How Youth Brought Their Water Back and

Built Long-Term Community Adaptive

Capacity: A Case Study from Costa Rica

Olivia Sylvester

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Case Study Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The History of Hojancha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Hojancha’s Responses to Crisis and the Process of Building Adaptive Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Planning for Community Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Prioritizing the Local: Institutions, Knowledge, and Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Accounting for Culture in Community-Based Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Partnerships at Different Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A Long-Term Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
How Past Response to Crisis Supports Current Adaptive Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Youth’s Role in Building Community Adaptive Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Community Challenges: Youth and Out-Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Climate Justice and Community-Based Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Abstract
Reporting on successful community climate adaptation will support the sharing of
lessons learned and will reveal principles that can support the scaling-up of these
efforts. In this chapter, community-based adaptation (CBA) is examined in a case
study of Hojancha, Costa Rica, a cattle farming community whose river dried up,
due to river basin degradation as well as prolonged drought. This chapter outlines
the actions, over a period of decades, at different scales that resulted in commu-
nity mobilization, river basin restoration, and overtime, the return of the
community’s water. Community actions included: (1) planning for community
development, (2) prioritizing local institutions, knowledge, and jobs, (3) account-
ing for culture in community-based adaptation, (4) reducing psychological

O. Sylvester (*)
Head of the Environment & Development Department, University for Peace, San Jose, Costa Rica
e-mail: osylvester@upeace.org; livsylvester@gmail.com

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Handbook of Climate Change Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22759-3_209-1
2 O. Sylvester

distance, (5) creating new group norms and group identity, (6) developing
partnerships at different scales, and (7) maintaining a long-term vision. This
case study is unique because it illustrates how youth motivated their community
to change unsustainable land-use practices. Furthermore, it emphasizes how
history influences present adaptive capacity.

Keywords
Community-based adaptation (CBA) · Local knowledge · Psychological
distance · Resilience · River basin restoration

Introduction

Convincing someone to cure a cow or to grow mango trees was very easy, what is
not easy is to convince a cattle farmer to reforest and conserve water – Emel
Rodríguez, February 27, 2019
Adaptation is the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate change and
its effects (IPCC 2014). Humans’ capacity to adapt is their ability to adjust to
damage, respond to the consequences of climate change and/or to take advantage
of opportunities climate change presents (IPCC 2014). Climate adaptation can occur
at different scales (e.g., community or national levels) and can be promoted by
diverse tools and actions (e.g., policy reform or environmental restoration). The
academic literature is rich with theories and frameworks regarding climate adapta-
tion. Some examples include: (1) The Union on Concerned Scientists’ 15 climate
change adaptation principles (USC 2016), (2) the social-ecological systems litera-
ture’s resilience frameworks (Folke 2006), and (3) psychological science’s principles
to support societal engagement with climate change (van der Linden et al. 2015).
This chapter will focus on one area common across the latter frameworks, i.e., to
achieve successful climate adaptation, local communities need to make the adapta-
tion planning and implementation process their own.
Community-driven adaptation efforts fall within the field of community-based
adaptation (CBA). Reid et al. (2009 p. 13) define CBA as a “community-led process,
based on communities’ priorities, needs, knowledge, and capacities, which should
empower people to plan for and cope with the impacts of climate change.” Reid et al.
(2009) explain how in community adaptation programs, there is still a lot of “doing
to” communities versus communities leading the process themselves. This doing to
communities has resulted in adaptation policies and programs that (1) do not persist
in the long term and/or (2) can prove to be maladaptive (perpetuating or exacerbating
climate risk) and thus, detrimental to the resilience of communities and cultures.
As the opening quote of this chapter illustrates, local community members are
sensitive to their community needs and priorities including the challenges to climate
adaptation. Furthermore, what may be an appropriate plan for development for one
community may not work in another. For these reasons, scholars report that “it will
be up to the community themselves to determine exactly what adaptation activities
How Youth Brought Their Water Back and Built Long-Term Community Adaptive. . . 3

are a priority for them in the local context” (Reid and Schipper 2014 p. 11). Since
local context will define the nature of climate change action, blueprint approaches to
climate adaptation are discouraged (Reid and Schipper 2014). What is important,
however, is reporting on diverse case studies of CBA to document core principles
used in successful efforts as well as lessons learned (Reid and Schipper 2014). The
lessons learned can then be shared with other similar communities and modified
based on their unique contexts. The latter is the goal of this chapter, to analyze a
process of CBA in rural Costa Rica and report on their successes, core processes, and
lessons learned.
As for any case study on CBA, what constitutes a community is highly contested
(Yates 2014). Specifically, within communities, power relations create persistent
inequalities, and this shapes who benefits most from a given adaptation program
(Buggy and McNamara 2016). In this chapter, the community will be limited to the
experiences of a youth group that worked on issues of community development,
including river basin restoration in response to drought. The case study is from the
Hojancha county located within the dry corridor of Costa Rica where long periods of
drought create uncertainty regarding water availability, both for human consumption
as well as for agriculture (Madrigal Cordero et al. 2012). Hojancha experienced a
severe drought in the late 1970s and their community youth led a process of river
basin restoration. The success of this process is critical to current community
adaptive capacity in the face of accelerating climate change impacts. Successful
case studies are important to understand best or innovative practices; the latter is
especially important to inform decisions about where to allocate scarce resources for
climate change adaptation (Engle and Lemos 2010) and in efforts to scale-up local
adaptation efforts (Reid and Schipper 2014).
Data for this case study was gathered from 2016 to 2019 during visits to the
Hojancha county as well as to the town of Hojancaha (the largest town in the county;
Figs. 1 and 2). The Nosara River that dried up during the severe drought in the 1970s
is also pictured in Fig. 1. Semistructured and oral history interviews were carried out
with community members who participated in the river basin restoration after the
drought in the late 1970s; these people, now elders, still live and work in Hojancha
county. Focus group discussions were also carried out in 2017, 2018, and 2019.
Members of focus group discussions included people (young and elder) that work in
the following sectors: cattle farming, agriculture, forestry, and conservation. Case
study context data were gathered via oral history interviews as well as through a
literature review on the history of Hojancha.
This chapter is organized as follows. The first section is a brief history of the
Hojancha county is provided along with a description of the water crisis. The history
of the county provides important context to the water crisis because before the
drought of the late 1970s Hojancha was experiencing an agricultural crisis (due to
market price declines of coffee) and as a result a period of out-migration. The second
section describes Hojancha’s residents’ (or Hojanchans) response to crisis and is
organized by a diversity of principles that Hojanchan youth followed as part of their
efforts to restore the Nosara river basin and is analyzed in relation to the climate
adaptation literature. The third part of this chapter is a discussion of how past
4 O. Sylvester

Fig. 1 Map of Costa Rica illustrating the location of the Hojancha county, the Hojancha town, and
the Nosara River

Fig. 2 The highlands of Hojancha, critical areas for reforestation for river basin restoration
How Youth Brought Their Water Back and Built Long-Term Community Adaptive. . . 5

response to crisis has supported current adaptive capacity, youth’s role in building
community adaptive capacity as well as remaining community challenges.

Case Study Context

The History of Hojancha

Hojancha is a county in the Guanacaste province in the North Pacific of Costa Rica
located on the Nicoya Peninsula and the county’s largest town is Hojancha. It is
important to note that this region, the Nicoya Peninsula, is traditional Indigenous
land of the Chorotega people and this traditional territory extends North into
Nicaragua. The Chorotegas practiced polyculture and rotation agriculture (Yoder
1994). The Spanish colonists arrived to the Nicoya Peninsula in 1519 and the
impacts on Indigenous people were devastating; these impacts include: (1) stealing
of land and resources, (2) slavery and the trade of Indigenous slaves, (3) forced labor
and abuse of Indigenous people which led to population declines, and (4) the
introduction of non-Indigenous farming practices, including deforestation for sug-
arcane and cattle (Yoder 1994). Over time, and after Costa Rica gained independence
from Spain (in 1821) in addition to Indigenous peoples, the Nicoya Peninsula
received an influx of independent peasant migrants from the central valley of
Costa Rica; these migrants, also called “Cartagos” left the central valley due to
economic insecurity, crowding, and deteriorating social conditions in coffee farming
and were in search of a new life and economic prosperity (Yoder 1994). Descendants
of these migrants in Hojancha explain, that due to economic challenges and hard-
ships, these migrants were willing to move to the Nicoya Peninsula and adapt to
more challenging living conditions.
The migration of the central valley coffee famers to the Nicoya Peninsula created
dramatic land-use change. Current residents of Hojancha describe how their ances-
tors, migrants to the region, arrived to face very challenging conditions including a
lack of roads and social services. These residents also describe their ancestors
learning to survive on these new lands because of Indigenous people. Specifically,
Indigenous people shared their knowledge with migrants including knowledge on
how to build homesteads and how to treat illnesses using traditional plants. Current
Hojancha residents also describe how their ancestors purchased land from Indige-
nous people and other non-Indigenous locals at extremely low costs. For example,
one resident described how his father sold 4 hectares of land in the central valley and
with that money was able to buy 150 hectares in Hojancha.
Migration increased in the 1930s due to falling coffee prices associated with the
economic depression. When these central valley peasants arrived, they did not have
access to the already occupied flatlands; thus, these farmers purchased sloped land
on hillsides which increased the population density of the highlands. Farming started
to increase in the highlands and forests were cleared to do so. The Cartago migrants
used intensive agricultural practices and left little time for lands to recover between
harvests. This lack of recovery time resulted in a rapid decrease in soil fertility.
6 O. Sylvester

Large-scale cattle production began in the 1940s. Cattle farming meant more
forested lands and/or mixed agricultural landscapes were rapidly converted into
cattle pastures. Cattle farming was attractive because of the growing demand for
beef in the United States’ fast food industry in the 1950s (Kaimowitz 1996). Costa
Rican beef production thus tripled in the 1950s and in Hojancha, cattle production
increased 800% between 1935 and 1963 (Campos et al. 1993). As cattle production
increased, larger landowners with greater economic capital started to buy up land
from many smaller landholders, experiencing economic hardship and who subse-
quently migrated out of Hojancha.
This short history is important in understanding the water crisis in Hojancha in the
next section as well as understanding how history has contributed to current climate
change adaptation efforts. Specifically, migration to Hojancha, and the concentration
of cattle farming, led to rapid land use change, especially in the highlands, areas
important for water conservation. Furthermore, migrants came to Hojancha and
viewed farming and cattle as their way to economic prosperity.
Deforestation and land conversion into pasture were catalysts in the drying up of
one of Hojancha’s main water sources: the Nosara River. Water shortage was one of
a few key events during a period called the 1970s crisis. Specifically, soils were
increasingly depleted from intensive cattle farming; this included deforestation as
well as intensive land-use that did not allow for soil regeneration. Second, the market
prices for beef fell and this led to an economic crisis for Hojancha’s farmers,
especially for those with smaller land plots and with fewer cattle. Due to increasingly
challenging environmental and economic conditions, Hojancha experienced a mass
outmigration to other areas of Costa Rica.
Water security of Hojancha is further made vulnerable due to its geography.
Hojancha is located within the dry corridor of Costa Rica where long periods of
drought create uncertainty regarding water availability, both for human consumption
as well as for agriculture (Madrigal Cordero et al. 2012). Thus, intensive land-use
change as well as geography created a suite of conditions that led to the drying up of
the Nosara River, a main water source for the Hojanchan people. It was the set of
actions, during this crisis period of the 1970s, that has allowed Hojanchans not only
to bring their water back but also to build their current adaptive capacity to climate
change.

Hojancha’s Responses to Crisis and the Process of Building

Adaptive Capacity

This section describes Hojanchans’ response to crisis. It is organized by the core

principles that Hojanchan youth followed as part of their efforts to restore the Nosara
river basin and these principles are analyzed in relation to the climate adaptation
literature. This section starts with context regarding how community members and
youth united for rural development and then continues with the process of youth-led
river basin restoration. Table 1 provides a summary of the key processes that
supported successful restoration.
How Youth Brought Their Water Back and Built Long-Term Community Adaptive. . .
Table 1 A summary of the processes linked to the youth-led river basin restoration project in
Hojancha
Process Pathway
Planning for Working with community
community leadership with a development
development vision (Priest Vara)
Prioritizing the local: Working with a diversity of
Institutions, local institutions
knowledge, and jobs
Relying on, and creating jobs
for, local experts
Accounting for Creating a culture of tree
culture in planting
community-based
adaptation
Decreasing psychological
distance to change group
norms
Creating a culture of
conservation
Creating new community
norms for reforestation
Creating a new identity for
Hojanchans
7
Actions
Training community youth in rural
sustainable development
Using their rural community as the
classroom
Encouraging that not one but multiple
local organization apply for external
support for river restoration
Having local youth talk to elders
about restoration and conservation
“Colonizing the state”: Training local
youth to fill jobs to fill local
development institutions
Ensuring that outsider
recommendations were modified by
community youth to fit the local
context
Planting species of economic value
Making trees visible to community
members
Choosing fast-growing varieties
Placing descriptive signs on tree plots
to stimulate interest and decrease
social-psychological distance
Showing people that wood was
valuable via woodworking festivals at
the community church
Starting with a culture of tree planting
for economic benefit before
introducing tree planting for
reforestation
Providing farmers with cattle supplies
to remove cattle from rivers in
exchange for farmers reforesting
critical areas for conservation
Talking about the wins in restoration
versus the losses of removing cattle
from areas of land
Fundraising locally to purchase land
for reforestation
Seeking locally managed protected
area status for community forests
Incorporating an ecological
dimension into community
discussions about Hojancha’s identity
(continued)
8 O. Sylvester

Table 1 (continued)
Process Pathway Actions
Partnerships at Working with international Partnering with the FAO
different scales and national organizations (international) as well as local forestry
and development organizations
A long-term vision Linking Hojancha’s past struggles,
resilience, and solidarity to the river
restoration project
Promoting intergenerational
continuity of knowledge as well as
community values
Training youth to work on local
development issues

Planning for Community Development

Hojancha residents explain how community development thinking was supported by

a key community leader with a unique vision. This leader was Priest Luis Vara, from
Zamora Spain, an outsider who was accepted as a community leader and supported
many elements of Hojancha’s community development. Some of the principles
promoted by Priest Vara were: (1) gaining political recognition for the Hojancha
county and (2) the mobilization of community youth.
Residents describe how political recognition for the Hojancha county was a
priority for Priest Vara because, without political status, this county could not
apply for central government support. Residents describe how it was difficult to
achieve county status because Hojancha lacked population and it lacked infrastruc-
ture. Thus, the state government responded to the priest’s appeal that they could not
create a county in an area that lacks economic activity; the priest responded that this
was the very reason they needed county status, i.e., to create local conditions that
would make people want to stay; the latter was especially important because
Hojancha was experiencing an out-migration crisis.
With the leadership of Priest Vara, in 1972 Hojanchans united to achieve their
county status. Residents traveled to Costa Rica’s capital city to take over the
legislative assembly for one month. Peasants took turns sleeping outside of congress;
they called upon state universities to join their struggle and media outlets (Radio
Reloj, La Nación) to cover their story and to create solidarity for their cause.
Hojanchans report that their fight to successfully achieve county status was impor-
tant in creating a community sentiment of organization and solidarity.
Priest Vara also prioritized the training of community youth in the 1970s. These
youth (now elders) were in their late teens during this time. Specifically, Priest Vara
created a group of approximately 25 youth and trained them in political advocacy.
One resident involved in this movement recalled that Priest Vara said “if there was a
law that was wrong, you should not get angry or argue, you had to come up with a
new law that would correct mistakes, and that all of one’s energy had to be dedicated
to fighting for the new law to pass.” Residents also explain how during the 1970s, the
How Youth Brought Their Water Back and Built Long-Term Community Adaptive. . . 9

guerillas in Central America had a stronghold and Priest Vara encouraged youth not
to pick up arms but to pick up pencils to propose change.
Not only did youth receive political advocacy training but also training regarding
rural development. Priest Vara connected youth with an organization in the United
States of America called AITEC (Asociación International Técnica) that provided
training on rural development planning. Residents describe that this course was
1 year long, and its principles related to what we now call sustainable development.
Thus, high school students were trained in rural sustainable development, including
concepts related to planning.
This was the context in Hojancha when in 1975 a 4-year drought hit leading to the
most severe crisis in Hojancha’s history. One resident remembers this crisis and
explained how they lost thousands of head of cattle because the rivers and wells
dried up. He further explained that with very little rain, the aquifers did not recharge,
and this was the moment when they knew they had to start doing activities to protect
the environment. He explained, “when the rivers dried up, we said, well, our life is
gone, our economy is gone, our water is gone, everything is gone.” At this point, this
resident explained how the Nosara River watershed had only 8% forest cover and
these trees were mainly along the borders of rivers.
The youth group that received training on rural development played a central role
in creating a plan to bring Hojancha’s water back. When the river and aquifers dried
up, youth reached out to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) to request
the support of technicians. The support team, who came from The Netherlands,
recommended the creation of recharge areas and this was the start of the Nosara
River Management Plan; this plan was carried out with the support of international
(FAO) and national (CATIE and Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica, ITCR) insti-
tutions. In the next section, how youth garnered the support of residents is explained
and this is linked to wider principles of climate adaptation. Also, in this section, a
series of local sayings or idioms that youth used to link adaptation to local culture
will also be shared (also see Table 1).

Prioritizing the Local: Institutions, Knowledge, and Jobs

Working with a Diversity of Local Institutions: “Together, Anything is

Possible”
For the youth team working on the Nosara River management plan, it was essential
that all support was executed via local organizations. Furthermore, youth ensured
that local government organizations partnered with civil society organizations to
ensure that the process was a participatory as possible. Youth also believed that
diversity was needed, and that river restoration would be most effective if multiple
organizations were involved. Residents explained that if it was only one organization
leading restoration, they could only apply for one single grant or support option; but
if they were many organizations each could identify their own specific needs and
apply for support. Thus, the ranchers had the ranchers’ chamber, the farmers and
foresters had the agricultural center, the coffee growers had their cooperative; and the
10 O. Sylvester

women and microentrepreneurs had the peasant promotion center. All organizations
had a board of directors and these multiple boards met once a month. Their saying to
motivate the cooperation among these diverse organizations was “Together, anything
is possible.”
One of the reasons Hojanchans explain that they currently have a strong ability to
deal with environmental and climate changes is their history of working together,
supporting diversity to address different people’s needs and challenges, and their
history of having to self-organize and fight for change. One resident explained that in
the past they developed a strong local organizational culture; they affirm:

We had that culture of planning things, of organizing ourselves to do things together and it
still continues. For example, just two weeks ago we formed the road committee for the
paving of this road. Possibly, the day we meet with the Minister he will tell us what we
already know, you are very small, that route does not have as much traffic, it is not important
for the country. But it doesn’t matter if you tell us that, we already know that, but still we are
going to fight for the asphalting of this road and I am sure that we are going to do it because
we are going to fight, just as we fought to be a county, and for our river, and for everything.

Relying on, and Creating Jobs for, Local Experts: “Hojancha for
Hojanchans”
Residents implementing the river restoration plan shared how it was important that
community youth, and not outsiders, talk to the elder generation about conservation.
The rationale for this was that the elder generation felt a sense of responsibility to
youth about the state of the environment for youth’s futures. Specifically, elders felt
guilt regarding high levels of deforestation for cattle farming that led to the river
drying up. Second, there was a high level of social capital in the county. Families had
worked hard and together to establish themselves as migrants in the areas and had
good relationships with each other’s children. Not only were relationships among
families very strong, but there was a great sense of pride in the younger generation
who were able to finish high school and university training, something that the elder
generation was not able to do. The youth involved explained how their elders would
say, let’s call our friend’s son, so he can make recommendations about how to protect
our springs.
Youth were strategic in their rural development plan to prevent mass out-migra-
tion. They saw the need for state institutions in Hojancha but they believed that these
institutions needed local Hojanchans working in them. Often when local institutions
open in rural areas outsider professionals are hired to work in them. Because
Hojancha already experienced a mass out-migration, youth understood that they
needed to secure jobs locally for young professionals. In a focus group discussion,
those involved in this process joked that they “colonized the state.” In reality,
however, youth made a concerted effort to create opportunities for young profes-
sionals that were trained in rural development and in fields such as forestry and
agriculture. Their saying for this process was “Hojancha for Hojanchans.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS 2016) explains how communities and
technical experts need to work together for successful, long-term climate change
How Youth Brought Their Water Back and Built Long-Term Community Adaptive. . . 11

adaptation. Specifically, these scientists report that “local experts must be trained to
use the available information, data, and tools so that they may translate climate risks
and adaptation options for their community, taking into account its history and
specific needs” (UCS 2016). The training of local experts was central to the success
of Hojancha’s river basin restoration efforts. Specifically, local community youth
trained as technical experts in ecological restoration and became professionals in
their home communities. Youth knew the local context and its history and could thus
implement plans that would be locally relevant and promote local action; the
culturally specific ways youth designed their restoration plans are presented in the
next setion.

Accounting for Culture in Community-Based Adaptation

Local cultural norms have been reported as important to influence climate adaptation
and ecological restoration (Adger et al. 2013; Dumaru 2010). For example, scholars
found that in Finland the culture of volunteering was an important factor in
supporting proenvironmental actions, such as volunteering to restore rivers
(Sarvilinna et al. 2018). In addition to established cultural norms, psychological
science has described how people are social beings that respond to group norms (van
der Linden et al. 2015). In a survey, in the UK, to explore people’s perceptions and
attitudes toward climate change, van der Linden (2014) found that the extent to
which people felt socially pressured to help combat climate change was positively
correlated with their perception that climate change was a risk that required action. In
Hojancha, local youth worked to create group norms for river basin restoration and
knew how to promote these norms in locally and culturally appropriate ways as is
outlined in the following subsections: (1) creating a culture of tree planting, (2)
creating a culture of conservation, (3) creating new community norms for refores-
tation, (4) creating a new identity for Hojancha.

Creating a Culture of Tree Planting

Bringing back forests was central to bringing backwater in Hojancha. Youth knew,
however, that asking their elders to use valuable cattle grazing land to regenerate
forests would not be easy and would take time. Thus, youth used a strategy that
started with planting trees of economic value to the community. Resident Emel
Rodríguez explained it this way:

We started with wood needs and with water needs, they were like the two dangling carrots to
follow. With the wood, we said, in the future there will be no trees, not even to build our
children’s house and, without wood, it will be difficult for us to face development. With the
water issue we were more than convinced. . .people had lost their livestock, they had lost
crops, they were in a very difficult situation. With wood, it took a bit more to motivate
people.
12 O. Sylvester

Youth’s strategy to focus on the economic benefits of wood is important to highlight.

Although youth knew they needed to increase forest cover for river basin restoration,
they were also conscious that their parent’s generation did not see value in wood.
Thus, youth’s work was to illustrate the economic value of wood to encourage
farmers to grow trees on their properties.
The first project carried out was donating trees so farmers could have small
plantations to grow and then harvest trees. With local and international support,
youth also created their own plots on their family’s land. Youth decided to promote
tree species that would grow fast and had high economic and human use potential for
building (e.g., Melina or Gmelina arborea). Youth knew that just offering trees and
material to create plots would not directly translate into farmers growing trees; this
was because planting trees would not provide immediate gains and because farmers
had a history of seeing trees as obstacles for economically valuable cattle farms.
Thus, youth used a series of strategies to attempt to change group norms and cattle
ranchers’ perspectives.

Decreasing Psychological Distance to Change Group Norms: “Seeing Is

Believing”
The strategies youth used to change group norms relate directly to what scholars in
the climate change literature call decreasing psychological distance, defined as the
distance that objects or events are perceived by individuals to occur (Schuldt et al.
2018). Psychological distance can be spatial (physical close or far), temporal (near or
distant future), and social (involving similar or dissimilar people; Schuldt et al.
2018). Psychological distance has been discussed in the climate change literature
and has been reported as a barrier to public engagement with climate change.
Research illustrates that discounting of future risk is a common feature of human
psychology; thus, day-to-day issues often take priority over future events (van der
Linden et al. 2015). Consequently, if climate change is seen as a psychologically
distant event, physically and temporally close events will take priority for human
action. Recommendations have thus been made to frame climate change in relation
to local impacts (closer to people’s everyday realities) rather than framing climate
change as a globally distant challenge (Scannell and Gifford 2013).
Youth in Hojancha created strategies that exemplified how to decrease psycho-
logical distance in three dimensions: spatial, temporal, and social. First, youth
thought that trees needed to be visible, people needed to see for themselves that
these trees were high quality and fast growing. Youth’s saying for decreasing this
physical psychological distance was “seeing is believing.” To make plantations
visible, plots were placed on the side of the highway, so they were always visible
to farmers and community members passing by. Second, that youth chose fast-
growing trees was important to decrease temporal psychological distance, the time
between planting and the resulted growth. Third, youth strategically placed a
descriptive sign in the plot with the farmer’s name, the tree species, the planting
year, and how to plant the trees; these signs were important for many reasons. One of
the reasons for the sign was that youth wanted someone passing by to have all the
information they needed to replicate these plots. Another reason youth placed family
How Youth Brought Their Water Back and Built Long-Term Community Adaptive. . . 13

names on the tree plots was so people could feel connected to the project; in other
words, the youth wanted tree planting to be seen as a farmer’s project instead of a
project of an outside organization; the latter is one of the main tenets of good practice
in CBA (Reid and Schipper 2014; Reid et al. 2009). A third reason youth created
signs on the tree plots was so that community members could see that people they
knew from their own community were planting trees; the latter refers to decreasing
social-psychological distance (Schuldt et al. 2018). Youth wanted community mem-
bers to identify with the activity and see that it was not something an outsider
organization proposed but rather it was something people like them were doing;
the latter approach is what scholars refer to as decreasing social-psychological
distance. Residents explained that if people saw that other community members
were planting trees, it might then motivate them to join in, it was a way to play on the
fact that people respond to community norms (van der Linden et al. 2015). Emel
Rodríguez explained how “it was very important that a man when he was on
horseback and stopped to read the sign would see it and say ah, I want the species,
the species of Don Victoriano, look how beautiful it is growing, look how fast it
grows and how straight the trees grow.”
Despite that trees were growing fast, people were suspicious because these trees
did not look like native trees. Melina trees grew fast, they were white and soft; these
characteristics contrasted with hard, dark-colored woods of Hojancha’s native trees.
Youth explained how people would say that this wood is worthless, that it will just
get eaten by termites, and it breaks by just looking at it; they thought if it was sawed
it would only produce bagasse. Youth knew, however, that this wood was valuable
for building. Thus, youth rented a mobile sawmill to demonstrate the value of the
trees at a community celebration. Specifically, youth along with Priest Vara chose the
festival of the Santo Patrono, one of the biggest local congregations. It was organized
so that when people exited mass, they started the sawmill and started cutting the
trees. Priest Vara asked residents to stick around to see the demonstration. Residents
explained how this demonstration was important because native trees were very
heavy and they were hundreds of years old and the Melina trees were thin and only
4 years old; thus, people had to see it to believe it.
Not only did youth cut the trees into wood planks but they invited local cabinet
makers to make tables, chairs, beds, and dressers at this festival. Youth invited
people to sit in the chairs and lay down in the bed and to test the wood quality for
themselves. Youth explained that this was the best extension project because they did
not need to convince anyone, instead the whole town saw that Melina wood had
value and after this, people started to grow their own Melina trees. This process
started in the 1980s. In 2019, farmers explain that in the early 1980s Hojancha did
not have any sawmills and had to travel up to 15 km to a mill; now the county has 11
mills. The growth in sawmills is a reflection of the continued community support for
local tree plantations. Residents explain that this process of localizing wood pro-
duction was important for their economy, an economy that in the 1980s was in the
midst of a historic crisis.
Hojanchans explained that it was a strategic and purposeful move on their part to
separate the ideas of production and conservation. They wanted farmers to plant
14 O. Sylvester

trees on their pastures, but these needed to be trees that had a human use value. The
climate psychology research supports this approach to framing adaptive action
around the wins versus the losses (van der Linden et al. 2015). Conservation via
reforestation was introduced separately through the river basin restoration project.
The idea of separating conservation and production was suggested by youth advisors
in the FAO. These advisors communicated to youth that if people start by planting
trees that cannot be used, it could create long-term challenges and farmer resistance,
especially when asking farmers to plant trees that could not be cut in aquifer recharge
areas. Thus, Hojancha youth separated production from conservation, and started
with production, because they believed that farmers needed to first value trees and to
experience this value firsthand.

Creating a Culture of Conservation: “A Farm Without Water Is a Farm

Without Value”
Hojanchans explained how creating a culture of conservation was complex and
required multiple diverse efforts. Asking farmers to reforest on their cattle pastures
was not the same as encouraging farmers to grow trees that they could cut down in
only a few years and either sell or use for building. Thus, youth devised a plan where
farmers would receive benefits in exchange for volunteering to leave pieces of their
farms as reforestation areas for river basin restoration and aquifer recharge. The first
benefit was providing cattle farmers with farming supplies. Youth believed that in
order to request that cattle farmers leave part of their land for reforestation, they
needed an incentive. Youth applied for funding from the Foundation for Canada–
Costa Rican Cooperation and they explained that, at first, the application was
criticized. This critique was due to the fact that funders did not see why a refores-
tation project required cattle farming equipment such as: mineral salt, wire, hoses,
cattle watering troughs. One resident shared that funders replied: “how are you going
to conserve springs if what you are asking for is items for the cows.” Youth
responded that the cows are grazing in the springs and the aquifer recharge areas;
thus, to protect the spring we need to remove the cows. To remove the cows, they
needed to transfer water to the pastures by creating watering troughs. Youth’s aim
was to provide farmers with materials to build watering troughs and to fence-off
areas for cattle in exchange for an area of land that the farmer would leave to be
reforested. Youth explained to farmers that cattle contaminated the springs with fecal
matter, and that this was the water that their neighbors were drinking, so contami-
nation was not fair to their neighbors. It was through these exchanges, of farm
materials for protected land, that youth convinced 60 farms to leave areas to be
reforested.
Convincing farmers to remove their cattle for water protection and convincing
ranchers to plant trees took what psychologists call framing the big picture (Van der
Linden et al. 2015). Framing the big picture means shifting the conversation from the
negative consequences or, the losses of not acting, to the immediate positive benefits.
Scholars report that framing actions as positive gains lead to proenvironmental
attitudes for adaptation (Spence and Pidgeon 2010).
How Youth Brought Their Water Back and Built Long-Term Community Adaptive. . . 15

In addition to framing adaptation practices as positive benefits for farmers, the

fact that farmers were experiencing a water crisis was also central to changing
behaviors. One resident explained how this crisis played an important factor in
receiving farmer support. Specifically, Emel Rodríguez explained that:

Convincing someone to cure a cow or to grow mango trees was very easy, what is not easy is
to convince a cattle farmer to reforest and conserve water, luckily I am the thirteenth
son. . .so when I had to promote conservation, the environmental crisis had come, the river
had already dried up, so that favored [the process], there was a remorse of the whole society
that they had mismanaged the environment.

Creating New Community Norms for Reforestation

Technicians from the FAO analyzed the county in terms of forest cover and found it
lacked forest in the water recharge sloped hills, an area with around 10 springs.
Reforestation of 1000 hectares of pastures in the highlands was recommended.
Hojancha did not have any protected areas, so youth decided to tackle this issue
one spring at a time. The reforestation process, however, needed funding to buy land
in order to protect this land as forest. The process to engage community members in
large-scale reforestation efforts is explained here.
In 1990, youth had an idea that, because water is a benefit for all, each family
should donate to a fund for reforestation. Youth proposed that each family donate the
value of 1 hectare of land and this money would be used for reforestation. One
hectare of land cost 50,000 colones (around 90 USD), which was, at that time, a lot
of money. Therefore, youth thought about charging a quota to households every
month of around 2 USD which as equivalent to what each household paid as quotas
for their appliances. To collect these donations, youth decided to call on a friend who
was an appliance salesperson that traveled door to door once a month to collect
monthly payments for appliances. This appliance salesperson also collected the 2
USD donation to buy land for reforestation. It is important to note that donations
were voluntary; if a family could only donate less than 2 dollars this was always
accepted. If households did not participate, youth did talk to households and remind
them that they were using water that they are not helping to produce or protect.
Fundraising also occurred in community institutions. Collection jars were placed
in schools, clinics, municipal offices, in the bank, and all over the community.
Community institutions were involved to increase the visibility of the reforestation
project. Youth also held competitions yearly in December to see which community
institution could fundraise more. One year the high school was able to fundraise for 3
hectares of land on their own via student donations. Residents shared that high
school students would donate their snack money once a week to the reforestation
fund to reach their goal.
To manage the purchased land, youth created a foundation called Monte Alto, a
foundation that still exists today. It was important that this land was purchased via
negotiations with community members who chose to sell their land to avoid expro-
priation. It was the community foundation purchasing pieces of highlands and
16 O. Sylvester

compensating people for this. With the donations, pieces of highlands were pur-
chased and left for natural regeneration to support water recharge. These areas were
not for productive use but rather solely for conservation. When lands were purchased
youth also worked within forest or conservation organizations to start the regener-
ation process. Regeneration was supported by planting species that would attract
birds because birds are natural seed dispersers.
Youth also decided to seek protected area status for their reforestation area from
Costa Rican Ministry of Environment. Having state protection status was important
but it was also important that youth ensured this protected area retained community
management status, instead of being transferred to the state. A national park in Costa
Rica does not allow human inhabitants within its borders and thus youth did not feel
that a national park was an appropriate management category because it could lead to
the displacement of people. Furthermore, the protected zone status allowed for local
management of the forested area instead of state management; community manage-
ment was important to illustrate to people that this area was created for community
benefit. To ensure community management, the land title states that the land will be
managed by the community foundation for community benefit for life as long as the
foundation exists.

Creating a New Identity for Hojanchans

The idea that a community worked to create a new identity to support adaptation is a
principle is unique to the Hojancha case and is not commonly mentioned in the CBA
literature. The fact that many now residents of Hojancha had recently migrated from
the central valley (from the 1930s and onward) meant that many of these migrants
were not considered locals in Hojancha. Thus, youth started to ask themselves what
their identity was. They realized they did not share an identity with farmers from the
central valley where their elders migrated from, but they were also recent migrants
and were not considered locals within the province of Guanacaste by other locals.
Youth thus, decided that they would use this opportunity to create a new identity for
Hojanchans. To do so, youth started to talk about what it meant to be from Hojancha
during community workshops and meetings. Specifically, youth framed this identity
in the historical struggles the community overcame to achieve county status, to halt
outmigration, to revive the local economy, and to come together for river basin
restoration. Specifically, one of the youth involved explained: “we began to develop
an identity and a sense of pride of being hojancheño . . .someone who restores the
environment, that takes care of the nature, that protects the water, that produces
wood, that is exhibits solidarity, that is innovative. . .”.

Partnerships at Different Scales

The river basin restoration project led by community youth started via collaboration
with international (e.g., FAO) and national (CATIE, ITCR) institutions. Even before
funding and training were provided for river basin restoration, youth participated in
training as leaders in rural development. Thus, international and national
How Youth Brought Their Water Back and Built Long-Term Community Adaptive. . . 17

partnerships were essential for the long-term success of restoration. What Hojanchan
youth, however, required was that all training and resources be done locally, i.e.,
workshops on restoration were done in their home community instead of abroad to
ensure that the lessons learned were directly applicable to their community. Further-
more, youth insisted on setting their own community priorities as well as modifying
and adapting outsider recommendations to ensure that they were locally and cultur-
ally relevant, a strategy that ensured that restoration efforts would be not only be
adopted but rather that the community took ownership of the process. As the CBA
literature reveals developing networks and partnerships are essential for information
sharing, acquiring resources, and technical expertise (Dumaru 2010). At the same
time, the outcome for communities will not be the same if initiatives are designed
around only the knowledges or priorities of outsiders. For CBA to be effective and
successful, as is illustrated in Hojancha, plans should be community-led, centered
around the priorities and processes chosen by members of the community, and local
people should adapt and modify outsider knowledge, as well as participate in
implementation, monitoring, and reviewing their progress (Reid and Schipper
2014). In the case of Hojancha, the later recommendations for effective CBA were
all applied in the implementation of knowledge or resources from external
partnerships.

A Long-Term Vision

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS 2016) describes how long-term thinking is
central to successful climate change adaptation and resilience. Multidecade vision
can allow for (1) planning that takes into account changes over time and (2) gradual
transformation at a realistic pace (UCS 2016). Hojanchans report that, in part, their
long-term vision came from their participation in local struggles that preceded the
drying up of the Nosara river. Specifically, youth involved in river basin restoration
were descendants of the central valley coffee famers that migrated to Hojancha in the
1930s. These migrants reported facing very challenging conditions upon arrival to
Hojancha, including a lack of roads and social services as well as having to learn
how to cure illness from local plants and resources (the latter happened because of
learning from the Chorotega Indigenous people of the region). Another challenge
Hojanchans overcame as a community was their lack of recognition by the state
government. Hojanchans came together in 1972 to fight for political recognition as a
county. Residents traveled to Costa Rica’s capital city to take over the legislative
assembly for one month until they were recognized as a county; this fight to
successfully achieve county status was important in creating a sentiment of local
power, organization, and solidarity. Thus, youth involved in river basin restoration,
explain that their long-term vision started with prior community struggles, and these
struggles taught them necessary skills to plan for restoration using multidecade
vision.
In relation to river-basin restoration, long-term thinking was used in multiple
dimensions of the process. Youth’s vision was that community norms or behaviors
18 O. Sylvester

regarding cattle farming and deforestation could not be changed overnight; thus,
youth decided to first create a culture of planting trees before they worked on
reforestation. Their vision was that reforestation would not be easily accepted by
cattle farmers; thus, youth’s restoration efforts started tree planting of a species that
could generate income for families (e.g., Melina). Reforestation, a process that
would not generate short-term economic benefits for families was practiced in the
medium term. Even when reforestation was part of river basin restoration plan in the
medium term, youth implemented this plan with a long-term vision. Youth knew that
cattle farmers were unlikely to plant trees and sacrifice part of their plots for
reforestation without receiving some incentives. Thus, instead of rushing to reforest,
youth first used international funding for river restoration to purchase supplies so
that cattle would have troughs for drinking water and thus cattle would move out of
critical restoration habitat (i.e., rivers and river buffer zones); in exchange for
material for their cattle, farmers would then have more incentives to leave areas of
their lands for reforestation.
A long-term vision for restoration was important for youth so that community
actions would persist into the long-term. Youth’s strategy was not only to plant trees
to restore the river basin, but rather to create a culture of water and environmental
protection that prioritized the economic needs and social well-being of Hojanchans.
Part of the success of reforestation efforts is due to youth’s prioritization of actions
that would persist into the long term; the latter was only possible via deep under-
standing of the local context and culture.

How Past Response to Crisis Supports Current Adaptive Capacity

Crises can sometimes be seen as opportunities for reorganization. Over the past four
decades, Hojancha has faced a series of crises including: (1) prolonged drought, (2)
economic recession, and (3) mass out-migration. Out-migration was a response to
the water (and thus farming) crisis that resulted in a grave decline in farmer’s
incomes. As described above, Hojanchans tackled this crisis period in the late
1970s with their long-term vision for sustainable rural development. Their approach
is consistent with current definitions of sustainable development that consider the
economic, social, and environmental dimensions of development (UN 2015).
Currently, Hojancha remains a county that needs to plan for water security due to
its location within the dry corridor of Costa Rica (Madrigal Cordero et al. 2012).
Furthermore, in Costa Rica and globally, youth in rural areas are increasingly
migrating to cities for work; migration is especially common in rural farming
towns that have experienced drought, resulting in decreased crop yields (Nansambu
and Sugden 2017). However, focus group discussions with community youth and
elders revealed that learning from past responses to crises have prepared Hojancha
for current climate challenges. Past principles that strongly support current commu-
nity resilience relate to creating an environmental consciousness, maintaining a long-
term vision, solidarity built from collective responses to crisis, and intergenerational
connection to place. Residents explained that environmental consciousness has only
How Youth Brought Their Water Back and Built Long-Term Community Adaptive. . . 19

grown overtime. Community elders described how they felt it would be very difficult
to return to a state of deforestation. They shared how their children are now the third
generation of Hojanchans and these children are much more aware of environmental
issues. Specifically, they explained how it would be very difficult to return to the
environmentally destructive farming practices of their ancestors. The
intergenerational connection to place is important. When people have an emotional
bond to their local natural resources, they are more likely to act to preserve or restore
them (Vaske and Kobrin 2001). Scholars call these place-based attachments
(Verbrugge et al. 2016). In relation to the Buriganga River in Dhaka City in
Bangladesh, Alam (2011) found that residents had more positive attitudes toward
river restoration, and were more willing to contribute to restoration, the closer they
lived to the river and the deeper their connection to it.
Hojancha’s long-term vision is one for holistic rural development. Hojanchans
worked on the local economy and choose activities that were also supportive of
environmental restoration. Having a long-term vision means that Hojancha did not
stop their environmental adaptation and conservation efforts when their water
returned; instead, Hojancha has kept innovating and responding to changing social
and environmental conditions. One process that started during the water crisis was
the purchase of pastures to create a protected forest important for watershed protec-
tion. Today, the Monte Alto Reserve is 924 hectares. A large portion of this forest
(more than 60%) has been placed into the Costa Rican system of Payments for
Environment Services, which serves as an income source for Hojancha. The project
to continue to buy land for forest conservation continues, but, at a slower rate
because land prices are reported to be extremely high. Residents report purchasing
around 4–5 hectares per year if possible. Purchasing land has been made possible via
a sister foundation that was set up in Germany (the Monte Alto Foundation in
Germany). This German foundation has section of a botanical garden called
Monte Alto (which is a climate bubble) and people pay to visit; these proceeds go
to the Hojancha Costa Rica Monte Alto foundation and are used to continue to buy
land for watershed protection.

Youth’s Role in Building Community Adaptive Capacity

Having a long-term vision also meant working with community youth. This vision
started with Priest Vara who united a group of youth before they experienced the
extreme drought period in the late 1970s. Uniting and training youth started with a
desire to strengthen the local development of Hojancha, to prevent out-migration.
The role of youth in leadership positions and generational continuity in a place
should not be underestimated. Youth’s early investment in community development
led to their seeking out university and technical training in careers locally relevant to
Hojancha’s needs. Youth also described how it was important to build on the work of
their elders and this has been a strong motivation for youth to come back to work in
their community after their studies; the latter sentiment was present with the original
group of young leaders in the 1970s but was also echoed by the current community
20 O. Sylvester

youth. Current community youth described how important it was to build on their
elders’ hard work regarding community development and watershed conservation.
Another key reason local youth leadership was important to building adaptive
capacity is that youth were able to understand the needs and limitations of their
parents’ generations and communicate with elders in culturally appropriate ways.
Despite challenges associated with convincing cattle ranchers to reforest or conserve
water, local youth were trusted individuals in the community. Elders listened to local
youth and youth knew how to explain the importance of ecological restorations in
culturally appropriate language and via locally relevant actions. Youth even created
local sayings or idioms that resonated with local needs and local culture. These
sayings, such as “Hojancha for the Hojanchans” were not only important to build a
new culture of water conservation but overall to build a development identity that
prioritized local knowledge and local development priorities.
Young leaders are gaining increasing visibility in the global climate crisis;
however, what is needed is translating these voices into leadership roles. The
Hojancha case study illustrates how youth and specifically local youth were able
to bridge generational gaps regarding climate change adaptation while maintaining
local economic and development needs at the fore of these conversations.

Community Challenges: Youth and Out-Migration

Despite Hojancha’s successes, there are some local concerns for long-term commu-
nity resilience. The main concern mentioned by Hojanchan is job availability. Elders
and youth shared the fear that will not be enough jobs for local youth, despite some
youth who have secured jobs in local institutions such as the ministry of agriculture
or ministry of environment. One elder shared that he is not worried about environ-
mental degradation anymore in Hojancha but rather he is concerned that there will
not be “creative job alternatives for youth who would then have to migrate. . .” and
how this would be a shame “. . .after the community has endured 40 years of work to
restore their environment”.
Research illustrates there are complex relationships among youth and out-migra-
tion in rural areas. Research from rural areas in Canada illustrates that young people
born in rural areas are mobile and likely to leave home at early age; furthermore,
young people migrate due to, not one, but rather a complex set of interrelated factors
(Looker and Naylor 2009). Jobs and income are important factors that drive out-
migration, but noneconomic factors are also important. These noneconomic factors
include identity, values, sense of place, family contexts, emotional processes (Foster
and Main 2018). Community youth (in the age range of 20–30 years) that work in the
areas of forestry and agriculture expressed the interest in staying in Hojancha;
however, this was not true for all youth who did not have access to jobs in their
fields. Research illustrates that noneconomic factors, and specifically identity and
culture, play a role in migration (Foster and Main 2018). For the young people of
Hojancha, identity and culture were often mentioned as a reason for wanting to stay
in Hojancha or to return to Hojancha after studying outside of their community.
How Youth Brought Their Water Back and Built Long-Term Community Adaptive. . . 21

The relationship among youth, out-migration, and climate change has been
explored in rural agricultural communities. Youth’s choice to pursue agriculture as
a career depends on many factors but a combination of factors exacerbated by
climate change has resulted youth’s lack of interest in pursuing farming. Specifically,
a suite of factors including: (1) limited access to resources (finance, land), (2) high
costs of agricultural inputs, and (3) climate risks to agricultural production, all play
key roles in youth’s disengagement from agriculture (Nansambu and Sugden 2017).
Although in Hojancha, local youth work in state agricultural, forestry, and conser-
vation institutions, the overall sentiment expressed in interviews was that it was not a
youth’s lack of interest in working locally but rather a lack of adequate jobs.

Climate Justice and Community-Based Adaptation

Climate justice is a field that examines how negative climate change impacts are
disproportionately experienced by those in marginal positions (Munshi et al. 2019).
Scholars in the field of climate justice have started to analyze the inequalities that
result in the implementation of climate change adaptation programs and policies
(Schlosberg and Collins 2014). Adaptation has been suggested as a pathway toward
climate justice because adaptation programs can: (1) become opportunities to
address social justice, (2) aid to alleviate vulnerabilities, and (3) preserve local
cultures (Schlosberg and Collins 2014). However, achieving increased equity in
climate adaptation requires addressing existing power dynamics at the community
level.
In the field of CBA, power inequity in communities has been discussed (Reid and
Schipper 2014). Thus, it is important that the success of an adaptation program is
evaluated taking into account equitable benefit sharing at the community level. In
this chapter, community was defined as the group of youth that led CBA in the late
1970s. These youth are descendants of migrants from the central valley of Costa
Rica; these migrants came to Hojancha after selling their land and had much higher
economic capital than local residents, such as the Chorotega Indigenous people. As
discussed in the history section of this chapter, migrants purchased lands from some
Indigenous peoples, and this has contributed to the inequitable distribution of land in
the region. These inequities are then exacerbated by state colonial policies that have
discriminated against Indigenous people and resulted in grave violations regarding
Indigenous rights to land, resources, and culture in Costa Rica (Villhauer and
Sylvester 2020; Sylvester et al. 2016). Although a wider discussion of these ineq-
uities is outside of the scope of this chapter, it is important to note that a discussion of
climate adaptation would look differently if the community analyzed were distinct.
22 O. Sylvester

Conclusion

This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of one case study of how youth led a
community-based adaptation (CBA) process in Hojancha, a rural farming commu-
nity in Costa Rica. Since every CBA process will be context dependent, the goal of
this chapter is not for youth’s process in Hojancha to be duplicated in its exact form,
but rather to highlight some of the key processes and lessons learned that can be
modified and adapted by other communities in similar contexts. This case study
illustrates how youth motivated their community to change unsustainable, land-use,
and cattle farming practices and how this process was gradual over a period of over
40 years and continues to this day. Specifically, Hojancha youth used the following
processes in their river restoration plan: (1) planning for community development,
(2) prioritizing local institutions, knowledge, and jobs, (3) accounting for culture in
community-based adaptation, (4) reducing psychological distance, (5) creating new
group norms and group identity, (6) developing partnerships at different scales, and
(7) maintaining a long-term vision. Of these processes, the role of prioritizing locally
designed and led adaptation, as well as accounting for culture, were central to river
basin restoration successes. Unique features of this case include: (1) youth’s use of
idioms to promote restoration and community development in culturally appropriate
ways and (2) the promotion of a new, more environmentally friendly community
identity. Lastly, this case demonstrates that the process of building adaptive capacity
started with historic events even before the severe drought; thus, community resil-
ience is the product of Hojancha’s collective response to multiple crises as well as the
solidarity built in this process.

References
Adger NW, Barnett J, Marshall N, O’Brian K (2013) Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts
and adaptation. Nat Clim Chang 3:112–117. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1666
Alam K (2011) Public attitudes toward restoration of impaired river ecosystems: does residents’
attachment to place matter? Urban Ecosyt 14:635–653
Buggy L, McNamara KE (2016) The need to reinterpret “community” for climate change adapta-
tion: a case study of Pele Island, Vanuatu. Clim Dev 8(3):270–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17565529.2015.1041445
Campos O, Rodríguez E, Ugalde L (1993) Desarrollo agropecuario sostenible en la región de
Hojancha, Guanacaste, Costa Rica. CATIE, Turrialba
Dumaru P (2010) Community-based adaptation: enhancing community adaptive capacity in
Druadrua Island, Fiji. WIREs Climate Change 1:751–763
Engle NL, Lemos MC (2010) Unpacking governance: building adaptive capacity to climate change
of river basins in Brazil. Glob Environ Chang:4–13
Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses.
Glob Environ Chang 16:253–267
Foster KR, Main H (2018) Finding a place in the world: understanding youth outmigration from
shrinking rural communities. Dalhousie University. Available via https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/
bitstream/handle/10222/73932/Finding%20a%20Place%20v1.pdf?sequ. Accessed 29 June
2020
How Youth Brought Their Water Back and Built Long-Term Community Adaptive. . . 23

IPCC (2014) Annex II: glossary. In: Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change 2014: synthesis
report. IPCC, Geneva, pp 117–130
Kaimowitz D (1996) Livestock and deforestation Central America in the 1980s and 1990s: a policy
perspective. CIFOR Available via http://www.bio-nica.info/Biblioteca/Kaimowit
z1996Livestock.pdf. Accessed 01 July 2020
Looker ED, Naylor TD (2009) ‘At risk’ of being rural? The experience of rural youth in a risk
society. J Rural Community Develop 4(2):39–64
Madrigal Cordero P, Solis Rivera V, Ayales Cruz, I (2012) La experiencia forestal de Hojancha: mas
de 35 anos de restauración forestal, desarrollo territorial y fortalecimiento social. CATIE.
Available via http://repositorio.bibliotecaorton.catie.ac.cr/handle/11554/8671. Accessed 29
June 2020
Munshi D, Kurian PA, Foran J, Bhavnani K (2019) The future is ours to seek: changing the
inevitability of climate chaos to prospects of hope and justice. In: Bhavani K, Foran J, Kurian
PA, Munshi D (eds) Climate futures: reimagining global climate justice. Zed Books Ltd,
London, pp 1–8
Nansambu D, Sugden F (2017) A generation on the move: voices of youths in the context of climate
change, migration, and livelihood transition. In: Session report from the 11th international
community based adaptation youth conference, Kampala, Uganda, June 2017
Reid H, Schipper LF (2014) Upscaling community-based adaptation: an introduction to the edited
volume. In: Schipper LF, Ayers J, Reid H, Hug S, Rahman A (eds) Community-based adaptation
to climate change: scaling it up. Routledge, New York, pp 3–21
Reid H, Cannon T, Berger R, Alam M, Milligan A (eds) (2009) Community-based adaptation to
climate change. IIED, London
Sarvilinna A, Lehtoranta V, Hjerppe T (2018) Willingness to participate in the restoration of waters
in an urban-rural setting: local drivers and motivations behind environmental behavior. Environ
Sci Policy 85:11–18
Scannell L, Gifford R (2013) Personally relevant climate change: the role of place attachment and
local versus global message framing in engagement. Environ Behav 45:60–85
Schlosberg D, Collins LB (2014) From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the
discourse of environmental justice. WIREs Clim Change 5:539–374
Schuldt JP, Rickard LN, Yang JZ (2018) Does reduced psychological distance increase climate
engagement? On the limits of localizing climate change. J Environ Psychol 55:147–153
Spence A, Pidgeon N (2010) Psychology, climate change, and sustainable behavior. Environ Sci
Policy Sustain Dev 51(6):10–18
Sylvester O, García Segura AG, Davidson-Hunt I (2016) The protection of rainforest biodiversity
can conflict with food access for indigenous people. Conserv Soc 14(3):279–290
UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) (2016) Toward climate resilience. Available via https://www.
ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/06/climate-resilience-framework-and-principles.pdf.
Accessed 29 June 2020
UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available via
https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/
globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf. Accessed 02 July 2020
van der Linden SL (2014) The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk percep-
tions: towards a comprehensive model. J Environ Psychol 41:112–124
van der Linden S, Maibach E, Leiserowitz A (2015) Improving public engagement with climate
change: five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspect Psychol Sci 10
(6):758–763
Vaske JJ, Kobrin KC (2001) Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. J Environ
Educ 32(4):16–21
Verbrugge LNH, Ganzevoort W, Fliervoet JM, Panten K, van den Born RJG (2016) Implementing
participatory monitoring in river management: the role of stakeholders’ perspectives and
incentives. J Enviorn Manag 195:62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.035
24 O. Sylvester

Villhauer B, Sylvester O (2020) Decolonizing REDD + for climate change mitigation? A case study
of Costa Rica’s cultural mediators program. In: Leal Filho W, Luetz JM, Yayeh Ayal D (eds)
Handbook of climate change management. Springer. in press; in this volume
Yates JS (2014) Power and politics in the governance of community-based adaptation. In: Ensor J,
Berger R, Huq S (eds) Community based adaptation to climate change: emerging lessons.
Practical Action Publishing, Rugby, pp 15–34
Yoder MS (1994) Critical chorology and peasant production: small farm forestry in Hojancha,
Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Dissertation, Louisiana State University