. 2010) – necessitated when managing in complex and uncertain contexts – means that within the inductive approach to TPC development, stakeholders never attempt to finalise indicators and their associated thresholds. Hence TPCs are often developed as ‘first generation’ TPCs (Biggs et al. 2011a), and open to challenge and refinement as new knowledge becomes available and/or stakeholder values change. For example, the reframed KNP geomorphic TPCs (McLoughlin et al. 2011b) are cost effective, feasible and relevant to low-flow Ecological Reserve implementation and ongoing management (though still to be deployed). Generally, reframing should not occur too often; otherwise change at the expense of the ‘actual doing’ may well overwhelm management (Fabricius & Cundill 2014).

Another double-loop learning experience was facilitated when adaptive reflection processes led CROCOC stakeholders to identify and then acknowledge an approximate 10% inaccuracy in the Ecological Reserve benchmark calculated each week (S. Mallory [IWR Water Resources Pty (Ltd)] pers. comm., 13 August 2013). Effective communication and the build-up of trust amongst stakeholders enabled new thinking to emerge, and this translated into a decision to allow the Ecological Reserve to fluctuate within an ‘envelope of acceptability’ – rather than an exact amount – defined by the ‘Low-worry’ to ‘Medium-worry’ RRS levels (Figure 4). Still, if gauged river flow ever breaches the ‘Medium-worry’ level, then management urgency is definitely stepped up. Such change in practice – emanating from this more informal stakeholder network – is important, although in direct contrast to more rigid top-down constraints imposed by legislation on CMAs and stakeholders (e.g. expecting exact or legally defendable compliances with gazetted Ecological Reserves), making Ecological Reserves difficult to achieve in practice (Pollard & Du Toit 2011a). It is within these informal stakeholder networks (Figure 4) where innovation and learnings are supported, albeit under the necessary stabilising context of the formal water policy (cf. Pahl-Wostl 2015).

Overall, broadening social learning potential in the CROCOC forum (e.g. awareness of interdependence, information sharing and joint problem solving) helps to foster the reframing requirements of double-loop learning, which is important for resolving complex management problems. Here, the stakeholder network proceeds to deal with specific problems and is open to experimentation involving different approaches (Pahl-Wostl 2009). Such innovation and flexible management are crucial factors for progressive implementation of the Ecological Reserve in the Crocodile River.

Triple-loop learning encompasses a review of values, norms and governance arrangements associated with Ecological Reserve management; it is transformative change over longer time frames. A key example is the Crocodile River’s RRS, with already a decade of deployment and further refinement. The RRS reinvigorated (practical) ways for negotiations to occur in a highly contested and water-stressed catchment situation with a history of Ecological Reserve noncompliance (Pollard & Du Toit 2011b; Pollard et al. 2011b; Riddell & Jewitt 2010; Riddell et al. 2014). With collaborative decision-making when river flow declines below different ‘worry-levels’ (Figure 4), stakeholders are building trust as they cooperate and together explore best options and solutions for management. This was clearly demonstrated during the peak of the severe 2015–2016 drought. Crocodile River flows recorded at the TenBosch Gauging Weir were consistently higher than that was observed previously during the previous significant droughts of 1991–1992 and 1982–1983, despite lower catchment rainfall and higher temperatures occurring in the 2015–2016 period (Smit & Bond 2020). Furthermore, partnerships and interdependent roles have been entrusted to, and between, different stakeholders, for example, the monitoring and ecosystem reporting role of the KNP (Figure 5) and the dam and water restriction operations of the CRMIB. These kinds of innovation, and also cooperation, are vital for effectual Ecological Reserve implementation.

The degree of ‘agency’ – extent to which stakeholders as a group act independently, making free choices (cf. Pahl-Wostl 2015) – is pivotal for adaptive management of environmental water. Agency supports progression of transformative (i.e. double into triple loop) learning and innovation (Pahl-Wostl 2009) amongst practitioners and stakeholders, in conjunction with top-down (national) influences. Indeed, there is now significant national government interest in Crocodile River SAM, with nascent bottom-up learnings expected to help step up countrywide Ecological Reserve applications (E.S. Riddell [South African National Parks] pers. comm., 18 December 2019). Besides, national-level transformative change will certainly influence SAM of the Crocodile River, for example, a review of and amendment to the National Water Act itself including any legislated water resource protection mechanisms. In addition, recent review of the KNP’s vision and mission (www.sanparks.org/assets/docs/conservation/park_man/knp/draft-plan.pdf), reflecting a change in values, demands holistic transformation of governance arrangements, for instance, refocusing management on the entire freshwater resource base, especially the current priority values of equity and redress (Pollard & Du Toit 2011b). In the future, a conscious review is required of all constraints and opportunities associated with the Crocodile River’s gazetted Ecological Reserve. Altogether, these bottom-up and top-down processes impact the effectiveness of environmental flow planning and implementation, and hence, they are significant in shaping the delivery of Ecological Reserve in South African rivers.

With emergent social learning – progressing through modes of single-, double- and triple-loop learning – since 2009 and a decade of managing the Crocodile River, growing capacity for adaptive and transformative learning helps stakeholders to deliver the Ecological Reserve. Importantly, this learning has been concurrent and in combination with meaningful change happening in the Crocodile River system between 2009 and 2019 (see Table 2). Learning is by no means absolute; it is ongoing and evolving. After the 2013 interviews, the authors have witnessed further potential for CROCOC social learning. For example, group problem solving particularly concerning the low-flow river abstraction problems and early warning solutions implemented, applicable not only to the irrigation sector but also to the municipal sector now. Stakeholders generally communicate well, exchange ideas and share information, which assists them to deal with joint problems. Cooperation is growing within a dynamic environment of increasing trust and shared understanding, demonstrated via stakeholder consensus being reached to avoid, at all costs, river flows dipping into the very high (now extreme) RRS ‘worry level’. Social learning-related advantages were evident during the severe drought crisis of 2015–2016. Future analysis of the qualitative data also collected during the 2013 interviews will be highly beneficial in understanding CROCOC social learning processes. Furthermore, eliciting stakeholder mental models (cf. Biggs et al. 2008; Lynam et al. 2012) can make explicit the implicit assumptions individuals hold and how they understand a managed system (Adams et al. 2018; Moon & Adams 2016). Besides, mental model analyses offer insights into how single-, double- and triple-loop learning transpires and proceeds over time (cf. Biggs et al. 2011c).

Learning experiences from the KNP-linked Crocodile River SAM system thus far have helped to tailor Ecological Reserve implementation in other perennial rivers traversing KNP (e.g. Olifants River; Biggs et al. 2017; Table 2) via translation of the social learning processes. Such experiences (and lessons) are applicable to environmental water programmes throughout South Africa and, the authors believe, further abroad too. As climate change uncertainties manifest, particularly frequency and intensity of droughts and floods, increased resilience with stakeholder collaboration, learning and ability to adapt and change will become increasingly important for sustainable management and use of rivers, worldwide.