_ .
.ll‘1

1.) ‘ \t- l
1 Eu}: . .
l b V‘u‘... '00

. Is.- .1)..“ 5’3. .
I'V,‘l

3'1:

 

‘
L.
.tt‘t

. $1.20!:
I!r!11l.5.

o¢..... ox
11‘s
3

 

~10!
(volt)?

..
. Atz‘v
.11. .3":1I\
J.....Ii?7$.(lr;l?..1.r 2.
Ifr!v}€-.I 23.31:!
.1.!... . ‘15:...) , 7.00..

51.)"..20'" 19..)

19.. x. .«u. oustl..>€1h.u

. . .7 . ,-
l' w

I» . 71 V
.\ . . 1.11.1} :1
. ‘9' ¢ .

 

49.2
no":

. #3."...
f: .39.. a) s 1.23 ail;
.uo!-l!p:.o.?o!

,hfll‘hlv

11.).)

Nib ‘1'
a. 6;: .43.";

D
{I
l

A... PE}?
Rafi
[’3- ‘O ,

KOO-it};

A ya a l. 0.. i
2.1:! t. .. o i V15
x 3.5). Ln. 1)
4.) ..
lv.

0" l - ~ I. O) - .1
ti“? :Jrv.a,.I-It0v.v . . no
. It: {I x133... I. I: Z

.- 3.1.2)!

I.) I. Irv!!- .

V lax-(lav? -
3 .10.)“ v 0" a\ A
0‘

n . a:lv\
.il‘l..)v4.:¢

53...!) 8.5- a!
. 1 .0...) I.
g 3

“15838

M"”"GAN TATE UN

I/II/l/ll l

Mil/73W

// ’l7//////I hill/ll /////I/I/////l L

l'l/I / /
2

I/
3 1 93 00885 0913

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Environment/Development Interface
in Latin America:
Ecotourism and Costa Rica's Se;rch
For Sustainable Developr:nt

presented by f
Deborah R. Meadows

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

.._M.S..__degree in Resource Development

Mac

Major professor

Date W3—

o-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

-oHWA——M ' _‘_ ‘.

4"

M
4““— “-__A___‘a——_.e~ rhflm'*h_4‘gw V .r—

A..-

~_"‘

F -_..~__‘

A, .‘ __ .._. A“ _-A_-‘_._..._ 'Q-*4__O——G—-

.u‘_-_.- -

A. A—fl‘---

 

LIBRARY
Michlgan State
Unhealty

/ A

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove thls checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE'DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

'9‘“? mam 0 5 200'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Afim FEB 1 8 2008

M
m __ ‘ mwgmfl

:W3 91993 1??! 9“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative ActiorVEqual Opportunity Institution

Lei ,

 

THE ENVIRONMENT/DEVELOPMENT INTERFACE
IN LATIN AMERICA:
ECOTOURISM AND COSTA RICA’S SEARCH
FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
By

Deborah Renee Meadows

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Resource Development

1993

ABSTRACT
THE ENVIRONMENT/DEVELOPMENT INTERFACE
IN LATIN AMERICA:
ECOTOURISM AND COSTA RICA’S SEARCH
FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
By

Deborah Renee Meadows

Viewing local partia’pation as central to sustainable development, this
research explores the relationship between local participation and Costa Rica’s
pursuit of ecotourism as a sustainable tourism strategy. Using a theoretical
framework developed from human systems ecology, the research employs
qualitative methods to gather data in communities near the Carara Biological
Reserve in the Pacific Central region of Costa Rica. Local involvement in the case
study area is viewed as ”insider-generated” and ”outsider-demanded” participation.
Through examination of the local participation component, the research identifies
the dilemmas being confronted in ecotourism development, reveals critical

variables for analysis, and proposes recommendations that may help guide

ecotourism policies, planning and projects toward sustainability not only in Costa

Rica but other Latin American and Caribbean countries.

C0pyrisht by
DEBORAH RENEE MEADOWS

1993

To Ben and Joan, for their support
and
George and Nancy, for their inspiration and

their guidance

And, of course,
the people of Tarcoles, Bijagual and Quebrada Ganado,

whose kindness, good humor and generous spirits were transforming

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dr. George Axinn
Dr. Scott Whiteford
Dr. Jeff Riedinger
Dr. Joe Fridgen
Dr. Craig Harris
Dr. James Bingen
Dr. Frank Fear
Nancy Axinn
Dr. Dagmar Werner and Iguana Verde Family
Dr. Alvaro Umafla
Hernan Bravo Trejos
Alvaro Vindas LOpez
Don Alonso, Dona Teresa & Luis Sanchez
Pablo CalderOn
Marco V. Garcia L.
Domingo Medina
Olga Soto
Sergio LeOn & Los Lobos of Carara
Mayela & Family
Don Chon & Family
Miguel Soto & Arbofilia
CEDARENA
Ana Baez
Fundacién Neotropica
Olman Cubillo & Family
Proyecto Ecoturistico "Las Delicias"
Ronald Miranda G.
The Inter-American Foundation for their field research support
Jose Francisco Parra, Nancy Green, John Barfuss, Andy Davis and the other
friends and colleagues who contributed to the accomplishment of this research

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES/MAPS ........................................ ix
INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................... 8
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................. 18
KEY CONCEPTS ............................................. 22
Ecotourr'sm .............................................. 22
Sustainable Development .................................... 25

Local Partiapau'on ......................................... 26
RESEARCH METHODS ......................................... 34
THE COSTA RICAN CONTEXT .................................. 39
DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDY REGION ................... ' ....... 49
Carara Biological Reserve .................................... 49
Selected Communities Near the Carara Biolog'cal Reserve ............. 54
Tamales ........................................... 54

Bi/agual ............................................ 60

Quebrada Ganado .................................... 63

FINDINGS: LOCAL PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABLE ECOTOURISM . 66
Outsider-Demanded Participation (Formal and Informal) .............. 67
Infider-Generated Participation (Formal and Informal) ............... 75
SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS .................................. 79
Limitations of Study ....................................... 82
Rxommemdations Related To Local Participation in Ecotourism ........ 83
Rwomnrendations For Future Research .......................... 86

APPENDICES

Appendix A-The Development Cycle ............................ 91
Appendix B-Forces of Continuity & Change ....................... 92
Appendix C-Butler’s Tourism Model ............................ 93

Appendix D-Background on Costa Rican Tourism Institutions & Policies . . 94

BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................. l 12

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Ecotourism within a human system ..................................... 20

Figure 2. Uphoff’s levels for decision-making and
activity for development .............................................. 27

Figure 3. Types and examples of local participation
in ecotourism ........................................................ 32

Figure 4. Sustainability of ecotourism related to

local participation .................................................... 33
Figure 5. Sustainability of ecotourism related to local
participation in Carara area ........................................... 76
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1. Location of National Parks in Costa Rica .................................. 36
Map 2. Central Pacific region of Costa Rica ...................................... 51
Map 3. Case study area of Carara Biological Reserve and
surrounding communities ....................................... 52
Map 4. Social map of the INVU area of Tarcoles ................................... 55
Map 5. Social map of the commercial district of Tamales ......................... 56

INTRODUCTION

”...like a wise people, the Costa Ricans
have not fallen asleep
over their present prosperity.”
Paul Biolley
Costa Rica and Her Future, 1889
In recent years, the notion of ”ecotourism" or "nature tourism" has surfaced as
a means of economic development while financing natural resources conservation
efforts. Though the definitions of "ecotourism” are abundant, one which touches
the many dimensions of this phenomenon as explored in this document is: a
"planned approach by a host country or region designed to achieve societal
objectives beyond (but including) those of the tourist” (Ziffer, 1989). This
definition hybridizes the various aspects of this concept embodied in descriptions
of ”nature tourism,” or "green tourism,” each of which may reflect the particular
outcomes desired by the definitions’ authors or proponents.
Despite the varying interpretations of what ecotourism means, scientists from

differently developing countries have touted the concept as a means for conserving

biodiversity (B00, 1990). Policy-makers in some countries are embracing this idea

2
as a strategy for rural development while reducing the national debt (Whelan,

1991). And ecotourism entrepreneurs are attempting to capture their portion of
expanding worldwide tourism revenues (Farrell & Runyan, 1991), which have
increased from $83.3 billion in 1979 (Waters, 1990) to a forecasted $775 billion in
1993 (Eiben and Labate, 1993, January 11), roughly seven percent of world trade.

Ecotourism is the fastest growing segment of the tourism industry. With an
expansion rate of 30 percent (Holing, 1991), demand for ecotourism continues to
increase due to the overall growth of tourism, the growth in specialty travel and
increasing awareness and concern for the environment (Ziffer, 1989).

However, fundamental questions surface when ecotourism is critically
examined as a form of ”sustainable development.” Many believe ecotourism
exemplifies "sustainable development"-a ”process of change in which the
exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of
technological development, and institutional change are made consistent with
future as well as present needs (WCED--Brundtland, 1987).” Others believe that
especially for poor, rural people in close proximity to fragile ecosystems which
provide their subsistence, this interface between environment and development
raises issues of poverty, power and social justice intertwined with issues of
environmental preservation and resource control and accessibility (Wells, 1992;

Axinn, 1991; Adams, 1990; O’Riordan, 1988; Redclift, 1987).

3

Many countries in Latin America are encountering this thorny intersection
between conservation and development policies as they attempt to manage their
natural resources for development goals. In the region, growing urbanization,
farmland expansion, increased food production and infrastructure projects are
recognized as some of the key threats to environmental protection (Sevilla, 1987).
AS the needs of the region’s poor people must be addrmd, there is also much at
stake in protecting the wealthy biodiversity and promoting sustainable utilization
of natural resources.

This study, conducted over a 20-month period, explored ecotourism’s
intersection of environmental protection and sustainable development, from the
perspective of local people in Costa Rica. Central to this exploratory research
were the questions: Is local participation related to the sustainability of ecotourism
rin the study area? And if it is related, how is it related?

With the intention of understanding the relationship between local
participation and the sustainability of ecotourism, qualitative primary data were
collected in the central Pacific region of Costa Rica during four months of field
research funded by the Inter-American Foundation. Also data gathered from a
variety of secondary sources were utilized. While ecotourism was put in its context
as part of a world, capitalist economy, the local viewpoint of ecotourism as a way

to ”make life better” was the focus of this research.

4

Costa Rica as a field Site was selected for a variety of reasons. First, the
country is touted as a leader among Latin American countries in its pursuit of
integrating conservation and development goals. As Costa Rica’s attempts to
provide a ”better" life for its poor, rural citizens (campesinos), the country also
has a great stake in protecting its wealthy biodiversity. Also, the country’s
aggressive promotion of ecotourism and its closing agricultural frontier offer a
unique opportunity to assess ecotourism’s role as a sustainable development
strategy. Finally, the country’s approach to development was especially
provocative in light of the current rethinking of Latin American development
theories within a ”world system" framework (Kay, 1991), and in terms of ”putting
people first" (Cemea, 1991/1985).

The idea of a ”world system,” developed by Immanuel Wallerstein (1984;
1991), is one step in the evolving theories which attempt to explain the
phenomenon of ”development-underdevelopment." In the most general of terms,
Wallerstein’s theory, and the variations penned by its proponents, describes a
world economic system focuswd on the never-ending accumulation of capital. This
capital is accumulated by "center" countries, having been extracted from "semi-
periphery” and ”periphery" countries in the form of human and natural resources.
In this way, the "center” becomes developed, while the development or

accumulation of capital in the semi-periphery or the periphery countries is of no

5

concern to the "center.” In this process, all of the actions taken by the "center” are
to maintain its position at the center of the world, capitalist economy.

Kay’s (1991) integration of theories developed by Latin American scholars
(”marginality” and ”internal colonialism") revises the world-system paradigm.
Drawing from the Latin American experience, he argues that development and
underdevelopment are ”primarily rooted in social relations of production and not
in relations of exchange” and calls for more research into the local forms of
domination and political control.

These theories are relevent and worth noting in an effort to examine
ecotourism as part of a larger macroeconomic procees yet may neglect attention to
what’s happening at local levels. For this reason, this study focuses on
”development” in the form of ecotourism at the micro level, where people as
individuals and groups are interacting in ways to "make their lives better” as they
confront the challenges of a global economy.

The development process, in its ideal, begins by ”putting people first”(Cernea,
1991/1985). The notion of ”putting peOple first" in the development process
means:

"giving people more opportunities to participate effectively in development

activities. It means empowering people to mobilize their own capacities, be

social actors rather than passive subjects, manage the resources, make
decisions, and control the activities that affect their lives (Cemea, p. 10).”

6
It is this ”people-centered” idea of development which has provoked this

research, exploring local participation in ecotourism in Costa Rica and scrutinizing
claims of ecotourism as a form of sustainable development.

Provocative questions about local participation in ecotourism planning and
projects can be posed in the broader context of internationalization: Who is
guiding ecotourism-determining who will accrue benefits and who will pay the
costs? Who controls the fate of irreplaceable ecosystems upon which local
residents may depend for their subsistence? To what extent has local participation
been incorporated in planning and decision-making related to ecotourism? How
have individuals become involved? What has been the role of non-governmental
organimtions, both endogenous and exogenous, in influencing ecotourism-related
issues?

This exploratory research begins to search for answers to these questions.
Viewing local participation as central to sustainable development, this explores the
relationship between local participation and Costa Rica’s pursuit of ecotourism as
a sustainable tourism strategy. Through examination of the local participation
component, one may identify the dilemmas being confronted in ecotourism

development, reveal critical variables for analysis, and propose recommendations

7

that may help guide ecotourism policies, planning and projects toward
sustainability not only in Costa Rica but other Latin American and Caribbean

countries.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Tourism, as a research topic and as a field of study, is in its infancy.
Therefore, one must explore the literature in a wide variety of fields to frnd
research related to ecotourism. Some of the most fruitful areas for this search are
those fields which link disciplines such as geography, sustainable development
studies, park and recreation resources, ecological anthropology, environmental
sociology, and wildlands management.

Over the past two decades, abundant research has related tourism and
development (Getino, 1991; Pearce, 1989; Schluter, 1988; Mathieson & Wall, 1982;
deKadt, 1979; Smith, 1977), indicating many imbalances and contradictions in
locales around the world. While cultural, social and economic impacts of tourism
occur in all sectors, poor people in urban and rural settings have received few
benefits since they have had little control over the influences which determine the
size and character of the tourism industry (Lea, 1988).

This linkage between tourism and development iS generating renewed interest
and a new research agenda, demonstrated in the publication of volumes such as
Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourimr,
edited by Smith and Eadington (1992). Drawing from a wide range of disciplines,
this collection highlights the theoretical attributes and dimensions of tourism from

international and interdisciplinary perspectives. As explained by Dennison Nash in

9

the epilogue, Tourism Alternatives calls attention to the notions of a touristic
prams and touristic system as a means for understanding the larger phenomenon
of dependency, which may be promoted by tourism as well as other forms of
development.

Although this literature provides a provocative beginning to the exploration
of local participation, the majority of the literature fails to explore the obtacles
and opportunities for participation within a Latin American context. Additionally,
using methods from the social sciences to research and document impacts, the
research serves to identify problems and provide useful planning frameworks. It
does not include assessment frameworks for use as diagnostic tools prior to
tourism planing.

The literature relating tourism and the environment can best be placed into
four categories, described by Dunkel (1984) as: theoretical concepts and national
park polemics; social impacts; environmental threats to and from tourism; and,
policy and planning. Research in this area is now intensifying, especially in Latin
America where environmental impacts of tourism as well as tourisrn’s role in
financing conservation are being explored. Among those reports most frequently
cited, Boo(1 990) combines existing data in five Latin American and Caribbean
countries (including Costa Rica) to examine the status of the tourism industry;

status of tourism to protected areas; impacts of tourism to protected areas; and,

10

obstacles and opportunities in nature tourism’s development along with case
studies and visitor surveys. Whelan (1991) presents numerous descriptions of
nature tourism destinations and some ”nuts-and-bolts" articles on how to
implanent and manage this enterprise. Ziffer (1989) provides a theoretical
overview of ecotourism, and examines its relevance to a rural system. She also
recommends ways to implement successful ecotourism strategies. However, her
general recommendations do not fully incorporate the complexity of local
participation and the reality of local people in rural areas in Latin America.
Economic perspectives seem to be best represented in what could be called the
first ”limbs" in a small but growing body of research-based ecotourism literature.
The Forest Economics Research group of the USDA Forest Service has produced
various works such as those by Healy (1988) and Laarman (1986), Laarman and
Durst (1987) and Laarman and Perdue (1989). A survey-based approach
incorporating contingent valuation ["willingness to pay”] and "criteria of fairness"
was used by Baldares and Laarman (1991) as they explored user fees at protected
areas in Costa Rica. They found that both residents and non-residents (e. g. foreign
tourists) agreed that residents Should pay less than non-residents, and residents
favor higher fees than non-residents. Travel-cost based research on the value of a
tropical rainforest was conducted by Tobias and Mendelsohn (1991). Other

volumes such as Lindberg’s Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism is Ecological

11
and Economic Benefits (1991) have application in Latin America, exploring ways

in which economic instruments such as user fees and royalties can promote
improved management of conservation areas. There has also been recent literature
related to the marketing of ecotourism (see Wight, 1993) as well as a bibliography
by Ingram and Durst (1987) devoted solely to this aspect.

Published proceedings of various congresses and conferences devoted to an
exploration of the topic of ecotourism draw from experiences around the world.
This includes such volumes such as Ecotourim and Resource Conservation,
gathering together papers from the 1989 and 1990 International Symposia on
Ecotourism in Mexico and Florida respectively (Kusler, 1991). There is also a
collection of papers from the 1991 World Congress on Adventure Travel and
Ecotourism as well as a volume summarizing the First Seminar of Nature-
Oriented Tourism held in Quito, Ecuador in 1989 (Fundacibn Ecuatoriana de
Promocibn Turistiea[Ecuadorian Foundation of Tourism
PromofionHFEPROTUR], 1990). However, one may note that these collections
feature more general and descriptive articles by professionals in this field rather
than those with insights based on scholarly research.

Valuable references to this topic can also be found in collections dealing with
management of protected areas. These include volumes such as that edited by

McNeely and Miller(l984), providing perspectives from the International Union

12
for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources’(IUCN) Congress on

National Parks and Protected Areas in 1982, and presumably a forthcoming
publication from the 1992 IUCN Congress in Venezuela; the collection,
Management ometeeted Am in the Tmpies, compiled by MacKinnon et
al(l990); and, La Situaa'én Ambienta! en Centmanren’ca y El Can'be [71»:
Environmental Situation in Central America and the Caribbean} edited by
Hedstrom (1989). Many of the articles included in these compilations relate to the
measurement of total costs and benefits of tourism in protected areas. One
valuable work which addresses the distribution of these costs and benefits is an
article by Wells (1992). He concludes that benefits related to protected area
tourism can be small at the local level and substantial at the transnational/global
level. Meanwhile, economic costs follow an opposite trend, being locally
signifreant and globally small. This suggests that local people are important
stakeholders in the process of ecotourism development since they have little to
gain and a lot to lose given existing practices and policies related to protected area
tourism. This would be consistent with references cited by McNeely (1990) and
work by Bromley & Cemea(1989).

Also descriptive in nature have been numerous ”popular press" articles
featuring ecotourism in general (Kallen, 1990; Kutay, 1991; Quammen, 1992;

Jones, 1993) and specific ecotourism projects such as the Kuna in Panama (Brean

13
and Chapin, 1984), the Galapagos Islands (Emory, Plage & Plage, 1988), and

Lake Titicaca in Peru (Healey and Zorn, 1983). Additionally, there is the
consumer-oriented Eartbtnps: A Guide to Nature Travel on a Fragile Planet,
attempting to connect potential ”ecotourists" with advice on tour planning and
"responsible ecotravel" (Holing, 1991).

However, there has been little social change and development research which
has examined local participation-~a cornerstone of sustainable development (World
Commission on Environment and Development, l987)--in ecotourism planning
and projects. Consequently, Latin American policymakers, development
practitioners, and resource managers may not recognize local capabilities or
opportunities to benefit from ecotourism policy or become involved in projects
(Farrell & Runyan, 1991; Korten, 1984).

Local participation in tourism was touched on by Murphy (1985),
descriptively applying concepts from community and systems research in the field
of ecology to the development of tourism. Others in various forums have also
touched on the subject (Wallace, 1992; Lillywhite & Lillywhite, 1991; Drake,
1991.). Some important linkages between tourism, environment and sustainable
development have been made in a descriptive manner by geographer Richard
Butler (1989; 1991), who concludes that coordination of policies, pro-active

planning, acceptance of limitations on growth, education of all parties involved

l4

and commitment to a long-term viewpoint are prerequisites to the sucsessful
linking of tourism and sustainable development. This echoes some of the earliest
ideas in this area articulated in philosophical terms by Gerardo Budowski in the
article ”Tourism and Environmental Conservation: Conflict, Coexistence, or
Symbiosis?” which appeared in 1976 in En vimnmental Conxrvation and expanded
upon in La Conxrmeidn Coma Instrumento para 15'] Desanvllo [Conservation as
an Instrument for Development] (Budowski, 1985).

The field of development studies offers some of the richest literature related to
local involvement and local participation, especially work by Axinn (1991),
Chambers (1983 & 1985), Uphoff (1993), Cernea (1985/1991), Korten (1991),
Esman (1991) and others who incorporate concepts related to local participation
within more general criteria for movement toward sustainable development. All of
these scholar-practitioners bring valuable insights gleaned from their work in rural
development. Axinn adopts a model for which moves away from the linear growth
and focuses on a systems approach. Within his cyclieal model, Axinn incorporates
a concept of an "aquisition system”--a collection of ties between groups which is
utilimd by a given local group of people to get what they feel they need to
accomplish their desired objectives. This helps in the understanding of linkages
between the components in the human system which relate to ecotourism.

(3113111138113 (1983) refers to ”insiders" and ”outsiders." The ”insiders” are the t/

15
rural and poor people who inhabit villages where basic needs are not being met;

outsiders are those people ”concerned with rural development who are themselves
neither rural nor poor” and who ”underperceive rural poverty.” Uphoff (1993)
better defines ”local participation” is its spatial dimension--that is, what constitutes
”local.” Cernea (1985/1991) focuses more on the process of putting projects into
action, outlining a strategy to put ”people" first, as initiators of ideas and
strategies for development rather than the last consideration by ”technical experts”,
development workers and others.

The field of political science also makes a contribution to the understanding
of local participation, especially as an informal process as elaborated by James C.
Scott in Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (1985).
Scott concludes that techniques of evasion and resistance represent a significant
but often ineffective means of class struggle. He discusses a spectrum of resistance
as participation, ranging from petty acts of "insubordination" to violent, guer'illa
activities. Also important to Scott is the role of the ”State": its agents, in the form
of institutions and the people who represent these institutions; its policies, and the
process for developing these policies; and, how the State responds to the various
types of local participation.

In relation to information specific to ecotourism and development in Costa

Rica, research conducted by geographer Susan Place (1991;1988), examines

l6

ecotourism and rural development in Tortuguero. She notes that ”some studies
have suggested that local participation from the beginning of conservation projects
is critical to their success.” Place concludes that ecotourism has emerged as one of
the options for integrating parks and people when rural people are able to replace
direct exploitation of biological resources in areas of protected status with income
from tourism sustained by those resourses. Market-oriented, economic research by
Laarman and others is Costa Rica-specific. Marajh and Meadows (1992) have
synthesized some perspectives involved in development of ecotourism in Latin
America and the Caribbean, with a portion dedicated to preliminary observations
related to Costa Rica. In a more general vein, articles unrelated to specific
research but nonetheless pertinent to ecotourism in Costa Rica (Budowski, T.,
1990) have provided important insights regarding its character and the
responsibilities of ecotourism operators to assure a tourism industry sensitivity to
issues related to sustainability.

In choosing a theoretical framework and research methodology for this thesis,
literature in the area of human systems ecology and social impact analysis, both
with roots in anthropology and sociology, was consulted. The volume edited by
Emilio Moran (1990), The Ecosystmr Approach in Anthropology: From Concept
to Practice provides a rich collection of articles, especially those by Bennett and

Moran, which deal with the methodological problems in ecological anthropology.

17
The recent work by John Bennett in DeWalt and Pelto (1985), that by

DeWalt(1988), and various chapters authored in the volume edited by Smith and
Reeves(1989) suggests the basis for a framework well-suited for examining
ecotourism, which involves complex social transactions at many levels and
differing patterns of environmental adaptation. Soaal Impact Analysis and
Development Planning in the Mini World with Derman and Whiteford (1985) as
editors, is also valuable in providing insights to the theoretical framework and
research methods most suited for this investigation as was Natural Resources and
People Conceptual Issues in Interdiscrph'nary Research by Dahlberg and Bennett
(1986). Also consulted were several articles related to assessment of issues facing
protected areas such as that by Schelhas (1991). Participatory research methods
were examined through the work of Robert Chambers (1992) in order to explore
ways to collect research information reflecting the human values and perceived

needs and goals of local people.

l8
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Because of the researcher’s perception of ecotourism as complex in nature and
closely related to resource management concepts as well as development theories
and issues, the researcher chose to modify a theoretical framework from the field
of ecologieal anthropology.

Of particular interest for this research have been concepts presented by the
ground-breaking work of John Bennett and their refinement by other scholars who
have used these theories of "human systems ecology.” Human systems ecology, as
described by Smith and Reeves(1989) concerns the ”two-way interaction between
human values, perceived needs and goals on one hand and the material conditions
on the othe', as these are mediated by technology and social organization.” Its
most fundamental assumption is that adaptation is the result of human decision-
making and so it is necessary to illuminate linkages between the local specifics of
human thought and behavior and macro-scale institutions such as markets and
government agencies.

The unit of analysis becomes regional in focus through the notion of a
"socionatural system." Bennett’s concept of socionatural ”implies a system in
which diverse human groups have adapted in patterned ways to plant, animal and
environmental resources, to one another, to hierarchical market and administrative

forces, and to pressure groups and other forms of quasi-organized social and

19

political interests (p.14)." (Smith and Reeves, 1989). It implies a ”micro-macro"
nexus (Bennett, 1985; Moran, 1990; Smith and Reeves, 1989), appropriate for
examining ecotourism which involves complex social transactions (e. g. household
decision-making, administrative forces, market conditions) at many levels and
differing patterns of environmental adaptation. Through this framework, one can
attempt to overcome the ecosystem approach’s neglect of the decision-making
activities of the individual (Moran, 1990). This type of approach also takes time,
space and hierarchical level into account (Gross, 1990; Moran, 1990).

While Bennett’s framework and its modified versions serve as a theoretical
foundation for understanding the systmr in which ecotourism operates, a different
construction is necessary to understand the phenomenon of local participation and
its relation to sustainable ecotourism development within this concept of human
systems ecology.

The accompanying diagram [Figure 1] indicates the framework developed to
incorporate the phenomena of local participation in the context of ecotourism
operating within a human system. In this framework, ecotourism is seen as a
technology in the form of an idea (rather than ”tool”). It is constantly adaptated
as a process of mediation between material conditions and the individual human
condition. Ecotourism is shaped and mediated by the agents of social

organization, which generally incorporate government, markets, kinship, religion

20

ECOTOURISM within a HUMAN SYSTEM

Technology
'Tools
{Ideas

Social

Organization
a Government
' Markets
° Kinship

. ~ Culture

. Religion

ADAPTATIGR

sla

ecotourism
- tooat Participants
' Tourism Agents
' tourists
' Investors

nfraStructure

 

Decision-making Zone

 

Figure 1. Ecotourism within a human system

21

and culture. Specific processes are included in the phenomenon of ecotourism,
including local participation, tourism industry development, and recreation
behavior—all of which occur within a decision-making zone, again affected by the
dynamic mediation between material conditions and the individual human
condition.

In keeping with this theoretical framework, one needs to take into account the
following assumptions related to this specific research. These are:

1) Ecotourism may be considered as a normative concept with an ”ideal form
as well as an existing activity, which may or may not reach an ”ideal” form;

2) Ecotourism is a type of tourism and therefore a form of development, in
that it implies growth and change with the intention of improving the well-being
of people in a specific place;

3) As an industry, ecotourism is dependent upon sustainable resource
management practises, since undisturbed natural ecosystems are its primary
materials;

4) Local participation plays an important role in effective natural resources
management; and,

5) Resource management is "ultimame a site-specific task in which social,
political, legal and historical dimensions are at least as important as environmental

ones” (Moran, 1990).

22
Objectives for this research included: 1) identifying historical and current

activities and policy goals guiding development of ecotourism activities in Costa
Rica, especially related to local participation; 2) developing an understanding of
how selected groups in Costa Rica view "ecotourism"; 3) determining to what
extent and how local residents, community leaders and non-governmental
organimtions (N 60s) have had the opportunity to influence current ecotourism
development proposals or projects in a given area; and 4) providing a useful

framework for practitioners involved in the area of ecotourism.

KEY CONCEPTS
Ecotourism

For purposes of this study, ecotourism is considered both as an ideal and as
practice.

The definition of ecotourism most suited to this research is stated in an
”ideal" form by Ziffer (1989). Her definition, hybridized from a wide array of
possibilities, portrays what ecotourism should be if it is to provide sustainable
development. Central to this notion of ecotourism in its idealized form are the
ethical obligations inherent for those who travel as ecotourists; conservation

requisites that governments should include in their ecotourism development and

management strategies; and, an informal code guiding the behavior of responsible

23

ecotourism operators. For purposes of this study, describing ecotourism in its
"ideal” form provides a way to examine how closely existing ecotourism projects
and programs in Costa Rica measure up as sustainable development.

Ziffer begins her description of ecotourism as an ideal ”form of tourism
inspired primarily by the natural history of an area, including its indigenous
cultures.” Ziffer also adds some standards that must ideally be met by all of those
who are participating in ecotourism. For the ecotourist, they visit relatively
undeveloped areas in the spirit of appreciation, participation and sensitivity. They
practice non-consumptive use of wildlife and natural resources. They also
contribute to the visited area through labor or frnancial means aimed at directly
benefitting the conservation of the site and economic well-being of the local
residents. The visit will strengthen the ecotourist’s appreciation and dedication to
conservation issues and specific needs of the local population.

Ziffer stresses the ”managed approach” component of her definition, with the
country or region making commitments to:

1) establish and maintain ecotourism sites with the participation of local residents
2) marketing the sites appropriately

3) enforcing regulations

4) using proceeds of the ecotourism enterprise to fund the area’s land management

as well as community development.

24

However, this study has selected an area of "ecotourism" based on what it is
in practice today. In this sense, eotourism is a specialized type of tourism,
described simply as travel to natural areas for the purpose of enjoying the natural
feature which can be found in a given area. As a form of tourism, it conforms to
the life-cycle developed by Butler (In Lindberg, 1991) (Appendix C). In keeping
with the Butler model, it may or may not be sustained over time. And, as a type
of tourism development ”spurred on by the profit-seeking of individual
entrepenuers”, it has a tendency to over-expand (Healy, 1988).

Ecotourism, as a practiced form of tourism, carries with it positive and
negative consequences which correspond to international tourism as a development
strategy. Some of the favorable aspects of ecotourism include: the expansion of E3"
economy at relatively little cost; generation of foreign exchange revenue; economic
development and diversification; increased economic activity in rural areas; and
the establishment of areas to conserve biodiversity (Pearce, 1981; Boo, 1990;
Lindberg, 1991.) Some of the unfavorable aspects include: an imbalance of power A.
and influence characteristic of international tourism, with intermediary companies
controlling the metropolitan origins of tourists to ”the Third World"; inequity, ‘
with foreign demands for a luxury being met by local requirements for hard

currency, in circumstances where few alternatives exist; dependence on tourism

flows which may be affected by external factors such as political instability, bad

25

weather, and international currency fluctuations; and, environmental degradation

(Lea, 1988; B00, 1990; Butler, 1990).

Sustainable Development

There is a rich collection of literature exploring the definition and significance
of ”development” and its more environmentally-rooted incarnations of "sustainable
development” or ”ecodevelopment.” It is beyond the scope of this research to delve
very deeply into this labyrinth. However, a brief discussion of development and
sustainability as it is viewed for this research is necessary.

For the purpose of this research, development as an ”ideal” connotes ”steady
progress toward improvement in the human condition; reduction and eventual
elimination of poverty, ignorance and disease; and expansion of well-being and
opportunity for all (Esman, 1991, p.5)." It is change, but change directed toward
specific, value-driven ends. It is seen as a kind of change which utilizes low-energy
strategies, resource recycling, land use and settlement planning based on ecological
principles and appropriate technology (Sachs in Adams, 1990).

As a process, development is cyclical in nature and moving between states of
balanwd development and over- and under-development [Appendix A] (Axinn,
1978), perhaps not unlike the cyclical process of tourism. At any given point in

this cycle, it can be viewed as a collection of forces and countervailing forces for

change [Appendix B] (Axinn, 1978).

The normative aspects of sustainability are crucial to its success as a new
paradigm for development. However, for purposes of this research, sustainability
is viewed more narrowly in its temporal context: that is, how long a development

activity will last in a state of balanced development within a given human system.

Local Participation

The concept of ”local participation” is of fundamental importance to this
research since it is postulated that the sustainability of ecotourism is related to the
nature and level of local participation. However, since the term ”local
participation” conveys a variety of meanings, this research considers the concept in
its two parts: local and participation.

In this research, local is defined through the approach used by Uphoff (1993).
In his work related to grassroots organizations and NGOs in rural development,
Uphoff identifies three levels that constitute ”local." These include: the locality, the
community level, and the group level (See Figure 2 -Levels for Decision-making

and Activity for Development).

2'7

 

International
National
Regional

District
Subdistrict
Locality
Community
Group
Household

Individual

 

 

 

Figure 2. Uphoffs’ Levels for decision-making and activity for development.
Modified from Uphofl‘(l993).

The locality includes the set of communities ”having social and economic
relations, usually with interactions centered around a market town." The
”community" refers to an ”established socioeconomic residential unit, often
referred to as the village level.” Finally, Uphoff identifies the group level, as a

”self-identified set of persons with some common interest, such as occupational,

28
age, gender, ethnic, or other grouping.” This will include persons in a small

residential area like a neighborhood.

While household and individual levels are recognized by Uphofl‘, he says they
do not "present the same problematic issues of ‘collective’ action found with
groups, communities and localities.” Local, for the purposes of this research, was
explored more at the community and group levels.

”Participation” is less succinctly defined, and cannot be separated from a
concept of decision-making. For the purposes of this research, "participation"
moves beyond the ”numbers”-based notion that ”the more people involved, the
better the participation.” In this researcher’s conception, participation also needs
to be viewed in its qualitative nature, and in its formal and informal dimensions.

Participation, in its formal dimension, may be stated simply as who comes to
the ”decision-making table" and how those people are involved in the decisions
which are made at that table, especially those related to who will pay the costs
and who will receive the benefits which result from any given decision. It is a
conception intertwined with Susan George’s (1984) questions: Development for
whom? By whom?

Following from this, there is the informal dimension of participation: how will
those individuals participate if they are not allowed access to the formal decision-

making process? How will they express their needs? What strategies will they take

29
to make their voices heard? What actions will they take to meet their needs?

Within this conception of local participation, it can be analyzed in a more
qualitative manner in the three ways suggested by Chambers (1985), who
examines:
1) who partiapates;
2) What institutions are involved (the institutions through which local participation
occurs, such as local government authorities, development committees, self-help
groups, public meetings, local interest groups); and,
3) What objectives and functions participation fulfills: making known local wishes;
generating developmental ideas; providing local knowledge; testing propoMs for
feasibility and improving them; increasing the capability of communities to handle
their affairs and to control and exploit their environment; demonstrating support
for a regime; doing what government requires to be done; extracting, developing
and investing local resources (labor, finance, managerial skills, etc.); and,
promoting desirable relationships between people, especially through co-operative
work.

Within this analysis of local participation, two streams of initiatives,
communication and resources must be taken into account: ”those which are top-
down, originating in government headquarters and penetrating towards and into

the rural areas ["outsiders"]; [and] those which are bottom-up, originating among

30
the people in rural areas and directed upwards into the government machine

["insiders"] (Chambers, 1985)."

Within this ”top-down” stream, local participation may be viewed as outsider-
dn'vcn. Outsider-driven is the kind of participation "outsiders” promote in their
policies or practices, encouraging their conception of what local participation
should be. For example, this may include various provisions in law for ”public
participation” via representation on a commission or designation of revenues to
”community” projects, which may or may not serve a ”community” interest.
Formal outsider-driven partipation tends to be driven by the ”government
machine” via mandated public participation mechanisms. Informal outsider-driven
participation tends to be motivated via the private sector. For example, the
offering of employment to local is an informal decision made by an individual
entrepeneur. In turn, local workers may or may not choose to work for this
enterprise.

On the other hand, "bottom-up” participation might be viewed as insider-
generated-that is, how ”insiders" view their participation and from what sources
they generate their desired participation. For instance, here one begins to ask why
local people choose to express collective action in a particular way-such as
organized strikes or seemingly random sabotage. While focused more on the

version of local participation as a ”desired outcome” for ecotourism as sustainable

31
development, the research was conducted in awareness that local participation as

”passive resistance” may exist. Insider-generated participation may also take form
in new organizations to take action on new ideas that will benefit the community.
For example, some communities in Costa Rica have developed ecotourism-related
servises which are owned and operated by local people. Figure 3 represents this
configuration of local participation.

Based on literature (Bromley and Cernea, 1989; MacNeely and Miller, 1984;
Budowski, 1985) which suggests that different types of local participation will
result in resource managrnent at different levels of sustainability, it is hypothesized
here that evidence will suggest that this will also hold true for local participation
in ecotourism. Figure 4 illustrates this relationship.

In summary, for this research, local participation is a qualitative phenomenon
which:

°takes place at a specified social/geographic level

°possesses formal and informal dimensions

~relates to who participates and how they participate as well as how many
participate

may be outsider-driven or insider- generated

-serves specific functions

32

.Emt338o 5 Swansea 38— ho 83830 28 89¢. .m 2:me

 

 

cease—om.
teak.

3333 8233—.

5.2.. canto .250.
ABE—289.53 3:323?

@525

 

3089—35
3.. £82.03 358800.
«coauzgfi
.8.— u—euenoa 3.8635.
338 «.83 no eczema—emu?
8389—03 he

defiance £9.25 938250.

33.88 age—.8800.
3838.8. beige.

.958

 

 

 

 

5:33:52 aseoeou..ou_m=.

3033.... 5.9—.
3.5888
3 82.26.. 18352.
age—v8 .093.
303.63.
3393 .3 3955. 333888 unmade—A.
8839 Eda-.3538. 68.83888
eoeo afloat... 2.3 has}.
sate... .8833? 3:18.. 93:...
552:. BEE

 

 

5.3.2:: geeaéfis

 

33

eaten—Eta .82 8 33—2 Ear—3380 he bfinufiafié .v Bear,—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eses ESE

 

 

 

 

 

332.....— 3833.32»...

.5525 .958

 

 

 

3:33:5— 5.3.3333

wsunmooa 10 Mllqwmsns Mm

wsunorooa 10 Atlmwmsns ubm

RESEARCH METHODS

This study involved primary, qualitative data collection as well as information
from secondary data sources. This approach was chosen because of the complexity
of the research topic, in hopes of providing a stronger theoretical foundation for a
phenomenon which has very little prior research upon which to draw. The intent,
however, was to pursue an understanding of the phenomenon from the perspective
of local residents since this seems to be neglected in existing research related to
this topic.

This research was comprised of basically three phases, with various activities
carried out over a 20-month period. These phases included 1) preliminary research
and field research site selection; 2) field research in Costa Rica, for which funding
was provided through a Master’s Field Research Fellowship granted by the Inter-
American Foundation; and, 3) data analysis and preparation of findings.

In the fust phase, from January-December 1992, an extensive literature review
was conducted along with interviews of various ecotourism experts in the United
States, Costa Rica and Ecuador. During this phase, pre-field research visits were
made to Costa Rica and Ecuador in order to determine what areas were
encountering high levels of ecotourism activity and identify relevant institutions,
policies and programs with involvement in ecotourism. This pre-fteld research was

conducted through exploratory interviews with individuals involved in ecotourism,

35

conservation, and development as well as site visits and library research of
documents useful for this study.

Based on this first phase, Costa Rica was selected as the field research site,
using a single case study area of Carara Biological Reserve near the central Pacific
Coast (Map l). A two-pronged approach to field work was used during this
second phase, which was carried out during January-April 1993. This involved 1)
ecotourism policy research, conducted primarily in the Costa Rican capital of San
Jose (approximately five weeks); and 2) a case study of the socionatural system
connected with Carara Biological Reserve, in the central Pacific region of Costa
Rica (approximately ten weeks). This case study served as a way to examine the
implementation of ecotourism policies and practices, with specific attention paid to
the component of local participation.

Field research consisted of primary and secondary data collection through:
content analysis of newspapers and relevant government and non-govemment
documents in order to chronicle the history of ecotourism development decisions;
informal interviews with policy-makers and NGO representatives to chart policy
development and implementation, especially efforts to involve local communities;
and, open-ended formal and informal interviews with rural citizens (campesinos) in
the case study region to provide information on the extent to which they

participate in or resist ecotourism planning and projects in the region. Nearly all

Anna: «mom 62:8 .262
«a 3.8%.: fl 9:93— RamBoE go .83 880 5 8:9— 3:232 .8 5:83 ._ ans.

 

36

 

 

 

Jill-.- I .r. it -1
iiin.il’l 8

3‘iii.8
1333.:
’3 0.1113335-..
Eifxtia’l...
silo-915-!
lazing-ii--
in...

i 3313.33.13
330333-.
3.3.3313;
i g‘sfiiié

all-u I‘ll-333C Goa-sea
!\.3;-.I> 03“th all?!
ggeiih
Iii-arté
ill-$.33}--

I.

 

 

ii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.22932 $35:
8.. 3 20635

...,,. I I <03 (.500

L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37
of the interviews were conducted in Spanish, a second language for the

researcher.

Participant observation and participatory research (to a lesser extent) were
also used in primary data collection in the various communities investigated as
part of second phase.

In the case of the open-ended interviews, interviews were conducted with
individuals who had differing levels of "voice” in the community. Additionally,
taking into account a potential interviewer bias, a series of interviews and
conversations were conducted with sampled individuals in order to establish a
more trusting relationship (Jones, 1985).

Content analysis was used to interpret the data from interviews as well as
newspapers/documents. Concerns about reliability were avoided since only one
coder worked with the data.

While in the case study region, the researcher lived in the homes of local
residents in the communities of Tarcoles and Bijagual, as well as spending
approximately two weeks in the Carara Biological Reserve’s main station. In
order to not ”go native” (Miles and Huberman, 1984), day and week-end trips
were taken out of the area on a regular basis.

The third phase, consisting of data analysis and the report of findings, was

conducted from May-August 1993.

38
While the research methods selected proved to be suitable for this research,

there were some limitations. While the researcher was confident in her Spanish
language abilities, interviewing in a second language always leaves room for the
possibility of misunderstanding. Whenever in doubt, the researcher would always
ask for clarification of responses. Also, the good nature of the Costa Rican
people and their desire to ”help the yinga" may have persuaded individuals to
provide responses that would please the interviewer. Efforts to remedy this
influence included ”testing" the response by asking a follow-up question or a
similar question at a later time. Whenever possible, triangulation of data was used.
Yet, much of the available secondary data relevant to local communities was too
outdated or aggregated at levels which did not serve the purposes of this research.
However, given the nature of this research with its focus on local participation,
primary data reflecting the viewpoints of local people were considered to hold
more value than ”official" secondary data.

While the researcher planned to use visual participatory methods (e. g.
drawings, graphic presentations) more extensively, they were found to need more
modification than expected and so were employed in a limited way. This limitation
with these methods may have been due to: the researcher’s experience in their use;
the fact that there was an individual researcher versus a team of researchers

(preferred for these methods); or cultural differences between Costa Rican society

39
and organimtion and the cultures and customs of the African and Asian

collaborators with whom many of these methods were developed. It should also be
noted that with few exceptions, most of the publications which have used
participatory research methods have focused on action-oriented projects rather

than gathering data for more exploratory research.

THE COSTA RICAN CONTEXT

Since the 1850s, Costa Rica has relied upon its natural resource base for its
development. Until 1950, it was predominantly an agro-exporting economy. Coffee
and bananas reflected 91 percent of total exported goods. Although Costa Rica
had her representative democracy, an oligarchy of coffee with producers as the
dominant social class controlled the provision of minimal services to the larger
population. About 67% of population was agrarian and there was no expansion
of the internal market.

From 1950-1963, "modernization" took place, with the resultant state
bureaucracy and emergence of social classes. Public spending increased by 70%,
with funds focused in areas of health and education. There were also large efforts
in infrastructure improvement (roads, energy projects,etc.). By 1963 until 1973,
import-substitution led development. Costa Rica looked to increase her internal

market via the regional market of Central America. An empresarial state appeared

40
in 1974 until 1979, when Costa Rica entered a period of crisis. A deepening fiscal

deficit and external debt occured as a result of continued public spending, despite
worsening international economic conditions and the marked deterioration of the
Central American Common Market due to violence in the region. The public debt
tripled between 1978 and 1982, from $1.1 billion to $3.1 billion. Interest payments
alone on the debt in 1982 would have required 70 percent of Costa Rica’s export
earning (Quesada M., 1990).

From 1983—1989, a period of recuperation occurred as the government pared
itself down, increawd attention to exportation, controlled inflation, augmented
internal production and improved salaries and employment opportunities.

Today, the government has described itself as ”orientador del desarrollo
dentro un concepto de amplia participacién [advisor of development within a
concept of wide participation]." Tourism plays an important part in this strategy,
now the second largest earner after bananas (EIU, 1993). This revenue, however,
cannot counter a more rapid growth of imports. In the first ten months of 1992,
the trade deficit nearly doubled to $462 million, compared with $233 million
during the same period in the previous year. This deficit appeared to be offset by
capital inflows, since international reserves remained stable (EIU, 1993).

Despite the depletion of its natural capital during Costa Rica’s

41

"development,"1 the country’s conservation program has been hailed as a model
for other developing countries. An estimated 27 percent of the country’s national
territory is under some type of protected status in an attempt to preserve
biodiversity, which represents about five percent of the planet’s plant and animal
species (Umana, 1990). Costa Rica’s natural resources have attracted scientists
from all over the world for tropical forest research and spawned a collection of
institutions addressing issues of tropical agriculture and forestry, and more
recently, biodiversity. Today, the wealth of Costa Rica’s ecosystems is also the
”capital" in an aggressive government push to promote ecotourism as a strategy
for sustainable development (Swet, 1990). The Calderén Administration (1990-
1994) has continued the push for ecotourism as part of a wider development
strategy with the government serving to ”orient development within a concept of
wider participation." Simply put by Tourism Minister Luis Manuel Chacon,
Costa Rica is actively trying to ”increase the length of stay and the money spent
and attract higher quality tourists (Orlebar, 1991)."

Legislation over the past four decades in Costa Rica has been directed

 

1Raul Soldrzano et al., in Accounts Overdue: Natural Resource Depreciation in
Costa Rica, provide evidence that Costa Rica’s accounting system has failed to make the
economic costs of environmental degradation explicit. For example, 1989 depreciation of
three resources-forests, soils and fisheries-amounted to more than 9 percent of gross
domestic product.

42

primarily toward the promotion and development of tourism, with marketing
strategies attempting to capitalize on the natural heritage of the country, and
incentive programs which use various tax-related mechanisms and infrastructure
financing to encourage tourism investment in Costa Rica. Less planning and
policy development has been oriented toward the management of tourism activity;
and still less directed specifically for the management of ecotourism as a subset of
this form of development.

The country’s aggressive promotion of ecotourism (Quesada, 1990;
Umana,l990) and closing agricultural frontier offer a unique opportunity to assess
ecotourism’s role as a development strategy.

One may view Costa Rica’s push for ecotourism in relation to its substantial
external debt. Debt service charges alone represented about 41% of exports in
1990 in an economy that has a Gross Domestic Product of an estimated $5.6
billion (22% from industry; 19% from agriculture) (U .S.Department of State,
1992). In response to this situation, international lending institutions such as the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), United States’ Agency for International
Development (US. AID) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) have
developed lending strategies aimed at maintaining stability and promoting trade
and investment liberalization (U .S. Department of State, 1992), such as the $270

million multi-year loan program being considered the the World Bank and [DB at

43
the start of 1993. So it is not surprising that the tourism sector would be looked

to by government officials and private entrepreneurs as a means of generating
revenue for the country. And it seems logical to consider ecotourism as one of the
promising foreign exchange generators for a country with a rich natural heritage
and stable political structure.

During the past decade, grth in the tourism industry in Costa Rica has
been dramatic and it is a boom which continues unabated (Economist Intelligence
Unit, 1993). According to data from the Instituto Costariccense de Turismo(ICI')
[Costa Rican Tourism Institute], the number of international tourists arriving in
Costa Rica has doubled, increasing from 326,142 in 1983 to 620,000 in 1992 (See
Table). This influx generated revenue of $427 million in 1992, up 29% from 1991
(BTU, 1993). If projections hold true, by 1994 tourism will bring $500 million to
the national economy, supplanting bananas as the first-place foreign export
earning industry by the middle of the decade (Fernandez, 1992; Orozco Coto et.
a1, 1991; EIU, 1993).

Current data indicate that about 74.5% of the foreign tourists visit one or
more of Costa Rica’s national parks, reserves and wildlife refuges
(CANATUR,ICI‘, and MIRENEM, 1992).

As a result of this increawd flow of tourists, there has been a building boom

to house Costa Rica’s guests, with the number of rooms available jumping 63%

44

over three years-from 5,456 rooms in 1989 to 8,661 rooms in 1992, and with
increasingly higher occupancy (ICT, 1992).

Orozco Coto et. al. report that each tourist spends approximately $95.88 per
day. However, this does not include the amount spent on hotels and other services
as a result of contracts with international tourism companies (Orozco Coto, et a],
1991). The economic multiplier of tourism income in Costa Rica has been

estimated to be between 3.2 and 5.5 (Chaverri in Boo, 1990).

Towism-tela ted Institutions

Costa Rica has one national agency charged specifically with tourism
responsibilities: the Instituto Costariccense de Turismo (ICI')[Costa Rican Institute
of Tourism], located within the Ministerio de Economia [Ministry of Economy].
ICPs mission, defrned by law in its 1955 enabling legislation, is to increase
tourism by:
1) developing the image and visitation of Costa Rica; 2) promoting the
construction and maintenance of facilities for tourist lodging and recreation; 3)
promoting Costa Rica externally; 4) promoting and supervising the private sector
and its attention to tourism. (Salazar, 1991).

In theory, ICT is available to help communities promote their tourist product

as long as a community has a locally organized Chamber of Tourism (Pedersen,

45
1988).

Other sectors with responsibilities and interests in ecotourism include the
Ministerio de Planifrcacién y Polltica Econ6mia[Ministry of Planning and Political
Economy], which places the tourism development in the broader context of
national development. The Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energla y Minas
(MIRENEM) [Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines] theoretically
controls the environmental impacts of tourism development, and is also involved
through the Servicio de Parques Nacionales (SPN) [National Parks Service] in the
natural resources management of popular ecotourism destinations. Responsibilities
for watching over protected lands outside the purview of SPN, falls to the
Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia (MAG) [Ministry of Agriculture and
Livestock], primarily the Direccibn General Forestal (DGF) [Forest Service] and
the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario(IDA)[Institute of Agrarian Development]. IDA
has been exploring the potential for "agro-ecotourism" during the past two years
as a complementary economic activity to the basic food production of the
campesino, which often fails to meet commercial levels (Arrieta M., 1991).

Municipalities also may control certain land use decisions related to tourism
development via local ordinanws, a power provided as part of the Municipal
Code (Salazar C., 1991).

A variety of laws regarding the "national patrimony” also exist, helping to

46
define responsibilities for the protection of archaeological sites, natural

monuments and other land forms which may serve as tourist attractions.

Various training programs to encourage a labor force skilled for tourism
(such areas as arts and crafts) are handled through the Instituto Nacional de
Apprendizajze [National Training Institute], part of the Ministerio de Trabajo
[Ministry of Labor].

Despite national tourism laws and provisions in other laws which have some
reference to tourism, the inadequate legislation relating tourism to environmental
concerns, and a lack of administrative coordination (Salazar C., 1991; Quesada
M., 1990) have allowed management of new ecotourism enterprises to fall
primarily under the direction of the private sector. Enforceable laws which could
be used to guide and control ecotourism exist, such as that regulating the
environmental impact review process and restrictions on construction in maritime
zones, but in many instances, these laws have not been enforced.

The Camara Nacional de Turismo (CANATUR)[National Chamw of Tour-
isml) along with other private-sector associations play important roles, primarily
in the promotion of tourism and the endorsement of projects. Additionally, there
is a national ecotourism commission. Members have been appointed to this
Commission and the group is operating informally.

Interactions between the various agencies and programs are encouraged

47
through formal agreements or informal cooperation. [Note: For a more detailed

description of the authority and responsibilities of the various government

agencies, see Appendix D].

Laws & Institutions Related to Local Participation

Despite the deeply-rooted tradition of democracy and the in Costa Rica, the
formal mechanisms for local participation in tourism, and in fact, resource
management in general are very few.

One of the few explicit provision for local participation is the Ley Indigena.
Through one provision, changes in indigenous reserves or indigenous-owned areas
must be authorized by the indigenous community and CONAI (the government’s
Comision Nacional de Asuntos Indigenas[National Commission on Indigenous
Subjectsl) (Salazar C., 1991). Recently enacted legislation related to the
administration of Areas of Conservation, encourages the formation of groups of
”stakeholders” to assist in the management of the areas.

Provincial and local governments, where individuals could presumably have
more access, are seen as weak. 0f the two, municipal governments in each canton
[county] have more potential influence, having the authority to grant or deny
construction permits, liquor licenses and other actions. However, in many coastal

areas, such as that included in the buffer zone of Carara, municipal governments

48
are ”typically understaffed, unable or unwilling to systematically collect revenue,

highly politicized, and sometimes corrupt (Foer and Olsen, 1992).

While there is an environmental impact review process for proposed projects,
there is no provision for formal public participation, such as public hearings.
However, once completed, the review document is public information.

One of the means of local participation is through non-governmental
organizations, which are increasing in Costa Rica. In some areas, non-
governmental organimtions such as ATEC (T alamanca Association for Eco-
tourism and Conservation) have been attempting to force the government to live
up to its mandates or are calling for legislative reform in order to assure
development which is in the interests of local people.

Finally, it needs to be noted that Costa Rica constitutionally guarantees on
behalf of the individual and society the right to a healthy environment. Recourse

for violation of this right is exercised throughout the Costa Rican judicial system.

49

DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDY REGION

The socionatural region of Costa Rica examined in this research may be
roughly demarcated on Map 2. This includes the city of Orotina to the north and
lace in the south. The Bay of Nicoya defrnes the western boundary, with the
Cerro of Turrubares as the eastern boundary. The region has the Carara Biologi-
cal Reserve at its heart, and the lower portion of the river Grand Tarcoles as its
main ecological ”artery" and the highway, Costanera Sur, as the human-built
”artery.” This demarcation attempts to include not only geomorphological
features, but also the social networks which extend beyond political boundaries.
For purposes of this research, this area will be referred to as the Central Pacific
Region.

Within this area, the interaction between three communities--Tarcoles,
Bijagual and Quebrada Ganado— and the ecotourism attraction of Carara

Biologieal Reserve were studied.

Chm Biolog'cal Reserve
One of the most outstanding natural features in the Central Pacific Region of
Costa Rica is Carara Biologieal Reserve [RBC-Reserva Biolégiea Carara]. Part of

Costa Rica’s extensive public lands holding since 1979, RBC extends over 4,700

50
hectares or 11,616 acres near the Central Pacific Coast, alongside the Rio Grande

de Tarcoles (Map 3). The reserve, along with a patchwork of protected lands and
remnant forests, are critical to the preservation of biodiversity and the protection
of water supply for roughly 18,000 human inhabitants of the region (Cifuentes A,
1983)

Once part of a small number of large land holdings, the Reserve represents
one of the largest intact forests in the region (Gildesgame, 1990). Since the
colonial period, surrounding forest resources and wildlife of the area "have been
nearly totally destroyed and it is difficult to find forest remnants of more than 40
hectares” (Cifuentes A., et al., 1983).

While the ecological attributes of the RBC and surrounding communities are
carefully delineated in the RBC management plan (Cifuentes A., et a1, 1983), most
notably, RBC provides habitat for nearly 240 scarlet macaws (Ala mama). This
represents about 80% of the population of this endangered species (Vaughn,
McCoy and Liske, 1991), for which there is high ecotouristic value.

Since the completion of the highway Costanera Sur in 1985, RBC has wit-
nessed an exponential increase in the number of visitors who come to walk its two
trails through the tropical forest which serves as a transition from the tropical dry
forests to the north and the moist forests to the south. Between 1988 and 1992,

the number of visitors had increased 686 percent, rising from 3501 to 24,015

51

Age: 83 530 0.. Scfiwooc 83:2: ”8.50m .88.8m”:
.5233 52.8 05 .3 92836313532 .32 «.80 he :29: 058.— .EEoU .N 3.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

 

 

 

'3
Ion Calbalo . m , '

c Ida "
“Animus .
é‘u -
Mia loves a .. ‘\

\VI‘I ' ab! . ‘ a ‘/
\r 0 \s a‘ a ) ,,, , 1 ‘\ "4);. " J ' a-
r r “.J’ Li} ‘ . q I
1 I ’1 g“ ' r ‘
} I a 4, ' v. ‘
numumm ' ( I M / ‘1 ~° ,' s a A ’ m ' 7"
.' . 4 i' a a ' .\ e/you’v ‘ Di ”‘1
M E L.’ ‘ .5” ‘\, [ ‘ '
i " W‘( "‘59-" “'\
0w; - f . 4 '
’ an“, 1 ‘U .
T J r.’ . ‘ "
A

MM Cur-lilo .1, - - °

 

 

Map 3 Case study area of Carara Biological reserve and surrounding communrtres of Tarcoles,
Bijagual, and Quebrada Ganado (1 :200,000). Source: Instituto Geografrco de Costa Rica (1988).

53
visitors annually. Most of these visitors are foreigners from non-Spanish speaking

countries (RBC, 1992).

Many of the ”ecotourists" who visit RBC hope to catch a glimpse of the
macaw, whose voice is just as loud as its red plumage. According to one study in
Peru, a free living macaw generates between US$750 and US$4700 annually in
revenues from tourists (Beissinger and Buchner, 1991, cited in Norman, 1993.)

As a result of R303 natural attractions and its easy access from San Jose
(two hours via highway), tour operators have developed oneday packages to visit
the Reserve. Vaughn et al (1991) estimate that expenses for a one-day visit
including hotel, food, car rental or tour range from US. $86-$100 per tourist. One
tour company. Geotur, claims a special expertise for RBC visits, but many
companies offer package trips to Carara.

As is the case at other national parks, RBC charges each visitor an entrance
fee of c2002 or roughly US$1.46, which is passed on to the SPN administration in
San Jose. This amount is set by executive order but constitutionally mandated to
be equal for both Costa Rican nationals and visitors from other nations. Many
times this fee will be included in a tour package to the Reserve.

The Reserve is administered by employees of the SPN, who are charged with

 

2Throughout this document, the exchange rate used is 137 Costa Rican colones for
each US. dollar.

54

the protection and management of the reserves’ physieal and biological resources.
There is a main station, and two satellite posts—one in Bijagual and the other in

Bajo Capulin.

Selected Communities Near the Gama Biologist] Reserve

While many, small communities can be found in the buffer zone of the RBC,
this study focuses primarily on three of the larger communities: Tarcoles, Bijagual,
and Quebrada Ganado.

Tamales

Tarcoles is the largest community in close proximity to the ecotourism activity
at the RBC headquarters. Health records (Ministerio de Salud, 1992) indicate a
year-round population in the area of Tarcoles of 531, representing 126 families.
About 32 percent (169) of the residents are under 10 years of age.

Today, its residents view Tarcoles as two "neighborhoods” linked by bridge
over the Rio Tarcolitos, located about 3 kilometers south of the RBC (See Map
4). On the south side of the river is what the local residents refer to as ”INVU,” in
reference to the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo [National Institute of
Housing and Urban Planning], which constructed most of the residential dwellings
found there. "Cabinas" [cabins] line the beachfront, and are owned, with one

exception, by Costa Ricans. There are two "official" pescaderias [frsh markets] in

$9332.60
cog E5858 .3 Ban—2e 5.8%? «e g D>Z~ 05 .3 can. 308 .v as:

 

55

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘11:
v. . s4. ,
n,_ . i a
3...? w.” i
PL \ .PN r
I“... ..... .7.

. . my
{5

 

 

 

 

 

56

8.085. .3 .833 380883 05 he 9:: 303 .n as:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57
the area of INVU--La Cristal, and the Coopetarcoles, along with three

pulpetiaimini-markets] (one of which has a community telephone), one small
supermamsddsupermarket], a bar/dance salon, and a restaurant/bar.

Over the small bridge near the mouth of the Tarcolitos river, one finds
"Tarcoles." This might be considered the "commerical" district of the community,
with a dance salon, several bars, pool room, a small restaurant, one hotel
(capacity of 100 people) with a restaurant, pool, and a community telephone, and
another, smaller hotel (about 20 pe0ple). A primary school is also located on this
side, as well as a rural health and nutrition center, and a livestock farm, last
remnant of the large latifundia of which Tarcoles was a part earlier in its history.

Although not included in the first descriptions of their community, residents
also recognize other "Tarcoleftos” who live in houses north and south along the
Costanera Sur. Additionally, there are social linkages with the smaller beach
community of Playa Azul, with 74 year-round residents representing about 12
families (Ministerio de Salud, Tarcoles, 1992).

According to social mapping conducted as part of this research, the most
common income-generating activity is artisanal frshing, which became

predominant in Tarcoles within the past decade. In INVU, approximately 46 of 72

58
working individuals were identified as fishermen.3 They employ a type of fishing

more rudimentary than the semi-industrial shrimp or sardine boats which can
often be seen off-shore. Usually a two-person team will travel out into the Bay of
Nicoya in 16-foot ”pangas”, with 25-horsepower boats mounted at the back.
Fishing is conducted using one of two methods: line fishing (lines) or net fishing
(mama/lo). Many local fishermen sell their catch to one or more of the six area
pescaderias The fish are destined for various markets in Costa Rica for domestic
sale and exporting companies for sale in the United States. An ”exceptional week”
of fishing may generate as much as US $585 per individual fisherman (Romero,
February 8, 1993; Miranda 6., February 3, 1993). However, this depends on a
variety of factors including number of days fished, variety caught, etc.
Additionally, fishermen report a substantial drop (400 percent) in catch over the
past five years which they attribute to overfishing by semi-industrial and industrial
fishing operations, increased numbers of artisanal fishermen, and pollution. This is
consistent with a reported decline since 1982 of the artisanal fishery’s asset value
with increasing effort in the Gulf of Nicoya. (Solérzano et.al., December 1991).

Other income-generating activity includes national tourism, agriculture, business,

 

3Nearly all of those participating in artesinal fishing are men. However, there are
several women in the community who occasionally join their male partners as part of the
fishing team.

59
construction and miscellaneous day-labor. Reported data indicates a monthly

family income averaging $US 706 (Ministerio de Salud-Tarcoles, 1992).

Various community organizations exist in Tarcoles, the most active of which
is the Asociacién de Desarrollo Integral [Association of Integral Development],
with various committees that primarily handle infrastructure needs of the
community, such as road & bridge construction and maintenance, water supply
(untreated from mountain streams, carried by plastic tubing), adequate housing,
and community areas maintenance (e. g. two soccer fields and the cemetery) (ADI,
1988-1992). There are also other committees associated with the school, such as
the parents of students. Until recently, the fishermen’s cooperative
("Coopetarcoles") was active, as was a cooperative organimd by the wives of the
fishermen ("Supercoopetércoles").

Transportation services consist of: bus service for Orotina and Jaco, available
at the two entrances from the community to the highway and one which passes
round-trip through the community to Playa Azul once per day; taxi service from
Orotina; and, some private autos, which often serve as taxis, for hire as needed.
Walking within the community is common, although bicycles are frequently used
for longer distances such as to Playa Azul, Quebrada Ganado or beaches further
south.

Preventative health services are available through the health post, which is

60
open at specified times during the week. Also, routine care, such as insan

injections, is handled by trained volunteers who live in the community. Other
health services are obtained in the clinic of Orotina or Jaco or the hospital in
Puntarenas or San J osé. While there is no Alcoholics Anonymous or Al-Anon
group, alcoholism and drug abuse are mentioned frequently by residents and

health care workers as one of the most challenging community problems.

Bijagual

Bijagual is an agricultural community about 13 kilometers from RBC head-
quarters. It is accessible from the highway via approximately 10 kilometers of
winding, dirt roads, which occasionally ”touch” the edge of RBC.

Residents view the community as three parts: the village of Bijagual and its
two asentanzientos: Biiaguall (also called the ”hacienda,” in reference to the area’s
history as part of a large farm owned by one person); and, Bijagual II. These
latter two refer to the settlements created through the Instituto de Desarrollo
Agrario’s [Institute of Agrarian Development] program of land reform. These
asentamientos are comprised of a collection of small parcels of land, averaging
15.4 hectares per family (according to IDA, March 1993), which are sold at low
prices to qualifying carnpesinos who agree to cultivate the property. There are 18

parcels in Bijagual I and 22 parcels in Bijagual II. Including these settlements,

61
government data (Ministerio de Salud-Bijagual, 1992) indicate a total of 331

residents, comprising 75 families. Of these residents, 26.5 percent(88) are less than
10 years old.

Nearly all of the residents are involved in agriculture-either subsistence
farming, cash cropping, livestock raising, farm labor, or market preparation and
transport of agricultural products. One of the most important cash crops to
community is tiquisque (Xantbosoma sag'ttifblium), an edible tuber which is
exported to the United States. Other important cash food cr0ps include chiles,
tomatoes, beans, corn and coffee, to a lesser extent, bananas, pineapple and
coffee. Yucca (or cassava) are grown for consumption in the home. Some tree
nurseries are also found, growing species primarily suited for woodworking.
Managed livestock in the area includes primarily cattle and calves, horses, pigs
and chickens. The European Economic Community has provided technical
assistance and credit to farmers and financial assistance to the community for
various buildings and shared equipment. 1

Although not formally surveyed, residents reported a wide range of annual
incomes, from what one resident noted as the average family income of US$137
per month to US$906 per month calculated by another farm family. Typical

monthly wages for soil preparation, harvesting and other manual farm labor is

62

about US$100.4 Those women who work outside the home usually do so on a
temporary basis, either working to pack the tiquisque after harvest for shipment,
or doing domestic jobs (e.g.cleaning, ironing) for the wealthier households. Many
of those interviewed cited job employment for young people, especially young
women, as a high-priority concern. Some noted that the young people are leaving
for larger urban areas since they lack interest in farming.

Preventative health services are offered through the local health post.
Residents obtain other services at the health clinic in Orotina or the hospital in
San Jose or Puntarenas. There is also an organized Alcoholics Anonymous group
as well as its counterpart, Al-Anon.

There are two primary schools in the areauone in Bijagual and the other in
Bijagual 1. Those who have the means to continue in high school, must travel to
Orotina or Puriscal. Area churches include a Catholic church, which was built by
parishioners, and an evangelical Christian church.

Round-trip bus transportation is provided once a day from Bijagual to
Orotina. Orotina taxis will also provide service to Bijagual. Other forms of

motorized travel include privately-owned autos and motorcycles. Horse travel is

 

‘As reported in La Nacion (pp.4-5A) on March 8, 1993, data processed by the
government’s Institute of Economic Science Research indicated that in 1991, the basic
household necessities (food, clothing, shelter) cost US$324.

63
also common, especially between Bijagual and Asentamiento I, as well as other

smaller communities in the area; and especially during the rainy system.

All homes in Bijagual have electricity, but the asentamientos are awaiting
hook-up to the system. Water is taken from mountain streams via above-ground
piping. There is one community telephone, located at the larger of two pulperias
in Bijagual.

Recreation facilities include a sports field, the salon communal (”town hall"),
a redondel (bullring) and a privately owned pool hall.

Community organizations in Bijagual include the Asociacién de Desarrollo
Agrario (also in Bijagual I, Asociacion de Productores, Asociacién de
Agricultores, the J unto Pastoral (related to the Catholic church) and two school-
related committees, the Patronato Escolar (Parent’s Association) and the Junta

Educativa (school board).

Quebrada Ganado

There are 701 residents, representing 200 families, who reside in this
community (Ministerio de Salud-Quebrada Ganado, 1992), located about 6
kilometers from the RBC headquarters. Of these residents, 32% (230) are under 10
years of age.

Quebrada Ganado is very strongly tied to the 300-hectare beach-side resort

64
”Club Punta Leona,” often referred to by residents simply as "The Club.” While

historically, Quebrada Ganado was an agricultural community, the construction of
Club Punta Leona in 1976 transformed the local economy from primarily cattle
ranching and crop production (rice, beans and corn) to one of providing service
labor for the hotel and private condominiums at the Club. According to Club
administrators, of its 238 full-time employees, 96 are from Quebrada Ganado.
Others from the community are hired as part-time or temporary employees. While
wages vary by position, Punta Leona administrators indicated that the average
monthly wage for a waiter at the Club was US$ 620. Data was unavailable for
average monthly income.

The community has one primary school, as well as a preschool. A Catholic
church can be found near a sports field, large bullring and town hall. Business
establishments include two bars/dance salons, a bakery, two small restaurants, and
two supermarkets as well as a pulperia. Local residents credit, in part, the steady
flow of employment and the civic contributions made by the Club with the growth
and well-being of the community.

Electricity is available to all residents, and there is a community telephone at
the larger of the two supermarkets.

Primary community organizations are the Asociacién de Desarrollo Integral,

with its various committees, as well as a church committee, and two school-related

65
organimtions— the Junta de Educacion (school board) and the Patronato Escolar

(parents’association). The Club employees have also organized as a group to
provide liaison between the community and the Club.

The community is served by bus, which makes a loop through the
community. The Club also provides daily bus service for its employees,
corresponding to shift schedules. Motorcycle travel is also common and there are
some private autos owned by community residents. Bicycle and foot traffic is also

common. There are sidewalks and paved road throughout the community.

FINDINGS: LOCAL PARTTCIPATION AND SUSTAINABLE ECOTOURISM
"There are many possible binds ofpartiapation, and who partiapates and
how may he more crucial to project suaess than any ptuely quantitative
expression ofpar'u'apation. "

(Uphoff in Cernea, 1985).

This research integrates the key concepts noted earlier into the central
questions for this research: Is local participation related to the sustainability of
ecotourism in the study area? And if it is related, how is it related? Evidence from
this research suggests that local participation is related to sustainability. At this
point in time, in this case study area, there are wide gaps in formal local
participation, both ”outsider-demanded” and ”insider-generated", in the planning
and management of ecotourism planning and projects. These gaps are filled by
informal local participation, primarily ”insider-generated.” Thus, in this case study
area, ”insider-generated”, informal participation appears to have more to do with
the ability of ecotourism to be sustained.

Evidence presented here relates to the phenomenon of local participation and
has been categorized by type of participation process (formal and informal) and

the source of initiative for the participation ("outsider-demanded" and "insider-

67
generated"). Two highlighted functions of local participation which specifically

relate to ecotourism were 1) the ability and opportunity to extract, develop and
invest resources for economically productive activities related to ecotourism; and,
2) exploitation and management of the primary material of ecotourism-«he
ecosystems which attract visitors in the first place. However, local participation in
the study area has served other functions in a more general sense, along the lines
of those functions identified by Chambers ( 1985) including: making known local
wishes; generating developmental ideas; providing local knowledge; testing
proposals for feasibility and improving them; increasing the capability of
communities to handle their affairs and to control and exploit their environment;
demonstrating support for a regime; doing what government requires to be done;
extracting, developing and investing local resources (labor, finance, managerial
skills, etc.); and, promoting desirable relationships between people, especially
through co-operative work. Some examples of local participation serving these

functions are also presented in these findings.

Outsider-Demanded Participation (Formal and Informal)
To the neglect of other dimensions of development, most of the present
rhetoric, policies and practices related to ecotourism in Costa Rica have focused

on the ability of ecotourism to spur economic growth, without addressing how or

68

even whether the benefits of ecotourism and its associated activities will be
distributed equitably, and through what process local participation will be
achieved.

As a practical matter in this regard, ecotourism in the studied region may be
best described as a ”zero-sum game" -where one stakeholder may benefit only if
another loses (Axinn, 1991; George, 1984). That is to say, as ecotourism grows as
an economic enterprise, some will win while others will lose. While the winners
(very often ”outsiders") may view this type of growth as ”sustainable”
development, the losers (very often "insiders") experience another reality which
tends to prevent them from even ”entering the game" as formal participants.
Therefore, with formal participation restricted, their participation becomes
informal, largely in activities which potentially shorten the ability of ecotourism to
be sustained.

This is most evident in the lack of formal participation in the planning and
management of existing and new ecotourism projects in the studied area. Decisions
regarding who receives the benefits and pays the costs are largely "outsider-
driven." From the very start, hosting "ecotourists" at RBC has been a government
decision. According to enabling legislation, the designation of a biological reserve
excludes tourism. However, this national level, de tacto acceptance of tourism in

RBC has created dilemmas for the on-site RBC administrators who operate with

69
limited staff and financing (an annual budget of approximately US$22.000 in

1993). The RBC has found itself unprepared for the exponential influx of
visitation and unsupported by a budget controlled by a centralized administration.
RBC administrators do not see their role as serving the necessities of tourists.
However, a recent agreement between Costa Rica’s National Parks Service, ICI‘,
and CAN ATUR, and an Inter-American Development Bank funded project are
intended to improve visitor services at selected ecotourism destinations, including
RBC. While local people were interviewed in relation to this initiative, this
interaction was very limited. However, it appeared to be among the first contacts
related to local participation in ecotourism planning.

There is also very limited economic exchange between area visitors and/or
RBC administrators with the local communities. Private tour operators have full
control over the structure of their visit to the RBC. Based on RBC visitor
records, RBC tourism staff indicated that the majority of the visitors arrive at the
reserve on "day-trips" from San Jose or as a stop in a tour "package” between San
Jose and lace or one of the most frequently visited national parks, Manuel
Antonio. This means that most of the visitors don’t need overnight lodging in the
area. Meals are generally not necessary depending based upon what tour
companies offer in their packages. Some tour packages provide boxed lunches, or

time their trips to take lunch at a restaurant in Jaco. Limited economic interaction

70

consists of one locally-owned restaurant which caters to tour groups. They offer
items which can be purchased at other locally-owned restaurants at much lower
prices. Another restaurant in the area, owned by US. citizens, also attracts some
of the visitors for meals. Also, their prices are much higher than other locally
owned restaurants.

Until this time, there has been no research or experimentation in potential
sale by local people of locally-inspired and produced arts and crafts as tourist
souvenirs. However, in February 1993 efforts began in this area through an
artesanra project being sponsored in Tarcoles and other smaller communities by
the Iguana Verde Foundation. The Iguana Verde Foundation supports research
and projects utilizing wildlife management for integrated resource management
and sustainable development in rural communities.

The RBC is also not generating local employment opportunities. With a
change of RBC administration in late 1993, a decision made by the National
Parks Service leadership, only 3 of the current 15 regular employees are from the

region.’ Only one is from a RBC buffer zone community. During the high tourist

 

5This composition of the work force poses a dilemma, however. Those involved with
administration of the RBC felt that efforts to control hunting could be improved by
reducing advanced knowledge of enforcement activities. This task could be more difficult
due to wide and deep family ties among residents in the local communities.

71
season this past year, two Tarcoles residents were given to permission to sell

refreshments to tourists. They carted a supply of sofi drinks by bicycle and posted
themselves at the RBC’s trailhead farther north on the highway to sell the drinks
to thirsty ecotourists.

There are no requirements that trained, local guides be used on RBC trails.
Although a group of young people in Tarcoles expressed an interest to participate
in a guide training program, they perceived lack of English and, to a lesser degree,
limited "scientific” knowledge of the RBC ecosystem as overwhelming obstacles for
their involvement.

Food supplies and other equipment for the RBC are bought in Orotina,
approximately 21 kilometers to the north of the RBC, or in San Jose. Some small
items, such as toiletries, are occasionally purchased at one of several "pulperias" in
nearby TArcoles or the small supermarket in Quebrada Ganado.

Given the lack of available transportation in the evenings and the nature of
vigilance activities for RBC staff, a ”night-out” to an area restaurant, bar/dance
salon, pool hall, or some other recreational facility is not commonplace. When
these social outings occur, very often it involves travel to Jaco or Orotina.

Access to bank credit and special tax incentives provided under current
tourism development laws and policies are not perceived to be easily obtained by

local people nor are there responsive relationships with those "outsiders” who may

72
have this information. In Bijagual I, where one of two RBC field stations are

located, it was reported that about two years ago, representatives from a large,
non-governmental organization visited the area with inquiries about local interest
in an ecotourism project there. While community leaders expressed interest, they
have heard nothing more from the group.

In terms of individually-based entrepreneurial opportunities, most of the local
people often have little or no collateral to offer the banks. Additionally, the credit
facilities are located outside of the communities, in Orotina and Jaco. While these
are within 20 kilometers of the communities, the distance still contributes to the
"transaction costs"--including time away from work and actual travel costs.

In relation to incentive programs, if local people have knowledge of the
existence of incentive programs, they perceive that these programs are targeted at
large-scale projects rather than small tourism-related enterprises. Smaller projects
also may require smaller loans, but cash may be nwded more quickly than the
application and processing time required by government programs or the lending
institutions. For their part, lending institutions may respond more favorably to
larger projects because of the lower costs of servicing larger loans due to the
economies of scale in lending.

On a community-based level, or group level (e.g. cooperatives), there are no

strong mechanisms to respond to outsider-demanded participation. In all of the

73

studied communities, the local development associations were more concerned
with ”bricks and mortar" necessities rather than human resource development in
order to promote economic development in a service industry. The members of the
associations tend to organize around short-term projects, responding with one-
time fund-raising events to finance these projects. For instance, in Bijagual, there
was a weekend civic festival to raise funds to pay off construction of the town hall
and help finance road repair. The women of the supermarket cooperative in
Tarcoles hosted a community dance to pay off some debts associated with the
operation of the supermarket. This type of experience with community organizing,
while valuable, provides limited knowledge for use in ecotourism projects, which
require sustained collective action with fewer immediate and/or tangible outcomes.
Meanwhile, "outsiders" are utilizing the benefits created by government
incentive programs to build new ecotourism facilities in the area. This is creating
some new, local jobs. For example, newly-developed overnight accommodations
include ”Hotel Villa Lapas" and a nearly completed lodge at the mouth of the Rio
Grande de Tarcoles. The former is tied to a large hotel complex in Puntarenas and
hopes to capture the revenue generated by ecotourism groups. Room rates of $72
per night are far beyond the reach of local people and many middle-class Costa
Ricans. It is a source of 31 jobs, with approximately half of the jobs filled by

residents of Quebrada Ganado (who are viewed by hotel management as more

74
”apt” and therefore receive the higher paying jobs) and the other half from

Tarcoles. Local residents were also hired as construction labor. The lodge, under
construction, is affiliated with Rancho Naturalista in Turrialba and is owned by a
US. citizen. The owner hopes to attract birdwatchers, perhaps some of his
Rancho Naturalista clients who pay $500 for a week’s stay. To manage the lodge,
the owner anticipated hiring someone from outside the area, and most probably
outside Costa Rica.

From a practical stand-point, the local people in Tarcoles, Bijagual, or
Quebrada Ganado do not have a great deal of time that they can afford to divert
from productive activities to invest in training or making the necessary
connections to launch a small business in ecotourism. For instance, fishermen in
Tarcoles report sharp drops in their daily catch, which they attribute to over-
fishing by commercial shrimp and sardine operations and/or contamination of the
Grande Tarcoles. This has required them to invest two- or three-day fishing
excursions for the amount caught previously in one day, thereby reducing their
amount of leisure time. As one fisherman commented: ”We’ve sold our lives to
fishing.”

Finally, there is no formal process in place to include local community
members in the resource management issues related with the reserve. While there

was a seminar late in 1992 bringing together locally elected or designated

75
representatives together with RBC administrators and others to discuss issues

related to tourism and natural resources management in the zone, as of early April
1993 there had been no visible outcome of this fust effort to more formally
involve the communities and their representatives.

Figure 5 attempts to categorize the types of local participation occurring in

the area and the activities’ relationship to the sustainability of ecotourism.

[uglier-Genera ted Participation (Formal and Informal)

In place of this formal, "outsider-driven” participation in ecotourism, there is
"insider-generated" participation which involves some formal but more informal
processes.

On a formal, albeit limited basis, there is some evidence of entrepreneurship
among local people. Some of the fishermen in Tarcoles say they have taken
tourists out in their pangas for fishing excursions. This, however, has occurred
only on a one-time basis, rather than a regular service. Fishermen have related
that this largely relates to the physical nature of their equipment, which is
outfitted for function rather than comfort or safety. The boats also are not suited
for ocean-access to the Grande Tarcoles river and its estuary, where the scarlet
macaws roost. Many also do not own their equipment, although there were ideas

shared among the fishing cooperative members about the possibility of purchasing

76

83 98.30 5 3:86:39 .80. 3 v0.32 Savage“! he bfinafiflfifi .m 2.65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

89:30 £538
alumina-cue 2.5938133? 8833898832.
:83... a... can... .83. . .8883... 8:83.... 8.333
8:83:88 3 3. 83.38.... $5.388 . . . 38:22..
sauces—om 338:; £83. .8483: 15385330 D .88 3.. 833.62 19...
88...... 8.8.2 3%. 32.322... .838}: .8: so. 5...... 8......
3838 8035—. 3.. alone.— 33%?
3.3!.
8...— 53.538 .8.— JE 338.80.
. 8 3.38 a... .38. .83 .o 8.3.890.
3 338m .325. 952308 8:83-123.- ue 38.550 gin—m. 3198.8 I83 E.
.g .8398 cease-.0.— auaea. sips-5°. season-9&8
12:3 .33.. .588. 2.3. .9588 33:330. 50 sol—.3 no .5256. .3333 .3.
nuts... com—.10 350. 33388- 3338 8.35- 33.03.26? com-8:89.52
BEBE. .958 522:. .959...

 

 

wsunorooa 10 hutawmsns ubm

 

 

 

 

533.293.. 388230.328. 358.29...— 33.5.8333

11139001003 l0 4111103031308 M01

77
a larger boat specifically for tourism excursions.

While there is strong community cooperation in Bijagual, there have been no
formal efforts to organize the community to take advantage of the occasional,
curious visitors who travel the winding road with spectacular vistas. There is no
sign posted at the road’s entrance from the highway, indicating ”scenic vistas."
More community effort has been placed on simply maintaining the existing
transportation infrastructure-the road and its small bridges. There has been some
local sharing of ideas about potential ecotourism services such as little restaurants
overlooking the views from the road, camping facilities, and horse excursions in
the reserve or nature hikes in forested areas on the larger farms.

One can also point to the ”hikes” led by local residents in Quebrada Ganado
to a nearby waterfall. While this could potentially generate income, the hikes were
offered to interested visitors who had become friends with the local hike leaders.

One sees more evidence of local participation in informal ways which tend to
decrease the sustainability of ecotourism. These could be viewed as acts of
"everyday resistance.” For instance, RBC administrators report increasing
destruction to and robbery of articles in rented cars parked while ecotourists walk
one of the trails. This problem, however, is not severe in comparison to the illegal
hunting which occurs in the reserve and the control of forest fires. The illegal

hunting activity in RBC involves the poaching of the endangered ”tepescuintle"

78
(Coelogenys para) for commercial or personal consumption and the ”snatching" of

scarlet macaw and other tropical bird hatchlings for illegal sale in the pet trade
market. Estimates of the income-generating potential of this "black market” trade
include US$15 for each tepescuintle (weighing about seven kilos) and $36.50 for
each scarlet macaw.

At any given time, only 10 park guards cover the 4,700 hectares of RBC,
working out of two smaller "stations” in addition to the main headquarters. There
has been additional vigilance by the Iguana Verde Foundation. However, there is
still undefended territory where poaching can easily occur. Bijagual, among others,
is considered problematic in this regard, with strong traditions in the use of forest
resources for subsistence and/or recreation.

Some residents from the studied communities have been criminally charged in
illegal hunting activity. The importance of this poaching to ecotourism is its
potential for destruction of the natural resources upon which the ecotourism
activity depends. From another perspective, it provides income in lieu of what
ecotourism could provide or in place of what may be lost due to environmental
degradation, loss of wildlife habitat affecting traditional activities, and/or changing
land use. In the case of illegal hunting, the state has responded with a wildlife
conservation law effective in 1993, greatly increasing fines and penalties.

Also important to the protection of the RBC biodiversity is the control of

79

forest fues. During the dry season, which is also the high season for tourism,
vigilance is critical. While farmers are required to have a permit to burn their
fields, their attention to this requirement and their willingness to employ fire
control methods or assist others if fire gets out of hand afford opportunities for
informal participation in activities which could either enhance or decrease
sustainability of ecotourism.

The informal participation process is much more difficult to document and
analyze but may have as significant an impact on the sustainability of ecotourism

as formal participation.

SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS

Usually local participation is portrayed as an ”ideal” for development projects,
with ”more people involved" being considered "good”, that is, a desired outcome.
Many criteria for ”true" development are based upon strong, equitable and self-
determined local participation.

This research suggests that local participation is key to the existence of
ecotourism over time. In the development of sustainable ecotourism, local
participation focuses on primarily two functions: extraction, development and

investment of local resources; and, the exploitation and management of natural

80

resources. Local participation is essential for community well-being as ecotourism
grows and develops in a given area.

The process of local participation may be formal or informal. In this case
study area, a lack of formal processes for participation encourages informal
participation, which occurred in a form generated by ”insiders.” Given narrowly
focused community organizations concerned with immediate needs, this informal
process will decrease the sustainability of ecotourism, an activity which local
residents perceive to have a longer time horizon and broader scope than their
reality and vision allows.

In the case of ecotourism in Costa Rica, local people are limited in their
ability to collectively respond to outsider-demanded participation because it
involves an assumption on behalf of the outsiders that local people are organized
or willing to respond to their demands. Therefore, local people lose out on
potential opportunities for direct economic involvement in ecotourism enterprises.
While many smaller communities have community organizations, many do not
have the ability to respond to complex issues involving complicated institutional
arrangements and strong, outside influences. In some situations, community
organizations are unable to serve the community interests in the area of
ecotourism because of a failure to engage meaningful involvement of local

residents. Many reasons may lead to this condition, including: lack of effective

81

communication; obstacles related to time available for voluntary activities;
orientation of the ”leadership” (e.g. serving individual vs. community interests);
inadequate process of goal-setting; lack of perceived benefits of membership; and
others.

Ecotourism is often promoted on the basis that this form of ”sustainable”
development can help in natural resource conservation while providing a way for
"locals" to meet their basic nwds. However, this relies on several assumptions
which may do not hold true in the case study area. Based on the evidence, the

following considerations must be made:

°Local participation may be viewed in terms of its direct connection to the
costs and benefits of economically-related activities of ecotourism. However,
local participation in the management of the natural resources which attract
the ecotourism activities must also be incorporated in efforts to enhance local

participation in formal processes.

Even though in close proximity to natural areas, a community, depending on
its nature and level of community organization, may not always desire or be

suited for involvement in ecotourism.

82

-Ensuring local participation is not an easy process, even with generous

resources from the ”outside.”

As pointed out by Cernea (1985), ”if ‘people participation’ is to be more than
a trendy slogan, development planners must face the nuts and bolts of organizing
participationuthe details of who participates, how they can participate, and to
what extent they could participate in project design, execution and monitoring."

This statement holds true for ecotourism as a sustainable development activity.

Limitations of Study

While the field research portion of this study was conducted over a four-
month period, additional time could have provided an opportunity for even
greater depth in of the research.

Also, the researcher limited the study area to one region of Costa Rica.
Although there were opportunities to visit several other ecotourism destinations,
additional site visits could provide the basis for interesting comparative research.
Given additional funds, this could include research in other countries.

Finally, although it is acknowledged that there is a rich collection of research
related to campesino organization in Costa Rica, given limited time and funding,

this aspect of participation was not specifically addressed in this research This

83

area of inquiry could prove intriguing in the search for mechanisms to more fully

incorporate local populations in ecotourism.

Recommendations Related To Local Participation in Ecotourism

Uphoff, as summarized by Cernea, defines five ways of ensuring beneficiaries’

participation in project design and implementation. These, with some

modifications, may provide the basis for sound recommendations for ecotourism

in Costa Rica:

1) The degree of participation desired must be made clear at the outset and in
a way acceptable to all concerned parties; this must take into account the
different functions, processes and levels of local participation;

2) There should be realistic objectives for participation and allowance must be
made for the fact that some stages of planning, such as design consultation
will be relatively protracted, while other phases such as the transfer of assets
for utilization, will be shorter;

3) Specific provisions for introducing and supporting participation are needed,
given the complex nature of ecotourism as form of international tourism;

4) There should be an explicit, adequate financial commitment to local
participation; this needs to include provisions for methods for insuring

accountability toward stated goals and objectives for local participation.

84
5) There should he plans to share responsibilities in all stages of the project

cycle.

Additionally, and more specifically to RBC:
6) Despite limited staff and budget, RBC administrators need to take more
initiative in seeking opportunities for positive interactions with citizens in
surrounding communities to share in the formulation of RBC goals and
activities which relate to these goals.
7) RBC in conjunction with the local communities need to better understand
the positive and negative impacts of the flow of tourism in the area and ways
to address those impacts while maximizing the capture of benefits on an
equitable basis.
8) Formal participation by local communities could be enhanced through
formal and informal mechanisms such as citizen-based advisory groups,
regularly-scheduled community meetings, and community events participation,
to ensure that local concerns and opportunities for involvement in ecotourism
and RBC management are shared.
9) Ways to more actively provide opportunities for local people to foster
positive economic exchange between RBC visitors and administrators should

be explored and implemented.

85
10) Efforts to involve local people in ecotourism should include formal and

informal environmental education programs in the local communities.

86
Recommendations For Fixture Resamb

Given that the study of local participation in ecotourism is an emerging area
of inquiry there are many opportunities for further research. For example, a
multiple case study could identify and reveal the importance of certain factors
related to success of locally-controlled ecotourism projects in Costa Rica.
Leadership and accountability are two phenomena expected to be of relevance in
this type of study.

Also, cross-cultural or comparative studies of local participation in ecotourism
in other Latin American or Caribbean countries. Along these lines, local
participation in island ecotourism could be compared with mainland ecotourism.
Comparative views of how policies incorporate local participation through formal
mechanisms could also be a fruitful area of research.

Given the research which has been conducted on campesino organizations in
Costa Rica, the process of empowerment could be explored in relation to
ecotourism development and short-term development needs.

Finally, there is a need to further explore research methodologies available for
investigation of this multi-dimensional topic. This alone could offer a potential
research project, given the lack of ”tried-and-tested" methods applied to scholarly
research in this area.

On a more practical level, there is a nwd for good assessment tools for

87

development practitioners who work with ecotourism projects. It is important to
note that while the rhetoric is abundant, there have been few tangible examples of
ecotourism where local participation has sucsessfully been put into practice in
ecotourism planning or activity. Consequently, some Latin American policy
makers, development practitioners, resource managers, or ecotourism operators
are searching for transferable strategies to enhance the capabilities and/or
opportunities for local people to control ecotourism policy or projects (Baez, 1992;
Vinicio, 1992; Farrell & Runyan, 1991; FEPROTUR, 1990).

It is not an easy proposition to get local people involved, especially in projects
which they perceive to lack incentives for their involvement. As Adams states
succinctly: ”The policy proposals of these development-conservationists may be as
alien to the conceptions of the local people as any proposed by other developers,
and as adverse to their interests...” (Adams, 1990).

However, there are some projects which are in various stages in Costa Rica
which hold promise as models for local participation. One of these is the ”insider-
generated" ecotourism project called, ”Las Delicias,” near the Costa Rican national
park Barra Honda in the Nicoya peninsula.

The local community development association, Asociacién Pro-Desarrollo de
Barrio Cubillo, initiated the project which occupies 20 hectares primary tropical

dry forest adjacent to the Barra Honda entrance. Officially opened in January of

88
1993, the ecotourism complex is comprised of three solar-powered cabins, each

able to offer accommodations to six people; a camping area, with 16 spaces for
tents; a restaurant, which serves food bought from the local community; a small
store where locally produced souvenirs and artesania can be purchased; as well as
a small ”deer nursery.” Nearing completion is a small "mini-market” to provide a
variety of necessitities for local people as well as the tourists. There are also
trained, local guides who will accompany visitors who wish to go into the caverns
of Barra Honda. The 42 caverns (19 of which are explored) are among the park’s
primary natural features which attract ecotourists to the area.

According to a park administrator, it is a project which ”has been pure force
of the people.” Formed in 1988, the Asociacion Barrio Cubillo was organized by
local residents to provide for the economic future of their community. It consists
of 16 men and 14 women, all of whom are involved in the construction and
operation of the ecotourism project and are beneficiaries of its ”profits.” Founders
said the vision for the Asociacibn was to provide for a means to generate
economic diversification, especially offering other forms of employment for the
young pe0ple of the community, who have either been involved in families’
subsistence farming and/or day-labor in sugar cane-harvesting on nearby
plantations.

Watching the arrival of tourists in this region, leaders felt they had an

89

opportunity to take part in the growing economic activity. Their first step in the
group’s ecotourism project was the purchase of the 20—hectare farm ”Las Delicias.”
Having made prior contact government officials and interested non-profit
organimtion in San lose, they were able to acquire the purchase of the property
with approximately $3650 from World Vision and $7300 from the Government of
Costa Rica. Other support became leveraged by these initial grants, including
support from the Inter-American Foundation, and additional government
assistance in the form of auxiliary employment through the Ministry of Labor to
construct the cabins.

Today, the complex has been built, and community members are facing the
task of marketing their project to prospective visitors. While they have placed
advertisements San Jose newspapers, these have relied on those tourists who may
read Spanish. To make reservations, one must call the community telephone and
leave a message in Spanish. Still, occupancy met expectations and "word-of-
mouth” seems to be bringing interested ecotourists to the project. Noting the
barriers powd by language, some members of the group are engaging in English
language lessons and are attempting to hire an English-speaking driver who can
serve to bring tourists from San José to the project.

The creation of "Las Delicias" has also led to increased involvement of the

community in the administration of Barra Honda, active in committees of

90
vigilance to protect against illegal hunting and forest fires.

Committed to community-controlled enterprises, Asociacién leaders have been
dedicated to sharing their successes and passing on the lessons from their failures
with other community associations interested in similar projects.

Despite the challenges yet to be fawd by the group, "Las Delicias" offers an
innovative example of insider-generated local participation, with hallmarks of
empowering group initiative and momentum that diversities the local economy,
shares economic benefits equitably and builds local appreciation for the natural

environment and a commitment to its protection.

91
Appendix A - The Development Cycle

 

From: Axinn, 1978

92
Appendix B-Forces of Continuity & Change

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present Balance of Opposing Forces Future Balance of Opposing Forces
Time 1 Tune 2
Technological Technological
Biological ' ‘ Biological
Physical fl :hysical
Cultural ’ ‘ Cultural
Social 7 Social
Economic r _ ‘_Econornic
Administrative' ‘ ‘ Administrative
Political ' ‘ Political
Diplomatic ° . ‘ Diplomatic
Forces for Forces for
Change Continuity
Intended Direction of Planned Change 4)

 

The Future Situation will be diferent from the Present Situation to the extent that there are either
increases in the Forces of cm; decreases in the Forces for Continuity; or some combination of
the two which results in a dilemt balance.

From: Axinn, 1988

93
Appendix C-Butler’s Tourism Model

 

 

 

 

 

 

souncs:nw.m.mmusrmmcyausmmmumu
WPMWMAMJJNOJJ.

 

 

 

In: Lindberg, 1991.

94
Appendix D—Background on Costa Rican Tourism Institutions & Policies

Prepared by Deborah R. Meadows
THE GROWTH OF TOURISM

Tourism has been viewed as one of the promising foreign exchange generators
for Costa Rica—a country with a rich natural heritage and stable political
structure.

During the past decade, grth in the tourism industry in Costa Rica has been
dramatic and it is a boom which continues unabated (Economist Intelligence Unit,

7‘ 1993). According to data from the Costa Rican Tourism Institute, the number of
international tourists arriving in Costa Rica has doubled, increasing from 326,142
in 1983 to 620,000 in 1992 (See Table 1). This influx generated revenue of $427
million in 1992, up 29% from 1991 (EIU, 1993). If projections hold true, by 1994
tourism will bring $500 million to the national economy, supplanting bananas as
the first-place foreign export earning industry by the middle of the decade (
Fernandez, 1992;Orozco Coto et. al, 1991; EIU, 1993).

Data related to how much of this income generation is due to ”ecotourism”
rather than "tourism”could not be found, although about 36% of surveyed visitors
indicated that ”ecotourism" was among their major motivations for travel to Costa
Rica (Costa Rican Board of Tourism in Boo, 1990). Current data indicates that

about 74.5% of the foreign tourists visit one or more of Costa Rica’s national

 

95

Table 1. Number of International Tourist Arrivals in Costa Rica.
Source: Modified from information in Orozco Coto et al.(1991); Castro F.(1993);
ICI‘(1992).

1970 - 154,867
1971 - 170,396
1972 - 202,269
1973 - 246,825
1974 - 271,864

1975 - 297,207
1976 - 299,039
1977 - 327,548
1978 - 340,442
1979 - 317,724

1980 - 332,883
1981 - 333,102
1982 - 371,582
1983 - 326,142
1984 - 273,901

1985 - 261,552
1986 - 260,840
1987 - 277,861
1988 - 329,386
1989 - 375,951

1990 - 435,037
1991 - 504,649

1992 - 590,000(Estimated)

96

Table 2. Annual revenues in US$ produced by touristic activities
Source: ICT (1992); Banco Central in Briceflo (1993);

1989 - 206 Million
1990 - 275 Million
1991 - 314 Million
1992 - 416 Million

Table 3. Annual Investment in Tourist Projects
Source: KIT/Incentives Department in Bricefio (1993)

(In colones)

1986 - 2,433,564 Million
1987 - 231,875 Million
1988 - 1,162,793 Million
1989 - 2,235,650 Million
1990 - 3,521,311 Million
1991 -10,983,984 Million
1992 -l9,407,570 Million

97
parks, reserves and wildlife refuges (CANATUR/ICI‘IMIRENEM, 1992).

As a result of this increased flow of tourists, there has been a building boom
to house Costa Rica’s guests, with the number of rooms available jumping 63%
overthree years-from 5,456 in 1989 to 8,661 in 1992. Correspondingly, the
number of rented guest rooms increased from 1,058 (1986-1989) to 1,908 in 1991
OCT, 1992).

Orozco Coto et. al. report that each tourist spends approximately $95.88 per
day. However, this does not include the amount spent on hotels and other services
as a result of contracts with international tourism companies (Orozco Coto, et a1,
1991). The economic multiplier of tourism income in Costa Rica has been

estimated to be between 3.2 and 5.5 (Chaverri in B00, 1990).

INSTITUTIONS

Costa Rica has one national agency charged specifically with tourism
responsibilities: the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT-Instituto Costariccense de
Turismo), located within the Ministerio de Economia [Ministry of Economy].
Other sectors with significant responsibilities and interests in ecotourism include
the Ministerio de Planificacién y Politiea EconomiaIMinistry of Planning and
Political Economy], and Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energia y Minas

[Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines] (MIRENEM). The National

98
Chamber of Tourism (CANATUR-Cémara Nacional de Turismo) along with

other private-sector associations also play important roles. (Additionally, there is a
national ecotourism commission. Although members have been appointed to this
Commission, this group has been meeting informally.

ICI‘ came into being in 1955, replacing Costa Rica’s first national tourism
board, the Junta Nacional de Turismo created 24 years early. ICT’s mission,
defined by law, is to increase tourism by:

1) developing the image and visitation of Costa Rica; 2) promoting the
construction and maintenance of facilities for tourist lodging and recreation; 3)
promoting Costa Rica externally; 4) promoting and supervising the private sector
and its attention to tourism. (Salazar, 1991).

In theory, ICT is available to help communities promote their tourist product
as long as a community has a locally organized Chamber of Tourism (Pedersen,
1988). While ICT experienced budget cuts and curtailed authority in the 19703
and early 1980s, the stagnation of investment in the manufacturing sector gave
new impetus to tourism as a development strategy (Economic Intelligence Unit,
1987). During the Arias Administration (1986-90) the tourist board was
reorganized and central government monies were added to the amount received
for the ICl"s operation via a tax on air fares and hotel accommodations. With a

raise from five to eight percent for the airport tax and a three percent hotel tax,

99
the board operated with a $6 million budget, with $1.7 million of that spent on

marketing (Economic Intelligence Unit, 1987).

In 1987, the Comision Consultativa Nacional de Turismo [National
Consultative Commission on Tourism] was created by decree (17719-MEC) to
coordinate institutional cooperation and to assess the policies and structure of
tourism development.

The Calderon Administration (1990-1994) has continued the push for
ecotourism as part of a wider development strategy with the government serving
to ”orient development within a concept of wider participation.” According to
Tourism Minister Luis Manuel Chacon, ICT is actively trying to ”increase the
length of stay and the money spent and attract higher quality tourists (Orlebar,
1991).”

The other agency influential in the development of tourism is the Camara
Nacional de Turismo, or National Chamber of Tourism. According to its
President, CAN ATUR’s mission is: ”to promote and endorse the development of
tourism projects devoted to the policies and laws which relate to this subject.
Likewise, maintain a firm position according to fulfillment of the norms, ethics
and morals necessary to achieve a sustainable development of the touristic activity
without destroying the idiosyncracies and good Costa Rican customs" (Castro F .,

1993).

100
OTHER AGENCIES WITH RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO TOURISM

Many of Costa Rica’s ministry have interaction with various tourism development
policies and projects.

The Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines, (MIRENEM) created
in 1986, has major responsibilities for executing the various laws related to'
environmental matters. Theoretically, through the environmental impact review
and permitting process, MIRENEM is able to control environmental impacts as a
result of tourism development and programs. However, this system has come
under criticism, with charges that environmental impact reviews are a "cookie-
cutter”process, where only the pertinent details regarding name and location are
substituted in a standard environmental impact statement.

Also key to the administration of protected areas is the National Park
Service (Servicio de Parques Nacionales-SPN), under MIRENEM authority, which
is responsible for development use and management policies to assure the
preservation of biodiversity in the nearly one million hectares of land under its
charge. Responsibilities for watching over protected lands outside the purview of
SPN, falls to the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. Primarily the Direccién
General Forestal and the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario inust carry out various
statutes such as the Forestry Law (Ley 4465 of 1969 and reforms).

Municipalities also can control certain land use decisions via local ordinances,

101
a power provided as part of the Municipal Code (Salazar C., 1991).

A variety of laws regarding the ”national patrimony” also exist, helping to
define responsibilities for the protection of archaeological sites, natural
monuments and other land forms which may serve as tourist attractions.

Various training programs to encourage a labor force skilled for tourism
(such areas as arts and crafts) are handled through the Instituto Nacional de
Apprendizajze, part of the Ministerio de Trabajo.

The Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario(IDA), which is the agency in charge of
Costa Rica’s agrarian reform, is another institution actively attempting to
participate in the ”tourism boom." The agency has about 700,000 hectaresnor 23
percent of the national area in farming—under its control in the form of
”asentamientos campesinos." Based on certain criteria, these small plots of land
are provided to farmers to meet their needs for self-sufficiency, in an effort to
improve and ”equalize” the distribution of soil resources. IDA has been exploring
the potential for ”agro-ecotourism" during the past two years as a complementary
economic activity to the basic food production of the campesino, which often fails

to meet commercial levels (Arrieta M., 1991).

102
INT ER-INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION

Agreements have also been forged, linking various institutions with direct
responsibility for tourism with those that do not have this mandate. Developing
these types of linkages were part of the charge of the Comision Consultiva
Nacional de Turismo, established by decree ll719-MEC in 1987 (Salazar C.,
1991). In 1988, Decree No, 18722-MIRENEM, was a letter of understanding
between MIRENEM and ICT to join forces in the management and planned
development of tourism in protected areas. Most recent of these inter-institutional
agreements include that signed in October of 1990 between the Instituto de
Desarollo Agrario(IDA) and ICT; between CANATUR, [CI and MIRENEM in
December of 1992.

The agreement signed by ICT and IDA was to improve cooperation between
the agencies and foster this type of cooperation among the sectors which they
represent. The CANATUR, ICT and MIRENEM agreement established a
”Tripartite Commission" with the general objective of working together to
undertake concrete actions to support and improve ecotourism in Costa Rica’s
protected areas and to make recommendations for the planning and development
of ecotourism in the public and private sectors (Camara Nacional de Turismo, et
al. 1992). This may assist in the implementation of National Park Service’s

operating plan for a ”national strategy of ecologieal tourism,” under the

103
coordination between MIRENEM and ICI‘ (Costa Rica, Govt. of, May, 1992).

POLICIES RELATED TO TOURISM AND ECOTOURISM

Government policy in Costa Rica has been directed primarily toward the
promotion and development of tourism, with marketing strategies which have
attempted to capitalize on the natural heritage of the country. Less planning and
policy development has been oriented toward the management of tourism activity;
and still less directed specifically at the management of ecotourism as a subset of
this form of development.

Through ICT and CAN ATUR, the country is sponsoring aggressive
international marketing campaigns-including market-specific advertising and
articles along with representation at international tourism trade markets and its
own Expotur(ICI‘, 1992).

Its marketing campaign, expanding beyond the 1985 theme ”Costa Rica...is
natural”, appears to follow a strategy attempting to lure tourists to Costa Rica
specifically for ecotourism, since it did not have high levels of existing tourism
activities for which ecotourism becomes an ”add-on.” Its 1992 marketing slogan
”Join Us...Costa Rica Awaits You” continues to use imagery from nature to woo
potential visitors.

Tourism policy in Costa Rica has tended toward development of specialized

104

tourism. The National Tourism Development Strategy establishes infrastructure
priorities, and area for resort projects. A combination of private investment,
international agency funding, and government monies are then used to implement
this strategy (EIU, 1987). The 1984-90 Tourism Development Strategy identified
four areas for increased activity: nature and adventure tourism; sun and beach
tourism; cruise ship tourism; and convention or business tourism (Boo, 1990).
Among the biggest projects has been the attempt to link ”tourist circuits,” with
appeal to more of a mass market. This has included plans for hotel construction
in San lose, a large (300 room) beach hotel in Puerto Carillo and a lodge at Lake
Arenal National Park. With an initial investment of $51 million, the Spanish
investment group So] Melia has begun plans for a development on the pristine
Playa Conchal at the southern end of the Gulf of Papagayo, on Costa Rica’s
Pacific coast.

Also recently completed on a scale smaller than planned is a 400-room hotel
development at Playa Tambor in the Nicoya peninsula Owned by the Catalan
company Barcelo, the Playa Tambor project has been embroiled in controversy
and is the target of an international boycott due to the charges of environmental
activists who claim that the hotel violated environmental laws in its construction

along the coast.

105

INCENTIVES FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

One of the most powerful pieces of legislation related to tourism development
is Costa Rica’s Incentives Law for Tourism Development (Ley No.6990—Ley de
Incentivos para el Desarrollo Turistico) passed in 1985 with significant
modifications (Ley 7293) in 1992. These direct incentives relate to hotels, national
and international airlines, aquatic transport companies (cruise lines,et a1), travel
agencies and car rental agencies. Although there are variations for each of these
groups of the tourist industry, the law provides incentives such as:
1) Exemption from taxes and surcharges on the importation or local purchases for
the functioning of new businesses or businesses offering new services.
2) Accelerated depreciation
3) Speedy consideration of municipal licenses
4) Exoneration of property taxes for 7 years
5) Import duty exemptions
6) Assistance with project financing

By 1990, the law had effected 258 contracts, including: 146 hotels; 13
restaurants; 8 airlines; 36 travel agencies (receptive); 30 car rental agencies; and 25
aquatic transport businesses. Most of these were established in the provinces of

Guanacaste, Puntarenas and Lirnén. In 1992 alone, there were 116 tourist

106
contracts: 54 hotels, 4 airlines, 15 auto rental agencies; 14 aquatic transport, and 4

restaurants (Briceno, 1993).

A regulating commission, composed of one representative of ICT, Ministry of
Housing, and the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines, as well as
two representatives from private tourism-related enterprises determines the
approval of tourism contracts which allow companies the opportunities to take
advantage of the incentives. However, it is important to note that non-
governmental organizations which may wish to develop ecotourism destinations

may not qualify for these incentives.

OTHER LAWS AND POLICIES

An excellent summary of the tourism laws as they relate to natural resources
protection can be found in Legislacibn y Ecologia en Costa Rica by Roxana
Salazar Carnbronero (1991). Currently, one of the most influential laws related to
the management of Costa Rica’s 72 protected areas is the 1991 legislation
integrating the National Park System within a National System of Conservation
Areas (Ley No.11315) (Costa Rica, Govt. of., 1991, August 19) Cited as a factor
in the need to establish the System, nature tourism poses a ”challenge and a grand
opportunity for rural development and financing of the System (Costa Rica, Govt.

of, 1992, February)”

107

There have been various agreements related to this "new focus” such as the
Project of Institution Strengthening, with funds provided by the Government of
Japan (Convenio ATN/JF-3917-CR) and involvement by the Inter-American
Development Bank.

ANALYSIS

Despite national tourism laws and provisions in other laws which have some
reference to tourism, the inadequate legislation relating tourism to environmental
concerns, and a lack of administrative coordination (Salazar C., 1991; Quesada
M., 1990 ) have allowed management of new ecotourism enterprises to fall
primarily under the direction of the private sector. While this may bode well for
the economic growth component of ecotourism, it does much less for the other
Esrnan criteria of development. For example, the only explicit provision for local
participation is the Ley Indigena. Through one provision, changes in indigenous
reserves or indigenous-owned areas must be authorized by the indigenous
community and CONAI (the government’s Comisién Nacional de Asuntos
Indigenas[National Commission on Indigenous Subjects]).

Concerning equity, recent government incentive programs for tourism
development ”favor large, experienced developers over local people with ideas for
srnall-scale business (Salazar, Palmer, et al., 1990).” In some areas, non-

governmental organizations such as ATEC (Talamanca Association for Eco-

108

tourism and Conservation) have been attempting to force the government to live
up to its mandates or are calling for legislative reform in order to assure
development which is in the interests of local people.

The government, for its part, has recognized the need for access to credit as
part of capacity-building to allow the development of ”micro-enterprises” which
could claim their share of the ”green gold” flowing over the terrain of Costa Rica.
ICI‘ sponsored ”Primer Encuentro Nacional de Microempresarios Turisticos" held
August 6 and 7, 1992 in San Jose. This workshop brought entrepreneurs together
to explore available and potential assistance for ”growing” their own place in the
market for ecotourism-related goods and services. However, as expressed by
various participants in this workshop, the length of time required to seek funding
and the assets necessary to guarantee loans have left many potential entrepreneurs
unable to access financing.

Tourism enterprises are also developing their own planning processes and
tapping expertise of Costa Rican scientists as they explore new areas for
development and attempt to maintain their position in an increasingly competitive
market. On the consumer side, the Ecotourism Society recently announced Costa
Rica would be studied as part of a year-long research and development program
to design the first consumer evaluation program in the world to gauge the level at

which tour operators are protecting the environment and providing benefits to

109
local people (Ecotourism Society, 1992).

The inherent conflicts between tourism/ecotourism and other land uses have
also surfaced in Costa Rica, sometimes in dramatic fashion. Many of these appear
to be played out in the media rather than through an adequate permitting process.
For instance, Earth Summit organizer and Canadian millionaire Maurice Strong
bought land in the region of Cahuita National Park, along the Caribbean coast.
He constructed a hotel as a stated means of "helping the locals out” by protecting
land resources from banana cultivation. However, there has been confusion in
permitting prowdures and jurisdiction over the facility’s proximity to the KeKoldi
Indian Reserve and Gandoca-Manzanillo Wildlife Refuge (Martin & McPhaul,
1992). In Tortuguero, recent proposals to build a road through the area have been
met with opposition, not only from the local community but also from ecotourism
interests in which Costa Rica Expeditions plays a large role (Kaye, 1992).

While concentration of the ecotourism industry in Costa Rica (one operator,
Costa Rican Expeditions conducts 60% of the business) (Govt. of Costa Rica,
1990) may reflect the ”infancy" of ecotourism development, it may also mean that
smaller, less-capitalized agencies may have a tougher time breaking into the
market (Budowski, T., 1990). Those hoping to attract ecotourists to more remote
or less developed areas, with fewer economic resources, may be short-changed

from receiving the touted economic benefits of ecotourism in a country where the

110

per capita income is $1,810.

Visitation has also been concentrated in a few ”hot destinations.” For those
travelling with Costa Rica Expeditions, about 52% of the visitors travel to the
cloud forest in Monteverde (often referred to as "the Gringo park” in reference to
the large number of North American visitors), and 51% to Poas Volcano (Govt. of
Costa Rica, 1990). This has resulted in environmental degradation to these areas,
the extent of which scientists are just now beginning to explore. Some strategies
for limiting tourist numbers or impact have been implemented by the NGO
managing the Monteverde property, including limiting the number of visitors on
the trails to 100 at any given time. However, new hotel accommodations were
recently built in the area in anticipation of hosting increasing numbers of visitors
to the park.

This concentration continues as government financing of infrastructure
support is directed toward popular tourism destinations, particularly road
improvements in the northwestern part of the Guanacaste Province (Tico Times,
1993, January 22).

The concept of user fees pays little part in the actual financing of visitor
management in protected areas. It has been stated that while 70 agenices sell
”tours” to the protected ares, only five agencies collaborate in some manner with

the national parks (Salazar S., and Evans-Pritchard, D., 1992, August 6). This

111

collaboration is self-determined by the tourism owners ethics and sense of
responsibility to compensate for use of the primary materials for their industry--

Costa Rica’s wealth of biodiversity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asociacién Pro-Desarrollo Barrio Cubillo (1993). ”Proyecto Ecoturistico: Las
Delicias". Promotional brochure for ecotourism project ”Las Delicias" in
Santa Ana, Nicoya, Guanacaste, Costa Rica.

Adams, W. M. (1990). Green development: Environment and sustainability in
the third world. London & New York: Routledge.

Arrieta M., D. (1991). La potencialidad agroecoturistica en asentamientos
eampesinos del IDA.['Ihe agro-ecotourism potential in rural citizen
settlements of the Agrarian Development Institute] Unpublished ‘ ,/
preliminary version, San J 036, Costa Rica: Government of Costa Rica,
Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario.

/.

Asociacibn Centro Ejecutor dc Proyectos Economicos y de Salud (ACEPESA).
(1992, August 6 & 7). La microempresa y los retos del desarrollo turistico
en Costa Rica [The small business and the challenges oftourism
development in Costa Rica]. Hand-out material presented at the ”Primer
Encuentro Naciénal de Microempresarios Turfsticos,” August 6-7, 1992 in San
Jose, Costa Rica.

Association for Farming Systems Research/Extension (AFSR/E). (1992). Toward
a new paradigm for farming systems research/extension. Proceedings of
the 12th Annual Farming Systems Symposium, September 1992, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Axinn, G. H. (1991). Sustainable development reconsidered. Development, 1,
120-123.

(1988). International technical interventions in agriculture, and rural
development: some basic trends, issues, and questions. Agriculture and
Humans Values, 5 (1&2), 6-15.

(1978). New strategies for rural development. Kathmandu and East
Lansing: Rural Life Associates.

112

113

Baez A. (1992). Personal communication, August 1992. Latin American Director
of Paseo Pantera Project, San Jose, Costa Rica.

Baez, A. & Montoya, M. (Eds). (1992). Hacia e1 desarrollo del ecoturismo en
Costa Rica: Elementos para un plan de accion [Toward the development
ofecotourism in Costa Rica: Elements for a plan of action.] Summary of
recommendations from the First World Congress of Tourism and the
Environment, Regional Meeting of the Ecotourism Program, Belize, May 2,
1992.

Baldares C., M.J. & Laarman, JG. (1991). User fees at protected areas in Costa
Rica. In Vincent, Jeffrey R., Crawford, E.W. & Hoehn, J.P. (Eds)
ValuingEnvironmental Benefits in Developing Economies. Proceedings of
a Seminar Series, Graduate Specialization in Resource Economics, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan, February-May 1990.

Beissinger, S.. & Bucher, E.H. Sustainable harvesting of parrots for conservation.
In Beissinger, SR. and Snyder, N.F.R. (Eds) New world parrots in crisis:
Solutions from conservation biology. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press.

Bennett, J .W. (1986). Summary and critique: Interdisciplinary research on people-
resources relations. In Dahlberg, K.A. & Bennett, J .W. (Eds) Natural
resources and people: Conceptual issues in interdisciplinary
research(pp. 343-372). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

(1985). The micro-macro nexus: typology, process and system. In
DeWalt, BR. and Pelto, P.J. (Eds) Micro and macro levels of analysis in
anthropology: Issues in theory and research(pp.23-54) Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press.

Bermr'rdez A., F. & Alpizar, W. (1992, July). Construction and improvement of
facilities for ecological tourism. Unpublished request for funding submitted to
Instituto Costariccense de Turismo (ICI').

Bromley, D.W. & Cernea, M.M. (1989). The management of common property
natural resources: Some conceptual and operational fallacies. World
Bank Discussion Paper 57. Washington, DC: World Bank.

114

Biolley, P. (1889). Costa Rica and her future. Washington, DC: Judd &
Detweiler, Printers.

Boo, E.(1990). Ecotourism: The potentials and pitfalls (Vols.1 & 2).
Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund-US.

Boza, M.A. (1988). Costa Rica National Parks. San Jose, Costa Rica: Editorial
Heliconia, Fundacibn Neotropica.

Brahes, R. (1991). Institutional and legal aspects of the environment in Latin
America, including the participation of nongovernmental organizations
in environmental management. Washington, DC: Inter-American
Development Bank, Environmental Management Committee.

Brennan, P. (1992). ”Beware of the ‘E-Word’--Operator claims he owns it." Tico
Times, 36(1183), September 11, 1992, p.22.

Bricefio, J.A. (1993). ”Inversiones en turismo suman c19,400
milliones"[Investments in tourism total c19,400], La Republica, February 25,
1993.

Budowski, G. (1976). Tourism and environmental conservation: Conflict,
coexistence, or symbiosis. Environmental Conservation, 3 (1), 27-31.

(1985). La conservacibn como instrumento para el desarrollo
[Conservation as instrument for development]. San J osé, Costa Rica:
Editorial Universidad Estatal A Distancia.

Budowski, T. (1990). Ecoturismo a la Tiea [Ecotourism a la tica]. In Heckadon, S.
et al., Hacia una Centroamerica verde: Seis casos de conservacibn
integrada [Toward a green Central America: Six cases of integrated
conservation] (pp. 73-89). San Jose, Costa Rica: Editorial Departamento
Ecuménico de Investigaciénes (DEI).

Butler, R. W. (1991). Tourism, environment and sustainable development.
Environmental Conservation 18(3), 201-209.

(1990). Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan horse? Journal of
Travel Research(28)3, 40-45.

115

Calvopifta, L. (1992, September). Estudio de los patrones de visitacion en la
Reserve Biologies Carara. Summary of master’s thesis research, Program of
Integrated Management of Natural Resources, Centro Agronomico Tropical
de Investigacion y Ensefianza (CAT'IE), Turrialba, Costa Rica.

Camara Nacional de Turismo, Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and Ministerio
de Recursos Naturales, Energia y Minas. (1992). Convenio, December 17,
1992. Signed by Ing.Luis Manuel Chacon Jirninez (Minister of Tourism),
Ing.Hernan Bravo Trejos (Minister of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines),
and Sr. Rodrigo Castro, President of CAN ATUR).

Carlson, B. (1992, September 11). Ecotourism group to evaluate C.R. businesses.
Tico Times, 36 (1183), p.21.

Castro R, R. (1993, March 18). Turismo, opportunidad unica [Tourism, unique
opportunity][Opinion column]. La Nacion, p. 18A.

Cernea, M.M.(Ed.) (1991/1985). Putting people first: Sociological variables in
rural development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chambers, R. (1992). Rural appraisal: Rapid, relaxed and participatory
(Discussion Paper No. 311). Brighton, England: University of Sussex,
Institute of Development Studies.

(1985). Managing rural development: Ideas and experiences from
East Africa. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

(1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. London: Longrnan
Group, Ltd.

Chaverri, Robert. (1988). Programa de accion inmediata para el mejoramiento
de la oferta turistica [Program of immediate action for the improvement
of tourism offerings]. San Jose, Costa Rica: Government of Costa Rica,
Instituto Costarricense de Turismo (ICI‘).

Cifuentes Arias, M., Alpizar, W., Barroso, F., Courrau, J., Falck, M.L., Jimenez,
R., Ortiz, P., Rodriguez V., J., Romero, J.C., & Tejada, J. (1990). Capacidad
de carga turistica de la Reserva Biolégica Carara [Tourism carrying
capacity of the Carara Biological Reserve. Inforrne Consulta. Prepared for

116

Servicio de Parques Nacionales, Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energla y
Minas. Turrialba, Costa Rica: Centro Agronémico Tropical de Investigacién
y Enseflanza (CATIE).

Cifuentes Arias, M., Ferreiro Chaves, O., MacFarland, C., & Morales, R.
(Eds.)(l983). Reserva Biologica Carara: Plan de manejo y desarrollo.
[Carara Biological Reserve: Management and development plan.
Prepared for Servicio de Parques Nacionales, Ministerio de Recursos
Naturales, Energta y Minas. Turrialba, Costa Rica: Centro Agronémico
Tropical de Investigacién y Ensettanza (CATIE).

Clark, J. (1991). Democratizing development: The role of voluntary
organizations. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

Costa Rica, Govt. of (1990, June). Estrategia para el desarrollo institncional
de la Reserva de la Biosfera "La Amistad" [Strategy for the institutional
development of the Biosphere Rwerve “The Peace.'] Executive Summary.
San Jose, Costa Rica: Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energla, y Minas y
Ministerio de Planificacidn Nacional y Politica Econbmica [Ministry of
Natural Resources, Energy and Mines and Ministry of National Planning and
Political Economy].

Costa Rica, Govt. of (1991, August 19). Ley de creacion del Sistema Nacional de
Areas de Conservacibn [Law of creation of the National System of
Conservation Areas]. Law No.11315. In La Gaceta,No.155. San Jose, Costa
Rica.

Costa Rica, Govt. of (1992, April 3). Ley dc incentivos para el desarrollo
turistico [Incentives law for tourism development]. Includes provisions of
Law No. 6990 (1985, July 30) and Law No.7293 (1992, April 3). In La
Gaceta, No.66. San Jose, Costa Rica.

Costa Rica, Govt. of (Undated). Carara biological reserve. Visitor pamphlet
prepared by the Costa Rica National Parks Service, San Jose, Costa Rica.

Costa Rica, Govt. of (1992, February). Sistema Nacional de Areas de
Conservacibn: Un nuevo enfoque [National System of Conservation
Areas: A new focus]. San Jose, Costa Rica: Ministerio de Recursos
Naturales, Energia y Minas, Servicio de Parques Nacionales.

117

Costa Rica, Govt. of (1992, May). Plan de operaciones: Estrategia nacional dc
turismo ecolbgico [Plan of operations: National strategy of ecological
tourism]. San J osé, Costa Rica: Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energia y
Minas, Servicio de Parques Nacionales.

Dahlberg, K.A. & Bennett, J .W.(Eds.)(1986).Natural resources and people: ,
Conceptual issues in interdisciplinary research. Boulder, Colorado: v’
Westview Press.

deKadt, E. (Ed.)(l979). Tourism: Pasport to development? Oxford: Oxford
University Press. v”

DeWalt, B. R. (1988). The cultural ecology of development: Ten precepts for
survival. Agriculture and Human Values, 5(1&2), 112-123. \/"

DeWalt, B.R. & Pelto, P.J. (Eds) (1985) Micro and macro levels of analysis in
anthropology: Issues in theory and research (pp.23o$4). Boulder, CO:
Westview.

v,

Drake, SP. (1991). Local participation in ecotourism projects. In Whelan, T. (Ed),
Nature tourism: Managing for the environment(pp. 132-163). Washington,
DC: Island Press.

Dunkel, D. R. (1984, Spring). Tourism and the environment: A review of the
literature and issues. Newsletter of the American Sociological Association,
Section on Environmental Sociology. No.37.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). 1993. Costa Rica and Panama. Country
Report No.1. \/

(1988). Trinidad and Tobago. International Tourism Quarterly.
National Report No. 148.

Ecotourism Society.(l992). Responsible tourism evaluation program. Ecotourism
Society Newsletter, 2 (3),p. 5.

Eiden, T. & Labate, J.(1993, January 11). How the industries stack up. Fortune
127(1), 66-73.

118

Esrnan, M.J. (1991). Management dimensions of development: Perspectives
and strategies. Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

Farrell, B.H. & Runyan, D. (1991). Ecology and tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 18, 26-40.

FEPROTUR NATURALEZA/La Fundacion Ecuatoriana de Promocibn
Turfstica. (1990). Resumen de Primero Seminario dc Turismo Orientado a
la Naturaleza [Summary of the first seminar of nature-oriented tourism].
Quito, Ecuador: FEPROTUR.

Foer, G. & Olsen, S.(Eds.) (1992). Central America’s coasts: Profiles and an
agenda for action. Prepared for the International Coastal Resources
Management Project with funding from US. Agency for International
Development. Narragansett, Rhode Island: Coastal Resources Center,
University of Rhode Island.

Fridgen, J. (1992). Surviving the crisis in mass tourism, moving towards
sustainable tourism. Unpublished paper presented at the Cultural Tourism
and Regional Development Congress, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands,
November 7-8, 1991. Revised March 1992.

Garcia, M.V. (1992). Personal communication, July, 1992. Director of
Metropolitan Touring, Quito, Ecuador.

George, S. (1984). III fares the land: Essays on Food, Hunger, and Power.
Washington, DC: Institute of Policy Studies.

Getino, O. (1991). Turismo y desarrollo en América Latina [Tourism and .
development in Latin America]. Mexico City, Mexico: Editorial Limusa. 1/
First reprinting of 1987 Edition.

Gildesgame, M. L. (1990) Conserving tropical forest resources in the National
Park System of Costa Rica. Doctoral dissertation, Geography Department, (‘l/
Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts.

Gross, D. (1990) Ecosystems and methodological problems in ecological
anthropology. In E. Moran (Ed), The ecosystem approach in

119

anthropology: From concept to practice (pp.309-319). Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.

Healy, R. (1988, October). Economic considerations in nature-oriented
tourism: The case of tropical forest tourism. Working Paper No.39, The
Forestry Private Enterprise Initiative. Research Triangle Park, North \ ,,
Carolina: USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Center for Forest Economics V
Research.

Heckadon, S., Archibold, G., Romero, R., Martinez, F., Budowski, T., Cardenal,
L., Benitez, M., Godoy, J.C. & Quesada Mateo, C.(1990) Hacia una
Centroamerica verde: Seis casos de conservacion integrada [The making
of a green Central America: Six cases of integrated conservation](pp.73-
89). San Jose, Costa Rica: Editorial Departamento Ecuménico de
Investigaciones (DEI).

Hedstrom, 1. (Ed.) (1989). La situacion ambiental en Centroamerica y el
Caribe [The environmental situation in Central America and the
Caribbean. San José, Costa Rica: Departamento Ecuménico de
Investigaciénes.

Holing, D. (1991). A guide to earth trips: nature travel on a fragile planet.
Los Angeles, CA: Living Planet Press/Conservation International.

Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning—An integrated and sustainable
development approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold

Instituto Costarricense de Turismo. (1992, May-June). Costa Rica Turfstica
(Information bulletin of ICT) 1(3). San Jose, Costa Rica: Government of
Costa Rica.

Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (IDA)[Institute of Agrarian Development]. (March
1993). Aspectos generales del area do influencias de nuestro Instituto en
la region de Turrubares [General aspects ofthe area under the influence
of our Institute (IDA) in the Turrubares region. Report. Orotina, Costa
Rica: Direccion Regional Pacifico Central, Oficina Auxiliar de Turrubares.

120

Instituto Geografico de Costa Rica [Geographic Institute of Costa Rica]. (1987).
Mapa Fisico-Politico, Costa Rica [Physical-Political Map of Costa Rica].
Scale: 1:500,000.San Jose, Costa Rica: Ministry of Transportation.

(1988). Map of the Province of San Jose, CR2CM-5. Scale: 1:200,000.

Inter-American Development Bank-IDB. (1990). Our Own Agenda Report of the
Latin American and Caribbean Commission on Development and
Environmenthrepared for the UNCED Brazil’92 Earth Summit]. Washington,
DC: IDB.

Jones, L. (1993). Can ecotourism save the world? Buzzworm: The
Environmental Journal 5(2), 34—38.

Jones, S. (1985). Depth interviewing and the analysis of depth interviewing. In R.
Walker (Ed), Applied qualitative research (pp.45-70). Brookfield, Vermont:
Gower Publishing Company.

Kallen, C. (1990, July/August). Eco-tourism: The light at the end of the terminal.
E Magazine, pp. 37-41.

Kay, C. (1991). Reflections on the Latin American contribution to development
theory. Development and Change, 22(1), 31-68.

Kaye, M. (1992). Personal conversation with Michael Kaye, President, Costa Rica
Expeditions, San Jose, Costa Rica.

Kechington, RA. (1989). Tourism in the Galépagos Islands: The dilemma of
conservation. Environmental Conservation, 16(3), 227-232+.

Korten, D. C. (1991). Sustainable development. World Policy Journal, 9(1), 157-
190.

Korten, D. C. & Klaues, R. (Eds) (1984). People-centered development:
Contributions toward theory and planning frameworks. West Hartford,
Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

121

Kusler, J.A. (Ed) (1991). Ecotourism and resource conservation. (Vols. 1 &
2) A collection of papers from the First International Symposium on
Ecotourism (April 17-19, 1989, Merida, Mexico) and the Second International
Symposium on Ecotourism and Resource Conservation (November 27-
December 2, 1990, Miami Beach, Florida). Berne, NY: Association of X/
Wetland Managers, Ecotourism and Resource Conservation Project.

Laarman, J .G. (1986). Nature-oriented tourism in Costa Rica and Ecuador:
Diagnosis of research needs and project opportunities. FPEI Working Paper
No. 6. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Center for Forest Economics N,
Research.

Laarman, J.G. & Durst, PB. (1987). Nature travel in the tropics: Is this growing
enterprise a trend in wildlands management? Journal of Forestry, 85(5), 43- \_ '
46.

Laarman J.G. & Perdue, RR. (1989). Science tourism in Costa Rica. Annals of
Tourism Research, 16, 205-215. \/

Laarman, J.G., Stewart, T.P. & Prestemon, J.P. (1989). International travel by
US. conservation groups and professional societies. Journal of Travel

Research, 28(1), 12-17.

Lara, O. (1992, March). Diagnostico para la elaboracion dc una estrategia
para la conservacion y desarrollo sostenible de la region Pacifico-
Central Costa Rica [Diagnosis for the elaboration of a strategy for the
conservation and sustainable development of the Central Pacific region
of Costa Rica]. Report prepared with the assistance of the Comite Asesor del
Area de Conservacién Carara, Pacifrco Central.

Lea, J.(1988). Tourism and development in the third world. London:
Routledge.

Lee, D.N.B. & Snepenger, DJ. (1992). An ecotourism assessment of Tortuguero,
Costa Rica. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 367-370.

Lillywhite, M. & Lillywhite, L. (1991).Low impact tourism: Coupling
natural/cultural resource conservation, economic development and the tourism 7/

122

industry. In Kusler, J .A. (Ed) Ecotourism and resource conservation.
(Vols. 1 a 2) A collection of papers from the First International Symposium
on Ecotourism (April 17-19, 1989, Merida, Mexico) and the Second
International Symposium on Ecotourism and Resource Conservation
(November 27-December 2, 1990, Miami Beach, Florida). Berne, NY:
Association of Wetland Managers, Ecotourism and Resource Conservation

Project.

Maldonado, T., Hurtado de Mendoza, L., & Saborio, O. (1992, February).
Analisisdecapacidaddecargaparavisitacibnenlasareassilvestresde
Costa Rica [Analysis of carrying capacity of visitation in wildlands of
Costa Rica]. San J osé, Costa Rica: Fundacién Neotrbpica, Centro de
Estudios Ambientales y Politicas.

Marajh, O. & Meadows, DR. (1992). Ecotourism in Latin America and the
Caribbean: Strategies and implications for Development. Paper presented at
”Envirotour-Vienna ’92”, Annual Conference sponsored by the International
Society for Environmental Protection, November 10-12, 1992, Vienna,
Austria.

Market Data. (1991). Costa Rica: Datos e indicadores basicos [Costa Rica:
Data and basic indicators]. San J 036, Costa Rica: Market Data.

Martin, F. & McPhaul, J. (1992, September). ”Strong denies hotel trouble." Tico
Times, 36 (1183), p.l+.

Mathieson, A. & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical, and social /
impacts. London & New York: Longman Group Ltd. \/

McNeely, J .A. (1990). The future of national parks. Environment 32(1), 16-20,
36-41.

McNeely, J .A. & Miller, K.R. (Eds.)(l984). National parks, conservation and
development: The role of protected areas in sustaining
society.International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources, Washington, DC. Smithsonian Institution Press.

Meadows, DR. (1992, November). Selected literature related to ecotourism in
Latin America & the Caribbean [Unpublished bibliography]. East Lansing:

123
Michigan State University, Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies.

Metropolitan Touring.(Undated). Ecotourism development project of
Metropolitan Touring in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Obtained in July 1992
from the Ecotourism Department, Metropolitan Touring Company, Quito,
Ecuador.

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, AM. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A
sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
Fifth Printing (1987).

Miller, G.A. & Strahl, SD. (1992, February). An innovative conservation
partnership for parks and people: A model for Ecuador. Paper presented at
International Union for the Conservation of Nature IV World Congress on
National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela, February 10-21,
1992.

Moran, E. (1990). Ecosystem ecology in biology and anthropology: A critical
assessment. In: Moran, E. (Ed) The ecosystem approach in anthropology:
From concept to practice. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan
Press.

Mudge, S. (1989). Recomendaciones del grupo de trabajo del turismo de la
naturaleza [Recommendations of the work group of nature tourism].
Unpublished report prepared for US. Agency for International Development
and FEPROTUR, Fundacibn Ecuatoriana para Promocién Turistica.
November 13, 1989, Quito, Ecuador.

Murphy, PE. (1985). Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuen,
Inc.

Norman, D. (1993). Scarlet Macaws in Costa Rica. Educational pamphlet No.4.
Available from Apdo.387-3000, Heredia, Costa Rica.

O’Riordan, T. (1988). The politics of sustainability. In Turner, R.K.(Ed).
Sustainable Environmental Management. (pp.29-50) Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

124

Orlebar, E. (1991). Tourism to become top 8 earner. Tico Times, V. XXXV
No.1138. 1991/92 Special Edition "Visitors Guide.”

Orozco Coto, N.E., Rodriguez Vega, R.M., & Villanueva Sanchez, M. V. (1991).
Unanalisiseconbmico delaactividadturlsticadeCostaRica [An
economic analysis of Costa Rica’s tourist activity] . Master’s[Licenciatura] /
thesis, University of Costa Rica, Economic Sciences, School of Economics,
San Jose.

Pearce, D. (1989). Tourist development. New York: Longman Scientific and /
Technical. Second Edition.

Pedersen, A. (1988). Ecotourism: An alternative for the sustainable development
of the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Document #2, BOSCOSA Project in
conjunction with Neotropica Foundation, World Wildlife Fund and
Conservation International.

Pigram, I]. (1990). Sustainable tourism: Policy considerations. The Journal of
Tourism Studies, 1(2), 2-9.

Place, S. (1991). Nature tourism and rural development in Tortuguero. Annals of ’1/
Tourism Research, 18, 186-201. \/

(1988). The impact of national park development on Tortuguero, Costa
Rica. Journal of Cultural Geography, 9(1), 37-52. V

Poon, A. (1988). Innovation and the future of Caribbean tourism. Tourism
Management 4, 214.

Quammen, D.(l992, February). The economy of nature. Outside, p.25-33.

Quesada Mateo, C. A. (1990). Estrategia de conservacibn para el desarrollo
sostenible de Costa Rica [Conservation strategy for the sustainable
development of Costa Rica]. Report prepared for the Republic of Costa L/
Rica. San Jose, Costa Rica: Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and
Mines.

Ramirez 8., A. & Maldonado U., T. (Eds) (1988, May). Desarrollo
socioeconomico y el ambiente natural de Costa Rica: Situacibn actual y

125

paspectivas [Socioeconomic development and the natural environment
of Costa Rica: Current situation and perspectives] San Jose, Costa Rica:
Fundacion Neotrépica.

Ramirez Azofeifa, Ana Delia. (1992) Estrategias y acciones para la
incorporacion de las comunidades vecinas a la Resava Carara al
desarrollo de turismo ecolbgico y conservacion natural [Strategies and
action for the incorporation of neighboring communities of the Carara
Biological Reserve in the development of ecological tourism and nature
conservation]. Unpublished thesis plan, Universidad Latina Americana de
Ciencia y Technologia, San Jose, Costa Rica.

Redclift, M.(1987). Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions.
London: Metheun & Co.Ltd

Roads to be improved near tourist spots.( 1993, January 22). Tico Times, p.3A.

Sanchez Viquez, A. (1992, May 29) Controversia por el ecoturismo [Controversy
about ecotourism]. La Republica, p.2A.

Salazar Combronao, R. (1991). Legislacion y ecologla en Costa Rica
[Legislation and ecology in Costa Rica]. San Jose, Costa Rica: Asociacion/
Libro Libre.

Salazar, M. , Palmer, P., Barthel, W., & Rwd, J. (1990). Local participation in
ecotourism development, Talamanca, Costa Rica: Opportunities and
obstacles. Papa presented at the Second International Symposium on
Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, Nov.27-Dec.2, 1990, Miami Beach,
Florida. In Kusler (1992), op. cit., pp. 371-381.

Salazar S., S. & Evans-Pritchard, D. (1992, August 6). Agencias de turismo
ecologico y areas protegidas [Ecological tourism and protected areas].
Editorial in La Republica, p. 19A.

Sawh, D. (1992). Guyana: An awakening giant. Papa presented at the Second
Caribbean Conference on Ecotourism, May 20-22, 1992, St. John, US Virgin
Islands.

126

Schelhaus, J. (1991). A methodology for assessment of external issues facing
national parks with an application in Costa Rica. Environmental
Conservation 18(4), 323-330.

Schluter, R. (1988). In search of cultural identity: Latin Amaiean tourist
literature. Annals of Tourism Research (15), 285-288. [,x'”

Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant
resistance. New Haven, Connecticut. Yale University Press.

Seal, K. (1992). Environmental tourism center launched. Hotel a Motel
Management 207(9), 25.

Sevilla, R. (1987). Sharing the environmental challenge: Towards a partnership of
the public and private sectors. Unpublished consultation presented at Inter-
American Development Bank’s (Environmental Management Committee)
”Conference on the Environment,” Washington, DC, May 13-15, 1987.

Skidmore, T.E. & Smith, PH. (1989) Modern Latin America. Second Edition.
Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Smith, S. & Reeves, E. (Eds) (1989). Human systems ecology: Studies in the
integration of political economy, adaptation, and socionatural regions. /’

Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. V

Smith, V.L.(Ed). (1977). Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Smith, V.L. & Eadington, W.R. (Eds) (1992). Tourism alternatives: Potential
and problems in the development of tourism. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press/International Academy for the Study of Tourism.

Soldrzano, R., de Camino, R., Woodward R., Tosi, J., Watson, V., vasquez, A.,
Villalobos, C., Jimenez, J., Repetto, R. & Wilfrido, C. (1991,
December).Accounts overdue: Natural resource depreciation in Costa
Rica. San Jose, Costa Rica and Washington,D.C.: Tropical Science Center
and World Resources Institute.

127

Soto, M. (1991, October/November). Futuro para Carara: Su entorno y su gente.
El Ecologista, pp.23-27. Newsletter of the Asociacién Ecologista[Ecology
Association], San Jose, Costa Rica.

Swet, C. (1990, June 29). Tourism minister outlines "industry of the ’90s” Tico
Times, p.23.

Umaha Quesada, A.(1990). La haencia de los recursos naturales [The
inheritance of natural resources]. La Uruca, San Jose, Costa Rica:
Imprenta Nacional.

Uphoff, N. (1985) Fitting projects to people. In M.M. Cernea (Ed), Putting
people first: Sociological variables in rural development (pp.357-395).
New York: Oxford University Press (for The World Bank).

Uphoff, N. (1993). Grassroots organizations and NGOs in rural development:
Opportunities with diminishing states and expanding markets. World
Develoth 21(4), 607-622.

US. Department of State. (1992, June). Costa Rica. Background Notes, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Office of Public Communications. Washington, DC.

Vaughn, C., McCoy, M. & Liske, J. (1991). Scarlet Macaw (Ara macaw) ecology
and management paspectives in Carara Biological Resave, Costa Rica. In:
Clinton-Eitniear, J. (Ed). Proceedings of the First Mesoamerican
Workshop on the Conservation and Managemement of Macaws. Misc.
Publication No.1. San Antonio, Texas: Center for the Study of Tropical
Birds, Inc.

Wallace, G.N. (1992, February). Real ecotourism: Assisting protected area
managers and getting benefits to local people. Unpublished paper
presented at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources’ IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected
Areas, Caracas, Venezuela, February 10-21, 1992.

Wallerstein, I. (1991). Geopolitics and geoculture: Essays on the changing
world-system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1984). The politics of the world-economy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

128

Waters, SR. (1990). The big picture. In Travel industry world yearbook (Vol.
34. pp.88-89). New York: Child & Waters, Inc.

Wells, M. (1992). Biodiversity conservation, aflluence, and poverty: Mismatched
costs and benefits and efforts to remedy them. In Ambio 21(3), 237-243. \/

/',

Whelan, T. (Ed.).(1991). Nature tourism: Managing for the environment.
Washington, DC: Island Press.

Wight, P. (1993). Ecotourism: Ethics or eco-sell. In Journal of travel research
31(3), 3-9.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our
Common Future (also known as the Brundtland Report). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Ziffer, K.A. (1989). Ecotourism: The uneasy alliance. Conservation International
Working Papa. Washington, DC: Conservation International and Ernst & '
Young. '

"rrrrrrrrrrrr