Abstract
In this paper we suggest that a new theoretical framework is needed within environmental education in the discussion of rural, underserved communities in Latin America. We argue that a community-resources approach, comprised of funds of knowledge and social capital, should be incorporated into contemporary research on place- and community-based education and environmental behavior. The model we present builds upon previous research in the areas of education, anthropology, social capital, and environmental education. These perspectives are discussed in accordance with their relevance to high school students in one of the most bio-diverse regions of Central America: the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica. In this context, we suggest that promoting environmental behavior is both contextualized by and dependent upon social and community interactions, or ‘mediations,’ after Lev S. Vygotsky. We believe that the framework presented here may contribute to increased socio-economic, academic, and environmental benefits for underserved, Latin American communities.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank The Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment for its institutional and financial support, as well as Emily Arnold Mest for her administrative oversight. We would like to recognize MUIR undergraduate research interns Rosemary Mena-Werth and Nicole Bennett-Fite for their assistance and fieldwork contributions, as well as Stanford researcher Autumn Albers and Stanford ecology doctoral candidate Beth Morrison for their pedagogical expertise and program implementation. We give special thanks to Dr. Rodolfo Dirzo and Dr. Nicole Ardoin for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Finally, we would like to offer our deep gratitude to the students, families, and businesses with whom we worked, and to colleagues in southern Costa Rica too numerous to name, a few of whom include Travis Bays, Juan José Jiménez Espinoza, Reinaldo Aguilar, Alberto Herrera, Mario Cambronero, Hermiley Alvarado, and Dayana Zúñiga who generously invited us into their communities.
Notes
1. It is important to recognize and underscore that a particular rural, underserved audience in Central America, in this case in the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica, should not be generalized to represent rural, underserved audiences throughout Latin America more generally despite any similarities or differences. Our emphasis on rural underserved students in Latin America should instead be understood as one example of such until further EE research among rural underserved audiences in Latin America is forthcoming.
2. Land use change on the Osa Peninsula has caused concern for non-human species’ interactions and stability (Broadbent et al. Citation2012). Increased deforestation (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. Citation2002), the cultivation of mono-crop agriculture, specifically African oil palm (Beggs and Moore Citation2013) and rice (Forestelli and Angulo Aguilar Citation2013), cattle ranching (Naughton Citation1993), and large scale infrastructure projects (Murillo Citation2012; Umaña Citation2013) all pose serious challenges to the ecology of the region. Although we do not provide an exhaustive review here, development on the Osa Peninsula can trace its socio-political antecedents to the exclusion of indigenous peoples (Miller Citation2006; Umaña Citation2013), pre-Columbian and industrial agriculture (Rodriguez and Smith Citation1994; Clement and Horn Citation2001), diffuse economic and political power (Silva Citation2003), and tourism (Horton Citation2009; Fletcher Citation2012). While tourism and specifically ecotourism and nature-based jobs have been shown to have positive social and environmental impacts in Neotropical countries (Stem et al. Citation2003; Janzen Citation2004; Gordillo Jordan et al. Citation2008; Stronza Citation2010; De Koning et al. Citation2011), in Costa Rica (Almeyda et al. Citation2010) and along its southern Pacific coast (Kull, Ibrahim, and Meredith Citation2007; Zambrano, Broadbent, and Durham Citation2010; Driscoll et al. Citation2011; Hunt et al. Citation2015), the stability of the larger socio-economic context of these developing regions remains central for sustainable development (Becker Citation1998).
3. We broadly define EB as ‘behavior that consciously seeks to minimize the negative impact of one’s actions on the natural and built world’ (Kollmuss and Agyeman Citation2002, 240), but with the critical perspective that environmental problems are anchored in society and our lifestyles (Jensen and Schnack Citation1997), calling for a non-prescriptive approach to education that advocates democratic participation, strategic analysis, and public action (Jensen and Schnack Citation1997; Jensen Citation2002; Chawla and Cushing Citation2007). In this sense, our definition of EB attempts to incorporate both environmental and social well-being.
4. We define underserved as individuals or groups possessing one or more of the following characteristics: low-income, racial/ethnic minority, and being first-generation high school or college students.
5. Culturally and linguistically informed science education and EE in the US is ever more in need as the divergence in environmental priorities and behavior types between Caucasians, Latinos, and African-Americans has grown (Chavez Citation2005; Whittaker, Segura, and Bowler Citation2005; Lee Citation2008). Additionally, EE studies within US minority (Latino and African-American) communities typically have been addressed in an urban context (Schultz, Unipan, and Gamba Citation2000; Chavez Citation2005; Strife and Downey Citation2009; Kudryavtsev, Krasny, and Stedman Citation2012), leaving a paucity of research and discussion on their rural counterparts (Lopez et al. Citation2007).
6. We borrow from Andrews, Stevens, and Wise’s (Citation2002, 164–165) use of ‘community-based’ education as ‘more than “education based in the community.” It implies an education plan created as a result of community involvement and designed to match community interests. “Community interests” refer to standard community issues, such as affordable housing or workforce development, as well as activities with a recognizable environmental component such as road building, stormwater management, “permitting” a new development, or addressing environmental health concerns in an urban neighborhood. Ideally, the education plan helps strengthen citizens’ skills to plan or act with the environment in mind.’
7. Academic delineation of the term community is wide-ranging and beyond the scope of this paper. However, our use of the word centers on its actualized social form and its collective identity, thus incorporating notions of both interaction and ideation (for a more extensive review, see Amit Citation2002). In practice, community was used to (a) include individuals who reside in and/or conduct social and/or business responsibilities in and around the town of Puerto Jiménez, and/or (b) include individuals who self-identify with the ‘green’ economy (tourism, eco-tourism, sustainability, conservation, and social development).
8. We define place-based education as inter-disciplinary, inter-generational pedagogy that is specific to the geographical, ecological, socio-cultural, economic, and historical phenomena of that place, including experiences both inside and beyond the classroom. In that regard, we borrow from Gruenewald and Smith’s (Citation2014, xvi) working definition: ‘place-based education can be understood as a community-based effort to reconnect the process of education, enculturation, and human development to the well-being of community life …. [It] introduces children and youth to the skills and dispositions needed to regenerate and sustain communities. It achieves this end by drawing on local phenomena as the source of at least a share of children’s learning experiences, helping them understand the processes that underlie the health of the natural and social systems essential to human welfare. In contrast to conventional schooling with its focus on distant events and standardized knowledge, education conscious of place systematically inducts students into the knowledge and patterns of behavior associated with responsible community engagement.’
Broadbent, E. N., A. M. A. Zambrano, R. Dirzo, W. H. Durham, L. Driscoll, P. Gallagher, R. Salters, J. Schultz, A. Colmenares, and S. G. Randolph. 2012. “The Effect of Land Use Change and Ecotourism on Biodiversity: A Case Study of Manuel Antonio, Costa Rica, from 1985 to 2008.” Landscape Ecology 27 (5): 731–744.10.1007/s10980-012-9722-7 Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A., B. Rivard, J. Calvo, and I. Moorthy. 2002. “Dynamics of Tropical Deforestation around National Parks: Remote Sensing of Forest Change on the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica.” Mountain Research and Development 22 (4): 352–358.10.1659/0276-4741(2002)022[0352:DOTDAN]2.0.CO;2 Beggs, E., and E. Moore. 2013. The Social Landscape of African Oil Palm Production in the Osa and Golfito Region, Costa Rica. Stanford, CA: INOGO, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Forestelli, R. M., and J. E. Angulo Aguilar. 2013. Panorama socioconómico de los cantones de Osa & Golfito: tendencias y desafíos para el desarrollo sostenible. Stanford, CA: INOGO, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Naughton, L. 1993. Conservation versus Artisanal Gold Mining in Corcovado National Park, Costa Rica: Land Use Conflicts at Neotropical Wilderness Frontiers. Yearbook. Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers 19: 47–55. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25765784. Murillo, K. 2012. El Proyecto de Aeropuerto Internacional para el Sur: Contexto, Percepciones y Perspectivas. San José: INOGO, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Umaña, Á. 2013. El Proyecto Hidroeléctrico El Diquís y el Humedal Nacional Térraba Sierpe: Análisis de impactos potenciales y viabilidad future. San José: INOGO, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Miller, M. J. 2006. “Biodiversity Policy Making in Costa Rica Pursuing Indigenous and Peasant Rights.” The Journal of Environment & Development 15 (4): 359–381.10.1177/1070496506294801 Umaña, Á. 2013. El Proyecto Hidroeléctrico El Diquís y el Humedal Nacional Térraba Sierpe: Análisis de impactos potenciales y viabilidad future. San José: INOGO, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Rodriguez, A. G., and S. M. Smith. 1994. “A Comparison of Determinants of Urban, Rural and Farm Poverty in Costa Rica.” World Development 22 (3): 381–397.10.1016/0305-750X(94)90129-5 Clement, R. M., and S. P. Horn. 2001. “Pre-Columbian Land-use History in Costa Rica: A 3000-year Record of Forest Clearance, Agriculture and Fires from Laguna Zoncho.” The Holocene 11 (4): 419–426.10.1191/095968301678302850 Silva, E. 2003. “Selling Sustainable Development and Shortchanging Social Ecology in Costa Rican Forest Policy.” Latin American Politics and Society 45 (3): 93–127.10.2307/3177160 Horton, L. R. 2009. “Buying up Nature.” Latin American Perspectives 36 (3): 93–107.10.1177/0094582X09334299 Fletcher, R. 2012. “Using the Master’s Tools? Neoliberal Conservation and the Evasion of Inequality.” Development and Change 43 (1): 295–317.10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01751.x Stem, C. J., J. P. Lassoie, D. R. Lee, D. D. Deshler, and J. W. Schelhas. 2003. “Community Participation in Ecotourism Benefits: The Link to Conservation Practices and Perspectives.” Society & Natural Resources 16 (5): 387–413.10.1080/08941920309177 Janzen, D. H. 2004. “Setting up Tropical Biodiversity for Conservation through Non-damaging Use: Participation by Parataxonomists.” Journal of Applied Ecology 41 (1): 181–187.10.1111/jpe.2004.41.issue-1 Gordillo Jordan, J. F., C. Hunt, A. Stronza, and W. H. Durham. 2008. “An Ecotourism Partnership in the Peruvian Amazon: The Case of Posada Amazonas.” In Ecotourism and Conservation in the Americas, edited by Amanda Stronza and William H. Durham, 30–48. Cambridge, MA: CAB International.10.1079/9781845934002.0000 Stronza, A. 2010. “Commons Management and Ecotourism: Ethnographic Evidence from the Amazon.” International Journal of the Commons 4 (1): 56–77. De Koning, F., M. Aguiñaga, M. Bravo, M. Chiu, M. Lascano, T. Lozada, and L. Suarez. 2011. “Bridging the Gap between Forest Conservation and Poverty Alleviation: The Ecuadorian Socio Bosque Program.” Environmental Science & Policy 14 (5): 531–542.10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.007 Almeyda, A. M., E. N. Broadbent, M. S. Wyman, and W. H. Durham. 2010. “Ecotourism Impacts in the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica.” International Journal of Tourism Research 12 (6): 803–819.10.1002/jtr.v12:6 Kull, C. A., C. K. Ibrahim, and T. C. Meredith. 2007. “Tropical Forest Transitions and Globalization: Neo-liberalism, Migration, Tourism, and International Conservation Agendas.” Society and Natural Resources 20 (8): 723–737.10.1080/08941920701329702 Zambrano, A. M. A., E. N. Broadbent, and W. H. Durham. 2010. “Social and Environmental Effects of Ecotourism in the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica: The Lapa Rios Case.” Journal of Ecotourism 9 (1): 62–83.10.1080/14724040902953076 Driscoll, L., C. Hunt, M. Honey, and W. H. Durham. 2011. The Importance of Ecotourism as a Development and Conservation Tool in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Washington, DC: Center For Responsible Travel (CREST). Hunt, C. A., W. H. Durham, L. Driscoll, and M. Honey. 2015. “Can Ecotourism Deliver Real Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits? A Study of the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23 (3): 339–357.10.1080/09669582.2014.965176 Becker, J. 1998. “Examples of Sustainable Development Efforts in Costa Rica.” International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 5 (3): 172–181.10.1080/13504509809469981 Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to pro-Environmental Behavior?” Environmental Education Research 8 (3): 239–260.10.1080/13504620220145401 Jensen, B. B., and K. Schnack. 1997. “The Action Competence Approach in Environmental Education.” Environmental Education Research 3 (2): 163–178.10.1080/1350462970030205 Jensen, B. B., and K. Schnack. 1997. “The Action Competence Approach in Environmental Education.” Environmental Education Research 3 (2): 163–178.10.1080/1350462970030205 Jensen, B. B. 2002. “Knowledge, Action and pro-Environmental Behaviour.” Environmental Education Research 8 (3): 325–334.10.1080/13504620220145474 Chawla, L., and D. F. Cushing. 2007. “Education for Strategic Environmental Behavior.” Environmental Education Research 13 (4): 437–452.10.1080/13504620701581539 Chavez, D. J. 2005. “Natural Areas and Urban Populations: Communication and Environmental Education Challenges and Actions in Outdoor Recreation.” Journal of Forestry 103 (8): 407–410. Whittaker, M., G. M. Segura, and S. Bowler. 2005. “Racial/Ethnic Group Attitudes toward Environmental Protection in California: Is ‘Environmentalism’ Still a White Phenomenon?” Political Research Quarterly 58 (3): 435–447. Lee, E. B. 2008. “Environmental Attitudes and Information Sources among African American College Students.” The Journal of Environmental Education 40 (1): 29–42.10.3200/JOEE.40.1.29-42 Schultz, P. W., J. B. Unipan, and R. J. Gamba. 2000. “Acculturation and Ecological Worldview among Latino Americans.” The Journal of Environmental Education 31 (2): 22–27.10.1080/00958960009598635 Chavez, D. J. 2005. “Natural Areas and Urban Populations: Communication and Environmental Education Challenges and Actions in Outdoor Recreation.” Journal of Forestry 103 (8): 407–410. Strife, S., and L. Downey. 2009. “Childhood Development and Access to Nature a New Direction for Environmental Inequality Research.” Organization & Environment 22 (1): 99–122.10.1177/1086026609333340 Kudryavtsev, A., M. E. Krasny, and R. C. Stedman. 2012. “The Impact of Environmental Education on Sense of Place among Urban Youth.” Ecosphere 3 (4): 1–15. Lopez, A., C. C. Torres, B. Boyd, N. J. Silvy, and R. R. Lopez. 2007. “Texas Latino College Student Attitudes toward Natural Resources and the Environment.” Journal of Wildlife Management 71 (4): 1275–1280.10.2193/2006-480 Andrews, E., M. Stevens, and G. Wise. 2002. “A Model of Community-based Environmental Education.” In New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information, and Voluntary Measures, edited by Thomas Dietz and Paul C. Stern, 161–182. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Amit, Vered, ed. 2002. Realizing Community: Concepts, Social Relationships and Sentiments. London: Psychology Press. Gruenewald, D. A., and G. A. Smith, eds. 2014. Place-based Education in the Global Age: Local Diversity. New York: Routledge.