Reimagining the liminal Cerrado: the virtual ancestral future

Research, part of a special feature on The Coproduction of Conflicts in Environmental Sustainability: Concepts, Methods, and Ethics

INTRODUCTION

The Cerrado, Brazil’s second-largest biome, is marked by profound contrasts between small-scale and large-scale farmers and ongoing conflicts primarily driven by agricultural expansion and conservation efforts (Russo Lopes et al. 2021). This vast savanna-like ecosystem, which serves as a critical water source and harbors immense biodiversity, is increasingly threatened by unsustainable agricultural practices, leading to deforestation, water depletion, biodiversity loss, and escalating health risks attributed to the widespread and intensive application of pesticides (Siegel and Bastos Lima 2020, Russo Lopes et al. 2021).

Due to agricultural expansion for commodities exportation, the Cerrado is considered as one of Brazil’s “agricultural frontiers” and one of the most threatened Biomes, with already half of it converted to cropland, thereby increasing sustainability challenges in Brazil (Leme da Silva et al. 2021). Moreover, for the first time, Cerrado surpassed the Amazon in terms of the size of the deforested area in 2023 and had the highest deforestation rate in the country (MapBiomas 2024). On one hand, agrarian frontiers are spaces of rural struggle that can be dominated by large-scale deforestation-intensive agriculture (Russo Lopes et al. 2021). On the other hand, local, Indigenous, and other Traditional Communities - IoTCs hereafter (Nóbrega et al. 2023) find creative forms of resistance and develop their livelihoods as a way to re-exist (reorganization of life in the face of oppression and the impacts of neo-coloniality) and re-claim their territories (Brondizio et al. 2021a, Castro and Futemma 2021, Russo Lopes et al. 2021).

Such entanglements underscore the urgent need for a systemic transformation—a shift that not only addresses the symptoms of environmental degradation but also redefines the underlying relationships and processes that perpetuate these issues (Hertz et al. 2025). Indeed, transformation toward sustainability in the face of interconnected social-ecological challenges needs to initiate profound changes in the existing system structures that support unsustainable trajectories while encouraging a diversity of alternative practices, which inevitably involves shifting dominant narratives (Blythe et al. 2018, Sievers-Glotzbach and Tschersich 2019, Riedy 2020, Fisher et al. 2022, Sonetti-González et al., unpublished manuscript). We acknowledge that the term “sustainability” originates from Western frameworks and that IoTCs have understandings of what constitutes sustainable social-ecological dynamics that differ from dominant discourses (Hill et al. 2020). In this context, we adopt the definition provided by the IoTCs themselves, who conceptualize sustainable development as communal, grounded in a sense of belonging, and fostered through active involvement (Sonetti-González et al., unpublished manuscript).

Theorizations of social-ecological transformations in sustainability science have often overlooked normative and ontological pluralism, as well as underemphasized the socio-political-technological entanglements with non-human entities—elements that combine culture and nature, identity and territory, (Fazey et al. 2018, 2020, Sievers-Glotzbach and Tschersich 2019, Scoones et al. 2020), or what might be conceptualized as “humanature” (Artmann 2023, Sonetti-González et al. 2023). Conventional approaches to managing such conflicts typically involve strategies that reside within what is commonly understood as the “real” and “possible”; as conceptualized by Hertz et al. (2025). These interventions aim to adjust existing conditions by working within prevailing paradigms and resources. Scientific and technical knowledge, often central to these strategies, is deeply enmeshed with politics and power, as are the technological fixes they propose (Brugnach 2017), ultimately aiming for incremental changes perceived as immediately feasible. However, these approaches may fall short of addressing the root causes of sustainability challenges, particularly in regions like the contested area of Cerrado.

Indeed, any sustainability challenge is often deeply interconnected with other issues, creating a complex web of problems that cannot be addressed in isolation. Process philosophy emphasizes this interconnectedness, shifting the focus from isolated events or fixed entities to the ongoing processes and relationships that shape them. This perspective highlights how different people, organizations, and environments interact and influence one another at specific moments and contexts (Mancilla García et al. 2020a, Mancilla García et al. 2020b). Process-relational perspectives (PRP) in sustainability science build on this foundation by integrating relational thinking into the understanding of transformations in social-ecological systems. PRP suggests that meaningful transformation involves not only navigating what is currently real and possible but also engaging with “actual” and “virtual” potentials (Hertz et al. 2025).

Drawing also on Latin American Feminism border thinking (Anzaldúa 1987, 2015, Lugones 1992, 2010), with an interpretative approach (Schwartz-Shea and Yanow 2013), this study aims to advance methods in sustainability science by 1) contributing to discussions on the conceptualization of transformations through relational ontologies and methodologies, emphasizing transformations as ongoing, performative, and constantly unfolding processes; and 2) identifying liminal spaces that hold the potential to transcend current paradigms and foster radical transformations reflecting in our empirical research process.

The article unfolds as follows: The subsequent section delves into our conceptual framework, exploring the concepts within relational onto-epistemologies of process-relational and border thinking. This includes explaining the concepts within sustainability transformation of “real-possible,” the existing reality; the “actual-virtual,” the process of becoming unique through individuation; and its “in-between space,” the concept of Nepantla, a state of transformation and transition. We then present our case study through the lens of a PRP, followed by a detailed discussion of our methodological strategy. This strategy is rooted in the PRP approach to methodology, which recognizes the researcher’s role in producing meaning and knowledge due to a simultaneous entanglement between the researcher, the researched, and the context (Mancilla García et al. 2024). Finally, we present and discuss our results in light of our conceptual framework and methodological approach, concluding the article by underlining orientations for future research and researchers who our process could inspire, particularly those working in participatory action research, relational ontologies, and sustainability transformations.

THE BORDERS AND THE PROCESSES(OF)RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS

Olsson et al. (2004, 2006) describe transformation as a process of (1) preparing for change, (2) navigating the transition, and (3) building resilience to the new trajectory of development. The broader narrative on transformations to sustainability poses contextualized challenges across these different temporal and spatial scales (Patterson et al. 2017, Blythe et al. 2018, Scoones et al. 2020). Departing from the current socio-economic regime, scholars have emphasized the need for a profound systemic transformation to ensure sustainability (Brand and Wissen 2017, Bentz et al. 2022, Olsson and Moore 2024) and operate within the planetary boundaries (Leach et al. 2012, Steffen et al. 2015).

In the evolving discourse on sustainability transformations, the imperative for a comprehensive, multi-dimensional approach that integrates diverse schools of thought is increasingly recognized (Fisher et al. 2022). Central to this discourse are critical social science perspectives that advocate for sustainability transformations underpinned by equity and justice (Vogel and O’Brien 2021, Fisher et al. 2022), adding the necessity to overcome the current understanding of development (Escobar 1992, 1995, 2017, 2018). Also, there is an ongoing effort to bring the process-relational perspectives to conceptualize transformation (Hertz et al. 2025). However, current sustainability efforts are often confined to real and possible thinking (Hertz et al. 2025), which relies on modifying existing elements based on known facts and established methods.

Hertz et al. (2025) offer a conceptual deep dive into process-relational understandings of causation and what it means for transformation. This perspective operates within the interplay of the real-possible and the actual-virtual (Deleuze and Guattari 1987), promoting innovative, inclusive, and systemic changes. The actual represents the familiar and known, while the virtual signifies concrete potentialities. Through unique interactions in each context, these elements gain their distinct properties (a process known as individuation), leading to the emergence of new and unforeseen realities.

Unlike traditional views that see individuals as static and pre-constituted, Deleuze emphasizes individuation as an ongoing, dynamic process driven by interactions between virtual potentials and actual conditions. This process highlights the continuous formation and reformation of identities and entities, illustrating how new and unique individuals emerge from these interactions - the process of becoming. Instead of focusing on fixed identities or categories, this approach looks at the processes of change and becoming, paying attention to the flows, differences, and interactions that shape phenomena. A key idea is individuation, which means that events don’t arise as isolated, separate entities but as temporary gatherings of different forces working together (Deleuze 1995). This view rejects universal explanations and instead focuses on the unique and interconnected ways things come to exist and transform. Deleuze also extends this idea to how language and meaning develop, showing how they emerge through dynamic and relational processes (Deleuze 1991).

Individuation is, therefore, not tied to any form of reality but is an event, a movement that happens in and through the convergence of diverse forces in a manner that is both detached and abstract, situated within a framework of constant virtuality and potential. In contrast, Nepantla (Anzaldúa 2015) is a concept grounded in the lived, communal, and spiritual dimensions of existence. It introduces a different kind of individuation, one that happens within the communal and spiritual spaces inhabited “in-between” two or more worldviews. Rather than being an isolated process of abstract becoming, as Deleuze’s individuation might suggest, Nepantla exists as a liminal space that inherently involves the coexistence of multiple worldviews and the fluid movement between them. It is not an isolated becoming but a collective experience of coexistence.

This difference leads us to the intersection of the two concepts: while Deleuze’s becoming unfolds as an individuation of virtual possibilities, Nepantla can be understood as a space where the actual and virtual, as well as the real and possible, coexist. Here, the realms of dreams, imagination, and familiar material reality interact in such a way that they are both real and virtual simultaneously; where the virtual represents individuation for certain groups. For instance, what we may dismiss as insignificant or take for granted in our own lives may be the very thing that others dream of or long for, illustrating the varied ways in which reality and virtuality are experienced across different worldviews.

Nepantla is a Nahuatl term rooted in Mexica (Aztec) metaphysics, which refers to the dynamic process of weaving and mutual transformation that creates a tertium quid—an emergent third entity. It embodies the continual regeneration of reality (teotl) and is a guiding principle for balancing conflicting forces in life - an ever-becoming (Maffie 2015). While Nepantla has been appropriated by Chicana feminists, such as (Anzaldúa 1987), to describe the tensions of being “in-between” faced by Mexican-American women navigating patriarchal cultures, its use raises contradictions, as argued by Martínez-Prieto (2018). Nahuatl spread as a lingua franca during Aztec imperialism, imposed on subjugated Indigenous communities, and the patriarchal structures of Aztec society subjected women to oppression.

This historical context complicates the romanticized view of Aztec Indigeneity underlying such linguistic reclamation. Regardless of these historical complexities, as Martínez-Pietro (2018) reflected, language is not static, Latino (Latinx) and Chicana feminist scholars have consciously recreated meaning to support their ideals and goals by appropriating Spanish and Indigenous terms, they express political and sociocultural perspectives within U.S. academia. Nepantla helps them, and we recognize that transformation encompasses more than just material or social phenomena; it also includes spiritual dimensions and the world in-between. We apply the Nepantla concept as a theoretical bridge to integrate different schools of thought on relational ontologies and worldviews.

Nepantla represents psychic, spiritual, and material points of potential change, where identities, worldviews, and experiences are fluid and in flux (Scott and Tuana 2017, Keating 2021). Psychically, Nepantla challenges individuals to confront contradictions and inherited narratives, revealing the underlying assumptions and power structures that shape our realities. Spiritually, it highlights the interconnectedness of the material and the sacred, bridging this world and others. Materially, Nepantla creates dynamic spaces where the virtual is not only imagined as a future potential but is actively unfolding in the present through ongoing onto-epistemological differences (Moraga and Anzaldúa 1981, Anzaldúa 2015, Keating 2012, 2021).

Conventional approaches and dominant thinking often struggle to understand liminal spaces and their crucial perspectives for tackling social-ecological issues and their potential solutions (Sonetti-González et al. 2023). Therefore, contemporary strategies are primarily formulated within the boundaries of what is typically regarded as the “real” and “possible” (Hertz et al. 2025). While these interventions are essential, they tend to modify existing conditions to continue functioning within established paradigms. Changes are thus perceived as immediately viable yet often fail to address the root causes of sustainability challenges. This means that the process of (1) preparing for change, (2) navigating the transition, and (3) building resilience to the new trajectory of development (Olsson et al. 2004, 2006) can also be understood as a persistent cycle of adaptation if it remains within the “real” and “possible.” This interplay highlights that true transformation involves recognizing and engaging with these differing realities and multiple ways of knowing (Brugnach et al. 2017), not as hierarchical opposites but as co-constitutive forces that shape and negotiate the future of the region, which also requires embracing ambiguity (Brugnach 2017).

For centuries, IoTCs cosmovisions have affirmed the entanglement between humans, their environment—including other living beings—and a spiritual world (Todd 2016). It has also been articulated by the Brazilian Indigenous leaders and philosophers Jecupé (2020) and Ailton Krenak (2022). The perspective of co-constitution of identity through the interconnectedness of being, community, territory, nature, and spirituality is central to understanding IoTCs cosmovisions (ANMIGA 2021 - the Brazilian Indigenous Women Collective). However, IoTCs relational cosmovisions have often been disregarded or deemed inferior to institutionalized (Western) scientific knowledge, and this systemic disregard has contributed to the erosion of autonomy and the loss of these rich knowledge systems (Rivera Cusicanqui 2018, Brugnach and Özerol 2019, Vásquez-Fernández and Ahenakew Pii Tai Poo Taa 2020).

Our proposal is not only to reimagine reality but also to foster a space where research practices, praxis, and diverse onto-epistemologies can rise—ensuring that the day will come when the right to be different will be fully accepted, precisely because they are recognized as equal (Escobar 2020). In this decolonial effort, we acknowledge the longstanding contributions of Indigenous and anti/post/decolonial researchers who have challenged dominant paradigms and created space for diverse ways of knowing, being and doing (Anzaldúa 1987, Oyěwùmí 1997, Quijano 2000, Wynter 2003, Pratt 2008, Chilisa 2020, Kovach 2010, Lugones 2010, Smith 2012, Paredes and Guzmán 2014, David-Chavez and Gavin 2018, Krahô 2018, Tzul 2018, Krenak 2019, Walter and Suina 2019, Moreno-Cely et al. 2021, Segato 2021, Llanque Zonta et al. 2023, Santos and Pereira 2023, Levis et al. 2024, among many others).

OUR POSITIONALITY

While none of the authors are Indigenous or part of a Traditional Community, the lead author identifies as woman, Latina and mestiza, with Indigenous and European roots, navigating the intersection of multiple cultural and onto-epistemological worlds. Living in Sweden as an immigrant Latina, yet white and privileged, positions her within what Anzaldúa (1987) describes as border thinking—a way of knowing that emerges from living in liminal spaces. This background informs the research approach and reflects a commitment to reclaiming genealogy and positionality (Bull and Fahlgren 2016). Feminist and decolonial perspectives emphasize that women build meanings rooted in their lived realities, which cannot be fully understood from external perspectives (Mignolo and Escobar 2009, Lugones 2010). These complexities shape how we approach this study (Massoud 2022), striving to honor the voices of IoTCs. While all authors have lived as immigrants and share some experiences of marginality, which they prefer not to delve into here as they do not seem directly relevant for the purposes of the study, we acknowledge our privileges as white researchers and the limitations of our positionality. Our goal is not to speak for others but to learn from them, amplify their voices, and write in solidarity.

THE CONTESTED CERRADO

The first wave of colonizers in the Cerrado consisted of small and large-scale farmers, migrants coming predominantly from Southern Brazil, attracted by incentives to develop the region to produce commodities such as soy and maize (Rezende 2002, Motta 2015). The 1990s saw a second wave of investments when Brazil and Latin American Southern Cone experienced neoliberal reforms to promote free trade and export-oriented agriculture. That accelerated even more in the 2000s with rising demand from China, particularly for soy and agribusiness expansion (Siegel and Bastos Lima 2020). Those changes supported economic growth and led to substantial socio-environmental challenges, including biodiversity loss and soil and water quality degradation, directly impacting local communities (Ermgassen et al. 2020, Siegel and Bastos Lima 2020, Leme da Silva et al. 2021), transforming the region into a “sacrifice zone” for soy production (Leme da Silva et al. 2019, 2021).

Bastos Lima and Martin Person (2020) summarize the region’s historicity. The expansion and invasion of capital in the Cerrado region have led to intense conflicts over the past 60 years. This conflict intensified with the relocation of Brazil’s capital to Brasília in 1960, marking a period of rapid development aimed at overcoming underdevelopment. This shift promoted internal migration and infrastructure development, transforming the Cerrado’s lands into valuable assets. Historically, Brazil’s dominant classes, influenced by colonial perspectives, viewed the central highlands as “empty” lands, ripe for exploitation.

Internationally, the Cold War and the Cuban Revolution heightened fears among Latin American oligarchies, leading to alliances that furthered the “development of underdevelopment.” During this period, the Cerrado region became the focal point of an agrarian transformation, incorporating 190 million hectares into the global market under the so-called “Green Revolution.” The 1964 military-business coup, supported by multinational corporations, ushered in an era of “agriculture without farmers,” driven by science and technology, later termed agribusiness. This shift marginalized family farmers and IoTCs even more, reinforcing land concentration and power imbalances (Bastos Lima and Persson 2020). The dictatorship, backed by international capital, promoted large-scale agricultural projects and infrastructure investments for over two decades. The Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) ’s adaptation of soybeans to tropical climates catalyzed agribusiness’ expansion into the Cerrado, resulting in ecological destruction and severe impacts on IoTCs.

Environmental policies since the 2000s, including Brazil’s new 2012 Forest Code and establishment of Conservation Units, aimed at restricting the deforestation of Cerrado involve selective environmental policies, new protected areas, and compliance with the Forest Code to create “soy territories” where industrial monocultures and traditional communities coexist within protected areas (Leme da Silva et al. 2019). In the 2010s, agribusiness leaders and Brazil’s federal government then coined the term “MATOPIBA” to characterize the northern half of the Cerrado - where most of its remaining vegetation is located - as a region for expanding production of commodities and investments; the area covers 73 million hectares (Mha) and involves 337 municipalities across the states of Maranhão (MA), Tocantins (TO), Piauí (PI), and Bahia (BA) (Bastos Lima and Kmoch 2021).

Nearly half of the Cerrado has been deforested today, with 36.5% of the Biome’s area designated for industrial agriculture and livestock (MapBiomas 2024). In contrast to the Brazilian Amazon, where half of its coverage is within protected areas, and landowners can deforest up to 20% of their property, only 8% of the Cerrado is protected, and private landowners can clear between 65% and 80% of their land (Strassburg et al. 2017, Ermgassen et al. 2020). The Amazon and Cerrado biomes are intrinsically linked due to the interactions of the water cycle. The Cerrado houses the largest Brazilian aquifer, the Urucuia, which serves as the headwaters not only of the Amazon River but also of a larger portion of the river basins in South America. Consequently, the exploitation of water in the Cerrado affects not just local areas but also has far-reaching impacts (Aguiar et al. 2024).

The struggles of various marginalized groups have been documented; however, not so much has changed. Most of the agrarian conflicts in Brazil, from 2009 to 2019, have involved IoTCs (Comissão Pastoral da Terra 2023). These conflicts stem from actions aimed at dispossessing these communities of their land, driven by dominant colonial and social dynamics. Such communities, often classified as “marginalized,” experience intersecting forms of oppression based on racial, socio-economic, and cultural factors. Their ways of life represent an alternative reality that provides a transformative and radical perspective on sustainability (Sonetti-González et al., unpublished manuscript), which leads us to recognize that the coexistence of worlds often occurs oppressively and that hegemonic interpretations of sustainability overshadow other perspectives—impacting the way we conceive problems and solutions.

METHODS OF ABSTRACTION - INTEGRATING THE PROCESS-RELATIONAL APPROACH

This study aims to contribute to the discussion on the benefits of a PR approach to methods for sustainability science (Eyster et al. 2023, Mancilla García et al. 2024). In PRPs, abstraction involves first translating complex and dynamic processes into conceptual representations that emphasize essential relational and interactive features without removing them from their context (Deleuze 1995, Whitehead 1978). The emphasis on change and attention to materiality that PRPs provide is particularly suitable for investigating interactions between society and nature. Second, what is produced at the intersection of social and natural processes requires going beyond human-attributed meanings, such as ideas and concepts themselves, and discovering tools to incorporate matter.

PR approach, in the application of the methods, recognizes that the researcher has a role in the production of meaning and knowledge - but more importantly, it results from the entanglement between the researcher, the researched, the context, and the processes involved in performing the research. As stated by Mancilla García et al. (2024 p. 3), “this is particularly important for sustainability science since it avoids hierarchies between those seen as capable of creating meaning (humans) and an all-encompassing group of non-humans (such as ecosystem elements).”

This study is part of the Science in Action: Intersecting Pathways to the SDGs across Scales in the Drylands (XPaths) project, which aims to advance knowledge on sustainable futures and co-design strategic action plans in Brazil, Senegal, and Spain. This article focuses on Barreiras and surrounding municipalities in Western Bahia, Brazil. Participatory processes over three and a half years included participant observation, participatory network drawing (Net-Map) sessions (Schiffer and Peakes 2009), multi-actor workshops, focus groups, and the 3H-CLD approach (Aguiar et al. 2025). Net-Map was used to map local dynamics and identify key actors (Schiffer and Hauck 2010), with validation by local actors, ensuring diverse representation across key sectors.

Our methodology drew on the Three Horizons (3H) framework (Sharpe et al. 2016), a cognitive tool facilitating group discussions about transformative change. Adapted to align with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the 3H-CLD method (Aguiar et al. 2025). Workshops proceeded in three steps: (1) envisioning sustainable futures (3rd Horizon) and identifying transformative “seeds” - the desired future represented through a piece of art, which aims, in addition to synthesis, at the appropriation and internalization of the envisioned future; (2) identifying current challenges (1st Horizon) and their root causes; and (3) defining actions to bridge the gap between the present and the desired future (2nd Horizon).

The workshops engaged 20–25 participants from the private sector, government, civil society—including IoTCs—and academia. Groups were initially separated to respect diverse cosmovisions, and the long engagement with the participants fostered later cross-sectoral dialogue (Aguiar et al. 2025). The inclusive process allowed local challenges and priorities to emerge naturally, with all dimensions of sustainability considered (environmental, social, economic, and governmental). As the project aimed to engage with a diverse range of actors, we recognized the necessity of reflecting on what it means to engage meaningfully with IoTCs (Sonetti-González 2025).

Although our research was not framed as “do Indigenous research” in the sense outlined by Gould et al. (Gould et al. 2023)—which involves deep and sustained engagement with Indigenous epistemologies, methodologies, scholars, and practitioners (Hogan and Topkok 2015)— nonetheless sought to cultivate a long-term, collaborative relationship with Indigenous Peoples, Traditional, and Local Communities. This collaboration influenced our methodological approach throughout the research process, enabling us to remain responsive to their calls for epistemological justice. Rather than simply including these communities as participants, we aimed to ensure a more substantial methodological engagement—one that actively resists reproducing existing inequalities and exclusions within the research process itself (Sonetti-González 2025).

Our overall methodological approach is grounded in the principles of Participatory Action Research (Fals-Borda 1987), emphasizing the lived experience, or vivencias, to experience and “to live with” in order to understand participant worlds and engage with participants as co-researchers, therefore, collaborators - allowing researchers to move beyond the traditional subject-object divide (Fals-Borda and Rahman 1991). This relational approach reframes knowledge production as a co-creation process, where academic knowledge intertwines with popular wisdom to achieve a revolutionary understanding aimed at social transformation. As Fals-Borda and Rahman (1991) argue, such a dialectical tension demands that researchers become inseparably integrated with the communities they study, fostering subject-to-subject relationships rather than subject-to-object dynamics.

Max-Neef (2005) offers a comparable perspective by distinguishing between knowing and understanding as distinct levels of engaging with reality. While knowledge can be used to analyze problems from a distance, genuine understanding emerges from being integrally involved in the phenomenon under study—an engagement that transforms both the researcher and those participating in the process. Similarly, Freire and Freire’s (1997) concept of “reading the world” emphasizes the “reading” of the word (the lived experience of being in the world with others), and precedes the understanding of it. In this view, the world is not a fixed or static entity. Still, it is continuously shaped through human interaction, hope, and transformation - and we can co-create meaning through solidarity and collective action. Researchers, therefore, are called not merely to understand and analyze reality but to engage in its ongoing co-construction, guided by the critical optimism and hope inherent in human beings’ capacity to imagine and enact liberation (Freire and Freire 1997).

We gained a deeper, nuanced understanding of sustainability transformations by situating the collaborators’ narratives within the broader relational understanding of the co-constitution of a phenomenon, in this case, the project itself. The PR approach, when analyzing any data, reveals insights that might otherwise remain hidden, as it encourages reflection during the analysis of data (Mancilla García et al. 2024). This co-constitution involves examining the phenomenon’s power dynamics and specific characteristics, recognizing that researchers are not separate from what they study but are intrinsically part of it. However, researchers and the studied elements within the phenomenon become distinct and distinguishable as part of the dynamic relational process (Mancilla García et al. 2024).

Thus, in our analysis, the concepts of the actual-virtual and real-possible are crucial in helping to understand how individuals, communities, and different actors navigate their realities and envision alternative futures. Through narratives and storytelling drawn from the pieces of art created by the collaborators, we explored the ‘virtual’ and ‘possible’ dimensions, uncovering how individuals and communities imagine alternative futures and pathways for transformation toward sustainability.

THE INDIGENOUS AND TRADITIONAL PEOPLES OF THE CERRADO

In our workshops, collaborators identified various current issues hindering sustainability and proposed actions that were perceived as necessary to overcome these challenges. Our approach began with an invitation to envisioning the desired future. Even thought, many participants found this difficult; the weight of present-day problems seemed to constrain their capacity to dream; as one mentioned, “when we are realistic, it is difficult to be dreamers.” This tension echoes Hertz et al. (2025 p. 2), who, drawing on Deleuze, note that change is often framed within the binary of the “real” and the “possible,” “limiting our ability to envision transformative futures.”

The concept of Nepantla can then help us to better understand the transformative processes occurring in the liminal spaces, where the real and the virtual coexist and interact, even if not always acknowledged. These liminal spaces emerge where ways of life, rooted in profound ecological and spiritual connections, intersect with other ways of life, as well as external pressures such as modern development and conservation policies. Psychically, these spaces challenge individuals and communities to confront the contradictions between inherited traditions and imposed narratives, which often generate intergenerational and territorial conflicts. For instance, one group believes that the “benefit” of the Cerrado is to transform its lands into productive fields for commodity production, while other groups believe that the Cerrado should remain with its forests preserved to ensure the survival of humans, animals, and the “waters of the West.”

Spiritually, we observed how these in-between spaces can also carry deeper, more profound meanings. A tree, for instance, is not only understood in terms of its biological characteristics but also in relation to its spiritual significance. The Jurema Preta (Mimosa hostilis) is revered as a spiritual female entity and forms the foundation of rituals among Indigenous Peoples in Western Bahia. “Her wine,” brewed from her roots, and the smoke from pipes carved from her trunk are central elements in ceremonial practices, embodying a relational ontology that intertwines the material and the sacred.

Materially, these spaces take on contrasting dimensions. At Brazil’s largest agribusiness fair, FarmShow, the main author observed that a single truck, used for commodity production, can be valued at up to 3 million USD. In stark contrast, IoTCs primarily work with rudimentary tools in their agroecological plots. Moreover, land and water are perceived and experienced in fundamentally different ways: either as resources to be managed and exploited for commodity production and economic gain or as kin—beings to be respected, nurtured and cared for. For IoTCs, nature is perceived as a mother, and their relationship with her is grounded in a deep sense of responsibility and reciprocal care. We will further elaborate on these contrasting perspectives in the following paragraphs.

The collaborators, both when discussing dreams and the actions necessary to achieve a sustainable future, largely remained within the realm of the real-possible. This realm includes tangible and practical steps that can be realistically implemented within the current socio-political and environmental contexts. However, the IoTCs group indicated and reflected dreams and actions that extended beyond this dominant way of thinking, embracing a broader, more holistic view of sustainability and harmony with nature. These visions included concepts such as “water production” (produção de água), where the Biome continues to naturally “produce water”; “stronger river sources” (nascentes mais fortes), which suggests the revitalization and protection of river ecosystems; “Cerrado standing” (Cerrado de pé), referring to the preservation and thriving of the Cerrado Biome and its trees; “balanced nature” (natureza equilibrada) envisioning a harmonious coexistence between humans and the natural world; and “the territory as a good way to live” (o território como bem-viver) emphasizing the importance of living in accordance with the land and its ecological systems and the many potentials that could become—things that once were.

An Indigenous collaborator shared that when her husband is in the city and takes a shower, he asks for permission to enter the water: “You have to ask nature for permission. I can’t see the river here, but I can see the water, so I have to ask nature for permission to enter it.” (IPB10). This reflects the idea of entering the river, but in this case, entering under the shower, highlighting the profound respect and relational understanding of water in their cosmovisions or onto-epistemology, and how it gets translated into different contexts, in such a way that it modifies the context itself but opening up pathways within liminal spaces to envision a diverse enacting of social-ecological relations (through water in this example), including in contexts dominated by technological organization that tends to erase it.

Despite being surrounded by different material and discursive practices (Barad 2007), for Indigenous Peoples, water remains a living entity, part of a larger whole that deserves respect and requires permission to “enter.” This illustrates the process of individuation (Hertz et al. 2025), whereby the perception of water transcends its immediate physical form, integrating it into a broader, more holistic worldview. Nonetheless, it exists in the space between the real-possible and the actual-virtual. As noted earlier, for the IoTCs, nature is not merely a collection of resources to be managed but a spiritual assemblage. Within this worldview, natural elements such as rivers, trees, plants, animals, and the land itself possess a worthy existence, necessitating respect and protection. Their rituals, from their pipe (Pau) and pipe-smoke to their sacred drink (Jurema), also engage the elements of nature. This spiritual connection with nature perceives every element as interconnected and possessing their many purposes for existence.

These visions reflect a “virtual” realm (for other groups), encompassing the transformative potential IoTC collaborators envisioned. In contrast to the real-possible, which denotes what can be achieved within existing reality, the virtual imagination toward the dreamed future may not yet be fully realized or even entirely understood but carries the promise of profound shifts in how nature is perceived and how relationships with her could be cultivated (Hertz et al. 2025). Grounded in a deep connection to the land and rooted in their cultural heritage, the IoTC group emphasizes the importance of integrating spiritual, ecological, and communal cosmovisions into pathways toward sustainable futures.

In this way, their dreams and actions reflect an ontological shift that also goes beyond immediate, tangible outcomes. They suggest a transformative approach that embraces the potential for creating new realities through a balanced relationship with nature, recognizing the importance of maintaining and enhancing the natural systems that sustain all forms of life and the spiritual world. This perspective enriches the broader discussion on sustainability by incorporating a vision not limited by the current hegemonic way of thinking but driven by the potential for profound, systemic change. The spiritual aspect of their vision underscores the belief that respecting and preserving nature is not only a practical necessity but also a moral and spiritual imperative, ensuring that all elements of the natural world are honored and protected for future generations.

DISCUSSION ON BORDERS AND PROCESSES OF TRANSFORMATIONS

The liminal space, where the real and the virtual coexist, offers a generative lens for understanding these transformations. It invites us to recognize that what may seem utopian or imaginary from a dominant perspective is, for others, a lived reality. This is not merely a symbolic shift but an ontological one, where multiple worlds coexist—often in conflict or contradiction. An onto-epistemological approach thus enables us to perceive these tensions and openings: transformations that are not just adaptive within the current paradigm, but capable of unmaking that paradigm altogether.

While Hertz et al. (2025) call for radical transformation by liberating people from the constraints of the real and the possible—to “dream big”—we offer a decolonial reframing: that transformation may arise from recognizing and legitimizing existing but marginalized ontologies. As Paulo Freire reminds us, hope is an ontological necessity—a grounding force through which people envision and pursue liberation, even amidst structural oppression (Freire and Freire 1997). In this light, ontological transformation is not merely speculative but a political act. It involves more than creating new virtualities, making space for existing ones—often obscured or denied—lead to perhaps “unmaking transformation” (Feola et al. 2021). This involves dismantling dominant structures to allow other ways of being, knowing, and relating to flourish (Escobar 2018, 2020).

In contrast, the business-as-usual perspective to water management emphasizes practical and utilitarian metrics—such as efficiency, allocation, and economic value—often sidelining relational and spiritual dimensions. Yet as Brugnach (2017) notes, effective governance must engage with the “space in between,” where diverse ways of knowing and being can meet without requiring consensus or assimilation. Nepantla, however, is not simply a space of tension, but a generative in-betweenness—where ontological and epistemological pluralism can be acknowledged and activated. Nepantla creates the conditions for the virtual—unrealized possibilities and ancestral aspirations—to emerge, interact with, and reshape the present. Rather than treating ambiguity as a problem, it becomes a source of potential ontological transformation.

Returning to the example of water, Nepantla allows it to be understood as a becoming-actual virtual—a relational entity that is continually co-constituted through different processes of individuation. Whether framed as a spiritual being within Indigenous ontologies or as a resource within technocratic paradigms, water’s “being-in-between” resists reduction. It remains fluid, dynamic, and open—never fully captured by any single worldview. This liminality illustrates how ontological multiplicity does not imply relativism, but rather demands ontological humility and a readiness to engage with difference as meaningful and transformative.

Recognizing others’ perspectives in contested ontological spaces is not merely an epistemic gesture—it affirms the existence and agency of other-than-human beings and their relational worlds. As Max-Neef (Max-Neef 2005) argues, different levels of reality become accessible through corresponding levels of perception—which are linked to bodily, affective, and spiritual forms of knowing, often activated through practices that induce altered states of consciousness. These modes of knowing are central in many Indigenous and ancestral traditions, where reality is not limited to what is empirically verifiable but includes visions, dreams, rituals, the spiritual world, and other relational experiences with time and space.

Embracing this pluriversal perspective requires reconfiguring how we envision the future and transforming our understanding of the present. In our context, it involves making space for the spiritual co-construction of ancestral knowledge systems and relational ontologies to shape our collective pathways forward. In this sense, the “real” realm of the IoTCs—often overlooked or dismissed within dominant frameworks—possesses the power to reconstitute reality itself, a virtual possibility, if taken seriously. As Krenak (Krenak 2022) powerfully reminds us, “if there is a future to be considered, this future is ancestral” (p. 11). This is not a call to revert to the past, but to honor and integrate those ancestral virtual possibilities that have long provided alternatives to modernity’s destructive trajectories.

In this context, incorporating PRP from diverse schools of thought is essential to promote a transformation that enables policymakers to escape the cycle of adaptation and consider others’ understandings of elements in an equal way. Transformation encompasses rethinking political and economic practices, and promoting a radical pluralism that values diverse voices and knowledge. A deliberative movement that engages with multiple realities and onto-epistemologies can create a world where various forms of existence and knowledge thrive (O’Brien 2012, Escobar 2020) - a world where many worlds fit - originally from the Zapatistas. This stance is vital for advancing pluriversal politics—an open space moving from “alternative understanding” to one possible-actual-virtual-reality.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing plurality is essential in contested places such as Western Bahia, where multiple perspectives, ontologies, and ways of life coexist. Promoting pluriversal policy and relational design—which value diverse ways of knowing, being, and doing—is not only an ethical imperative but also a transformative one (Escobar 2020). By fostering a deeper understanding of liminal spaces we can begin to see beyond the constraints of the dominant paradigm, which allows us to make visible the multiplicity of worlds that already exist—worlds sustained by ancestral knowledge, spiritual relations with nature and others, and communal practices that actively challenge the hegemony of modernity. Such recognition is fundamental if we are to avoid repeating the past and resist building futures that are not Ancestral. As Indigenous Action (2020 p. 1) starkly reminds us: “A pathogenic global social order of imagined futures, built upon genocide, enslavement, ecocide, and total ruination. What conclusions are to be realized in a world constructed of bones and empty metaphors?”

LITERATURE CITED

Aguiar, A. P. D., D. Collste, S. Cortés-Calderón, T. Sonetti-González, M. Alves-Martins, A. J. Castro, A. Diallo, K. M. Eriksson, D. Goffner, Z. V. Harmáčková, A. Jiménez-Aceituno, M. D. López-Rodríguez, M. Mancilla-García, V. Olofsson, A. M. P. Marin, F. G. Silva-Bezerra, H. Sinare, and C. Stragier. 2025. Unraveling deep roots in drylands: a systems thinking participatory approach to SDGs. Global Sustainability 8:e13. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2025.6

Aguiar, A. P. D., T. Sonetti-González, M. Martins, F. G. Silva Bezerra, and A. M.-P. Marin. 2024. Redirecting flows - navigating the future of the Amazon. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm.

ANMIGA. 2021. Manifesto das primeiras brasileiras - As originárias da terra: a mãe do Brasil é indígena. ANMIGA - Mulheres Indígenas. https://anmiga.org/

Anzaldúa, G. 2015. Light in the dark: rewriting identity, spirituality, reality = Luz en lo oscuro. Duke University Press, Durham and London, UK.

Anzaldúa, G. 1987. Borderlands / La Frontera: The New Mestiza. Aunt Lute Books, San Francisco, California, USA.

Artmann, M. 2023. Human-nature resonance in times of social-ecological crisis - a relational account for sustainability transformation. Ecosystems and People 19(1):2168760. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2168760

Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, USA. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv12101zq

Bastos Lima, M. G., and L. Kmoch. 2021. Neglect paves the way for dispossession: the politics of “last frontiers” in Brazil and Myanmar. World Development 148:105681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105681

Bastos Lima, M. G., and U. M. Persson. 2020. Commodity-centric landscape governance as a double-edged sword: the case of soy and the Cerrado Working Group in Brazil. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 3:27. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00027

Bentz, J., K. O’Brien, and M. Scoville-Simonds. 2022. Beyond “blah blah blah”: exploring the “how” of transformation. Sustainability Science 17:497-506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01123-0

Blythe, J., J. Silver, L. Evans, D. Armitage, N. J. Bennett, M. Moore, T. H. Morrison, and K. Brown. 2018. The dark side of transformation: latent risks in contemporary sustainability discourse. Antipode 50(5):1206-1223. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12405

Brand, U., and M. Wissen. 2017. Social-ecological transformation. Pages 1-9 in D. Richardson, N. Castree, M. F. Goodchild, A. Kobayashi, W. Liu, and R. A. Marston, editors. International encyclopedia of geography. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0690

Brondizio, E. S., K. Andersson, F. de Castro, C. Futemma, C. Salk, M. Tengö, M. Londres, D. C. Tourne, T. Sonetti González, A. Molina-Garzón, G. Russo Lopes, and S. M. Siani. 2021. Making place-based sustainability initiatives visible in the Brazilian Amazon. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 49:66-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.03.007

Brugnach, M. 2017. The space in between: where multiple ways of knowing in water management meet. Journal of the Southwest 59(1-2):34-59. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsw.2017.0005

Brugnach, M., M. Craps, and A. Dewulf. 2017. Including indigenous peoples in climate change mitigation: addressing issues of scale, knowledge and power. Climatic Change 140:19-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1280-3

Brugnach, M., and G. Özerol. 2019. Knowledge co-production and transdisciplinarity: opening Pandora’s box. Water 11(10):1997. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11101997

Bull, J., and M. Fahlgren, editors. 2016. Illdisciplined gender: engaging questions of nature/culture and transgressive encounters. Crossroads of Knowledge. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15272-1

Castro, F. de, and C. Futemma. 2021. Farm knowledge co-production at an old Amazonian frontier: case of the agroforestry system in Tomé-Açu, Brazil. Rural Landscapes: Society, Environment, History 8(1):3. https://doi.org/10.16993/rl.72

Chilisa, B. 2020. Indigenous research methodologies, Second edition. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Comissão Pastoral da Terra (CPT). 2023. Conflitos no campo Brasil 2022. Comissão Pastoral da Terra (CPT).

David-Chavez, D. M., and M. C. Gavin. 2018. A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environmental Research Letters 13(12):123005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf300

Deleuze, G. 1991. Bergsonism, reissue edition. Zone Books - MIT, New York, New York, USA.

Deleuze, G. 1995. Difference and repetition, revised ed. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1987. A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Ermgassen, E. K. H. J. zu, B. Ayre, J. Godar, M. G. B. Lima, S. Bauch, R. Garrett, J. Green, M. J. Lathuillière, P. Löfgren, C. MacFarquhar, P. Meyfroidt, C. Suavet, C. West, and T. Gardner. 2020. Using supply chain data to monitor zero deforestation commitments: an assessment of progress in the Brazilian soy sector. Environmental Research Letters 15(3):035003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6497

Escobar, A. 1992. Imagining a post-development era? Critical thought, development and social movements. Social Text 31/32:20-56. https://doi.org/10.2307/466217

Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400839926

Escobar, A. 2017. Sustaining the pluriverse: the political ontology of territorial struggles in Latin America. Pages 237-256 in M. Brightman and J. Lewis, editors. The anthropology of sustainability: beyond development and progress. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56636-2_14

Escobar, A. 2018. Designs for the pluriverse: radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making of worlds. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, USA. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822371816

Escobar, A. 2020. Pluriversal politics: the real and the possible. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781478012108

Eyster, H. N., T. Satterfield, and K. M. A. Chan. 2023. Empirical examples demonstrate how relational thinking might enrich science and practice. People and Nature 5(2):455-469. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10453

Fals-Borda, O. 1987. The application of participatory action-research in Latin America. International Sociology 2(4):329-347. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858098700200401

Fals-Borda, O., and M. A. Rahman, editors. 1991. Action and knowledge: breaking the monopoly with participatory action-research. The Apex Press, New York, New York, USA.

Fazey, I., N. Schäpke, G. Caniglia, A. Hodgson, I. Kendrick, C. Lyon, G. Page, J. Patterson, C. Riedy, T. Strasser, et al. 2020. Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: visions of future systems and how to get there. Energy Research & Social Science 70:101724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724

Fazey, I., N. Schäpke, G. Caniglia, J. Patterson, J. Hultman, B. van Mierlo, F. Säwe, A. Wiek, J. Wittmayer, P. Aldunce, et al. 2018. Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research. Energy Research & Social Science 40:54-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.026

Feola, G., O. Vincent, and D. Moore. 2021. (Un)making in sustainability transformation beyond capitalism. Global Environmental Change 69:102290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102290

Fisher, E., E. Brondizio, and E. Boyd. 2022. Critical social science perspectives on transformations to sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 55:101160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101160

Freire, P., and A. M. A. Freire. 1997. Pedagogy of the heart. Continuum, New York and London, UK.

Gould, R. K., D. E. Martinez, and K. R. Hoelting. 2023. Exploring Indigenous relationality to inform the relational turn in sustainability science. Ecosystems and People 19(1):2229452. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2229452

Hertz, T., A. Klein, M. Mancilla García, and M. Schlüter. 2025. Transforming a world that never stands still. Ecosystems and People 21(1):2469859. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2025.2469859

Hill, R., Ç. Adem, W. V. Alangui, Z. Molnár, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, P. Bridgewater, M. Tengö, R. Thaman, C. Y. Adou Yao, F. Berkes, J. Carino, M. Carneiro da Cunha, M. C. Diaw, S. Díaz, V. E. Figueroa, J. Fisher, P. Hardison, K. Ichikawa, P. Kariuki, M. Karki, P. O. Lyver, P. Malmer, O. Masardule, A. A. Oteng Yeboah, D. Pacheco, T. Pataridze, E. Perez, M.-M. Roué, H. Roba, J. Rubis, O. Saito, and D. Xue. 2020. Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 43:8-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006

Hogan, M. P., and S. A. Topkok. 2015. Teaching Indigenous methodology and an Iñupiaq example. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 4.

Indigenous Action. 2020. Rethinking the apocalypse: an Indigenous anti-futurist manifesto. https://www.indigenousaction.org/rethinking-the-apocalypse-an-indigenous-anti-futurist-manifesto/

Jecupé, K. W. 2020. A terra dos mil povos: história indígena do Brasil contada por um índio, 2nd ed. Editora Peirópolis, São Paulo.

Keating, A. 2021. Spiritual activism, pedagogies of the sacred, and social change: ontological invitations for transformation. Religion and Gender 11(1):94-98. https://doi.org/10.1163/18785417-01101008

Keating, A. 2012. Speculative realism, visionary pragmatism, and poet-shamanic aesthetics in Gloria Anzaldúa—and beyond. Women’s Studies Quarterly 40(3-4):51-69. https://doi.org/10.1353/wsq.2013.0020

Kovach, M. 2010. Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Krahô, C. P. 2018. Wato ne hômpu ne kãmpa: convivo, vejo e ouço a vida Mehi (Mãkrarè). Thesis, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brazil.

Krenak, A. 2022. Futuro ancestral, 1st ed. Companhia das Letras, São Paulo.

Krenak, A. 2019. Ideias para adiar o fim do mundo. Nova edição. Companhia das Letras, São Paulo, Brazil.

Leach, M., J. Rockström, P. Raskin, I. Scoones, A. C. Stirling, A. Smith, J. Thompson, E. Millstone, A. Ely, E. Arond, C. Folke, and P. Olsson. 2012. Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecology and Society 17(2):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04933-170211

Leme da Silva, A., C. de Souza, L. Eloy, and C. J. S. Passos. 2019. Políticas ambientais seletivas e expansão da fronteira agrícola no Cerrado: impactos sobre as comunidades locais numa unidade de conservação no oeste da Bahia. Revista NERA 47:321-347. https://doi.org/10.47946/rnera.v0i47.6274

Leme da Silva, A., S. A. D. Souza, O. Coelho Filho, L. Eloy, Y. B. Salmona, and C. J. S. Passos. 2021. Water appropriation on the agricultural frontier in Western Bahia and its contribution to streamflow reduction: revisiting the debate in the Brazilian Cerrado. Water 13(8):1054. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13081054

Levis, C., J. S. Rezende, J. P. L. Barreto, S. S. Barreto, F. Baniwa, C. Sateré-Mawé, F. Zuker, A. Alencar, M. Mugge, R. Simon de Moraes, A. Fuentes, M. Hirota, C. Fausto, and J. Biehl. 2024. Indigenizing conservation science for a sustainable Amazon. Science 386(6727):1229-1232. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn5616

Llanque Zonta, A., J. Jacobi, S. M. Mukhovi, E. Birachi, P. V. Groote, and C. R. Abad. 2023. The role of transdisciplinarity in building a decolonial bridge between science, policy, and practice. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 32(1): 107-114. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.32.1.7

Lugones, M. 2010. Toward a decolonial feminism. Hypatia 25(4):742-759. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01137.x

Lugones, M. 1992. On Borderlands/la frontera: an interpretive essay. Hypatia 7(4):31-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1992.tb00715.x

Maffie, J. 2015. Aztec philosophy: understanding a world in motion. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. https://doi.org/10.5876/9781607322238

Mancilla García, M., C. Abunge, S. O. Bandeira, C. Cheupe, D. J. Combane, T. Daw, E. M. Drury O’Neill, T. Hertz, M. Mubai, N. Muthiga, T. Sonetti González, and H. Shauri. 2024. Exploring a process-relational approach to qualitative research methods for sustainability science. People and Nature 6(4):1512-1523. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10667

Mancilla García, M., T. Hertz, and M. Schlüter. 2020a. Towards a process epistemology for the analysis of social-ecological systems. Environmental Values 29(2):221-239. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327119X15579936382608

Mancilla García, M., T. Hertz, M. Schlüter, R. Preiser, and M. Woermann. 2020b. Adopting process-relational perspectives to tackle the challenges of social-ecological systems research. Ecology and Society 25(1):29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11425-250129

MapBiomas. 2024. RAD2023: Relatório Anual do Desmatamento no Brasil 2023.

Martínez-Prieto, D. 2018. Indexation and ideologies: Latinx and Nahuatl terms in our identity journey. Journal of Latinos and Education 18(3):293-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2018.1432486

Massoud, M. F. 2022. The price of positionality: assessing the benefits and burdens of self-identification in research methods. Journal of Law and Society 49(S1):S64-S86. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12372

Max-Neef, M. A. 2005. Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics 53(1):5-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.014

Mignolo, W. D., and A. Escobar, editors. 2009. Globalization and the decolonial option. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315868448

Moraga, C., and G. Anzaldúa, editors. 1981. This bridge called my back: writings by radical Women of Color. Third Woman Press, Watertown, Massachusetts, USA.

Moreno-Cely, A., D. Cuajera-Nahui, C. G. Escobar-Vasquez, T. Vanwing, and N. Tapia-Ponce. 2021. Breaking monologues in collaborative research: bridging knowledge systems through a listening-based dialogue of wisdom approach. Sustainability Science 16:919-931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00937-8

Motta, R. S. da. 2015. The economics of biodiversity in Brazil: the case of forest conversion. IPEA, São Paulo, Brazil.

Nóbrega, R. L. B., P. H. L. Alencar, B. Baniwa, M.-C. Buell, P. L. B. Chaffe, D. Munduruku Pinto Correa, D. Munduruku Do Santos Correa, T. F. Domingues, A. Fleischmann, C. M. Furgal, L. L. Giatti, S. Huni Kui Oliveira da Silva, N. Inu Pereira Nunes Huni Kui, J. Alves Jenipapo-Kaninde, H. Li, A. F. Mendes Mamede, J. F. Moura, M. F. Nehemy, R. L. G. Pinheiro, P. R. Prist, S. C. Ribeiro, M. Tremembé, E. Bowness, F. M. França, and S. Stein. 2023. Co-developing pathways to protect nature, land, territory, and well-being in Amazonia. Communications Earth & Environment 4:364. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01026-7

O’Brien, K. 2012. Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress in Human Geography 36(5):667-676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425767

Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T. Hahn. 2004. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society 9(4):2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00683-090402

Olsson, P., L. H. Gunderson, S. R. Carpenter, P. Ryan, L. Lebel, C. Folke, and C. S. Holling. 2006. Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01595-110118

Olsson, P., and M.-L. Moore. 2024. A resilience-based transformations approach to peacebuilding and transformative justice. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 66:101392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101392

Oyěwùmí, O. 1997. The invention of women: making an African sense of Western gender discourses. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Paredes, J., and A. Guzmán. 2014. El tejido de la rebeldía: ¿qué es el feminismo comunitario? Bases para la despatriarcalización. Mujeres Creando Comunidad, La Paz.

Patterson, J., K. Schulz, J. Vervoort, S. van der Hel, O. Widerberg, C. Adler, M. Hurlbert, K. Anderton, M. Sethi, and A. Barau. 2017. Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 24:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001

Pratt, M. L. 2008. Imperial eyes: travel writing and transculturation. Third edition. Routledge, London, UK.

Quijano, A. 2000. Coloniality and modernity/rationality. Cultural Studies 21(2-3):168-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601164353

Rezende, G. C. 2002. Ocupação agrícola e estrutura agrária no cerrado: o papel do preço da terra, dos recursos naturais e da tecnologia. IPEA, Rio de Janeiro.

Riedy, C. 2020. Discourse coalitions for sustainability transformations: common ground and conflict beyond neoliberalism. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 45:100-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.09.014

Rivera Cusicanqui, S. 2018. Un mundo ch’ixi es posible: ensayos desde un presente en crisis. Tinta Limón, Buenos Aires.

Russo Lopes, G., M. G. Bastos Lima, and T. N. P. dos Reis. 2021. Maldevelopment revisited: inclusiveness and social impacts of soy expansion over Brazil’s Cerrado in Matopiba. World Development 139:105316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105316

Santos, A. B. dos, and S. Pereira. 2023. A terra dá, a terra quer, 1st ed. Ubu Editora, São Paulo.

Schiffer, E., and J. Hauck. 2010. Net-Map: collecting social network data and facilitating network learning through participatory influence network mapping. Field Methods 22(3):231-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10374798

Schiffer, E., and J. Peakes. 2009. An innovative approach to building stronger coalitions: the Net-Map Toolbox. Development in Practice 19(1):103-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520802576500

Schwartz-Shea, P., and D. Yanow. 2013. Interpretive research design: concepts and processes. Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203854907

Scoones, I., A. Stirling, D. Abrol, J. Atela, L. Charli-Joseph, H. Eakin, A. Ely, P. Olsson, L. Pereira, R. Priya, P. van Zwanenberg, and L. Yang. 2020. Transformations to sustainability: combining structural, systemic and enabling approaches. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42:65-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.004

Scott, C., and N. Tuana. 2017. Nepantla: writing (from) the in-between. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 31(1):1-15. https://doi.org/10.5325/jspecphil.31.1.0001

Segato, R. 2021. Crítica da colonialidade em oito ensaios: e uma antropologia por demanda, 1st ed. Bazar do Tempo.

Sharpe, B., A. Hodgson, G. Leicester, A. Lyon, and I. Fazey. 2016. Three horizons: a pathways practice for transformation. Ecology and Society 21(2):47. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08388-210247

Siegel, K. M., and M. G. Bastos Lima. 2020. When international sustainability frameworks encounter domestic politics: the sustainable development goals and agri-food governance in South America. World Development 135:105053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105053

Sievers-Glotzbach, S., and J. Tschersich. 2019. Overcoming the process-structure divide in conceptions of social-ecological transformation: assessing the transformative character and impact of change processes. Ecological Economics 164:106361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106361

Smith, L. T. 2012. Decolonizing methodologies: research and Indigenous peoples. Bloomsbury Publishing, New Zealand.

Sonetti-González, T. 2025. Transformations for communal sustainability: a pluriversal thinking. Dissertation. Université Libre de Bruxelles. https://difusion.ulb.ac.be/vufind/Record/ULB-DIPOT:oai:dipot.ulb.ac.be:2013/389856/Holdings

Sonetti-González, T., M. Mancilla García, M. Tengö, D. C. M. Tourne, F. De Castro, and C. R. T. Futemma. 2023. Foregrounding Amazonian women through decolonial and process-relational perspectives for transdisciplinary transformation. Ecosystems and People 19(1):2260503. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2260503

Steffen, W., K. Richardson, J. Rockström, S. E. Cornell, I. Fetzer, E. M. Bennett, R. Biggs, S. R. Carpenter, W. de Vries, C. A. de Wit, C. Folke, D. Gerten, J. Heinke, G. M. Mace, L. M. Persson, V. Ramanathan, B. Reyers, and S. Sörlin. 2015. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223):1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

Strassburg, B. B. N., T. Brooks, R. Feltran-Barbieri, A. Iribarrem, R. Crouzeilles, R. Loyola, A. E. Latawiec, F. J. B. Oliveira Filho, C. A. de M. Scaramuzza, F. R. Scarano, B. Soares-Filho, and A. Balmford. 2017. Moment of truth for the Cerrado hotspot. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1:1-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0099

Todd, Z. 2016. An Indigenous feminist’s take on the ontological turn: ‘ontology’ is just another word for colonialism. Journal of Historical Sociology 29(1):4-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/johs.12124

Tzul, G. T. 2018. Rebuilding communal life: Ixil women and the desire for life in Guatemala. NACLA Report on the Americas 50(4):404-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714839.2018.1550986

Vásquez-Fernández, A. M., and C. Ahenakew Pii Tai Poo Taa. 2020. Resurgence of relationality: reflections on decolonizing and indigenizing ‘sustainable development.’ Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 43:65-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.03.005

Vogel, C., and K. O’Brien. 2021. Getting to the heart of transformation. Sustainability Science 17:653-659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01016-8

Walter, M., and M. Suina. 2019. Indigenous data, Indigenous methodologies and Indigenous data sovereignty. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 22(3):233-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1531228

Whitehead, A. N. 1978. Process and reality, corrected edition. Free Press, New York, New York, USA.

Wynter, S. 2003. Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/freedom: towards the human, after man, its overrepresentation—an argument. CR: The New Centennial Review 3(3):257-337. https://doi.org/10.1353/ncr.2004.0015