Several movements conceptualise cities’ educational, cultural and urban/regional/transnational development aspects, such as Educating Cities (Villar, 1990), Children’s City (Tonucci, 1996), Eurocities (Joukes & Costa, 2015) or URBACT’s “heritage as an opportunity” (Aymonino, 1988). Cultural tourism/Edutourism have also played important roles, cultural tourism being a non-formal, lifelong education formula led by the individuals (Richards, 1996). Monitoring people’s opinion about the city and getting them to actively participate in projects also enlightens those movements (Alves, 2003; Wood, 2002). In this context, it was carried out a research on Chaves’s historic centre renewal and the study of the Roman Baths (Carneiro, 2013), whose rationale considered educational communities as partners responsible for their own development based mostly in enhancing heritage and the thereof ensuing tourism (Costa, 2009; Diniz et al, 2014). Results showed that teachers value urban renewal processes, while being critical, though. They also stress the rural environment, asserting that the community must decide on the role they want the historic centre to play on the development of the city/region, emphasising information, training and dissemination. The historic centre should be a space for families to live in and is referred to as a multiple use educational resource of formal education strategies (social constructivist paradigm of development). As to students, their view of the historic centre revolves around their youth experiences: visits to pubs and walks through the green areas on either side of the river, considered as part of the historic center (although it is not officially so). For visitors, in the city/historic centre one can enjoy both heritage, nature and history. Guided tours are especially sought-after (tourism as a non-formal/lifelong learning strategy). Like students, visitors “extended” the historic centre to the river, combining nature with built heritage, which leads to new reflections about territorial, physical and conceptual boundaries in urban environments.

Alves, F. (2003). Avaliação da qualidade do espaço público urbano; proposta metodológica. Lisboa: Fundação Gulbenkian. Aymonino, C. (1975). Il significato della città. Roma: Bari. Carneiro, S. (2013). As termas medicinais romanas de Chaves. In Arnaud, Martins, Neves, Arqueologia em Portugal. 150 anos (793–802). S. l.: Associação Arqueólogos Portugueses. Costa, I. (2009). Métodos de investigação em animação turística: reflexões sobre um projeto em torno dos turistas e das intervenções arqueológicas na cidade de Chaves. In A. Peres, & M. Lopes. Animação turística (183-198). Chaves: APAP. Diniz, F., Costa, I., Joukes, V., Morais, D, Pereira, V. (2014). Estudos de monitorização de impactos da valorização do património no turismo e nas comunidades educativas. Vila Real: UTAD-CETRAD. Richards, Greg (1996). Cultural Tourism in Europe. CABI, Wallingford. Joukes, V., Costa, I. (2015). Eurocidade Chaves-Verín: regional development strengthened by spa-linked research and professional education. In Peris-Ortiz and Álvarez-García, Health and Wellness Tourism, (47-62). NY: Springer. Tonucci, F. (1996). La ciudad de los niños. Madrid: Fundación German Ruiperez. URBACT - http://urbact.eu/ Wood, M. (2002). Resident participation in urban and community renewal. No 23. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. Villar, M (2001). A cidade educadora: nova perspetiva de organização e intervenção municipal. Lisboa: Instituto Piaget.