ECOTOURISM AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION A Collection of Papers Volume 2 Compiled by Jon A. Kusler Ecotourism and Resource Conservation Projectere, Developing Principles of Natural and Human Ecological Carrying Capacity, and Natural Disaster Risk Vulnerability for Application to Ecotourism Development in the Yucatan Peninsula Raul Murguia Rosote CINVESTAV and SEDUE Richard C. Smardon and Scott Moan State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry Abstract Protecting fragile coastal ecology, developing indigenous cultural equity and avoiding catastrophic hurricane damage are just some of the challenges of developing ecotourism infrastructure and resource conservation planning for the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. Collaborative working arrangements of Mexican and U.S. academic, government and conservation organizations are attempting to simultaneously assess ecotourism potentials and challenges for the coastal areas, rain forests and cultural resources in the Yucatan. These resources include: coastal lagoons and estuaries teeming with flamingoes, shore birds, and migratory waterfowl; mangals, inland freshwater lime stone formed caverns or cenotes, coastal beaches, barrier reefs, inland rain forests in Quintana Roo, ancient Mayan ruins throughout the peninsula, colonial Spanish towns and traditional Mayan villages with their unique cosmology influenced ethnoecology and much more. National Geographic wants to tie all of ‘this together in the form of "La Ruta Maya” which connects parts of Mexico, Belize and Guatemala in one large interconnected ecotourism loop. Planners and scientists are currently challenged to develop a process for: 1) inventorying natural and human ecology, 2) developing principles of evaluation of development prototypes, 3) developing the ecotourism prototypes for specific areas, e.g,, the coastal estuarine lagoons of Celestun, Rio Lagartos and Siam Ka'an, and 4) testing development prototypes against principles addressing ecological carrying capacity, human cultural equity and ecology, and natural disastes” risk vulnerability. 740Introduction Past experiences are beginning to show that traditional tourism and all its trappings is non-sustainable. This tourism is also culturally and environmentally damaging (Coulianos 1980). A particular vacation area usually emerges as a new hotspot because it is beautiful and secluded. The area then begins to build up as locals, outside investors, and businesses try to cash in on the tourists. The local entrepreneur usually gets priced out of the picture early on. It is ironic that as the area begins to boom, it loses what made it special, its local charm, beauty and seclusion and therefore its appeal to the tourists. They then leave behind an area that was once undisturbed and rich in environmental and cultural character and seek out a new paradise to claim. This has become the pattern for traditional tourism. Those, “in the know", pioneering new areas and the crowds hot on their heels. This environmental and cultural devastation is obviously not sustainable Today's tourist is looking for something exciting, different, and is more environmentally aware than in the past. This makes the time ripe for a new form of tourism. Ecotourism offers the tourist a close look at the culture and environment of an area while allowing the indigenous culture and economy to continue and most importantly, grow while also protecting the environment. Ecotourism appeals to people interested in passive leisure, nature orientated experiences, and cultural learning and crafts. Ecotourism encompasses: fishing, birding, snorkeling, cave exploring, ruin visiting and more. It is a type of tourism that offers enjoyment from a close experimental and educational interaction with the native culture and environment. Most ecotourism activities are situation based (Smardon 1988). The ecotourist experiences the flavor of an atea through local guides and craftsmen, small hotels and restaurants, local people, and the flora and fauna. This distributes money to a wide variety of locals and establishments ae opposed to a few absentee owners of large franchise resorts and hotels. The local People will want to keep attracting the ecotourist and his money. To do this, they will learn they must practice more culturally and environmentally sensitive methods. This will return a sense of pride in their own culture and a sense of stewardship for the environment. The money generated from the ecotourist can then be used by the local people to support themselves and protect their environment. Local public support is necessary for the success of all ecotourism Projects. This is especially true when new management methods conflict with the immediate local uses, needs, and sources of income. In order to have the local population realize that benefits accrued in the long run will far surpass short term gains, they must be educated as to the project's relevance to them. A successful form of educating people would be through site interpretation. Site interpretation educates the visitor by explaining the relationship between features and their relevance to the visitor (Countryside Commission 1978). Once the local population iearns the importance that a healthy environment means to them, they will be more willing to protect it 741eee nos (1980) states that there are four goals to ecotourism: 1) maintenance of ecological processes critical to economic functions 2) production of essential goods and services which can only be provided by natural areas 3) preservation of representative ecosystems, and 4) protection of endangered, threatened and economically important species. We agree with Coulianos in her support for ecotourism but feel these four goals should be objectives to a higher goal. The primary goals of ecotourism should be to Protect and nurture the indigenous culture and environment. In order to do this, one can use tourism dollars. One should not try to attract tourism by using the native environment and culture as showpieces. Ecotourism uses tourism dollars to reach and maintain a healthy environment, Traditional tourism exploits the culture and the environment for economic gains. Ecotourism can be used to Protect the indigenous population from becoming servants in their own land. It can be used to make parks and preserves self sustaining. Ecotourism uses a working relationship with the land. Sound management practices are used to integrate local industries sensitively with the environment. Coordinating the integration of local industry, the environment, and the influx of tourists is a crucial part of ecotourism planning, Project Description The potential for ecotourism - ecologically sensitive utilization of natural and cultural resources ‘of the Yucatan Peninsula in cooperation with indigenous peoples ~ is ripe. Such an approach would provide multipie benefits and poses a ‘counterbalance to traditional tourism characterized by capitol intensive infrastructure development to accommodate large numbers of foreign tourists who stray little beyond the immediate resort area. Traditional tourism creates many undesirable impacts to both the natural ecology and local cultural groups (see Bryden 1973, Dunkel 1984 and Rossel 1988 as previously described). Before such ecotourism development can proceed, several significant interconnected questions emerge: 1. The effect of such tourism - however minimal in number or infrastructure requirements - on the natural ecology and sensitive animal and bird species of ‘such biosphere reserves as Celestun, Rio Lagartos and Siam Ka‘an; 2. Whether equity can be facilitated as part of the development process in a manner which enables culturally sensitive participation by indigenous Mayan and other populations while providing appropriate economic and social benefits; 3. Whether such development can avert or minimize risk from natural 2disasters such as hurricane exposure to the affected areas such as that sustained during Hurricane Gilbert and subsequent biological and geomorphic impacts. ‘These questions are interconnected. The design or development of ecotourism in the Yucatan coastal region, if decentralized, will be more resilient to hurricanes. Once such development is in place, local indigenous people may become dependent on the income it produces which provides economic benefits, but may disrupt their cultural patterns. In addition, if a hurricane disrupts the infrastructure or discourages tourists to come to the area, this may cause even more local economic and cultural impact. In essence, a series of theories, principles, and processes need to be developed which encompass human and natural ecology in order to more fully evaluate the merits of future development options such as ecotourism. A joint U.S.-Mexican research team is proposed to formulate appropriate theories, principles and processes. The Mexican scientists, under the direction of Raul Murguia Rosete and others of CINVESTAV (Centro de Investigacion Cientifica de Yucatan), have already gathered extensive natural resource data on the Celestun and Rio Lagartos preserves on the Yucatan Peninsula. Both Mexican and US. counterparts have participated in an International Workshop on Ecotourism in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico on April 23-25, 1989 (Andrews and Kusler 1989). This workshop served to raise some of the more important issues in both an international and regional Yucatan context. The next steps include: 1. Review of appropriate theories, principles and_ processes within the ecological, cultural, and risk assessment literature; 2, Formulation of useful theories, principles and processes as evaluation criteria; 3. Locate specific areas for study and application; and 4. Formulate appropriate tests of these criteria against ecotourism and other development prototypes in the Yucatan Peninsula. Review Appropriate Theories, Principles and Processes: Ecological There is a literature relating to ecological and recreational carrying capacity. Much of this work has been done for wilderness areas within the continental U.S. and focuses on tolerance of soils and vegetation to recreational traffic, waste assimilation capacities, and social recreation tolerances of different use? groups (Smardon 1988, Matinson and Field 1985, Van der Smissen and Christinsen 1976). Little of it has direct application to tropical and subtropical environments with the 743exception of work in the Everglades National Park and Hawaii. Some of the concepts may be applicable to the Yucatan but need to be tested and matched against specific ecological data from the Yucatan Reserves. Attention should be focused on posing tests of ecological carrying capacities which recognize regional sensitivities of estuarine lagoon and mangrove systems, unique groundwater relations; nesting, feeding, movement behaviors of water fowl and shorebirds; and rainforest vegetation, birds and animals along the southern Quintana Roo areas. Clark has outlined a general process of natural area management planning which can be used as a frame to set these specific carrying capacity tests within (Salm and Clark 1984) In addition, principles have been outlined in relation to tropical forest preserves (Gradwohl and Greenberg 1988) Appros Py Process ural Models ‘There are a number of theories that relate to the human ecological concerns and carrying capacity of local populations in rural areas which could be impacted by rural development. Some of this work comes from the classical rural indigenous community assessment literature (Goldschmidt 1978, Swanson 1980, MacConnell 1983). Other theories might derive from the concept of the minimum viable population (Shaffer 1987) to human communities. Still other work is being done by applied field anthropologists, geographers, and social scientists concerned with undesirable social impacts to indigenous communities due to major development induced changes such as agricultural conversion, tourism development, housing reallocation and major water resource development (see Chambers 1983, Hewitt de Alcantara 1984, DeWalt 1988, Kottak 1985, Rossel 1988 and Uphoff 1985). One of the seminal works in this area is Fernside's work (1989)on the human carrying capacity of the Brazilian Rain Forest. There is also a growing body of literature which specifically relates to ethnoecology and sustainable development for the Central America region ( Chapin 1986, 1988, Glick 1988, Houseal et al. 1985, Marin 1988, Poole 1988, Sheldon 1987 and Smith 1987). ‘There is also a body of literature documenting the processes of local community participation in development projects. In areas where local communities do not share the same micro-culture as the development planners, there are special problems of communication between them. This is the case in Yucatan, both with indigenous Maya communities and with Mexican peasant communities. These two differ from each other and both are quite different from the culture of educated, urban-dwelling planners. In other areas in Latin America, the administration of tourism projects and parks have included participation in decision-making by indigenous peoples (see Chapin 1986, Drake 1989, Faust 1989, Poole 1988 and Smith 1987). One goal will be to foster feedback about the ecological information known in local communities for scientific evaluation. The focus of this part of the project will be to select appropriate theories and concepts concerning cultural carrying capacity and useful processes of participation 744by local communities (both indigenous and other) which will have utility for use in the test projects. Criteria for evaluation of their participation will also be developed including perception of ‘the process by local communities, park administrators, biologists and ecologists. Review of Pr les and Processes - Natural Hazards The last review will be the effects and risk assessment approaches utilized for understanding major natural disturbances such as hurricanes (Baker 1980 and Simpson and Riehl 1981) to both human and ecological systems. Hurricane Gilbert has had a major impact on both Rio Lagartos and Celestun estuaries and their respective bird populations, as well as resources in assessment literature will be reviewed for applicable concepts. We do know that there is very little hazard perception literature that relates specifically to hurricane hazard perception (Mitsch 1984 and Sorensen and White 1980). We know in general from such studies’ that local populations are aware of hurricane tisk but saliency is low. But, there is special promise in new integrative hazard assessment models such as those developed by Oaks (1989) which will be analyzed. These concepts will be applied within the cultural context of the Yucatan region utilizing anthropologists and others familiar with applicable cultural behaviors. Key questions revolve around the issues of hurricane damage risk to coastal landforms and structures, waterfowl populations and food sources, and to ecotourism infrastructure, if developed, and related economic impacts. ‘Three separate groups of scientists will review appropriate literature. Synthesize Appropriate Principles and Processes From the previous reviewed work, appropriate principles and processes will be used to formulate evaluation criteria for proposed ecotourism development prototypes. Such criteria will be grouped within the categories of ecological carrying capacity, cultural carrying capacity and equity development, and risk aversion. The synthesis will be achieved by the Co-Investigators in consultation with a Mexican- US. panel of scientists. The criteria will be applied to a test case situation or Prototype development plan. Choose geographic areas for application, Itis highly possible that Celestun, Rio Lagartos and Sian Kan'an Biological Reserves and associated areas will be among the application areas. It is anticipated that one or two of these areas will be chosen for detailed analysis, ‘The following section describes detailed site interpretation activity for Rio Lagartos. Site Interpretation in Rio Lagartos*. “Using methods outlined by the Countryside Commission 1978, 748. ——— ————rr EETS Site interpretation is a situation based activity. Visitors are educated as to the values and functions of the wetlands through first hand site related experiences. Upon providing interpretive facilities, there will be an increase in the potential use of the wet land. This may severely impact the site depending on its carrying capacity, and how the planning is done. Several questions should then be considered for pre and post design considerations. Establishing the need for an interpretive program is important at this level of planning. It has already been established that there is a need to educate the public as to the importance of wetlands and of their relevance to them. One must look at why you are providing interpretive facilities. What are you trying to educate the public about? Important values and functions of the Rio Lagartos wetland that would be worthy of public education are: flood and stormwater abatement, shore stabilization, and the site's flora and fauna, especially the flamingos, crocodiles, and the sea turtles. With the intended educational opportunities in mind, the physical form of the design can begin to be looked at keeping in mind: - that enhancing visitor enjoyment will increase the understanding and pleasures derived from the lagoon - increasing public understanding and appreciation should lead to public respect and awareness of the need to preserve the lagoon. - that one can facilitate the management of the lagoon and its resources by influencing the pattern of visitor movement, spatially and temporally satisfy all known visitor demands - creating a source of income for the reserve by charges, sales, or recruiting members - presenting an environmentally sensitive viewpoint The goals of the interpretive programs should be clear and all objectives should satisfy the goals. While looking at the goals and objectives of providing interpretive facilities on the site, it is also important to consider specifically what features on the site are important. These features will further define the parameters for the physical form of the de sign. Important on-site considerations to be kept in mind are: - management goals and objectives for the site -site size, character, present use, and its relationship to adjacent areas geological, ecological, and scientific features - archaeological, architectural, landscape, and visual features - social, historical, and cultural significance ~ potential use of existing site infrastructure (i.e., buildings, utilities, trails, etc.) - existing information and material on the site 748 4Some off-site considerations will also affect the form of the design. These considerations must be looked at carefully when fitting the design into the context of its surrounding region. Some possibilities to consider are: - other facilities that may be influenced by, or may influence the proposed project (ie., are similar facilities planned at Celestun?) - how do users arrive at the site = how accessible is the site from population centers, and will the existing surrounding infrastructure (i.e, roads, hotels, and restaurants) and communities be able to handle the projected increase in use Along with the above considerations, there are several possible constraints which may affect the project and should be looked at. Possible constraints may be: - physical or environmental conditions which may necessitate a particular method or sensitivity in design considerations and may halt the project or dictate the project’s carrying capacity (ie,, a sensitive or threatened species, a steep slope, dangerous areas, etc.) - legal or administrative constraints - financial constraints or stipulations “Another important consideration which needs to be looked at when designing interpretive facilities is who you are designing for. Proper consideration for the site visitor at the planning and design stage will ensure that the visitor will have a positive experience while at the site. To do this effectively, the following must be considered: - scale of use: this will affect the scale of the design features ~ visitor patterns, times of concentration, how long they are anticipated to stay, how long it is desired for them to stay, and will there be return visits? These will suggest scale and programming sequence of design facilities and ‘opportunities. - visitor group size and structure: size of groups, special interests based on group affiliation or intent, special needs based on group size, age, physical mental or language ability - socio-economic characteristics and where the visitor is from may suggest themes for interpretation or particular aspects of the site which would be of interest After looking individually at why, what, and for whom the site is being interpreted, there should be an understanding of the rough physical layout for the design, the where, on the site. The timing of site use and programming, the when, will be determined by user characteristics and by special site and management consideration. The how, will be determined by management desires, user needs, resource limitations and the needs of the particular program 747ay biosphere reserve and ecotourism planning in tropical and subtropical Central and | South Americas and other parts of the world References : Andrews, J. and J. Kusler, eds. 1989. Proceedings of the Ist International Ecotourism Workshop (17-19 April 1989 Merida, Yucatan, Mexico). (In press). | Baker, EJ., ed. 1980. Hurricanes and Coastal Storms, Report Number 33, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Bryden, JM. 1973. Tourism and Development. Cambridge University Press, London. Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1989. Ecological and Cultura Tourism in Mexico as a Means of Conservation and Socioeconomic Development. Paper presented at the 1989 | International Workshop on Ecotourism and the Yucatan and Maya Region, Merida, Mexico. Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Longen Group Ltd., London. Chambers, R. 1985. Shortcut Methods of Gathering Social Information for Rural Development Projects, pp. 399-414, In Michael M. Cernea, Putting People First, Oxford University Press. Chapin, M. 1986. The Panimanian iguana renaissance. Grassroots Development 10(2):2-7. Chapin, M. 1988. The seduction of models: Chinampa agriculture in Mexico. Grassroots Development 12(1):8-17. ; Coutianos, K-E. 1980. Concepts of Ecodevelopment Tourism for Small Caribbean Islands. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Countryside Commission. 1977. Advisory Series, Interpretive Planning, Countryside Commission, Cheltenham, UK De Walt, BR. 1988. Halfway there: Social science in Agricultural development and the Social Science of Agricultural Development. Human Organization 47(4):343- 353. Drake, S.F. 1989. Development of a local participation component for the Yucatan Ecotourism Plan. Paper presented at the 1989 International Workshop on Ecotourism and the Yucatan and Maya Region, Merida, Mexico. 748ie, eee Sener Dunkel, D.R. 1984. Tourism and the Environment: A Review of the Lite Issues. Environmental Sociology, Number 37, Spring 1984. ener Faust, B.B. 1989. Maya Culture and Maya Participation in the International ‘Ecotourism and Resource Conservation Project. Paper presented at the 1989 International Workshop on Ecotourism and the Yucatan and Maya Region, Merida, Mexico. Fernside, FM. 1989. Human Carrying Capacity of the Brazilian Rain Forest. New York: Columbia University Press. Garrett, W.E. 1989. La Ruta Maya. National Geographic 176(4):424-460. Geisler, G.C., D. Usher, R. Green, and P. West, eds. 1982. Indian SLA: The Social Impact Assessment and Rapid Resource Development on Native Peoples. U- Mich. Nat. Res. Soc. Res. Lab. Monogr. 3, 448 pp- Glick, D. 1988. Key Issues in the relationship between wildland conservation and indigenous peoples in Latin America. Contrib. Paper, World Bank, unpublished, 2 pp. Goldschmidt, G.O. 1978. As You Saw It. Totawa, New Jersey: Allenheld-Osmur. Gradwohl, J. and R, Greenberg. 1988. Saving the Tropical Forests. Washington, D.C Island Press. Hewitt de Alcantara, C. 1984. Anthropological Perspectives in Rural Mexico, Houseal, B., C. Macfarland, G. Archibald, A. Chiari. 1985. Indigenous cultures and protected areas in Central America. Cult. Surv. Quart. 9(1) 10-20. Kottack, C.P. 1985. When people don't come first: Some sociological lessons from completed projects. In Michael M. Cernes, Putting People First. London: Oxford University Press. Lowenthal, D. 1968. The Environmental Perception and Behavior. University of Chicago, Geography. MacCommell, Dean. 1983. Agrobusiness and the Small Community: Background Paper to Technology, Public Policy and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C. Martin, GJ. 1988. Ethnobotanical Studies, Oaxaca, Mexico Proj. Report WWF-US, unpublished, 16 pp. Matinson, KS. and DR. Field. 1985. People, Human Behavior and Water Based 749 aee, Recreation: A Working Bibliography. National Park Service Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, Mitsch, J. 1984. Hazard perception structure: Convergent concerns and divergent approaches during the last decade. In Saarinen, T. et al., eds., Environmental Perception and Behavior: An Inventory and Prospect. Oaks, S.0. 1989, An interactive environment/ societal process model for the assessment of vulnerability to hazards. In National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program: Summaries of Technical Reports, Vols. XXVIL, XIX, USS. Dept. of Interior, Washington, D.C. Oaks, $.0. and So. O. Bender. 1989. Hazard reduction and everyday life: ‘opportunities for integration during the decade for national disaster reduction. In Natural Hazard Observer XIV(1)6-7. Poole, P. 1988, Indigenous people/conservation/ sustainable development: A study of overlapping interests and their implications for land use planning and indigenous policies in Latin America. Unpublished manuscript, World Bank, Washington, D.C. Rossel, Pierre. 1988. Tourism: Manufacturing the Exotic. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Copenhagen, Denmark. Salm, R.L. and J.R. Clark. 1984. Marine and Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers. ICUN, Glan, Switzerland. Shaffer, M. 1987. Chapter 5, Minimum viable population: Coping with uncertainty, BP. 69-86. In Michael Soule, ed. Viable Population for Survival. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sheldon, A. 1987. Reorganization at the grassroots. Grassroots Development, 11(2): 27. Simpson, RH. and H. Riehl, 1981. The Hurricane and Ils Impacts. Baton Rouge: LSU Press. ‘Smardon, RC. 1989. Ecotourism and Landscape Design, Planning and Management. Paper presented at the 1989 International Workshop on Ecotourism and the Yucatan and Maya Region, Merida, Mexico. Smardon, RC. 1988. Water recreation in North America. Landscape Urban Planning 16:127-143. Smith, RC. 1987. Indigenous autonomy for grassroots development, Cult, Surv. Quarterly 11(1):8-12 750Sorensen, J.H.M. and G. White. 1980. Natural hazards: A cross cultural perspective. In Altman, N. et al., eds. Human Behavior and Environment, Volume 4 of Environment and Culture. New York: Plenum Press. Swanson, L. 1980. A Study in Socio-Economic Development: Changing Farm Structure and Rural Community Decline in the Context of Technology Transformation of American Agriculture. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Economics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Uphoff, N. 1985. Fitting Projects to People. In Michael M. Cernea, Putting People First, Oxford University Press. Van der Smissen, B. and Christiansen, M.L. 1976. Standards Related to Water- Oriented and Water Enhanced Recreation in Watersheds - Phase I. Res. Publ. 92, Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA., 146 p. 784