communityparticipation inecotourism bene¢ts

Community Participation in EcotourismBene¢ts:The Link to Conservation

Practices and Perspectives

CAROLINE J. STEM

Department of Natural ResourcesCornell UniversityIthaca, New York, USA

JAMES P. LASSOIE

Department of Natural ResourcesCornell UniversityIthaca, New York, USA

DAVID R. LEE

Department of Applied Economicsand ManagementCornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA

DAVID D. DESHLER

Department of EducationCornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA

JOHN W. SCHELHAS

Southern Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceTuskegee UniversityTuskegee, Alabama, USA

Conservationists have increasingly turned to ecotourism to provide local economicbenefits while maintaining ecosystem integrity. Research conducted in Costa Rica toexamine models linking conservation and development indicates ecotourism’seffectiveness as a conservation strategy has been mixed. Where ecotourism offers aviable economic alternative, tourism opportunities have induced people to abandoncultivated land, allowing forests to regenerate. Employmente in tourism, however,reveals minimal influence on conservation perspectives. Other factors, includingindirect tourism benefits and education levels, show stronger associations with

Received 27 November 2001; accepted 14 June 2002.Address correspondence to Caroline J. Stem at her current address, Program Associate,

Foundations of Success, 17 Avery Street, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

387

Society and Natural Resources, 16:387–413, 2003

Copyright # 2003 Taylor & Francis

0894-1920/2003 $12.00 + .00

DOI: 10.1080/08941920390190041

conservation behaviors and perspectives. Results also indicate ecotourism might bemost effective as a component of a broader conservation strategy.

Keywords Corcovado National Park, Costa Rica, ecotourism, environmentalvalues and attitudes, integrated conservation and development projects, parksand protected areas, Piedras Blancas National Park, sustainable tourism

Ecotourism’s primary appeal as a conservation and development tool is that it can,in theory, provide local economic benefits while also maintaining ecological integritythrough low-impact, nonconsumptive use of local resources. Unlike many sustain-able harvesting initiatives, ecotourism can consistently provide a return per hectarecompetitive with current land uses (e.g., see Ceballos-Lascurain 1996; Wunder 2000).Moreover, ecotourism often financially supports protected areas through tourism-related park fees. Ecotourism can also offer the economic justification necessary toestablish a protected area and can create a constituency among ecotourists to pro-mote conservation at the sites visited, as well as in their hometown or countries(Brandon 1996).

A great paradox in ecotourism, however, is that its success many actually lead toits demise (Boo 1990; Jacobson and Robles 1992). Although ectourism relies upon aminimal impact approach to tourism, successful endeavors may draw increasinginterest and a correspondingly higher number of tourists. Tourism impacts, such assolid waste generation and habitat disturbance, can seriously threaten the resorucesupon which ecotourism depends. Tourism, more generally, also often detrimentallyaffects the social and cultural fabric of local communities (Boo 1990; Brandon 1996;McLaren 1998). Brandon (1996) notes this ‘‘commodification’’ of culture, whereinpeople and their cultures become marketable commodities, as potentially tourism’smost serious impact. Moreover, some ecotourism operations contribute minimally tolocal development, with little or no ecotourism revenue reaching local people(Jacobson and Robles 1992; Healy 1994; Bookbinder et al. 1998; McLaren 1998).Even those who profit financially often rely upon an unstable source of income, onesubject to seasonal fluctuations, as well as sensitive to economic and political events(Jacobson and Robles 1992; Epler Wood 1998).

The research presented here explores some of these issues as they concern eco-tourism’s potential as a conservation tool. We use data from communities in CostaRica, a country where ecotourism has been widely promoted as a national con-servation and development strategy. Our principle objective is to examine the effectsof individual and community participation in ecotourism benefits on householdconservation practices and perspectives.

Conceptual Framework

Definitions of ecotourism vary, but Ceballos-Lascuain (1996) provides a succinctdescription of its key characteristics: ‘‘[Ecotourism is] environmentally responsibletravel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy andappreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural feature—both past and present)that promotes conservation, has low visitor impact, and provides for beneficiallyactive socio-economic involvement of local populations.’’ This article argues that thebest examples of strong ecotourism would build upon the preceding definition tomaximize local benefits and to include environmental and cultural education fortourists, as well as host communities.

388 C. J. Stem et al.

Ecotourism represents one example of a broader stragegy to use alternativedevelopment mechanisms as a means to achieve conservation. Initiatives employingthis strategy, termed ‘‘integrated conservation and development projects’’ or ICDPsby Wells et al. (1992), operate on the premise that people will conserve resourceswhen they have an incentive to do so and=or when attractive economic alternativesto resource exploitation exist. Individuals may value their local environment foraesthetic or intrinsic (biocentric) reasons, but the ICDP paradigm assumes thatpeople must receive tangible benefits in order to conserve resources. The ICDPapproach also attempts to correct market distortions that do not incorporateintrinsic or functional values and to compensate those forced to curb their economicand social development for the larger social good (McNeely 1988; Bromley 1994).Operating under the assumption that economic factors heavily influence conserva-tion practices, ICDPs sometimes offer greater economic opportunities than existingland use strategies. Various studies assert that ‘‘sustainable’’ forest product har-vesting, a common ICDP strategy, can be significantly more economically profitablethan alternative land uses, including agriculture and cattle ranching (Peters et al.,1989; Grimes et al., 1994; Kant, 1997).

Despite the widespread growth of ICDPs over the past decade, little evidenceindicates they are an effective means to conservation. Indeed, much debate exists asto their long-term economic and ecological viability (e.g., Barrett and Arcese 1995;Freese 1997; Crook and Clapp 1998). Many question the underlying rationale thatthe poor have a fixed income threshold that, if met, will prompt them to abandonenvironmentally destructive practices (Ferraro and Kramer 1995; Langholz 1999).Factors such as labor requirements, household desires for advancement, legalaspects, social acceptability, and cultural tradition all influence decision making andwill affect an ICDP’s success in achieving conservation goals through incentives(Ferraro and Kramer 1995; Uphoff and Langholz 1998). Likewise, many scholarsargue against models that portray human behavior as solely self-interested andrational. They hold that humans often tend to be altruistic, cooperative, and con-cerned about the welfare of fellow community members (Uphoff 1992; Anderson1996). Kempton et al. (1995), for example, hold that environmental sentiments arelinked with religion, parental responsibility, beliefs about weather, and confidence ingovernment and industry to solve environmental problems. Similarly, findings fromJantzi et al. (1999) suggest that past exposure to environmental degradation, positivechildhood experiences related to conservation, and moral and social values present inreligious doctrines positively influence interest in conservation. Schelhas and Shaw(1995) note various factors that influence land use decisions (e.g., returns to labor,risk, and land tenure security) and make the case that rural people’s engagement inenvironmentally destructive behavior is likely rational given the resources andknowledge available to them.

The research presented here addresses these diverging viewpoints on environ-mental motivators by testing the hypothesis that income generation alone is notsufficient to encourage conservation and that other factors, such as age, education,well-being, religion, and cultural norms, influence behavior. Also, we highlight theinfluence of community participation in ecotourism on environmental perspectivesand practices. Since the late 1960s, there has been a growing trend, erupting into fullforce in the 1980s, to incorporate greater local participation in protected areadecision making and benefit sharing (Western and Wright 1994). Key theorists, suchas Freire (1970), Chohen and Uphoff (1980), and Chambers (1983), have pushedconcepts of participation, critical consciousness building, and empowerment to the

Community Participation in Ecotourism Benefits 389

forefront within academic and practitioner circles. The trend toward prioritizinggreater local participation in conservation initiatives stems, in part, from the beliefthat local involvement could reduce hostility toward conservation efforts (Westernand Wright 1994) and that restricting local resource access without offering analternative is morally irresponsible (Brandon and Wells 1992).

Related to the issue of participation is that of benefits distribution. Variousacademicians and practitioners acknowledge that often only select groups benefitfrom ICDPs, reinforcing differences among socioeconomic groups and fracturingsupport for conservation (e.g., McNeely 1988; Wood 1995; Wells 1996). Buntinget al. (1991) maintain that an individual is unlikely to alter his or her behaviorwithout receiving some sort of direct benefit. Brechin et al. (1991, 26) argue that‘‘Protected areas will not survive for long whenever local people remain impover-ished and are denied access to needed resources inside.’’ Nevertheless, not all seelocal involvement as a prerequisite to sound conservation. Vayda and Walters(1996), for example, view the devolution of control over resources to local com-munities as a form of ‘‘green romanticism.’’ Similarly, Anderson (1996) claims thatcultures and traditions both positively and negatively influence resource manage-ment. He states that cultures often disseminate inaccurate information and beliefsthat affect environmental behaviors and institutionalize mistakes.

To date, few studies have questioned whether the sustainable use paradigmrepresents an adequate approach to conservation at the field level. While field-basedinstitutions have recently begun to examine practical experiences in integratingincome generation and conservation strategies (e.g., WWF 1995; CARE 1997;Salafsky et al. 1999; Ulfelder et al. 1998), systematic and comprehensive academicinvestigations of those linkages have been limited (Brandon and Wells 1992; Little1994; Kremen et al. 1998). Moreover, although many theorists and practitionershave acknowledged that community participation in development projects and theassociated distribution of benefits are unequal, few have examined practical linkagesbetween community involvement and actual impacts on conservation targets (someexceptions include Brandon and Wells 1992; Peters 1997; Ulfelder et al. 1998;Wunder 2000). The research presented here contributes to the literature on eco-tourism, integrated conservation and development strategies, and local participationin conservation initiatives by addressing the influence of community participationand local benefits distribution on conservation practices and perspectives.

Study Description and Methods

We conducted the present research in selected national park buffer zone commu-nities in southern Costa Rica (Figures 1 and 2). We drew upon data from fourcommunities involved in ecotourism and, for comparison purposes, two commu-nities not involved in ecotourism. The study measured conservation perspectives andpractices, participation in ecotourism, and the distribution of tourism benefits andimpacts among the local population. Specifically, the study tested the followinghypotheses: first, that local development activities with greater local participationand equitable benefits distribution are more likely to generate perspective andbehaviors favorable to conservation; second, that income generation alone is notsufficient to encourage conservation (other factors influencing attitudes and beha-viors include age, education, general well-being, and religion); and third, that eco-tourism and economic development may negatively impact conservation throughunintended or overlooked side effects. This article provides an examination of the


FIGURE 1 Map of Costa Rica. Modified from U.S. Central Intelligence Agency(2002).

FIGURE 2 Map of the Osa Peninsula and ecotourism study sites. Modified fromWorld Headquarters (2001).


first two hypotheses. For a detailed discussion of the third hypothesis, see Stem et al.(2003).

The study design involved a mixed-methods approach, drawing upon strategiesdiscussed by Patton (1990) and Guba and Lincoln (1989). Key qualitative methodsincluded focus-group discussions, open-ended informal interviews, and directobservation. Quantitative data were collected via a researcher-administered survey.Criteria for selecting participating hotels and research sites included: community-based enterprises or high level of community involvement; established at least 5 yearsprior to the research; conservation objective was a factor in establishment; situatedin or near protected area; historical local reliance upon resources for livelihood needsand past or present pressure exerted on resource integrity; and community and hotelinterest in participating in the research. To ensure greater comparability, we selectedecotourism communities bordering two neighboring protected areas joined by anecological corridor, Corcovado National Park and Piedras Blancas National Park.We also chose to work in southern Coast Rica in order to be able to draw upon selectdata from a separate, nearby Cornell University project: Policy, Norms, and Valuesin Forest Conservation: Protected Area Buffer Zone Management in CentralAmerica. In each ecotourism site, interviewees included local residents, hotel man-agers and employees, and other key informants. In addition, we conducted inter-views with outside officials to fill information gaps and provide a broader perspectiveof conservation and tourism in the area.

The qualitative portion of the study used stratified purposeful sampling (Patton1990), a sampling technique that ensured broad representation in terms ofsocioeconomic status, conservation orientation, formal educational levels, andcommunity activism. In each community, the senior author conducted, in Spanish, apilot-tested oral survey with a random sample of 50% of self-declared heads ofhousehold. The survey shared a common framework across communities butincluded some site-specific questions. In Cerro de Oro, due to its small size, allwilling residents were interviewed, for a 94% sample size. Table 1 summarizes thescope of the analysis in the study communities.

Site Description

The research took place in four communities (La Gamba, Cerro de Oro, Agujitas,and Los Planes) bordering Corcovado National Park (CNP) and Piedras BalancesNational Park (PBNP). CNP, located on Costa Rica’s Osa Peninsula (Figure 2),comprises the largest remnant of tropical, humid Pacific rainforest in Central

TABLE 1 Interview and Survey Participants by Community

Community Qualitative interviewsa Surveys

La Gamba 29 (31) 50

Cerro de Oro 14 (20) 31

Drake Bay (Agujitas and Los Planes) 34 (39) 47

La Amistad (Altamira and Biolley) 29 (30) 86

Total 106 (120) 214

aFirst number is the number of interviews, while the second is the number of interviewees.Discrepancies arise from the fact that some qualitative interviews involved multiple people.


America (Vaughan 1981; Servicio de Parques Nacionales 1995). The 41,789-hectarepark encompasses a wide range of habitats and is home to increasingly threatenedfauna, including tapirs, jaguars, scarlet macaws, and all four of Costa Rica’s monkeyspecies. Piedras Blancas National Park (PBNP), located on the mainland nearGolfito (Figure 2), was initially designated as an expansion to Corcovado in 1991.PBNP encompasses 14,025 hectares and an accompanying 1200 hectares of marineterritory, thus creating a biological corridor with CNP. Hunting and logging, whilenot major problems within the parks, represent grave threats to the surroundingGolfo Dulce Forest Reserve (Chaves 2000).

La Gamba, an agricultural community of approximately 100 households, liesnext to Piedras Blancas National Park. Outside of agriculture and livestockproduction, La Gamba’s only significant source of employment is the EsquinasRainforest Lodge, which employs about 15 people. Located in the heart of theOsa Peninsula at the edge of Corcovado National Park, Cerro de Oro is anisolated settlement of approximately 40 small-scale gold panners. Cerro de Oro isalso home to a small ecotourism lodge built in 1992 by CoopeUnioro, a formergold mining-cooperative. The lodge employs a few local people, but most minersare not directly involve with ecotourism. The third case site was in Drake Bay,where we worked in the communities of Agujitas and Los Planes. Bordered bythe Pacific Ocean and Corcovado National Park, Drake Bay has had muchgreater exposure to tourism than La Gamba or Cerro de Oro. Agujitas has about10 small operations, with most of the higher end establishments owned by for-eigners and the smaller hotels owned by Costa Ricans. Approximately 90% ofAgujitas resident and 50% of the more remote Los Planes inhabitants dependupon tourism. The remainder of residents support themselves through small-scaleagriculture or day laborer jobs.

For comparison purposes, the study uses data from the towns of Altamira andBiolley, both of which border La Amistad International Park (LAIP) in southernCosta Rica. Settled in the late 1960s, Biolley and Altamira are primarily agriculturaltowns, with most landowners involved in coffee production. Both villages have aninterest in becoming more involved in tourism, but at the time of the study, they wereonly in the planning stages. In including these communities, we were able to drawupon data from the previously mentioned Cornell project, Policy, Norms, andValues in Forest Conservation. Although the Amistad towns differ in their economicbase, the towns are useful comparison points because they are relatively close to theecotourism communities, they share similar histories in terms of agricultural rootsand settlement times, and, like the ecotourism communities, they lie directly adjacentto a national park.

Results and Discussion

Our research revealed that in the study communities where tourism has been aneconomically viable alternative, people have largely abandoned environmentallydestructive practices. The underlying motives, however, are not obvious. Respon-dents’ comments imply that time may be an important factor: When people are fullyemployed, they have less disposable time to hunt or cut trees. This finding parallelsthose of Wunder (2000), who asserts that declines in hunting rates among commu-nities involved in ecotourism in the Ecuadorian Amazon are more likely due tolimited time rather than increased income. In the present study, some people alsoclaimed they had left their land in forest cover because they recognized its value for


tourism. In an attempt to more precisely identify the factors motivating conservationpractices and perspectives, we summarize here our statistical results.

Linear Regression—Conservation Practices

To examine the determinants of forest conservation behavior, we employed regres-sion analysis, using the percent of land a household has in forest cover as a proxy forconservation behavior. Under the model that best fit the data, only total land,relative economic status (how a household views their economic status relative totheir neighbors), and tourism employment status (whether a household has a familymember employed in tourism) proved to be significant predictors of conservationbehavior (Table 2). Regression results presented in Table 2 indicate the extent towhich these three variables are significant overall predictors of the percent forest alandowner has. For example, the table indicates that tourism employment statusis a highly significant predictor (p< .001). Because tourism employment status isa categorical variable, rather than a continuous variable, Table 2 does not revealhow a change within tourism employment status affects the dependent variable ofpercent forest a landowner has. To address this issue, Table 3 provides a breakdownof the categorical variables tourism employment status and relative economic status,displayed in Table 2. Table 3 illustrates which categories within these variables areresponsible for the overall significance levels reported in Table 2.

Based upon results from Table 3, one would expect households that have afamily member employed in tourism to have, on average, 29% more land in forestcover, as compared to those who are neither employed in tourism nor exposed totourism (i.e., La Amistad residents). Tourism exposure (living in a community wheretourism exists) itself is also significant, with an expectation that, on average, thosehouseholds without family employment in tourism but exposed to tourism wouldhave 19% more land in forest cover, as compared to those not employed in and notexposed to tourism. These results generally support this study’s hypothesis thatgreater local participation in ecotourism or local development initiatives is morelikely to generate behaviors in support of conservation.

TABLE 2 Tests of Between-Subject Effects on Percent Land in Forest Cover (AllCommunities)

SourceType III sumof squares df Mean square F Significance

Correct model 6.2576 6 1.0429 21.6944 .000

Intercept 4.7675 1 4.7675 99.1708 .000

Relative economicstatus

0.4041 3 0.1347 2.8020 .042

Tourism employmentstatus

2.0758 2 1.0379 21.5894 .000

Total land 1.3346 1 1.3346 27.7624 .000

Error 6.6822 139 0.0481

Total 23.1257 146

Corrected total 12.9398 145

Note. R2¼ .484 (adjusted R2¼ .461); n¼ 144 landholders.


The results in Table 2 also show relative economic status to be a moderatelysignificant predictor of percent land farmers leave in forest. Further examination ofregression coefficients in Table 3 reveals that only the relationship between ‘‘better’’and ‘‘average’’ categories is significant. Based upon the model results, one wouldexpect people who feel their economic situation is relatively better (compared to theirneighbors’) to have, on average, 13.2% more land in forest cover, as compared tothose who view their economic status as average. An unusual and slightly significantrelationship (p< .10) exists between the ‘‘worse’’ and ‘‘average’’ categories, with theexpectation that those who see their economic status as worse than their neighborswould have, on average, 9.2% more land in forest cover than those who see theireconomic status as average. This result, although somewhat counterintuitive, doescorrespond with personal observations that people closest to the park tended to seethemselves in a worse economic situation due to tighter land use control. Some hadland physically inside the park, while others had land lying close to park boundarieswhere patrolling is particularly strong. Thus, these residents kept more land in forest,but they often observed they were doing so against their will and that this negativelyaffected their livelihood. These findings appear to support our second hypothesis,which states that income generation alone is not sufficient to encourage conserva-tion. While economic factors influence decision making they do not fully explainconservation behaviors.

In the linear regression model, total land was, by far, the most significant pre-dictor of the percent land on owner dedicated to forest cover (Table 2). Table 3indicates that every 1 hectare increase in land ownership is related to a 0.17%increase in forest cover. In other words, a landowner who has 50 hectares might have30% in forest cover, while a landowner with 60 acres would have 31.7% land inforest cover. Regardless of the other variables tested, total land always emerged ashighly significant. As also observed by Jantzi et al. (1999), this result likely stemsfrom the fact that those with limited land must farm it in order to support theirfamilies, while large landholders require only a small portion of land to maintaintheir households. Thus, they are able to keep a greater percentage of their land inforest cover.

TABLE 3 Parameter Estimates for Predicting Percent Land in Forest Cover(All Communities)

Parameter b Significance

Intercept 0.0385 .206

Relative economic statusa

Don’t know 0.0422 .509

Better 0.1324 .008

Worse 0.0919 .063

Tourism employmentb

Not employed, exposed to tourism 0.1918 .000

Employed in tourism 0.2871 .000

Total land 0.0017 .000

aOmitted category is average relative economic status.bOmitted category is not employed and not exposed to tourism.


Chi-Square Tests—Practices and Perspectives

In addition to linear regression, we employed chi-square tests of independence todetermine statistical associations between the categorical practice and perspectivesdata and potential predictor variables. Chi-square tests determine if two variablesare independent, with significant values indicating an association between variables.Although the tests do not reveal the predictive ability of variables, they do provide ageneral sense of patterns and associations.

Table 4 provides a concise depiction of trends shown by chi-square tests for thepractice (Statement 1) and perspective statements (Statements 2 through 13) locatedin the left-hand column. Where predictor variables from Table 4 were not binary(i.e., only two responses possible), we ran additional chi-square tests to determine thesource of significant associations. For example, the variable ‘‘relative economicstatus’’ has three components representing how people ranked their economic statusrelative to their neighbors’: better, average, or worse. Because relative economicstatus is not a binary variable, interpretation of significant chi-square values iscomplicated. Thus, we present further analyses in Table 5 to indicate if the significantrelationship holds through all three categories or if the relationship is only significantbetween two categories (e.g., better and worse) within the variable. Table 5 includesonly those relationships that were significant p< .05. The following paragraphsdiscuss results from Tables 4 and 5.

Participation in Direct Tourism BenefitsTable 4, Statement 1, shows that households with members employed in tour-

ism, as compared to those households not employed in tourism and=or not exposedto tourism, claim less interest in engaging in resource-intense practices (e.g.,investment in livestock, deforestation, expansion of agriculture) if they had moredisposable income. While this result is only significant at p< .10, and therefore notreported in Table 5, the trend is clear: 27% of people with family members employedin tourism claimed no interest in investing in resource-intensive practices, versus14% for the other two employment groups. This trend follows our hypothesis thatthose who participate in tourism-associated benefits are more likely to engage inpractices favorable to conservation. In contrast to the regression results on percentforest cover, merely being exposed to tourism does not appear to be associated witha tendency to be less likely to engage in resource-intense practices. Given the tenuoussignificance level, however, it would be imprudent to draw any more concreteconclusions.

While both linear regression results and chi-square tests indicated an associationbetween conservation behavior and tourism employment, the relationship is lessclear when examining conservation perspectives (Table 4, Statements 2 through 13,and Table 5). Table 4 shows only one statistically significant case in which thoseemployed in tourism were more likely to give a conservation response (Statement 5).In this instance, households with employment in tourism were more likely to opposeunrestricted clearing. In another highly statistically significant case, however, thoseemployed in and=or exposed to tourism were more likely to feel that a lack ofemployment might make hunting justifiable, a result inconsistent with a strongconservation orientation (Table 4, Statement 4, Table 5, Statement 1). In Drake Bay,those with family employment in tourism were more inclined to believe that tourismis the forest’s most important benefit, as compared to those not employed in tourism(56% vs. 33%). Despite the large difference, we have not reported the result in either

(Text continues on page 405)


TABLE

4Summary

Chi-Square

TestResultsforAssociationsBetweenConservationPerspectives

andPractices

andPotentialPredictors

Familylevel

tourism

benefitsa

Relative

economic

status

Relative

well-beingbReligion

Education

Age

Conservation

response

Employment

Responsibility

level

Indirect

income

Ideas

exchange

Training

Infrastructure

ExpectedConservation

trend(conservation

response

more

likelywith):

Family

employed

intourism

Higher

responsibility

intourism

Benefits

from

indirect

tourism

income

Interacts

withtourists

Receives

training

through

tourism

Benefitsfrom

improved

infra-

structure

Higher

economic

status

Better

well-being

Belongsto

religion

Higher

education

Younger

Allcommunities(n¼214)c

1.Would

engagein

resource-intense

practiceifhad

more

money.d

Disagree

EE

EEg

Eg

Ef

NN

NE

fN

2.More

thananything

else,theforest

exists

toprovide

firewoodandtimber

Disagree

NE

Ee

Ef

EE

Ef

EU

eEg

E

3.Dueto

alack

of

employment,itis

sometim

esnecessary

tocuttrees.

Disagree

NE

NE

EN

Ee

NU

fN

N

4.Dueto

alack

of

employment,itis

sometim

esnecessary

tohunt.

Disagree

Ug

Ee

NE

Ee

Ee

EE

NE

N

(Continued

)

397

TABLE

4(C

ontinued)

Familylevel

tourism

benefitsa

Relative

economic

status

Relative

well-beingbReligion

Education

Age

Conservation

response

Employment

Responsibility

level

Indirect

income

Ideas

exchange

Training

Infrastructure

5.People

should

be

allowed

toclear

forestsforcrops

andlivestock

withoutany

governmental

restrictions.

Disagree

Ee

NEe

Ef

Ee

Ef

EE

UE

N

6.If

wewereto

conserve

forestshere,

we

would

havefewer

opportunitiesto

makemoney.

Disagree

EN

Ee

Eg

Ef

Ef

EE

Ue

Ee

N

7.Huntingwild

anim

alsisOK,

ifoneneeds

money.(n

¼213)

Disagree

UE

NEe

NN

EN

NN

N

Ecotourism

communities

(n¼

128)

8.Humanshavea

greaterrightto

live

thananim

als.

Disagree

NN

NN

Ee

NE

EN

NN

9.If

therewerea

lotofanim

als,

hunting

would

befine.

Disagree

EN

NE

EE

NU

Uf

EU

10.It

isalwaysbad

tohuntwildanim

als.

Agree

NN

NN

NN

NU

NU

eN

398

DrakeBay(n

¼47)

11.Themost

important

reasonto

protect

theforest

isto

attract

tourism

.

Disagree

EN

EE

EN

EE

UE

E

12.Themost

important

benefitofthe

forest

istourism

.

Disagree

UE

EE

fN

Ee

Ee

EN

Ue

E

DrakeBayandLaAmistad

(n¼

133)

13.Themost

important

thingaboutforests

isto

makemoney

withthem

.

Disagree

UN

NE

NE

Eg

EU

eE

fU

f

Note.Theright-handcolumnsrepresentpotentialpredictors

ofconservationbehavior.Significantchi-square

values

indicate

thatthedata

trendsare

likelyreflectiveofreal

trendsin

thelarger

population.Thesecondcolumnreportstheresponse

wewould

anticipate

aconservation-orientedpersonto

provideto

thestatementsin

thefirstcolumn.

Thefirstrow(Expectedconservationtrend)indicatestherelationship

weexpectedto

seebetweenthepredictors

intheright-handcolumnsandtheconservationresponse

tostatements

intheleft-handcolumn.A

cellwithan‘‘E’’denotesthatthedata

show

theexpectedtrend,whilea‘‘U’’indicatesanunexpectedtrend,andan‘‘N’’conveysno

trend.

aTourism

benefitsonly

cover

ecotourism

sites.Thus,thesecolumns(except‘‘Responsibilitylevel’’)havenvalues

of128.Responsibilitylevelhasannof56peopleem

ployed

intourism

.bA

self-defined

category

inwhichrespondents

ranked

theireconomic

statusrelativeto

theirneighbor’sas‘‘better,’’‘‘average,’’‘‘worse.’’

cUnless

otherwiseindicated

dPractice-orientedstatement.Resource-intense

practices

includeoneormore

ofthefollowing:investingin

livestock,mechanized

agriculture,deforestation,em

ployingothers

towork

plots,and=orbuyingminingequipment.

eSignificantatp<

:05.

f Significantatp<

:01.

gSignificantatp<

:001.

399

TABLE

5BreakdownofChi-Square

Values

ShownasSignificantin

Table

4

Statementshowingsignificantassociations

Categories

within

variable

Disagree

Categories

within

variable

Disagree

pValuea

Significance

bn

Employmentstatus

1.Dueto

alack

ofem

ployment,itis

sometim

esnecessary

tohunt.

Notem

ployed,

notexposed

81%

Notem

ployed

,exposed

50%

.0003

***

158

Additionaltestsrun:

Notem

ployed,

notexposed

81%

Employed

66%

.1042

1142

2.People

should

beallowed

toclear

forestsforcropsandlivestock

withoutanygovernmental

restrictions.

Employed

80%

Notem

ployed

,exposed

57%

.0192

*128

Responsibilitylevel

3.Dueto

alack

ofem

ployment,

itissometim

esnecessary

tohunt.

High

81%

Low

57%

.0467

*56

Indirectincome

4.More

thananythingelse,theforest

exists

toprovidefirewoodandtimber.

Benefits

79%

Nobenefit

59%

.0486

*128

5.People

should

beallowed

toclear


without

anygovernmentalrestrictions.

Benefits

84%

Nobenefit

60%

.0207

*128

6.If

wewereto

conserveforestshere,

wewould

haveless

opportunities

tomakemoney.

Benefits

76%

Nobenefit

48%

.0118

*128

Idea

exchange

7.More


exists


Benefits

79%

Nobenefit

50%

.0027

**

128

400

8.People

should

beallowed

toclear


without

anygovernmentalrestrictions.

Benefits

82%

Nobenefit

52%

.0013

**

128

9.If

wewereto


wewould

havefewer

opportunities

tomakemoney.

Benefits

73%

Nobenefit

39%

.0000

***

128

10.Huntingwildanim

alsisOK

ifone

needsmoney.

Benefits

89%

Nobenefit

73%

.0339

*128

11.Would

engagein

resource-intense

practiceifhadmore

money.

Benefits

33%

Nobenefit

5%

.0000

***

128

12.Themost

importantbenefitofthe

forest

istourism

.Benefits

47%

Nobenefit

9%

.0057

**

128

Training

13.Dueto

alack

ofem

ployment,itis

sometim

esnecessary

tohunt.

Benefits

77%

Nobenefit

51%

.0142

*128

14.People

should

beallowed

toclear

forestsforcropslivestock

withoutany

governmentalrestrictions.

Benefits

87%

Nobenefit

61%

.0126

*128

15.If

wewereto


wewould

havefewer

opportunities

tomakemoney.

Benefits

81%

Nobenefit

48%

.0026

**

128

16.Would

engagein

resource-intense

practiceifhadmore

money.

Benefits

42%

Nobenefit

12%

.0003

***

128

17.Humanshaveagreaterrightto

livethananim

als

Benefits

81%

Nobenefit

58%

.0320

*128

Infrastructure

18.Dueto

alack

ofem

ployment,

itissometim

esnecessary

tohunt.

Benefits

69%

Nobenefit

47%

.0405

*128

(Continued

)

401

TABLE

5(C

ontinued)


Categories

within

variable

Disagree

Categories

within

variable

Disagree

pValuea

Significance

bn

19.People

should

beallowed

toclear


withoutanygovernmentalrestrictions.

Benefits

83%

Nobenefit

54%

.0019

**

128

20.If

wewereto


wewould

havefewer

opportunities

tomakemoney.

Benefits

69%

Nobenefit

46%

.0077

**

128

21.Would

engagein

resource-intense

practiceifhadmore

money.

Benefits

31%

Nobenefit

10%

.0028

**

128

22.Themost


forest

istourism

.Benefits

41%

Nobenefit

30%

.0207

*128

Relative

economic

status

23.More


exists


Better

83%

Worse

46%

.0055

**

91

Additionaltestsrun:c

Average

68%

Worse

46%

.0745

149

24.Dueto

lack

ofem

ployment,itis

sometim

esnecessary

tocuttrees.

Better

56%

Average

37%

.0172

*140

25.Themost


forest

istourism

.Average

57%

Worse

8%

.0174

*33

26.Themost

importantthingabout

forestsisto

makemoney

withthem

.Average

91%

Worse

60%

.0000

***

97

Additionaltestsrun:

Better

78%

Worse

60%

.0184

*53

Religion

27.More


exists


Noreligion

76%

Hasreligion

62%

.0136

*213

402

28.Dueto

alack

ofem

ployment,itis

sometim

esnecessary

tocuttrees.

Noreligion

64%

Hasreligion

34%

.0008

**

213

29.If

wewereto


wewould

havefewer

opportunities

tomakemoney.

Noreligion

61%

Hasreligion

52%

.0405

*213

30.If

therewerealotofanim

als,

huntingwould

befine.

Noreligion

52%

Hasreligion

42%

.0047

**

213

31.Themost

importantthingabout

forestsisto

makemoney

withthem

.Noreligion

81%

Hasreligion

75%

.0129

*213

Education

32.More


exists


>6–12years

84%

None

27%

.0000

***

64

Additionaltestsrun:

>12years

100%

None

27%

.0052

**

40

>6–12years

84%

6years

orless

66%

.0282

*174

>6–12years

84%

None

27%

.0001

***

64

6years

orless

66%

None

27%

.0002

***

176

33.If

wewereto


wewould

havefewer

opportunities

tomakemoney.

>6–12years

77%

None

36%

.0210

*64

Additionaltestsrun:

>6–12years

77%

6years

orless

50%

.0444

*174

34.Would

engagein

resource-intense

practiceifhadmore

money.

>6–12years

32%

6years

orless

12%

.0014

**

174

Additionaltestsrun:

>12years

57%

None

18%

.0612

40

>12years

57%

6years

orless

12%

.0015

*150

35.It

isalwaysbadto

huntwildanim

als.

>6–12years

29%

eNone

5%

e.0262

*42

Additionaltestsrun:

6years

orless

26%

eNone

5%

e.1003

101

36.Themost


forest

istourism

.>6–12years

78%

6years

orless

29%

.0215

*40

Additionaltestsrun:

>6–12years

78%

None

0%

.0360

*12

(Continued

)

403

TABLE

5(C

ontinued)


Categories

within

variable

Disagree

Categories

within

variable

Disagree

RValuea

Significance

bn

37.Themost

importantthingabout

forestsisto

makemoney

withthem

.>6–12years

95%

None

47%

.0032

**

34

Additionaltestsrun:

6years

orless

83%

None

47%

.0070

**

109

Age

38.Themost

importantthingabout

forestsisto

makemoney

withthem

.

Over

65

100%

26–45years

66%

.0154

*71

aValues

indicate

thesignificance

ofthedifference

seen

betweentw

ofactors

comprisingthecategoricalvariables;pvalues

are

adjusted

usingaBonferroni

correctionfactor.

This

adjustsalphalevelsin

astudyrunningmore

thanonetest

onthesamesetofdata.This

correctionfactoradjustsdownward

toconsider

chance

capitalizationand,in

thecase

ofrepeatedtesting,thechance

toincorrectlydeclare

adifference,effect

orrelationship

assignificant.For

additionalinform

ation,seeSISA,Sim

ple

InteractiveStatisticalAnalysis(2001).

bResultsdonotincludethose

respondents

whoindicatedthey

did

notknow

whattheireconomic

statuswasrelativeto

others.

cThefirstlinenextto

each

statementpresents

relationshipsthatwereclearlysignificantandneeded

noadditionaltestingbecause

they

representedthe

extrem

esin

varation.Weranadditionalteststo

determinethesignificance

ofother

relationships;theserelationshipsare

presentedin

thecolumnto

theright

ofthatlabeled

‘‘Additionaltestsrun.’’

dSignificance:*p<

:05,**p<

:01,***p<

:001.

eIn

order

forthis

columnto

consistentlyreflecttheconservation

response,thepercentages

forthis

statementalonereflectthose

who

agreed

(not

disagreed)withthisstatement.

404

table because it was not statistically significant, possibly due to the small sample size.Based upon results from the chi-square tests, the association between tourismemployment status and conservation perspectives is not clear.

We expected households with members occupying higher levels of responsibilityin tourism (e.g., administrative positions or guides) to be more likely to give con-servation-oriented responses than those with lower responsibility levels (e.g.,housekeeping or maintenance staff). As Table 4 indicates, this expectation onlymaterialized in half the perspectives questions, and in only one case (Statement 4)was it statistically significant (p< .05). In terms of practices, tourism responsibilitylevel was not a useful predictor in the regression model for percent land in forestcover. Although not statistically significant, responses did follow the expected trendfor the question on households’ interest in engaging in resource-intense practiceswere they to have more disposable income (Table 4, Statement 1). While these resultsdo not make a strong case for the association between higher levels of responsibilityin tourism employment and environmental leanings, we cannot discount the possi-bility of association since no cases showed unexpected patterns. In fact, as Table 4reveals, none of the tourism benefits, except direct employment, showed any negativeassociation with pro-conservation practices or perspectives.

Overall, our results indicate a positive association between tourism employmentand conservation practices and an unclear relationship between tourism employmentstatus and conservation perspectives. As discussed later, greater local participation intourism employment may be less important than participation in other tourismbenefits for generating pro-conservation perspectives.

Participation in Indirect Tourism BenefitsIn the linear regression model, indirect tourism benefits (indirect income, ideas

exchange, training, and infrastructure improvement) were not useful predictors ofthe percent of household land in forest cover. Those enjoying these tourism-relatedbenefits, however, did demonstrate pro-conservation trends when asked how theywould spend their money if they had more disposable income (Table 4, Statement 1).All associations were highly significant, with the exception of indirect income.Moreover, for a majority of the perspectives statements (Table 4, Statements 2through 13), at least three of the four categories of indirect tourism benefits showed apositive association, some highly significant, with pro-environmental responses. Forinstance, in response to Statement 6 of Table 4, ‘‘If we were to conserve forests here,we would have fewer opportunities to make money,’’ statistically significant expectedassociations between indirect benefits variables and pro-conservation perspectiveswere evident across the board. Table 5, Statements 4 through 22, provides additionaldetail.

Of the indirect tourism benefits, indirect income showed the fewest and leastsignificant associations with pro-environmental responses, while ideas exchangeshowed the most significant and greatest number of associations (Table 4). Trainingand infrastructure followed ideas exchange in terms of frequency and strength ofassociation. In the case of people who have benefited from tourism throughexchanging ideas with tourists, pro-environmental responses were evident in the vastmajority of perspectives questions (Table 4). Half were statistically significant, andmany were highly significant. Thus, this direct interaction with tourists may be animportant factor in building greater support for conservation.

It appears the distribution of a variety of tourism-related benefits is associatedwith positive conservation perspectives and may play a role in influencing those


perspectives. Again, this reinforces parts of our hypotheses. Specifically, results showthat greater participation in indirect tourism benefits is associated with pro-conservation attitudes, and income generation alone is not sufficient to encourageconservation. Interestingly, less direct tourism benefits are more strongly associatedwith conservation perspectives than direct benefits. This finding coincides withwork by Salafsky et al. (1999) that suggests that noncash benefits associated withenterprise-based conservation strategies (e.g., infrastructure support, empowerment,improved environmental conditions, etc.) may be more important than cash benefits.

Relative Economic StatusDespite the modest significance of relative economic status in the linear

regression model, chi-square tests revealed conflicting associations between relativeeconomic status and forest and wildlife management perspectives. Table 5 indicatesthat those with better relative economic situations tended to have stronger con-servation perspectives, although significance levels varied widely. In a few instances,however, this result is less apparent. For example, Statement 26 in Table 5 revealsthat those with an average relative economic status were more likely, compared tothose with a better relative economic situation, to disagree that the most importantthing about forests is to make money with them. Generally speaking, however, theresults in Tables 4 and 5 show that those who see their economic situation as worse,relative to their neighbors, tended to have weaker conservation perspectives. It isinteresting to note there is no discernible association between relative economicstatus and the desire to engage in resource-intense practices if more money wereavailable (Table 4, Statement 1). Although this finding conflicts with the linearregression results (Tables 2 and 3), it implies that improving economic status mayhave little direct influence on resource management practices. Again, this supportsour hypothesis that income generation alone is insufficient to influence conservationpractices.

Other Potential PredictorsWe also examined the associations between conservation outcomes and other

household characteristics, such as family well-being, education, religion, and age.None of these were significant predictors in the linear regression model. Here, webriefly summarize results from chi-square tests for these factors. We collected dataon well-being in order to measure how people view their quality of life, outside ofeconomic concerns. We expected those who saw their well-being as better, relative totheir neighbors, to be more likely to give conservation responses. As results fromTable 4 indicate though, well-being does not appear to influence how people viewforests and wildlife or how they manage them.

Study results do not indicate that religion affects conservation practices,although religion does appear to have an interesting association with conservationperspectives. We expected religion might be important in instilling respect for theearth. Chi-square test results on most conservation perspectives, however, show thatthose not pertaining to an organized religion had a greater tendency to hold strongconservation perspectives than Catholics or Evangelists (Tables 4 and 5). In nearlyhalf the statements examined, results were significant for this unexpected association.While this was puzzling and in contrast to what Jantzi et al. (1999) observed, wesuspected religious affiliation may be associated with education. Tests of associationrevealed that those not belonging to an organized religion were concentrated amongthose with higher education. Thus, the trend observed may actually be due to higher


education levels. It is also worth acknowledging the heated debate on the influence ofreligion in environmental stewardship. While it is beyond the scope of this article toaddress this matter, interested readers might refer to White’s (1967) seminal work inwhich he asserts that our ‘‘ecological crisis’’ stems from the Biblical notion of humandominion over nature. Counterarguments are provided by numerous scholars (e.g.,Greeley 1993; Whitney 1993).

Education, while not a good predictor for percent of land in forest, did have astrong and significant negative association with respondents’ stated intentions toinvest in a resource-intense practice if they had more money (Table 4, Statement 1).In addition, higher education levels tended to correspond with stronger conservationperspectives (Table 4). For instance, those with higher education levels were morelikely to disagree with Statement 2 in Table 4: ‘‘More than anything else, the forestexists to provide firewood and timber.’’ While the data generally support our claimthat other factors, such as education, influence conservation perspectives andpractices, there were a couple of slightly unusual trends. For example, Statement 37in Table 5 indicates those with 12 or more years of education were less likely to give aconservation response than those with less education. The very small sample size,however, likely accounts for this unexpected result.

Age was not a significant predictor of percent land in forest cover, and it had nodiscernible influence on people’s preference for engaging in resource-intense practicesif given more money (Table 4, Statement 1). In terms of perspectives, it is difficult todetect a general trend. We expected younger people to have a stronger conservationperspectives because they have grown up in a time when environmental issues are atthe forefront. Nevertheless, there were no statistically significant responses sup-porting this expectation. In a couple of cases, one of which was statistically sig-nificant (p< .01), we observed an unexpected relationship between age andconservation perspectives (Table 4, Statements 9 and 13). In response to the state-ment ‘‘The most important thing about forests is to make money with them,’’ olderand younger groups tended to disagree the most, although the difference was onlystatistically significant for the older group (Table 5, Statement 38). Although we didnot anticipate this distribution, it does make some intuitive sense. Older generationsmay demonstrate stronger conservation responses because they often grew up inclose contact with the forests, depending upon them for food, health, and livelihood.Moreover, as Jantzi et al. (1999) note, their firsthand experience with degradationoften results in greater concern for forests. In general, however, this study did notshow age to have a strong association with either conservation perspectives orpractices.

In summary, linear regression results and chi-square tests indicated a generallypositive association between tourism employment and conservation practices, whileassociations were less clear for conservation perspectives. Participation in indirecttourism benefits showed stronger associations with pro-conservation perspectivesthan did participation in direct tourism benefits. Well-being and age revealed noinfluence on practices and perspectives, while higher education levels were associatedwith stronger conservation behaviors and perspectives. Finally, religion appeared toshow negative associations, possibly due to correlations with education.

Risks of Placing an Economic Value on the Forest

Some study data suggest economic dependence upon forest resources may contributeto strong economic perspectives on forests and wildlife, possibly at the expense of


undermining non-use-oriented value systems. Sayer (1981, as cited in Boo 1990)addresses this issue when he cautions that too much emphasis on the economicvalues of parks could lead decision makers to view parks primarily as tools foreconomic profit. Qualitative interviews in our study revealed a tendency for peoplewho depended on the forests for their economic livelihood, be it tourism, mining, ortimber, to first mention the utilitarian benefits of forests, wildlife, and the neigh-boring park. Some would follow these remarks with references to ecosystem orintrinsic values. Because this was not a central issue to this study, the survey designdoes not permit a reliable examination of this potential association. Nevertheless,this relationship does emerge in terms of who people see as benefiting from thenational park bordering their community. As Figure 3 illustrates, La Amistadresidents, who reap no tangible economic benefit from La Amistad InternationalPark (LAIP), view their community and the world as the entities that benefit mostfrom LAIP. The other study communities tended to identify economic beneficiaries,such as park guards and hotels. This result, however, is not clear-cut. For example,28% of respondents in Agujitas (Drake Bay) see the community as the mostimportant beneficiary. It is unclear if they see the community as a beneficiary inutilitarian or nonuse terms, or a combination of the two. What is striking, however,is both Drake Bay communities, which benefit most from tourism, identified pri-marily economic beneficiaries.

It is uncertain how much this economic orientation is due to semantics and theinterpretation of the word ‘‘benefit’’ versus some deeper meaning associated with aneconomics-focused value system. Nevertheless, Costa Ricans participating in aninterinstitutional meeting to share results from this study did express concern forsimilar issues. They fear that an emphasis on the economic profits forests provide

FIGURE 3 People=institutions benefiting most from neighboring park. Economicbeneficiaries are shaded gray.


had led fellow Costa Ricans to lose sight of the less tangible benefits forests offer.This issue merits further study and suggests a need to strengthen strategies designedto promote or reinforce conservation behaviors by focusing on conservation values,attitudes, and education, not simply on improving economic returns.

Broader Policy Concerns

Perhaps the more important issue in alternative economic development strategies toforest and wildlife management relates to the capacity for these strategies to addresslarger conservation threats (e.g., Wells et al. 1992; Kramer et al. 1997; Langholz1999). Small-scale initiatives, such as those examined in this study, can likely haveonly small-scale impacts. This is not to detract from small successes, but rather toemphasize that conservation through development should not be a stand-aloneprotection strategy. In the case of Corcovado, for example, government-sanctionedlarge-scale logging currently represents the principal threat to the buffer zone (seeBarrantes et al. 1999 for a full discussion). In Drake Bay, three hotels have cometogether to form the Fundacion Corcovado, an organization dedicated to lobbyingfor improved protection of Corcovado National Park. Despite such admirableefforts, ecotourism’s impact on larger policy decisions will likely only be minimal.Furthermore, keeping in mind the broader context of large-scale logging, even ifecotourism always positively influenced conservation perspectives and practices,local communities may not represent the larger threat to the surrounding forests.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Results from this research portray a very complex picture of ecotourism’s effects onconservation perspectives and practices. While the study largely confirms ourhypothesis that other factors outside of income generation influence conservationattitudes and behaviors, results were mixed in terms of our other hypothesis thatlocal development activities with greater local participation and equitable benefitsdistribution are more likely to generate perspectives and behaviors favorable toconservation.

At a large scale, ecotourism may offer significant economic benefits anddiscourage the conversion of forest to agricultural and pastoral land. At the sametime, there is scant intercommunity evidence that direct employment in tourism ishaving a significant impact on household conservation perspectives. This leads tothe question: Should conservation strategies aim for a higher level of awareness,or is it sufficient to simply occupy people’s time or create economic incentivesthat make standing forests more valuable? We would argue for loftier goals thatalso emphasize greater awareness and respect for nature. Otherwise, questions willremain: If people had time, would they hunt? If tourism levels dropped, would astanding forest lose its value? A higher level of awareness or appreciation couldensure greater potential for favorable conservation practices over the long term.Findings from Salafsky et al. (1999) also suggest that education and awarenessraising might be important in assisting conservation-based enterprise to achievetheir environmental goals.

Interestingly, indirect benefits associated with tourism, especially ideas exchangeand training, showed stronger associations with proenvironmental perspectives thandid direct employment benefits. These findings support our second hypothesis(income generation alone is not sufficient to encourage conservation) and have at


least two implications. First, it would be wise to focus on extending the coverage ofindirect benefits. Ecotourism lodges may gain much, for example, by facilitatinggreater, culturally appropriate interaction with tourists and improving trainingopportunities for all employees. Moreover, they may buy goodwill with the com-munity by supporting infrastructure and local development projects, althoughdecision makers should be careful such support is meaningful and not used tomanipulate communities. The second implication regarding ecotourism’s minimalimpact on conservation perspectives is the need for greater emphasis on integratingenvironmental awareness raising and knowledge generation into ecotourism acti-vities. Under ideal circumstances, education should not be limited to employees or thelocal communities. It should extend to the ecotourists themselves, with an emphasison the ecological, cultural, and social history of the region they are visiting. At thesame time, it is important to recognize that raising environmental awareness takestime and is a broader issue to be addressed at various levels; it is not the soleresponsibility of ecotourism operations.

It is also necessary to examine more critically the costs and benefits associatedwith ecotourism. Policymakers, practitioners, and academics alike need to movebeyond considering ecotourism as a nonconsumptive use of resources (Stem et al.2003). Under ideal circumstances, it may be less consumptive than other alternatives.The cases examined here illustrate the potential of ecotourism to positively affectconservation behaviors. The research reveals that economic factors, however, are notthe sole motivators affecting conservation practices and perspectives. Thus, eco-tourism should be considered a component of a larger plan that addresses protectedarea management through a variety of avenues, which may include legal restrictions.With respect to restrictions, however, there is a need for wider policy reform toaddress the greatest conservation threats. As a starting point, the Costa Ricangovernment should enforce strict adherence to timber management plans. At pre-sent, little or no monitoring of management plans takes place (Barrantes et al. 1999).In addition, MINAE is bound by law to approve logging permits, regardless of theirecological implications, as long as they meet legal specifications (Chaves 2000). Toaddress this issue, the government should reconcile economic development prioritieswith biodiversity conservation to make informed, systematic choices about how andhow much timber exploitation should take place in buffer zones.

Across the ecotourism case sites, there was general consensus that local invol-vement in and benefits from tourism could be improved. This coincides with Honey’s(1999) broader claim that ecotourism projects have shown disappointing results interms of participation. To improve local involvement, respondents suggested simplemeasures, such as increased interaction between tourists and the community. Thiswas especially the case in La Gamba, where people felt the tourists passed throughtown only to arrive at or depart from the lodge. Community members in La Gambaand Drake Bay would like to see increased opportunities to sell local produce ormeat to the hotels. These initiatives require efforts from both ends, with local resi-dents ensuring a steady and predictable source of particular products and hotelscommitting to purchase items at a fair, mutually acceptable price. In addition, ifecotourism operators work toward increasing interaction between tourists and localresidents, it will also be important to educate travelers on local culture and socialhistory, so as to avoid negative impacts associated with cultural and familial dis-integration. It may also be appropriate for ecotourism operators to organize culturaltours with a few different groups in the community to ensure a meaningful experi-ence for the tourists as well community members.


In conclusion, under ideal circumstances, ecotourism offers communities anopportunity to improve their well-being and economic livelihood. It can alsoencourage individuals to conserve forests and wildlife. The case studies here, how-ever, have illustrated ecotourism is not necessarily a nonconsumptive use ofresources, and it also has the potential to lead to undesirable social, cultural, andeconomic consequences. To better understand ecotourism’s role in conservation,there is a need for similar studies in other areas, as well as more systematic researchon the benefits and impacts of ecotourism. Such studies should follow the samecommunities over several years to collect baseline and subsequent monitoring datafor comparison over time with exposure to tourism. Through additional in-depthstudies and a firm commitment from tourism operators to seriously embrace andadvance conservation strategies and ensure meaningful local involvement, ecotour-ism stands a greater chance of positively impacting conservation and development.

References

Anderson, E. N. 1996. Ecologies of the heart: Emotion, belief, and the environment. New York:

Oxford University Press.Barrantes, G., Q. Jimenez, J. Lobo, T. Maldonado, M. Quesada, and R. Quesada. 1999.

Evaluacion de los planes de manejo forestal autorizados en el perıodo 1997–1999 en la

Peninsula de Osa. Cumplimiento de normas tecnicas, ambientales e impacto sobre el bosquenatural. Puerto Jimenez, Costa Rica: Fundacion Cecropia.

Barrett, B., and P. Arcese. 1995. Are integrated conservation-development projects (ICDPS)sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev.

23(7):1073–1085.Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism: The potentials and pitfalls, 2 vols. Washington, DC: World Wildlife

Fund.

Bookbinder, M. P., E. Dinerstein, R. Arun, H. Cauley, and R. Arup. 1998. Ecotourism’ssupport of biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 12(6):1399–1404.

Brandon, K. 1996. Ecotourism and conservation: A review of key issues. Washington, DC:

World Bank.Brandon, K. E., and M. Wells. 1992. Planning for people and parks: Design dilemmas. World

Dev. 20(4):557–570.

Brechin, S. R., P. C. West, D. Harmon, and K. Kutay. 1991. Resident peoples and protectedareas: A framework for inquiry. In Resident peoples and national parks: Social dilemmas andstrategies in international conservation, eds. P. C. West and S. R. Brechin, 5–28. Tucson:University of Arizona Press.

Bromley, D. W. 1994. Economic dimensions of community-based conservation. In Naturalconnections: Perspectives in community-based conservation, eds. D. Western et al., 428–447.Washington, DC: Island Press.

Bunting, B. W., M. N. Sherpa, and M. Wright. 1991. Annapurna Conservation Area: Nepal’snew approach to protected area management. In Resident peoples and national parks: Socialdilemmas and strategies in international conservation, eds. P. C. West and S. R. Brechin,

160–172. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.CARE. 1997. Integrated conservation and development: A review of project experience from

CARE, ed. T. Blomley and P. Mundy, Proceedings of a workshop held in Hornbaek,Denmark. Hornbaek: CARE Denmark.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1996. Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas: The state of nature-based tourism around the world and guidelines for its development. Gland, Switzerland:IUCN.

Chambers, R. 1983. Rural development: Putting the last first. London: Longman.Chaves, G. 2000. Interview. Puerto Jimenez, Costa Rica: Sub-Administrator, Corcovado

National Park.


Cohen, J., and N. Uphoff. 1980. Participation’s place in rural development: Seeking claritythrough specificity. World Dev. 8:213–235.

Crook, C., and R. A. Clapp. 1998. Is market-oriented conservation a contradiction in terms?Environ. Conserv. 25(2):131–145.

Epler Wood, M. 1998. Meeting the global challenge of community participation in ecotourism:Case studies and lessons from Ecuador. America verde series working paper. Arlington, VA:The Nature Conservancy.

Ferraro, P. J., and R. A. Kramer. 1995. A framework for affecting household behavior topromote biodiversity conservation. Arlington, VA: Winrock International EnvironmentalAlliance.

Freese, C. H. 1997. The ‘‘use it or lose it’’ debate: Issues of a conservation paradox. InHarvesting wild species: Implications for biodiversity conservation, ed. C. H. Freese, 1–48.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed, trans. M. B. Ramos. New York: Herder andHerder.

Greeley, A. 1993. Religion and attitudes toward the environment. J. Sci. Study Religion32(1):19–28.

Grimes, A., S. Loomis, P. Jahnige, M. Burnham, K. Onthank, R. Alarcon, W. P. Cuenca,C. C. Martinez, D. Neill, M. Balick, B. Bennett, and R. Mendelsohn. 1994. Valuing the rainforest: The economic value of nontimber forest products in Ecuador. Ambio 23(7):405–410.

Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Healy, R. G. 1994. ‘Tourist merchandise’ as a means of generating local benefits from eco-

tourism. J. Sustain. Tourism 2(3):137–151.

Honey, M. 1999. Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? Washington,DC: Island Press.

Jacobson, S. K., and R. Robles. 1992. Ecotourism, sustainable development, and conservationeducation: Development of a tour guide training program in Tortuguero, Costa Rica.

Environ. Manage. 16(6):701–713.Jantzi, T., J. Schelhas, and J. P. Lassoie. 1999. Environmental values and forest patch conser-

vation in a rural Costa Rican community. Agric. Hum. Values 16:29–39.

Kant, S. 1997. Integration of biodiversity conservation in tropical forest and economicdevelopment of local communities. J. Sustain. For. 4(1–2):34–61.

Kempton, W., J. S. Boster, and J. A. Hartley. 1995. Environmental values in American culture.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Kramer, R. A., C. van Schaik, and J. Johnson. 1997. Last stand: Protected areas and the

defense of tropical biodiversity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kremen, C., I. Raymond, and K. Lance. 1998. An interdisciplinary tool for monitoringconservation impacts in Madagascar. Conserv. Biol. 12(3):549–563.

Langholz, J. 1999. Exploring the effects of alternative income opportunities on rainforest use:Insights from Guatemala’s Maya Biosphere Reserve. Society Nat. Resources 12:139–149.

Little, P. D. 1994. The link between local participation and improved conservation: A reviewof issues and experiences. In Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based conser-vation, ed. D. Western et al., 347–372. Washington, DC: Island Press.

McLaren, D. 1998. Rethinking tourism and ecotravel: The paving of paradise and what you cando to stop it. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

McNeely. J. A. 1988. Economics and biological diversity: Developing and using incentives to

conserve biological resources. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods., 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.Peters, C. M., A. H. Gentry, and R. O. Mendelsohn. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian rain

forest. Nature 339:655–656.Peters, W. J., Jr. 1997. Local participation in conservation of the Ranomafana National Park,

Madagascar. J. World For. Resource Manage. 8(2):109–135.


Salafsky, N., B. Cordes, J. Parks, and C. Hochman. 1999. Evaluating linkages between busi-ness, the environment, and local communities: Final analytical results from the BiodiversityConservation Network. Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program.

Schelhas, J., and W. W. Shaw. 1995. Partnerships between rural people and protected areas:

Understanding land use and natural resource decisions. In Expanding partnerships inconservation, ed. J. A. McNeely, 206–214. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Servicio de Parques Nacionales. 1995. Parque Nacional Corcovade [Internet]. La Nacion, 9

November 1995 [cited 9 April 2000]. Available from http:==www.nacion.co.cr=netinc=costarica=parques=corcovado.html

Stem, C. J., J. P. Lassoie, D. R. Lee, and D. D. Deshler. 2003. How ‘‘eco’’ is ecotourism?

A comparative case study of ecotourism in Costa Rica. J. Sustain. Tourism, in press.Ulfelder, W. H., S. V. Poats, J. Recharte, and B. Dugelby. 1998. Participatory conservation:

Lessons of the PALOMAP study in the Ecuador’s Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve.

America verde series working paper 1b. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy.Uphoff, N. 1992. Learning from Gal Oya: Possibilities for participatory development and post-

Newtonian social science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Uphoff, N., and J. Langholz. 1998. Incentives for avoiding the tragedy of the commons.

Environ. Conserv. 25:251–261.U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. 2002. The World Factbook. U.S. Central Intelligence

Agency, last updated 1 January 2002 [cited 28 October 2002]. Available from

http:==www.cia.gov=cia=publications=factbook=geo=cs.htmlVaughan, C. 1981. Parque Nacional Corcovado plan de manejo y desarrollo, Coleccion

Zurquı—Serie Ecologıa. Heredia, Costa Rica: Editorial de la Universidad Nacional.

Vayda, A. P., and B. B. Walters. 1996. Methods and explanations in the study of human actionsand their environmental effects. Jakarta, Indonesia: Center for International ForestryResearch (CIFOR)=World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

Wells, M., K. E. Brandon, and L. Hannah. 1992. People and parks: Linking protected area

management with local communities. Washington, DC: World Bank.Wells, M. P. 1996. The social role of protected areas in the new South Africa. Environ.

Conserv. 23(4):322–331.

Western, D., and R. M. Wright. 1994. The background to community-based conservation.InNatural connections: Perspectives in community-based conservation, eds. D. Western et al.,1–12. Washington, DC: Island Press.

White, L. 1967. The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science 155(3767):1203–1207.Whitney, E. 1993. Lynn White, ecotheology, and history—Discussion. Environ. Ethics

15(2):151–169.

Wood, D. 1995. Conserved to death: Are tropical forests being over-protected from people?Land Use Policy 12(2):115–135.

World Headquarters. 2001. Osa Peninsula Map. World Headquarters, 2001 [cited 5 March2001]. Available from http:==www.worldheadquarters.com=cr=maps=osa_peninsula=

World Wildlife Fund. 1995. Linking conservation and human needs: Creating economic incen-tives. Paper read at Workshop I of the ICDP review, at Bacalar, Mexico.

Wunder, S. 2000. Ecotourism and economic incentives—An empirical approach. Ecol. Econ.

32(3):465–479.


communityparticipation inecotourism bene¢ts

Documents