Community-based action

(Freeman 1989). With the recognition of the value of TEK, the growth of the field has been rapid, however.

It should be noted though that most of these contributions have come from interdisciplinary scholars rather than from ecology and resource management professionals. (Berkes, 1993, p. 2)

Among the Ethnoecology field of studies there are differentiated perspectives on the relevance of TEK. Authors like Casimirri (2003) point out the singularity of local TEK manifestations as it might not be fully understood outside the cultural and spiritual context (Casimirri, 2003). Nonetheless, to Berkes (1993) and accordingly to Aichi Target 18 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, TEK is valuable for the conservation of biodiversity and for its sustainable use. Therefore, the full and effective participation of traditional and local communities’ representatives are presented as all relevant to engage.

The dialogue among different types of knowledge strengthens the connection of a community or group, and it is responsible for the construction of knowledge, therefore it can be seen on the basis of democratic relations; here understanding democracy as a radical proposal for human coexistence as Jara Holliday (2019) introduces. All human relations, adds the author, are relations of power. When this power is democratic, it generates the capacity for co-construction that is expressed both in the form of common knowledge and in synergistic and solidary actions (Franco et al., 2021).

from different areas of knowledge (Buterfoss & Kegler, 2002; Vasconcelos, 2008; Serrat, 2010;

Raposo and Mesquita, 2018).

Buterfoss and Kegler (2002, pp. 157-158) refer to these communitarian gatherings as

“Community coalitions” an approach that, to the authors, “bring people together, expand available resources, and focus on a problem of community concern to achieve better results than any single group or agency could have achieved alone”. The high potential of such a coalition is directly connected with a long-term investment in time and resources (Butterfoss and Kegler,2002), therefore a greater engagement and a longer exercise provide best results.

A community of practice appears as a proposal for a learning and collaborative network, taking here collaboration as the main reason for the constitution of such a group, being as well essential to its maintenance and a valued outcome of its functioning (Chagas, 2002). Collaboration sets the basis for liberation by the communion of meanings, accepting that reflection leads to practice, and action becomes praxis - practical application of a theory - in a critically reflection exercise (Freire, 2008).

To Freire (2008, p. 58) “ninguém liberta ninguém, ninguém se liberta sozinho”¹⁷, a communitarian education that lies on a democratic framework, assuming in the agenda the development of common knowledge and the promotion of synergistic and solidary actions, offers the conditions for freedom, in an emancipatory input to face oppressive conditions.

Educational processes with communitarian basis appear, often, as learning communities (Kilpatrick et al, 2003), with two main forms of use: (1) one reaching to communities of practice, working on establishing synergies towards shared understandings, and (2) aiming at curricular structures with a formal or non-formal basis to encompass lapses in pre-established educational settings. The groups organized as communities of practice or learning communities act, mainly, at local levels, assessing needs of the group members, reaching sometimes a broader amplitude through, for example, partnerships. With greater or smaller amplitude, a community with such a collaborative setting has as premise the respect for diversity - being understood that it enhances the learning capacity of a community and promotes outcomes on a collective and individual level (Kilpatrick et al, 2003).

17Nobody frees anyone, nobody gets free alone [my translation].

In the case of learning communities aiming for curricular structures, the presence of an educator may be requested - external or even a member of the group itself. Nonetheless, in the case of communities of practice, Lave (1991) advocates that knowledge and skill develop in the process and as an integral part of it. Throughout the action of such a community, the development comes from the participation, and the contact with the others – participants and knowledge/skills are the main incentive for participation. It is through this shared practical process that skill gets organized once ongoing everyday activity provides structuring resources for learning. In her work, Lave (1991, p. 79) demonstrates “the importance of social interaction, the joint construction of meaning, the distributed character of knowing, and, hence, the partial, transformed, situated nature of that which is taken in” to the internalization of learning and knowledge/skill transfer.

Communities of practice as well as learning communities start their process, with the assumption that all knowledge matters. In this sense, Flores and Filho (2016) claim that developing a transdisciplinary attitude allow to keep open to the construction of new understandings, reaching to new solution possibilities facing the uncertainties of actual complexity on environmental issues. To the authors (2016) the transdisciplinarity proposes a permanent crossing of specific knowledge limits. The interaction with other ways of seeing the world, questioning individual beliefs and certainties opens the boundaries of the mind.

With focus on communitarian education, Mesquita (2014) presents the concept of space as the main factor of integration, in a manner that reminds human beings how individual, society, and nature are connected, reaffirming the need to rethink the posture facing this ecological system. In this sense, being part of a community goes deeper than the geographical coexistence for instance, it reaches to the integration of each individual in a shared framework of meaning, where respect, solidarity, and cooperation are key (Lave, 1991; D’Ambrosio, 2002;

Kilpatrick et al, 2003; Mesquita, 2014).

2.3. From ecology to ecological consciousness

Earth´s balance has been disrupted and several authors like Boff (2020) and Chapin (2013) ask if humanity is to observe the current individualistic path, questioning what is really important, life or material assets? Coastal areas are centres of human activity and also spaces of life, in which transitional ecosystems develop in a harmonious connection of land and water.

Nonetheless, the coexistence is not always peaceful. To think sustainable coastal development, it is urged to rethink the Environmental Education, therefore, to rethink our concept of ecology.

The concept of ecology appears, initially, in the field of Biology, the study of the relationships between living beings and the environment where they live, trying to clarify the influence that some have on others (Biology dictionary online). The concept was brought by Ernest Haeckel, a German scientist working in the biology field, on 1864-1865, as indicated by Viriato Soromenho-Marques (Moura et al., 1999) in a debate on the path of the ecological science to the ecologist ideology. This debate was partaken by a philosopher, an environment scientist, an architect, and a civil engineer with interest and work from an ecology perspective, in Portugal. The debate considers ecology as Haeckel presented it, claiming here ecology as an auxiliar science of Biology. However, on debate, the participants reach to the evolution of the concept. It was appointed that, more recently, it was used to refer to different perspectives on different communities of living beings (human and non-human) as an independent science.

The ecology concept evolution was not consensual to the debate participants. For ones, ecology must reach to human, to others it cannot be dissociated from biology and nature conservation (Moura et al., 1999).

The term ecology was captured by some to approach different understandings. For instance, Ethnoecology and Human Ecology are scientific disciplines that make an interface between human and non-human populations. Ethnoecology (Ellen, R. & Fukui, K., 1996) debates on how Anthropology can contribute to sustainable development issues which depend on the way individuals perceive nature – relations between plants, animals and humans – and the culture supporting the management of the environment; and Human Ecology focuses on the understanding of “behaviours of the biosphere and sociosphere”, through a “global biocultural approach” (Carvalho, 2007, p. 127).

Following this path, and looking for local contexts, Gilbert et al. (2016, p. 1) study human perceptions of local ecological conditions and the viability to “adjust strategies (…) in response to local ecological threats and opportunities”. This very specific case gives hints to further studies in other local contexts. Kelly (2018, p. 223) takes her research to a coastal area, considering “the sea needs humans, and humans need the sea” in an “integrative approach to policy that incorporates symbiotic sustainability-wellbeing narratives”. The author (2018) states that all the study groups have considered a positive impact in their well-being, related

with outdoors activities developed near the sea. To Kelly (2018), the feedback received revealed a strong awareness of the connection individual-environment, promoting a more holistic view of the world and a more sustainable range of attitudes. In her conclusions, Kelly (2018) mentions the need for a transdisciplinary approach, mainly in the policy settings. She, also, points out the need for a “collaborative [action to] (…) meet learning, wellbeing and sustainability objectives” (p. 230), considering the relevance of collaborative actions for a harmonious and sustainable way of life, as demonstrated with her study.

Facing the cultural sources of environmental attitudes and beliefs, Ellis & Thompson (1997) dissert on investigation on environmental commitment, reflecting on which questions are made on that matter. Frequently, researchers ask what people want, but what about the why? To the authors (1997, p. 885), “perceptions about environmental risks and dangers (…) are embedded in cultural orientations, rather than being merely a function of the level of information about the safety of particular technologies, or a product”.

The world is full of diversity, however despite its growing recognition, the value of the diversity of knowledge systems, as pointed out by Santos et al. (2007) in the introduction of the book Another knowledge is possible, is still far from being reached. To the authors, the supremacy of scientific knowledge that began in the seventeenth century, caused the overlooking of other systems which composes what Boaventura de Sousa Santos acknowledged as the Ecology of Knowledge.

In Maturana & Varela (1995), two Chilean biologists who developed the theory of Autopoiesis and Biology of Cognition, everything human beings do drives them to a new doing. The authors define this as a cognitive cycle, a characteristic and autonomous process to living beings. Those doings promote the development and systematization of knowledge, creating different systems, which cannot be accessed outside that universe of knowledge.

Therefore, the human perceptions and experiences develop knowledge which can only be known through itself.

When researchers strive to change behaviors - to face environmental problems, for instance - the tendency is to objectify human beings with lack of interest in knowing how their own nature operates (Maturana & Varela, 1995). Facing this, Maturana & Varela (1995) approach the cognition blind spots - certainties, pre-established ideas, preconceptions - which set a pattern that don´t let the individuals perceive how much they don´t see or ignore. To the

authors, an interaction is needed that forces the individual to enter a different environment, facing other cultural systems of knowledge to reach the conscience of the relations – human and of knowledge, taken as granted. When the individuals allow themselves to face diversity – society and nature, as a learning experience, reflecting on his/her own nature as well as in the potential of the collective construction of the world, it becomes clear that others’

opposition to an idea is the result of a structural construction based on the experiential learning, so its validity appears in equal value to all forms (Maturana & Varela, 1995).

Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2012) transcends this universe of knowledge to a reflection on the dualities amongst the capitalist development and the good living. To the author, the capitalist development drives the valuation of commodities and natural resources to a non-sense duality once it aims to create wealth by destroying wealth. Even when aiming for the protection and preservation of natural environments, it is possible to see that unintended destruction is the result. How many times were mentioned that the introduction or elimination of some link in the ecological chain aimed at the preservation of an endangered species but, later disrupted the ecosystem creating several other concerns? Accordingly, to Chapin (2013, n.p.) “our actions are stressing Earth’s natural capacity for reciprocity”.

Santos (2012) argues the need of a conscience that encompasses all politics as economic, social, ecological, and cultural. Therefore, to the author the goal is a holistic and integral perspective of the environmental paradigm.

2.4. The environmental paradigm – a holistic and integral perspective

Acosta (2016), one of those responsible for placing the Rights of Nature in the Constitution of Ecuador, in the chapter “O Bem Viver e os Direitos da Natureza”¹⁸ reflects on the movement of separation between humanity and nature that has been experienced, taking nature to a conception of a never-ending source of resources. To Acosta (2016) humanity is an integral part of nature and only understanding and accepting that humanity is part of nature, a collaborative and coherent strategy can be designed, to confront the global problems and life as an equitable and sustainable society.

18“Good Living and the Rights of Nature” [My translation]

In this approach, Acosta (2016; 135) recognizes that “A sociedade civil, com crescente consciência global, começa a dar início a uma série de ações e iniciativas. É cada vez mais evidente a necessidade de cooperar para proteger a vida do ser humano e do próprio planeta.”¹⁹ Therefore, Acosta integrality assumes a new conception of environment, taking nature and humankind as essential parts of the whole. The author (2016; 24) considers his

“buen vivir”²⁰, a communitarian process inherent in populations living in a harmonious way with nature. This process brings the learning experience of a citizenship, which values and promotes harmony and diversity into society and nature. A citizenship that forms a society gathering the knowledge of multiple actors (Santos, 2006), agents in a changing world, each one of us. In this changing world, Santos (2006) opposes the domination of modern science culture, presenting an Ecology of Knowledge, which is the recognition of knowledge as inter-knowledge, a network of sustainable and dynamic interactions between the diversity of knowledge, among which modern science.

This citizenship, which considers the Ecology of Knowledge, takes us to the concept of Collaborative Governance introduced by Vasconcelos (2015), that follows the definition of

“Governância” (Aragão, 2005; 4) as government in action with the involvement of all, presenting new solutions to the new order of problems faced nowadays. MARGov project (Vasconcelos et al., 2015; Stratoudakis et al., 2019) is one example of how a collaborative dimension in a participative decision-making process may present positive results to the collective and, mainly, to nature.

When the implementation of a Marine Protected Area was imposed on the local community in a top-down process, the more direct stakeholders felt excluded in the face of the low dialogue implemented. Therefore, the process was seen as an imposition and the conflict burst bottom-up, mainly, among direct stakeholders like the artisanal fisher community that opposed the fishing restrictions. Having no consensus, a participatory process was prepared with the purpose of deconstructing the conflict and to “strengthen the

eco-19“Civil society, with growing global awareness, is beginning to initiate a series of actions and initiatives.

The need to cooperate to protect the lives of human beings and the planet itself is increasingly evident.” [My translation]

20“Good Living” [My translation]

social dialogue of empowering agents in order to achieve sustainable ocean governance.”

(Vasconcelos et al., 2015; 27).

The MARGov Project developed a process constituted by two main phases. An exploratory phase that included a network dimension that provided a contact list, a selection of stakeholders to be involved directly in the process, and a conflict map drawn with data collected in a series of interviews carried out with stakeholders. The second phase was centered on the promotion of trust (a) in the process, (b) in themselves, and (c) among stakeholders (Vasconcelos et al., 2015). To the authors, the greatest outcome was an autonomously and co-responsible collaborative process, being continuously enhanced.

Nonetheless, MARGov project, also, brought as an outcome the potential of new forms of dialogue, considering the relevance of the input of the diversity of knowledge – science, policy, and society (Bruckmeier, 2015).

The authors, concepts and theories brought to this literature review support the need for a paradigm change facing nature and environment, considering the environment as a whole, where individual-society-nature (D’Ambrosio, 2002) establish an interdependent relation. By neglecting this relation, serious environmental problems are faced, therefore, an integral (Acosta, 2016) perspective brings a sense of connection that enables a pattern for nature preservation and active participation in the environment as seen here. An individual, when perceiving a decision-making model that values his/her knowledge has more potential to become a committed citizen, engaging in activities and enforcing more sustainable attitudes.

Ocean Literacy Observatory (OLO) – a research laboratory of Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre (MARE) is a relevant example on the engagement of the diversity to a collective development, as it is a trans-academic space developed through an upward and transversal movement of citizens from different groups of society. The intellectual diversity and extreme attention to the urban conurbation movement that surrounds OLO’s diversity meet in a transdisciplinary and transcultural approach, encouraging members of local coastal communities to participate side by side with the classic scientific community, in active and critical research movements (OLO, 2020a). Therefore, collaborative processes may develop an important role for a local sustainable action, once they promote dialogue among different types of knowledge (local, traditional, technical, and scientific). As the previous authors and

studies have shown, it is possible to have multiple designs – a model, a strategy or a plan combining diversified actions. The most significant is not having an exact design, but the freedom to go beyond the pre-established patterns, and find alternatives… alternatives to development (Lang, 2016), an integral sustainable one.

Murray Bookchin (1982), in his book The Ecology of Freedom, expresses the need for reconciliation between nature and human society. Accordingly, to Tokar, a lecturer in Environmental Studies at the University of Vermont, Bookchin was one of the first “to identify the growth imperative of capitalism as a fundamental threat to the integrity of living ecosystems (…) [arguing] that social and ecological concerns are fundamentally inseparable”

(2019, p. 308).

Bookchin (1982) reflects on a new ecological sensibility brought to light by planetary ecological catastrophic emergence. The evidence of humanity’s potential for destruction comes along with the conscience of the potential for preservation in an exercise of balanced co-existence. The demands for an imposed reconstruction of the natural order, may come with greater damages.

The new ecological sensibility, advocated by the author (Bookchin, 1982), introduces the reflection on how humanity uses the tools at her reach, as they could come with destruction or reconstruction. After all, the better intentions may come with damages to a balanced environment. Bookchin’s sensibility reaches to the respect ethics presented by D’Ambrosio (1999), considering the relational link, individual-society-nature. Therefore, the dialogue among different actors and different types of knowledge – traditional, local, technical, and scientific - present possible solution perspectives to face the constraints that endanger the environment, in a respectful concern for all interdependent factors of the relational link.

Accordingly, for Bookchin (1982, p. 19) “the revolution required by our time must draw its poetry not from the past but from the future, from the humanistic potentialities that lie on the horizons of social life”, words of value on the final decades of the twentieth century and still of value nowadays.

2.5. Environmental Communitarian Education - from affectivity to ecological care

The human being lives his individuality without being able to deny the relevance of the community in its development. Community education appears in the passage of intergenerational knowledge and in experiences with the most experienced, who teach, in their words and actions, the paths and memories of our ancestors, promoting the cohesion of a community or group (Le Goff, 1990 and Freire, 2008).

Considering the humanistic potentialities that grew in the dimensions of social life, the Environmental Communitarian Education (Franco, in press) introduces the value of the learning dynamics in connection with our ancestry, in communitarian activities. The immersion in the shared memories in inter-generational dialogues and the exploring of our spaces – CorpSpace, OtherSpace, and EcoSpace (Mesquita et al, 2011) with the support of our elders, strengthens in each individual values of a Communitarian Education (Mesquita, 2014) that define the individual bond with society and nature (D’Ambrosio, 2002).

The bonds established in our younger years sets our life path (Lavis, 2016). When the bond values the relation individual-society-nature as argued by D’Ambrosio (2002) in his work, it also develops the conscience of Earth’s reciprocity. Terry Chapin (2013, n.p.) asserts that “the web of life is sustained through reciprocal interactions”. To the author, that reciprocity is the natural way Earth works, nonetheless the limits are pushed to tension with the actions of each element of the environment. Humans are essential elements of that relational link, although it demands an urgent rethink of the human impact and the need to reduce the stress that humans bring to Earth’s reciprocity. Chapin (2013) reflects on the pathways and perspectives towards a reciprocal relationship in a respect, solidarity, and cooperation ethics (D’Ambrosio, 2002).

Thus, to Restivo (2017), a reflection on the role of science must be promoted, its relationship with society and the relevance of dialogue between different forms of knowledge - traditional, local, technical, and scientific, for the exercise of a community of practice and, consequently, promoting a sustainable journey in local ecology. This journey, of a transdisciplinary nature, seeks individual and collective commitment to the environment, transposing memories, affections, and recognizing ancient heritages (Le Goff, 1990; Thrift,

2008) to the common present; a journey that needs the action of each individual to promote sustainability that is fulfilled with respect for each element of the individual-society-nature relationship.

To Ives et al. (2020) sustainability science has come a long way over the last twenty years, however according to the authors there is still a long way to go. The concern with

“external phenomena and collective social structures has led to the neglect of people’s ‘inner worlds’—their emotions, thoughts, identities and beliefs” (Ives et al., 2020, p. 208). A scientific path, as appointed by the authors, “has focused on the external world of ecosystems, economic markets, social structures and governance dynamics.” (Ives et al., 2020, p. 208) tackled on a short-term dimension, where the private interests are still power holders on public matters (Soromenho-Marques, 2015). Le Goff (1990) expresses the relevance of affectivity towards the individual and collective memories, reflecting on the role of forgetfulness and silences in the development of a society. To the author, those can come as tools for manipulation, dangers for a harmonious relation individual-society-nature (D’Ambrosio, 2002). Thrift (2008) brings forth the notion that a city or local life is moved by affections. Even so, to this author that is a dimension often forgotten in scientific research. Environmental research and studies on urban development do not acknowledge affects as a “vital element of the city” (Thrift, 2008, p. 171), in fact, more often affects are ignored.

Maturana & Varela (1995) argue that social phenomena are intricately supported by a biological premise. Here the authors reach to love as a biological basis, essential element to humanity, once without love it is not possible to accept the other and enter a socialization process. According to D’Ambrosio (2002) and Mesquita et al. (2011) this acceptance of the other encompasses society and nature. In this sense, van Eijick & Roth (2007, p.2) argue the need for a learning framework in which human beings are represented as self-determined and as well “integral parts of their environment”, is a consideration to bring to environmental education and research.

Assuming holistic and integral perspectives to the exercise of environmental education, the dimension presented by the communitarian framework cannot be forgotten. Moreover, the acknowledgement of human connection with ancestry - human and non-human, throughout memories and affections establishes a relevant bond to respect, solidarity, and cooperation (D’Ambrosio, 2002) paradigm – a change-shifting perspective as it reveals a

resonance with social transformation in a community building reinforcement (Wetzel, 2020) among elements of the relation individual-society-nature (D’Ambrosio, 2002). Therefore, the segmented images human beings have of their own relational spaces set in a holistic and integral perspective give a hint of the social humanity that made us thrive.

To Mesquita et al. (2011) CorpSpace, OtherSpace, and EcoSpace “produced by social humanity are promoted by knowledges and behaviors” (p. 63) embedded in a transcultural process of which practice constitute a transformational movement. To these authors, the exchange of energy among the three levels of space potentiates an ethics of diversity, which becomes relevant for the exercise of promoting open systems of contact, settled in dialogical dynamics, according to Mariotti (2002) proposal of five knowledges of complex thinking.

The proposal presented by the author (Mariotti, 2002), strives for knowing how to see, knowing how to wait, knowing how to dialogue, knowing how to love, knowing how to embrace, as tools to exchange energy towards the acknowledgement of the three levels of space (Mesquita et al., 2011). Developing the conscience of CorpSpace, OtherSpace, and EcoSpace, there are, also developed, roots to new meanings, new knowledge settings, and new frames of attitudes towards an integral sustainable coastal development, which resignifies the concept of development, conceiving it as a natural cyclic process rather than the linear unlimited process concept instilled by the economic growth system (Lang, 2016).

Lang (2016) compiles on her chapter “Alternativas ao desenvolvimento”²¹ different paths taken as social experimentation processes, recognizing the diversity of individuals and the variety of contexts and goals, once it is understood there is no universal path, that makes possible a good living for all. Despite the relevance of specialized knowledge modern science can provide answering to emergent situations, Lang, Bookchin, Santos, Tokar, Freire, D’Ambrosio, and so many others recognize the potentialities of community action and education movements towards a more equitable and sustainable life. And why focus on coastal areas? As acknowledged previously in this thesis, coastal areas enable diversified uses through proximity to the ocean. The sites of connection between land and sea emerge as centres of human activity and spaces of life. In this sense, they can be a maximum expression of Earth’s reciprocity (Chapin, 2013), reflecting the bonds among individual, society, and nature

21Alternatives to development [My translation]

(D’Ambrosio, 2002) in peaceful or disruptive ways, as the perception of those bonds appear as an exercise of diversity in dialogue. The critical ethnography experienced within a graduation course for Indigenous educators (master’s dissertation mentioned in the Preamble), in Brazil, allowed the sense of place (Acott & Urquhart, n.d.) to enhance the learning experiences, and those may act as political tools to claim and preserve a harmonious individual-society-nature bond.

Such a degree, introduced, a university extension system providing an educational program – here a graduation course- created to attend the needs of Indigenous students otherwise unable to attend. In this particular case, the university program had in consideration:

the place to develop classes, adjusting to proximity and ethnic political agenda; the definition of the course menu with integration of academic and local elders – representatives of local and traditional knowledge; and, as well, a space for the acceptance of children when the mothers do not have anyone to leave them with, creating an opportunity to enroll and participate in the course.

The first stage, implemented the university extension system acting in the local indigenous villages, contributing, in this exercise, to two dimensions: the political efforts towards indigenous rights and the reinforcement of the connection individual-society-nature through classes developed outdoors in direct contact with the biodiversity, conveying the scientific knowledge as well as the traditional one, introduced here by the local elders – pajé²², indigenous leaders, and fishers. Here, it is possible to have a glimpse of the expression of one of the universities mission’s nowadays, a mission that leaves behind the Illuminist heritage of concepts and technics passage (Petrini, 2021), engaging with an educational mission that encompasses relearning the three human languages – mind, heart, and hands (Petrini, 2021).

As argued by Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis) in the dialogue of the 9^th of July 2020 on O Futuro da Terra²³ the university evolution should aim for the training of professionals that teach and engage in a meaningful way, otherwise it may train professionals that may be easily exchanged for artificial intelligence (Petrini, 2021), imposing practices without valuing the contexts and learning from other knowledge systems and practices.

22A pajé is a traditional healer with knowledge of plants potentialities and benefits.

23Earth’s Future [My translation]

The importance of working on coastal development appears connected with the relevance of having a conception of ECE, recognizing what Acott & Urquhart (n.d.) approaches as sense of place and place attachment to develop more balanced relationships between individual, society, and nature. To the authors (n.d.) the sense of place reflects an “inherent interconnectedness of both physical and subjective dimensions. This physical dimension of sense of place includes not just the natural environment but also the material dimension created (or influenced) by people.” (p. 9).

Acott & Urquhart (n.d.). argue that the places human beings integrate in their lives develop an important role in the construction of identity and sense of place both for local communities, visitors, and tourists. To the authors (n.d.) the fishing places have an increased impact on that area as fishing is conceived as more than an occupation or way to achieve an income. In fact, to Acott & Urquart (n.d., p. 10) fishing is a “way of life” that supports the sense of community, valuing the common history of that community. As approached here the development of a sense of place and place attachment contribute to the community-based feeling of its connection with the local ecological systems and therefore potentiates the Environmental Communitarian Education structures within the intergenerational bonds.

3.

IN SEARCH OF A METHODOLOGICAL BASIS

To develop this research in its whole plurality, the selection of the path to do it was always relevant. The selection of this path came from previous experiences which revealed efficiency in created spaces where the individuals involved could be researchers of their own practices. Hereupon, the present research is set in a qualitative SPIRAL methodological framework, encompassing critical ethnography as a basis for the research dynamics. The qualitative approach settles the potential to engage the research participants in a SPIRAL framework that establishes a commitment bond between the individuals and the present research proposal. Therefore, here the potential of the research methodological path chosen for the present thesis - encompassing the critical ethnography basis claim for community-based empowerment to the collective well-being – will be explored.

3.1. Qualitative SPIRAL Methodological approach

Qualitative research is a methodological approach which allows an in- depth analysis of a problem, collecting and analysing non-numerical data to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences (Bhandari, 2020). The data collected within qualitative research may support the gathering of insights to a deeper knowledge of a problem and enable the development of new ideas for research or solution development (Bhandari, 2020).

Such a methodological approach is implemented attempting to preserve the voice and perspective of participants and can be adjusted as new research questions arise (Bhandari, 2020). Qualitative research is favourable to work with people as it has flexibility to adapt to human unpredictability, so the data collection and analysis process can be adapted to suit the

emerging patterns or needs. The design previously set for the research is not rigidly closed (Bhandari, 2020), allowing for adjusting the processes to the real-world contexts, as the research is not based in a laboratory experiment.

To Bhandari (2020), qualitative research yields meaningful insights, through people’s experiences, feelings, and perceptions. From those insights, the research may be used in designing, testing, or improving systems or products. Nonetheless it may also generate new ideas to answer a problem or to uncover novel ways – problems and opportunities, as it encompasses other types of knowledge. Working with such an approach, researchers may not be able to present a well-defined and replicable design for further research, however a deeper understanding of the problematics potentiates the co-responsibility of all participants in the research and in facing environmental concerns. Furthermore, it may draw feasible and relevant lines of action towards a design implementation in other contexts.

Qualitative research has the potential to engage the research participants “with things that matter, in ways that matter” (Mason, 2002, p. 1), reaching to each one potential in a collective construction, allowing the researcher to assume the role of participant and facilitator to multi-voice encounter and reconstruction (Mills et al., 2007). Qualitative research allows understanding of the meanings generated by experienced practices and their potential, valuing their “richness, depth, nuance, context, multi-dimensionality and complexity (…) [being] capable of producing very well-founded cross-contextual generalities” (Mason, 2002, p. 1). Among the multiple pathways beneath the qualitative framework, the present research will follow a SPIRAL (Societal Progress Indicators for the Responsibility of All) methodological framework (Together Network, 2018), grounded in critical ethnography.

SPIRAL methodology proposes a cycle dynamic that enforces the definition of a collective subject with a common purpose, in the sense of Lave’s (1991) community of practice.

In this sense of community, the well-being of all is the goal and the actions to achieve that goal are defined and set in action by all and for all. Only then the approach implementation becomes viable, sharing and achieving knowledge for a co-responsible action (Together Network, 2018).

Previous experience in the project “Urban Boundaries: the dynamics of cultural encounters in communitarian education” (PTDC/CPE-CED/119695/2010), supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, demonstrated that a SPIRAL methodological approach,