Assessing Short-term Social Learning Effects of Participatory Scenario Planning in Tehran Basin, Iran: An Exploratory Study

Assessing Short-term Social Learning Effects of Participatory Scenario Planning in Tehran Basin, Iran: An Exploratory Study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Assessing Short-term Social Learning Effects of Participatory Scenario Planning in Tehran Basin, Iran: An Exploratory Study Amirali Boroumand, Mohammad Javad Amiri, Esmail Salehi This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9449043/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP)—conceptualized as a collaborative process of envisioning and negotiating plausible futures—represents a promising approach for strengthening environmental governance in contemporary Iran, particularly in addressing complex challenges such as water scarcity, land subsidence, dust storms, and wetland degradation. While recent scholarship highlights the capacity of PSP to foster social learning and enhance governance-related knowledge, values, and competencies, empirical evidence from the Iranian context remains limited. This study investigates a PSP intervention conducted in the Tehran Basin to assess three dimensions of social learning among participants (n = 90): systems thinking (cognitive dimension), rational trust (relational dimension), and environmental aspirations (normative dimension). Adopting a mixed-methods explanatory design, the study combined a quasi-experimental assessment of learning outcomes with qualitative inquiry. The findings provide evidence that PSP enhances systems thinking by broadening participants' mental models of socio-ecological interdependencies, strengthens rational trust across institutional boundaries, and reorients environmental aspirations toward process-oriented governance approaches. These learning effects persisted for at least three months following participation. Key operational factors—including stakeholder diversity, interactive participatory methods, and skilled facilitation—significantly shaped the depth and persistence of social learning outcomes. Environmental governance Social learning Collaborative governance Iran Participatory processes. Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Highlights • This study examines whether Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP) functions as a structured social learning process within the Tehran Basin, Iran. • Findings demonstrate that PSP can enhance systems thinking, rational trust, and environmental aspirations among participants, though trust gains may be fragile over time. • Most learning effects remained stable, though trust gains for some governmental actors proved fragile. • Participant diversity (e.g., farmers, extension agents, academics, and NGOs), careful process design, and skilled facilitation emerged as critical enabling conditions for effective social learning under Iranian governance contexts. • The study advances a conceptual and methodological framework for analyzing PSP as a social learning mechanism in water and dryland ecosystem governance. Introduction Governing the environment in Iran, as in many parts of the Anthropocene, calls for new ways of thinking and acting to ensure that decision-making, policy development, and agenda-setting can effectively respond to emerging needs related to sustainability, fairness, and resilience (Boroumand et al. 2026 ). Iran is experiencing a convergence of environmental crises, including extended droughts, depletion of aquifers, land subsidence, dust storms, and the dramatic drying of wetlands (Abbaspour et al. 2009 ; Abdi et al. 2018 ; Sadeghi & Hazbavi, 2022 ; Hamidifar, 2024 ; Kameli et al. 2025 ). These issues are worsened by institutional fragmentation, sectoral silos, and a legacy of top-down governance that often sidelines local knowledge and damages stakeholder trust. Addressing such complex social-ecological challenges requires skills like systems thinking, building trust, and fostering inclusive participation. Moreover, processes that acknowledge and involve diverse interests and values—including those of farmers, pastoralists, water authorities, researchers, and NGOs—can help reduce conflicts, especially in highly contested systems like Iran’s drying lake basins. Governance based on trust and collaboration can lead to more integrated decisions (Sohrabi, 2025 ; Vahabzadeh et al. 2025 ‏; Nasirian & Naddafi, 2025 ). Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP) is increasingly recognized as a promising approach to make environmental management more inclusive, systems-oriented, and trust-based (Van der Wal et al. 2014 ‏; Chaffin et al. 2016 ; Ernst, 2019B ). PSP involves collaboratively creating plausible scenarios about the future. These scenarios are powerful tools for exploring drivers, risks, and opportunities that influence future policies across social-ecological systems. When developed with diverse stakeholders who bring different types of knowledge, PSP scenarios tend to be more innovative and better reflect the complexities of social-ecological systems, resulting in decisions that are more accepted and applicable. Globally, PSP has been widely used to guide management and policy decisions across various systems (Molleman & Gaechter, 2018 ; Ernst, 2019A ; Hovardas, 2021 ; Galang et al. 2025 ). In Iran, scenario planning has mainly been employed within academic and strategic contexts, but the broader potential of PSP as a social learning tool remains underexplored. Most Iranian scenario exercises have been led by experts or confined to government agencies, with limited involvement from local communities and civil society. Recent research highlights PSP’s capacity for social learning—sharing knowledge, mutual understanding, and co-creating experiences (Koontz, 2014 ; Kuenkel & Gruen, 2017 ; Von Schönfeld et al. 2019 ; Duda, 2022 ‏‏). PSP can enhance participants’ knowledge, values, and skills, which can have broader implications for environmental governance (e.g., von Schönfeld et al. 2020 ; Kørnøv et al. 2022 ‏). Scholars suggest that PSP fosters social learning because it creates a shared space for collaboration—acting as a “boundary object”—and facilitates peer-to-peer exchange among participants from diverse backgrounds (Wals, 2014 ; Schauppenlehner-Kloyber & Penker, 2015 ). In Iran, where hierarchical structures and sectoral divides have historically limited cross-stakeholder dialogue (Bagherzadeh et al. 2024 ; Rezaei et al. 2025 ; Abiyat & Abiyat, 2025 ; Salajegheh et al. 2026 ), PSP offers a promising way to bridge these gaps. However, evidence of actual social learning outcomes—such as changes in knowledge, values, or relationships—is limited (Koontz, 2014 ; Chaffin et al. 2016 ). Research on assessing social learning within PSP remains scarce, often focusing on creative outputs rather than on the process of social learning itself. When social learning has been observed, it’s usually documented post-hoc through reflections or participant feedback. There’s also a lack of systematic, long-term assessments of social learning, making it difficult to determine whether changes are temporary or lasting. Few studies have identified specific features of PSP that enhance its capacity for social learning. Empirical evaluations could help improve PSP design and implementation—especially in Iran, where participatory approaches are still rare and often face institutional resistance (Galang et al. 2025 ). These knowledge gaps also hinder understanding of critiques leveled at PSPs, such as the risk of reinforcing existing power imbalances or reducing diverse knowledge to fit dominant models. Concerns also include the possibility of participation exacerbating misunderstandings or damaging relationships (Garmendia & Stagl, 2010 ; Newig et al. 2019 ), especially in Iran where long-standing mistrust between the state and society, unequal power relations, and unresolved conflicts over water resources complicate collaboration. Additionally, PSP can be costly in terms of time and resources (Chaffin et al. 2016 ); however, the short duration (single workshop) and demonstrated durability of effects in this study suggest a favorable cost-benefit profile for similar contexts. Conceptual Framework for Assessing Social Learning in PSP We adapted an existing framework, originally used to evaluate individual social learning in collaborative environmental decision-making (Fig. 1 ) (Johnson et al. 2012 ; Baird et al. 2014 ; Armitage et al. 2018 ; Walker & Daniels, 2019 ; Choobchian et al. 2025 ), for application within PSP. This framework considers PSP as an enabling process that fosters social learning by serving as a boundary object for collaboration and as a mechanism for knowledge exchange (Poskitt et al. 2021 ). Such a process can produce cognitive effects (new or restructured knowledge), relational effects (changes in relationships), and normative effects (shifts in values and norms) (Huitema et al. 2010 ). As visualized in Fig. 1 , PSP is conceptualized as an enabling process that functions as a boundary object for collaboration and a mechanism for knowledge exchange, generating social learning outcomes across three interrelated dimensions: cognitive (changes in knowledge and mental models), relational (changes in relationships, trust, and mutual understanding), and normative (shifts in values, beliefs, and environmental aspirations). These learning effects are shaped by key operational attributes of PSP, including participant composition, process activities, and facilitation, and are embedded within broader contextual conditions (e.g., political, economic, hydrological, and socio-cultural factors). The framework guides the assessment of both immediate and longer-term social learning effects, as examined through a quasi-experimental design in the Tehran Basin case. As Galang et al. ( 2025 ) explained cognitive effects occur when participants gain new information or reinterpret existing knowledge. For example, in Iran, a farmer might understand how upstream water use impacts groundwater recharge and wetland inflows—connections often obscured by sectoral silos. Relational effects are reflected in changes in relationships, such as improved understanding of other actors’ interests and resources. Participants may recognize the legitimacy of different stakeholder concerns, fostering trust—particularly vital in Iran, where trust between agencies and local communities has been eroded by decades of centralized governance. Normative effects involve shifts in values, beliefs, or environmental aspirations, often stemming from prior cognitive and relational learning. For instance, a researcher who initially prioritized technical fixes might, after engaging in a PSP, value participatory governance and ecological restoration more deeply. Our framework assesses these facets to understand how PSP influences participants’ thinking, relationships, and power dynamics—crucial in Iran’s governance context. We also identified key features of PSP that are essential for fostering social learning, including: (1) participant composition, (2) process activities, and (3) facilitation. Composition involves selecting diverse participants—balancing sectors, levels, and knowledge systems (scientific, local, indigenous, religious). Process refers to the activities that enable interaction, such as mapping or scenario building, designed to challenge traditional hierarchies. Facilitation ensures that discussions remain productive, inclusive, and sensitive to cultural norms, especially in Iran, where dynamics such as respect for authority and gender roles influence participation. These operational features are situated within the broader context—considering external factors like political climate, economic sanctions, seasonal water shortages, and media coverage—that influence engagement and trust. Our study aims to answer two main questions: How does a PSP influence cognitive, relational, and normative social learning over both immediate and longer-term periods? How do the operational attributes of a PSP affect social learning? Using the Tehran Basin case, we conducted a quasi-experimental study to evaluate these questions, focusing on short- and medium-term effects (up to three months). Our team’s diverse backgrounds in participatory research, social sciences, scenario planning, and Iranian social-ecological systems informed the study, which involved designing, implementing, and analyzing the PSP process and its outcomes. Methodology This study examines a PSP process designed to co-develop plausible future scenarios for the Tehran Basin by 2050. The case focuses on the evolving social–ecological dynamics of the basin, a complex landscape shaped by distinctive environmental conditions alongside historically embedded land-use practices such as qanat-based irrigation and transhumant pastoralism. Contemporary pressures, including intensive irrigated agriculture, dam construction, rapid urbanization, and declining groundwater reserves, have further transformed the basin’s ecological and socio-economic configuration. These dynamics have given rise to a set of interrelated challenges, including prolonged drought, and intensified dust storm activity. Such pressures have exacerbated tensions among stakeholders, particularly regarding competing visions for the future of the basin. Debates persist over alternative management strategies—such as inter-basin water transfers, demand-side agricultural reforms, and ecological restoration—each involving significant trade-offs across livelihoods, ecosystem integrity, and regional climate stability. While these governance tensions motivated the implementation of the PSP process, the present study does not explicitly evaluate conflict resolution outcomes. The PSP was designed to ensure organizational and epistemic diversity, engaging 90 participants representing academic institutions, governmental bodies, and non-governmental or sectoral organizations. Participants included representatives from universities, environmental research institutes, farmer associations, agricultural cooperatives, environmental NGOs, and multiple governmental agencies operating at local, provincial, and national levels. All participants occupied decision-making or leadership roles within their respective organizations, with professional experience ranging from 3 to 42 years (median: 18 years). The gender composition (7 female, 23 male) reflects broader structural imbalances within environmental governance in Iran. Ethical approval was obtained, and all participants provided informed consent. The PSP process was implemented through deep discussions. The debates followed a standard exploratory scenario development approach, resulting in four alternative future narratives derived from two key uncertain drivers identified by participants. The sessions progressed sequentially from reflection on past landscape experiences, to understanding present conditions, identifying critical drivers of change, and ultimately co-constructing future scenarios through creative and deliberative group processes. Facilitation was carefully structured, combining active (directive) and passive (non-directive) approaches. Plenary sessions were guided more actively to ensure coherence and progression, whereas small-group discussions emphasized participant-led interaction, supported by minimal facilitation. The facilitation team included both researchers and independent facilitators, supported by trained assistants. Prior to the workshop, facilitators participated in preparatory and calibration sessions to ensure consistency in approach. Particular attention was given to managing cultural norms, hierarchical sensitivities, and power asymmetries, with deliberate efforts to create inclusive spaces that enabled equitable participation across diverse stakeholder groups. The study employed a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design, integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative data were first collected using a one-group pre-test/post-test design with three-month follow-up (a pre-experimental design, as no control group was feasible given the participatory context). These data were analyzed to assess changes in selected indicators of social learning across three time points: pre-workshop (T1), immediately post-workshop (T2), and follow-up (T3). Subsequently, qualitative interview data were collected to contextualize and interpret the quantitative findings, with particular attention to the role of PSP’s operational attributes. Measurement of Social Learning Effects To assess social learning, we operationalized three dimensions—cognitive, relational, and normative—through context-specific indicators aligned with sustainability-oriented governance competencies. Cognitive learning was measured through systems thinking , defined as participants’ mental representations of the components and interconnections within the Tehran Basin’s social–ecological system. Relational learning was assessed via rational trust , conceptualized as participants’ perceived likelihood of achieving desired outcomes through collaboration with other organizations. Normative learning was captured through environmental aspirations , reflecting participants desired future conditions for the basin over a 25–30-year horizon. These measures were selected to reflect both theoretical relevance and contextual applicability to environmental governance challenges in the Tehran Basin. Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis Quantitative data were collected at three stages: pre- and post-workshop using paper-based instruments, and at follow-up through an online Persian-language survey platform. Participants were informed that the study examined changes in perceptions without disclosing specific constructs, thereby reducing response bias. Cognitive learning (systems thinking) was assessed by eliciting participants’ representations of key landscape components through flexible response formats (e.g., written descriptions, lists, diagrams). Responses were standardized and analyzed using summative content analysis, including keyword extraction, normalization of synonyms, and aggregation into a unified set of system components. Changes over time were evaluated using non-parametric statistical tests, focusing on both the diversity and frequency of system elements identified. Relational learning (rational trust) was measured trough Likert-scale ratings assessing perceived benefits of collaboration with each represented organization. Participants could opt out of rating unfamiliar organizations. Paired comparisons across time points were conducted using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to detect statistically significant changes in perceived trust. Normative learning (environmental aspirations) was analyzed through inductive thematic analysis. Participant statements were coded iteratively using a two-cycle process (initial coding and pattern coding), allowing for the identification of dominant aspiration themes. Changes in thematic distributions across time points were examined using Fisher’s Exact Test. Several methodological limitations arise from the participatory and context-specific nature of the study. The absence of a control group limits causal inference, while the relatively small sample size (n = 90) constrains statistical power and necessitates the use of non-parametric methods. Potential self-selection bias may also be present, as participants opting into the study may be more predisposed toward collaborative engagement. Additionally, time constraints limited the scope of measurable constructs, and certain dimensions of systems thinking—particularly dynamic interrelationships—could not be robustly quantified. Efforts were made to mitigate bias through careful instrument design, ethical transparency, and separation of facilitation and data collection roles where feasible. Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis To complement quantitative findings, semi-structured follow-up interviews were conducted three months after the workshop with 30 participants representing all organizational categories. Interviews were conducted in Persian, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English for analysis. Participants were first presented with summarized quantitative results as part of a member-checking process, allowing them to validate and reflect on observed trends. Subsequently, they were asked to identify key factors influencing their learning experiences, with particular emphasis on participant composition, process design, and facilitation. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by the study’s conceptual framework. Coding focused on identifying recurring patterns related to the three operational attributes of PSP. Coding reliability was ensured through independent coding by multiple researchers and iterative reconciliation of discrepancies. Analytical outputs included thematic categorization, frequency of references, and illustrative quotations. Results Cognitive Learning Effect: Changes in Systems Thinking The cognitive dimension of social learning was evaluated by analyzing changes in both the number and diversity of landscape components that participants considered salient for decision-making in the Tehran Basin. As illustrated in Fig. 2, at baseline (T1), all participants identified at least three components (range: 3-8), with a mean of 4.94 (SD = 1.61)., out of a total of 14 categories derived from the pooled dataset. This baseline pattern indicates a minimum level of pre-existing system awareness among all participants prior to the intervention. Notwithstanding this baseline, a clear expansion in both the breadth and complexity of participants’ mental models was observed over time. The mean number of landscape components identified increased from 4.94 (SD = 1.61) at T1 (pre-workshop) to 6.11 (SD = 1.68) at T2 (immediately post-workshop), and further to 6.33 (SD = 1.82) at T3 (three-month follow-up). As depicted in Fig. 2, this upward trajectory reflects a substantial immediate cognitive effect of the PSP process. However, the difference between T2 and T3 was not statistically significant (p > 0.10), suggesting that while the gains in systems thinking were effectively sustained over time, they did not continue to expand beyond the immediate post-intervention phase. At the individual level, the distribution of responses further reinforces this trend. By T3, all participants identified at least four landscape components, compared to a minimum of three at baseline. Additionally, the upper bound of identified components increased from eight at T1 to ten at both T2 and T3, indicating that a subset of participants developed markedly more comprehensive and nuanced representations of the social–ecological system following participation in the PSP. Beyond quantitative expansion, qualitative shifts in the composition of participants’ mental models were also evident (see Fig. 3). Across all time points, references to the ecosystem and agricultural land (including irrigated farmland) remained dominant, each cited by at least 72% of participants. These elements—frequently combined with groundwater or river/inflow systems—constituted the most common conceptual clusters in participants’ responses, reflecting their centrality in the Tehran Basin’s socio-ecological dynamics. Importantly, several previously underrepresented components gained prominence following the PSP intervention. Elements such as dams, salt flats (namakzar), dust sources, protected areas, and villages were more frequently identified at T2 and T3 relative to T1. Of particular significance is the progressive increase in references to groundwater and aquifer systems across all three time points. This pattern suggests that the PSP process successfully directed participants’ attention toward subsurface hydrological dynamics—critical yet often overlooked components in conventional, surface-water-centric policy discourses in Iran. Overall, approximately half of the identified landscape components exhibited a consistent increase in representation from T1 through T3. Taken together, these findings indicate that PSP not only broadened the scope of participants’ systems thinking but also reoriented their cognitive focus toward less visible, yet functionally critical, dimensions of the Tehran Basin’s social–ecological system. Relational Learning Effect: Changes in Rational Trust Relational learning was assessed through changes in rational (calculative) trust, measured as participants’ perceived likelihood of achieving organizational goals through collaboration with other actors. Across all time points, mean trust ratings remained relatively high (≥ 4.00 on a 5-point scale) for most organizations, indicating an already favorable baseline for inter-organizational perceptions (Table 1). Table 1. Mean rational trust ratings received by each represented organization across time points (*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ▲ = increase; ▼ = decrease; ¹ n varies due to participants opting out of rating unfamiliar organizations). Org. Code Organization Type Organization n¹ (T1–T2) T1 Mean T2 Mean p-value n¹ (T2–T3) T2 Mean T3 Mean p-value Academic and Research Organizations A Academic University of Tehran 12 4.75 4.92 0.317 14 4.79 4.71 0.564 B Academic Amirkabir University 13 4.38 4.69 0.096* ▲ 15 4.60 4.53 0.180 C Academic INIOAS² 10 4.60 4.90 0.083* ▲ 11 4.73 4.64 0.317 Non-Governmental and Sectoral Organizations D NGO/Sectoral Farmer Water User Association 16 4.31 4.50 0.257 15 4.47 4.60 0.527 E NGO Environmental NGO 9 4.11 4.22 0.564 10 4.10 4.10 0.655 F Sectoral Agricultural Cooperative Union 14 3.93 4.21 0.083* ▲ 15 4.07 3.87 0.248 G Sectoral Chamber of Commerce 8 4.25 4.38 0.655 9 4.22 4.22 1.000 H Sectoral Women Farmers’ Association 12 3.83 4.17 0.120 ▲ 12 4.08 3.92 0.157 I Sectoral Agricultural Engineering Organization 13 4.31 4.38 0.705 13 4.31 4.23 0.317 J Sectoral Pastoralists’ Cooperative (Kurdish community) 12 3.58 4.25 0.020** ▲ 12 4.25 4.08 0.180 K NGO Iranian Wetlands Conservation Society 11 4.09 4.36 0.157 11 4.18 4.27 0.564 Governmental Organizations L Government Dept. of Environment 14 4.21 4.43 0.180 14 4.36 3.93 0.014** ▼ M Government Regional Water Authority 16 4.31 4.63 0.096* ▲ 14 4.64 4.86 0.083* ▲ N Government Jihad-e-Agriculture 14 3.71 4.29 0.034** ▲ 14 4.14 4.07 0.655 O Government Tehran Restoration Program National Committee 12 4.42 4.67 0.102 13 4.54 4.15 0.059* ▼ P Government Ministry of Energy (Provincial Office) 13 4.23 4.62 0.059* ▲ 15 4.40 4.20 0.248 Q Government Management and Planning Organization (Provincial) 12 4.17 4.42 0.480 14 4.29 4.21 0.705 R Government Natural Resources & Watershed Mgmt. Organization 13 4.15 4.46 0.317 12 4.33 4.25 0.705 Academic and research institutions consistently received the highest trust ratings at both T2 and T3. This pattern reflects the perceived neutrality and technical credibility often associated with scientific actors in environmental governance contexts. Despite the high baseline, seven organizations across different sectors (academic, non-governmental, and governmental) exhibited statistically significant increases in trust from T1 to T2 at the 90% confidence level. This indicates that the PSP process had an immediate positive effect on participants’ willingness to cooperate with a range of actors. Notably, no organization experienced a statistically significant decline in trust immediately following the workshop. Of these seven organizations, six maintained their increased trust levels at T3, as evidenced by the absence of significant differences between T2 and T3. This suggests that the relational gains achieved during the workshop were largely durable over the three-month period. Furthermore, one governmental organization—Tehran Regional Water Authority (Organization M)—experienced an additional significant increase in trust at T3, indicating continued strengthening of inter-organizational confidence beyond the immediate intervention. However, some delayed declines in trust were observed. Two governmental organizations—the Department of Environment (Organization L) and the Tehran Restoration Program National Committee (Organization O)—showed statistically significant decreases in trust at T3 (at 90% and 95% confidence levels, respectively), despite stable or slightly increased trust levels immediately after the workshop. These findings suggest that while PSP can enhance trust in the short term, longer-term dynamics may be influenced by external factors, institutional performance, or evolving perceptions beyond the workshop setting. An additional noteworthy pattern concerns the increase in complete rating pairs over time for several organizations. This indicates that more participants felt sufficiently informed to evaluate these actors at later stages, rather than selecting the “insufficient information” option. Improved familiarity was evident for marginalized groups: the Pastoralists' Cooperative (J) showed a significant trust increase from T1 to T2 (p=0.020), though this gain was not fully sustained at T3. This suggests that the PSP process helped reduce informational barriers and improved participants’ familiarity with—and confidence in assessing—the roles and contributions of these actors. Overall, the findings demonstrate that PSP can foster meaningful improvements in relational dimensions of governance, particularly by enhancing inter-organizational understanding, perceived cooperation potential, and trust, while also highlighting the complexity and potential fragility of these gains over time. Normative learning effect: changes in environmental aspirations Our results show that there were at least 35 distinct responses or environmental aspirations across all periods that were coded and clustered into nine themes (Fig. 4; see Online Resource 1 for definitions and examples of the themes). We found that the proportions of these themes are significantly different at 99% CI across periods (p < 0.01; Fisher's Exact Test). There are prominent differences in the proportion of responses under the themes "lake/wetland restoration," "agricultural water management," "landscape multifunctionality," and "organizational collaboration." The baseline (T1) shows that several participants came to the PSP workshop with strong initial desires oriented toward particular outcomes for the Tehran Basin. For example, many expressed hopes to see increased water levels and reduced salinity in Tehran (28.6% of responses in T1, under the theme "lake/wetland restoration"). Several also expressed aspirations to see agricultural water use reduced or more efficiently managed (21.4%, under "agricultural water management"), reflecting the dominant policy discourse in Iran that frames the eco-crisis primarily as an agricultural over-extraction problem. A smaller proportion expressed aspirations related to dam re-operation or removal (7.1%). We found a post-workshop shift toward more process-oriented aspirations. For example, responses around "landscape multifunctionality" and "organizational collaboration" became more pronounced in T2 than in T1. Responses under the "landscape multifunctionality" theme focused on either ensuring the current or enhancing the future ecosystem services provided by the Tehran Basin for a variety of landscape users (e.g., farmers, pastoralists, tourism operators, urban residents, and wildlife). Such themes expanded in T2 at the expense of themes about agricultural water management alone. In T3, these landscape-focused themes increased in prevalence but did not return to T1 levels for narrow outcome-oriented aspirations. Participants also hoped at T2 for better information and resource sharing for more holistic decision-making, as reflected in the "organizational collaboration" theme (14.3% of T2 responses, compared to only 3.6% at T1). However, only responses around "landscape multifunctionality" remained prominent in T3 (25.0%), while "organizational collaboration" declined to 8.3%. Nonetheless, there was still a higher proportion of aspirations relating to "organizational collaboration" in T3 than in T1. There was also a gradual decrease in the proportion of the "biodiversity" theme (from 14.3% at T1 to 7.1% at T2 to 4.2% at T3), suggesting that while biodiversity remained important, it became integrated into broader multifunctionality aspirations rather than standing alone. At T3, we also found more responses under "culture and heritage" (12.5%) than at both T2 (3.6%) and T1 (7.1%). Responses under culture included the protection or revitalization of traditional knowledge, Persian cultural practices related to the nature preservation, and the cultural identity of communities living around the protected areas. Notably, several T3 responses explicitly linked cultural heritage to sustainable governance, suggesting a delayed normative integration that emerged only after participants had time to reflect on the workshop experience. Qualitative Insights on the Potential of PSP for Social Learning in the Iranian Context To complement the quantitative findings, semi-structured follow-up interviews (n= 30) were conducted to assess whether observed patterns of cognitive, relational, and normative change resonated with participants' lived experiences. Overall, there was strong convergence between quantitative results and participant perceptions. All interviewees confirmed that the measured changes meaningfully reflected their experiences during and after the PSP process and were interpreted as positive and substantive outcomes. A dominant cross-cutting theme was the role of PSP in fostering a more holistic and integrated understanding of the Tehran Basin as a complex social–ecological system. Participants consistently emphasized that the process enabled them to move beyond fragmented, sector-specific perspectives—such as water allocation, agriculture, or conservation—and instead recognize the interdependencies among ecological processes, institutional arrangements, and livelihood systems. In parallel, many participants highlighted enhanced awareness of other stakeholders' priorities, constraints, and motivations, including those previously perceived as competitors or adversaries. Importantly, participants attributed these learning outcomes to the combined influence of the three operational attributes of PSP—composition, process, and facilitation—while also emphasizing the enabling role of broader contextual conditions. Composition Participants consistently underscored that the diversity of organizational representation was a critical driver of learning. The inclusion of actors from government, academia, civil society, and local communities created a rare deliberative space in which multiple knowledge systems and lived experiences could be directly exchanged. Several interviewees noted that such interactions—particularly between provincial-level officials and local resource users (e.g., farmers and pastoralists)—are highly uncommon in conventional governance settings in Iran. As one participant reflected, “In my fifteen years at the ministry, I have never sat in a room with pastoralists and actually listened to them explain how they move their herds based on seasonal water availability. Never. This alone was worth the two days” [Int. 17]. This diversity enabled perspective-taking and empathy-building, allowing participants to better understand the rationales underlying others' decisions and actions. In some cases, participants described transformative moments of realization that challenged their prior assumptions: “Before this workshop, I thought of farmers as simply extractive users who didn't care about the future. But listening to them describe their daily struggles—how they watch their wells dry up year after year—completely shifted my understanding. They are not the problem; they are living with the consequences of decisions made far above them” [Int. 23]. Another participant similarly noted, “I went in thinking I knew what the environmental NGOs wanted—more restrictions, more bureaucracy. But one of them said something that stayed with me: 'We don't want to shut down agriculture; we want agriculture to still be possible in twenty years.' That simple sentence changed how I see the whole debate” [Int. 5]. Another recurring theme was the value of informal knowledge exchange: “The informal conversations during the tea breaks—that is where I learned what the university researchers are actually worried about but won't say in formal meetings. One of them told me quietly, 'The groundwater model shows we have maybe eight years left in the western basin.' That kind of information never appears in official reports” [Int. 2]. This informal exchange contributed to both cognitive and relational learning by reducing informational asymmetries across actors. Process Beyond composition, participants emphasized that the design and sequencing of workshop activities played a crucial role in enabling meaningful interaction. The structured progression—from reflecting on past experiences to envisioning future scenarios—was perceived as facilitating both analytical depth and creative exploration. Participants highlighted that the process created a more egalitarian communicative environment compared to typical policy meetings in Iran, where hierarchical norms often limit participation. One interviewee contrasted the PSP workshop with routine governance settings: “In our regular coordination meetings, the deputy governor speaks for forty-five minutes, then two or three senior managers respond, and everyone else just nods. Here, the small-group format meant I actually had to speak. And people listened. That has never happened to me in any official setting before” [Int. 6]. The combination of plenary discussions and small-group interactions was particularly effective: while plenary sessions provided shared framing, small-group settings allowed for deeper dialogue and more inclusive participation. Informal interactions during breaks were also identified as important "relational spaces" that supported trust-building and collaboration. A particularly salient feature was the creative scenario storytelling exercise. Participants reported that presenting future scenarios through narratives, role-play, or visual representations enabled them to engage emotionally and imaginatively with alternative futures. As one participant explained, “The storytelling exercise was unexpected. When we had to present our scenario as a narrative—'It is 2050, and here is what happened'—something shifted. We stopped arguing about whose fault the current crisis is and started imagining together what could be different. I cannot overstate how powerful that was ” [Int. 1]. Another participant recounted a specific moment of transformation: “There is a moment I will not forget. We were in a small group discussing water allocation under the 'collapse' scenario, and a young woman from a rural cooperative—who had barely spoken all morning—said quietly, 'If the government keeps drilling emergency wells, our village will be empty in ten years.' The room went silent. That silence was more honest than any official report I have ever read ” [Int. 29]. This approach reduced defensiveness, encouraged openness, and allowed participants to explore trade-offs without the constraints of immediate policy commitments. As one participant summarized, “The two-day structure worked because day one was about understanding different perspectives—just listening—and day two was about building something together. If we had jumped straight into solutions, it would have failed. The process forced us to slow down, and that slowing down was exactly what we needed” [Int. 4]. As a result, the process facilitated not only cognitive expansion but also normative reflection on desirable futures. Facilitation Facilitation emerged as a central enabling factor in shaping the quality of interactions and learning outcomes. Participants consistently described the facilitation as balanced, adaptive, and context-sensitive. Facilitators were perceived as approachable and supportive, fostering an atmosphere in which participants felt comfortable sharing both professional insights and personal experiences. The use of probing and reflective questions was frequently cited as instrumental in prompting participants to critically examine their assumptions and consider alternative perspectives. One participant admitted, “Honestly, I came in skeptical. I thought this would be another performative exercise. But the facilitators kept asking us, 'Why do you believe that? What evidence would change your mind? They never let us settle into comfortable positions. By the end of day two, I was arguing against some of my own initial assumptions. That takes skillful facilitation” [Int. 10]. Importantly, facilitators actively managed power asymmetries, ensuring that less dominant voices—such as junior participants, women, and community representatives—were included in discussions. Techniques such as structured turn-taking and gentle moderation of dominant speakers contributed to a more equitable dialogue. A participant described a pivotal moment: “There was a moment when a very senior official from the water authority started dominating the conversation. The facilitator did not interrupt him directly—that would have caused loss of face. Instead, she said, 'That is an important point. Before we continue, I would love to hear what the representative from the village council thinks about this.' That one sentence changed the whole dynamic ” [Int. 8]. Another participant highlighted the facilitator's skill in de-escalating tension: “What impressed me most was how the facilitators handled a tense exchange between a provincial official and a farmer who accused him of lying about water data. Instead of shutting it down or taking sides, the facilitator said, 'Let us pause. What would it take for both of you to trust the same set of numbers?' That reframing saved the conversation. Another facilitator might have let it escalate” [Int. 2]. Cultural competence was also highlighted as a critical factor. Facilitators' familiarity with Iranian socio-cultural norms—including practices such as ta'arof and sensitivities related to hierarchy—enabled them to navigate complex interpersonal dynamics effectively. As one participant noted, “The facilitators were not Iranian, but they understood Iran. They knew when to push and when to wait. There is a subtlety to facilitation here—you cannot just be neutral; you have to be respectfully neutral. They got that right” [Int. 30]. Their positionality as neutral yet contextually informed actors—neither government-affiliated nor external outsiders—was seen as essential in building trust across diverse participant groups. Context Although the analytical framework emphasized composition, process, and facilitation, participants repeatedly pointed to the importance of contextual conditions in shaping the effectiveness of the PSP process. First, the scope and framing of the workshop were perceived as appropriately calibrated, allowing participants to engage meaningfully without being constrained by disciplinary or institutional boundaries. The emphasis on long-term futures (2050) was particularly important, as it created a cognitive space that transcended immediate political and institutional constraints. One participant explained, “If we had tried to have this conversation about current water allocations, people would have walked out within the first hour. Everyone is too entrenched, too defensive. But talking about 2050—that is far enough away that no one feels personally accused. It gave us permission to be honest in a way that discussing next year's budget never could” [Int. 10]. This temporal framing enabled participants to think more creatively and move beyond entrenched narratives of blame that often dominate environmental discourse in Iran. Second, participants highlighted the value of future-oriented storytelling, which shifted discussions away from technical debates toward shared imaginaries and lived possibilities. This approach fostered openness, reduced conflict, and enabled more constructive engagement with uncertainty. As one participant observed, “We have had droughts, dust storms, declining groundwater—the urgency is real. But urgency usually makes people more defensive, not more collaborative. What surprised me is that by framing the conversation around long-term futures, the urgency became a shared problem rather than a weapon to blame others. I did not expect that to work, but it did” [Int. 7]. Finally, broader political and socio-environmental conditions were recognized as influential. Participants noted that the PSP process took place within a context characterized by both environmental urgency and low institutional trust. One interviewee stated candidly, “The political situation in this country makes any kind of collaborative governance incredibly difficult. Trust is broken at every level. So the fact that this group of people—some of whom have been in open conflict for years—sat in a room together for two days and actually listened to each other? That is not a small thing. That is a foundation” [Int. 5]. In this setting, the ability to convene diverse actors in a respectful and constructive dialogue was itself perceived as a significant achievement. A participant reflected on a private conversation after the workshop: “One of the participants told me privately after the workshop, 'I came here expecting to defend my organization's position. I left realizing that defending my position is not the same as solving the problem.' That is not something you hear every day in Iranian environmental governance. The context—the way the workshop was framed, the future orientation, the facilitation—made that realization possible” [Int. 6]. These insights underscore the importance of situating participatory processes within their wider governance and societal contexts. Discussion Social Learning Effects of PSP in the Iranian Context This study provides robust empirical evidence that Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP) generates measurable social learning effects in complex governance settings such as the Tehran Basin, specifically enhancing (1) systems thinking, (2) rational trust among actors, and (3) environmental aspirations toward integrative futures. A key contribution is the demonstrated temporal durability of these effects, with cognitive and relational gains persisting for at least three months—a significant finding in the Iranian governance context, where policy discontinuities often undermine institutional learning (Downs et al. 2010 ; Chinapaw et al. 2024 ). Regarding cognitive learning, participants expanded their mental models to include previously underemphasized elements such as groundwater systems, aquifers, salt flats, dust sources, and rural settlements, moving beyond the historical policy focus on surface water dynamics (Hassaniyan, 2024 ; Hamidifar, 2024 ; Ketabchi et al. 2025 ; Choobchian et al. 2025 ). These cognitive shifts were complemented by normative transformations, as aspirations evolved from sector-specific objectives toward holistic visions emphasizing landscape multifunctionality—water security, agricultural livelihoods, biodiversity conservation, dust mitigation, cultural heritage, and socio-economic resilience—thereby moving beyond the dominant "environment versus economy" binary (Cato, 2020 ). In terms of relational learning, while high baseline levels of rational trust reflected pre-existing professional networks, PSP produced statistically significant trust increases across governmental agencies, non-governmental actors, and community-based groups—a noteworthy outcome given Iran's history of inter-institutional mistrust. However, a partial decline in trust at follow-up for certain organizations highlights the fragility of these gains, potentially reflecting dissipated "workshop effects" or a mismatch between heightened expectations and post-workshop institutional realities. The parallel trajectories of rational trust and collaborative aspirations—both increasing initially then modestly declining—suggest that collaborative aspirations are contingent upon perceived feasibility. Notably, PSP increased participants' ability to assess previously unfamiliar actors, particularly marginalized groups such as pastoralist cooperatives and women farmers' associations, thereby reducing informational asymmetries and challenging critiques that participatory processes merely reproduce dominant knowledge hierarchies. The study acknowledges its focus on rational trust exclusively, leaving affinitive, procedural, and dispositional trust unexplored—dimensions particularly relevant in Iran where interpersonal relationships and informal networks shape governance dynamics. Overall, while PSP demonstrates effectiveness at the individual level, longitudinal research remains necessary to assess whether these transformations translate into sustained institutional practices, policy innovation, or changes in resource management. The Role of Operational Attributes of PSP in Enabling Social Learning First, participant composition emerged as a foundational driver of learning. The deliberate inclusion of actors from multiple sectors, governance levels, and knowledge systems—including pastoralist and farmer representatives who introduced dimensions of mobility, livelihood vulnerability, and local ecological knowledge—enriched systems thinking and broadened environmental aspirations. Concurrently, governmental and academic actors facilitated access to institutional and scientific knowledge, supporting mutual learning across domains. However, while organizational diversity was achieved, other dimensions such as gender, age, and broader ethnic representation remained limited, suggesting that future PSP applications in Iran should adopt a more intersectional approach to participant selection. Second, the design of the participatory process proved crucial in enabling meaningful interaction. The combination of structured activities, small-group discussions, and plenary sessions created a dynamic environment that balanced depth and inclusivity, with small-group formats particularly instrumental in reducing hierarchical barriers and enabling open dialogue in a governance culture characterized by strong power distance. Informal interactions during breaks also emerged as critical spaces for trust-building and knowledge exchange, highlighting the importance of "unstructured" interaction moments in participatory design. The future-oriented nature of PSP—shifting discussions from present-day conflicts toward imagined futures—created a psychologically safe space that allowed participants to move beyond entrenched positions, aligning with the conceptualization of PSP as a boundary object facilitating dialogue across diverse perspectives. Third, facilitation was identified as a decisive factor in mediating power dynamics and enabling inclusive participation. Facilitators' ability to balance guidance with openness, manage dominant voices, and encourage quieter participants was essential for equitable engagement, requiring not only technical skill but also deep cultural competence—including sensitivity to norms of politeness, hierarchy, and indirect communication in the Iranian context. The perceived neutrality of facilitators, positioned between state and non-state actors, was particularly important in building trust, highlighting the need for facilitators who are both contextually embedded and institutionally independent, especially in politically sensitive environments. Finally, the broader socio-political environment—including levels of institutional trust, environmental urgency, and historical conflict—influenced both participant engagement and outcome interpretation, underscoring that PSP should not be viewed as a standalone intervention but as a process deeply embedded within its governance context. Future research should systematically examine how variations in composition, process duration, and delivery format (e.g., virtual vs. in-person) affect both the magnitude and durability of learning effects in the Iranian context, where environmental governance is shaped by complex institutional, cultural, and political dynamics. Conclusion This study concludes that Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP) is a robust, multifaceted approach that generates substantive benefits for environmental governance, as evidenced in the Tehran Basin. Rather than serving merely as a participatory planning tool, PSP functions as a powerful social learning process that enhances systems thinking, strengthens rational trust among actors, and reorients aspirations toward integrative, process-oriented goals—competencies critical in contexts marked by ecological degradation, institutional fragmentation, and entrenched mistrust. Notably, these learning effects persisted for at least three months, demonstrating PSP’s capacity to produce durable cognitive, relational, and normative transformations where policy continuity is often disrupted. The effectiveness of PSP, however, depends heavily on its core operational attributes: composition, process, and facilitation. In the Tehran Basin, diverse stakeholder inclusion (government, NGOs, community organizations, and academia) expanded systems understanding and fostered trust, while process design elements—small-group and plenary discussions, scenario development, storytelling, and informal spaces—enabled meaningful knowledge exchange in contrast to conventional hierarchical settings. Culturally attuned, politically neutral, and reflexive facilitation proved essential for managing power asymmetries and ensuring equitable participation. While future research should address limitations such as small sample size, single-case design, and reliance on self-reported data, and explore longitudinal outcomes, comparative designs, critical perspectives on power, and expanded trust typologies, PSP emerges as a viable, cost-effective, and empirically grounded pathway toward more inclusive, adaptive, and resilient environmental governance amid profound uncertainty. Declarations Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Ethics approval This study was approved by the affiliated university of authors. All participants provided informed consent. Funding The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. Author Contribution All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Amirali Boroumand. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Amirali Boroumand. Mohammad Javad Amiri (lead supervisor) and Esmail Salehi (co-supervisor) reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Data Availability The datasets generated and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References Abbaspour, K. C., Faramarzi, M., Ghasemi, S. S., & Yang, H. (2009). Assessing the impact of climate change on water resources in Iran. Water resources research , 45 (10). ‏ https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007615 Abdi, O., Kamkar, B., Shirvani, Z., Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Buchroithner, M. F. (2018). Spatial-statistical analysis of factors determining forest fires: a case study from Golestan, Northeast Iran. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk , 9 (1), 267-280. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2016.1206629 Abiyat, M., & Abiyat, M. (2025). Resilience for Rural Sustainable Development in Iran: Challenges and Approaches. Global Perspectives on Building Resilience for Sustainable Rural Development: Institutional Innovation and Policy , 63-190. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-6149-7_5 Armitage, D., Dzyundzyak, A., Baird, J., Bodin, Ö., Plummer, R., & Schultz, L. (2018). An approach to assess learning conditions, effects and outcomes in environmental governance. Environmental Policy and Governance , 28 (1), 3-14.‏ https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1781 Bagherzadeh, S., Mianabadi, H., Sadeghizadeh Bafandeh, S., Ghorbani, A., & Deylami, B. (2024). Normative assessment of enabling factors for adaptive water governance; Evidence and lessons from the Hirmand River Basin, Iran. Environmental Management , 73 (1), 144-161. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01896-9 Baird, J., Plummer, R., Haug, C., & Huitema, D. (2014). Learning effects of interactive decision-making processes for climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change , 27 , 51-63.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.019 Boroumand, A., Amiri, M.J. & Salehi, E. (2026). Transformative governance for complex environmental problems: evidence from iran’s urban air pollution. Environment Systems and Decisions . 46, 21, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-026-10084-z Cato, M. S. (2020). Environment and economy . Routledge.‏ https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429060656 Chaffin, B. C., Garmestani, A. S., Gunderson, L. H., Benson, M. H., Angeler, D. G., Arnold, C. A., ... & Allen, C. R. (2016). Transformative environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources , 41 (1), 399-423.‏ https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085817 Chinapaw, M. J., Klaufus, L. H., Oyeyemi, A. L., Draper, C., Palmeira, A. L., Silva, M. N., ... & Altenburg, T. M. (2024). Youth-centred participatory action approach towards co-created implementation of socially and physically activating environmental interventions in Africa and Europe: the YoPA project study protocol. BMJ open , 14 (2), e084657.‏ https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084657 Choobchian, S., Akbari, E., Sheidaei, F., Allahyari, M. S., Abbasi, E., & Hassan, T. B. (2025). Participatory decision-making process of water resources management: the arid and semi-arid region of the Iranian plateau. International Journal of Water , 17 (2), 113-152.‏ https://doi.org/10.1504/IJW.2025.151231 Downs, T. J., Ross, L., Mucciarone, D., Calvache, M. C., Taylor, O., & Goble, R. (2010). Participatory testing and reporting in an environmental-justice community of Worcester, Massachusetts: a pilot project. Environmental Health , 9 (1), 34.‏ https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-9-34 Duda, E. (2022). Building the learning environment for sustainable development: A co-creation approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.14151 . ‏ https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.14151 Ernst, A. (2019A). Review of factors influencing social learning within participatory environmental governance. Ecology and society , 24 (1). ‏ https://www.jstor.org/stable/26796921 Ernst, A. (2019B). Research techniques and methodologies to assess social learning in participatory environmental governance. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction , 23 , 100331.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100331 Galang, E. I. N. E., Bennett, E. M., Hickey, G. M., Baird, J., Harvey, B., & Sherren, K. (2025). Participatory scenario planning: A social learning approach to build systems thinking and trust for sustainable environmental governance. Environmental Science & Policy , 164 , 103997. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.103997 Garmendia, E., & Stagl, S. (2010). Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. Ecological economics , 69 (8), 1712-1722.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.027 Hamidifar, H. (2024). Water crisis in Iran: Causes, consequences, and solutions. In Water crises and sustainable management in the global south (pp. 85-109). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4966-9_3 Hassaniyan, A. (2024). Iran’s water policy: environmental injustice and peripheral marginalisation. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment , 48 (3), 420-437.‏ https://doi.org/10.1177/03091333241252523 Hovardas, T. (2021). Social sustainability as social learning: Insights from multi-stakeholder environmental governance. Sustainability , 13 (14), 7744. ‏ https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147744 Huitema, D., Cornelisse, C., & Ottow, B. (2010). Is the jury still out? Toward greater insight in policy learning in participatory decision processes—the case of Dutch citizens’ juries on water management in the Rhine Basin. Ecology and society , 15 (1).‏ https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268099 Johnson, K. A., Dana, G., Jordan, N. R., Draeger, K. J., Kapuscinski, A., Olabisi, L. K. S., & Reich, P. B. (2012). Using participatory scenarios to stimulate social learning for collaborative sustainable development. Ecology and society , 17 (2).‏ https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269034 Kameli, A., Naddafi, K., Saeedi, R., Hosseinzadeh-Attar, M. J., & Ostadtaghizadeh, A. (2025). Water crisis in hospitals: challenges, and recommendations–a qualitative study in Iran. BMC Health Services Research , 25 (1), 903.‏ https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12989-y Ketabchi, H., Sadeghi-Jahani, H., Mahmoodzadeh, D., & Vafeghi, S. M. (2025). A decision tool for groundwater-surface water interaction assessment method selection: Application to case studies in Iran. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators , 27 , 100726.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2025.100726 Koontz, T. M. (2014). Social learning in collaborative watershed planning: the importance of process control and efficacy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management , 57 (10), 1572-1593.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.820658 Kørnøv, L., Larsen, S. V., Lyhne, I., Puibaraud, I. E., Hansen, A. M., Aaen, S. B., & Nielsen, H. N. (2022). Collaboration through environmental assessment networks: Co-creating space and cultivating a joint learning mindset. Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 97 , 106898. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106898 Kuenkel, P., & Gruen, A. (2017). Co-creation for sustainability as a societal learning journey. In Lifelong Learning and Education in Healthy and Sustainable Cities (pp. 377-393). Cham: Springer International Publishing. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69474-0_22 Molleman, L., & Gaechter, S. (2018). Societal background influences social learning in cooperative decision making. Evolution and Human Behavior , 39 (5), 547-555.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.05.007 Nasirian, H., & Naddafi, K. (2025). A new perspective on climate change in the geography of Iran: current and potential future implications. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering , 23 (2), 25.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s40201-025-00948-y Newig, J., Jager, N. W., Kochskämper, E., & Challies, E. (2019). Learning in participatory environmental governance–its antecedents and effects. Findings from a case survey meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning , 21 (3), 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1623663 Poskitt, S., Waylen, K. A., & Ainslie, A. (2021). Applying pedagogical theories to understand learning in participatory scenario planning. Futures , 128 , 102710.‏ 10.1016/j.futures.2021.102710 Rezaei, S., Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., Fatemi, M., & Ghafouri, M. (2025). Stakeholder priorities and trade-offs in the sustainable restoration of parishan wetland, iran. Wetlands Ecology and Management , 33 (5), 73. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-025-10087-8 Sadeghi, S. H., & Hazbavi, Z. (2022). Land degradation in Iran. In Global degradation of soil and water resources: Regional assessment and strategies (pp. 287-314). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7916-2_20 Salajegheh, S., Jafari, H. R., & Pourebrahim, S. (2026). Bridging Ecology and Governance: An Integrated Framework for Assessing Industrial Development Resilience in Water-Scarce Regions. International Journal of Environmental Research , 20 (1), 78. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-025-01034-9 Schauppenlehner-Kloyber, E., & Penker, M. (2015). Managing group processes in transdisciplinary future studies: How to facilitate social learning and capacity building for self-organised action towards sustainable urban development?. Futures , 65 , 57-71. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.08.012 Sohrabi, R. (2025). The politics of drought in the Middle East, case study from Iran. Discover Environment , 3 (1), 122. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s44274-025-00334-3 Vahabzadeh, M., Molajou, A., Variani, H. A., & Afshar, A. (2025). Assessment of the water and energy nexus in the energy supply subsystem of water stressed countries like Iran. Scientific Reports , 15 (1), 37467. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-21380-0 Van der Wal, M., De Kraker, J., Offermans, A., Kroeze, C., Kirschner, P. A., & Van Ittersum, M. (2014). Measuring social learning in participatory approaches to natural resource management. Environmental policy and governance , 24 (1), 1-15.‏ https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1627 von Schönfeld, K. C., Tan, W., Wiekens, C., & Janssen-Jansen, L. (2020). Unpacking social learning in planning: who learns what from whom?. Urban research & practice , 13 (4), 411-433. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2019.1576216 Von Schönfeld, K. C., Tan, W., Wiekens, C., Salet, W., & Janssen-Jansen, L. (2019). Social learning as an analytical lens for co-creative planning. European planning studies , 27 (7), 1291-1313. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1579303 Walker, G. B., & Daniels, S. E. (2019). Collaboration in environmental conflict management and decision-making: comparing best practices with insights from collaborative learning work. Frontiers in Communication , 4 , 2.‏ https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00002 Wals, A. E. (2014). Social learning-oriented capacity-building for critical transitions towards sustainability. In Schooling for sustainable development in Europe: Concepts, policies and educational experiences at the end of the UN decade of education for sustainable development (pp. 87-107). Cham: Springer International Publishing. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09549-3_6 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files OnlineResource1.docx Graphicalabstract.png Graphical abstract Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 04 May, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 23 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 22 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 21 Apr, 2026 First submitted to journal 17 Apr, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9449043","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":633545951,"identity":"63be709b-de7f-4850-8d24-5ccbeaeb881c","order_by":0,"name":"Amirali Boroumand","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Tehran","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amirali","middleName":"","lastName":"Boroumand","suffix":""},{"id":633545952,"identity":"c54f7acc-f6be-458a-a9d7-279f89433663","order_by":1,"name":"Mohammad Javad Amiri","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Tehran","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohammad","middleName":"Javad","lastName":"Amiri","suffix":""},{"id":633545953,"identity":"208c66d4-647d-4e31-a8ef-b3f34bbeb5b9","order_by":2,"name":"Esmail Salehi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Tehran","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Esmail","middleName":"","lastName":"Salehi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-17 12:23:30","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9449043/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9449043/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108806334,"identity":"b2d3e1bf-d3cf-4053-9c1f-8a08239ce221","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 15:28:16","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":600272,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual framework for assessing social learning in PSP\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9449043/v1/021ee4f79507d74f221d14f5.png"},{"id":108735049,"identity":"a61709e4-e420-41bd-bc96-0434ba4b09c6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-07 19:59:50","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":42696,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eChanges in systems thinking across the PSP process (Tehran Basin case)\u003cbr\u003e\n* Mean number of landscape components identified by participants at three time points: pre-workshop (T1), immediately post-workshop (T2), and three-month follow-up (T3). The figure shows a marked increase from T1 to T2, indicating a strong immediate cognitive learning effect of the PSP process, with gains largely sustained at T3. Error bars represent standard deviations.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9449043/v1/9c8e97298a2bf92abd3f9855.png"},{"id":108735052,"identity":"a3b9acad-655d-497e-86ce-90faab66d406","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-07 19:59:50","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":59094,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eChanges in the prominence of landscape components in participants’ mental models across the PSP process (Tehran Basin case)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9449043/v1/6a694c9d2fd40a2bafa77172.png"},{"id":108735051,"identity":"ba31e4fd-3214-4767-95ef-8f144966a8cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-07 19:59:50","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":442247,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eShifts in environmental aspiration themes across periods in the Tehran Basin case (n = number of distinct aspirations per period). The distribution of themes differs significantly across periods, with notable increases in landscape multifunctionality and organizational collaboration. Asterisks (denote statistically significant differences at the 99% confidence level (p \u0026lt; 0.01; Fisher’s Exact Test))\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9449043/v1/40e91b3dfceea2d3861e6505.png"},{"id":108976776,"identity":"a0e51437-94b2-4217-9820-312be46725fc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-11 11:28:28","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1493783,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9449043/v1/0f2e59a7-276a-4184-b661-b17725a8db31.pdf"},{"id":108735048,"identity":"bec5b5e5-bf29-42db-8f14-d4e51ce264f1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-07 19:59:50","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":31089,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineResource1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9449043/v1/04963e678125c958274eb133.docx"},{"id":108806240,"identity":"ab52a3ca-0f8a-4c55-8893-0b7d6cf774e4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 15:28:07","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":2364127,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGraphical abstract\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Graphicalabstract.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9449043/v1/b7fb16176eb30dfefa73a7f5.png"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Assessing Short-term Social Learning Effects of Participatory Scenario Planning in Tehran Basin, Iran: An Exploratory Study","fulltext":[{"header":"Highlights","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; This study examines whether Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP) functions as a structured social learning process within the Tehran Basin, Iran.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Findings demonstrate that PSP can enhance systems thinking, rational trust, and environmental aspirations among participants, though trust gains may be fragile over time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Most learning effects remained stable, though trust gains for some governmental actors proved fragile.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Participant diversity (e.g., farmers, extension agents, academics, and NGOs), careful process design, and skilled facilitation emerged as critical enabling conditions for effective social learning under Iranian governance contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The study advances a conceptual and methodological framework for analyzing PSP as a social learning mechanism in water and dryland ecosystem governance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eGoverning the environment in Iran, as in many parts of the Anthropocene, calls for new ways of thinking and acting to ensure that decision-making, policy development, and agenda-setting can effectively respond to emerging needs related to sustainability, fairness, and resilience (Boroumand et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). Iran is experiencing a convergence of environmental crises, including extended droughts, depletion of aquifers, land subsidence, dust storms, and the dramatic drying of wetlands (Abbaspour et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Abdi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Sadeghi \u0026amp; Hazbavi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Hamidifar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Kameli et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). These issues are worsened by institutional fragmentation, sectoral silos, and a legacy of top-down governance that often sidelines local knowledge and damages stakeholder trust. Addressing such complex social-ecological challenges requires skills like systems thinking, building trust, and fostering inclusive participation. Moreover, processes that acknowledge and involve diverse interests and values\u0026mdash;including those of farmers, pastoralists, water authorities, researchers, and NGOs\u0026mdash;can help reduce conflicts, especially in highly contested systems like Iran\u0026rsquo;s drying lake basins. Governance based on trust and collaboration can lead to more integrated decisions (Sohrabi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Vahabzadeh et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e\u0026rlm;; Nasirian \u0026amp; Naddafi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipatory Scenario Planning (PSP) is increasingly recognized as a promising approach to make environmental management more inclusive, systems-oriented, and trust-based (Van der Wal et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e\u0026rlm;; Chaffin et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Ernst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019B\u003c/span\u003e). PSP involves collaboratively creating plausible scenarios about the future. These scenarios are powerful tools for exploring drivers, risks, and opportunities that influence future policies across social-ecological systems. When developed with diverse stakeholders who bring different types of knowledge, PSP scenarios tend to be more innovative and better reflect the complexities of social-ecological systems, resulting in decisions that are more accepted and applicable. Globally, PSP has been widely used to guide management and policy decisions across various systems (Molleman \u0026amp; Gaechter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Ernst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019A\u003c/span\u003e; Hovardas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Galang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In Iran, scenario planning has mainly been employed within academic and strategic contexts, but the broader potential of PSP as a social learning tool remains underexplored. Most Iranian scenario exercises have been led by experts or confined to government agencies, with limited involvement from local communities and civil society.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent research highlights PSP\u0026rsquo;s capacity for social learning\u0026mdash;sharing knowledge, mutual understanding, and co-creating experiences (Koontz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Kuenkel \u0026amp; Gruen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Von Sch\u0026ouml;nfeld et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Duda, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e\u0026rlm;\u0026rlm;). PSP can enhance participants\u0026rsquo; knowledge, values, and skills, which can have broader implications for environmental governance (e.g., von Sch\u0026ouml;nfeld et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; K\u0026oslash;rn\u0026oslash;v et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e\u0026rlm;). Scholars suggest that PSP fosters social learning because it creates a shared space for collaboration\u0026mdash;acting as a \u0026ldquo;boundary object\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;and facilitates peer-to-peer exchange among participants from diverse backgrounds (Wals, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Schauppenlehner-Kloyber \u0026amp; Penker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In Iran, where hierarchical structures and sectoral divides have historically limited cross-stakeholder dialogue (Bagherzadeh et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Rezaei et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Abiyat \u0026amp; Abiyat, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Salajegheh et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e), PSP offers a promising way to bridge these gaps.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, evidence of actual social learning outcomes\u0026mdash;such as changes in knowledge, values, or relationships\u0026mdash;is limited (Koontz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Chaffin et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Research on assessing social learning within PSP remains scarce, often focusing on creative outputs rather than on the process of social learning itself. When social learning has been observed, it\u0026rsquo;s usually documented post-hoc through reflections or participant feedback. There\u0026rsquo;s also a lack of systematic, long-term assessments of social learning, making it difficult to determine whether changes are temporary or lasting. Few studies have identified specific features of PSP that enhance its capacity for social learning. Empirical evaluations could help improve PSP design and implementation\u0026mdash;especially in Iran, where participatory approaches are still rare and often face institutional resistance (Galang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese knowledge gaps also hinder understanding of critiques leveled at PSPs, such as the risk of reinforcing existing power imbalances or reducing diverse knowledge to fit dominant models. Concerns also include the possibility of participation exacerbating misunderstandings or damaging relationships (Garmendia \u0026amp; Stagl, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Newig et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), especially in Iran where long-standing mistrust between the state and society, unequal power relations, and unresolved conflicts over water resources complicate collaboration. Additionally, PSP can be costly in terms of time and resources (Chaffin et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e); however, the short duration (single workshop) and demonstrated durability of effects in this study suggest a favorable cost-benefit profile for similar contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eConceptual Framework for Assessing Social Learning in PSP\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe adapted an existing framework, originally used to evaluate individual social learning in collaborative environmental decision-making (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) (Johnson et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Baird et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Armitage et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Walker \u0026amp; Daniels, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Choobchian et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), for application within PSP. This framework considers PSP as an enabling process that fosters social learning by serving as a boundary object for collaboration and as a mechanism for knowledge exchange (Poskitt et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Such a process can produce cognitive effects (new or restructured knowledge), relational effects (changes in relationships), and normative effects (shifts in values and norms) (Huitema et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs visualized in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, PSP is conceptualized as an enabling process that functions as a boundary object for collaboration and a mechanism for knowledge exchange, generating social learning outcomes across three interrelated dimensions: cognitive (changes in knowledge and mental models), relational (changes in relationships, trust, and mutual understanding), and normative (shifts in values, beliefs, and environmental aspirations). These learning effects are shaped by key operational attributes of PSP, including participant composition, process activities, and facilitation, and are embedded within broader contextual conditions (e.g., political, economic, hydrological, and socio-cultural factors). The framework guides the assessment of both immediate and longer-term social learning effects, as examined through a quasi-experimental design in the Tehran Basin case.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs Galang et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) explained cognitive effects occur when participants gain new information or reinterpret existing knowledge. For example, in Iran, a farmer might understand how upstream water use impacts groundwater recharge and wetland inflows—connections often obscured by sectoral silos. Relational effects are reflected in changes in relationships, such as improved understanding of other actors’ interests and resources. Participants may recognize the legitimacy of different stakeholder concerns, fostering trust—particularly vital in Iran, where trust between agencies and local communities has been eroded by decades of centralized governance. Normative effects involve shifts in values, beliefs, or environmental aspirations, often stemming from prior cognitive and relational learning. For instance, a researcher who initially prioritized technical fixes might, after engaging in a PSP, value participatory governance and ecological restoration more deeply. Our framework assesses these facets to understand how PSP influences participants’ thinking, relationships, and power dynamics—crucial in Iran’s governance context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe also identified key features of PSP that are essential for fostering social learning, including: (1) participant composition, (2) process activities, and (3) facilitation. Composition involves selecting diverse participants—balancing sectors, levels, and knowledge systems (scientific, local, indigenous, religious). Process refers to the activities that enable interaction, such as mapping or scenario building, designed to challenge traditional hierarchies. Facilitation ensures that discussions remain productive, inclusive, and sensitive to cultural norms, especially in Iran, where dynamics such as respect for authority and gender roles influence participation. These operational features are situated within the broader context—considering external factors like political climate, economic sanctions, seasonal water shortages, and media coverage—that influence engagement and trust.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur study aims to answer two main questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow does a PSP influence cognitive, relational, and normative social learning over both immediate and longer-term periods?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do the operational attributes of a PSP affect social learning?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing the Tehran Basin case, we conducted a quasi-experimental study to evaluate these questions, focusing on short- and medium-term effects (up to three months). Our team’s diverse backgrounds in participatory research, social sciences, scenario planning, and Iranian social-ecological systems informed the study, which involved designing, implementing, and analyzing the PSP process and its outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examines a PSP process designed to co-develop plausible future scenarios for the Tehran Basin by 2050. The case focuses on the evolving social–ecological dynamics of the basin, a complex landscape shaped by distinctive environmental conditions alongside historically embedded land-use practices such as qanat-based irrigation and transhumant pastoralism. Contemporary pressures, including intensive irrigated agriculture, dam construction, rapid urbanization, and declining groundwater reserves, have further transformed the basin’s ecological and socio-economic configuration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese dynamics have given rise to a set of interrelated challenges, including prolonged drought, and intensified dust storm activity. Such pressures have exacerbated tensions among stakeholders, particularly regarding competing visions for the future of the basin. Debates persist over alternative management strategies—such as inter-basin water transfers, demand-side agricultural reforms, and ecological restoration—each involving significant trade-offs across livelihoods, ecosystem integrity, and regional climate stability. While these governance tensions motivated the implementation of the PSP process, the present study does not explicitly evaluate conflict resolution outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe PSP was designed to ensure organizational and epistemic diversity, engaging 90 participants representing academic institutions, governmental bodies, and non-governmental or sectoral organizations. Participants included representatives from universities, environmental research institutes, farmer associations, agricultural cooperatives, environmental NGOs, and multiple governmental agencies operating at local, provincial, and national levels. All participants occupied decision-making or leadership roles within their respective organizations, with professional experience ranging from 3 to 42 years (median: 18 years). The gender composition (7 female, 23 male) reflects broader structural imbalances within environmental governance in Iran. Ethical approval was obtained, and all participants provided informed consent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe PSP process was implemented through deep discussions. The debates followed a standard exploratory scenario development approach, resulting in four alternative future narratives derived from two key uncertain drivers identified by participants. The sessions progressed sequentially from reflection on past landscape experiences, to understanding present conditions, identifying critical drivers of change, and ultimately co-constructing future scenarios through creative and deliberative group processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFacilitation was carefully structured, combining active (directive) and passive (non-directive) approaches. Plenary sessions were guided more actively to ensure coherence and progression, whereas small-group discussions emphasized participant-led interaction, supported by minimal facilitation. The facilitation team included both researchers and independent facilitators, supported by trained assistants. Prior to the workshop, facilitators participated in preparatory and calibration sessions to ensure consistency in approach. Particular attention was given to managing cultural norms, hierarchical sensitivities, and power asymmetries, with deliberate efforts to create inclusive spaces that enabled equitable participation across diverse stakeholder groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study employed a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design, integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative data were first collected using a one-group pre-test/post-test design with three-month follow-up (a pre-experimental design, as no control group was feasible given the participatory context). These data were analyzed to assess changes in selected indicators of social learning across three time points: pre-workshop (T1), immediately post-workshop (T2), and follow-up (T3). Subsequently, qualitative interview data were collected to contextualize and interpret the quantitative findings, with particular attention to the role of PSP’s operational attributes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasurement of Social Learning Effects\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo assess social learning, we operationalized three dimensions\u0026mdash;cognitive, relational, and normative\u0026mdash;through context-specific indicators aligned with sustainability-oriented governance competencies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCognitive learning\u003c/b\u003e was measured through \u003cem\u003esystems thinking\u003c/em\u003e, defined as participants\u0026rsquo; mental representations of the components and interconnections within the Tehran Basin\u0026rsquo;s social\u0026ndash;ecological system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRelational learning\u003c/b\u003e was assessed via \u003cem\u003erational trust\u003c/em\u003e, conceptualized as participants\u0026rsquo; perceived likelihood of achieving desired outcomes through collaboration with other organizations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eNormative learning\u003c/b\u003e was captured through \u003cem\u003eenvironmental aspirations\u003c/em\u003e, reflecting participants desired future conditions for the basin over a 25\u0026ndash;30-year horizon.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese measures were selected to reflect both theoretical relevance and contextual applicability to environmental governance challenges in the Tehran Basin.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eQuantitative Data Collection and Analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuantitative data were collected at three stages: pre- and post-workshop using paper-based instruments, and at follow-up through an online Persian-language survey platform. Participants were informed that the study examined changes in perceptions without disclosing specific constructs, thereby reducing response bias.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCognitive learning (systems thinking)\u003c/b\u003e was assessed by eliciting participants\u0026rsquo; representations of key landscape components through flexible response formats (e.g., written descriptions, lists, diagrams). Responses were standardized and analyzed using summative content analysis, including keyword extraction, normalization of synonyms, and aggregation into a unified set of system components. Changes over time were evaluated using non-parametric statistical tests, focusing on both the diversity and frequency of system elements identified.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRelational learning (rational trust)\u003c/b\u003e was measured trough Likert-scale ratings assessing perceived benefits of collaboration with each represented organization. Participants could opt out of rating unfamiliar organizations. Paired comparisons across time points were conducted using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to detect statistically significant changes in perceived trust.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eNormative learning (environmental aspirations)\u003c/b\u003e was analyzed through inductive thematic analysis. Participant statements were coded iteratively using a two-cycle process (initial coding and pattern coding), allowing for the identification of dominant aspiration themes. Changes in thematic distributions across time points were examined using Fisher\u0026rsquo;s Exact Test.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral methodological limitations arise from the participatory and context-specific nature of the study. The absence of a control group limits causal inference, while the relatively small sample size (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;90) constrains statistical power and necessitates the use of non-parametric methods. Potential self-selection bias may also be present, as participants opting into the study may be more predisposed toward collaborative engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, time constraints limited the scope of measurable constructs, and certain dimensions of systems thinking\u0026mdash;particularly dynamic interrelationships\u0026mdash;could not be robustly quantified. Efforts were made to mitigate bias through careful instrument design, ethical transparency, and separation of facilitation and data collection roles where feasible.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eQualitative Data Collection and Analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo complement quantitative findings, semi-structured follow-up interviews were conducted three months after the workshop with 30 participants representing all organizational categories. Interviews were conducted in Persian, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English for analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were first presented with summarized quantitative results as part of a member-checking process, allowing them to validate and reflect on observed trends. Subsequently, they were asked to identify key factors influencing their learning experiences, with particular emphasis on participant composition, process design, and facilitation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by the study\u0026rsquo;s conceptual framework. Coding focused on identifying recurring patterns related to the three operational attributes of PSP. Coding reliability was ensured through independent coding by multiple researchers and iterative reconciliation of discrepancies. Analytical outputs included thematic categorization, frequency of references, and illustrative quotations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCognitive Learning Effect: Changes in Systems Thinking\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe cognitive dimension of social learning was evaluated by analyzing changes in both the number and diversity of landscape components that participants considered salient for decision-making in the Tehran Basin. As illustrated in Fig. 2, at baseline (T1), all participants identified at least three components (range: 3-8), with a mean of 4.94 (SD = 1.61)., out of a total of 14 categories derived from the pooled dataset. This baseline pattern indicates a minimum level of pre-existing system awareness among all participants prior to the intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNotwithstanding this baseline, a clear expansion in both the breadth and complexity of participants\u0026rsquo; mental models was observed over time. The mean number of landscape components identified increased from 4.94 (SD = 1.61) at T1 (pre-workshop) to 6.11 (SD = 1.68) at T2 (immediately post-workshop), and further to 6.33 (SD = 1.82) at T3 (three-month follow-up). As depicted in Fig. 2, this upward trajectory reflects a substantial immediate cognitive effect of the PSP process. However, the difference between T2 and T3 was not statistically significant (p \u0026gt; 0.10), suggesting that while the gains in systems thinking were effectively sustained over time, they did not continue to expand beyond the immediate post-intervention phase.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the individual level, the distribution of responses further reinforces this trend. By T3, all participants identified at least four landscape components, compared to a minimum of three at baseline. Additionally, the upper bound of identified components increased from eight at T1 to ten at both T2 and T3, indicating that a subset of participants developed markedly more comprehensive and nuanced representations of the social\u0026ndash;ecological system following participation in the PSP.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond quantitative expansion, qualitative shifts in the composition of participants\u0026rsquo; mental models were also evident (see Fig. 3). Across all time points, references to the ecosystem and agricultural land (including irrigated farmland) remained dominant, each cited by at least 72% of participants. These elements\u0026mdash;frequently combined with groundwater or river/inflow systems\u0026mdash;constituted the most common conceptual clusters in participants\u0026rsquo; responses, reflecting their centrality in the Tehran Basin\u0026rsquo;s socio-ecological dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, several previously underrepresented components gained prominence following the PSP intervention. Elements such as dams, salt flats (namakzar), dust sources, protected areas, and villages were more frequently identified at T2 and T3 relative to T1. Of particular significance is the progressive increase in references to groundwater and aquifer systems across all three time points. This pattern suggests that the PSP process successfully directed participants\u0026rsquo; attention toward subsurface hydrological dynamics\u0026mdash;critical yet often overlooked components in conventional, surface-water-centric policy discourses in Iran.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, approximately half of the identified landscape components exhibited a consistent increase in representation from T1 through T3. Taken together, these findings indicate that PSP not only broadened the scope of participants\u0026rsquo; systems thinking but also reoriented their cognitive focus toward less visible, yet functionally critical, dimensions of the Tehran Basin\u0026rsquo;s social\u0026ndash;ecological system.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRelational Learning Effect: Changes in Rational Trust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRelational learning was assessed through changes in rational (calculative) trust, measured as participants\u0026rsquo; perceived likelihood of achieving organizational goals through collaboration with other actors. Across all time points, mean trust ratings remained relatively high (\u0026ge; 4.00 on a 5-point scale) for most organizations, indicating an already favorable baseline for inter-organizational perceptions (Table 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eMean rational trust ratings received by each represented organization across time points (*p \u0026lt; 0.10; **p \u0026lt; 0.05; ▲ = increase; ▼ = decrease; \u0026sup1; n varies due to participants opting out of rating unfamiliar organizations).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrg. Code\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrganization Type\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrganization\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en\u0026sup1; (T1\u0026ndash;T2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT1 Mean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT2 Mean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en\u0026sup1; (T2\u0026ndash;T3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT2 Mean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT3 Mean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcademic and Research Organizations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcademic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUniversity of Tehran\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.317\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.564\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcademic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAmirkabir University\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.096* ▲\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.180\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcademic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eINIOAS\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.083* ▲\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.317\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-Governmental and Sectoral Organizations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNGO/Sectoral\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFarmer Water User Association\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.257\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.527\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNGO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental NGO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.564\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.655\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSectoral\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgricultural Cooperative Union\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.083* ▲\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.248\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSectoral\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChamber of Commerce\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.655\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSectoral\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWomen Farmers\u0026rsquo; Association\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.120 ▲\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.157\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSectoral\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgricultural Engineering Organization\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.705\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.317\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSectoral\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePastoralists\u0026rsquo; Cooperative (Kurdish community)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.020** ▲\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.180\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eK\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNGO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIranian Wetlands Conservation Society\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.157\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.564\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGovernmental Organizations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGovernment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDept. of Environment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.180\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.014** ▼\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGovernment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegional Water Authority\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.096* ▲\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.083* ▲\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGovernment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJihad-e-Agriculture\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.034** ▲\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.655\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGovernment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTehran Restoration Program National Committee\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.102\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.059* ▼\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGovernment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinistry of Energy (Provincial Office)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.059* ▲\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.248\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGovernment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eManagement and Planning Organization (Provincial)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.480\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.705\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGovernment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNatural Resources \u0026amp; Watershed Mgmt. Organization\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.317\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.705\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcademic and research institutions consistently received the highest trust ratings at both T2 and T3. This pattern reflects the perceived neutrality and technical credibility often associated with scientific actors in environmental governance contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the high baseline, seven organizations across different sectors (academic, non-governmental, and governmental) exhibited statistically significant increases in trust from T1 to T2 at the 90% confidence level. This indicates that the PSP process had an immediate positive effect on participants\u0026rsquo; willingness to cooperate with a range of actors. Notably, no organization experienced a statistically significant decline in trust immediately following the workshop.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOf these seven organizations, six maintained their increased trust levels at T3, as evidenced by the absence of significant differences between T2 and T3. This suggests that the relational gains achieved during the workshop were largely durable over the three-month period. Furthermore, one governmental organization\u0026mdash;Tehran Regional Water Authority (Organization M)\u0026mdash;experienced an additional significant increase in trust at T3, indicating continued strengthening of inter-organizational confidence beyond the immediate intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, some delayed declines in trust were observed. Two governmental organizations\u0026mdash;the Department of Environment (Organization L) and the Tehran Restoration Program National Committee (Organization O)\u0026mdash;showed statistically significant decreases in trust at T3 (at 90% and 95% confidence levels, respectively), despite stable or slightly increased trust levels immediately after the workshop. These findings suggest that while PSP can enhance trust in the short term, longer-term dynamics may be influenced by external factors, institutional performance, or evolving perceptions beyond the workshop setting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn additional noteworthy pattern concerns the increase in complete rating pairs over time for several organizations. This indicates that more participants felt sufficiently informed to evaluate these actors at later stages, rather than selecting the \u0026ldquo;insufficient information\u0026rdquo; option. Improved familiarity was evident for marginalized groups: the Pastoralists\u0026apos; Cooperative (J) showed a significant trust increase from T1 to T2 (p=0.020), though this gain was not fully sustained at T3. This suggests that the PSP process helped reduce informational barriers and improved participants\u0026rsquo; familiarity with\u0026mdash;and confidence in assessing\u0026mdash;the roles and contributions of these actors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, the findings demonstrate that PSP can foster meaningful improvements in relational dimensions of governance, particularly by enhancing inter-organizational understanding, perceived cooperation potential, and trust, while also highlighting the complexity and potential fragility of these gains over time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNormative learning effect: changes in environmental aspirations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur results show that there were at least 35 distinct responses or environmental aspirations across all periods that were coded and clustered into nine themes (Fig. 4; see Online Resource 1 for definitions and examples of the themes). We found that the proportions of these themes are significantly different at 99% CI across periods (p \u0026lt; 0.01; Fisher\u0026apos;s Exact Test). There are prominent differences in the proportion of responses under the themes \u0026quot;lake/wetland restoration,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;agricultural water management,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;landscape multifunctionality,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;organizational collaboration.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe baseline (T1) shows that several participants came to the PSP workshop with strong initial desires oriented toward particular outcomes for the Tehran Basin. For example, many expressed hopes to see increased water levels and reduced salinity in Tehran (28.6% of responses in T1, under the theme \u0026quot;lake/wetland restoration\u0026quot;). Several also expressed aspirations to see agricultural water use reduced or more efficiently managed (21.4%, under \u0026quot;agricultural water management\u0026quot;), reflecting the dominant policy discourse in Iran that frames the eco-crisis primarily as an agricultural over-extraction problem. A smaller proportion expressed aspirations related to dam re-operation or removal (7.1%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe found a post-workshop shift toward more process-oriented aspirations. For example, responses around \u0026quot;landscape multifunctionality\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;organizational collaboration\u0026quot; became more pronounced in T2 than in T1. Responses under the \u0026quot;landscape multifunctionality\u0026quot; theme focused on either ensuring the current or enhancing the future ecosystem services provided by the Tehran Basin for a variety of landscape users (e.g., farmers, pastoralists, tourism operators, urban residents, and wildlife). Such themes expanded in T2 at the expense of themes about agricultural water management alone. In T3, these landscape-focused themes increased in prevalence but did not return to T1 levels for narrow outcome-oriented aspirations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants also hoped at T2 for better information and resource sharing for more holistic decision-making, as reflected in the \u0026quot;organizational collaboration\u0026quot; theme (14.3% of T2 responses, compared to only 3.6% at T1). However, only responses around \u0026quot;landscape multifunctionality\u0026quot; remained prominent in T3 (25.0%), while \u0026quot;organizational collaboration\u0026quot; declined to 8.3%. Nonetheless, there was still a higher proportion of aspirations relating to \u0026quot;organizational collaboration\u0026quot; in T3 than in T1. There was also a gradual decrease in the proportion of the \u0026quot;biodiversity\u0026quot; theme (from 14.3% at T1 to 7.1% at T2 to 4.2% at T3), suggesting that while biodiversity remained important, it became integrated into broader multifunctionality aspirations rather than standing alone.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt T3, we also found more responses under \u0026quot;culture and heritage\u0026quot; (12.5%) than at both T2 (3.6%) and T1 (7.1%). Responses under culture included the protection or revitalization of traditional knowledge, Persian cultural practices related to the nature preservation, and the cultural identity of communities living around the protected areas. Notably, several T3 responses explicitly linked cultural heritage to sustainable governance, suggesting a delayed normative integration that emerged only after participants had time to reflect on the workshop experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQualitative Insights on the Potential of PSP for Social Learning in the Iranian Context\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo complement the quantitative findings, semi-structured follow-up interviews (n= 30) were conducted to assess whether observed patterns of cognitive, relational, and normative change resonated with participants\u0026apos; lived experiences. Overall, there was strong convergence between quantitative results and participant perceptions. All interviewees confirmed that the measured changes meaningfully reflected their experiences during and after the PSP process and were interpreted as positive and substantive outcomes. A dominant cross-cutting theme was the role of PSP in fostering a more holistic and integrated understanding of the Tehran Basin as a complex social\u0026ndash;ecological system. Participants consistently emphasized that the process enabled them to move beyond fragmented, sector-specific perspectives\u0026mdash;such as water allocation, agriculture, or conservation\u0026mdash;and instead recognize the interdependencies among ecological processes, institutional arrangements, and livelihood systems. In parallel, many participants highlighted enhanced awareness of other stakeholders\u0026apos; priorities, constraints, and motivations, including those previously perceived as competitors or adversaries. Importantly, participants attributed these learning outcomes to the combined influence of the three operational attributes of PSP\u0026mdash;composition, process, and facilitation\u0026mdash;while also emphasizing the enabling role of broader contextual conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComposition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants consistently underscored that the diversity of organizational representation was a critical driver of learning. The inclusion of actors from government, academia, civil society, and local communities created a rare deliberative space in which multiple knowledge systems and lived experiences could be directly exchanged. Several interviewees noted that such interactions\u0026mdash;particularly between provincial-level officials and local resource users (e.g., farmers and pastoralists)\u0026mdash;are highly uncommon in conventional governance settings in Iran. As one participant reflected, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;In my fifteen years at the ministry, I have never sat in a room with pastoralists and actually listened to them explain how they move their herds based on seasonal water availability. Never. This alone was worth the two days\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Int. 17]. This diversity enabled perspective-taking and empathy-building, allowing participants to better understand the rationales underlying others\u0026apos; decisions and actions. In some cases, participants described transformative moments of realization that challenged their prior assumptions: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Before this workshop, I thought of farmers as simply extractive users who didn\u0026apos;t care about the future. But listening to them describe their daily struggles\u0026mdash;how they watch their wells dry up year after year\u0026mdash;completely shifted my understanding. They are not the problem; they are living with the consequences of decisions made far above them\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Int. 23]. Another participant similarly noted, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I went in thinking I knew what the environmental NGOs wanted\u0026mdash;more restrictions, more bureaucracy. But one of them said something that stayed with me: \u0026apos;We don\u0026apos;t want to shut down agriculture; we want agriculture to still be possible in twenty years.\u0026apos; That simple sentence changed how I see the whole debate\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Int. 5]. Another recurring theme was the value of informal knowledge exchange:\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;The informal conversations during the tea breaks\u0026mdash;that is where I learned what the university researchers are actually worried about but won\u0026apos;t say in formal meetings. One of them told me quietly, \u0026apos;The groundwater model shows we have maybe eight years left in the western basin.\u0026apos; That kind of information never appears in official reports\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[Int. 2]. This informal exchange contributed to both cognitive and relational learning by reducing informational asymmetries across actors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProcess\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond composition, participants emphasized that the design and sequencing of workshop activities played a crucial role in enabling meaningful interaction. The structured progression\u0026mdash;from reflecting on past experiences to envisioning future scenarios\u0026mdash;was perceived as facilitating both analytical depth and creative exploration. Participants highlighted that the process created a more egalitarian communicative environment compared to typical policy meetings in Iran, where hierarchical norms often limit participation. One interviewee contrasted the PSP workshop with routine governance settings: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;In our regular coordination meetings, the deputy governor speaks for forty-five minutes, then two or three senior managers respond, and everyone else just nods. Here, the small-group format meant I actually had to speak. And people listened. That has never happened to me in any official setting before\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[Int. 6]. The combination of plenary discussions and small-group interactions was particularly effective: while plenary sessions provided shared framing, small-group settings allowed for deeper dialogue and more inclusive participation. Informal interactions during breaks were also identified as important \u0026quot;relational spaces\u0026quot; that supported trust-building and collaboration. A particularly salient feature was the creative scenario storytelling exercise. Participants reported that presenting future scenarios through narratives, role-play, or visual representations enabled them to engage emotionally and imaginatively with alternative futures. As one participant explained, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The storytelling exercise was unexpected. When we had to present our scenario as a narrative\u0026mdash;\u0026apos;It is 2050, and here is what happened\u0026apos;\u0026mdash;something shifted. We stopped arguing about whose fault the current crisis is and started imagining together what could be different. I cannot overstate how powerful that was\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; [Int. 1]. Another participant recounted a specific moment of transformation: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;There is a moment I will not forget. We were in a small group discussing water allocation under the \u0026apos;collapse\u0026apos; scenario, and a young woman from a rural cooperative\u0026mdash;who had barely spoken all morning\u0026mdash;said quietly, \u0026apos;If the government keeps drilling emergency wells, our village will be empty in ten years.\u0026apos; The room went silent. That silence was more honest than any official report I have ever read\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; [Int. 29]. This approach reduced defensiveness, encouraged openness, and allowed participants to explore trade-offs without the constraints of immediate policy commitments. As one participant summarized, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The two-day structure worked because day one was about understanding different perspectives\u0026mdash;just listening\u0026mdash;and day two was about building something together. If we had jumped straight into solutions, it would have failed. The process forced us to slow down, and that slowing down was exactly what we needed\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Int. 4]. As a result, the process facilitated not only cognitive expansion but also normative reflection on desirable futures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFacilitation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFacilitation emerged as a central enabling factor in shaping the quality of interactions and learning outcomes. Participants consistently described the facilitation as balanced, adaptive, and context-sensitive. Facilitators were perceived as approachable and supportive, fostering an atmosphere in which participants felt comfortable sharing both professional insights and personal experiences. The use of probing and reflective questions was frequently cited as instrumental in prompting participants to critically examine their assumptions and consider alternative perspectives. One participant admitted, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Honestly, I came in skeptical. I thought this would be another performative exercise. But the facilitators kept asking us, \u0026apos;Why do you believe that? What evidence would change your mind? They never let us settle into comfortable positions. By the end of day two, I was arguing against some of my own initial assumptions. That takes skillful facilitation\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Int. 10]. Importantly, facilitators actively managed power asymmetries, ensuring that less dominant voices\u0026mdash;such as junior participants, women, and community representatives\u0026mdash;were included in discussions. Techniques such as structured turn-taking and gentle moderation of dominant speakers contributed to a more equitable dialogue. A participant described a pivotal moment: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;There was a moment when a very senior official from the water authority started dominating the conversation. The facilitator did not interrupt him directly\u0026mdash;that would have caused loss of face. Instead, she said, \u0026apos;That is an important point. Before we continue, I would love to hear what the representative from the village council thinks about this.\u0026apos; That one sentence changed the whole dynamic\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; [Int. 8]. Another participant highlighted the facilitator\u0026apos;s skill in de-escalating tension: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;What impressed me most was how the facilitators handled a tense exchange between a provincial official and a farmer who accused him of lying about water data. Instead of shutting it down or taking sides, the facilitator said, \u0026apos;Let us pause. What would it take for both of you to trust the same set of numbers?\u0026apos; That reframing saved the conversation. Another facilitator might have let it escalate\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Int. 2]. Cultural competence was also highlighted as a critical factor. Facilitators\u0026apos; familiarity with Iranian socio-cultural norms\u0026mdash;including practices such as ta\u0026apos;arof and sensitivities related to hierarchy\u0026mdash;enabled them to navigate complex interpersonal dynamics effectively. As one participant noted, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The facilitators were not Iranian, but they understood Iran. They knew when to push and when to wait. There is a subtlety to facilitation here\u0026mdash;you cannot just be neutral; you have to be respectfully neutral. They got that right\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Int. 30]. Their positionality as neutral yet contextually informed actors\u0026mdash;neither government-affiliated nor external outsiders\u0026mdash;was seen as essential in building trust across diverse participant groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContext\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough the analytical framework emphasized composition, process, and facilitation, participants repeatedly pointed to the importance of contextual conditions in shaping the effectiveness of the PSP process. First, the scope and framing of the workshop were perceived as appropriately calibrated, allowing participants to engage meaningfully without being constrained by disciplinary or institutional boundaries. The emphasis on long-term futures (2050) was particularly important, as it created a cognitive space that transcended immediate political and institutional constraints. One participant explained, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;If we had tried to have this conversation about current water allocations, people would have walked out within the first hour. Everyone is too entrenched, too defensive. But talking about 2050\u0026mdash;that is far enough away that no one feels personally accused. It gave us permission to be honest in a way that discussing next year\u0026apos;s budget never could\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Int. 10]. This temporal framing enabled participants to think more creatively and move beyond entrenched narratives of blame that often dominate environmental discourse in Iran. Second, participants highlighted the value of future-oriented storytelling, which shifted discussions away from technical debates toward shared imaginaries and lived possibilities. This approach fostered openness, reduced conflict, and enabled more constructive engagement with uncertainty. As one participant observed, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;We have had droughts, dust storms, declining groundwater\u0026mdash;the urgency is real. But urgency usually makes people more defensive, not more collaborative. What surprised me is that by framing the conversation around long-term futures, the urgency became a shared problem rather than a weapon to blame others. I did not expect that to work, but it did\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[Int. 7]. Finally, broader political and socio-environmental conditions were recognized as influential. Participants noted that the PSP process took place within a context characterized by both environmental urgency and low institutional trust. One interviewee stated candidly, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The political situation in this country makes any kind of collaborative governance incredibly difficult. Trust is broken at every level. So the fact that this group of people\u0026mdash;some of whom have been in open conflict for years\u0026mdash;sat in a room together for two days and actually listened to each other? That is not a small thing. That is a foundation\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Int. 5]. In this setting, the ability to convene diverse actors in a respectful and constructive dialogue was itself perceived as a significant achievement. A participant reflected on a private conversation after the workshop: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;One of the participants told me privately after the workshop, \u0026apos;I came here expecting to defend my organization\u0026apos;s position. I left realizing that defending my position is not the same as solving the problem.\u0026apos; That is not something you hear every day in Iranian environmental governance. The context\u0026mdash;the way the workshop was framed, the future orientation, the facilitation\u0026mdash;made that realization possible\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Int. 6]. These insights underscore the importance of situating participatory processes within their wider governance and societal contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSocial Learning Effects of PSP in the Iranian Context\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study provides robust empirical evidence that Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP) generates measurable social learning effects in complex governance settings such as the Tehran Basin, specifically enhancing (1) systems thinking, (2) rational trust among actors, and (3) environmental aspirations toward integrative futures. A key contribution is the demonstrated temporal durability of these effects, with cognitive and relational gains persisting for at least three months\u0026mdash;a significant finding in the Iranian governance context, where policy discontinuities often undermine institutional learning (Downs et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Chinapaw et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Regarding cognitive learning, participants expanded their mental models to include previously underemphasized elements such as groundwater systems, aquifers, salt flats, dust sources, and rural settlements, moving beyond the historical policy focus on surface water dynamics (Hassaniyan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Hamidifar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Ketabchi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Choobchian et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). These cognitive shifts were complemented by normative transformations, as aspirations evolved from sector-specific objectives toward holistic visions emphasizing landscape multifunctionality\u0026mdash;water security, agricultural livelihoods, biodiversity conservation, dust mitigation, cultural heritage, and socio-economic resilience\u0026mdash;thereby moving beyond the dominant \"environment versus economy\" binary (Cato, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of relational learning, while high baseline levels of rational trust reflected pre-existing professional networks, PSP produced statistically significant trust increases across governmental agencies, non-governmental actors, and community-based groups\u0026mdash;a noteworthy outcome given Iran's history of inter-institutional mistrust. However, a partial decline in trust at follow-up for certain organizations highlights the fragility of these gains, potentially reflecting dissipated \"workshop effects\" or a mismatch between heightened expectations and post-workshop institutional realities. The parallel trajectories of rational trust and collaborative aspirations\u0026mdash;both increasing initially then modestly declining\u0026mdash;suggest that collaborative aspirations are contingent upon perceived feasibility. Notably, PSP increased participants' ability to assess previously unfamiliar actors, particularly marginalized groups such as pastoralist cooperatives and women farmers' associations, thereby reducing informational asymmetries and challenging critiques that participatory processes merely reproduce dominant knowledge hierarchies. The study acknowledges its focus on rational trust exclusively, leaving affinitive, procedural, and dispositional trust unexplored\u0026mdash;dimensions particularly relevant in Iran where interpersonal relationships and informal networks shape governance dynamics. Overall, while PSP demonstrates effectiveness at the individual level, longitudinal research remains necessary to assess whether these transformations translate into sustained institutional practices, policy innovation, or changes in resource management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Role of Operational Attributes of PSP in Enabling Social Learning\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, participant composition emerged as a foundational driver of learning. The deliberate inclusion of actors from multiple sectors, governance levels, and knowledge systems\u0026mdash;including pastoralist and farmer representatives who introduced dimensions of mobility, livelihood vulnerability, and local ecological knowledge\u0026mdash;enriched systems thinking and broadened environmental aspirations. Concurrently, governmental and academic actors facilitated access to institutional and scientific knowledge, supporting mutual learning across domains. However, while organizational diversity was achieved, other dimensions such as gender, age, and broader ethnic representation remained limited, suggesting that future PSP applications in Iran should adopt a more intersectional approach to participant selection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the design of the participatory process proved crucial in enabling meaningful interaction. The combination of structured activities, small-group discussions, and plenary sessions created a dynamic environment that balanced depth and inclusivity, with small-group formats particularly instrumental in reducing hierarchical barriers and enabling open dialogue in a governance culture characterized by strong power distance. Informal interactions during breaks also emerged as critical spaces for trust-building and knowledge exchange, highlighting the importance of \"unstructured\" interaction moments in participatory design. The future-oriented nature of PSP\u0026mdash;shifting discussions from present-day conflicts toward imagined futures\u0026mdash;created a psychologically safe space that allowed participants to move beyond entrenched positions, aligning with the conceptualization of PSP as a boundary object facilitating dialogue across diverse perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, facilitation was identified as a decisive factor in mediating power dynamics and enabling inclusive participation. Facilitators' ability to balance guidance with openness, manage dominant voices, and encourage quieter participants was essential for equitable engagement, requiring not only technical skill but also deep cultural competence\u0026mdash;including sensitivity to norms of politeness, hierarchy, and indirect communication in the Iranian context. The perceived neutrality of facilitators, positioned between state and non-state actors, was particularly important in building trust, highlighting the need for facilitators who are both contextually embedded and institutionally independent, especially in politically sensitive environments. Finally, the broader socio-political environment\u0026mdash;including levels of institutional trust, environmental urgency, and historical conflict\u0026mdash;influenced both participant engagement and outcome interpretation, underscoring that PSP should not be viewed as a standalone intervention but as a process deeply embedded within its governance context. Future research should systematically examine how variations in composition, process duration, and delivery format (e.g., virtual vs. in-person) affect both the magnitude and durability of learning effects in the Iranian context, where environmental governance is shaped by complex institutional, cultural, and political dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study concludes that Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP) is a robust, multifaceted approach that generates substantive benefits for environmental governance, as evidenced in the Tehran Basin. Rather than serving merely as a participatory planning tool, PSP functions as a powerful social learning process that enhances systems thinking, strengthens rational trust among actors, and reorients aspirations toward integrative, process-oriented goals\u0026mdash;competencies critical in contexts marked by ecological degradation, institutional fragmentation, and entrenched mistrust. Notably, these learning effects persisted for at least three months, demonstrating PSP\u0026rsquo;s capacity to produce durable cognitive, relational, and normative transformations where policy continuity is often disrupted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effectiveness of PSP, however, depends heavily on its core operational attributes: composition, process, and facilitation. In the Tehran Basin, diverse stakeholder inclusion (government, NGOs, community organizations, and academia) expanded systems understanding and fostered trust, while process design elements\u0026mdash;small-group and plenary discussions, scenario development, storytelling, and informal spaces\u0026mdash;enabled meaningful knowledge exchange in contrast to conventional hierarchical settings. Culturally attuned, politically neutral, and reflexive facilitation proved essential for managing power asymmetries and ensuring equitable participation. While future research should address limitations such as small sample size, single-case design, and reliance on self-reported data, and explore longitudinal outcomes, comparative designs, critical perspectives on power, and expanded trust typologies, PSP emerges as a viable, cost-effective, and empirically grounded pathway toward more inclusive, adaptive, and resilient environmental governance amid profound uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eEthics approval\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the affiliated university of authors. All participants provided informed consent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Amirali Boroumand. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Amirali Boroumand. Mohammad Javad Amiri (lead supervisor) and Esmail Salehi (co-supervisor) reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbbaspour, K. C., Faramarzi, M., Ghasemi, S. S., \u0026amp; Yang, H. (2009). Assessing the impact of climate change on water resources in Iran. \u003cem\u003eWater resources research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(10).\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm;\u003c/span\u003e https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007615\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbdi, O., Kamkar, B., Shirvani, Z., Teixeira da Silva, J. A., \u0026amp; Buchroithner, M. F. (2018). Spatial-statistical analysis of factors determining forest fires: a case study from Golestan, Northeast Iran. \u003cem\u003eGeomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 267-280.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2016.1206629\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbiyat, M., \u0026amp; Abiyat, M. (2025). Resilience for Rural Sustainable Development in Iran: Challenges and Approaches. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Perspectives on Building Resilience for Sustainable Rural Development: Institutional Innovation and Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 63-190.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-6149-7_5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArmitage, D., Dzyundzyak, A., Baird, J., Bodin, \u0026Ouml;., Plummer, R., \u0026amp; Schultz, L. (2018). An approach to assess learning conditions, effects and outcomes in environmental governance. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Policy and Governance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(1), 3-14.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1781\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBagherzadeh, S., Mianabadi, H., Sadeghizadeh Bafandeh, S., Ghorbani, A., \u0026amp; Deylami, B. (2024). Normative assessment of enabling factors for adaptive water governance; Evidence and lessons from the Hirmand River Basin, Iran. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e73\u003c/em\u003e(1), 144-161.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01896-9 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaird, J., Plummer, R., Haug, C., \u0026amp; Huitema, D. (2014). Learning effects of interactive decision-making processes for climate change adaptation. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e, 51-63.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoroumand, A., Amiri, M.J. \u0026amp; Salehi, E. (2026). Transformative governance for complex environmental problems: evidence from iran\u0026rsquo;s urban air pollution. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment Systems and Decisions\u003c/em\u003e. 46, 21, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-026-10084-z \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCato, M. S. (2020). \u003cem\u003eEnvironment and economy\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429060656 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChaffin, B. C., Garmestani, A. S., Gunderson, L. H., Benson, M. H., Angeler, D. G., Arnold, C. A., ... \u0026amp; Allen, C. R. (2016). Transformative environmental governance. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Environment and Resources\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(1), 399-423.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085817\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChinapaw, M. J., Klaufus, L. H., Oyeyemi, A. L., Draper, C., Palmeira, A. L., Silva, M. N., ... \u0026amp; Altenburg, T. M. (2024). Youth-centred participatory action approach towards co-created implementation of socially and physically activating environmental interventions in Africa and Europe: the YoPA project study protocol. \u003cem\u003eBMJ open\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), e084657.\u0026rlm; \u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"LTR\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084657\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChoobchian, S., Akbari, E., Sheidaei, F., Allahyari, M. S., Abbasi, E., \u0026amp; Hassan, T. B. (2025). Participatory decision-making process of water resources management: the arid and semi-arid region of the Iranian plateau. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Water\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(2), 113-152.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.1504/IJW.2025.151231\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDowns, T. J., Ross, L., Mucciarone, D., Calvache, M. C., Taylor, O., \u0026amp; Goble, R. (2010). Participatory testing and reporting in an environmental-justice community of Worcester, Massachusetts: a pilot project. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 34.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-9-34\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuda, E. (2022). Building the learning environment for sustainable development: A co-creation approach. \u003cem\u003earXiv preprint arXiv:2208.14151\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.14151\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErnst, A. (2019A). Review of factors influencing social learning within participatory environmental governance. \u003cem\u003eEcology and society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003ehttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26796921 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErnst, A. (2019B). Research techniques and methodologies to assess social learning in participatory environmental governance. \u003cem\u003eLearning, Culture and Social Interaction\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e, 100331.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100331\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGalang, E. I. N. E., Bennett, E. M., Hickey, G. M., Baird, J., Harvey, B., \u0026amp; Sherren, K. (2025). Participatory scenario planning: A social learning approach to build systems thinking and trust for sustainable environmental governance. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e164\u003c/em\u003e, 103997.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.103997\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarmendia, E., \u0026amp; Stagl, S. (2010). Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. \u003cem\u003eEcological economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e69\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1712-1722.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.027\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHamidifar, H. (2024). Water crisis in Iran: Causes, consequences, and solutions. In \u003cem\u003eWater crises and sustainable management in the global south\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 85-109). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4966-9_3 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHassaniyan, A. (2024). Iran\u0026rsquo;s water policy: environmental injustice and peripheral marginalisation. \u003cem\u003eProgress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(3), 420-437.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.1177/03091333241252523\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHovardas, T. (2021). Social sustainability as social learning: Insights from multi-stakeholder environmental governance. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(14), 7744.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"LTR\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su13147744\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuitema, D., Cornelisse, C., \u0026amp; Ottow, B. (2010). Is the jury still out? Toward greater insight in policy learning in participatory decision processes\u0026mdash;the case of Dutch citizens\u0026rsquo; juries on water management in the Rhine Basin. \u003cem\u003eEcology and society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u0026rlm; https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268099 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnson, K. A., Dana, G., Jordan, N. R., Draeger, K. J., Kapuscinski, A., Olabisi, L. K. S., \u0026amp; Reich, P. B. (2012). Using participatory scenarios to stimulate social learning for collaborative sustainable development. \u003cem\u003eEcology and society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(2).\u0026rlm; https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269034\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKameli, A., Naddafi, K., Saeedi, R., Hosseinzadeh-Attar, M. J., \u0026amp; Ostadtaghizadeh, A. (2025). Water crisis in hospitals: challenges, and recommendations\u0026ndash;a qualitative study in Iran. \u003cem\u003eBMC Health Services Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 903.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12989-y \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKetabchi, H., Sadeghi-Jahani, H., Mahmoodzadeh, D., \u0026amp; Vafeghi, S. M. (2025). A decision tool for groundwater-surface water interaction assessment method selection: Application to case studies in Iran. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental and Sustainability Indicators\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e, 100726.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2025.100726\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoontz, T. M. (2014). Social learning in collaborative watershed planning: the importance of process control and efficacy. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Planning and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1572-1593.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.820658\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eK\u0026oslash;rn\u0026oslash;v, L., Larsen, S. V., Lyhne, I., Puibaraud, I. E., Hansen, A. M., Aaen, S. B., \u0026amp; Nielsen, H. N. (2022). Collaboration through environmental assessment networks: Co-creating space and cultivating a joint learning mindset. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e97\u003c/em\u003e, 106898.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106898\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuenkel, P., \u0026amp; Gruen, A. (2017). Co-creation for sustainability as a societal learning journey. In \u003cem\u003eLifelong Learning and Education in Healthy and Sustainable Cities\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 377-393). Cham: Springer International Publishing.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69474-0_22 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMolleman, L., \u0026amp; Gaechter, S. (2018). Societal background influences social learning in cooperative decision making. \u003cem\u003eEvolution and Human Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(5), 547-555.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.05.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNasirian, H., \u0026amp; Naddafi, K. (2025). A new perspective on climate change in the geography of Iran: current and potential future implications. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(2), 25.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.1007/s40201-025-00948-y \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewig, J., Jager, N. W., Kochsk\u0026auml;mper, E., \u0026amp; Challies, E. (2019). Learning in participatory environmental governance\u0026ndash;its antecedents and effects. Findings from a case survey meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Policy \u0026amp; Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(3), 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1623663\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePoskitt, S., Waylen, K. A., \u0026amp; Ainslie, A. (2021). Applying pedagogical theories to understand learning in participatory scenario planning. \u003cem\u003eFutures\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e128\u003c/em\u003e, 102710.\u0026rlm; 10.1016/j.futures.2021.102710\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRezaei, S., Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., Fatemi, M., \u0026amp; Ghafouri, M. (2025). Stakeholder priorities and trade-offs in the sustainable restoration of parishan wetland, iran. \u003cem\u003eWetlands Ecology and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(5), 73.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-025-10087-8 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSadeghi, S. H., \u0026amp; Hazbavi, Z. (2022). Land degradation in Iran. In \u003cem\u003eGlobal degradation of soil and water resources: Regional assessment and strategies\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 287-314). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7916-2_20 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalajegheh, S., Jafari, H. R., \u0026amp; Pourebrahim, S. (2026). Bridging Ecology and Governance: An Integrated Framework for Assessing Industrial Development Resilience in Water-Scarce Regions. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1), 78.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003e https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-025-01034-9 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchauppenlehner-Kloyber, E., \u0026amp; Penker, M. (2015). Managing group processes in transdisciplinary future studies: How to facilitate social learning and capacity building for self-organised action towards sustainable urban development?. \u003cem\u003eFutures\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e, 57-71.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.08.012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSohrabi, R. (2025). The politics of drought in the Middle East, case study from Iran. \u003cem\u003eDiscover Environment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 122.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s44274-025-00334-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVahabzadeh, M., Molajou, A., Variani, H. A., \u0026amp; Afshar, A. (2025). Assessment of the water and energy nexus in the energy supply subsystem of water stressed countries like Iran. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 37467. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-21380-0 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan der Wal, M., De Kraker, J., Offermans, A., Kroeze, C., Kirschner, P. A., \u0026amp; Van Ittersum, M. (2014). Measuring social learning in participatory approaches to natural resource management. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental policy and governance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-15.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1627\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evon Sch\u0026ouml;nfeld, K. C., Tan, W., Wiekens, C., \u0026amp; Janssen-Jansen, L. (2020). Unpacking social learning in planning: who learns what from whom?. \u003cem\u003eUrban research \u0026amp; practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(4), 411-433.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2019.1576216\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVon Sch\u0026ouml;nfeld, K. C., Tan, W., Wiekens, C., Salet, W., \u0026amp; Janssen-Jansen, L. (2019). Social learning as an analytical lens for co-creative planning. \u003cem\u003eEuropean planning studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1291-1313.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1579303\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalker, G. B., \u0026amp; Daniels, S. E. (2019). Collaboration in environmental conflict management and decision-making: comparing best practices with insights from collaborative learning work. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Communication\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e, 2.\u0026rlm; https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWals, A. E. (2014). Social learning-oriented capacity-building for critical transitions towards sustainability. In \u003cem\u003eSchooling for sustainable development in Europe: Concepts, policies and educational experiences at the end of the UN decade of education for sustainable development\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 87-107). Cham: Springer International Publishing.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026rlm; \u003c/span\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09549-3_6 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Environmental governance, Social learning, Collaborative governance, Iran, Participatory processes.","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9449043/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9449043/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP)—conceptualized as a collaborative process of envisioning and negotiating plausible futures—represents a promising approach for strengthening environmental governance in contemporary Iran, particularly in addressing complex challenges such as water scarcity, land subsidence, dust storms, and wetland degradation. While recent scholarship highlights the capacity of PSP to foster social learning and enhance governance-related knowledge, values, and competencies, empirical evidence from the Iranian context remains limited. This study investigates a PSP intervention conducted in the Tehran Basin to assess three dimensions of social learning among participants (n = 90): systems thinking (cognitive dimension), rational trust (relational dimension), and environmental aspirations (normative dimension). Adopting a mixed-methods explanatory design, the study combined a quasi-experimental assessment of learning outcomes with qualitative inquiry. The findings provide evidence that PSP enhances systems thinking by broadening participants' mental models of socio-ecological interdependencies, strengthens rational trust across institutional boundaries, and reorients environmental aspirations toward process-oriented governance approaches. These learning effects persisted for at least three months following participation. Key operational factors—including stakeholder diversity, interactive participatory methods, and skilled facilitation—significantly shaped the depth and persistence of social learning outcomes.","manuscriptTitle":"Assessing Short-term Social Learning Effects of Participatory Scenario Planning in Tehran Basin, Iran: An Exploratory Study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-07 19:59:38","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9449043/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"46278264992363750984882524861232262107","date":"2026-05-05T02:43:23+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-23T07:38:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-22T16:31:19+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-21T05:52:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Environmental Management","date":"2026-04-17T12:07:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3dcbfa73-b38a-4b00-afbc-3e8c882bc2d2","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 7th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"46278264992363750984882524861232262107","date":"2026-05-05T02:43:23+00:00","index":19,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-07T19:59:38+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-07 19:59:38","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9449043","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9449043","identity":"rs-9449043","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}