| Literature DB >> 35250367 |
Michelle Bonatti1,2, Carla Erismann1,2, Ayna Askhabalieva1, Juliano Borba1, Kamila Pope1, Renata Reynaldo3, Luca Eufemia1,2, Ana Paula Turetta4,5, Stefan Sieber1,2.
Abstract
In neglected communities, waste and organic residues are not only a vector of several problems, like diseases and water pollution, but also a contributor to increasing forms of vulnerability and marginalization. At the same time, these communities also have presented innovative local initiatives and transformative learning about natural resources management that can be a vehicle for achieving more sustainable food systems. In the south of Brazil, community-based organic residue management has shown an extraordinary potential to improve food security and livelihoods for (≈1600) community members of a vulnerable urban territory. In this context, the overall objective of this article is (a) To better understand what Social Learning (SL) processes related to successful organic residues management in neglected communities exist and (b) To identify what knowledge systems are created in one empirical case. The study case is based on a communitarian waste management project, the Bucket Revolution Project (BRP). The analytical framework builds upon social learning theory and its triple-loop process focusing on four specific phenomena. The applied mixed-methods approach was made in four steps: 1. a focus group to investigate collective community issues; 2. semi-structured interviews to investigate specific and individual issues in the context of the BRP; 3. social media analysis to better understand the BRP narratives; and finally 4. participant observation in community and institutional meetings. Mainly using MaxQda software and coding indicators of SL, the data show that "Diversity of knowledge integration" is the most identified SL indicator in the interviews (52%). For BRP, identity development, community conditions improvement, and environment understanding are three key components of the knowledge system enhanced through an underlying process of social learning. Furthermore, the study also shows that there are endogenous and exogenous social learning processes at work.Entities:
Keywords: Community-based food systems; Endogenous social learning; Socio-ecological innovation; Transformative learning; Triple-loop learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35250367 PMCID: PMC8881555 DOI: 10.1007/s10668-022-02167-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Dev Sustain ISSN: 1387-585X Impact factor: 3.219
Fig. 1The city of Florianopolis, Brazil. Source: Adapted from Wikipedia.com
Fig. 2Methodological framework comprising four phases to analyse the different levels of knowledge and learning
Fig. 3Code system for the analysis of the interviews and focus group data. Subtitles: A—A change in understanding occurs, and individuals are involved; B—The convergence of goals; C—Learning process that moves beyond the individual level; D—Occurrence of a learning process associated with triple loops
Systems of codes
| Codes based on the 4 SL phenomena | Subcodes |
|---|---|
| 1—Learning about environmental issues | Urban agriculture Composting and waste management Environmental awareness |
| 2—Diversity of knowledge (integration) | Direct citations of learning (I learn…) Collective learning Socio-ecological systems thinking |
| 3—Critical reflection development | Critical education in/about the community Teaching ideas for the other communities-Reflection on the educational activities (external workshops) and learning process |
Results for the code group’s frequency and percentage
| Coding groups derived | Frequency | Percentage % |
|---|---|---|
| 1—Learning about environmental issues | 65 | 25.25 |
| 2—Diversity of knowledge (integration) | 133 | 51.55 |
| 3—Critical reflection | 60 | 23.20 |
| Total | 258 | 100 |
Summary of results for codes and subcodes frequency/percentage
| Frequency of the Coding groups | Subcodes analysis |
|---|---|
| 1—Learning about environmental issues (25.25%) | Urban agriculture (49.2) Composting and waste management (26.2) Environmental awareness (24.6) |
| 2—Diversity of knowledge (integration) (51.55%) | Direct citations of learning (I learn…) (22.6) Collective learning (62.4) Socio-ecological systems thinking (15) |
| 3—Critical reflection development (23.20%) | Critical education in/about the community (38.3) Teaching ideas for the other communities (Least identified) (10) Reflection on the educational activities (external workshops) and learning process (51.7) |
Fig. 4Engine of SL in the BRP