Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The difference biocultural “place” makes to community efforts towards sustainable development: Youth participatory action research in a marine protected area of Colombia

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Review of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Latin American concept of “(collective) biocultural heritage” arose from Indigenous knowledge and practices with respect to local natural resources and environment, including the food being hunted, the crops being grown, and the landscapes being created. The term is now used more widely to describe community practices, goals and priorities that are determined, maintained and managed by diverse cultural relationships with “place”. The study presented in this article investigated biocultural place relationships in connection with well-being and sustainability. In the context of learning and action for sustainability in Isla Grande, an island in a marine protected area of Colombia, this study targeted the significance of place to the everyday lives of Afro-Colombian youth – from their perspective. Beyond aiming to merely observe and collect data, the methodology included a research design which actively involved local youth and incorporated the aspect of place. The authors describe and reflect on the processes, learning and action that emerged throughout the research, as well as the study’s limitations. They discuss broad implications in terms of how place relationships influence research, and how research influences place relationships. Local implications include supporting the voice of youth in community efforts to re-imagine and transform place relationships in response to critical place issues such as climate change, top-down resource management, privatisation, commodification and growing environmental injustice.

Résumé

Importance du « milieu » bioculturel dans les efforts communautaires pour le développement durable : recherche-action participative avec des jeunes dans une zone de protection marine en Colombie – Le concept latino-américain de « patrimoine bioculturel (collectif) » est issu des connaissances et pratiques autochtones relatives aux ressources naturelles locales et à l’environnement, par exemple la nourriture issue de la chasse, la récolte de cultures et l’aménagement de paysages. Le terme est désormais utilisé plus largement pour décrire les pratiques communautaires, les objectifs et priorités qui sont déterminés, maintenus et gérés par diverses relations culturelles avec le « milieu » . L’étude présentée dans cet article traite les relations avec les milieux bioculturels sous l’angle du bien-être et de la pérennité. Dans le contexte de l’apprentissage et de l’action pour le développement durable à Isla Grande, île située dans une zone de protection marine en Colombie, l’étude examine l’importance du milieu dans la vie quotidienne des jeunes afro-colombiens, à partir de leur point de vue. Au-delà de la simple observation et de la collecte de données, la méthodologie comporte un modèle de recherche qui implique activement la jeunesse locale et intègre l’aspect du milieu. Les auteures décrivent et analysent les processus, l’apprentissage et l’action qui sont apparus tout au long de l’étude ainsi que les limites de cette recherche. Elles présentent les vastes implications quant à l’influence des liens avec le milieu sur la recherche, et inversement. Parmi les implications locales figure le soutien de l’opinion des jeunes dans les efforts communautaires pour réinventer et transformer les relations avec le milieu, en réaction aux questions centrales tels le changement climatique, la gestion descendante des ressources, la privatisation, la marchandisation et l’injustice environnementale croissante.

Resumen

La diferencia biocultural “lugar” hace a los esfuerzos de la comunidad para el desarrollo sostenible: Investigación participativa de la acción de la juventud en un área marina protegida de Colombia – El concepto latinoamericano de “patrimonio biocultural (colectivo)” surgió del conocimiento y las prácticas indígenas con respecto a los recursos naturales locales y el medio ambiente, incluidos los alimentos que se cazan, los cultivos que se cultivan y los paisajes que se crean. El término ahora se usa más ampliamente para describir prácticas, metas y prioridades de la comunidad que son determinadas, mantenidas y manejadas por diversas relaciones culturales con “lugar”. El estudio presentado en este artículo se centro en la investigación sobre las relaciones bioculturales en relación con el bienestar y la sostenibilidad de la comunidad y el territorio. En el contexto del aprendizaje y la acción para la sostenibilidad en Isla Grande (Área Marina Protegida de las Islas del Rosario y San Bernardo de Colombia), este estudio se centró en la importancia del lugar para la vida cotidiana de los jóvenes afrocolombianos. Además de tener como objetivo meramente observar y recopilar datos, la metodología incluyó un diseño de investigación que involucró activamente a los jóvenes locales e incorporó el aspecto del lugar. Los autores describen y reflexionan sobre los procesos, el aprendizaje y la acción que surgieron a lo largo de la investigación, así como las limitaciones del estudio. Se discuten las implicaciones en términos de cómo las relaciones de lugar influyen en la investigación, y cómo la investigación influye las relaciones de lugar. Las implicaciones locales incluyen: apoyar la voz de los jóvenes en los esfuerzos de la comunidad para volver a imaginar y transformar las relaciones de lugar en respuesta a problemas críticos como el cambio climático, la administración de recursos de arriba hacia abajo, la privatización, la mercantilización y la creciente injusticia ambiental.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Participatory research is an approach that values research with instead of on participants, by decolonising “expert” knowledge to empower local experiences; action-oriented research addresses shared concerns through problem identification, data collection, interpretation and reflection, and action to create change.

  2. This article was co-authored by a Canadian doctoral researcher (primary author) and a Colombian community consultant (second author), to reflect participatory processes throughout the research study. The primary author contributed significant written effort related to article focus, broad theoretical context, site relevance, research orientation, practice and process. The second author offered contextual details on community efforts towards sustainable development and the lives of youth in Isla Grande, Colombia. In addition, a community leader and native Islander verified community context details.

  3. Biocultural place relationships refer to the diverse connections between human culture and the natural environment.

  4. The carrying capacity of a biological species refers to the maximum population size that can be sustained indefinitely in a given environment.

  5. Diaspora refers to the dispersion of people from their ancestral homelands.

  6. This article considers how youth understand and experience interdependence. We recognise that this emphasis does not illuminate entanglement through the reciprocal, “first-person” lens of non-humans. Parallel considerations would lead to a more comprehensive view of the inter- and intra-actions that are engaged in shaping place relationships.

  7. This article describes research in partial fulfilment of a doctoral thesis. Thus, the methodological approach described was pre-conceptualised, yet semi-structured, to allow for community and youth input. The research proposal was drafted through pre-field collaboration between the lead researcher (Jennifer McRuer) and the community consultant (Margarita Zethelius) to align objectives.

  8. Site community selection: The community consultant has worked for 15 years on sustainable development initiatives in Isla Grande. The lead researcher was invited to carry out research in the community in 2012 while undertaking an MSc in Conservation and Rural Development. This current study expands former research and supports consultancy.

  9. “YPAR (Youth-led Participatory Action Research) is an innovative approach to positive youth and community development based in social justice principles in which young people are trained to conduct systematic research to improve their lives, their communities, and the institutions intended to serve them” (YPAR Hub 2015).

  10. Participatory planning refers to a community-driven process to envision, support and enact desirable sustainable development directions, now and in the future.

  11. The Plan de Vida for Isla Grande currently lacks a well-defined reference to the concept of well-being. Through community consultation, our research focus on buen vivir was a valued contribution to the ongoing development of the Plan de Vida.

  12. Gaia Education provides holistic education programmes and tools for sustainable development and is an active member of UNESCO’s Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development; the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN) is an international alliance developing strategies for sustainable development through intentional communities, or ecovillages. Both Gaia Education and GEN are recognised as contributing partners to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Moreover, they have been influential in the development of Isla Grande’s Plan de Vida.

  13. Current (undocumented) population estimate: 1,000 residents (Personal communication, Ever de la Rosa, July 2016).

  14. The United Nations (UN) defines youth as 15–24 years of age (UN WPAY 2010), while the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child describes a child as being under the age of 18 (UN 1989). In this article, “youth” refers to an age cohort of 18–24.

  15. In Colombia, children start primary school (Grades 1–5) at age 6. They progress to basic secondary school (Grades 6– 9) at age 11, and to mid-secondary school (Grades 10–11) at age 15.

  16. All initial eighteen youth were invited to participate, but in the end, the six identified youth chose to participate, as demonstrated by their involvement across all research sessions. Thus the gender of participants was not a recruitment criterion, but their interest and willingness to dedicate their time was.

  17. Critical consciousness refers to an in-depth understanding of the world related to social, political, economic, and environmental injustices; the ways we are affected by, and contribute to, these injustices; and how we can act to support change that promotes personal and collective well-being.

  18. Polylogic research processes explicitly refer to how place (e.g. the spatial and historical interactions in physical locations that influence, and are influenced by, social practices) can either constrain or enable research, alongside the methodological techniques used and the power dynamics often created by researcher–subject relationships (Anderson et al. 2010; Massey 2005).

  19. Biocultural relationships were not explicitly targeted. As a laden term not universally understood across contexts, cultures and generations (Adams 2004; UNESCO 2008), biocultural relationships were instead probed during group reflection sessions.

  20. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) use computer software to visualise, analyse and interpret geographic/spatial data to explore relationships, patterns and trends.

  21. The mapping application was developed by Arizona State University researchers, sponsored by the United States National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health.

  22. The English expression “par for the course” means what is normal or to be expected in any given circumstances.

  23. The Esri Story Map platform facilitates the presentation of visual, audio, textual and mapping data through an interactive online story that can be widely shared with a broad audience. The Story Map for this study can be viewed at: http://arcg.is/2bITUzX (in English); http://arcg.is/2dUGW0Z (in Spanish).

  24. Place-making refers to how research ideas, methods and analysis may influence, shape or introduce understandings of place that differ from the worldviews held by participants, community members or research audiences.

  25. Place-bound recognises that existing place contexts and realities may influence research approaches. It does not suggest that place is fixed and static, but maintains assertions of fluidity and porosity as relationships shift over time. It acknowledges that these relationships impact moments of research and require flexible research designs.

  26. Youth participant. NB: Youth permission was granted to use their given names in publication.

References

  • Adams, M. (2004). Negotiating nature: Collaboration and conflict between Aboriginal and conservation interests in New South Wales, Australia. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 20(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J., Adey, P., & Bevan, P. (2010). Positioning place: Polylogic approaches to research methodology. Qualitative Research, 10(5), 589–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, K. I. (2015). What a difference place makes: Place gestalt and some methodological thoughts. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(1), 20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borda, O. F. (2006). The North-South convergence: A 30-year first-person assessment of PAR. Action Research, 4(3), 351–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future. The Brundtland report. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 28 September 2017 from http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf.

  • Caquard, S., Pyne, S., Igloliorte, H., Mierins, K., Hayes, A., & Fraser Taylor, D. R. (2009). A “living” atlas for geospatial storytelling: The cybercartographic atlas of indigenous perspectives and knowledge of the Great Lakes Region. Cartographica, 44(2), 83–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, S. (2001). Participation and geographical information. Position paper for the ESF-NSF Workshop on Access to geographic information and participatory approaches using geographic information, Spoleto, 6–8 December [archived online]. Wageningen: Participatory Avenues; Integrated Approaches to Participatory Development (IAPAD). Retrieved 19 September 2017 from http://www.iapad.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Participation_and_Geographic_Information_a_position_paper.pdf.

  • CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). (2008). Protected areas in today’s world: Their values and benefits for the welfare of the planet. CBD technical series No. 36. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved 19 September 2017 from https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-36-en.pdf.

  • CBD. (2009). Elements of sui generis systems for the protection of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices. UNEP/CBD/WG8J/6/5. Montreal: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Working Group. Retrieved 19 September 2017 from http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/tk/wg8j-06/official/wg8j-06-05-en.doc.

  • Chapin, M., Lamb, Z., & Threlkeld, B. (2005). Mapping indigenous lands. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 619–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cocks, M. L., & Wiersum, K. F. (2014). Reappraising the concept of biological diversity: A perspective from South Africa. Human Ecology, 42(5), 727–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Consejo Comunitario Orika de las Islas del Rosario (Orika Communitarian Council of the Rosario Islands). (2014). Plan de vida [life plan]. Unpublished community development plan. Consejo Comunitario Orika de las Islas del Rosario, Isla Grande, Colombia.

  • Davidson-Hunt, I. J., Turner, K. L., Mead, A., Cabrera-Lopez, J., Bolton, R., Idrobo, J., et al. (2012). Biocultural design: A new conceptual framework for sustainable development in rural indigenous and local communities. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society, 5(2), 33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • DT-IC/RIMISP (Desarrollo Territorial con Identidad Cultural de RIMISP [Territorial Development with Cultural Identity Programme of the Latin American Centre for Rural Development]). (2016). Biocultural diversity and territories platform for sustainable inclusive development [online resource]. Retrieved 19 September 2017 from www.bioculturaldiversityandterritory.org/pg.base.php?id=7&id_news=341&lang=en.

  • Durán Bernal‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬, C. A. (2007). Es nuestra isla para dos? Conflicto por el desarrollo y la conservación en Islas del Rosario, Cartagena [Is it our island for two? Conflict over the development and conservation in Islas del Rosario, Cartagena]. Bogotá‬‬: Universidad de Los Andes.

  • Elwood, S., & Cope, M. S. (2009). Introduction. In S. Elwood & M. S. Cope (Eds.), Qualitative GIS: A mixed methods approach (pp. 1–12). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, A. (2008). Territories of difference: Place, movements, life, redes. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, A. (2011). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Chicago, IL: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiori, L. (2001). Programa de Educación Ambiental del Parque Nacional Natural Corales del Rosario. Informe preliminar presentado por el convenio de cooperación interinstitucional entre: Conservación Internacional, UAESPNN, CEINER, SENA-Cartagena, Cuerpo de Guardacostas CIDEA, CARDIQUE, Capitanía de Puertos, Colombia [Environmental education programme of the National Natural Park Corales del Rosario. Preliminary (unpublished) report submitted by the interagency cooperation agreement between: Conservation International UAESPNN, CEINER, SENA-Cartagena, CIDEA, CARDIQUE, Capitanía de Puertos. Colombia].

  • Fiori, L. (2005). Aportes para una estrategia de educación ambiental [Contributions for environmental education strategy; special report for the administrative unit of National Natural Parks]. Bogotá: Unidad Administrativa Especial del Sistema de Parques Nacionales Naturales (UAESPNN).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fundación Surtigas. (2009). Datos y cifras de la realidad económica y social de Isla Grande [Data and figures of the economic and social realities of Isla Grande]. Internal report. Cartagena de Indias: Fundación Surtigas.

  • Gaia Education. (2012). Ecovillage design education: A four-week comprehensive course in the fundamentals of sustainability design curriculum. Version 5. Curriculum conceived and designed by the GEESE – Global Ecovillage Educators for a Sustainable Earth. Forres: Gaia Education, Findhorn Scotland [online resource]. Retrieved 19 September 2017 from http://www.gaiaeducation.org/docs/publications/EDE%20Curriculum%20English%20V5.pdf.

  • Gavin, M. C., McCarter, J., Mead, A., Berkes, F., Stepp, J. R., Peterson, D., et al. (2015). Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(3), 140–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GEN (Global Ecovillage Network). (2014). Connecting communities for a sustainable world [online resource]. Retrieved 4 November 2017 from https://ecovillage.org/about/gen/.

  • Gudynas, E. (2011). Buen vivir: Today’s tomorrow. Development, 54(4), 441–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. J. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herlihy, P. H., & Knapp, G. (2003). Maps of, by, and for the peoples of Latin America. Human Organization, 62(4), 303–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2008). Bindings against boundaries: Entanglements of life in an open world. Environment and Planning A, 40(8), 1796–1810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. London/New York: Routldedge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. J. S., & De Santo, E. M. (2016). Viewpoint: Is the race for remote, very large marine protected areas (VLMPAs) taking us down the wrong track? Marine Policy, 73, 231–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesby, M., Kindon, S., & Pain, R. (2013). Participatory research. In R. Flowerdew & D. Martin (Eds.), Methods in human geography: A guide for students doing a research project (pp. 144–166). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. (2016). Youth involvement in Participatory action research (PAR): Challenges and barriers. Critical Social Work, 17(1). Retrieved 19 September 2017 from http://www1.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/youth_involvement.

  • Krygier, J. (2002). A praxis of public participation: GIS and visualization. In W. Craig, T. Harris, & D. Weiner (Eds.), Community participation and geographic information systems (pp. 330–345). London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. New York: Algonquin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClean, N. (2013). Being on country: Githabul approaches to mapping culture. In S. Brockwell, S. O’Connor, & D. Bryne (Eds), Transcending the culture–nature divide in cultural heritage (pp. 83–99). Terra Australis: Views from the Asia–Pacific region, 36. Canberra, AU: Australian National University. Retrieved 19 September 2017 from http://press.anu.edu.au/publications/series/terra-australis/transcending-culture%E2%80%93nature-divide-cultural-heritage-terra.

  • McRuer, J. (2016). Capturing youth voices: Exploring changes in natural and social environments in relation to sense of place. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Nascimento Souto, P. C. (2015). Creating knowledge with and from the differences: The required dialogicality and dialogical competences. Revista de Administração e Inovação, 12(2), 60–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newing, H., Eagle, C. M., Puri, R., & Watson, C. W. (2011). Conducting research in conservation: Social science methods and practice. London UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pain, R., & Francis, P. (2003). Reflections on participatory research. Area, 35(1), 46–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pink, S. (2008). Mobilising visual ethnography: Making routes, making place and making images. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radcliffe, S. A. (2012). Development for a postneoliberal era? Sumak kawsay, living well and the limits to decolonisation in Ecuador. Geoforum, 43(2), 240–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, L. F. (2016). Marine protected areas in Colombia: Advances in conservation and barriers for effective governance. Ocean and Coastal Management, 125, 49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiffer, M. (2002). Spatial multimedia representations to support community participation. In W. Craig, T. Harris, & D. Weiner (Eds.), Community participation and geographic information systems (pp. 309–320). London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soini, K. (2001). Exploring human dimensions of multifunctional landscapes through mapping and map-making. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57(3), 225–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swiderska, K. (2006). Protecting traditional knowledge: A holistic approach based on customary laws and bio-cultural heritage. In K. Ninan (Ed.), Conserving and valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity (pp. 331–344). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terralingua (2014). Terralingua biocultural diversity education initiative: An overview of a new approach to education and curriculum development. Salt Spring Island, BC: Terralingua. Retrieved 19 September 2017 from http://terralingua.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BCDEI-Overview.pdf.

  • Torre, M. E. (2014). Participatory action research. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 1323–1327). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tuck, E., & McKenzie, M. (2015a). Relational validity and the “where” of inquiry: Place and land in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(7), 633–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuck, E., & McKenzie, M. (2015b). Place in research: Theory, methodologies, and method. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN (United Nations). (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. Retrieved 28 September 2017 from http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx.

  • UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation). (2008). Links between biological and cultural diversity: Concepts, methods and experiences. Report of the 2007 International Workshop organized by UNESCO with the support of The Christensen Fund. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 28 September 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001592/159255E.pdf.

  • UNESCO-SCBD (United Nations Educational, Scienctific, and Cultural Organization – Secretariat of the on Biological Diversity). (2014). Linking biological and cultural diversity: UNESCO-SCBD Programme. Paris/Montreal, QC: UNESCO/CBD. Retrieved 28 September 2017 from https://www.cbd.int/portals/culturaldiversity/docs/Flyer-CulturalDiversity.pdf.

  • UNWPAY (United Nations World Programme of Action for Youth. (2010). Guide to youth delegates to the United Nations. Prepared for Member States of the United Nations by the United Nations Programme on Youth/Division for Social Policy and Development/Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York: United Nations. Retrieved 28 September 2017 from https://www.social.un.org/youthyear/docs/Youth%20Delegate%20Guide.pdf.

  • Walsh, C. (2010). Development as buen vivir: Institutional arrangements and (de)colonial entanglements. Development, 53(1), 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. C. (2006). Youth participation in photovoice as a strategy for community change. Journal of Community Practice, 14(1/2), 147–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education and Behaviour, 24(3), 369–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wattar, L., Fanous, S., & Berliner, P. (2012). Challenges of youth participation in participatory action research: Methodological considerations of the Paamiut youth voice research project. International Journal of Action Research, 8(2), 185–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whatmore, S. (2007). Hybrid geographies: Rethinking the “human” in human geography. In L. Kalof & A. Fitzgerald (Eds.), The animals reader (pp. 337–348). Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • YPAR (Youth-led Participatory Action Research) Hub. (2015). What is YPAR? [online resource]. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Retrieved 1 November 2017 from http://yparhub.berkeley.edu/.

  • Zeller-Berkman, S. (2007). Peering in: A look into reflective practices in youth participatory action research. Children Youth and Environments, 17(2), 315–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zethelius, M. (2013). Biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in the Corales del Rosario and San Bernardo National Natural Park (CRSB-NNP): An analysis of community-level conservation and climate change adaptation. (Unpublished Masters dissertation). Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, Canterbury.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (CA) (Grant No. 201311DVC-323316-248297).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Foundations, University of Saskatchewan, 28 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 0X1, Canada

    Jennifer McRuer

  2. Alliances for Abundance, Calle 28 #20–36 Manga, Cartagena, Colombia

    Jennifer McRuer & Margarita Zethelius

  3. MINGAS for Transition Research Group, Calle 8 #16–218, Rozo, Colombia

    Jennifer McRuer & Margarita Zethelius

Authors
  1. Jennifer McRuer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Margarita Zethelius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer McRuer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McRuer, J., Zethelius, M. The difference biocultural “place” makes to community efforts towards sustainable development: Youth participatory action research in a marine protected area of Colombia. Int Rev Educ 63, 847–870 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9690-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9690-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation