SUSTAINABLE ECO-TOURISM :
THE NEW COSTA RICAN REALITY OF 2007.
BY JUAN A AGUIRRE AND SARAH HEMPEL
Dr Juan A Aguirre.Ph.D. Environmental and Recreation Economist. The School for Field Studies.
And Sara Shempel. Research Associate. Apartado 150-4013.Center for Sustainable Development.
Atenas. Costa Rica. Email jaguirre@racsa.co.cr.
SUSTAINABLE ECO-TOURISM : THE NEW COSTA RICAN REALITY OF 2007.
BY JUAN A AGUIRRE AND SARAH HEMPEL
Abstract
Sustainable tourism development is becoming a major concern in Costa Rica, because measures
are not being taken at this time to prevent the environmental and socio economic traumas that
small rural and beach front communities can experience due to rapid and massive urbanization
that in many cases is accompanied by improperly planed massive tourism development. A total
of 55 surveys were collected in each of 5 communities, ecah community had an approximate 250
houses.The results indicate that, four of the five communities Playa Azul, Quebrada Ganado, Bijagual
and Herradura do not seem to differ much in terms of their socio-demographic and perceptions
characteristics. The principqal component factor analysis conducted indicated thatthat the variables
associated with factors one and two explain, in Playa Azul 51.7% of the variance, Bijagual 65. %,
Tárcoles 58.3%, Herradura 48.2% and Quebrada Ganado 49.1%. Factor one, in all five
communities is associated with the idea of sustainability through a set of variables mainly related
to sustainability.Factor two was generally associated in all five communities with the problems
that are present and can be exacerbated if massive tourism development happens with concerned
for sustainability.The underlying dimension composition in factor two variable package is
different in each community but always associated to the problems associated with
unsustainable tourism development.The stepwise regression procedure indicates that the idea of
sustainable tourism development is associated in Bijagual with support from the municipality in
the process of tourism development, in Quebrada Ganado with tourism planning, in Tárcoles
with the idea that the community should periodically be informed about the progress of projects
and tourist visits, in Playa Azul with the protection of the birds (macaws) and in Herradura with
waste water management and high land prices.The central hypothesis of the study that
sustainable tourism development is the preferred form of tourism development by each of the
communities if they had a choice was verified through the results in all five communities
something that presents a clear challeneg to those pomoting tourism in Costa Rica. Communities
maybe poor but see what maybe happening if they choose massive tourism development. The
quetison that remains: Do poor communities have a choice?
Resumen
El desarrollo sostenible del turismo se está convirtiendo en una preocupación importante en
Costa Rica, ya que poco se esta haciendo para prevenir los traumas ambientales y
socioeconómicos que las comunidades rurales con playas pueden experimentar debido a la
urbanización rápida y masiva que en muchos casos es acompañada por el desarrollo masivo del
turismo. Un total de 55 encuestas fueron recogidas en cada una de las 5 comunidades, Cada
comunidad tenía 250 casas aproximadamente. Los resultados indican que, cuatro de las cinco
comunidades Playa Azul, Quebrada Ganado, Bijagual y Herradura no parecen diferenciarse
mucho en términos de sus características socio-demográficas y de las opiniones. El análisis El
análisis factorial componente principal condujo indicó que las variables que se asociaron a los
factores uno y dos explican, en Playa Azul 51.7% de la variación, Bijagual 65. %, Tárcoles
58.3%, Herradura 48.2% y Quebrada Ganado 49.1%. El factor uno, en las cinco comunidades se
asocia a la idea del sostenibilidad a través de un sistema de variables relacionadas principalmente
con tal concepto. El factor dos se asocio en las cinco comunidades a los problemas que estan
presente y pueden ser exacerbados si el desarrollo masivo del turismo. La composición
subyacente de la dimensión en paquete de variables del factor dos es diferente en cada caso pero
diferente en cada comunidad,pero todos son problemas asociados al desarrollo insostenible del
turismo. El procedimiento stepwise indica que el desarrollo sostenible del turismo está asociada
en Bijagual a la ayuda del municipio para el desarrollo del turismo, en Quebrada Ganado al
planeamiento del turismo, en Tárcoles a la idea que la comunidad debe periódicamente estar
informada sobre el progreso de proyectos turísticos, en Playa Azul con la protección de los
pájaros (macaws) y en Herradura con el manejo de las aguas negras y los altos precios de la
tierra. La hipótesis central del estudio que el desarrollo sostenible del turismo es la forma
preferida de desarrollo del turismo en cada una de las comunidades si tenían una opción fue
verificada con los resultados en las cinco comunidades algo que reta a quienes promueven el
desarrollo turistico en Costa Rica. El pregunta que queda sin respuesta es : ¿Las comunidades
pobres tienen opción sobre el tipo de turismo que desean que se promueva?
I. – Introduction
Sustainable tourism development is becoming a major concern in Costa Rica, where measures
are not being taken to prevent the environmental and socio economic traumas that small rural and
beach front communities can experience due to rapid and massive urbanization that in many cases is
accompanied by improperly planed massive tourism development. The problems created by massive
beach front and rural development are very important to address in view of the environmental damages
that unchecked tourism development exacerbate.
The fact that many beach front and rural communities see in tourism development a “passport”
to more jobs and better income levels should not prevent the local and national authorities from taking
the necessary actions to facilitate tourism development taking place in a sustainable fashion, in order to
not only fulfill job needs but to preserve nature as well. It must be remembered that if nature “goes”
everything else “goes with it”, particularly the reasons that brought tourists to an area in the first place.
The development of tourism in the Central American region is one of the most important targets
for the development of the region. The trust that tourism can be a key in the region’s development has
been spelt out in many declarations of the region’s presidents over the past decade. The contribution to
gross national product in the region in 2007 is almost 7% and tourism is without question one of the
most important sources of foreign exchange. In Costa Rica in 2006, tourism represented 7% of GNP and
was 1.6 times larger in terms of foreign exchange than the contribution of bananas, coffee, sugar and
meat combined. (ICT, 2006 and BCC, 2006)
The importance of tourist arrivals to national parks and protected areas is so overwhelming that
the government is spelling out a new strategy that involves the development of tourism management
plans for at least 10 national parks to be completed within the next 5 years, so that such plans can be
the center pieces for tourism management in the parks and sustainable tourism development in the
surrounding communities.(SINAC, 2006) The fear of repetition of conflicts for water and land that has
occurred in many communities around the country, particularly in Guanacaste(La Nacion, 2001) and the
Central Pacific in Playa Herradura, mark the end of an era and the beginning of another, in so far as
tourism management and development is concerned. The era of sustainable tourism management for
Costa Rica arrived in July 2007 with the unveiling by the government of the Peace with Nature Initiative,
an initiative that seeks to promote sustainable environmental management in every productive activity
of the country, particularly in relation to the massive hotel and urban development occurring along
many beach front areas in the country.
The preoccupation of the neighboring communities to many national parks in view of the
massive arrivals being experienced has been documented profusely around the world. The impact that
such a massive arrival is having in many communities around the nation is overwhelming and many are
beginning to look at the impacts. Manuel Antonio, Quepos, La Fortuna, Cahuita, Puerto Viejo,
Tamarindo, Montezuma, Playas del Coco, Monteverde and Santa Elena are among those where tourism
is without any question impacting the economics and local culture beyond any predictions. Many
changes have taken place and are taking place and as of today few appear to question the long term
affects that massive ecotourist arrivals is going to have on the national social culture.
The problems between local communities, protected areas (public and private) and tourist
recreational interests are beginning to surface openly everywhere. A recent open conflict in and around
Playa Herradura, between illegal settlers and a north american, are beginning to be the “rule” and not
the exception in the tourism development practices of 2007 in the country. (La Nacion, 2007)
The initial concept of the Costa Rican National Parks System was centred on the conservation of
natural resources and somewhat on creating scientific enclaves for foreign scientists. The basic
philosophy of the initial period was to fence and contain, tourism was marginal and the visitors of that
era were used to the outdoor lifestyle, knowledgeable of nature and very respectful of the environment.
This initial period lasted until the late eighties. The main sources of conflicts in that period were the lack
of full payment for the land that was confiscated to create the parks. (Boza, 1989)
By the end of the decade of the eighties Costa Rica as a nation experienced two very important
events. First, the country was rediscovered by the world, due to the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to
President Oscar Arias, who was in May 2006 re-elected to guide the nation again at the onset of the
21th century. Second, Dr Franklin Chang represented the country’s first NASA astronaut to travel to
outer space. These two events introduced the country to the eco-tourism market and Costa Rica
became a prime ecotourism destination. The country suddenly realized that the tourists who were
arriving in increasing numbers, attracted by the country's newly found fame, brought with them foreign
exchange and mixed nature based tourism and park visitation with macroeconomics as a result of the
new global world logic. Structural adjustment, foreign debt, globalisation, Internet, balance of payments
and terms of trade are the new fellow travellers of ecotourism and foreign investment and recreation.
The business of conservation comes of age but with little planning or in many cases direction.
By 1997, studies conducted show that between 65% and 70% of the regular tourists arriving in
the country visited protected areas at least one time, during an average stay of 11 days and between
50% and 65% between two and four times, during the same period and that there are regions in Costa
Rica were the only choice available is nature based (from rafting to bird watching). (Dean and Aguirre,
1997) These results were confirmed in 2006 by the statistics published by the National System of
Conservation Areas that indicated that between 65% and 70% of all visitors to the country visited a
national park. National parks and beaches are today the “backbones” of Costa Rican tourism
development. (SINAC, 2007)
Nature-based tourism develops in many protected forests as a source of prime recreational
activities and it is becoming evident that neighbouring and gateway communities to these areas wish to
participate in the economic benefits from ecotourism, with little information or interest in the cultural
and economic impacts that massive tourism arrivals will bring along with the new found wealth and
potential jobs. Sustaining the resource base upon which tourism depends must be the central focus of
any discussion surrounding sustainable tourism development. (McKercher, 1993)
It is legitimate to ask whether and in what form tourism might contribute to sustainable
development. If tourism is to contribute to sustainable development, it must be economically viable,
ecologically sensitive and culturally appropriate.(Wall,1977)Tourism can be a far-reaching agent of
change, yet too often planning for the industry is based solely on isolated economic criteria. (Murphy,
1993) Community solidarity is considered a definitive quality of many rural towns and one that could be
dramatically influenced by accommodating tourism development. (Huang, 1996)
Many rural communities view tourism as an economic development strategy. The evidence
shows that communities differ with respect to residents' support for specific tourism development
options and attitudes toward tourism. Great care and careful evaluation of conditions should take
operational priority before embarking on uncontrolled and rapid tourism development. The
development of cultural tourism infrastructure has been identified as a key element in the creation of a
good rcerational environment for visitors. (Andereck and Vogt, 2000; Holland and Crotts, 1992 and
Jurowski and Brown, 2001)
Even though planning is being accepted as a needed, requirements for successfully providing
long term provisions of sustainable recreational opportunities to visitors seems to be no easy chore to
carry out in developing countries.
In Turkey, formulating and carrying out a participatory tourism development plan and approach
requires a total change in socio-political, legal, administrative and economic structures. Hard political
choices and logical decisions based on cumbersome social, economic and environmental trade-offs are
sine qua non alongside deliberate help, collaboration and co-operation of major international donor
agencies, NGOs, international tour operators and multinational companies. (Cevat, 2000)
In Bhutan, as tourism demand rapidly grows an assessment of the country's carrying capacity is
necessary if Bhutan's 'middle path' policy of high yield, low impact tourism is to continue to be effective.
( Brunet et al, 2001)
In Uganda, tourism dependency is not a direct result of tourism but instead of a perceived
external locus of control, a perception that is rooted in historical, political and economic forces and
which creates a social psychological environment in which tourism encourages dependency. (Lepp,
2004)
In Namibia, local livelihood strategies based on multiple land-uses and diversification of risk
across several activities are affected by tourism in many different ways, positively and negatively,
directly and indirectly. (Asheley, 2000)
In Kenya, a clear contrast was established between western environmental values and rural
peasants' environmental perceptions. (Akama, 1996)
In Norway and Denmark, negative attitudes towards tourism were found to be strongest from
those engaged in more traditional occupations and to be directly related to the level of tourism
development. (Haukeland, 1984).
In Australia, rainforest-generated tourism had a significant impact on the local economy and
lead to the suggestion that a rainforest parks marketing strategy be prepared, funded jointly by the
Parks Service and local business. Also distinct difference in the urban-rural fringe were identified from
those of the more rural areas, differences that can help the development of sustainable tourism and
recreation development strategies that recognized this condition. (Wearing and Parsons, 1991; Weaver
and Lawton 2004)
In New Zealand, perceived positive impacts were the provision of a community facility, job
creation, and the promotion of the area for tourism. Perceived negative impacts included more drunk
driving, traffic problems, and increased noise. (Mason, 2000)
In the United States, the fast pace of tourism development causes community attitudes toward
tourism to decline over time (Davis and Morais, 2004), and that was demonstrated by the fact that
community dependence on tourism was a good predictor of community development but did not
guarantee support for tourism planning. (Andereck and McGehee, 2004; Smith and Krannick, 1998;
Schuett, 1993; Allen et al, 1998)
In Japan, a case study of a Japanese mountain village demonstrates how tourist hosting may be
marked by tension relative to the social divide between the existing sector and those outside of it.
(Knight, 1996)
The planning for sustaible development of nature based ecotourism activities is complicated by
the “uniqueness” of the site we are developing and the socio-cultural and histiorical dvelopment of the
area. In this respect the “Quaker history” of Monteverde perhaps has a lot to do with the community’s
present problems, due to isolation ideas that were presented in the area’s original development efforts.
Even though many nature based tourism and ecotourism related businesses have received substantial
tax exemptions in order to import the goods and services needed to develop as well as hefty income tax
exemption on profits and investment, many small communities where many of these same businesses
are located receive very little in terms of economic benefits or simply have been left out. (Damon and
Vaughn, 1993)
The evident “break” between community members, tourists, protected areas and private
reserves and parks catering to tourists is not only a local problem but it seems to be a “worldwide” issue
as reported by the WWF study of 2004. (WWF, 2004) In Belize, Brazil, Cyprus and the Dominican
Republic among others, if the community shares in the benefits of ecotourism brought by the protected
areas, they will get involved in the protection of the areas and facilitate its activities. When the sharing
does not occur, the results are the opposite and negative impacts and changes in the protected areas
and communities may appear and perceived impacts may be far worse than in those cases where
communities received direct economic benefits from the recreational activities in which tourist engage.
(Lindberg and Enriquez, 1994; Nelson, 2000 ; Akis et al, 1996 ; Shellas, et al, 2002)
In Costa Rica particularly the inability to plan, organize and manage tourism and recreation
activities for the benefit of local communities has yielded very limited positive economic impact to small
communities, conditions that become complicated when all the stakeholders usually involved in tourism
development demand a piece of the “economic pie” and make the development of safe and pleasant
activities for the tourist difficult to developed and sustain over the long term. In Gandoca, an analysis
revealed a broadly shared view of ecotourism that incorporates both the 'nature' and 'people'
discourses, and stands in contrast in practice to the nationally dominant 'profit/nature' view. (Gray,
2003) In the Quepos-Manuel Antonio area seven pressure groups were identified affecting the
management of Manuel Antonio National Park as they promoted their own individual interest. (Aguirre,
2000)
The gateway community to Volcan Poas National Park, Poasito complains that many tourists do
not stop in their community on their way to the Volcan Poas National Parks, even though their situation
is far better than that of others such as that of the communities located near Carara National Park at the
beginning of the nineties. (Heisterkamp, et al,2001 ;Fouche et all, 2001 and Damon and Vaughn, 1993)
In Ostional, lack of awareness, along with increased activity by outside investors, suggests that
in the absence of formalized planning or intervention the possibilities for the community to further
benefit from tourism development will be limited. (Campbell, 1999) In Tortuguero, park-based tourism
has become important to the local economy, yet few of the villagers are either aware of the economic
value of the park, nor are there any systematic attempts to promote nature-based tourism as a
development strategy. (Place, 1991) In Isla Venado, the majority of potential impacts on local
sustainable development would come from the development of the community and increasing
consumption patterns. (Beeker, 2000)
All of the issues outlined previoulsy affect the “true” multiplier effects in jobs, investment and
expenditures in materials. In the Quepos hotel industry for example it was identified that over 90% of
the people employed in second and third level jobs came from the area, while the executive jobs were
filled by foreigners or from people from other areas of Costa Rica. In the case of paid jobs, it was very
hard for people to recognize the benefits to the local communities because the employment and salaries
offered seem to be more associate with the place of employment than with the existence of the parks or
reserves. (Wells, 1992 and Aguirre, 2000)
In 1951, in Monteverde and later in Santa Elena, what started as a conservation adventure with
scientific underpinnings by 2006 is in a collision course with the social and economic realities of the 21st
century due to the fact that Monteverde-Santa Elena may be becoming touristically speaking
unsustainable because everybody seems to be more concerned about agriculture and the ecological
sustainability of the area while the "environment" is fastly deterioration by what seems to be "poor"
tourist management and poor urban planning. (Burlingame, 2000)
One major reality that Central America in general and Costa Rica in particular seem to be
overlooking is the predicted surge of tourist arrivales to the region in search of “nearby” and safe
recreation activities, where protected areas are already playing a big role in transforming the region into
a prime destination for USA and European nature based tourism, and how this massive outpour of
people is going to affect the future of nature-based sustainble tourism development if proper steps in
planning, management and organization are not in place within the next decade. However ecotourism
would be most effective when part of a broader conservation strategy and not in a class is by itself as it
at times happens. (Stem et al, 2003)
In 2006, the results of a study conducted by Aguirre and associates, at the School for Field
Studies, Center for Sustainable Development, in the communities of San Jeronimo de Moravia, Tornillal
and Calle Brenes, clearly indicated that these three communities at the entrance of Braulio Carrillo
National Park, the largest highland plateau park of the nation and a key source of water for over 65% of
Costa Rica, were deeply concerned about the potential tourism development of the area. Such
development is feared due to the government planning of a new road that would improve the
accessibility to the entrance of the park. Traditional lack of planning, limited community services,
uncontrolled urban development were among the major fears voiced by the communities. Sustainable
tourism planning and management became a unified slogan voiced by every single community
organization. (Aguirre, 2007)
The present economic importance of tourism in the major macroeconomic indicators will
require Central Amecian “societies” to develope good working relations with national parks and private
reserves in order to provide safe and enjoyable recreational activities for the ever growing number of
visitors in and around national parks and protected areas. The future is not bright if one looks at the the
results reported by a 2004 study of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature and we quote: “One
depressingly consistent problem is a failure to manage relations with people. Problems are evident both
in terms of relations with local communities and indigenous people, the management of tourism, the
provision of visitors facilities and the access to commercial tourism facilities …..." (WWF,2004) The basic
ideas previously express are evident in the Costa Rica of the past and the present, although hopefully
not of the future. If one looks at the country over the past two decades there is abundant evidence of
conflicts between small communities and different forms of protected areas. Let’s hope that the “Peace
with Nature Initiative” unveiled on July 2007 can help change some if not all of the habits of the recent
past.
The main reason for the study here reported around Carara National Park was the fact that the
National System of Conservation Areas is preparing with international and local funding a new strategy
for national parks under their administration that includes the development of a five year tourism
management plan for ten major national parks. The strategy covers not only problems related to
tourists who visit the parks, but also with what needs to be done in order to include neighboring
communities in the future tourism developments that may take place, because of the tourism visitation
expansion and improvements that will take inside the parks, in view of the new and expanded funding.
The basic idea is that whatever is done will involved the neighboring communities and promote long
term sustainable tourism development.
The study reported looks at the perceptions of five of the communities that are in the
immediate vicinity of Carara National Park in relation to the social-economic impact that leisure and
recreations activities undertaken by the tourists are having. As Carara National Park is one of the
country’s most accessible national parks the report develops information for the communities and the
national park to develop long term plans that guarantee the economic growth of the area, strengthen
and develop plans and actions that promote sustainable tourism development in the communities and
to provide information that may help orient the communal leadership in how to deal with the emerging
new semi-urban conditions as they are perceived by community members in order to avoid the types of
problems and land and resource conflicts that are becoming so common in the country. The report uses
as an example one of the most rapidly growing tourist areas of Costa Rica: the Central Pacific Area that
includes one of the best surfers beaches and parks in the nation, as the nation prepares for “tourism
globalization” and the competition that is already emerging from the other Central Americans countries.
II. - Objective and Hypothesis
The objectives of the study were:
- To evaluate the perception of the type of tourism development desired by the communities
and to identify the central elements of sustainable tourism development as perceived by the
communities.
-To identify the central socio-economic problems that communities perceive will get worse if
rapid and massive tourism development takes place due to the planed park expansion of tourist
visitation due to the improvement of facilities that is being planned by the country park system and park
authorities.
The central hypothesis was:
-
Sustainable tourism development is the preferred form of tourism development in each of
the communities if given a choice.
III. Location, Sampling and Analysis
Location of the Communities
Carara National Park (CNP) is located in the Puntarenas Province and encompasses 4,700
hectares of primary and secondary forest. The park is home to a large population of Scarlet Macaws as
well as many other native species of birds, making it a popular destination for bird watchers. Tourists
are also attracted to the park because of the crocodiles—part of the basin of the Tárcoles River which is
contained within the park and is a crocodile breeding ground.
The park is located only 52 kilometers from San Jose, and is situated along the coastal highway,
No 19, making it an attractive stop for tourists on their way to the country’s famous surfer beaches
including Herradura, Jaco, Esterillos, and Manuel Antonio. (Carara National Park website, 2001) A total
of 55 interviews were conducted at each of the five communities neighboring the south side of the park:
Tárcoles, Playa Azul, Quebrada Ganado, Herradura, and Bijagual. The communities were selected based
on their proximity to the park, having as a limit a distance of 20 kilometers.
The houses surveyed in each community were selected totally at random for a total of 275
interviews, since the last census of population was perform around 10 years ago, the exact number of
houses is unknown but estimates made in the field indicated that the 55 houses surveyed in each
community represented between 20-25% of the houses in each of the communities.
Bijagual is located 12 kilometers from the park, 3 of which are along highway 34 and 9 to the
west and into the hills neighboring CNP. It is situated on the park’s southern side, in the mountains, and
is accessible by a one-lane dirt road. Bijagual is a much more isolated community than others included
the study, contrasting most notably with the heavily-visited, highly developed Herradura. Bijagual is a
quiet, insular community surrounded by forest and rich in natural beauty.
Tárcoles is located about 4 km southwest of the park. Tárcoles is located 4 km from the park
entrance on highway 34, an interesting community as it is experiencing the first stages of tourism
development, with beach areas that are famous for their contamination due to the discharges of the
polluted Tárcoles River. The fairly built up community is separated from CNP by the main highway and a
small section of land making the community severely affected by the highway noise and the traffic.
Playa Azul is a river and beach community located 7 km south of the park and north of
Tárcoles. The community is also near the Tárcoles River, which features a popular tourist attracted of
crocodiles sunning themselves on its banks. In order to reach Playa Azul one needs to first pass through
Tárcoles and the tour operators for the crocodiles are located in Tárcoles.
Quebrada Ganado is a growing community located along highway 34, 7.9 km south of the
entrance to the park. The community within forms a loop around a flat area between the highway and
the mountains and is has experienced very rapid urbanization, due primarily to the arrivals of people
that work in Jaco and Herradura looking for affordable housing.
Playa Herradura is a community of about 7,000 people and is located 19.7 kilometers south of
CNP along Highway 34, allowing it to narrowly qualify as a gateway community to the park. The land
area south of Highway 34 has been highly developed by tourism and contains a large shopping complex
and several tourist-related condominium complexes. Tourism development to the north of Highway 34
is minimal.
Tárcoles, Bijagual, Playa Azul and Quebrada Ganado are very similar in size fluctuating between
150 to 200 homes. In the case of Herradura most of the urban development is taking place between the
highway and the beach, while the “real old town of Herradura” where the surveys were administered is
north and does not seem to be larger than the other four communities.
Sampling Size Selection and Resume of the Analysis Conducted.
The surveys were offered in Spanish and were structured into five distinct parts: sociodemographic characteristics of those interviewed, state of relations between CNP and the community,
type of tourism development desired by the community member, socio-economic benefits generated by
CNP in the community, and problems the community may face due to increased tourism in CNP. The
perceptions were measure using a “likert” type scale with a point spread of 1 to 5, were 1 meant either
no, not important, not interested, and 5 exactly the opposite.
The statistical analysis conducted can be described as follows:
a) A data base was developed using EXCEL and the statistical analysis was conducted using
version 12 of Minitab
b) An ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the extent of the differences between communities
c) A restricted principal component-factor analysis (PCFA) was conducted to reduce and identify
the dimensions of sustainable tourist development. The first stage of the PCFA analysis was selecting
those variables with a value of 0.30 or more, on components 1 and 2, in order to establish the real
important dimensions and facilitate its interpretation. In each community, 3 rounds of
reductions/selections/discarding of variables were performed. The variables not meeting the 0.30
standard were discarded at each stage until only variables that met the 0.30 value criteria remained as
part of the 1 and 2 principal component. Once this screening process was completed a second stage
consisted of a Factor Analysis using Varimax rotation to reconfirm and “clean” even more the “factor
synthesis dimension process” and
d) consisted of a standardized stepwise regression analysis with the variable perception of the
preference for a sustainable tourism development to take place as the central dependent variables, and
the variables remaining as part and explaining components 1 as predictors was conducted, in order to
isolate and rank the variables having a direct relation with the idea of sustainable tourism development.
The variables associated to PC1 were included in the stepwise regression procedure, because the
dependent variable “sustainable tourism development” appeared in all communities associated to PC1.
IV. Results: Something to Think About
The process yielded some very interesting results. In table 1, the results of the ANOVA indicated
that four of the five communities (Playa Azul, Quebrada Ganado, Bijagual and Herradura) do not seem
to differ much in terms of their socio-demographic and perceptions characteristics as measured. The
only community, as it can be observed that differs from the other is Tárcoles,(5) where the Tukey’s
family error test for pair-wise comparison detected at 95% probability significant differences in 8
variables: income (income), Do you believe that visitors expenses had contributed to community
development (Tou Exp), do you feel that CNP is part of the community(CNPPC), Does the park take the
community into consideration when decisions are made that affect the community (TIConsid), The type
of tourism development to be promoted should be sustainable(Tou Sustain), The tourism development
should be properly planned with rigor and without improvisation (Tou Plann) , employment generation
(EG) and cultural exchange(CE).
In general the interesting features of Table 1 are: a)the communities of Playa Azul and Tárcoles
have the lowest perception values and smallest income, b) the lowest value for considering the park as
part of the community 2.52 appears in the community of Bijagual, c) in general the similarity in the
values of Playa Azul and Tárcoles, d) the low values present in the variable does the park takes the
community into consideration when decisions are made by the park that affect the communities
(TIConsid) for all of the five communities and d) the overall differences between Herradura the most
developed touristically of the 5 communities with Tárcoles and Playa Azul the less developed. In general
the results correspond to the field realities that one would expect when visiting the area.
Table 2 presents the results of the factor analysis used to screen, reduce, and synthesize the
variables that explain the composition and meaning of each of the factors. The results of the principal
component (first stage) indicated that the variables associated with factors one and two explain, in Playa
Azul 51.7% of the variance, in Bijagual 65. %, in Tárcoles 58.3%, in Herradura 48.2% and in Quebrada
Ganado 49.1%. The results showed that factors one and two do help in the process of reduction and
explanation of the underlying dimension in each of the factors.
However what is very interesting is the fact that the variables perception of the communities
about the type of tourism desired to be promoted should be is sustainable, is related to component one
in Playa Azul with a factor value of 0.572, in Bijagual to factor two with a factor value of 0.663, in
Tárcoles to factor one with a factor value of 0.689 and in Quebrada Ganado to factor two with a value of
-0.495. Herradura, the community were massive tourism development is taking place, is the only
community where tourism sustainability is not associated with neither factor one and two as one would
expect and could hypothesize is based on what is happening in the community at this time.
The other element of table 2 is the composition of the factor values and variables related to
each factor. The results indicate that factor one, in all five communities, is associated with the idea of
sustainability through a set of variables mainly related to sustainability itself such as proper planning,
business existence, feeling trained to take care of visitors , participation, municipal support for local
communities, interest in ecotourism development and training in sustainable ecotourism development
for community members for business development and the concept of protection of biodiversity in it’s
many forms and of the protection of water. This first dimension is what we like to call: the human
institutional dimension of sustainable tourist development.
The second dimension is associated in all five communities with the problems that are present
and could be exacerbated if massive tourism development happens with concerned for sustainability,
with coefficients clearly segregating and associated to the central problems of unsustainable tourism
development: excessive urbanization, deforestation, and liquid waste, management of waste water,
high land prices, noise and insecurity. As it can be observed, the underlying dimension composition
variable package is different in each community but they are all problems associated to unsustainable
tourism development.
In table 3, and using sustainable tourism development as a desire to be the type of tourism
development to be promoted as the dependent variable and the variables associated with factor one
and two as predictors. The results of a stepwise regression procedure permitted the selection in each
community of the central variable or variables associated with the idea of sustainable tourism
development. In the case of Bijagual the central variable was: support from the municipality in the
process of tourism development with a standard coefficient of 0.5534 significant at 95% probability level
with an R square of 30.6%. In the case of Quebrada Ganado, the central variable was tourism planning,
with a standard coefficient of 0.4170 significant at 95% probability level with an R square of 17.4%. In
the case of Tárcoles, the two central variables were: community should periodically about the progress
of the project with a standard coefficient of 0.4057 and tourist visit with a standard coefficient of 0.2609
both significant at 95% probability. In the case of Playa Azul the central variable was protect the birds
(macaws) with a standard coefficient value of 0.4692 significant at 95% probability level with an R
square of 22%. In Herradura, the two central variables were waste water management with a standard
coefficient of -0.28 and high price of land with a coefficient of 0.419 both significant at 95% probability
with an R square of 16.7%, which coincides with the major community problems observed in the
community in 2007.
Table 1
Analysis of Variance between Communities, Variables Presenting Significant Differences at the 95%
probability
Variables
Playa
Quebrada
Bijagual
Herradura
Tárcoles
Significant
with S.D.
Azul
Ganado
Difference*(SD)
Comm ID#
1
2
3
4
5
Income US$
160
237
353
376
116
3-5,4-5
Tou Exp
3,67
3,38
4,58
4,07
2,9
4-5.
Park P Com
4,45
4,87
2,52
4,81
4,18
2-5,4-5.
TIConsid
3,43
3,16
4,56
2,87
2,27
1-3,2-3,1-5.
Tou Sustain
4,69
4,68
4,18
4,81
3,9
Tou Plann
3,89
4,09
4,3
4,3
3,41
4-5.
EG
4,56
4,58
4,83
4,83
4,25
4-5.
CE
3,65
4,65
4,52
4,52
3,36
2-5,3-5,4-5.
1-5,2-5,3-5,4-5.
* Significant Differences detected using the Turkey error family test for
pairwise comparisons
Income=
Average family income in US$ monthly, 1US=516 colones
Tou Exp=
Importance of tourist expenses contribute to community improvement
Park P Com=
Community consider park part of community
TIConsid=
Importance of park taking community into consideration when
deciding issues that affect them
Tou Sustain=
Importance that tourism development be sustainable
Tou Plan=
Importance that tourism development be properly planned
EG=
Importance of employment generation
CE=
Importance of cultural exchange.
Table 2
Principal Component- Factor Analysis Results for the Five Communities
Playa Azul
Variable
Factor1
TouSusta
0.572
-0.060
0.331
Variable
Factor1
Commu
0.517
-0.148
0.290
TouSusta
0.689
-0.066
0
Muni
0.652
-0.183
0.458
TouPlan
0.780
-0.022
0
PB
0.909
0.021
0.826
Commu
0.773
0.001
0
PA
0.889
0.019
0.790
NBO
0.660
0.271
0
PSB
0.852
0.089
0.735
TV
0.772
0.070
0
PWS
0.897
-0.002
0.805
EG
0.782
0.217
0
-0.015
-0.565
0.320
HPLand
0.090
0.759
0
ExUrb
0.035
-0.598
0.358
NewInm
-0.002
0.796
0
Insec
-0.157
-0.577
0.357
Lwaste
0.078
0.753
0
Enoise
0.037
-0.658
0.434
Variance
3.3374
1.9062
5.
HPLand
0.189
-0.649
0.457
% Var
0.371
0.212
0
Lwaste
0.158
-0.629
0.421
Herradura
WWM
0.050
-0.732
0.539
Variable
Defore
0.075
-0.788
0.627
Impro10
0.789
-0.104
0
4.2634
3.4846
7.7480
CNPPC
0.530
0.392
0
0.284
0.232
0.517
Bussines
0.510
-0.192
0
TIConsid
0.651
0.078
0
TouSust
0.653
0.261
0
HPLand
-0.178
0.735
0
Garbage
Variance
% Var
Factor2 Communality
Quebrada Ganado
Factor1
Factor2 Communa
Factor2 Communa
Variable
Factor1
Feel Tra
-0.112
-0.517
0.280
ExcTra
0.034
0.780
0
0.096
-0.543
0.304
WWM
0.168
0.503
0
Creation
-0.139
0.751
0.584
Variance
2.1813
1.6773
3.
TIConsid
0.035
-0.778
0.606
% Var
0.273
0.210
0
EG
0.784
-0.096
0.624
NBO
0.742
-0.170
0.579
Bijagual
TV
0.807
-0.033
0.653
Variable
Impro10
Factor2 Communality
Tárcoles
Factor1
Factor2 Communa
IforC
0.810
-0.043
0.657
Leaders
0.839
-0.050
0
EX
0.822
0.027
0.676
Muni
0.904
-0.189
0
PB
0.837
0.204
0.742
Training
0.844
-0.271
0
PA
0.794
0.250
0.693
Insec
0.154
-0.774
0
PWS
0.594
0.062
0.356
Enoise
0.137
-0.793
0
ExUrb
0.378
-0.412
0.313
TouSusta
0.663
-0.154
0
TouSusta
-0.031
-0.495
0.246
TouPlan
0.826
-0.091
0
TouPlan
-0.056
0.451
0.210
Defore
0.103
-0.679
0
Variance
5.6923
2.1608
7.8531
Variance
3.4091
1.8332
5.
0.356
0.135
0.491
% Var
% Var
Table 3
0.426
0.229
Standardized Stepwise Regression Analysis for Each Community’s Model Characteristics
Bijagual
Predictor
Coef
StDev
T
P
Constant
-0.0000
0.1134
-0.00 1.000
StdMuni
0.5534
0.1144
4.84 0.000
S = 0.8408
R-Sq = 30.6%
R-Sq(adj) = 29.3%
Quebrada Ganado
Predictor
Coef
StDev
T
P
Constant
0.0000
0.1237
0.00 1.000
StdTouPlan
0.4170
0.1248
3.34 0.002
S = 0.9175
R-Sq = 17.4%
R-Sq(adj) = 15.8%
Tarcoles
Predictor
Constant
StdCommu
StdTV
S = 0.8421
Coef
-0.0000
0.4057
0.2609
StDev
0.1136
0.1250
0.1250
R-Sq = 31.7%
T
P
-0.00 1.000
3.25 0.002
2.09 0.042
R-Sq(adj) = 29.1%
Playa Azul
Predictor
Constant
StdPB
S = 0.8914
Coef
StDev
T
P
0.0000
0.1202
0.00 1.000
0.4692
0.1213
3.87 0.000
R-Sq = 22.0%
R-Sq(adj) = 20.5%
Herradura
Predictor
Constant
Coef
0.0000
StDev
0.1291
T
P
0.00 1.000
StdWWM
-0.2825
0.1378
-2.05 0.046
StdHPLand
0.4012
0.1378
2.91 0.005
S = 0.9309
R-Sq = 16.7%
R-Sq(adj) = 13.3%
V. Lessons Learned: A real life discussion
It is important to first point out that the findings in the five communities under study around
Carara National Park are not new and confirm the idea that if given the choice communities will be
inclined towards sustainable tourism development, confirming what was found in three communities
located at one of the entrances of Braulio Carrillo National park. (Aguirre, 2007) The problem is that
because of their poverty, small rural communities seldom have a “real choice” let alone are asked to
make or influence any decisions relating to the type of tourism they would like to be subject to. The
choice seems to be: Amigos, this is what we will be doing: Yes or No. The agonies of poverty,
unemployment, low income and lack of health and human services, leave people with no choice but to
answer yes and hope for the best.
The results in many ways confirm the statements made above. The ANOVA, findings point out
clearly Tárcoles and Playa Azul as the two communities that do not seem to be concern or bothered by
any of what goes on. The results are logical, in these two communities nothing is going on, as they are in
many ways isolated from the rest. Their location and history of contamination as well as the periodic
inundations of the Tárcoles River make them places that despite the fact that they have “at first glance”
long stretches of beaches and are closer to the park than any of the other communities nothing in terms
of tourism development is happening. The Tárcoles River is “Costa Rica highland plateau’s open sewer”.
The contamination and pollution produced literally miles away have condemned these two communities
to the backwardness of underdevelopment.
The pollution and contaminants brought by the river and literally dumped in their beach front is
also reflected in the factor analysis results of both communities. In Playa Azul, tourism sustainability and
resource protection (birds, animals, scenic beauty, and water sources) are central to their main concern
and factor two reflects resource degradation through their concern with garbage, excessive urbanization
and noise, high prices for the land and waste water management, even though they do not suffer some
of these problems.
Tárcoles is very concerned with tourism sustainability and planning for tourism development,
new businesses, tourist visits, and employment generation and in factor also the high price of land, new
immigrants and liquid waste. Tárcoles is closer than Playa Azul to the coastal highway is being “bypassed” as they would like something to happen and nothing does happen. They ask for municipal help
and information about what may and is going on around them, and do not get any answers. They are
also paying the price for the contamination of a resource that directly affects their livelihood and over
which neither of the two communities or the park have any control. The “down stream” pollution
textbook case finds one excellent expression in Playa Azul- Tárcoles.
The above arguments are confirmed by the results of the standardized stepwise regression
analysis. In Playa Azul, the central variable was birds protection, the area is one of the few sanctuaries of
the Ara macaw (Lapa or Guacamaya Roja), the “bird” that the few visitors that get to Playa Azul and
Tárcoles come to see, is their only tourist attraction and their sustainability is essential to both
communities livelihood. In the case of Tárcoles, the central variables explaining sustainability seem to be
information for the community about what may go on and municipal help so that they can in fact
participate and benefit, something absent today as it was said before.
Bijagual is a nested community, in the high “sierras”, bordering the park. It is a forest and
agricultural community which is now being invaded by the “quadra-tracs” which are the new “tourist
mechanical horse”. “Quadraciclos” in Spanish, shows the lowest rating for park/community
participation, this is logical, Bijagual is located in the “back” of the park vis-à-vis the front that is
considered the coastal highway No 19. By 2007, the community members keep agriculture to a
minimum and are very concerned with the “new housing” generated deforestation and the increases in
“legal and illegal” deforestation that occurs to create housing. They would like to communicate better
with the park authorities but it does not seem to happen.
The human-organizational-institutional side of tourism’s sustainable development reflects itself
in Bijagual, in the association of tourism sustainability and proper tourism development planning, along
with local leaders participation, municipal support and proper training for the locals related to
ecotourism development with factor one. They want to be heard and they say so with little luck so far.
The problems they are concern with are insecurity and excessive noise which is logical when one
thinks of the roaming “quadra-tracs” effect. The problem is that most of the “quadra-tracs” trail trekking
goes on “illegally” inside the park. Everybody talks about them, but they bring tourists and new jobs and
with agriculture on the down swing, why bother when they are in the “back forest”. What you do not
see, you do not care about, mind, or maybe both. Curiously enough in the case of Bijagual the variable
central to tourism sustainability is municipal involvement and support. What one missed most usually
has the tendency to become a major concern and when these things are related to human-institutional
actions and do not happen, then people seem to mind or complain the most.
Quebrada Ganado is the “new dormitory community” of the large beach development projects
going on in Herradura and Jaco at the present time, as rentals and housing in these communities are too
highly priced for the “local consumer” due to the “tourism boom”. The tourist workers go somewhere
else where rentals are cheaper, not much, just some and this is Quebrada Ganado. If ones sees the
community and compares it with five years ago “the boom” in low cost, cheap housing is obvious. The
results of the factor analysis indicated that the associated variables describing factor two are feel train,
improvement due to tourism development in the past 10 years, park creation of a good idea and being
taken into consideration when the park administration decides on something that affects them, are the
logical dimension to a sustainable tourism development base on a good relation with their neighbor the
park. It is important to remark that the town’s main street in its’ north end finishes at the “park fence”,
with serious implications for illegal activities and tense relations between park and community
members.
In the case of Quebrada Ganado, factor one the most important is described by the following
factors: employment generation, new business opportunities, tourist visits, income for the community,
cultural exchange, and excessive urbanization. A dormitory community like Quebrada Ganado should
have this as their most important concerns and that is clearly reflected in the separation of underlying
variables explaining factor one and two. In the case of the standardized regression results, the fact that
planning is identified as the central variables in a way corroborates the previous results. The rapid
growth impose on them as a dormitory non-beach community nearby the main tourist destinations of
Jaco and Herradura, may in the future create problems that they may not be properly equipped to face
although it seems that they have some trust in the idea of “planning”.
The Herradura results have to be framed by two very important facts a) the town is
experiencing one of the most rapid and massive tourism developments that began when the Marriot
Hotel chain open the “Los Sueños” marina and beach resort, a “gigantic” five star and very luxurious
eco-beach development in the area located between the highway and the beach front and south of the
“original town” , north of the coastal highway, and b) the physical split between the “north” and “south”
of the town. The north side is very similar to any of the other four towns previously described however
the south could be another “Costa Rica version of South Beach, Miami, Florida”, less pretentious but still
“touristically” booming.
The survey faced one major problem from the beginning, the tourist developers would not talk
to us, and therefore their view point is not included in the study. The material was collected only in the
north community and in the south in the areas representing the “local” neighborhoods. The opinions
represent those of the Costa Ricans living in Herradura, making them comparable to the opinions
collected in the other four communities, even though in those communities the study did not face the
same problem because there is not big development similar to the one that is going one in Herradura
during June, 2007 when the study was conducted. Thus the statistical inter-community comparisons are
valid, but isolating “the new immigrants” not because it was meant that way, but because developers
own design and decision. The answers given by the “local Herradureans” prove beyond any reasonable
doubt that the place is different from the other four communities.
The factor analysis results were in a way a confirmation of what was expected of Herradura in
relation to the position of the community regarding sustainable tourism development. The variables
explaining factor one seem to be associated with economic improvement, origins of the economic
improvement during the past ten years , the existence of businesses to take care of the tourists arriving
to the area, being taken into consideration when the parks make decisions that may affect the
community and sustainable development. The massive housing development and the land conflicts are
bringing the problem to their front yard and they seem to see it.
The underlying variables explaining the meaning of factor two are associated with problems that
may become more complicated if tourism develops more, something that in our opinion will happen
whether or not the park develops its’ tourist services beyond the present levels. There main concerns
seem to be high land prices, excessive vehicle traffic and waste water management, three problems that
at the current tourism development level are close to a crisis point.
After the discussion of the individual community conditions it is important to attempt to identify
trends that may apply to most of the communities or those that seem to be of interest to more than two
communities. In that category we have that the tourism development that may takes place in the future
be sustainable, if that is a reaction against or a reaffirmation of the present conditions is up for
judgment. However what may in fact be indications is that the idea of sustainable tourism development
is present in the small more rural communities who are less impacted by what is going on today.
In the same category we have the idea that whatever tourism development goes on in the
future be guided by proper planning; this is interesting to the extent that sustainable tourism
development does not seem to be the result of an accident. Sustainable tourism development is made
to happen, it does not happen just because people want it to happen.
Another interesting feature or trend is the concern for high land prices. High land prices affect
rich and poor, by preventing further development and fostering land speculation. The area seems to be
going through a “land price boom” were almost anybody seems to or wants to believe that all they need
is to do is to wait for the foreign tourist or investors that will pay the “dream price” to get them out of
their poverty, making other economic activities impossible.
There is concern with different forms of waste, both solid and liquid. In communities like the
ones the study included, characterized by their small size, rural locations and limited human services
facilities, more tourists is certainly the path to make thing worst. Community members seem to know it
and show their concern. The question that remains is: Are communities willing to do something about
it? The answer is: who knows. The water and waste conflicts in Guanacaste, the country’s beach
paradise province, does not seem to indicate that the Costa Rica is willing to do what is takes to
prevent these kinds of problems.
Last but not least is the concern for local leadership, participation, municipalities, training,
information, point out a closer participation and work between the park and communities authorities.
Will it happen? Let’s hope it does, the country has already too many cases of flagrant violations of
improperly planned tourism development, lets hope that this does not become another case of
unsustainable tourism development. The communities want sustainable tourism development, let’s
hope that money and jobs do not take precedence to rational use of the environment.
The findings proved correct the hypothesis guiding the study: Sustainable tourism development
is the preferred form of tourism development by each of the communities, if they had a choice.
However the pending question of who owns Costa Rica’s natural paradises, developers or the citizenry,
is yet to be answered.
VI.-Conclusions
The conclusiosns of the study indicate that:
- Four of the five communities Playa Azul, Quebrada Ganado, Bijagual and Herradura do not
seem to differ much in terms of their socio-demographic and perceptions characteristics.
-In the community of Tárcoles,(5) Turkey’s family error test for pair-wise comparison detected at
the 95% probability level significant differences in 8 variables: income (income), Do you believe that
visitors expenses had contributed to community development (Tou Exp), do you feel that CNP is part of
the community(CNPPC), Does the park takes the community into consideration when decisions are
made that affect the community (TIConsid), The type of tourism development to be promoted should
be sustainable(Tou Sustain), The tourism development should be properly planned with rigor and
without improvisation (Tou Plann) , employment generation (EG) and cultural exchange(CE).
-The principal component (first stage) indicated that the variables associated with factors one
and two explain, in Playa Azul 51.7% of the variance, Bijagual 65. %, Tárcoles 58.3%, Herradura 48.2%
and Quebrada Ganado 49.1%.
-Factor one, in all five communities is associated with the idea of sustainability through a set of
variables mainly related to sustainability itself, like proper planning, business existence, feeling trained
to take care of visitors , participation, municipal support for local communities, interest in ecotourism
development and training in sustainable ecotourism development for community members for business
development and the concept of protection of biodiversity in its many forms and of the protection of
water.
-The second dimension is generally associated in all five communities with the problems that are
present and can be exacerbated if massive tourism development happens with concerned for
sustainability, with coefficients clearly segregating and associated to the central problems of
unsustainable tourism development: excessive urbanization, deforestation, and liquid waste,
management of waste water, high land prices, noise and insecurity. As can be observed, the underlying
dimension composition variable package is different in each community but they are all problems
associated with unsustainable tourism development.
-The stepwise regression procedure indicates that the idea of sustainable tourism development
is associated in Bijagual with support from the municipality in the process of tourism development, in
Quebrada Ganado with tourism planning, in Tárcoles with the idea that the community should
periodically be informed about the progress of projects and tourist visits, in Playa Azul with the
protection of the birds (macaws) and in Herradura with waste water management and high land prices.
-The central hypothesis of the study that sustainable tourism development is the preferred form
of tourism development by each of the communities if they had a choice was verified through the
results in all five communities, with some differences in the way the concern manifests itself in each
community.
One last comment . Sustainable tourism development has in fact become a major concerned
of many Costa Ricans concern that has been verified by the conclusions above. However a number of
communities developed split opinions about the contributions of tourism development to communities
overall development, particularly when one looks around and realized that the international image of
the country does not seem to correspond to the reality of sustainable tourism development.
Is evident that base on the results of the study, conducted that another group of Costa Rican
communities faced with an the possibility of having and opinion about what the type of tourism they
preferred the choice seem to be :sustainable.
The problem is that a rural community, with rampant poverty, with high unemployment, and
with limited options for employment. What choice do they have but to say Yes, to whatever they are
offered, knowing as many do know that what they will get maybe a “a service job” that may or may not
fulfill their expectations.
The reality from the Costa Rican society viewpoint seems to be that they in fact know what is
coming , but when what they think is coming to them from tourism development, is compare with what
they have, the hopes for a better future far out-weight the realities of an uncertain future.
Can sustainable tourism be a reality in a developing country like Costa Rica that is today a
“hemispheric hub” for “backpackers” and “millionaires” as well? The country has no choice but turn to
sustainable tourism development, as one looks at the Costa Rica of 2007 and compares with the images
of the nineties, and sees the pervasive impact of tourism everywhere The findings previously reported
leave little doubt that people preferred sustainability over massive tourism development.
But as the paper reports even the “poor” given the choice, will preferred sustainable tourism
development. The idea of choice however seem to be synonymous of participation and why not power
sharing and that remains to be seen in the Costa Rica of 2007.
VII.-Bibiography
1. Aguirre, Juan .(2000). El Desarrollo de las Comunidades Alrededor de las
Areas Protegidas: El Caso del Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio. Ministerio de Ambiente y
Energia .Camara de Comercion, Industria y Turismo de Aguirre. Seminario de Celebración de
los 28 Años del Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio. Vision del Desarrollo Turístico del Canton de
Aguirre para el Año 2010. Hotel Parador .Manuel Antonio. Puntarenas Costa Rica.
2. Aguirre,Juan. (2007).Deseables y Posibles: Participacion Communitaria,
patrimonio historico,calidad ambiental y desarrollo turistico sostenible.San Jeronimo de
Moravia, Costa Rica. PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. Vol No 5. No1 pp 1-16
3. Andereck Kathleen L. and McGehee Nancy G.(2004) Factors Predicting Rural
Residents Support of Tourism Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, No. 2, 131-140
4. Ashley, Caroline. (2000). The Impacts of Tourism on Rural Livelihoods: Namibia’s
Experience. Overseas Development Institute. Working Paper 128. London. 34 pages
5. Andereck Kathleen L. and Vogt Christine A.(2000) The Relationship between Residents'
Attitudes toward Tourism and Tourism Development Options Journal of Travel Research, Vol.
39, No. 1, 27-36.
6. Akis Sevgin, Peristianis Nicos and Warner, and Jonathan.(1996) Residents' attitudesto
tourism development: the case of Cyprus.Tourism Management. Vol 17.Issue 7.November 1996,
Pages 481-494
7. Allen, Lawrence R.; Long, Patrick T.; Perdue, Richard R.; and Kieselbach, Scott. (1998). The
Impact Of Tourism Development On Residents' Perceptions Of Community Life. Journal of
Travel Research, Vol/Issue: 27/1, 1988 Sum pp.16-21.
8.- Akama, John S.(1996) Western Environmental Values And Nature-Based Tourism In
Kenya. Tourism Management, Vol/Issue: 17/8, pp.567-574.
9. Burlingame, Leslie. (2000). Conservation in the Monteverde Zone.Contributions of
Conservation Organizations. in Nadkarni, Nalini.M and Wheelwright, Nathaniel T. Monteverde
:Ecology and Conservation of a Tropical Cloud Forest.Oxford University Press. New
Yorkd.2000. pages 351-388
10. Beeler, Björn G.(2000) Opportunities and threats to local sustainable development:
Introducing ecotourism to Venado Island, Costa Rica. Thesis, Submitted to the Lund University's
International Master's Programme in Environmental Sciences. Lund Sweden.52 pages.
11. Boza, Mario A.(1993). “Conservation in Action: Past, Present, and Future of the National
.Park System of Costa Rica.” Conservation Biology. 7.2 (1993): 239-247.
12. Brunet Sandra, Bauer Johannes, De Lacy Terry and Tshering Kara.(1994) Tourism
Development in Bhutan: Tesnions between tradition and modernity. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism. Vol 9. No 3. 245-253
13. Campbell Lisa M. Ecotourism in rural developing communities.(1999) Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 534-553,
14. Cevat,T.(2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in
developing countries .Journal of Leisure Research. Vol 21.Issue 6.Pages 613-633
15. Dean Jane and Aguirre, Juan (2000).International Tourism and its Contribution tothe Total
Valuation of the Tropical Rainforest: A proposed Method and Application in Costa Rica.
Working Paper. Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Enseñanza. Programa de
Postgrado. Turrialba.
16. Damon, Thomas A. and Vaughan, Christopher. (1993). Ecotourism and WildlifeConservation
in Costa Rica: Potential for a Sustainable Partnership? Heredia, CR: National University.
Unpublished
17. Davis ,Jeffrey Sasha and Morais Duarte B. (2004)Factions and Enclaves: Small Towns and
Socially Unsustainable Tourism Development Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, No. 1. 3-10
18. Fouche, Samantha, Gillian Kruskall, Courtney Sulerud.(2001) Field Exercise Determining
theRelationship Between the Private Reserves in Monteverde and the SurroundingCommunities.
Unpublished,The School for Field Studies.Atenas. Costa Rica.
19. Gray Noella.(2003) Global discourses, local views:visions of volunteer ecotourismin
Gandoca, Costa Rica. Department of Geography.Thesis.Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of ArtsFaculty of Graduate Studies. The University of
Western Ontario London, Ontario.179 pages
20. Haukeland Jan Vidar (1984).Sociocultural impacts of tourism in Scandinavia :Studies of
three host communities Tourism Management.Vol.Issue 3.. Pages 207-214
21. Heisterkamp, Marc; Mourton, Natalie; Sedlacek, Keisha.(2001) "Assessment of Land Use in
Relation to Biodiversity in and Around Manuel Antonio National Park, Costa Rica." SFS-CEDS:
Atenas, Costa Rica. (unpublished).
22. Huang, Yueh-Huang; and Stewart, William P. (1996) Rural Tourism Development: Shifting
Basis Of Community Solidarity. Journal of Travel Research, Vol/Issue: 34/4, pp.26-31.
23. Holland, Stephen M.; Crotts, John C.(1992) A Strategic Planning Approach To Tourism
Development In Rural Communities. Visions in Leisure and Business, Vol/Issue: 11/1, pp.14-23.
24. Jurowski Claudia and Brown Desmond Omotayo (2001) A Comparison of the Views of
Involved versus Noninvolved Citizens on Quality of Life and Tourism Development Issues
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 25, No. 4, 355-370 (2001)
25. Kachigan, Sam K.(1991). Multivariate Statistical Analysis. A Conceptual Approach. Second
Edition.Radius Press. New York.
26. Knight, John.(1996). Competing Hospitalities in Japanese Rural Tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol/Issue: 23/1, pp.165-180.
27. La Nacion. (2001).Vecinos peleando por agua: Guanacaste. Articulo en periodico. La
Nacion. Febrero.
28. La Nacion. (2007).Locales vrs extranjeros por dominio de la tierra: Playa Herradura..
Articulo en periodico. La Nacion. Julio.
29. Lepp, Andrew Paul.(2004). Tourism in a rural Ugandan village: impacts, local meaning and
implications for development. A dissertation presented to the graduate school of the University
of Florida. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. In partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Gainesville. .238 pages
30. Lindberg, Kreg and Jeremy Enriquez. (1994). An Analysis of Ecotourism's Economic
Contribution to Conservation and Development in Belize. World Wildlife Fund, Washington,
D.C., United States, 2 volumes
31. Mason, Peter, and Cheyne, Joanne.(2000) Residents' Attitudes to Proposed Tourism
Development. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol/Issue: 27/2, pp.391-411
32. McKercher Bob (1993).The unrecognized threat to tourism Can tourism survives
‘sustainability’? Tourism Management. Vol 14.Issue 2. , April 1993, Pages 131-136
33. Murphy Peter E(1983). Tourism as a community industry—an ecological model of tourism
development. Tourism Management. Vol 4. Issue 3. 1983, 180-193
35. Nelson, Sherre. P.(2000). The inter-relationships between nature base tourism in a
community and nearby lodges in the brazilian amazon. Fundacion Taiguey. Santo Domingo
Republica Dominicana. 20 pages.
36. Place, Susan E. Nature Tourism And Rural Development In Tortuguero.(1991) Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol/Issue: 18/2, pp.186-201.
37. Ritchie J. R. B Consensus policy formulation in tourism measuring resident views via survey
research (1998).Tourism Management. Vol 9. Issue 3. September 1988, Pages 199-212
38. Stem Caroline J, Lassoie, James P. Lee David R. and Deshler David J (2000) How ‘Eco’ is
Ecotourism? A Comparative Case Study of Ecotourism in Costa Rica Journal of Sustainable
Tourism Vol. 11, No. 4, 322-326
39. Schuett, Michael A.(1993) Amish Perceptions Of Tourism In An Illinois Amish Community.
Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol/Issue: 1/3, 1993 pp.63-78.
40. Smith, Michael D., and Krannich, Richard S. Tourism Dependence And Resident
Attitudes.(1998) Annals of Tourism Research,Vol/Issue: 25/4, pp.783-802.
41. Schellas J, Sherman T, Fahey E and Lassoie J P (2002).Linking Community and national
parks development ; A case study from the Dominican Republic. Natural Resource Forum. Vol
26.Page 140-151.
42. Wall, Geoffrey. Is Ecotourism Sustainable?(1997) Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Volume
21, p. 483 –491
43. Weaver, David B. and Lawton, Laura J.(2004). Visitor Attitudes toward Tourism
Development and Product Integration in an Australian Urban-Rural Fringe Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 42, No. 3, 286-296.
44. Wearing, S and Parsonson, R.(1991) Rainforest Tourism.Tourism Management. Vol 12.
Issue 3. Pages 236-244
45. Wells, Michael and Brandon, Katrina. (1992). Parks and People: Linking Protected Area
Management with Local Communities. Washington, DC: The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development.
46. World Wildlife Fund for Nature. (2004). How effective are Protected Areas. A Preliminary
Analysis of Forested Protected Areas. -The Largest Ever Global Assessment of Protected Areas
Management Effectiveness. Forest Protective Areas Initiative. WWF International Gland.
Switzerland. 32 pages.