From ecological sensemaking to sensegiving: a way to develop a scientific project that reaches out to society

Abstract

Globally, natural heritage is increasingly threatened by human activity. Despite the recent development of the geodiversity and geoheritage concepts and the success of associated programs such as UNESCO Global Geoparks, natural heritage is still widely considered to refer only to biotic elements such as plants and animals, demonstrating the persistent gap between geosciences and society. Collective actions are required to address these issues that are crucial in the context of a rapidly changing planet. How can we develop research that considers nature as a whole and open a dialogue with society? To answer this question, we use concepts and tools from organization science to analyse an interdisciplinary exchange project between the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) in Mexico and the Université Clermont Auvergne in France. Through collaborative work on natural geosites located in both countries, diverse research topics emerged. Using a realistic narrative method, we describe, for each topic, the subjective trajectories and objective outcomes achieved by the participants through their activities, which defined their sense of action, allowed the success of these collective works and ensured their concrete impact for the conservation and protection of the natural sites. We then examine the project’s organization using an apparatus that highlights five key organizational processes: 1) the foundation of a common ground through a theoretical framework experienced in the natural sites, 2) the emergence of research topics, 3) the fulfillment of these projects, 4) the diffusion of scientific results, and 5) the dissemination of knowledge to society. We finally discuss the results of our project in terms of sense of place, ecological sensemaking and sensegiving to demonstrate their role in the development of a holistic view of natural heritage that overcomes epistemic differences and culminates in activities of knowledge-sharing that breaks barriers and opens dialogue between science and society.

1 Introduction

Natural heritage is defined as those “natural features, geological and physiographical formations and delineate areas that constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants and natural sites of value from the point of view of science, conservation of natural beauty” (UNESCO, 1972). It is however well-known that despite the definition being comprehensive, initiatives to conserve natural heritage (e.g., UNESCO’s natural World Heritage sites) have mostly focused on a small part of nature, specifically those “threatened species of animals and plants”. Nevertheless, in the last 2 decades, the geoscience academic sector has supported the consideration of geological elements in natural heritage, formulating the concepts of geodiversity (Gray, 2008), geoheritage (Brilha, 2016) and geosystem services (Gray, 2018), and have advocated for their explicit inclusion in conservation (Gordon et al., 2018), sustainability (Brilha et al., 2018; Gray and Crofts, 2022) and tourism (Dowling, 2013). Several programs have been implemented to promote these concepts, the UNESCO Global Geopark program being the first and to date, the principal (Henriques and Brilha, 2017).

Importantly, natural heritage across the world is at stake due to increasing threats mainly related to human activity, either directly (e.g., urbanization, tourism) or indirectly (e.g., climate change) (Aylett et al., 2025). Furthermore, there are still numerous challenges to integrate geodiversity and geoheritage in nature conservation discourse and practice (Larwood et al., 2013; Crofts, 2022; Pescatore et al., 2023; Gray, 2023). In particular, there is a lack of knowledge and interest of non-specialists in geosciences, which has negative impacts on geoconservation (Stewart and Nield, 2013). Reducing the gap between geosciences and society is however crucial in the context of a rapidly changing planet with increasing geodynamic disaster risks (Virapongse et al., 2022; Hollis et al., 2024).

We address the research question: how do we establish a fruitful dialogue between science and society on natural heritage? More specifically, how do we cross barriers between the disciplines of natural, social and human sciences to allow for a more holistic view of natural heritage that integrates all biotic and abiotic elements and considers human-nature interaction? How do we effectively share this knowledge with society to empower local communities, improve scientific literacy, joint action and promote conservation?

To answer these questions, we use as a case study an interdisciplinary and collaborative exchange project between two universities in Mexico and France respectively, that are embedded in UNESCO World Heritage-listed geoheritage areas. This project brought together researchers from many different fields, and interacted with a diverse general public. This meant that different disciplinary cultures, languages (i.e., jargon) and knowledge processes (epistemy) came together, created by their own groups (Goodwin, 1994). These had to be understood, assimilated and a common ground had to be created in order for the project to function.

Using concepts and tools from organization sciences, we address the way that the participants of this project have made sense both individually and collectively, and how they organized to produce scientific results and reach out to the public.

This work itself is a product of this fusion, and we know, from our experience, that we need to share terminology (“jargon”), clearly define it, and in some cases simplify or find equivalent terms used in other parts of our multidisciplinary space. To this end we have made a jargon list (Table 1), which we invite the reader to read first, and consult when necessary, so that the terms can be understood more generally.

In the following, we first present the conceptual basis of this work and expose and justify the general methodology we have followed to analyse the sensemaking activities and organizing processes of this project. Next, we present realistic narratives that highlight, for each research topic that was developed, the subjective trajectories and objective outcomes achieved by the participants through their activities. This is followed by an examination of the project organizing (in the sense of how participants organize - their activity of organizing as in Weick, 1979), using an apparatus (our constructed conceptual image of the project organizing) that reveals the main steps in the project and enables a retrospective sensemaking for the team. We finally discuss the results of our project in terms of sense of place, sensemaking and sensegiving, and show how the activities we have developed have allowed us to overcome disciplinary cultural, language and epistemic (knowledge) differences and have resulted in the development of a collective action that builds an interface between science and society.

2 Conceptual basis

The objective of this study is to address sensemaking and organizing processes in an interdisciplinary project about building sense in natural heritage. The concepts of organizing and sensemaking come from the literature of organization science that studies organization as a process instead of a structure (Weick, 1979), and considers that this process is accomplished thanks to collective sensemaking (Weick, 1995).

An organization is usually considered as a group of people who accomplish a coordinated action guided by a step-by-step plan. Yet, in reality, Weick (1979) recognizes that there is a difference between the “map”, that represents and formalizes the explicit rules and conventions of an organization and guarantees structure and objectivity (“the project”), and the territory, that is a meshwork of implicit and “micro” organizational behaviors that orchestrate collective action (the “project experience”). A connection needs to be made between the map and the territory in order to form social processes that are intelligible to all actors and hence allow key organizational processes to be accomplished (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). The objective is finally to make a description that captures the operative image (of map and territory) in which the project organization emerges through sensemaking (Weick et al., 2005).

The sensemaking process describes how ‘organization members interpret their environment in and through interactions with others, constructing accounts that allow them to comprehend the world and act collectively’ (Maitlis, 2005). More specifically for this study, the relationships that humans establish with their natural environment and that help them make sense of it and manage it in the long term has been called “ecological sensemaking” (Whiteman and Cooper, 2011). Considered at first as a language-based social process that emphasizes intersubjectivity (Weick, 1995), sensemaking is also thought of as an embodied perspective that can be influenced by natural elements (Whiteman and Cooper, 2011) and is experienced from and in “the flesh” (De Rond et al., 2019). Moving away from an anthropocentric approach to sensemaking that is centered on human agency and how humans make sense of things, some argue for a “decentered” approach, where the natural environment can become an important resource for sensemaking (Introna, 2019; Jensen and Mahmud, 2023).

The notion of sensitivity expresses the dimension of intrasubjective sensemaking that refers to sensemaking at an individual level (Rix-Lièvre et al., 2023). This dimension is particularly relevant when the natural environment is involved, as in Gail Whiteman’s tale of survival in subarctic Canada (Whiteman and Cooper, 2011). As expressed in this account, landscapes impose material constraints on human action that are different to social construction processes. The concept of ecological materiality implies that the natural environment consists of physical elements (rock, snow, volcano, etc.) that influence sensemaking as “the interaction of dynamic biological and biophysical processes and organic and inorganic matter in space and time” (Whiteman and Cooper, 2011, p. 892). We note that in this perspective from organization science, “ecological” has the broad meaning, explicitly including abiotic features such as geological elements (rocks, snow, etc.). It is hence analogous to “natural”.

We consider that ecological sensemaking and the processes of organizing are concepts that are suitable to use for analysis of a scientific project based on the interaction between natural sites and humans.

First, ecological sensemaking permits the description of the relation between human and natural sites as a starting point of a journey intended to lead to sound scientific results. We propose considering natural space as the starting point for projects related to natural heritage. We analyse this project from the perspective of ecological and intrasubjective sensemaking because it is an integrated and sensitive approach to understanding our natural environment in general, and making initial observations that will then be studied in detail. We are not studying interactions per se in an intersubjective approach, but rather what is incorporated at an intrasubjective level (Weick, 1995, p.71; Rix-Lièvre et al., 2022) through ecological sensemaking because natural sites are perhaps the most important “common ground” for all the team in this interdisciplinary project.

In addition to the human-nature relationship, the composition of the project team is important to consider in relation to sensemaking. The sensemaking perspective underlines the different realities that exist within a collective action (Weick, 1995), which implies the juxtaposition or fusion of different epistemic worlds (O'Leary and Chia, 2007) when scientists need to coordinate their actions in an interdisciplinary project. In this context, researchers of natural and social sciences need to overcome strong cognitive distances in relation to their modes of doing science (Mode 1 and Mode 2 as defined by Gibbons et al., 1994), which calls for the development of a common culture. Mode 1 science favors a monodisciplinary approach, with norms, ideas, and values inherited from Newtonian models as the basis for scientific research. Mode 2 science favors a transdisciplinary openness that takes into account economic and social contexts, i.e., the practices of a group of actors and what individuals actually do (Gibbons et al., 1994, p. 262).

The notion of epistemic culture, as evident in the restricted domain of the physical sciences (Knorr Cetina, 1999), suggests the coexistence and coordination of multiple realities within a single project—an observation that subsequently informed the development of the sensemaking perspective (Weick, 1995, p. 75). This multireality explains the obstacles to interdisciplinary collaboration, because bridges of understanding must be built between all researchers in order to work together and to produce and share knowledge with society.

Institutional projects that engage collective action may assume an informal form, situated within the continuous flow of everyday social interactions, or a formal one, exemplified through meetings, evaluations, and the production of organizational documentation (Allen and May, 2017). In this context, studying practices is a way to document what is actually achieved in the project (Whittington, 2003). Because “sensemaking is the process whereby organizing is achieved” (Ann Glynn and Watkiss, 2020), activities are the result of collective sensemaking and they build the life of the project and structure its organizational processes as they progress. Strauss (1985) conceptualizes a project as an organized constellation of practices that develop both sequentially and concurrently within a trajectory of action, characterized by a dual nature that is simultaneously goal-oriented and emergent. Part of a project is planned, designed, and scheduled; but there are almost inevitably unforeseen events that change the tasks. As a result, a project cannot be known in all its details until the actors have taken a step back and examined the entire path they have followed which illustrates the process of sensemaking. This process can be anticipated by not defining a fixed path from the outset, and allowing actors to find their way within the structure, as developed intentionally in this project. During and after the project, we used a reflective look by developing a “map” as a representation of the “territory” in order to help the team’s sensemaking and project coordination.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 A project grounded on rich natural and cultural heritage areas

The subject of this study is a project titled “Building sense in natural heritage” (2022–2025) that was funded by the ECOS NORD programme (https://www.univ-spn.fr/ecos-nord/). This project, hereafter named “the ECOS project”, involved a partnership between the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) in Mexico City and the Clermont Auvergne University (UCA) in Clermont-Ferrand, France. These two universities are seated in volcanic areas with significant natural and cultural heritage that were at the heart of this project. The UNAM campus in Mexico City was constructed in the 1950s over the lavas from Xitle volcano, the youngest of the dormant Sierra Chichinautin Volcanic Field that borders the south of Mexico City (Guilbaud et al., 2021). In a similar way, the UCA campus was built on lavas from a small volcano of the Chaîne des Puys (Vereb et al., 2020). Both areas are included in the UNESCO World Heritage List, the UNAM for the cultural, principally architectonic value of its central campus (https://whc.unesco.org/es/list/1250), and the Chaîne des Puys, for its geological significance as the “Tectonic Arena of the Chaîne des Puys - Limagne fault” (https://whc.unesco.org/fr/list/1434/). Both areas in fact contain exceptional natural heritage (both of geological and biological interest) that are not yet fully appreciated by society and are not protected through integral conservation policies. The specific natural sites where the activities were implemented were selected based on their interest to conduct interdisciplinary work, due to the occurrence of a range of natural and cultural values (Vereb et al., 2020; Guilbaud et al., 2021; Guilbaud et al., 2024a; Guilbaud et al., 2024b), in addition to the existence of previously established contacts with the communities safeguarding them to consolidate the connection with local actors. In some of these, local students were already conducting some investigations, promoting further interactions and enriching existing thesis projects.

3.2 An interdisciplinary project based on exchanges

The ECOS project team included permanent researchers and PhD students on natural, human and social sciences from UNAM and UCA (Table 2). The ECOS NORD programme funded mobilities that proved to be key to share and build knowledge between the team members. As established by the programme, over the 3-year duration, two trips per year and per country were completed, for one professor and one doctoral student from each university, involving 12 trips in total. Those stays provided the opportunity for direct interaction between the participants, collaborative work at the natural sites, as well as the implementation of outreach activities (seminars, workshops, guided tours, stands, conferences, round tables, science fairs, field excursions). In particular, participants were involved in activities of ecological restoration (manual extraction of exotic plants, cleaning of lava surfaces, litter picking, and such like) which are routinely organized at UNAM. On-site work involved exchanges (informal conversations) with local people engaged in the management and protection of the sites (local actors), enriching the field experience to integrate elements that enabled appreciation of the complex social context. Further trips (outside of the ECOS funding) were organized to allow the participants to present their results to international conferences and expand their field studies to other areas. In addition, communication was maintained throughout the year via a Whatsapp group, which was especially useful to exchange short text messages and pictures, given the different time zones and focus on field observations that can be shared by pictures. We also organized online meetings to discuss advances and plan activities, and exchanged emails to prepare documents for administrative procedures and co-write conference communications and scientific papers.

3.3 Observations and analysis

In this work we aimed to study how we can build sense on natural heritage and, as well, to understand the organization of a complex project. For this purpose, we chose a grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss, 2017), which facilitates a progressive process of theorization. As Bryant and Charmaz (2007) observe: “grounded theory describes at the same time both the research process and the end result—namely, a new theory that is empirically grounded in data”. Following this precept, a continuous comparative analysis was conducted, guided by an abductive mode of reasoning with an iterative motion between empirical data and theoretical interpretation (Richardson and Kramer, 2006).

4 Results

The ECOS project built progressively through time (“chemin faisant”) as the academic exchanges occurred and collective activities were organized in the selected sites, which lead to the emergence of different research topics. We start by presenting the narrative part of the analysis which highlights for each of these topics the intrasubjective trajectories and outcomes achieved by the participants through their activities, which define their sense of action (Sections 4.1-4.5). We then develop the apparatus that allows us to reveal the main steps in the organization of the project (Section 4.6).

4.1 Fusing geo and bio: lava and life

This research topic forms the starting point of the ECOS project and was initiated several years ago by the collaboration at UNAM between a volcanologist and two biologists working in neighboring institutes. This collaboration emerged from the interest of the biologists to integrate information about the lava morphology in the educational activities they were undergoing at the Geopedregal site, a natural site (lava outcrop) close to their offices that they had rescued from urbanization and were restoring. In other words, they were trying to make sense of the geodiversity they were observing on the site and which they could relate to the ecosystem. Thanks to this interaction, the volcanologist developed a sense of the link between the geological aspects of a site and its elements of biodiversity, which was integrated into a scientific paper on the geoheritage of the Xitle volcano which was published prior to the start of the ECOS project (Guilbaud et al., 2021).

The ECOS project consolidated this research through a study of rock-life interactions at small scale, i.e., lichens and moss growing on different types of scoria or lava surfaces. This work branched from a doctoral project on the bioweathering of the Xitle cone scoria and lavas (Martinez-Báez, 2025). The purpose of this study was to better understand the physical and chemical impacts of microbial communities developed on recently-erupted lava surfaces to inform about the early stages of soil development, the colonization of lavas after an eruption, and primary ecological succession on the Earth and other planets (Hadland et al., 2024).

The mobility of the PhD student and her mentor from Mexico to France allowed them to undergo comparative field work at local geosites, use the laboratories there to collect textural and compositional data on their samples, and get the opportunity to attend conferences in Europe. These activities were organised collectively, allowing to identify areas of overlap in the research interest of geologists and biologists, and build a common language which occurred progressively through the learning of some of the scientific jargon of the others. As an example, geologists became familiar with the concept of “ecosystem services” whereas biologists integrated the terms “geodiversity” and “geoheritage” into their discourse.

Scientific results on this new topic were presented in several conferences on geoheritage and volcanology. Participating in such conferences was a new experience for the biologists, and it greatly increased their knowledge on volcanic systems and associated heritage. In return, volcanologists became much more aware of ecological and biological processes associated with volcanoes and integrated their knowledge on lava structure, morphology, and emplacement dynamics, to jointly develop a general model of life and lava interactions (Figure 1). This unique collaboration also allowed us to highlight the links between geo- and bio-diversity (Martínez Báez Téllez and Ortega-Larrocea, 2025). In particular the term geobiodiversity was coined, along with geobiodiversity to consolidate understanding of the unity of these intimately connected aspects (Martinez-Báez, 2025).

FIGURE 1

In turn, those collaborations led us to develop, in both countries, novel outreach activities integrating information on lavas and microbiological activity (the “microcosmos”). A particularly good example is a 2-day stand for the 2024 Volvic Volcanic Experience event (France) named “Lava, life and water” where activities such as “draw a volcano” or “pour water on lava” attracted dozens of children and parents. Numerous workshops on lava, water and life were also developed in the educational program offered at the Geopedregal site in Mexico City which is visited by hundreds of students every year, thus contributing significantly to increasing the sense of place and environmental education.

The organization and implementation of outreach activities in natural sites promoted close working relationships and knowledge transfer between the project’s participants. The organization of field excursions in small groups also created a sense of community between the scientists and the public, which favored the exchange of knowledge and contributed to build trust. Specifically, Geo-Bio outreach drove the understanding of biodiversity as a property that is inherent to geodiversity. The integration of the biogeodiversity concept in the activities developed at the Geopedregal site contributed to make sense of the great observable variations in the biodiversity that can be explained by geomorphic variations. In simple words, it helped to explain why each plant or variety of plants is where it is, and to make the underlying lava “visible” to people through its role in controlling the plant distribution. The integration of this information into virtual field visits accessible to hundreds of people through the Geopedregal Facebook platform induced a transformation of people’s knowledge of the connections in the geobiosystem which they had not perceived before, which is now being evaluated from the field of environmental psychology. In the visits organized onsite, it was clear to the guiding scientists that the transfer of this knowledge to members of the public changed their vision of a natural space that, in some cases, they had seen daily without paying attention to it. This sensemaking was expressed by a change in their facial expression that demonstrated strong interest and joy, rewarding the guides for their efforts.

4.2 Lava emplacement and hazards

This topic emerged from the collaboration between volcanologists at UNAM and UCA who had already worked together before, but had never applied their research methods to the Xitle lavas. When the volcanologist from UCA visited with ECOS, the volcanologist at UNAM was developing a field-based undergraduate project on a geosite in close relation with a biologist and a local actor involved in the ecological restoration of the site. The interaction between them on the field led to an enlargement of the ongoing study and to the definition of a research topic on lava emplacement and hazards which was strongly based on the excellent level of restoration of the sites. Geoheritage sites have, by definition, significant scientific value because they conserve well-preserved geological elements that can be used to understand the main Earth-shaping processes (Brilha, 2016). As introduced previously, the lavas from the Xitle volcano have high geoheritage values for Mexico City. Despite their freshness and good preservation, detailed studies of these lavas are lacking in order to fully characterize the eruptive and emplacement processes, which are needed to constrain flow models for future eruptions, that can have clear significance for risk reduction in this highly populated area.

The visiting volcanologist from UCA who had significant experience in working on lava monitoring in active volcanoes (Chevrel and Harris, 2025) gained interest in applying her skills to the local Xitle lavas by getting a sense of the relevance of this research in the particular setting of a highly populated area growing onto an extinct volcano. In this context, parameters of the lava emplacement can be derived from the analysis of the morphology and petrology of the eruptive products (e.g., Guilbaud et al., 2007; Chevrel et al., 2016). Well-preserved outcrops of lava are required to make such analyses, and these are often sites with a high geoheritage value.

Research activities consisted in the field study of the lava morphology and the extraction of samples to determine their petrological and textural characteristics (Figure 2). We focused on the lava’s quenched crust that represents the pristine chemical composition and crystal and vesicle contents at the time of the flow. These analyses were then interpreted in terms of rheological properties and emplacement conditions, through the development of a student project run in parallel (Zavala, 2025). Through these analyses, we expose the concept of active geology by identifying the processes that control the dynamic emplacement of the lava and that lead to their final morphology, where biodiversity can subsequently grow. This scientific data will help consolidate the geosites by confirming their scientific value and by providing information for geoeducation initiatives.

FIGURE 2

To share our knowledge with the local people, we organized outreach activities about the origin of the lava in the UNAM campus, which was the first to be realized in the annual open day of the ecological reserve at UNAM. These activities were designed so that the public could make the link between the rocks situated under their feet, in the UNAM campus, and the volcanic eruption that occurred a thousand years ago there, as well as with the current eruptions occurring at active volcanoes around the globe. We created a quiz on volcanic eruptions, geodiversity, and geoheritage, which proved to be quite popular. These fun and educational activities raised awareness among local communities about the significance of their natural heritage through the direct exchanges with geoscientists.

4.3 Using pictograms to communicate: geomojis

The language and communication part of the ECOS project arose from a doctoral project at UCA on “Interlinguistic and intercultural communication for natural risk”, which focuses on how we translate and communicate natural risk and hazard phenomena. Based on a concept proposed earlier by Van Wyk de Vries et al. (2018) and in the context of this PhD, Shires and collaborators developed “geomojis”, a series of pictograms which refer to a wide variety of geological hazards and processes (Shires and van Wyk de Vries, 2024), with the aim of facilitating communication through pictographic means. Using the theory of signs (Pierce, 1931; Rogers, 1989), Shires defined different symbols and icons (Figure 3) to apply them to the natural geological or hazard context.

FIGURE 3

The integration of the PhD student in ECOS, and her sense of the value of pictograms for cross-cultural communication, allowed to develop and apply this approach to the topic of natural heritage conservation. Conserving natural heritage requires the close involvement of the local communities who live at or near this heritage (e.g., Prosser, 2019). This involvement requires them to understand the value of this heritage, so that they can act on its protection. It is therefore crucial that scientists are involved and interact with the communities to provide and pass on that type of information. This is especially important for sites in urban areas which are often unprotected and are under significant pressure to be built over. In these contexts, the action of local actors may be critical to avoid irreversible damage that can lead to the complete destruction of natural heritage. Language and communication are key tools in raising awareness and giving sense to natural elements which in turns promote their conservation and reinforce people’s resilience.

The ECOS project provided the opportunity for several sense-making activities when these geomojis were presented to academics and local people in France and Mexico, testing their usefulness and creating a point of discussion regarding the concepts they represent. During the academic exchanges, multiple workshops were run in the Geopedregal site at UNAM, and in the Mixteca Alta Geopark in Oaxaca in Mexico. These workshops were highly interactive, using biscuits and edible ink to give the participants the opportunity to paint their own versions, and proved highly successful, both with academics and students at UNAM, and children and parents at rural schools in Oaxaca. The resulting discussions also incited changes of the geomojis themselves, creating pictograms that are better adapted to the local context. This is a good example of a collective activity that allowed us to build sense on geoscience processes and their hazards.

The first geomojis were based on natural risk and hazard words, with pictograms created to show the differences between different natural hazard events. Through the multiple interactions in the different workshops and presentations, other themed geomojis were developed, such as in Mixteca Alta Geopark, where “littermojis” were created in collaboration with a local PhD candidate, and then presented at an international UNESCO Global Geopark conference in 2023 (Shires et al., 2023). Hence the collective work and interactions promoted sensemaking in the participants and yielded scientific products with academic value.

This part of the project helped researchers and local actors realize the importance of different methods of communication to help understand and share knowledge. In the context of building sense in natural heritage, multi-level communication is highly important. The involvement of local actors can raise awareness of differences in both language and understanding that help researchers better interact with the local communities.

4.4 Organizing solid waste management

This topic arose from the involvement of a doctoral project that addresses the issue of the management of solid waste or litter in the Mixteca Alta Geopark, one of the only two UNESCO geoparks in Mexico. This project connects with a waste management program (Basura Cero: zero waste in Spanish) that uses strategies of local governance and an alliance with companies and institutions (Zaragoza and Cram Heydrich, 2023) (Figure 4). In geoparks or geoheritage sites, illegal or uncontrolled waste disposal greatly impacts aesthetics and safety, and it can bury, damage, or even destroy the natural elements of interest (Hose, 2020; Krieger, 2024). Notably, the deficient management of urban solid waste is one of the main environmental problems globally, having caused severe health and security accidents in developing countries (Goel, 2024). In Mexico, 90.4% of the dumping sites are not appropriately conditioned, reflecting organizational and infrastructural problems (INECC, 2022). It is important for UNESCO geoparks in Mexico and for other geosites to address this topic as it affects their compliance with sustainability criteria.

FIGURE 4

Mobility and field work organized within the ECOS project allowed us to make sense of solutions to this issue in France and Mexico. In France, we visited various private and public companies that focus on the adequate collection, transport, recycling and reuse of waste (Figure 4). These were then used as examples of good practices that were then adapted to the Mexican context, as was the installation of compost boxes seen in France, carried out in a workshop with students from the Faculty of Architecture, UNAM. In Mexico, we were involved in activities of litter-picking with local communities in the geopark (Zaragoza Álvarez and Oropeza Orozco, 2022). This led to a small ongoing project on the application of mapping tools to study the spatial distribution of garbage (“litter mapping”) as a tool to identify the main cause(s) and possible solutions. We note that the implementation of such activities by the local communities usually have the purpose of cleaning public areas before a celebration.

These activities and resulting products show that the exchange of interdisciplinary and binational experiences, such as those that occur between the authors of this work, enriches the vision for analysing a problem and allows one to find ways to address it (i.e., the compost boxes). Also, taking time to care for geosites by picking up litter is an activity that can transform feelings and bring about changes in attitude. It forces us to see the waste, to identify where it is dumped, to pick it up and sort it, and then to reflect on why it landed in such a beautiful, geodiverse site. Hence, the accomplishment of a simple action (garbage picking) that was given a sense (restoring a valuable site) allowed us to make sense of an issue and collect information that was useful to reflect on its causes and to suggest solutions. As Krieger (2024) rightly points out in his insightful analysis of ‘waste in nature’, the consideration and analysis of an eco-critical problem opens up a space for thought in which an ubiquitous issue can be addressed in an innovative way.

4.5 Developing geotourism

The topic of geotourism and how it can contribute to the sensemaking of natural heritage emerged during the stay in Mexico of a specialist of travel tourism from UCA. The term of geotourism was first defined as “the provision of interpretative and service facilities to promote the values and societal benefit of geological and geomorphological sites and their materials, and to ensure their conservation for the use of students, tourists and casual recreationalists” (Hose, 1995). More recently and using modern terms, the concept was characterized as “a vehicle to foster geoconservation, understand geoheritage and appreciate geodiversity” (Dowling and Newsome, 2018).

The visiting researcher acquired a sense of the local geoheritage and existing touristic initiatives through her involvement in workshops and guided tours organized in the Geopedregal site, as well as field excursions which were planned in the Geolodia, an initiative of the Geological Society of Spain (Guilbaud et al., 2025; Gaceta, 2025). She also experienced a sense of cultural tourism during a visit to the UNESCO-nominated center of the UNAM Campus by a local guide. Finally, the visitor shared her view on geotourism from a literature perspective during a seminar given at the Geography institute about the international festival on travel sketchbooks (“Carnet de Voyage”) held annually in Clermont-Ferrand.

The experience of the visitor and her many interactions with the hosts allowed us to build a sense, together, at the end of the stay of the value of the local geosites for geotourism. We identified that this relationship occurs through the principles of interpretation that enriches the visitors’ experience. Based on its application in the US National Parks, Tilden (1957) defines “Interpretation” as “an educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships through the use of original objects, by firsthand experience, and by illustrative media, rather than simply to communicate factual information”. It is also related to the more recent concept of Outdoor Environmental Education which, through different methods, fundamentally aims for sustainability (Činčera et al., 2023).

We also worked out that the interdisciplinary knowledge of the sites and their onsite diffusion enable the appreciation of nature as a whole by highlighting the interactions between the geological and biological elements. The organization of field excursions involving local people provides immersive, firsthand experiences and promotes people’s (re)connection with their local environment, which is key to nature conservation. This tourism can be called alternative due to its contrast with the most common “mass tourism” form and is related to the rising trends of “slow tourism” and “sustainable tourism” which, arguably, overlap with geotourism (e.g., Fusté-Forné, 2023). Through her stay, the visiting researcher acquired a sense of the local social context which made her suggest that the development of such activity within UNAM could be promoted by the involvement of the large local community of students who, by having a sense of belonging, can be ambassadors of this heritage. She considered that outside the UNAM campus, non-academic local actors on the sites (e.g., the local guide) can be considered as allies to shape the perception of place by the visitors and contribute to conserving these sites. The collaboration that was developed through this visit and which was developed by sensemaking during field activities hence provided us with clues on a yet unidentified value of the geosities, their potential for geotourism, and ideas about how to develop this topic. A follow-up of this partnership was the stay of a biologist expert in ecological restoration in UCA. There, she presented the Geopedregal project, where geobiodiversity is promoted, at a EURASMUS seminar on heritages and territory, and stressed the importance of including natural heritage in this discipline that mostly focuses on cultural heritage. Hence, this collaboration built bridges between different disciplines that could work together under the umbrella concept of heritage.

4.6 Organizing in an interdisciplinary project

The purpose of this last subsection is to summarize all the activities carried out as part of this project. They were undergone by different people, at different times and places, and from distinct perspectives and academic disciplines, which made it difficult to build sense and construct a coherence of the project that would be clear for all actors. For example, the scientific products and illustrations made by each topic (Figures 1–4) generally did not make sense to the others. We used the “apparatus” to organize heterogeneous practices, and the grounded theory helped us to identify the major processes that acted as steps in the history of the project. We made a graphic representation (Figure 5) that allows us to see what has guided the organizing collective action and to make sense of it.

FIGURE 5

Therein, the paper from Guilbaud et al. (2021) on the geoheritage of the Xitle volcano is identified as the starting point or theoretical framework of the project because it introduces the organizing logic and the basic principles or “common ground”. This paper provides the foundation for the subsequent development of activities by the participants of this collective action that are organized in the five research topics described above. We identify the natural sites as the main physical locations where scientific and field activities were conducted and where interactions were made between the scientists, local actors and the general public during outreach activities. Then, the relation between science and territory (natural sites) drives the process of organizing and sensemaking, i.e., the way scientists collaborate and organize themselves and how they interact with society.

We note that this apparatus is included in the collective action as the result of a sixth research topic “Organizing in an interdisciplinary project” and is both a minor outcome of the overall project and an integrative synthesis that encapsulates the overarching vision of organizing processes. We argue that this representation of the apparatus (Figure 5) as a boundary object (Star and Griesemer, 1989) makes a complex project comprehensible to all the team, some of whom only met via videoconferencing, and provides a retrospective mapguide for sensemaking among actors and consolidates the links between them.

5 Discussion

In this section, we seek to articulate our findings in relation to existing theory, demonstrating how the project’s theoretical framework and the ecological sensemaking activities that followed play a pivotal role in the development of action. In the previous sections, we have highlighted the organizing processes that emerged from the activities, which enables a retrospective sensemaking for the team as a process and as an outcome. The built apparatus provides a bird’s-eye view of the project, a logic that can be re-appropriated to read and apply to other transdisciplinary projects. The final process, knowledge dissemination, exemplifies another concept associated with the sensemaking perspective—namely, sensegiving that ultimately serves to build an interface between science and society.

5.1 Embodiment and sense of place

Interdisciplinarity has posed challenges to the way participants from different disciplines define and make sense of the project, largely because of the heterogeneous epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina, 1999; O'Leary and Chia, 2007). This is evident in the figures presented in this article. Each researcher uses visuals to represent their results, and these visuals reflect distinct epistemic worlds (and the heterogeneity of the team), that can only be understood through appropriate explanation. Team members were therefore positioned differently with respect to their academic backgrounds, cultures, and languages, which made the natural site a privileged space for collective sensemaking. Prior to their trip, most of the visiting participants expressed uncertainties on the purpose of their stay and their actual academic contributions. Hence, the host’s field activities at arrival provided a starting point for participants to engage physically with the natural sites. We argue that the use of the body and different senses (touch, sight, smell) during those activities acted as vectors for sensemaking through a process of embodiment (Cunliffe and Coupland, 2012; De Rond et al., 2019). These activities allowed to raise the awareness of the visiting participants and enact (“make real”) these environments (Weick, 1979), which in turn stimulated their academic work. They were then able to integrate their knowledge and specific skills into the project and feel fully integrated in it.

Place-based activities were fundamental in the in-depth involvement of visiting participants within the project. The physical activities that they did, in combination with the information that was given to them by the host participants and local actors, promoted them to develop an emotional attachment to the sites which helped them adhere to the environmental conservation discourse, such as in other place-based learning experiences (Kirkby, 2014). Thanks to those activities, the sites acquired a symbolic dimension to them (Descola, 2003), as they were no longer merely geographical spaces but now they represented natural heritage, which is a social construction.

A sense of place constitutes a central dimension of ecological sensemaking (Kudryavtsev et al., 2012). By establishing a connection between the history of these volcanic areas and surrounding natural sites, this project achieved fostering both knowledge dissemination and the cultivation of a sense of place. As shown in the narrative, all the actors had (or acquired during the project) a particular affective relationship to these places (place attachment) which represented the foundation or cause of their motivation to produce knowledge and accomplish collective activities that create social bonds. A similar process occurred with the public involved in outreach activities, which was enhanced by the coupling of sensegiving and sensemaking, as developed below.

5.2 Ecological sensemaking and organizing

In the context of this study, sensemaking relates mainly to intrasubjective sensemaking, i.e., the way that each participant underwent individually, through the experiences they had in the field. Through this process, these places acquired meaning for the participants and they developed a sense of place which was a catalyst for their research output. This sensemaking is also evident in the development of their close interactions with local people to co-create solutions for the site conservation that go beyond pure academic interest and hence reflect some sort of emotional involvement. Thus, ecological sensemaking stimulated the involvement of the participants and their dedication in applying tools from their discipline, leading to the production of interdisciplinary research topics, resulting in a practical knowledge, in a semantic and a socio-cultural space (Rouleau, 2005).

Ecological sensemaking as a collective process also had a bonding effect, and increased the project’s cohesion: organizing is like a grammar that shapes social processes understandable to actors (Weick, 1979). Hence practices (i.e., activities) are both an organizing process and an outcome. Organizing is a result of a situated activity that involves connecting heterogeneous entities as they are in the process of formation (Hernes, 2010). The theoretical framework also provided an orientation for sensemaking and organizing at the beginning of the project. By designing the apparatus as a boundary object “to map the territory”, we illustrate the main stages of the sensemaking and organizing processes that culminate in activities of knowledge dissemination at the interface between science and society. “Sensemaking involves the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing” (Weick et al., 2005). This could be a new way for scientific leaders to guide the organization of interdisciplinary research projects and provide some orientation for action.

As a final step in the collective action, the process of knowledge dissemination can be understood as a sensegiving activity that emerges from the preceding stages: ecological sensemaking, organizing and culminating in sensegiving.

5.3 Sensegiving: an holistic view

In comparison to sensemaking, the “physical products” from the research (publications, talks, outreach activities) relate to activities of sensegiving (Table 3). This is because these products aim to convince the “public” (academic colleagues or locals) of the value of the natural heritage in general, through the design of a model (of geobio relations, of petrological data, of pictograms, of waste management, of geotourism or of project organizing) or the explanation of a specific feature in the natural sites. In these activities, the participants aimed to diffuse knowledge to the “outside world” and create a narrative or story that connected the people with their surroundings (Stewart and Nield, 2013).

Sensegiving also describes the exchanges that developed between the participants of the project. This sensegiving was promoted by differences in the degree of embeddedness (or knowledge) of the participants with the natural sites or with a specific discipline, and also the trust that they developed for each other’s expertise through the project. As Whiteman and Cooper (2011) note: “actors are more likely to engage in ecological sensegiving when they perceive a competence gap in team members”, and “actors are more likely to accept ecological sensegiving when the level of trust between a sense giver and receiver is high”. In the context of this project, there was a clear transfer of knowledge between different specialists which contributed to interdisciplinarity and sensemaking. “Sensemaking and sensegiving are more than just clear patterns constructed by top managers. They are in a permanent flux and constantly being reconstituted in daily experiences of agents” (Rouleau, 2005).

In some activities, sensegiving and sensemaking occurred concurrently, as participants exchanged knowledge through sensegiving (as explained above) to promote sensemaking development in the others in an iterative process (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). Hence sensegiving promoted trans-disciplinarity by allowing transfer of knowledge and creating a common sense of the problem addressed. In public outreach activities, this coupling between sensegiving and sensemaking occurred as a two-way process between the academics and members of the public. During field excursions in natural spaces, the scientists could provide a scientific explanation to some specific feature, while the public could provide genuine observations and a local, often social, context, and this commonly led to a fruitful exchange because of the creation of a common ground. Those concepts have been applied for many years, for example, in the US National Parks to increase the visitor’s experience (Tilden, 1957), and are key elements in the training of tourist guides.

The different research topics that were developed through this project contribute in different ways to the sensegiving of natural heritage (Table 3). They have distinct scientific products which can be gathered in three categories; those that provide knowledge (4.1, 4.2, 4.4), those that create tools to spread that knowledge and raise awareness (4.3, 4.4, 4.5), and those that analyze the organizing processes of the project (4.6). Therefore, we conceptualize that these different activities follow heterogeneous approaches that allow us to develop a holistic view of the sites and related issues and thus strengthen the possibility to raise awareness on natural heritage as a whole. They can be considered trans-disciplinary because they cross the borders between different disciplines and merge both the natural and social aspects in a single topic. The ECOS project thus achieved to develop a Mode 2 science as defined by Gibbons et al. (1994).

6 Conclusion

We have studied how to develop a research project that establishes a fruitful dialogue between different researchers from different disciplines to build a sense of natural heritage that bridges science and society.

We have addressed this by analysing a complex, interdisciplinary project on natural heritage using organization sciences. We have demonstrated that the concepts of ecological sensemaking and organizing are useful to examine how this collective action developed with time, and to follow what were the challenges, and how it fulfilled the action’s objectives.

The realistic narratives of the distinct research topics highlight the sense of action of the actors that has allowed the success of these collective works and their concrete impact for the conservation and protection of the sites.

By establishing a connection between the history of these volcanic areas and the natural sites where this history is displayed and can be understood, this project managed to foster the cultivation of a sense of place that fueled knowledge production and dissemination. The activities adopted heterogeneous approaches that allowed a holistic view of the natural heritage to be developed, strengthening the possibility to resolve conservation issues, because a clearer, universally held picture of the sites emerged.

These findings provide useful guidance for future work. The apparatus constitutes a replicable model for the development of other projects aimed at producing and structuring knowledge. It demonstrates that a theoretical framework is necessary to set the general purpose of collective action and define the “common ground”. As science is practiced on natural spaces, natural sites are essential for the development of sensemaking interactions between scientists from different disciplines and epistemic worlds, which occurs through a sense of place. On one hand, sensemaking is important not only for the conduction of an interdisciplinary project, as it allows to overcome epistemic differences, but also to obtain scientific results and contributions to society through outreach. On the other hand, sensegiving is required to reinforce or create a link between the project’s participants, society and natural heritage through educational and awareness activities.

Ultimately, this article was itself a process of sensemaking and sensegiving between the various authors in order to communicate and produce scientific results.

References

• 1

  AllenD.MayC. (2017). Organizing practice and practicing organization: an outline of translational mobilization theory. Sage Open7 (2), 2158244017707993. 10.1177/2158244017707993

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Ann GlynnM.WatkissL. (2020). Of organizing and sensemaking: from action to meaning and back again in a half‐century of Weick’s theorizing. J. Manag. Stud.57 (7), 1331–1354. 10.1111/joms.12613

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AylettL.MontagnaM.MuraiM.BadmanT. (2025). IUCN world heritage outlook 4: a conservation assessment of all natural world heritage sites (Gland: IUCN). 10.2305/NYKJ7099

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BrilhaJ. (2016). Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage8 (2), 119–134. 10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BrilhaJ.GrayM.PereiraD. I.PereiraP. (2018). Geodiversity: an integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable management of the whole of nature. Environ. Sci. Policy86, 19–28. 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.05.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BryantA.CharmazK. (2007). “Grounded theory in historical perspective: an epistemological account,” in The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (London: SAGE Publications Ltd), 31–57.

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  ChevrelO. (2023). “Modelización y anticipación del emplazamiento de los flujos de lava,” in Charlas de Vulcanología (Mexico: Instituto de Geofísica, UNAM).

  • Google Scholar

• 8

  ChevrelO.HarrisA. (2025). “Monitoring lava flows,” in Modern volcano monitoring. Springer.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  ChevrelM. O.GuilbaudM. N.SiebeC. (2016). The∼ AD 1250 effusive eruption of El metate shield volcano (michoacán, Mexico): magma source, crustal storage, eruptive dynamics, and lava rheology. Bull. Volcanol.78, 1–28. 10.1007/s00445-016-1020-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  ČinčeraJ.GoldmanD.AlkaherI.JohnsonB.MedekM. (2023). Conclusion: emerging trends in outdoor environmental education in the post-COVID world. Outdoor Environmental Education Contemporary World, 303–309. 10.1007/978-3-031-29257-6_20

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  CroftsR. (2022). Progress and future challenges for geoconservation in protected and conserved areas. Parks Steward. Forum38 (1). 10.5070/p538156110

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  CunliffeA.CouplandC. (2012). From hero to villain to hero: making experience sensible through embodied narrative sensemaking. Hum. Relations65 (1), 63–88. 10.1177/0018726711424321

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  De RondM.HolemanI.Howard-GrenvilleJ. (2019). Sensemaking from the body: an enactive ethnography of rowing the amazon. Acad. Manag. J.62 (6), 1961–1988. 10.5465/amj.2017.1417

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  DescolaP. (2003). Écologie symbolique. Annuaire de l’EHESS. Comptes rendus des cours et conférences. Paris: Open Edition Journal, 470–472.

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  DowlingR. K. (2013). Global Geotourism–An emerging form of sustainable tourism. Czech Journal Tourism2 (2), 59–79. 10.2478/cjot-2013-0004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  DowlingR.NewsomeD. (2018). Handbook of geotourism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  FoucaultM. (1966). Les mots et les choses, 42. Paris: Gallimard.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Fusté-FornéF. (2023). A slow tourist in the Basque Coast geopark (Spain). Int. J. Geoheritage Parks11 (2), 247–258. 10.1016/j.ijgeop.2023.03.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  GacetaUNAM (2025). Segunda edición en México del Geolodía: una “mirada geológica” para entender mejor nuestro planeta.

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  GibbonsM.LimogesC.ScottP.SchwartzmanS.NowotnyH. (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE Publications Ltd.

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  GioiaD. A.ChittipeddiK. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal12 (6), 433–448. 10.1002/smj.4250120604

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  GlaserB.StraussA. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Abingdon: Routledge.

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  GoelS. (2024). “Solid waste management: an introduction,” in Advances in solid and hazardous waste management. Editor GoelEn S. (Springer International Publishing), 1–26. 10.1007/978-3-031-49144-3_1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  GoodwinC. (1994). Professional vision, American anthopologist. New Ser.96 (3), 606–633. 10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  GordonJ. E.CroftsR.Díaz-MartínezE.WooK. S. (2018). Enhancing the role of geoconservation in protected area management and nature conservation. Geoheritage10, 191–203. 10.1007/s12371-017-0240-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  GrayM. (2008). Geoheritage 1. Geodiversity: a new paradigm for valuing and conserving geoheritage. Geosci. Can.35 (2), 51–59. Available online at: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/geocan35_2ser01 (Accessed February 14, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 27

  GrayM. (2018). The confused position of the geosciences within the “natural capital” and “ecosystem services” approaches. Ecosyst. Services34 (1), 106–112. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.10.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  GrayM. (2023). “Some observations and reflections on geodiversity, the oft-forgotten half of nature,” in Visages of geodiversity and geoheritage. Editors KubalíkováL.CoratzaP.PálM.ZwolińskiZ.IraptaP. N.van Wyk de VriesB. (London: The Geological Society of London), 13–29. 10.1144/SP530-2022-100

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  GrayM.CroftsR. (2022). The potential role of the geosciences in contributing to the UN’s Sustainable development goals. Parks Steward. Forum38 (1). 10.5070/p538156120

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  GuilbaudM. N.BlakeS.ThordarsonT.SelfS. (2007). Role of syn-eruptive cooling and degassing on textures of lavas from the AD 1783–1784 laki eruption, south Iceland. J. Petrology48 (7), 1265–1294. 10.1093/petrology/egm017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  GuilbaudM. N.Ortega-LarroceaM. D. P.CramS.van Wyk de VriesB. (2021). Xitle volcano geoheritage, Mexico City: raising awareness of natural hazards and environmental sustainability in active volcanic areas. Geoheritage13 (1), 6. 10.1007/s12371-020-00525-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  GuilbaudM.-N.van Wyk de VriesB.Ortega-LarroceaM. D. P.CramS. (2022). “Construción del sentido a través del patrimonio natural,” in Proposal submitted to the 2021 call of the SEP-CONACYT-ANUIES-ECOS NORD France programme.

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  GuilbaudM.-N.Ortega-LarroceaM. P.Cram HeydrichS.Martínez-Báez-TéllezM. F.VillalbaN.Rodríguez OsnayaE.et al (2023). “Geopatrimonio y resiliencia en campos volcánicos monogenéticos en méxico: caso de la Sierra Chichinautzin en el sur de la ciudad de México” in Reunión Anual de la Unión Geofísica Mexicana, Puerto vallarta. México.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  GuilbaudM.-N.VillalbaN. I.Rodríguez OsnayaE.Ortega-LarroceaM. P.Zeno-LiraE.Cram-HeydrichS. (2024a). The multiple values of urban geosites: El Arenal and Viaje a la Naturaleza parks in Mexico City. Geofísica Int.63 (3), 1067–1085. 10.22201/igeof.2954436xe.2024.63.3.1767

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  GuilbaudM.-N.Ortega-LarroceaM. P.CramS.PastranaA. (2024b). Geopatrimonio del volcán Xitle, Ciudad de México, Guía de campo. Mexico City: UNAM.

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  GuilbaudM.-N.Ortega-LarroceaM. P.CramS. (2025). Excursión al volcán xitle. Colección GeoloDía. Salamanca: Sociedad Geológica de España.

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  HadlandN.HamiltonC. W.DuhamelS. (2024). Young volcanic terrains are windows into early microbial colonization. Commun. Earth Environ.5 (1), 114. 10.1038/s43247-024-01280-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  HenriquesM. H.BrilhaJ. (2017). UNESCO global geoparks: a strategy towards global understanding and sustainability. Episodes J. Int. Geoscience40 (4), 349–355. 10.18814/epiiugs/2017/v40i4/017036

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  HernesT. (2010). “Actor-network theory, Callon’s scallops and process-based organization studies,” in Process, sensemaking, and organizing. Editors HernesT.MaitlisS. (Oxford University Press), 185–212.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  HollisJ. A.BettsP.TiddyC.BurridgeG. (2024). “A global geoscientific skills gap is threatening a sustainable future,” in Geoethics for the future (Elsevier), 339–358. 10.1016/B978-0-443-15654-0.00019-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  HoseT. (1995). Selling the story of Britain’s stone. Environ. Interpret.10, 16–17.

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  HoseT. A. (2020). “Historical viewpoints on the geotourism concept in the 21st century,” in The geotourism industry in the 21st century (Apple Academic Press), 23–92.

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Cl imático (INECC)RuizS. L. G.GavilánG. A.MendozaC. A.RamírezM. T.AraizaA. J. A. (2022). Atlas Nacional de Residuos Sólidos Urbanos, 311.

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  IntronaL. D. (2019). On the making of sense in sensemaking: decentred sensemaking in the meshwork of life. Organ. Stud.40 (5), 745–764. 10.1177/0170840618765579

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  JensenT.MahmudY. (2023). Decentering sensemaking: the mann gulch disaster revisited. Scandinavian journal of management. 39(3), 101279. 10.1016/j.scaman.2023.101279

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  KirkbyK. C. (2014). Place in the city: place-based learning in a large urban undergraduate geoscience program. J. Geoscience Educ.62 (2), 177–186. 10.5408/12-396.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  Knorr CetinaK. (1999). Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  KriegerP. (2024). Müll in der Natur. Tect. Verl.165–18010.5771/9783828851146

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  KudryavtsevA.KrasnyM. E.StedmanR. C. (2012). The impact of environmental education on sense of place among urban youth. Ecosphere3 (4), 1–15. 10.1890/ES11-00318.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  LarwoodJ. G.BadmanT.McKeeverP. J. (2013). The progress and future of geoconservation at a global level. Proc. Geologists' Assoc.124 (4), 720–730. 10.1016/j.pgeola.2013.04.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  LièvreP.MérourE.MorinJ.Macedo FrancoL.Ramos PalominoD.Rivera PorrasM.et al (2022). Volcanic risk management practice evolution between vulnerability and resilience: the case of Arequipa in Peru. Front. Earth Sci.10, 877161. 10.3389/feart.2022.877161

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  MaitlisS. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Acad. Management Journal48 (1), 21–49. 10.5465/amj.2005.15993111

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  MaitlisS.ChristiansonM. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: taking stock and moving forward. Acad. Management Annals8 (1), 57–125. 10.5465/19416520.2014.873177

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  Martínez Báez-TéllezM. F.Ortega-LarroceaM. P. (2025). Bioweathering of lava flows: the case of Xitle volcano in Mexico City. Geofísica Int.64 (1). 10.22201/igeof.2954436xe.2025.64.1.1728

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  Martínez Báez-TéllezF.GuilbaudM. N.Ortega LarroceaP.Cram HeydrichS.ZaragozaS.Van Wyk De VriesB. (2023). “Construction of sense in natural heritage – a project to fuse geo and biodiversity as one concept”, in Congreso international 80 aniversario Paricutín, México, Michoacán. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Geofísica.

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  Martinez-BáezT. M. F. (2025). Estudio de la costra biológica en el derrame lávico del volcán Xitle, México. Mexico: UNAM. PhD thesis Available online at: https://tesiunam.dgb.unam.mx (Accessed February 14, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  MérourE. (2023). “Un enfoque sobre los mundos de sensibilidad para regenerar la gestión de los riesgos volcánicos en Arequipa en Perú,” in Charlas de Vulcanología (Mexico: Instituto de Geofísica, UNAM). Available online at: https://youtu.be/sz1FCrJPlrI (Accessed February 14, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 58

  MérourE. (2024). “Une investigation des modes de sensibilité comme orientation pour la conception d’un dispositif de gestion des risques volcaniques. Le cas d’Arequipa au Pérou”. France: Université Clermont Auvergne. PhD thesis.

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  Morgan-ProuxC. (2025). “Sketching the earth: geotourism and sensemaking through art and storytelling,” in Seminario sobre estudios criticos del turismo, Instituto de Geografía (Mexico: UNAM). Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lumQVTBZLRYandt=2053s (Accessed February 14, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  O'LearyM.ChiaR. (2007). Epistemes and structures of sensemaking in organizational life. J. Manag. Inq.16 (4), 392–406. 10.1177/1056492607310976

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  Ortega-LarroceaM. P.Martínez-BáezM. F.GuilbaudM. N.CramS.Van Wyk de VriesB. (2023). “Geopedregal, a project that shows the inherent geo-bio diversity of a young lava flow,” in ProGeo international symposium (UK: Loughborough).

  • Google Scholar

• 62

  PescatoreE.BentivengaM.GianoS. I. (2023). Geoheritage and geoconservation: some remarks and considerations. Sustainability15 (7), 5823. 10.3390/su15075823

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  PierceC. (1931). Collected writings. Hartshorne, weiss and burks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 64

  ProsserC. D. (2019). Communities, quarries and geoheritage—making the connections. Geoheritage11 (4), 1277–1289. 10.1007/s12371-019-00355-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  RichardsonR.KramerE. H. (2006). Abduction as the type of inference that characterizes the development of a grounded theory. Qual. Res.6 (4), 497–513. 10.1177/1468794106068019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  Rix-LièvreG.MérourE.RécopéM.BoyerS.LièvreP. (2022). From sensemaking to 'sensitivity to': the sensible worlds of polar explorers. Available online at: https://hal.science/hal-04278125 (Accessed February 14, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Rix-LièvreG.RécopéM.MérourE.BoyerS.LièvreP. (2023). Sensitivity to, to inform the study of sensemaking in a phenomenological and enactivist approach (no. hal-04278140). Hal. Arch. Ouverte. Available online at: https://hal.science/hal-04278140 (Accessed February 14, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 68

  RogersY. (1989). Icons at the interface: their usefulness. Interact. Comput.1 (1), 105–117. 10.1016/0953-5438(89)90010-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  RouleauL. (2005). Micro‐practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: how middle managers interpret and sell change every day. J. Manag. Stud.42 (7), 1413–1441. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00549.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  ShiresC.van Wyk de VriesB. (2024). “Geomojis Translate Geocience across any language”, in Percevoir, representer, communiquer les risques naturels. AlaryV.RouquetteS.van Wyk de VriesB. (Clermont-Ferrand France: Presses universitaires Blaise Pascal), 329–352. Available online at: https://www.pubp.fr/communication-information/2954-percevoir-representer-communiquer-les-risques-naturels-9782383772606.html (Accessed February 14, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  ShiresC.van Wyk de VriesB.Zaragoza ÁlvarezS. E.Cram HeydrichS.Espinoza JaimeE.Olivares LoaisigaT. (2023). Using geomojis to communicate geoscience in UNESCO global geoparks. Int. Conf. UNESCO Glob. Geoparks.

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  ShiresC.GregoireM.Arreola PreciadoS. (2024). “Comunicación de riesgos naturales: perspectivas de lingüística, traducción y terminología,” in Encuentro Comunicación, comunidad, resiliencia: tres ejes del patrimonio natural, 29 oct 2024 (Mexico: Instituto de Geofísica, UNAM). Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/live/9U7F7C41Cck?si=NtGM_6xYRqHSE_4E (Accessed February 14, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  StarS. L.GriesemerJ. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Soc. Stud. Sci.19 (3), 387–420. 10.1177/030631289019003001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  StewartI. S.NieldT. (2013). Earth stories: context and narrative in the communication of popular geoscience. Proc. Geologists' Assoc.124 (4), 699–712. 10.1016/j.pgeola.2012.08.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  StraussA. (1985). Work and the division of labor. Sociol. Q.26, 1–19. 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1985.tb00212.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  TedlockB. (1991). From participant observation to the observation of participation: the emergence of narrative ethnography. J. Anthropol. Res.47 (1), 69–94. 10.1086/jar.47.1.3630581

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  TildenF. (1957). Interpreting our heritage: principles and practices for visitor services in parks, museums, and historic places. USA: University of North Carolina Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 78

  TsoukasH.HatchM. J. (2001). Complex thinking, complex practice: the case for a narrative approach to organizational complexity. Hum. Relat.54 (8), 979–1011. 10.1177/0018726701548001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  UNESCO (1972). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. World Herit. Conv.Available online at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext (Accessed February 14, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 80

  Van MaanenJ. (2011). Tales of the field: on writing ethnography. University of Chicago Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 81

  van Wyk de VriesB.ByrneP.DelcampA.EinarsonP.GöğüşO.GuilbaudM. N.et al (2018). A global framework for the Earth: putting geological sciences in context. Glob. Planet. Change171, 293–321. 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.12.019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  VerebV.van Wyk de VriesB.GuilbaudM. N.KarátsonD. (2020). The urban geoheritage of clermont-ferrand: from inventory to management. Quaest. Geogr.39 (3), 5–31. 10.2478/quageo-2020-0020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  VirapongseA.GuptaR.RobbinsZ. J.BlytheJ.DuerrR. E.GreggC. (2022). How can Earth scientists contribute to community resilience? Challenges and recommendations. Front. Clim.4, 761499. 10.3389/fclim.2022.761499

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  WeickK. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. 2nd ed.Addison-Wesley.

  • Google Scholar

• 85

  WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations, 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  • Google Scholar

• 86

  WeickK. E.SutcliffeK. M.ObstfeldD. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organ. Sci.16 (4), 409–421. 10.1287/orsc.1050.0133

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  WhitemanG.CooperW. H. (2011). Ecological sensemaking. Acad. Manag. J.54 (5), 889–911. 10.5465/amj.2008.0843

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  WhittingtonR. (2003). The work of strategizing and organizing: for a practice perspective. Strateg. Organ.1 (1), 117–125. 10.1177/147612700311006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  Zaragoza ÁlvarezS. E.Oropeza OrozcoO. (2022). “Práctica 31. Manejo de los residuos sólidos urbanos: tequio de limpieza,” in Guia de actividades escolares de campo en el Geoparque Mixteca Alta. Editor Orozco RamirezQ. (Ciudad de México: Instituto de Geografía, UNAM).

  • Google Scholar

• 90

  ZaragozaS.Cram HeydrichS. (2023). Urban solid waste management in UNESCO global geopark mixteca alta, Oaxaca, Mexico. The International Conference on UNESCO Global Geoparks, Marrakech, Marruecos.

  • Google Scholar

• 91

  ZavalaD. (2025). Características petrológicas y geoquímicas de la lava del Xitle: Una contribución para la geoeducación y el monitoreo de erupciones basálticas futuras en la Sierra Chichinautzin, Ciudad de México. Facultad de Ingenieria. México: UNAM. Available online at: http://www.ptolomeo.unam.mx:8080/xmlui/handle/RepoFi/19864 (Accessed February 14, 2026).

  • Google Scholar