Stem 2003

This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]
On: 07 September 2012, At: 07:35

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sustainable
Tourism
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20
How 'Eco' is Ecotourism? A

Comparative Case Study of
Ecotourism in Costa Rica
Caroline J. Stem, James P. Lassoie, David R. Lee &
David J. Deshler
Version of record first published: 29 Mar 2010
To cite this article: Caroline J. Stem, James P. Lassoie, David R. Lee & David J.
Deshler (2003): How 'Eco' is Ecotourism? A Comparative Case Study of Ecotourism in
Costa Rica, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11:4, 322-347
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580308667210
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/

terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not
be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or
damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 07:35 07 September 2012
How ‘Eco’ is Ecotourism? A Comparative
Case Study of Ecotourism in Costa Rica
Caroline J. Stem, James P. Lassoie, David R. Lee and David J. Deshler

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
Ecotourism’s appeal as a conservation and development tool rests in its potential to
provide local economic benefits while maintaining ecological resource integrity
through low-impact, non-consumptive resource use. Some, however, question its
contribution to conservation and community development, citing negative impacts,
such as solid waste generation, habitat destruction, and sociocultural ills. This
paper, based on a comparative study in Costa Rica, explores some of these issues.
Study findings were mixed regarding ecotourism’s effectiveness as a conservation
and community development tool. Survey respondents saw legal restrictions as more
influential than tourism in prompting declines in deforestation and hunting rates.
Likewise, respondents did not feel tourism operators were significant players in
raising environmental awareness. The research also revealed that direct employ-
ment in ecotourism was associated with pro-conservation practices, but indirect
benefits showed stronger associations in generating pro-conservation perspectives.
Little evidence was found to suggest that people are investing tourism-generated
income in environmentally threatening practices. Research findings also indicated
that scale influences tourism’s benefits and negative impacts and that, where
ecotourism dominates local economies, towns may become economically vulnerable.
The paper concludes by recognising that ecotourism would be most effective as a
component of a broader conservation strategy and offers suggestions to improve
ecotourism’s potential.
Introduction
In the past decade, ecotourism has pushed its way to the forefront as one of the
preferred tools for conservation and community development in many rural
areas. Its attractiveness rests in its potential to provide local economic benefits
while also maintaining ecological resource integrity through low-impact,
non-consumptive use of local resources. Nevertheless, success in ecotourism
may lead to failure over the long term. Successful ecotourism initiatives may
draw increasing interest and a correspondingly higher number of tourists, thus
intensifying negative impacts such as solid waste generation, habitat distur-
bance, and trail erosion. Such impacts could seriously threaten the resources
upon which ecotourism depends.
The research presented here explores ecotourism’s potential as a tool for
promoting conservation and community development. After reviewing the
existing literature related to ecotourism’s social and environmental benefits and
impacts, we examine these benefits and impacts more closely, drawing upon
field research from Costa Rica, a country widely acclaimed for embracing
ecotourism as a national conservation and development strategy. We conclude
with a discussion of ecotourism’s place in the broader policy arena and some
0966-9582/03/04 0322-26 $20.00/0 © 2003 C. Stem et al.

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003
322
A Comparative Case Study of Ecotourism in Costa Rica 323
measures which could improve ecotourism’s capacity to positively influence

conservation and community development.
What is ecotourism?
While we do not intend to enter the debate about what constitutes ecotourism,
it is worth noting that definitions and philosophies differ. The International
Ecotourism Society (2001) offers a succinct and widely accepted definition:
‘Ecotourism is responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment
and sustains the well-being of local people.’ The World Conservation Union
(IUCN) also provides a slightly expanded description of ecotourism’s key
characteristics:
[Ecotourism is] environmentally responsible travel and visitation to rela-
tively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature
(and any accompanying cultural features – both past and present) that
promotes conservation, has low visitor impact, and provides for benefi-
cially active socio-economic involvement of local populations (cited in
Brandon, 1996).
With the overwhelming embrace of ecotourism as an environmentally sustain-
able and economically viable conservation strategy, scholars and practitioners
have expressed concern that opportunistic tourism operators are capitalising on
ecotourism’s appeal to promote activities with little or no true attention to envi-
ronmental and social responsibility (Boo, 1990; Honey, 1999b; Wight, 1994).
Acott et al. (1998) describe this situation by offering an extensive discussion of
‘deep ecotourism’ versus ‘shallow ecotourism’. This discussion, premised on
principles associated with deep ecology,1 maintains that deep ecotourism
emphasises nature’s intrinsic value, the importance of community self-determi-
nation and participation, and a preference for small-scale operations. Shallow
ecotourism, on the other hand, involves management decisions based primarily
on utilitarian values. The authors maintain that only deep ecotourism offers
possibilities for long-term sustainability.
Ecotourism benefits
Under ideal circumstances, ecotourism provides local economic benefits
(e.g. employment, improved infrastructure, increased business for local stores)
while also maintaining ecological resource integrity through low-impact,
non-consumptive resource use. Those who advocate ecotourism as a viable
conservation option cite its potentially non-consumptive nature and its financial
promise (Jacobson & Robles, 1992). Unlike many sustainable harvesting initia-
tives, ecotourism consistently provides a financial return per hectare competitive
with current land uses. For instance, Ceballos-Lascuráin (1996) cites a study esti-
mating Amboseli National Park’s financial value (attributable mostly to tourism)
at US$40/ha, as compared to less than US$0.80/ha when used for agriculture.
Another study by Munn (1991, as cited by Brandon, 1996) found that each
free-flying macaw in Peru generated between US$750 and US$4700 annually in
tourism revenues. Ecotourism can also substantially contribute to the local
economy, especially when local residents are involved in its management and
operations (Lindberg et al., 1996; Wunder, 2000).
324 Journal of Sustainable Tourism
In some cases, ecotourism financially supports protected areas through

tourism-related park fees. The mere existence of an ecotourism lodge increases
the number of people visiting the area and, consequently, the gross revenues
contributed to park management. Moreover, in many cases ecotourism offers the
economic justification necessary to establish a protected area (Brandon, 1996).
Ecotourism can also offer success above and beyond that of a traditional inte-
grated conservation and development project. Because ecotourism brings
people closer to local markets, it can be an important, low-cost mechanism for
local businesses and artisans to market and sell their goods (Healy, 1994). Thus,
ecotourism serves as a spin-off for other businesses.
Brandon (1996) also discusses ecotourism’s role in building a constituency to
promote conservation and providing an impetus for private conservation efforts.
Under such circumstances, conservation benefits can extend beyond the imme-
diate scale of the ecotourism venture, as ecotourists (national and international)

become active advocates for conservation in the area visited, as well as in their
home towns or countries. Where ecotourism serves as an impetus to private
conservation efforts, it essentially expands the scope and diversity of protected
areas.
Ecotourism drawbacks
Ironically, however, ecotourism’s success may actually lead to its demise (Boo,
1990; Jacobson & Robles, 1992). Successful ecotourism initiatives may draw
increasing interest and a correspondingly higher number of tourists, thus
increasing negative impacts such as solid waste generation, habitat disturbance,
and forest degradation resulting from trail erosion. Such impacts could seriously
threaten the resources upon which ecotourism depends. Jacobson and Lopez
(1994, as cited in Brandon, 1996: 415) assert that ‘ecotourism cannot be viewed as
a benign, non-consumptive use of natural resources.’ Ecuador’s Galapagos
Islands offer a notable example of the negative impact of nature-based tourism.
In 1974 the Galapagos National Park Management Plan called for a limit of 12,000
tourists per year. Surpassing this limit each year, the 1991 Galapagos Global
Tourism Management Plan dropped the overall maximum limits (Fundación
Natura & WWF, 1997). The large increase in numbers has resulted in erosion
along sensitive trails, plant and animal disturbance, and a general decline in the
quality of the tourism experience (Brandon, 1996).
In addition to its potential environmental drawbacks, ecotourism also often fails
to provide widespread economic benefits. Many scholars question ecotourism’s
contribution to local development, asserting that little or no ecotourism revenue
reaches local people (Healy, 1994; Jacobson & Robles, 1992; McLaren, 1998). For
example, Bookbinder et al. (1998), in their survey of residents in Nepal’s Royal
Chitwan National Park, found that only 6% of surveyed households earned
income directly or indirectly from ecotourism. Lindberg et al. (1996) allude to a
common concern that ecotourism creates relatively few jobs. Even those who
profit financially from tourism find it to be an unstable income source subject to
seasonal fluxes, as well as economic and political events (Epler Wood, 1998;
Jacobson & Robles, 1992).
Tourism, in general, can also contribute to the disintegration of local commu-
nities’ social and cultural structures (Boo, 1990; McLaren, 1998). While many
claim that ecotourism has less serious adverse effects on local people than mass
tourism, the literature suggests there is little difference (Brandon, 1996). Brandon
maintains that tourism’s most serious impact may be the ‘commodification’ of
culture, wherein people and their cultures become marketable commodities. In
addition, tourism may bring rapid changes that erode community cohesion
(Honey, 1999a; McLaren, 1998).
Study Description and Methods

The research presented here took place in Costa Rica, a popular destination
for ecotourists and a country known for its progressive environmental policies.
Over the past two decades, tourism and ecotourism in particular have become
an increasingly important source of revenue for this small Central American
country. Weaver (1999) refers to statistics indicating that between 1964 and
1995, tourism revenues increased over 60 fold, from US $10 million to $661
million. In 1992, tourism actually surpassed the banana trade as Costa Rica’s
leading source of foreign revenue (Weaver, 1999). Presently, about one million
people visit the country annually, a figure equal to nearly one-third of the coun-
try’s total population (Instituto Costaricense de Turismo, 2002). Even in today’s
grim economic and political climate, Costa Rica is one of the few countries to
continue to experience an increase in tourism (World Tourism Organisation,
2002).
Given the importance of tourism and ecotourism to its economy, Costa Rica
offered an ideal site for carrying out the present research. Our study explored
ecotourism’s effect on conservation and community development through
research with four communities involved in ecotourism and two comparison
communities in selected national park buffer zone communities in southern
Costa Rica. The study measured conservation practices and perspectives, partici-
pation in ecotourism, and the local distribution of tourism benefits and impacts.
This paper focuses primarily upon ecotourism’s benefits and impacts and its
potential for promoting conservation and community development. For a
detailed discussion of ecotourism’s association with conservation practices and
perspectives, see Stem et al., 2003.
The ecotourism communities participating in this study border Corcovado
National Park (CNP) and Piedras Blancas National Park (PBNP). Both parks are
located in the southeastern portion of Costa Rica in the Osa Conservation Area
(Figures 1 and 2). Due to their remote locations and perceived difficulties of
access, visitation rates for these parks fall far below those for other national parks
in the country, although CNP is popular amongst those tourists seeking a more
authentic rainforest experience. 2 In terms of biological importance, Corcovado
National Park comprises the largest remnant of tropical, humid Pacific rainforest
in Central America (Servicio de Parques Nacionales, 1995; Vaughan, 1981). The
41,789 hectare park contains a wide range of habitats and is home to increasingly
threatened fauna, such as tapirs and jaguars. Piedras Blancas National Park
(PBNP), located on the mainland near Golfito (Figure 2), encompasses 14,025
hectares and an accompanying 1200 hectares of marine territory, thus creating a
biological corridor with CNP.
Figure 1 Map of Costa Rica and location of ecotourism and comparison study sites
Source: Modified from US Central Intelligence Agency (2002)
The ecotourism case studies involve the communities of La Gamba, Drake Bay
(Agujitas and Los Planes), and Cerro de Oro (Figure 2). La Gamba is a primarily
agricultural community adjacent to Piedras Blancas National Park. Since 1994,
this economically depressed town has been host to a small-scale ecotourism
lodge that employs approximately 15 community members, or about 5% of the
population. Established with funding from the Austrian Government, the
Esquinas Rainforest Lodge was designed to alleviate the high unemployment
rates in La Gamba, as well as provide an alternative to ecologically destructive
forest management practices.
Cerro de Oro, located in the centre of the Osa Peninsula directly bordering
Corcovado National Park (CNP), is a small, isolated town populated mostly by
small-scale gold panners. In the early 1990s, the local gold mining cooperative
CoopeUnioro recognised there was no economic future in mechanised mining.
Figure 2 Map of the Osa Peninsula and ecotourism study sites

Source: Modified from World Headquarters (2001)
Interested in more environmentally sound alternatives, the cooperative aban-

doned mining and opened an ecotourism lodge in Cerro de Oro in 1992. The
lodge provides some limited job opportunities for area residents, but most of the
villagers (33 adults at the time of this study) make their living through gold
panning.
Drake Bay is comprised of five towns that lie close to the Pacific Ocean and
just north of CNP. Specifically, we carried out the research in Agujitas and Los
Planes. Agujitas, situated at the edge of the Pacific Ocean, is the hub of tourism
for Drake Bay. In contrast, at the time of this study, there was no tourism in Los
Planes, which is located an hour’s walk inland from Agujitas and directly
bordering Corcovado. Approximately 90% of Agujitas residents are now
involved in tourism, as compared to about 50% of the residents in Los Planes.
The remaining inhabitants are subsistence farmers or day labourers. Of the
three ecotourism study sites, Drake Bay has been the most successful in estab-
lishing tourism, and a majority of residents have prospered financially. This is
largely due to its ideal ocean location and its proximity to the Corcovado
rainforest.
For comparison purposes, this study also drew upon data from the communi-
ties of Biolley and Altamira, both of which border La Amistad International Park
Table 1 Interview and survey participants by community
Community Qualitative interviews* Surveys

La Gamba 29 (31) 50
Cerro de Oro 14 (20) 31
Drake Bay 34 (39) 47
La Amistad (Altamira and Biolley) 29 (30) 86
Total 106 (120) 214
*First number is the number of interviews, while the second is the number of interviewees. Discrep-
ancies arise from the fact that some qualitative interviews involved multiple people.
in southern Costa Rica.3 These towns were part of a similar Cornell University
project: ‘Policy, Norms, and Values in Forest Conservation: Protected Area
Buffer Zone Management in Central America’. Biolley and Altamira are agricul-
tural towns, with most landowners involved in coffee production. Although
they have an interest in becoming involved in tourism, neither town was beyond
the planning stages at the time of this study. The Amistad towns differ from the
ecotourism sites in their economic base, but they still provide a useful compar-
ison point because they are relatively close to the ecotourism communities, they
share similar agricultural and settlement histories, and they lie directly adjacent
to a national park.
The research design, grounded largely in strategies discussed by Patton (1990)
and Guba and Lincoln (1989), involved a mixed-methods approach, using both
qualitative and quantitative data sources and collection methods (see Table 1 for
a breakdown of participants by community). Key qualitative methods included
semi-structured individual and group interviews, as well as direct observation.
For the semi-structured interviews, we purposefully sampled community
members to gain broad representation in terms of socioeconomic status, educa-
tion levels, gender, and tourism involvement.
In addition to these open-ended interviews, we collected quantitative data
through a researcher-administered survey. While the survey had a general
framework common across all communities, it also included some commu-
nity-specific questions based on results from the qualitative phase. The senior
author, fluent in Spanish, orally administered the survey to a random sample of
50% of self-declared heads of households in each community. Due to the Cerro
de Oro’s small population, she surveyed all willing residents over the age of 16,
for a 94% sample. Because men are typically the heads of households in Costa
Rican families, the majority of the survey data (approximately 90%) comes from
male respondents.
For the purposes of this study, we adapted Becher and Blake’s (1998) frame-
work to identify and work with select tourism operators that applied an
ecotourism philosophy to their work. Interviewees at each site included local
villagers, hotel employees and managers, and other key informants. In addition,
we filled information gaps and gained a broader perspective through interviews
with key informants from governmental and non-governmental organisations
and academic institutions active in the region.
Ecotourism’s Role in Conservation and Protected Area

Management
Ecotourism activities offer a unique opportunity to positively influence
conservation in and around surrounding communities and protected areas.
Nevertheless, the literature on ecotourism provides conflicting evidence of its
contribution to conservation. As discussed earlier, examples exist of ecotourism
advancing conservation objectives by raising awareness and creating jobs, while
other cases illustrate its potential to jeopardise environmental goals through
unintended side effects or the adoption of the term ‘ecotourism’ by those hoping
to capitalise on it. In the following paragraphs, we focus on the Costa Rican study
sites to discuss how ecotourism has both contributed to and detracted from
resource conservation and community development in these areas.
Motivations for resource management decisions

In order to understand ecotourism’s role in encouraging conservation, we
explored community perceptions of motivations for decreased deforestation and
hunting.4 In general, study participants in the ecotourism communities saw both
hunting and deforestation as declining, with 80% and 91% of survey respon-
dents, respectively, citing decreases. Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate the minimal
perceived influence of tourism or increased work opportunities on declining
deforestation and hunting rates. Although people generally agreed that these,
along with environmental awareness, were important in deterring environmen-
tally destructive practices, they overwhelmingly identified legal restrictions as
the most influential factor. In Drake Bay, where tourism is the economic main-
stay, people did attribute to tourism more influence in declining hunting and
deforestation rates. For instance, one respondent noted, ‘The change to tourism –
I think it is good because there is a lot more forest protection . . . Now, there is
much more awareness for protecting the forest.’ In general, however, most
respondents did not view ecotourism as the most important factor influencing
conservation practices. This may reflect, in part, the fact that legal restrictions
often provide nearly instant motivation to change behaviours, while change due
to shifting values and attitudes usually occurs at a much slower pace.
It is interesting to note that legal restrictions appear to play a stronger role in
declining deforestation rates, as compared to hunting rates (Figure 3 and Figure
4). This accords with work by Bruner et al. (2001), which shows that parks have
been more effective in halting land clearing than in stopping hunting. In our case
studies, interviewees mentioned this was the case because it was easier for
hunters to hide from the law and that park officials rarely patrolled at night when
the majority of hunting takes place.
Overall, most people place much of the blame for forest destruction on outside
logging interests. Independent studies generally support these assertions (e.g.
Barrantes et al., 1999). Study participants in La Gamba and Cerro de Oro also
implicated outsiders in hunting taking place near their communities. Those in
Drake Bay did not discuss this issue, possibly because they claim hunting is
virtually non-existent now. While most study participants believed hunting and
deforestation have decreased, many conceded that they had been significant
problems in the past.
Equal/ ‘don’t know’ 7.5%
Other
6.7%
Law
35.8%
Tourism
15.8%
Few animals
Environmental awareness
2.5%
19.2%
Work sources
12.5%
Figure 3 Most important reason for decreased hunting (n = 101 who believe
hunting has decreased)
Note: Some gave more than one most important reason. Cerro de Oro residents
were not asked if work sources played a role because this was not an issue there.
In La Gamba, we did not ask people about tourism, as originally we planned to
keep this imbedded within work sources.
Ecotourism’s association with conservation practices and perspectives

In terms of influencing conservation practices and perspectives, this study
found ecotourism has had mixed results, as discussed in greater detail by Stem et
al. (2003). Linear regression results reported by the authors indicate that respon-
dents who have a family member working in ecotourism tended to have a
statistically significant greater percentage of their land under forest cover. The
underlying motive for pro-conservation behaviours, however, was not obvious.
While some respondents claimed they left their land in forest cover because they
recognised its value for tourism, many also implied limited time was an impor-
tant factor influencing their resource management decisions. For example, one
hotel employee remarked, ‘When I started [working] here . . . the hunting I did
was a Sunday tradition . . . I hunted simply for fun and to eat some meat at
home . . . but now that I have my job, I don’t have time any more.’ Such a response
suggests that this person stopped hunting because he no longer had disposable
time, not because he had developed stronger conservation values as a result of
his experience working in ecotourism. Wunder (2000), drew similar conclusions
from his study on ecotourism in the Ecuadorian Amazon. He surmised that
declines in hunting rates were related to reduced labour time rather than
increased income. Stem et al. (2003) also suggest that ecotourism’s direct influ-
ence on pro-conservation perspectives is minimal. People benefiting indirectly
Equal/ ‘don’t know’ 9.4%
Other
6.3%
Tourism
12.5% Law
47.7%
Environmental awareness
12.5%
Work sources Few trees

9.4% 2.3%
Figure 4 Most important reason for decreased deforestation (n = 117 who believe
deforestation has decreased).
Note: Cerro de Oro residents were not asked if work sources played a role because
this was not an issue there. In La Gamba, we did not ask people about tourism, as
originally we planned to keep that imbedded within work sources
from tourism through ideas exchange, training, and infrastructure improve-

ments, however, were more likely to show stronger pro-conservation leanings.
Effect of scale
Although perhaps a predictable finding, it is important to emphasise that scale
influences tourism-related benefits and impacts, a claim also made by Boo (1990)
in her five-country analysis of ecotourism’s potential and drawbacks. In La
Gamba and Cerro de Oro, where tourism occupies only a minor position in the
local economy, we found that few people benefit from tourism. At the same time,
few experience any negative impacts from tourism and were often surprised
when asked about such impacts (Figures 5 and 6). Meanwhile, in Drake Bay, the
economy is almost entirely dependent upon tourism. Benefits, including
increased income, training opportunities, and improved infrastructure, have
been widespread, but so have cultural, social, economic, and environmental
impacts, as illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6. Figure 5 reveals that only about
30% of survey respondents in La Gamba feel they have benefited from tourism in
any way, while even fewer people in Cerro de Oro claimed to have benefited,
with the notable exception of those who indicated they benefited from inter-
changing ideas with tourists. In contrast, those in Drake Bay, especially Agujitas,
cited numerous tourism-related benefits they have experienced. Nearly all
La Gamba (n = 50) Cerro de Oro (n = 31)
Drake (Agujitas) (n = 30) Drake (Los Planes) (n = 17)

In
In
Id
Tr
In
Id
Tr
In
ire
ire
di
di
ea
fr
ea
ai
fr
ai
as
re
re
ct
as
se
s
ct
ni
in
t
ct
ex
ct
tr
e
ng
ru
xc
g
m
uc
m
ch
i
i
ct
nc
nc
ha
pl
pl
tu
a
u
om
om
ng
oy
ng
o
re
re
ym
m
e
e
e
e
en
en
t
Figure 5 Cross-community comparison of respondents who have shared in

tourism benefits
interviewees believed their lives had improved overall since tourism’s arrival.
For example, one hotel employee in Drake Bay described how he has benefited
from tourism: ‘They have offered me support, and I have learned a lot – like how
to treat tourists. I have benefited a lot . . . from the economic aspects, knowledge,
the opportunity they gave me.’ Most notably, tourism has helped the community
to prosper economically and provide greater educational opportunities to its
inhabitants. For instance, in the past few years, Agujitas, with support from local
hotel operators, has constructed a high school and a staffed clinic, both of which
are infrastructure items rarely found in remote rural areas like Drake Bay.
In terms of negative tourism impacts, La Gamba and Cerro de Oro residents
noted few, outside of minimal local involvement, but those in Drake Bay cited
numerous negative impacts, including increased solid waste generation, cultural
loss, community and familial disintegration, and increased access to alcohol and
drugs (Figure 6). Specifically, many spoke of families falling apart because
spouses became involved with tourists and of people losing their traditions
while trying to emulate foreigners. In Drake Bay, several interviewees expressed
regret that they no longer felt a sense of unity amongst villagers. They noted their
neighbours, concerned with reaping the greatest financial benefit, would sooner
help a tourist than a local resident. As one resident explains, ‘He who benefits
from tourism thinks he is above him who is not working in tourism all the time.
He strives to fit in well with tourism, not with his neighbour . . . who has been his
own friend . . . We are now worth less to them.’ Although tourism in Drake Bay is
still not developed enough to cause concern about habitat disturbance, several
respondents did complain of solid waste disposal problems. At the time of the
study, a few hotels were dumping their organic wastes at sea, much of which
washed up on local beaches.5 Regardless of arguments that waste quantities were
small enough for the ocean to assimilate, many interviewees were upset by this
practice.
In broader terms, tourism in Drake Bay has become analogous to monoculture

farming. It has left the economy without any diversity to shelter people in difficult
times, an issue Boo (1990) also discusses as a drawback to ecotourism. In the wake
of recent terrorism attacks, the risks associated with a narrow economy have
become even more real. Indeed, Epler Wood (2001) observes that the travel and
tourism community has suffered some of the greatest economic losses stemming
from drops in tourism associated with the September 11th attacks, although she
expresses hope that ecotourism’s niche market may make it more resilient. In addi-
tion to impacts related to a vulnerable economy, many in Drake Bay feel they have
lost their independence. Tourism has transformed the economy from a subsistence
to a monetary one, in which people own land, yet they feel frustrated that they
must buy their food at the local stores and pay exorbitant prices. As one resident
explain, ‘Now, you go and you buy rice in the pulpería [local store], beans – before,
all that, the people cultivated here, with their own hands . . . Now, everyone comes
from work in the hotels and goes to the pulpería’.
Thus, as the previous paragraphs indicate, ecotourism may negatively impact
conservation through unintended economic, cultural, social, and environmental
side effects, although the severity of those impacts is related to the scale of tourism
within the community. Moreover, ecotourism may also lead to unintended conse-
quences for community development, especially when it dominates the economy.
Investment of tourism-generated money

An emerging concern in the integrated conservation and development project
(ICDP) literature relates to what some term a ‘conservation back-fire’ (e.g.
Langholz, 1999). The typical example involves improving income sources and
employment opportunities for rural landowners. The ICDP literature holds that
this would occupy the landowner’s time, satisfy economic needs, and avoid the
need to exploit local resources. Some critics of ICDPs claim such views are
short-sighted, arguing against assumptions that people have fixed income needs
that they will not be motivated to surpass (see Brandon & Wells, 1992; Ferraro &
Kramer, 1995; Langholz, 1999). Such critics contend that rural landowners now
have money, for example, to invest in chainsaws or in employing additional
people to work their land.
For the communities participating in this study, this does not appear to be an
issue. As seen in Figure 7, most people claimed to have used money generated by
tourism primarily for family well-being: basic subsistence, health, education,
and home improvements. When asked how they would spend their money if
they had additional disposable income, family well-being again emerged as the
most important investment, followed by savings, personal amenities, and
tourism development. Many said they would invest in some resource-intensive
practices (e.g. deforestation, buying livestock, and/or investing in mechanised
agriculture) but when asked to name their top priority, only 3% indicated they
would invest in such practices, as compared to nearly 60% who said they would
work on improving family well-being (Figure 8).6 Responses in the La Amistad
communities were similar, although there was a greater interest in using addi-
tional funds for resource-intence practices. Once again though, when asked to
choose how they would first spend additional money, family well-being
emerged as the clear priority (Figure 9). In fact, family well-being appears to be
100%
80%
Responses
Valid responses
60%
% Valid
40%
%
20%
0%
RRe e
TTo
PPee
FFaa
BBu
SSaa
soso
ouu
rsrs
vvi i
mm
uyy
rirsi
oonn
uur r
nngg
iliyl
lala
m
nnd
sm
ce e
aal l
yw
ss
c
-i-nin
we
inin
amam
lell-l
vve
tete
enen
b-eb
setst
nsns
itiit
mm
ieni
ive
eises
gng
enen
e
tt
Figure 7 How people have
n=47 for all invested
variables tourism moneyinvestment,
except tourism (n = 47 forwhere
all variables
n=33 except
tourism investment, where n = 33).
Note: Only residents in Drake Bay were asked about tourism investment, as this
was not a viable option in the other communities.
an even greater priority in the La Amistad communities than in the ecotourism

communities. An analysis of the individual ecotourism communities reveals the
difference in distribution is due to responses in Cerro de Oro and Drake Bay,
where priorities were more evenly distributed, although family well-being was
still the highest. In Cerro de Oro, a lower percentage of respondents named
family well-being as their top priority most likely because few had families or an
interest in establishing a conventional lifestyle. In Drake Bay, the difference is
likely to be due to the fact that families were prosperous enough to focus on other
priorities (e.g., savings). In addition, some residents in Los Planes (Drake Bay)
were desperate to escape park restrictions and, as a consequence, also put high
priority on issues such as leaving the community. In general, however, there is
little anecdotal or survey data to indicate that people across the research sites are
investing tourism income in more intensive resource exploitation. Moreover,
there is no evidence that, with increased incomes, people would invest in envi-
ronmentally destructive practices.
Contribution to environmental knowledge

The study also explored how people gather information about forests and
wildlife. As is likely to be true in various cultures, the majority of people across
Ecotourism communities
Equal/ ‘don’t know’
Other
Leave community
Family well-being
Savings
Personal amenities
Tourism investment
Buy land
Resource-intensive
Figure 8 First priority for how respondents would spend more money were it
available, ecotourism communities (n = 128)
Note: In the ecotourism sites, respondents sometimes gave more than one response
for the first thing they would do.
the study sites professed they learned the most through their own personal expe-
riences (Table 2 and Figures 10 and 11). These experiences include working the
land, hunting, growing up in the countryside, and witnessing first-hand the
consequences of the way others have managed the land. With respect to the last
category, it was interesting that at least a few people in each site referred to wide-
spread deforestation and resultant arid conditions in the province of Guanacaste
as an example of what they did not want to happen to their community. One man
in La Gamba commented, ‘Imagine how the climate is here – here it is super hot,
and if we make it a desert, imagine! So, I ask myself, “What are we going to do if
we cut the forest?” It’s going to be . . . worse than Guanacaste.’ Thus, in learning
from past experiences, such as those in Guanacaste, many respondents felt
compelled to act to prevent a similar situation. This result corresponds with work
by Jantzi et al. (1999), who also found that Costa Rican farmers who had experi-
enced environmental degradation in other regions of the country were more
likely to be concerned with environmental issues.
In terms of most important sources of environmental information, parents
were ranked second only to experience for both the ecotourism and comparison
communities (Figures 10 and 11). In addition, respondents mentioned that
grandparents, as well as younger generations, were important in conveying
La Amistad communities
Other
Savings
Personal amenities
Buy land
Resource-intensive
Family well-being
Figure 9 First priority for how respondents would spend more money were it
available, La Amistad communities (n = 86)
environmental information and raising awareness. Radio and television are

other factors contributing to knowledge on forests and wildlife. Many people
referred to La Planeta Azul or similar television shows that have helped them
understand the importance of protecting the environment. Some mentioned the
role of school in advancing learning about forests and wildlife, but the impor-
tance of formal education is still relatively moderate. This may be partly due to
the fact that research participants were adults who said teachers did not talk
about the environment when they were in school. They acknowledged that
today’s children learn more about this. Some even said they have learned
through children who tell them about what they heard at school.
Across the ecotourism sites, park personnel have failed to contribute substan-
tially to environmental learning in the communities the parks border (Figures 10
and 11). Quite a few people scoffed when asked if they had learned anything
about forests and wildlife from the park guards. Some even said they felt they
had to teach the park guards, claiming that most guards come from other parts of
the country, often urban areas. For example, one Cerro de Oro resident claimed
‘You have to give [the park guards] information because they don’t know
anything.’ Whether there is validity to these claims is not as relevant as the fact
that many community members feel they learn little from park personnel. This
trend, however, was less apparent in the Amistad communities, where several
people mentioned the important role park personnel have played in educating
Table 2 Sources of environmental information, ecotourism communities
Source of environmental Affirmative responses Affirmative responses (La

information (ecotourism communities) Amistad communities)
Experience 98% 99%
Radio/TV 80% 93%
Parents 66% 49%
Tourists 66% 45%
School (n = 95, 74)* 61% 65%
Organisations (n = 97)† 61% 51%
Community members 60% 67%
Park guards 55% 74%

Hotel(s) 50% n/a
Other 37% n/a
Church (n = 107)‡ 32% 48%
*The discrepancy in sample size is due to the fact that 33 and 12 people did not attend school in the
ecotourism and La Amsitad communities, respectively.
†Since no extension organisations work in Cerro de Oro, I did not ask this question there.
‡The discrepancy in sample size is due to the fact that 21 people in the ecotourism communities did
not pertain to any religion. Although there were some in the La Amistad communities who did not
pertain to a religion, they still answered this question.
local communities (Table 2). This difference may be due, in part, to recent efforts
by La Amistad park officials to improve park–community relations. Schelhas,
the lead researcher on the previously mentioned ‘Policy, Norms, and Values in
Forest Conservation’ project, indicates that these outreach efforts may have
contributed to the generally favourable attitudes towards the park at the time of
the study (J. Schelhas, pers. comm. October 2002). In addition, a closer analysis of
the data by community indicates that responses in Cerro de Oro and, to a lesser
extent, La Gamba are responsible for most of the difference seen in Table 2. This is
probably due to the fact that the gold panners in Cerro de Oro have had a very
negative experience with park personnel who constantly pursue them and
confiscate their equipment for panning within park borders.7 Meanwhile, many
in La Gamba still harbour resentment over the relatively recent creation of
Piedras Blancas National Park and the resultant restrictions imposed on land-
owners. Finally, it is also worth noting that some park personnel, operating in
under-staffed conditions, may be overwhelmed by enforcement activities and
lack the time or interest to assume the role of conservation educator.
The other notable difference between the ecotourism and comparison
communities visible in Figures 10 and 11 is the greater percentage of La
Amistad residents who see extension organisations as the most important
source of environmental information. This may be due, in part, to the outreach
attempts from park personnel, as described above. Interestingly, however,
there is probably a slightly stronger institutional presence in the ecotourism
communities (especially La Gamba and Agujitas, Drake Bay) than in the
Ecotourism communities
Other Parents
Ext. organisations
Community members
Hotel(s)
Tourists
Park guards
Radio/TV Experience
School
Church
Figure 10 Most important sources of environmental information, ecotourism

communities (n = 128)
Note: In the ecotourism sites, respondents sometimes gave more than one response
for their most important source.
comparison communities. In the Amistad area, the National Biodiversity Insti-

tute (INBio) has helped support a couple of parataxonomistswho work out of the
Altamira ranger station, while Fundación Neotrópica has worked with La Gamba
residents in recent years to encourage conservation through community devel-
opment projects. Although Neotrópica also has an established presence on the
Osa Peninsula, the organisation was not undertaking any activities in the other
study villages at the time of this study. In Cerro de Oro there are no extension
organisations present. Drake Bay (particularly Agujitas) receives a fair amount
of support from a variety of avenues, including the tourism operators, develop-
ment organisations like the National Institute of Learning (INA), and a locally
organised and managed community development association. Perhaps one
explanation for the unexpected discrepancy seen in Figures 10 and 11 is the nega-
tive experience many residents in the ecotourism communities have had with
outside organisations. For example, some feel they have been deceived by
governmental institutions that have restricted their land use or have tried to take
their land, often with prolonged or indefinite delays in producing financial
compensation.8 Similarly, in Los Planes, residents find themselves at the centre of
a debate between two governmental organisations over the legality of their
government-issued titles. They are frustrated with delays and what they
perceive as deceptions in recognising these titles. As one embittered Los Planes
La Amistad communities

Parents
Ext. organisations
Tourists Community members
Park guards
Radio/TV
School
Church
Experience
Figure 11 Most important source of environmental information, La Amistad

communities (n = 86)
Note: La Amistad communities were not asked ‘hotels’ or ‘others’.
resident remarked, ‘How am I not going to be upset . . . [they] don’t know

anything about our situation . . . [I have grown old] watching them deceive us.’
With these and related conflicts, residents in the ecotourism communities may be
reluctant to look to outside organisations for information or assistance in envi-
ronmental or other matters.
The most comprehensive definitions of ecotourism (e.g. Honey, 1999a; Inter-
national Ecotourism Society, 1993) include local capacity building as a key
component, yet, across the sites, hotels play only a minor role in increasing envi-
ronmental knowledge and training in general. This is evident from the
surprising finding that more people in the ecotourism communities actually cite
tourists, compared with hotels, as important sources of environmental informa-
tion (see Table 2 and Figure 10). Open-ended interviews with hotel personnel
revealed that several individuals who work in the hotels have expanded their
environmental knowledge through their workplace. Nevertheless, as the survey
results reveal, hotels have been less effective in increasing environmental aware-
ness amongst the broader population.
Ecotourism capacity building in general is a key concern for many Costa
Ricans, as became clear in a follow-up meeting with various institutions working
in conservation, tourism, and park management in Puerto Jiménez in June 2001.9
People at this meeting expressed concern that capacity building should extend
beyond training in menial tasks. They believed it should focus on building entre-
preneurial expertise so that Costa Ricans have as many possibilities to tap into
the tourism market as do foreigners. There seems to be some movement in this
direction, as evidenced by the recent creation of The Association for Sustainable
Tourism Development in the Osa Peninsula (ADETUS). The mission of this
group is to promote the development of sustainable tourism activities in the Osa
Peninsula in a way that ensures the least environmental impact, the most social
benefit, the fulfilment of legal and regulatory obligations, and natural resource
conservation into perpetuity (González, 2001). ADETUS is very young, and it is
unclear if it will play a significant role in capacity building, but several people
indicated they saw its creation as a positive development that might give
communities and tourism operators a stronger voice in tourism development.
They cautioned, however, that to be successful, those involved must not become
mired in political manoeuvring.
Broader policy concerns

Perhaps a more serious issue in alternative economic development strategies
to forest and wildlife management is how effective these strategies can be in
addressing larger conservation threats (e.g. Kramer et al., 1997; Salafsky et al.,
1999; Ulfelder et al., 1998; Wells et al., 1992). Small-scale initiatives are likely to
have only small-scale successes. While such successes are important, it is critical
to keep in mind that conservation through development should not be a
stand-alone protection strategy. For instance, in the case of Corcovado, govern-
ment-sanctioned large-scale logging presently represents the primary threat to
the buffer zone (see Barrantes et al., 1999, for a full discussion).
The case studies revealed that people who live close to parks and are subject
to resource use restrictions are likely to harbour some hostile feelings about
limits imposed upon them. In a few cases, interactions between park personnel
and neighbouring residents were highly negative. For instance, one miner in
Cerro de Oro spoke of an encounter he had with park guards who found him
mining illegally and tried to take away his machete. When he resisted, he said
one of the park guards fired a blank at him. The miner’s reaction to this event is
predictable: ‘They just try to impress people, and they just make you hate
them.’
In general, consistent anecdotal information from this study indicates park
personnel are probably over-emphasising the need to patrol communities and
limit small-scale use, while simultaneously openly sanctioning wide-scale defor-
estation by timber interests. Many study participants across all sites observed
that they could not cut a single tree on their property to construct their home,
while outside logging companies could send truckloads of trees out daily.
Although companies must submit extensive management plans, numerous
people claimed they do not comply with plan standards. Barrantes et al. (1999)
voice similar complaints. While this is common knowledge amongst Costa
Ricans, the Government turns a blind eye.
Study findings also indicate that the laws, as presently defined and applied,
are creating some perverse incentives that discourage wise land management.
Some respondents confided they felt forced to clandestinely cut the one or two
trees they needed for household use, rather than submit themselves to a costly
and time-consuming bureaucratic process. Others said they made sure to period-
ically clear areas, even if they were not ready to plant them. Otherwise, the fallow
land would regenerate to such an extent that the Government would no longer
allow them to work that area.
To address these and related broad policy concerns, three hotels from Drake
Bay have joined forces to form the Fundación Corcovado, an organisation whose
mission is to lobby for the improved protection of Corcovado National Park. At
the time of the study, Fundación Corcovado was working with the Costa Rican
Park Service to designate and fund two local people to serve as community
conservation guards. Under formal arrangements between the Park Service
and Fundación Corcovado, these guards would be officially considered Park
Service employees. Such efforts are certainly admirable and valuable. In the
larger picture, however, ecotourism is not likely to have an impact on
broader policy concerns unless a strong contingency of tourism operators

forms to push policy issues, as the Fundación Corcovado has. In addition, when
considering ecotourism’s potential contribution to conservation, it is important
to recognise that local communities may not be the larger threat to the
surrounding forests.
Conclusions and Recommendations

In summary, results from this comparative study indicate that ecotourism
has had mixed conservation impact. Nearly half of the study participants see
legal restrictions as the most influential factor in declining deforestation and
hunting rates and give tourism only minimal credit for these changes. Many
research participants also noted broader policy concerns and asserted that
outside interests were responsible for the majority of forest and wildlife
destruction. Results from Stem et al. (2003) indicate direct employment in
ecotourism was associated with stronger conservation practices, but its impact
on conservation perspectives was negligible. Their findings also suggest indi-
rect benefits may be more important than direct benefits, at least with respect to
generating pro-conservation perspectives. In addition, the research presented
here indicates little evidence exists to suggest that people use or would use
tourism-generated income for resource-intensive practices. Most cited family
well-being as their primary concern. The study also found that scale influences
the benefits and impacts associated with ecotourism and that, where ecotourism
dominates, communities may become economically vulnerable. Finally, find-
ings reveal that tourism enterprises do not play a significant role in informing
communities about forests and wildlife. Moreover, their role in general
capacity building is minimal.
These findings illustrate the complexity of ecotourism’s role in conservation
and protected area management. Where it is an economically viable alternative,
ecotourism may offer significant economic benefits and discourage the conver-
sion of forest to agricultural and pastoral land. On the other hand, negative
social, cultural, and economic impacts may also accompany ecotourism. In
places where tourism dominates, it would be wise, to the extent possible, for
communities to diversify their economy to avoid dependence upon one product
and consequent susceptibility to demand fluctuations. It would be imprudent to
suggest there is an ideal, prescribed level at which tourism offers the maximum
benefit for the least impact, as successes and failures are often context-specific.
Nevertheless, it seems clear that ecotourism offers greater conservation and
development potential when it is a significant force in the local economy and
when it offers widespread benefits without comprising the community’s sole
economic base.
Study results imply ecotourism falls short of having a significant influence on
conservation knowledge or perspectives. Ecotourism is not likely to be an effec-
tive conservation strategy if it operates only through occupying community
members’ time or creating economic incentives to make standing forests more
valuable. Without attention to creating awareness and/or reinforcing respect for
nature, questions will remain about people’s commitment to conservation.
Although financial concerns are likely to play a role in resource management,
higher levels of awareness or appreciation could ensure greater potential for

favourable conservation practices over the long term. Salafsky et al. (1999), for
example, allude to the importance of education and awareness raising in helping
conservation-based enterprises achieve their environmental goals.
As discussed earlier, follow-up work on this study revealed a high level of
concern regarding capacity building in ecotourism. Those attending the follow-
up meeting felt capacity building should extend beyond training in menial tasks.
Although it is unrealistic to expect tourism operators to support entrepreneurial
training for employees or community members, conservation or community
development organisations should consider how to address such concerns to
help increase meaningful participation in tourism at a broader scale.
Across the ecotourism case sites, respondents agreed that local involvement
in and benefit from tourism could be improved. This finding coincides with
Honey’s (1999a) broader claim that ecotourism projects have shown disap-
pointing results in terms of participation. People suggested simple measures to
improve local involvement, such as increased interaction between tourists and
the community. If hotels work towards increasing interaction between tourists
and local residents, it will be important to raise awareness amongst travellers
about local cultural and social history, so as to minimise negative sociocultural
impacts. Ecotourism operators may also wish to organise cultural tours with a
few different community groups to ensure a meaningful experience for both
the tourists and the community members. Villagers in La Gamba and Drake
Bay also mentioned their desires for greater opportunities to sell local products
to nearby hotels. Such an endeavour would require effort from both ends, with
local residents ensuring a steady and predictable source of a particular product
and the hotels committing to purchase that item at a fair, mutually acceptable
price.
If community support for ecotourism is to be sustainable, ecotourism lodges
should play a serious role in both being good neighbours and setting a model
example for the local community. If, as was happening in Drake Bay, ecologically
orientated hotels dump their organic garbage out at sea or clean their boat
engines in the river, communities may begin to question the lodges’ ecological
mission. Moreover, such practices could be perceived as a lack of respect for the
environment, as well as neighbouring residents. Very simple options, such as
composting and recycling, are available to remedy these problems. Although
such measures could help resolve some waste management practices, it is impor-
tant to also consider the large volume of wastes generated. As one hotel manager
commented, to be truly ecological, it is necessary to factor in other costs, such as
fuel needed to transport recyclables to recycling destinations. Based upon these
and related observations, ecotourism operators might find it worthwhile to
contract a waste management consultant or lodge owners in other areas to devise
more creative solutions to garbage disposal problems.10
Study results suggest a need to move beyond considering ecotourism as a
non-consumptive use of resources. Under ideal circumstances, ecotourism
may be less consumptive than other available alternatives, but it is important to
critically examine both its costs and benefits. While financial benefits associ-
ated with ecotourism do show potential to positively affect conservation
behaviours, this research implies that economic factors are not the sole
motivators behind conservation perspectives and practices. Consequently,

ecotourism should be considered a component of a larger plan that addresses
protected area management through a variety of avenues, including legal
restrictions.
In terms of restrictions, however, wider policy reform is necessary. Hard-line
policies often create antagonistic relationships that may have severe detrimental
consequences over the long term (Brechin et al., 1991). This situation was evident
throughout the study sites, where feelings of animosity stemming from poor
community–park relations were pervasive. Many scholars and practitioners
would argue it is neither sound conservation policy nor morally just to sanction
wide-scale deforestation while prohibiting small landholders from cutting select
trees for household consumption (e.g. see broader discussions by Brandon &
Wells, 1992; Brechin et al., 1991). Thus, broader policy reform is needed to
address the greatest threats to protected area management.
The suggestions provided here represent potential steps for working towards
a more ideal ecotourism, but it is important to keep in mind the local realities and
the feasibility of implementing such recommendations. This study and the ques-
tions it addressed provide valuable insight on the role of ecotourism and
alternative economic development initiatives as protected area management
strategies. Nevertheless, it provides only a snapshot of what is occurring in four
Costa Rican ecotourism communities at a single point in time. There is a need for
similar studies in other areas and additional systematic research on benefits and
impacts and ecotourism’s overall role in conservation. Under ideal circum-
stances, such studies should be designed to allow for site-specific, temporal
comparisons with exposure to tourism. To the extent possible, studies should
respond to management needs, and researchers should ensure their results reach
the intended audience in a clear and relevant format. Ecotourism will stand a
greater chance of positively influencing conservation and development if such
in-depth studies help inform ecotourism operations and if tourism operators
demonstrate a firm commitment to seriously embrace and advance conservation
strategies and ensure meaningful local involvement.
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Caroline Stem (cjs33@cornell.edu).
Notes
1. For a detailed discussion of deep ecology, see Sessions, G. (1995) Deep Ecology for the
Twenty-first Century, pp. 488, Random House, Boston, MA and Devall, B. and
Sessions, G. (1985) Deep Ecology, G.M. Smith, Salt Lake City, Utah.
2. Based on statistics from the Instituto Costaricense de Turismo, 1998.
3. Approximately 50% of the questions from the ecotourism communities overlapped
with those from the comparison communities. We present data from both sets of
communities when comparable data are available. Many of the questions, however,
were specific to the ecotourism context and, as such, do not have comparison data
available.
4. This question was asked only in the ecotourism communities.
5. When the senior author returned in June 2001, the hotels had ceased this practice.
6. The percentages differ slightly from the graph, as respondents in the ecotourism
communities sometimes stated more than one top priority. As a result, total percent-
ages added up to 114%. Although this slightly changes the actual percentages, the
overall trend is clear and unaffected.

7. Because of an error in the labelling of rivers, park officials and gold panners do not
agree on the boundaries of Corcovado National Park. Thus, many gold panners claim
they are panning at the boundary of the park, while park officials maintain they are
inside the park.
8. As of February 2000, the Government had only bought 116 hectares of Piedras Blancas
National Park’s 14,025 hectare extension (Segnini, 2000).
9. The senior author returned to Costa Rica to present study results to the communities
where she worked, as well as to interested organisations or people working in
protected area management, tourism, and community development.
10. For example, see the experience of Maho Bay resort in St John, Virgin Islands
(www.maho.org), where the owner has developed creative, artistic, and profitable
methods for handling waste.
References
Acott, T.G., LaTrobe, H.L. and Howard, S.H. (1998) An evaluation of deep ecotourism and
shallow ecotourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(3), 238–53.
Barrantes, G., Jiménez, Q., Lobo, J., Maldonado, T., Quesada, M. and Quesada, R. (1999)
Evaluación de los Planes de Manejo Forestal Autorizados en el Período 1997–1999 en la Penin-
sula de Osa. Cumplimiento de Normas Técnicas, Ambientales e Impacto Sobre el Bosque
Natural. Puerto Jiménez, Costa Rica: Fundación Cecropia.
Becher, A. and Blake, B. (1998) Hierarchy of importance of criteria for the New Key
Sustainable Tourism Survey, [Internet]. On WWW at http://www2.planeta.com/
mader/planeta/0898/0898rating2.html. Accessed 8.8.99.
Boo, E. (1990) Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls. Washington, DC: World Wildlife
Fund.
Bookbinder, M.P., Dinerstein, E., Arun, R., Cauley, H. and Arup, R. (1998) Ecotourism’s
support of biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 12(6), 1399–404.
Brandon, K. (1996) Ecotourism and Conservation: A Review of Key Issues. World Bank Envi-
ronment Department Papers No. 33. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Brandon, K.E., and Wells, M. (1992) Planning for people and parks: Design dilemmas.
World Development 20(4), 557–70.
Brechin, S.R., West, P.C., Harmon, D. and Kutay, K. (1991)Resident peoples and protected
areas: A framework for inquiry. In P.C. West and S.R. Brechin (eds) Resident Peoples and
National Parks: Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation. Tucson, AZ:
University of Arizona Press.
Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E., and da Fonseca, G.A.B. (2001) Effectiveness of
parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291, 125–8.
Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1996) Tourism, Ecotourism, and Protected Areas. Gland, Switzer-
land: IUCN.
Devall, B. and Sessions, G. (1985) Deep Ecology. Salt Lake City, UT: G.M. Smith.
Epler Wood, M. (1998) Meeting the Global Challenge of Community Participation in

Ecotourism: Case Studies and Lessons from Ecuador (vol. 2). Arlington, VA: Nature
Conservancy.
Epler Wood, M. (2001) Global understanding in troubled times (The Ecotourism
Observer). On WWW at http://www.ecotourism.org/observer/112001/media_advi-
sory.asp. Accessed 7.11.01.
Ferraro, P.J. and Kramer, R.A. (1995) A Framework for Affecting Household Behavior to
Promote Biodiversity Conservation. Environmental and Natural Resources Policy and
Training (EPAT) Project. Arlington, VA: Winrock International Environmental Alliance.
Fundación Natura and WWF. (1997) Galápagos report 1996–1997. Quito, Ecuador: Nuestra
Amazonía.
González, H. (2001) Asociación de desarrollo sostenible en Osa. On WWW at http://
www.soldeosa.com/soldeosa/02–01/aldetus.htm. Accessed 15.7.01.
Guba, E.G., and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989)Fourth GenerationEvaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Healy, R.G. (1994) ‘Tourist merchandise’ as a means of generating local benefits from
ecotourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2(3), 137–51.
Honey, M. (1999a) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Wash-
ington, DC: Island.
Honey, M. (1999b) Treading lightly? Ecotourism’s impact on the environment. Environ-
ment 41(5), 4–16.
Instituto Costaricense de Turismo (1998) Encuesta aérea de extranjeros (temporada
turística alta y baja de 1998). San José, Costa Rica: Instituto Costaricense de Turismo.
Instituto Costaricense de Turismo (2002) Know Costa Rica. On WWW at http://
www.turismo-sostenible.co.cr/EN/home.shtml. Accessed 28.9.02.
International Ecotourism Society (1993) Ecotourism Guidelines for Nature Tour Operators.
Burlington, VT: International Ecotourism Society.
International Ecotourism Society (2001) Statement on the United Nations International
Year of Ecotourism. On WWW at http://www.ecotourism.org/state-
ment_on_un.html. Accessed 11.10.01.
Jacobson, S.K. and Robles, R. (1992) Ecotourism, sustainable development, and conserva-
tion education: Development of a tour guide training program in Tortuguero, Costa
Rica. Environmental Management 16(6), 701–13.
Jantzi, T., Schelhas, J. and Lassoie, J.P. (1999) Environmental values and forest patch
conservation in a rural Costa Rican community. Agriculture and Human Values 16, 29–39.
Kramer, R.A., Schaik, C.V. and Johnson, J. (1997) Last Stand: Protected Areas and the Defense
of Tropical Biodiversity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Langholz, J. (1999) Exploring the effects of alternative income opportunities on rainforest
use: Insights from Guatemala’s Maya Biosphere Reserve. Society and Natural Resources
12, 139–49.
Lindberg, K. (1994) An Analysis of Ecotourism’s Economic Contribution to Conservation and
Developmentin Belize (vol. 1: summary report). Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund.
Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J. and Sproule, K. (1996) Ecotourism questioned: Case studies
from Belize. Annals of Tourism Research 23(3), 543–62.
McLaren, D. (1998) Rethinking Tourism and Ecotravel: The Paving of Paradise and What You
Can Do To Stop It. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian.
Patton, M.Q. (1990)Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Salafsky, N., Cordes, B., Parks, J. and Hochman, C. (1999) Evaluating Linkages Between Busi-
ness, the Environment, and Local Communities: Final Analytical Results from the Biodiversity
Conservation Network. Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program.
Segnini, G. (2000) Gran deuda por conservación – un 44% de las tierras sin cancelar. La
Nación (10 February). San José, Costa Rica.
Servicio de Parques Nacionales (1995) Parque Nacional Corcovado. La Nación (9
November). San José, Costa Rica.
Sessions, G. (ed.) (1995) Deep Ecology for the Twenty-first Century. Boston, MA: Random
House.
Stem, C.J., Lassoie, J.P., Lee, D.R., Deshler, J.D. and Schelhas, J.W. (2003) Community
participation in ecotourism benefits: The link to conservation practices and perspec-
tives. Society and Natural Resources (Vol. 16, No. 5 pp 387–413.).
Ulfelder, W.H., Poats, S.V. and Dugelby, B. (1998) Participatory Conservation: Lessons of the
PALOMAP study in Ecuador’s Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve. Arlington, VA: Nature
Conservancy.
US Central Intelligence Agency (2002) The world factbook. On WWW at http://
www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cs.html. Accessed 28.10.02.
Vaughan, C. (1981) Parque Nacional Corcovado Plan de Manejo y Desarrollo. Heredia, Costa
Rica: Editorial de la Universidad Nacional.
Weaver, D.B. (1999) Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya. Annals of Tourism
Research 26(4), 792–816.
Wells, M., Brandon, K.E. and Hannah, L. (1992) People and Parks: Linking Protected Area
Management with Local Communities. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Wight, P. (1994) Environmentally responsible marketing of tourism. In E. Cater and G.
Lowman (eds) Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? Chichester: John Wiley.
World Headquarters (2001) Osa Peninsula Map. On WWW at http://

www.worldheadquarters.com/cr/maps/osa_peninsula/. Accessed 5.3.01.
World Tourism Organization (2002) Costa Rica, one of the few countries with increased
tourism. On WWW at http://www.costaricapressroom.com/PressReleases/
15-BIwUmskCunZMnN0lbF1S/view. Accessed 29.10.02.
Wunder, S. (2000) Ecotourism and economic incentives – an empirical approach. Ecolog-
ical Economics 32(3), 465–79.

Stem 2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stem 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]

On: 07 September 2012, At: 07:35

How 'Eco' is Ecotourism? A

Version of record first published: 29 Mar 2010

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580308667210

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/

Caroline J. Stem, James P. Lassoie, David R. Lee and David J. Deshler

0966-9582/03/04 0322-26 $20.00/0 © 2003 C. Stem et al.

measures which could improve ecotourism’s capacity to positively influence

In some cases, ecotourism financially supports protected areas through

diate scale of the ecotourism venture, as ecotourists (national and international)

Study Description and Methods

Figure 2 Map of the Osa Peninsula and ecotourism study sites

Interested in more environmentally sound alternatives, the cooperative aban-

Table 1 Interview and survey participants by community

Community Qualitative interviews* Surveys

Ecotourism’s Role in Conservation and Protected Area

Motivations for resource management decisions

Equal/ ‘don’t know’ 7.5%

Ecotourism’s association with conservation practices and perspectives

Equal/ ‘don’t know’ 9.4%

Work sources Few trees

from tourism through ideas exchange, training, and infrastructure improve-

La Gamba (n = 50) Cerro de Oro (n = 31)

Drake (Agujitas) (n = 30) Drake (Los Planes) (n = 17)

Figure 5 Cross-community comparison of respondents who have shared in

In broader terms, tourism in Drake Bay has become analogous to monoculture

Investment of tourism-generated money

an even greater priority in the La Amistad communities than in the ecotourism

Contribution to environmental knowledge

Equal/ ‘don’t know’

Equal/ ‘don’t know’

environmental information and raising awareness. Radio and television are

Table 2 Sources of environmental information, ecotourism communities

Source of environmental Affirmative responses Affirmative responses (La

Park guards 55% 74%

Equal/ ‘don’t know’

Figure 10 Most important sources of environmental information, ecotourism

comparison communities. In the Amistad area, the National Biodiversity Insti-

Equal/ ‘don’t know’

Tourists Community members

Figure 11 Most important source of environmental information, La Amistad

resident remarked, ‘How am I not going to be upset . . . [they] don’t know

mired in political manoeuvring.

Broader policy concerns

broader policy concerns unless a strong contingency of tourism operators

Conclusions and Recommendations

higher levels of awareness or appreciation could ensure greater potential for

motivators behind conservation perspectives and practices. Consequently,

overall trend is clear and unaffected.

Epler Wood, M. (1998) Meeting the Global Challenge of Community Participation in

World Headquarters (2001) Osa Peninsula Map. On WWW at http://

You might also like