Document 2726408

Society and Natural Resources, 16:387–413, 2003
Copyright # 2003 Taylor & Francis
0894-1920/2003 $12.00 + .00
DOI: 10.1080/08941920390190041
Community Participation in Ecotourism
Bene¢ts: The Link to Conservation
Practices and Perspectives
CAROLINE J. STEM
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York, USA
JAMES P. LASSOIE
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York, USA
DAVID R. LEE
Department of Applied Economics
and Management
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
DAVID D. DESHLER
Department of Education
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
JOHN W. SCHELHAS
Southern Research Station
USDA Forest Service
Tuskegee University
Tuskegee, Alabama, USA
Conservationists have increasingly turned to ecotourism to provide local economic
benefits while maintaining ecosystem integrity. Research conducted in Costa Rica to
examine models linking conservation and development indicates ecotourism’s
effectiveness as a conservation strategy has been mixed. Where ecotourism offers a
viable economic alternative, tourism opportunities have induced people to abandon
cultivated land, allowing forests to regenerate. Employmente in tourism, however,
reveals minimal influence on conservation perspectives. Other factors, including
indirect 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: cjs33@
cornell.edu
387
388
C. J. Stem et al.
conservation behaviors and perspectives. Results also indicate ecotourism might be
most effective as a component of a broader conservation strategy.
Keywords Corcovado National Park, Costa Rica, ecotourism, environmental
values and attitudes, integrated conservation and development projects, parks
and 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 integrity
through low-impact, nonconsumptive use of local resources. Unlike many sustainable harvesting initiatives, ecotourism can consistently provide a return per hectare
competitive with current land uses (e.g., see Ceballos-Lascuráin 1996; Wunder 2000).
Moreover, ecotourism often financially supports protected areas through tourismrelated park fees. Ecotourism can also offer the economic justification necessary to
establish a protected area and can create a constituency among ecotourists to promote 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 to
its demise (Boo 1990; Jacobson and Robles 1992). Although ectourism relies upon a
minimal impact approach to tourism, successful endeavors may draw increasing
interest and a correspondingly higher number of tourists. Tourism impacts, such as
solid waste generation and habitat disturbance, can seriously threaten the resoruces
upon which ecotourism depends. Tourism, more generally, also often detrimentally
affects the social and cultural fabric of local communities (Boo 1990; Brandon 1996;
McLaren 1998). Brandon (1996) notes this ‘‘commodification’’ of culture, wherein
people and their cultures become marketable commodities, as potentially tourism’s
most serious impact. Moreover, some ecotourism operations contribute minimally to
local 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, one
subject 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 ecotourism’s potential as a conservation tool. We use data from communities in Costa
Rica, a country where ecotourism has been widely promoted as a national conservation and development strategy. Our principle objective is to examine the effects
of individual and community participation in ecotourism benefits on household
conservation practices and perspectives.
Conceptual Framework
Definitions of ecotourism vary, but Ceballos-Lascuáin (1996) provides a succinct
description of its key characteristics: ‘‘[Ecotourism is] environmentally responsible
travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and
appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural feature—both past and present)
that promotes conservation, has low visitor impact, and provides for beneficially
active socio-economic involvement of local populations.’’ This article argues that the
best examples of strong ecotourism would build upon the preceding definition to
maximize local benefits and to include environmental and cultural education for
tourists, as well as host communities.
Community Participation in Ecotourism Benefits
389
Ecotourism represents one example of a broader stragegy to use alternative
development mechanisms as a means to achieve conservation. Initiatives employing
this strategy, termed ‘‘integrated conservation and development projects’’ or ICDPs
by Wells et al. (1992), operate on the premise that people will conserve resources
when they have an incentive to do so and=or when attractive economic alternatives
to resource exploitation exist. Individuals may value their local environment for
aesthetic or intrinsic (biocentric) reasons, but the ICDP paradigm assumes that
people must receive tangible benefits in order to conserve resources. The ICDP
approach also attempts to correct market distortions that do not incorporate
intrinsic or functional values and to compensate those forced to curb their economic
and social development for the larger social good (McNeely 1988; Bromley 1994).
Operating under the assumption that economic factors heavily influence conservation practices, ICDPs sometimes offer greater economic opportunities than existing
land use strategies. Various studies assert that ‘‘sustainable’’ forest product harvesting, a common ICDP strategy, can be significantly more economically profitable
than 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 evidence
indicates they are an effective means to conservation. Indeed, much debate exists as
to their long-term economic and ecological viability (e.g., Barrett and Arcese 1995;
Freese 1997; Crook and Clapp 1998). Many question the underlying rationale that
the poor have a fixed income threshold that, if met, will prompt them to abandon
environmentally destructive practices (Ferraro and Kramer 1995; Langholz 1999).
Factors such as labor requirements, household desires for advancement, legal
aspects, social acceptability, and cultural tradition all influence decision making and
will affect an ICDP’s success in achieving conservation goals through incentives
(Ferraro and Kramer 1995; Uphoff and Langholz 1998). Likewise, many scholars
argue against models that portray human behavior as solely self-interested and
rational. They hold that humans often tend to be altruistic, cooperative, and concerned about the welfare of fellow community members (Uphoff 1992; Anderson
1996). Kempton et al. (1995), for example, hold that environmental sentiments are
linked with religion, parental responsibility, beliefs about weather, and confidence in
government and industry to solve environmental problems. Similarly, findings from
Jantzi et al. (1999) suggest that past exposure to environmental degradation, positive
childhood experiences related to conservation, and moral and social values present in
religious 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 in
environmentally destructive behavior is likely rational given the resources and
knowledge available to them.
The research presented here addresses these diverging viewpoints on environmental motivators by testing the hypothesis that income generation alone is not
sufficient to encourage conservation and that other factors, such as age, education,
well-being, religion, and cultural norms, influence behavior. Also, we highlight the
influence of community participation in ecotourism on environmental perspectives
and practices. Since the late 1960s, there has been a growing trend, erupting into full
force in the 1980s, to incorporate greater local participation in protected area
decision making and benefit sharing (Western and Wright 1994). Key theorists, such
as Freire (1970), Chohen and Uphoff (1980), and Chambers (1983), have pushed
concepts of participation, critical consciousness building, and empowerment to the
390
C. J. Stem et al.
forefront within academic and practitioner circles. The trend toward prioritizing
greater local participation in conservation initiatives stems, in part, from the belief
that local involvement could reduce hostility toward conservation efforts (Western
and Wright 1994) and that restricting local resource access without offering an
alternative is morally irresponsible (Brandon and Wells 1992).
Related to the issue of participation is that of benefits distribution. Various
academicians and practitioners acknowledge that often only select groups benefit
from ICDPs, reinforcing differences among socioeconomic groups and fracturing
support for conservation (e.g., McNeely 1988; Wood 1995; Wells 1996). Bunting
et al. (1991) maintain that an individual is unlikely to alter his or her behavior
without receiving some sort of direct benefit. Brechin et al. (1991, 26) argue that
‘‘Protected areas will not survive for long whenever local people remain impoverished and are denied access to needed resources inside.’’ Nevertheless, not all see
local involvement as a prerequisite to sound conservation. Vayda and Walters
(1996), for example, view the devolution of control over resources to local communities as a form of ‘‘green romanticism.’’ Similarly, Anderson (1996) claims that
cultures and traditions both positively and negatively influence resource management. He states that cultures often disseminate inaccurate information and beliefs
that affect environmental behaviors and institutionalize mistakes.
To date, few studies have questioned whether the sustainable use paradigm
represents an adequate approach to conservation at the field level. While field-based
institutions have recently begun to examine practical experiences in integrating
income generation and conservation strategies (e.g., WWF 1995; CARE 1997;
Salafsky et al. 1999; Ulfelder et al. 1998), systematic and comprehensive academic
investigations of those linkages have been limited (Brandon and Wells 1992; Little
1994; Kremen et al. 1998). Moreover, although many theorists and practitioners
have acknowledged that community participation in development projects and the
associated distribution of benefits are unequal, few have examined practical linkages
between community involvement and actual impacts on conservation targets (some
exceptions include Brandon and Wells 1992; Peters 1997; Ulfelder et al. 1998;
Wunder 2000). The research presented here contributes to the literature on ecotourism, integrated conservation and development strategies, and local participation
in conservation initiatives by addressing the influence of community participation
and local benefits distribution on conservation practices and perspectives.
Study Description and Methods
We conducted the present research in selected national park buffer zone communities in southern Costa Rica (Figures 1 and 2). We drew upon data from four
communities involved in ecotourism and, for comparison purposes, two communities not involved in ecotourism. The study measured conservation perspectives and
practices, participation in ecotourism, and the distribution of tourism benefits and
impacts among the local population. Specifically, the study tested the following
hypotheses: first, that local development activities with greater local participation
and equitable benefits distribution are more likely to generate perspective and
behaviors favorable to conservation; second, that income generation alone is not
sufficient to encourage conservation (other factors influencing attitudes and behaviors include age, education, general well-being, and religion); and third, that ecotourism and economic development may negatively impact conservation through
unintended or overlooked side effects. This article provides an examination of the
Community Participation in Ecotourism Benefits
391
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 from
World Headquarters (2001).
392
C. J. Stem et al.
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 strategies
discussed by Patton (1990) and Guba and Lincoln (1989). Key qualitative methods
included focus-group discussions, open-ended informal interviews, and direct
observation. Quantitative data were collected via a researcher-administered survey.
Criteria for selecting participating hotels and research sites included: communitybased enterprises or high level of community involvement; established at least 5 years
prior to the research; conservation objective was a factor in establishment; situated
in or near protected area; historical local reliance upon resources for livelihood needs
and past or present pressure exerted on resource integrity; and community and hotel
interest in participating in the research. To ensure greater comparability, we selected
ecotourism communities bordering two neighboring protected areas joined by an
ecological 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 select
data from a separate, nearby Cornell University project: Policy, Norms, and Values
in Forest Conservation: Protected Area Buffer Zone Management in Central
America. In each ecotourism site, interviewees included local residents, hotel managers and employees, and other key informants. In addition, we conducted interviews with outside officials to fill information gaps and provide a broader perspective
of conservation and tourism in the area.
The qualitative portion of the study used stratified purposeful sampling (Patton
1990), a sampling technique that ensured broad representation in terms of
socioeconomic status, conservation orientation, formal educational levels, and
community activism. In each community, the senior author conducted, in Spanish, a
pilot-tested oral survey with a random sample of 50% of self-declared heads of
household. The survey shared a common framework across communities but
included some site-specific questions. In Cerro de Oro, due to its small size, all
willing residents were interviewed, for a 94% sample size. Table 1 summarizes the
scope 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 Balances
National 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
La Gamba
Cerro de Oro
Drake Bay (Agujitas and Los Planes)
La Amistad (Altamira and Biolley)
Total
a
Qualitative interviewsa
29
14
34
29
106
(31)
(20)
(39)
(30)
(120)
Surveys
50
31
47
86
214
First 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.
Community Participation in Ecotourism Benefits
393
America (Vaughan 1981; Servicio de Parques Nacionales 1995). The 41,789-hectare
park encompasses a wide range of habitats and is home to increasingly threatened
fauna, including tapirs, jaguars, scarlet macaws, and all four of Costa Rica’s monkey
species. Piedras Blancas National Park (PBNP), located on the mainland near
Golfito (Figure 2), was initially designated as an expansion to Corcovado in 1991.
PBNP encompasses 14,025 hectares and an accompanying 1200 hectares of marine
territory, thus creating a biological corridor with CNP. Hunting and logging, while
not major problems within the parks, represent grave threats to the surrounding
Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve (Chaves 2000).
La Gamba, an agricultural community of approximately 100 households, lies
next to Piedras Blancas National Park. Outside of agriculture and livestock
production, La Gamba’s only significant source of employment is the Esquinas
Rainforest Lodge, which employs about 15 people. Located in the heart of the
Osa Peninsula at the edge of Corcovado National Park, Cerro de Oro is an
isolated settlement of approximately 40 small-scale gold panners. Cerro de Oro is
also home to a small ecotourism lodge built in 1992 by CoopeUnioro, a former
gold mining-cooperative. The lodge employs a few local people, but most miners
are 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 by
the Pacific Ocean and Corcovado National Park, Drake Bay has had much
greater exposure to tourism than La Gamba or Cerro de Oro. Agujitas has about
10 small operations, with most of the higher end establishments owned by foreigners and the smaller hotels owned by Costa Ricans. Approximately 90% of
Agujitas resident and 50% of the more remote Los Planes inhabitants depend
upon tourism. The remainder of residents support themselves through small-scale
agriculture or day laborer jobs.
For comparison purposes, the study uses data from the towns of Altamira and
Biolley, both of which border La Amistad International Park (LAIP) in southern
Costa Rica. Settled in the late 1960s, Biolley and Altamira are primarily agricultural
towns, with most landowners involved in coffee production. Both villages have an
interest in becoming more involved in tourism, but at the time of the study, they were
only in the planning stages. In including these communities, we were able to draw
upon data from the previously mentioned Cornell project, Policy, Norms, and
Values in Forest Conservation. Although the Amistad towns differ in their economic
base, the towns are useful comparison points because they are relatively close to the
ecotourism communities, they share similar histories in terms of agricultural roots
and settlement times, and, like the ecotourism communities, they lie directly adjacent
to a national park.
Results and Discussion
Our research revealed that in the study communities where tourism has been an
economically viable alternative, people have largely abandoned environmentally
destructive practices. The underlying motives, however, are not obvious. Respondents’ comments imply that time may be an important factor: When people are fully
employed, they have less disposable time to hunt or cut trees. This finding parallels
those of Wunder (2000), who asserts that declines in hunting rates among communities involved in ecotourism in the Ecuadorian Amazon are more likely due to
limited time rather than increased income. In the present study, some people also
claimed they had left their land in forest cover because they recognized its value for
394
C. J. Stem et al.
tourism. In an attempt to more precisely identify the factors motivating conservation
practices and perspectives, we summarize here our statistical results.
Linear Regression—Conservation Practices
To examine the determinants of forest conservation behavior, we employed regression analysis, using the percent of land a household has in forest cover as a proxy for
conservation behavior. Under the model that best fit the data, only total land,
relative economic status (how a household views their economic status relative to
their neighbors), and tourism employment status (whether a household has a family
member employed in tourism) proved to be significant predictors of conservation
behavior (Table 2). Regression results presented in Table 2 indicate the extent to
which these three variables are significant overall predictors of the percent forest a
landowner has. For example, the table indicates that tourism employment status
is a highly significant predictor (p < .001). Because tourism employment status is
a categorical variable, rather than a continuous variable, Table 2 does not reveal
how a change within tourism employment status affects the dependent variable of
percent forest a landowner has. To address this issue, Table 3 provides a breakdown
of the categorical variables tourism employment status and relative economic status,
displayed in Table 2. Table 3 illustrates which categories within these variables are
responsible for the overall significance levels reported in Table 2.
Based upon results from Table 3, one would expect households that have a
family member employed in tourism to have, on average, 29% more land in forest
cover, as compared to those who are neither employed in tourism nor exposed to
tourism (i.e., La Amistad residents). Tourism exposure (living in a community where
tourism exists) itself is also significant, with an expectation that, on average, those
households without family employment in tourism but exposed to tourism would
have 19% more land in forest cover, as compared to those not employed in and not
exposed to tourism. These results generally support this study’s hypothesis that
greater local participation in ecotourism or local development initiatives is more
likely to generate behaviors in support of conservation.
TABLE 2 Tests of Between-Subject Effects on Percent Land in Forest Cover (All
Communities)
Source
Correct model
Intercept
Relative economic
status
Tourism employment
status
Total land
Error
Total
Corrected total
Type III sum
of squares
df
Mean square
F
Significance
6.2576
4.7675
0.4041
6
1
3
1.0429
4.7675
0.1347
21.6944
99.1708
2.8020
.000
.000
.042
2.0758
2
1.0379
21.5894
.000
1.3346
6.6822
23.1257
12.9398
1
139
146
145
1.3346
0.0481
27.7624
.000
Note. R2 ¼ .484 (adjusted R2 ¼ .461); n ¼ 144 landholders.
395
Community Participation in Ecotourism Benefits
TABLE 3 Parameter Estimates for Predicting Percent Land in Forest Cover
(All Communities)
Parameter
Intercept
Relative economic statusa
Don’t know
Better
Worse
Tourism employmentb
Not employed, exposed to tourism
Employed in tourism
Total land
a
b
b
Significance
0.0385
.206
0.0422
0.1324
0.0919
.509
.008
.063
0.1918
0.2871
0.0017
.000
.000
.000
Omitted category is average relative economic status.
Omitted category is not employed and not exposed to tourism.
The results in Table 2 also show relative economic status to be a moderately
significant predictor of percent land farmers leave in forest. Further examination of
regression coefficients in Table 3 reveals that only the relationship between ‘‘better’’
and ‘‘average’’ categories is significant. Based upon the model results, one would
expect people who feel their economic situation is relatively better (compared to their
neighbors’) to have, on average, 13.2% more land in forest cover, as compared to
those who view their economic status as average. An unusual and slightly significant
relationship (p < .10) exists between the ‘‘worse’’ and ‘‘average’’ categories, with the
expectation that those who see their economic status as worse than their neighbors
would have, on average, 9.2% more land in forest cover than those who see their
economic status as average. This result, although somewhat counterintuitive, does
correspond with personal observations that people closest to the park tended to see
themselves in a worse economic situation due to tighter land use control. Some had
land physically inside the park, while others had land lying close to park boundaries
where 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 negatively
affected their livelihood. These findings appear to support our second hypothesis,
which states that income generation alone is not sufficient to encourage conservation. While economic factors influence decision making they do not fully explain
conservation behaviors.
In the linear regression model, total land was, by far, the most significant predictor of the percent land on owner dedicated to forest cover (Table 2). Table 3
indicates 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 have
30% in forest cover, while a landowner with 60 acres would have 31.7% land in
forest cover. Regardless of the other variables tested, total land always emerged as
highly significant. As also observed by Jantzi et al. (1999), this result likely stems
from the fact that those with limited land must farm it in order to support their
families, while large landholders require only a small portion of land to maintain
their households. Thus, they are able to keep a greater percentage of their land in
forest cover.
396
C. J. Stem et al.
Chi-Square Tests—Practices and Perspectives
In addition to linear regression, we employed chi-square tests of independence to
determine statistical associations between the categorical practice and perspectives
data and potential predictor variables. Chi-square tests determine if two variables
are independent, with significant values indicating an association between variables.
Although the tests do not reveal the predictive ability of variables, they do provide a
general sense of patterns and associations.
Table 4 provides a concise depiction of trends shown by chi-square tests for the
practice (Statement 1) and perspective statements (Statements 2 through 13) located
in 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 the
source of significant associations. For example, the variable ‘‘relative economic
status’’ has three components representing how people ranked their economic status
relative to their neighbors’: better, average, or worse. Because relative economic
status is not a binary variable, interpretation of significant chi-square values is
complicated. Thus, we present further analyses in Table 5 to indicate if the significant
relationship holds through all three categories or if the relationship is only significant
between two categories (e.g., better and worse) within the variable. Table 5 includes
only those relationships that were significant p < .05. The following paragraphs
discuss results from Tables 4 and 5.
Participation in Direct Tourism Benefits
Table 4, Statement 1, shows that households with members employed in tourism, as compared to those households not employed in tourism and=or not exposed
to tourism, claim less interest in engaging in resource-intense practices (e.g.,
investment in livestock, deforestation, expansion of agriculture) if they had more
disposable income. While this result is only significant at p < .10, and therefore not
reported in Table 5, the trend is clear: 27% of people with family members employed
in tourism claimed no interest in investing in resource-intensive practices, versus
14% for the other two employment groups. This trend follows our hypothesis that
those who participate in tourism-associated benefits are more likely to engage in
practices favorable to conservation. In contrast to the regression results on percent
forest cover, merely being exposed to tourism does not appear to be associated with
a tendency to be less likely to engage in resource-intense practices. Given the tenuous
significance level, however, it would be imprudent to draw any more concrete
conclusions.
While both linear regression results and chi-square tests indicated an association
between conservation behavior and tourism employment, the relationship is less
clear when examining conservation perspectives (Table 4, Statements 2 through 13,
and Table 5). Table 4 shows only one statistically significant case in which those
employed in tourism were more likely to give a conservation response (Statement 5).
In this instance, households with employment in tourism were more likely to oppose
unrestricted clearing. In another highly statistically significant case, however, those
employed in and=or exposed to tourism were more likely to feel that a lack of
employment might make hunting justifiable, a result inconsistent with a strong
conservation orientation (Table 4, Statement 4, Table 5, Statement 1). In Drake Bay,
those with family employment in tourism were more inclined to believe that tourism
is 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)
397
All communities (n ¼ 214)c
1. Would engage in
resource-intense
practice if had
more money.d
2. More than anything
else, the forest
exists to provide
firewood and timber
3. Due to a lack of
employment, it is
sometimes necessary
to cut trees.
4. Due to a lack of
employment, it is
sometimes necessary
to hunt.
Expected Conservation
trend (conservation
response more
likely with):
Indirect
income
Ideas
exchange
E
Ee
N
N
Ug
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
E
E
E
N
E
E
Ef
Ee
N
Eg
E
Higher
Benefits
Interacts
responsibility from indirect with tourists
in tourism tourism income
Disagree
Family
employed
in tourism
Conservation
Responsibility
response
Employment
level
Family level tourism benefitsa
Ee
E
E
Eg
Receives
training
through
tourism
Training
Education
Age
Ee
N
E
Ef
E
N
Ee
E
E
N
Ef
N
N
Uf
Ue
N
N
N
E
N
(Continued )
E
N
Eg
Ef
Better
Belongs to Higher Younger
Benefits from Higher
improved economic well-being religion education
status
infrastructure
Relative
economic Relative
b
Infrastructure status well-being Religion
TABLE 4 Summary Chi-Square Test Results for Associations Between Conservation Perspectives and Practices and Potential Predictors
398
Ecotourism communities
(n ¼ 128)
8. Humans have a
greater right to live
than animals.
9. If there were a
lot of animals,
hunting
would be fine.
10. It is always bad
to hunt wild animals.
5. People should be
allowed to clear
forests for crops
and livestock
without any
governmental
restrictions.
6. If we were to
conserve
forests here, we
would have fewer
opportunities to
make money.
7. Hunting wild
animals is OK,
if one needs
money. (n ¼ 213)
N
E
N
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
N
N
N
E
N
N
N
N
E
N
N
Ee
U
Disagree
N
N
Ef
Eg
Ee
E
Disagree
N
E
Ee
Ee
Ef
Ee
N
Ee
Training
Disagree
Ideas
exchange
Indirect
income
Family level tourism benefitsa
Conservation
Responsibility
response
Employment
level
TABLE 4 (Continued)
N
E
N
N
Ef
Ef
N
N
E
E
E
E
U
U
E
N
E
E
N
Ue
N
U
E
Uf
N
N
N
N
Age
N
N
Ee
E
Education
N
N
Ue
U
Relative
economic Relative
b
Infrastructure status well-being Religion
399
U
Disagree
N
E
N
N
E
E
N
N
Ef
E
E
E
E
Ee
N
Eg
Ee
E
E
E
E
Ue
N
U
Ef
Ue
E
Uf
E
E
Note. The right-hand columns represent potential predictors of conservation behavior. Significant chi-square values indicate that the data trends are likely reflective of real
trends in the larger population. The second column reports the response we would anticipate a conservation-oriented person to provide to the statements in the first column.
The first row (Expected conservation trend) indicates the relationship we expected to see between the predictors in the right-hand columns and the conservation response to
statements in the left-hand column. A cell with an ‘‘E’’ denotes that the data show the expected trend, while a ‘‘U’’ indicates an unexpected trend, and an ‘‘N’’ conveys no
trend.
a
Tourism benefits only cover ecotourism sites. Thus, these columns (except ‘‘Responsibility level’’) have n values of 128. Responsibility level has an n of 56 people employed
in tourism.
b
A self-defined category in which respondents ranked their economic status relative to their neighbor’s as ‘‘better,’’‘‘average,’’‘‘worse.’’
c
Unless otherwise indicated
d
Practice-oriented statement. Resource-intense practices include one or more of the following: investing in livestock, mechanized agriculture, deforestation, employing others
to work plots, and=or buying mining equipment.
e
Significant at p < :05.
f
Significant at p < :01.
g
Significant at p < :001.
U
E
Disagree
Drake Bay and La Amistad
(n ¼ 133)
13. The most important Disagree
thing about forests
is to make money
with them.
Drake Bay (n ¼ 47)
11. The most important
reason to protect
the forest is to
attract tourism.
12. The most important
benefit of the
forest is tourism.
400
Idea exchange
7. More than anything else, the forest
exists to provide firewood and timber.
Indirect income
4. More than anything else, the forest
exists to provide firewood and timber.
5. People should be allowed to clear
forests for crops and livestock without
any governmental restrictions.
6. If we were to conserve forests here,
we would have less opportunities
to make money.
Responsibility level
3. Due to a lack of employment,
it is sometimes necessary to hunt.
2. People should be allowed to clear
forests for crops and livestock
without any governmental
restrictions.
Employment status
1. Due to a lack of employment, it is
sometimes necessary to hunt.
Additional tests run:
Statement showing significant associations
No benefit
No benefit
76%
Benefits
79%
No benefit
84%
Benefits
Benefits
No benefit
79%
81%
Low
Not employed,
exposed
80%
81%
Not employed,
exposed
Employed
Categories
within variable
81%
Disagree
Benefits
High
Not employed,
not exposed
Not employed,
not exposed
Employed
Categories
within variable
TABLE 5 Breakdown of Chi-Square Values Shown as Significant in Table 4
50%
48%
60%
59%
57%
57%
66%
50%
Disagree
.0027
.0118
.0207
.0486
.0467
.0192
.1042
.0003
p Valuea
**
*
*
*
*
*
***
Significanceb
158
128
128
128
128
56
128
1142
n
401
Infrastructure
18. Due to a lack of employment,
it is sometimes necessary to hunt.
Training
13. Due to a lack of employment, it is
sometimes necessary to hunt.
14. People should be allowed to clear
forests for crops livestock without any
governmental restrictions.
15. If we were to conserve forests here,
we would have fewer opportunities
to make money.
16. Would engage in resource-intense
practice if had more money.
17. Humans have a greater right to
live than animals
8. People should be allowed to clear
forests for crops and livestock without
any governmental restrictions.
9. If we were to conserve forests here,
we would have fewer opportunities
to make money.
10. Hunting wild animals is OK if one
needs money.
11. Would engage in resource-intense
practice if had more money.
12. The most important benefit of the
forest is tourism.
No benefit
81%
Benefits
No benefit
No benefit
42%
Benefits
69%
No benefit
81%
Benefits
Benefits
No benefit
87%
No benefit
47%
Benefits
Benefits
No benefit
33%
Benefits
No benefit
No benefit
89%
Benefits
77%
No benefit
73%
Benefits
Benefits
No benefit
82%
Benefits
47%
58%
12%
48%
61%
51%
9%
5%
73%
39%
52%
.0405
.0320
.0003
.0026
.0126
.0142
.0057
.0000
.0339
.0000
.0013
*
*
***
**
*
*
**
***
*
***
**
(Continued )
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
402
Religion
27. More than anything else, the forest
exists to provide firewood and timber.
Relative economic status
23. More than anything else, the forest
exists to provide firewood and timber.
Additional tests run:c
24. Due to lack of employment, it is
sometimes necessary to cut trees.
25. The most important benefit of the
forest is tourism.
26. The most important thing about
forests is to make money with them.
Additional tests run:
19. People should be allowed to clear
forests for crops and livestock
without any governmental restrictions.
20. If we were to conserve forests here,
we would have fewer opportunities
to make money.
21. Would engage in resource-intense
practice if had more money.
22. The most important benefit of the
forest is tourism.
Statement showing significant associations
TABLE 5 (Continued)
Worse
78%
Better
Has religion
Worse
91%
Average
76%
Worse
57%
Average
No religion
Worse
Average
68%
56%
Average
Better
No benefit
41%
Benefits
Worse
No benefit
31%
Benefits
83%
No benefit
69%
Benefits
Better
No benefit
Categories
within variable
83%
Disagree
Benefits
Categories
within variable
62%
60%
60%
8%
46%
37%
46%
30%
10%
46%
54%
Disagree
.0136
.0184
.0000
.0174
.0745
.0172
.0055
.0207
.0028
.0077
.0019
p Valuea
*
*
***
*
*
**
*
**
**
**
Significanceb
n
213
53
97
33
149
140
91
128
128
128
128
403
35. It is always bad to hunt wild animals.
Additional tests run:
36. The most important benefit of the
forest is tourism.
Additional tests run:
33. If we were to conserve forests here,
we would have fewer opportunities
to make money.
Additional tests run:
34. Would engage in resource-intense
practice if had more money.
Additional tests run:
Education
32. More than anything else, the forest
exists to provide firewood and timber.
Additional tests run:
28. Due to a lack of employment, it is
sometimes necessary to cut trees.
29. If we were to conserve forests here,
we would have fewer opportunities
to make money.
30. If there were a lot of animals,
hunting would be fine.
31. The most important thing about
forests is to make money with them.
Has religion
Has religion
Has religion
61%
52%
81%
No religion
No religion
No religion
None
6 years or less
None
None
None
6 years or less
6 years or less
None
6 years or less
None
None
6 years or less
None
84%
100%
84%
84%
66%
77%
77%
32%
57%
57%
29%e
26%e
78%
78%
> 6–12 years
> 12 years
> 6–12 years
> 6–12 years
6 years or less
> 6–12 years
> 6–12 years
> 6–12 years
> 12 years
> 12 years
> 6–12 years
6 years or less
> 6–12 years
> 6–12 years
None
Has religion
64%
No religion
0%
18%
12%
5%e
5%e
29%
50%
12%
27%
66%
27%
27%
36%
27%
75%
42%
52%
34%
.0360
.0612
.0015
.0262
.1003
.0215
.0444
.0014
.0052
.0282
.0001
.0002
.0210
.0000
.0129
.0047
.0405
.0008
*
*
*
*
*
**
**
*
***
***
*
***
*
**
*
**
(Continued )
12
40
150
42
101
40
174
174
40
174
64
176
64
64
213
213
213
213
404
100%
83%
6 years or less
Over 65
95%
Disagree
> 6–12 years
Categories
within variable
26–45 years
None
None
Categories
within variable
66%
47%
47%
Disagree
.0154
.0070
.0032
R Valuea
*
**
**
Significanceb
n
71
109
34
Values indicate the significance of the difference seen between two factors comprising the categorical variables; p values are adjusted using a Bonferroni
correction factor. This adjusts alpha levels in a study running more than one test on the same set of data. This correction factor adjusts downward to
consider chance capitalization and, in the case of repeated testing, the chance to incorrectly declare a difference, effect or relationship as significant. For
additional information, see SISA, Simple Interactive Statistical Analysis (2001).
b
Results do not include those respondents who indicated they did not know what their economic status was relative to others.
c
The first line next to each statement presents relationships that were clearly significant and needed no additional testing because they represented the
extremes in varation. We ran additional tests to determine the significance of other relationships; these relationships are presented in the column to the right
of that labeled ‘‘Additional tests run.’’
d
Significance: *p < :05, **p < :01, ***p < :001.
e
In order for this column to consistently reflect the conservation response, the percentages for this statement alone reflect those who agreed (not
disagreed) with this statement.
a
37. The most important thing about
forests is to make money with them.
Additional tests run:
Age
38. The most important thing about
forests is to make money with them.
Statement showing significant associations
TABLE 5 (Continued)
Community Participation in Ecotourism Benefits
405
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 tourism
employment status and conservation perspectives is not clear.
We expected households with members occupying higher levels of responsibility
in tourism (e.g., administrative positions or guides) to be more likely to give conservation-oriented responses than those with lower responsibility levels (e.g.,
housekeeping or maintenance staff). As Table 4 indicates, this expectation only
materialized in half the perspectives questions, and in only one case (Statement 4)
was it statistically significant (p < .05). In terms of practices, tourism responsibility
level was not a useful predictor in the regression model for percent land in forest
cover. Although not statistically significant, responses did follow the expected trend
for the question on households’ interest in engaging in resource-intense practices
were they to have more disposable income (Table 4, Statement 1). While these results
do not make a strong case for the association between higher levels of responsibility
in tourism employment and environmental leanings, we cannot discount the possibility of association since no cases showed unexpected patterns. In fact, as Table 4
reveals, none of the tourism benefits, except direct employment, showed any negative
association with pro-conservation practices or perspectives.
Overall, our results indicate a positive association between tourism employment
and conservation practices and an unclear relationship between tourism employment
status and conservation perspectives. As discussed later, greater local participation in
tourism employment may be less important than participation in other tourism
benefits for generating pro-conservation perspectives.
Participation in Indirect Tourism Benefits
In the linear regression model, indirect tourism benefits (indirect income, ideas
exchange, training, and infrastructure improvement) were not useful predictors of
the percent of household land in forest cover. Those enjoying these tourism-related
benefits, however, did demonstrate pro-conservation trends when asked how they
would 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 2
through 13), at least three of the four categories of indirect tourism benefits showed a
positive association, some highly significant, with pro-environmental responses. For
instance, 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 expected
associations between indirect benefits variables and pro-conservation perspectives
were evident across the board. Table 5, Statements 4 through 22, provides additional
detail.
Of the indirect tourism benefits, indirect income showed the fewest and least
significant associations with pro-environmental responses, while ideas exchange
showed the most significant and greatest number of associations (Table 4). Training
and infrastructure followed ideas exchange in terms of frequency and strength of
association. In the case of people who have benefited from tourism through
exchanging ideas with tourists, pro-environmental responses were evident in the vast
majority of perspectives questions (Table 4). Half were statistically significant, and
many were highly significant. Thus, this direct interaction with tourists may be an
important factor in building greater support for conservation.
It appears the distribution of a variety of tourism-related benefits is associated
with positive conservation perspectives and may play a role in influencing those
406
C. J. Stem et al.
perspectives. Again, this reinforces parts of our hypotheses. Specifically, results show
that greater participation in indirect tourism benefits is associated with proconservation attitudes, and income generation alone is not sufficient to encourage
conservation. Interestingly, less direct tourism benefits are more strongly associated
with conservation perspectives than direct benefits. This finding coincides with
work by Salafsky et al. (1999) that suggests that noncash benefits associated with
enterprise-based conservation strategies (e.g., infrastructure support, empowerment,
improved environmental conditions, etc.) may be more important than cash benefits.
Relative Economic Status
Despite the modest significance of relative economic status in the linear
regression model, chi-square tests revealed conflicting associations between relative
economic status and forest and wildlife management perspectives. Table 5 indicates
that those with better relative economic situations tended to have stronger conservation perspectives, although significance levels varied widely. In a few instances,
however, this result is less apparent. For example, Statement 26 in Table 5 reveals
that those with an average relative economic status were more likely, compared to
those with a better relative economic situation, to disagree that the most important
thing about forests is to make money with them. Generally speaking, however, the
results 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 is
interesting to note there is no discernible association between relative economic
status and the desire to engage in resource-intense practices if more money were
available (Table 4, Statement 1). Although this finding conflicts with the linear
regression results (Tables 2 and 3), it implies that improving economic status may
have little direct influence on resource management practices. Again, this supports
our hypothesis that income generation alone is insufficient to influence conservation
practices.
Other Potential Predictors
We 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, we
briefly summarize results from chi-square tests for these factors. We collected data
on well-being in order to measure how people view their quality of life, outside of
economic concerns. We expected those who saw their well-being as better, relative to
their neighbors, to be more likely to give conservation responses. As results from
Table 4 indicate though, well-being does not appear to influence how people view
forests 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 conservation
perspectives. We expected religion might be important in instilling respect for the
earth. Chi-square test results on most conservation perspectives, however, show that
those not pertaining to an organized religion had a greater tendency to hold strong
conservation perspectives than Catholics or Evangelists (Tables 4 and 5). In nearly
half the statements examined, results were significant for this unexpected association.
While this was puzzling and in contrast to what Jantzi et al. (1999) observed, we
suspected religious affiliation may be associated with education. Tests of association
revealed that those not belonging to an organized religion were concentrated among
those with higher education. Thus, the trend observed may actually be due to higher
Community Participation in Ecotourism Benefits
407
education levels. It is also worth acknowledging the heated debate on the influence of
religion in environmental stewardship. While it is beyond the scope of this article to
address this matter, interested readers might refer to White’s (1967) seminal work in
which he asserts that our ‘‘ecological crisis’’ stems from the Biblical notion of human
dominion 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 a
strong and significant negative association with respondents’ stated intentions to
invest in a resource-intense practice if they had more money (Table 4, Statement 1).
In addition, higher education levels tended to correspond with stronger conservation
perspectives (Table 4). For instance, those with higher education levels were more
likely to disagree with Statement 2 in Table 4: ‘‘More than anything else, the forest
exists to provide firewood and timber.’’ While the data generally support our claim
that other factors, such as education, influence conservation perspectives and
practices, there were a couple of slightly unusual trends. For example, Statement 37
in Table 5 indicates those with 12 or more years of education were less likely to give a
conservation 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 no
discernible influence on people’s preference for engaging in resource-intense practices
if given more money (Table 4, Statement 1). In terms of perspectives, it is difficult to
detect a general trend. We expected younger people to have a stronger conservation
perspectives because they have grown up in a time when environmental issues are at
the forefront. Nevertheless, there were no statistically significant responses supporting this expectation. In a couple of cases, one of which was statistically significant (p < .01), we observed an unexpected relationship between age and
conservation perspectives (Table 4, Statements 9 and 13). In response to the statement ‘‘The most important thing about forests is to make money with them,’’ older
and younger groups tended to disagree the most, although the difference was only
statistically significant for the older group (Table 5, Statement 38). Although we did
not anticipate this distribution, it does make some intuitive sense. Older generations
may demonstrate stronger conservation responses because they often grew up in
close contact with the forests, depending upon them for food, health, and livelihood.
Moreover, as Jantzi et al. (1999) note, their firsthand experience with degradation
often results in greater concern for forests. In general, however, this study did not
show age to have a strong association with either conservation perspectives or
practices.
In summary, linear regression results and chi-square tests indicated a generally
positive association between tourism employment and conservation practices, while
associations were less clear for conservation perspectives. Participation in indirect
tourism benefits showed stronger associations with pro-conservation perspectives
than did participation in direct tourism benefits. Well-being and age revealed no
influence on practices and perspectives, while higher education levels were associated
with stronger conservation behaviors and perspectives. Finally, religion appeared to
show 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 contribute
to strong economic perspectives on forests and wildlife, possibly at the expense of
408
C. J. Stem et al.
FIGURE 3 People=institutions benefiting most from neighboring park. Economic
beneficiaries are shaded gray.
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 economic
values of parks could lead decision makers to view parks primarily as tools for
economic profit. Qualitative interviews in our study revealed a tendency for people
who depended on the forests for their economic livelihood, be it tourism, mining, or
timber, to first mention the utilitarian benefits of forests, wildlife, and the neighboring park. Some would follow these remarks with references to ecosystem or
intrinsic values. Because this was not a central issue to this study, the survey design
does not permit a reliable examination of this potential association. Nevertheless,
this relationship does emerge in terms of who people see as benefiting from the
national park bordering their community. As Figure 3 illustrates, La Amistad
residents, who reap no tangible economic benefit from La Amistad International
Park (LAIP), view their community and the world as the entities that benefit most
from 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 most
important beneficiary. It is unclear if they see the community as a beneficiary in
utilitarian or nonuse terms, or a combination of the two. What is striking, however,
is both Drake Bay communities, which benefit most from tourism, identified primarily economic beneficiaries.
It is uncertain how much this economic orientation is due to semantics and the
interpretation of the word ‘‘benefit’’ versus some deeper meaning associated with an
economics-focused value system. Nevertheless, Costa Ricans participating in an
interinstitutional meeting to share results from this study did express concern for
similar issues. They fear that an emphasis on the economic profits forests provide
Community Participation in Ecotourism Benefits
409
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 designed
to 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 to
forest and wildlife management relates to the capacity for these strategies to address
larger conservation threats (e.g., Wells et al. 1992; Kramer et al. 1997; Langholz
1999). Small-scale initiatives, such as those examined in this study, can likely have
only small-scale impacts. This is not to detract from small successes, but rather to
emphasize that conservation through development should not be a stand-alone
protection strategy. In the case of Corcovado, for example, government-sanctioned
large-scale logging currently represents the principal threat to the buffer zone (see
Barrantes et al. 1999 for a full discussion). In Drake Bay, three hotels have come
together to form the Fundación Corcovado, an organization dedicated to lobbying
for improved protection of Corcovado National Park. Despite such admirable
efforts, ecotourism’s impact on larger policy decisions will likely only be minimal.
Furthermore, keeping in mind the broader context of large-scale logging, even if
ecotourism 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 on
conservation perspectives and practices. While the study largely confirms our
hypothesis that other factors outside of income generation influence conservation
attitudes and behaviors, results were mixed in terms of our other hypothesis that
local development activities with greater local participation and equitable benefits
distribution are more likely to generate perspectives and behaviors favorable to
conservation.
At a large scale, ecotourism may offer significant economic benefits and
discourage the conversion of forest to agricultural and pastoral land. At the same
time, there is scant intercommunity evidence that direct employment in tourism is
having a significant impact on household conservation perspectives. This leads to
the question: Should conservation strategies aim for a higher level of awareness,
or is it sufficient to simply occupy people’s time or create economic incentives
that make standing forests more valuable? We would argue for loftier goals that
also emphasize greater awareness and respect for nature. Otherwise, questions will
remain: If people had time, would they hunt? If tourism levels dropped, would a
standing forest lose its value? A higher level of awareness or appreciation could
ensure greater potential for favorable conservation practices over the long term.
Findings from Salafsky et al. (1999) also suggest that education and awareness
raising might be important in assisting conservation-based enterprise to achieve
their environmental goals.
Interestingly, indirect benefits associated with tourism, especially ideas exchange
and training, showed stronger associations with proenvironmental perspectives than
did direct employment benefits. These findings support our second hypothesis
(income generation alone is not sufficient to encourage conservation) and have at
410
C. J. Stem et al.
least two implications. First, it would be wise to focus on extending the coverage of
indirect benefits. Ecotourism lodges may gain much, for example, by facilitating
greater, culturally appropriate interaction with tourists and improving training
opportunities for all employees. Moreover, they may buy goodwill with the community by supporting infrastructure and local development projects, although
decision makers should be careful such support is meaningful and not used to
manipulate communities. The second implication regarding ecotourism’s minimal
impact on conservation perspectives is the need for greater emphasis on integrating
environmental awareness raising and knowledge generation into ecotourism activities. Under ideal circumstances, education should not be limited to employees or the
local communities. It should extend to the ecotourists themselves, with an emphasis
on the ecological, cultural, and social history of the region they are visiting. At the
same time, it is important to recognize that raising environmental awareness takes
time and is a broader issue to be addressed at various levels; it is not the sole
responsibility of ecotourism operations.
It is also necessary to examine more critically the costs and benefits associated
with ecotourism. Policymakers, practitioners, and academics alike need to move
beyond 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 affect
conservation behaviors. The research reveals that economic factors, however, are not
the sole motivators affecting conservation practices and perspectives. Thus, ecotourism should be considered a component of a larger plan that addresses protected
area management through a variety of avenues, which may include legal restrictions.
With respect to restrictions, however, there is a need for wider policy reform to
address the greatest conservation threats. As a starting point, the Costa Rican
government should enforce strict adherence to timber management plans. At present, 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 their
ecological implications, as long as they meet legal specifications (Chaves 2000). To
address this issue, the government should reconcile economic development priorities
with biodiversity conservation to make informed, systematic choices about how and
how much timber exploitation should take place in buffer zones.
Across the ecotourism case sites, there was general consensus that local involvement in and benefits from tourism could be improved. This coincides with Honey’s
(1999) broader claim that ecotourism projects have shown disappointing results in
terms of participation. To improve local involvement, respondents suggested simple
measures, such as increased interaction between tourists and the community. This
was especially the case in La Gamba, where people felt the tourists passed through
town only to arrive at or depart from the lodge. Community members in La Gamba
and Drake Bay would like to see increased opportunities to sell local produce or
meat to the hotels. These initiatives require efforts from both ends, with local residents ensuring a steady and predictable source of particular products and hotels
committing to purchase items at a fair, mutually acceptable price. In addition, if
ecotourism operators work toward increasing interaction between tourists and local
residents, it will also be important to educate travelers on local culture and social
history, so as to avoid negative impacts associated with cultural and familial disintegration. It may also be appropriate for ecotourism operators to organize cultural
tours with a few different groups in the community to ensure a meaningful experience for the tourists as well community members.
Community Participation in Ecotourism Benefits
411
In conclusion, under ideal circumstances, ecotourism offers communities an
opportunity to improve their well-being and economic livelihood. It can also
encourage individuals to conserve forests and wildlife. The case studies here, however, have illustrated ecotourism is not necessarily a nonconsumptive use of
resources, and it also has the potential to lead to undesirable social, cultural, and
economic consequences. To better understand ecotourism’s role in conservation,
there is a need for similar studies in other areas, as well as more systematic research
on the benefits and impacts of ecotourism. Such studies should follow the same
communities over several years to collect baseline and subsequent monitoring data
for comparison over time with exposure to tourism. Through additional in-depth
studies and a firm commitment from tourism operators to seriously embrace and
advance conservation strategies and ensure meaningful local involvement, ecotourism 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. Jiménez, J. Lobo, T. Maldonado, M. Quesada, and R. Quesada. 1999.
Evaluación de los planes de manejo forestal autorizados en el perı´odo 1997–1999 en la
Peninsula de Osa. Cumplimiento de normas te´cnicas, ambientales e impacto sobre el bosque
natural. Puerto Jiménez, Costa Rica: Fundación 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’s
support 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 protected
areas: A framework for inquiry. In Resident peoples and national parks: Social dilemmas and
strategies 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 Natural
connections: 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’s
new approach to protected area management. In Resident peoples and national parks: Social
dilemmas 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-Lascuráin, H. 1996. Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas: The state of naturebased 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 Jiménez, Costa Rica: Sub-Administrator, Corcovado
National Park.
412
C. J. Stem et al.
Cohen, J., and N. Uphoff. 1980. Participation’s place in rural development: Seeking clarity
through 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 to
promote biodiversity conservation. Arlington, VA: Winrock International Environmental
Alliance.
Freese, C. H. 1997. The ‘‘use it or lose it’’ debate: Issues of a conservation paradox. In
Harvesting 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 and
Herder.
Greeley, A. 1993. Religion and attitudes toward the environment. J. Sci. Study Religion
32(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 rain
forest: 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 ecotourism. 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 conservation
education: 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 conservation in a rural Costa Rican community. Agric. Hum. Values 16:29–39.
Kant, S. 1997. Integration of biodiversity conservation in tropical forest and economic
development 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 monitoring
conservation 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 review
of issues and experiences. In Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based conservation, 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 can
do 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.
Community Participation in Ecotourism Benefits
413
Salafsky, N., B. Cordes, J. Parks, and C. Hochman. 1999. Evaluating linkages between business, the environment, and local communities: Final analytical results from the Biodiversity
Conservation 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 in
conservation, ed. J. A. McNeely, 206–214. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Servicio de Parques Nacionales. 1995. Parque Nacional Corcovade [Internet]. La Nación, 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 postNewtonian 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.html
Vaughan, C. 1981. Parque Nacional Corcovado plan de manejo y desarrollo, Colección
Zurquı́—Serie Ecologı́a. Heredia, Costa Rica: Editorial de la Universidad Nacional.
Vayda, A. P., and B. B. Walters. 1996. Methods and explanations in the study of human actions
and their environmental effects. Jakarta, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry
Research (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.
In Natural 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 March
2001]. Available from http:==www.worldheadquarters.com=cr=maps=osa_peninsula=
World Wildlife Fund. 1995. Linking conservation and human needs: Creating economic incentives. 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.