Ecotourism and Conservation: Two Cases from Brazil

Downloaded By: [Stronza, Amanda] At: 17:55 10 July 2008

Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13:263–279, 2008 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1087-1209 print / 1533-158X online DOI: 10.1080/10871200802187097

Ecotourism and Conservation: Two Cases from Brazil and Peru

1533-158X 1087-1209 UHDW Human Dimensions of Wildlife Wildlife, Vol. 13, No. 4, May 2008: pp. 1–32

Ecotourism A. Stronza and andF.Conservation Pêgas

AMANDA STRONZA AND FERNANDA PÊGAS Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University College Station, Texas, USA This article evaluates two theories to explain the relationship between ecotourism and conservation. One posits that economic benefits must accrue to local communities for ecotourism to result in conservation; the other holds that social benefits, including participation in management, must also be present. Although these ideas about causal mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, scholarly studies tend to reflect one more than the other. Two ecotourism projects from Brazil and Peru are compared. The Brazil study illustrates sea turtle ecotourism that generates economic benefits for coastal communities. The case in Peru also generates economic benefits for a local community, but has the added goal of building local management capacity. Both cases provide empirical evidence for causal mechanisms linking ecotourism with conservation. In the Brazil case, economic benefits alone seem to account for conservation outcomes. In Peru, local participation in ecotourism management has also sparked collective action for conservation. Keywords ecotourism, participation, economic benefits, incentives, institutions

Introduction Over the past 20 years, conservationists have looked to ecotourism as a potential win-win strategy for protecting the environment while also meeting human needs. In an early paper from Conservation International, Ziffer (1989) predicted ecotourism would elude precise definitions, partly because the term seeks to do so much. “Ecotourism” describes an activity, sets forth a philosophy, and espouses a model of development. Environmental organizations and development agencies have invested heavily in ecotourism, channeling significant flows of capital and technical expertise directly to local peoples residing near and in protected areas (Weaver & Lawton, 2007). The United States Agency for International Development alone has spent more than US$2 billion on ecotourism projects (Kiss, 2004). In 2003, 170 nations attending the World Parks Congress in South Africa called for increased measures to make ecotourism a more effective “vehicle” for conserving biodiversity and reducing poverty (IUCN, 2003). Despite its popularity, theorists and practitioners have yet to understand the conditions under which ecotourism works effectively as a tool for conservation (Doan, 2000; Kruger, 2005). Most research on ecotourism to date comprises case studies of impacts on local communities and natural resources (Agrawal & Redford, 2006). Often the goal is to measure how and why ecotourism leads to conservation. Some scholars evaluate how economic Address correspondence to Amanda Stronza, Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences, TAMU 2261, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 77843-2261. E-mail: astronza@ tamu.edu

263


264

A. Stronza and F. Pêgas

changes associated with ecotourism lead to conservation outcomes (Gossling, 1999; Langholz, 1999). For example, do new revenues, employment, and income generate new incentives and opportunities for conservation? Others focus on social changes associated with ecotourism (Scheyvens, 1999; Stonich, 2000). For example, do locals participate in planning, and does such involvement help foster conservation? We suggest that these lines of inquiry reflect fundamentally different theories about the mechanisms that determine how and why ecotourism leads to conservation. We evaluated evidence against two theories that explain the relationship between ecotourism and conservation. One theory posits that economic benefits must accrue to local communities for ecotourism to result in conservation; the other holds that social benefits, such as participation in ecotourism management, must also be present. Although these ideas about causal mechanisms linking ecotourism and conservation are not mutually exclusive, scholarly case studies tend to reflect one more than the other. We first review these two overarching theories, especially as they appear in cases studies from Latin America. We then present two field studies from Brazil and Peru. The Brazil study illustrates sea turtle ecotourism that generates economic benefits for coastal communities. The case in Peru also generates economic benefits for a local community, but has the added goal of building local management capacity. Both cases provide empirical evidence for causal mechanisms linking ecotourism with conservation. However, in the Brazil case, economic benefits alone seem to account for conservation outcomes. In Peru, local participation in ecotourism management has also sparked collective action for conservation.

Literature Review We define ecotourism as nature tourism that intentionally seeks to deliver net positive contributions to environmental conservation and sustainable development for local communities (Cater & Lowman, 1994; Wallace & Pierce, 1996; Wearing & Neil, 1999). At times ecotourism’s goals of conservation and development have been mutually reinforcing (Alexander, 2000; Wunder, 1999). In other cases, ecotourism has failed to deliver benefits either for people or the environment (Belsky, 1999; West & Carrier, 2004). Success and failure in ecotourism have varied over time as well. Short-term economic gains in some places have led to degradation of resources in the long term (Barrett, Brandon, Gibson, & Gjertsen, 2001). The variability in ecotourism success may be partly due to different methods for evaluating conservation (Agrawal & Redford, 2006). Some researchers have measured conservation as an ethic, discernible through people’s attitudes or values (Archabald & Naughton-Treves, 2001; Lindberg, Enriquez & Spoule, 1996; Weinberg, Bellows, & Ekster, 2002). Others have evaluated conservation as a set of behaviors, either observed or reported, including how much people hunt or harvest timber, or how they dispose of waste, or whether they have established a reserve or protected area (Barkin, 2003; Ogutu, 2002). See Table 1 for examples of conservation indicators. Researchers have also differed in their theories of how and why ecotourism works for conservation. Some theorists suggest that the causal mechanism connecting ecotourism with conservation is economic gain (Gossling, 1999; Lindberg, 1991). A central premise of ecotourism is that tourism revenues can become incentives for local residents to conserve the natural resources tourists pay to see (Malek-Zadeh, 1996). In Papua New Guinea, for example, the environmental organization, Conservation International, promoted bird-watching ecotourism to create financial incentives for residents to cease hunting of some bird species (West, 2006).

265

Economic benefits

Community participation

Conservation indicators

Conservation success?

Alexander (2000) Employment, income for Belize residents; Assistance in loans to develop tourism enterprises.

Community residents are members of Advisory Committee; pledged land management

a) Perceptions of Baboon Sanctuary; b) Attitudes, knowledge about monkeys, conservation efforts; c) Resource use/access. a) Attitudes about conservation; b) Illegal logging activities; c) Resource use/access.

(Continued)

a) Favorable perceptions of Sanctuary; b) bonding with monkeys; support for conservation; c) Uneven distribution of economic benefits. a) Support of conservation but disCommunities denied Barkin (2003) Employment, income to satisfied with economic benemanagement of lands, Mexico few residents. Employment fits; b) Illegal logging associated decision-making about opportunities with limited employment Reserve. mostly seasonal. c) No access to resources a) Attitudes about conservation; a) Some conservation support; Belsky (1999) Limited and sporadic income Limited to few families b) Dissatisfaction about b) Attitudes, perceptions about and individuals, which Belize from B&Bs and economic benefits; c) Access has led to conflicts. ecotourism; c) Resource use/ tourguiding. regulated by law; persistent access. degradation. a) Perceptions about impacts of a) Ecotourism expected to diminNot in ecotourism; Campbell (1999) Entrance fees from Refuge; ish egg harvesting; b) Limited ecotourism on egg harvesting Community formed Costa Rica Income, employment at potential to reduce dependence and on sea turtles; b) Potential development association, B&Bs and restaurants. on egg harvesting; likely to for tourism to reduce depenadministers legal eggEconomic benefits limited generate conflict. dence on and/or conflict with harvesting within Refuge, to few households and legalized sea turtle eggegg packaging, and individuals. harvesting. national egg distribution.

Citation and country

Table 1 Sample of indicators for benefits, participation, and conservation in ecotourism studies


266

Economic benefits

Wallace & Pierce Employment at lodges (1996) Brazil (although most positions filled by non-locals); Sale of local goods; Income.

Income, employment from guided trips and restaurants; Sale of local products for cooperative members; Services from tourism for non-members. Stem et al. (2003) Benefits varied across sites; Costa Rica employment and income opportunities at hotels/ restaurants, training, and infrastructure development.

Foucat (2002) Mexico

Citation and country

Conservation success?

a) Positive attitudes about lodges, though less favorable among locals; b) Landfills used; no recycling or composting; c) Wild animals tamed, in captivity; limited trail maintenance; d) Basic septic systems for sewage and gray water; Reports of river dumping and direct discharge; No management plans.

a) Perceptions about cooperative a) Residents support cooperative efforts; more tourism is welprojects and increase of tourcome; b) Tourism not perism arrivals; b) Perceptions of ceived as major threat; tourism impacts on environc) Positive perceptions about ment; c) Perceptions about ecotourism. ecotourism. a) Decline in hunting, deforestaa) Perceptions about hunting, tion; b) Higher forest cover deforestation; b) Percentage of rates among families in ecotfamily land under forest cover; ourism; c) Solid waste c) Solid waste generation; increased, some hotels dump d) Conservation practices and waste at sea. perspectives; e) Environmental awareness.

Conservation indicators

No ownership or manage- a) Attitudes about tourism/ecotourism; b) Solid waste manment of ecotourism venagement; c) Impacts on tures by local people; No wildlife and at visitor-use organized attempt to sites; and d) Soil, water, and address community vegetation impacts. concerns.

Minimal local involvement.

Ecotourism operators are members of local cooperative.

Community participation

Table 1 (Continued)


267

Young (1999) Mexico

Wunder (2000) Ecuador

Weinberg et al. (2002) Costa Rica

Yes, but limited. Employment and income through restaurants, lodging, and other services; Training; Income; and Funding to support conservation areas.

a) Attitudes about conservation; a) Support for and engagement in conservation efforts; b) Impleb) Waste generation; mentation of recycling c) Perceived successes/failures program; concern about waste of ecotourism; d) Perceived generation; c) Conservation history of ecotourism in area, ethics vs. pollution and waste comparison to other destinageneration; d) Awareness tions. about social and ecological benefits of ecotourism. a) Attitudes about conservation; a) Overall support for conservaIncome, employment vary by Yes, but participation b) Hunting zoning and restriction; b) Effectiveness of huntvaries across communicommunity. Employment tions. ing zonings, restrictions varied ties with most control opportunities from touracross communities: more under the control of guiding, lodging, canoe effective where locals most travel agencies. transport; alternative involved in decision-making. income from sales of food, handicrafts, tips. Values varied between com- Fishing concessions estab- a) Perceptions about fish stocks, a) Fish stocks declining; Overfishing results from poor overfishing, and whale watchlished by government. munities (greater impact at resource management; whale ing; b) Attitudes about gray Whale watching ecotregional rather than local). watching viable alternative; whales and ecotourism. ourism participation Alternative income, b) Locals support whale through local cooperaemployment from whale watching ecotourism. tive; most activities watching tours, lodging, focused on few families. and restaurants.


268



Economic Benefits and Conservation Studies characterize ecotourism as a market-based approach to conservation (Salafsky & Wollenberg, 2000). The assumption is that “economic interests motivate the use of natural resources . . . [and] offering alternative income sources will alleviate the egregious behaviors of local residents” (Brown & Decker, 2005, p. 139). The logic further holds that more economic benefits from ecotourism will lead to more—or more effective—resource conservation, and conversely, that the cessation of benefits will signal demise for resources. Measuring the impacts of ecotourism under this framework entails gathering data on numbers of visitors, rooms occupied, expenditures, and calculating revenues, number of jobs, volume of local commerce, and other economic indices (Taylor, Yunez-Naude, & Ardila, 2003; Wilson & Tisdell, 2003). Income and employment opportunities often appear in studies as indicators of successful ecotourism projects (Bookbinder, Dinerstein, Rijal, Cauley, & Rajouria, 1998; Gossling, 1999). Langholz (1999), for example, assessed how ecotourism income caused people to reduce their reliance on commercial agriculture, hunting, logging, cattle ranching, and gold mining. Under this same framework (although showing different results), Bookbinder et al. (1998) argued that ecotourism benefits were insufficient to provide incentives for local communities to conserve wildlife. Walpole and Goodwin (2001) also found no relationship between receipt of tourism benefits and support for conservation. Wunder (1999) identified income and employment from ecotourism activities in the Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve of Ecuador as important incentives for members of a local community to support conservation efforts. In Costa Rica, Troëng and Drews (2004) found that ecotourism became a primary source of income for families near Tortuguero National Park, a destination where visitors pay to see sea turtles. The authors concluded that economic benefits became incentives for residents to protect sea turtles. There are, however, limitations to the idea that economic benefits are the causal mechanism between ecotourism and conservation. Some ecotourism projects have not generated sufficient economic benefits to build incentives for conservation among host communities (Jacobson & Robles, 1992). Ecotourism enterprises may also create relatively few jobs relative to the number of local residents (Lindberg et al., 1996). In Mexico, employment opportunities from the Monarch Butterfly Reserve fell short of achieving the expected economic outcomes, and logging activities continued unabated (Barkin, 2003). Lindberg and colleagues (1996) reported similar results in Belize, where tourism activities failed to generate financial support for protected area management. Belsky (1999) found that sporadic ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize, decreased local livelihood security, and triggered a “violent backlash against conservation” (p. 662). Even when provided, economic benefits may not be sufficient to encourage conservation. In Mexico, Young (1999) found that economic revenues from Gray whale watching did not reduce external pressures on inshore fisheries. Frameworks that pay attention primarily to economic change may overlook the ways in which ecotourism can alter social dynamics within host communities (Zografos & Oglenthorpe, 2004). In Papua New Guinea, West (2006) found that tourism brought more work for women in the village of Maimafu. Women became responsible not only for family chores, but also for producing handicraft items to sell to tourists. Gentry (2007) showed that Belizean women involved in the tourism industry experienced especially high levels of stress and illness, problems arising from double workdays. In Costa Rica, Stem, Lassoie, Lee, and Deshler (2003) found ecotourism associated with communal disintegration, and increased use of alcohol and drugs.


Ecotourism and Conservation

269

These social problems, combined with competing demands for local resources, such as ecotourism versus fishing, have led to conflicts among local residents in Baja, Mexico (Young, 1999). In Ostional, a wildlife refuge in Costa Rica, local residents compete with the ecotourism industry for the use of sea turtles (Campbell, 2007). Although sea turtles are protected, local residents are not restricted from harvesting sea turtle eggs. However, because local economic benefits from harvesting are superior to those generated by ecotourism, changes in access and use of sea turtle eggs will likely generate resentment rather than increase local support for conservation.

Social Changes and Conservation Social dimensions of ecotourism affect natural resource use and conservation in host destinations. Whether and how local residents participate in ecotourism management is one social dimension that affects resource use. Changes in people’s abilities and inclinations to work together are relevant to their potential for collective action for resource management (Berkes, 2004). Kassilly (2007) argues that conservation projects should focus on economic benefits derived from wildlife as well as on non-economic values, benefits, and purposes for which people may want to conserve. Thus, an alternative framework looks beyond economic benefits and pays explicit attention to social, political, and historical variables linking ecotourism and conservation. Case studies have generated holistic understandings of ecotourism success, pointing to non-economic factors, such as local participation in ownership and management (Stonich, 1998; Stem et al., 2003). Stonich (2000), for example, found that devolution of control from private tour operators and the government to local residents made a positive difference for conservation in Honduras. Borman (1999) also described benefits of local control over ecotourism for protecting Cofan indigenous territories in Ecuador. These analyses of ecotourism are rooted in discourses about community-based conservation (Brechin, Wilshusen, Fortwangler, & West, 2002; Western & Wright 1994). Evaluations focus on social organization and the strength of local institutions in direct relation to conservation (Brosius, Tsing, & Zerner, 1998). North (1990) defined institutions as “rules of the game” in a society; they guide the things people do as individuals in a larger collective. Communities with strong institutions have rules about behavior, including rules about resource use (hunting, forest extraction, and so forth), which all members of the community understand (Agrawal, 2001; Ostrom, 1990). Even if not everyone follows the rules, the rules are understood and enforced by members of a collective. Strong local institutions depend on trust, coordination, and social capital (Pretty & Ward, 2001). The central premise of this theory in relation to conservation is that communities with strong institutions will be able to manage shared (“common pool”) resources. For example, residents of a community may cooperate to create and monitor an ecotourism reserve, or limit hunting and other forms of resource exploitation near a community ecotourism lodge. Yet, people will cooperate only if they have the confidence and trust that others in the group will follow the same rules and/or face sanctions if they break the rules. With strong institutions, local communities may be better prepared to absorb negative changes associated with ecotourism, such as unequal distribution of profits (Bray, Cornejo, Cohan, & Beitl, 2005). If local institutions are relatively weak, ecotourism has the potential to destabilize communities even more (Jones, 2005). Some ecotourism projects involve local residents in decision-making and management. These ecotourism projects have the potential to strengthen local institutions for conservation. Participation becomes a potential causal mechanism for linking ecotourism with


270


conservation. Sharing ecotourism management with local communities can be critical for forging real linkages between ecotourism and conservation. For example, Stronza and Gordillo (2008) found that residents of an indigenous village in Bolivia who run their own ecotourism operation gained skills while managing the lodge that have prepared them to work together to manage forests and wildlife. This included establishing and monitoring a buffer zone for wildlife conservation and ecotourism outside of the Madidi National Park. In this case, the causal link between ecotourism and conservation was not just market incentives, but also social empowerment (Scheyvens, 1999) and strengthened local institutions (Bray et al., 2005). Another example comes from the Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve in Ecuador. Wunder (2000) reported a reduction of hunting among some communities near the reserve. The communities that had rules in place (institutions) for hunting were those involved in ecotourism management; those that did not have rules were involved in ecotourism only as employees or income earners. Participation in ecotourism management seemed to be associated with greater support for conservation and awareness of impacts on resources (Foucat, 2002). In summary, a review of case study literature in ecotourism suggests at least two causal relationships between ecotourism and conservation. In one, the mechanism linking ecotourism with conservation is the creation of economic incentives. According to scholarship on market-based conservation, economic incentives may or may not lead to conservation outcomes. In some cases, economic benefits are sufficient for gaining at least a modicum of local support for conservation. In other cases, economic benefits from ecotourism were insufficient for conservation. In the worst cases, ecotourism generated conflicts and other social problems that ultimately diminished rather than increased chances for collective action for conservation. A second potential mechanism for linking ecotourism with conservation is local involvement in ecotourism management. Case study literature suggests that when local communities engage in ecotourism as managers, their capacity for collective action increases, and local institutions are strengthened. The following evaluates these possibilities in two ecotourism case studies from Brazil and Peru.

Case Study 1: Sea Turtles and Ecotourism in Brazil The Brazilian Sea Turtle Conservation Program (TAMAR) promotes ecotourism as one strategy for protecting sea turtles (Marcovaldi et al., 1998). Some authors have called TAMAR a model for sea turtle conservation worldwide (Spotila, 2004). Created in 1980, TAMAR is a collaborative effort between the Brazilian government’s Institute of Renewable Resources (IBAMA) and a non-profit organization, Fundação Pró-TAMAR. TAMAR has 22 research stations and monitors 1,100 kilometers of beaches in nine Brazilian states. It employs approximately 1,200 people from the coastal communities where TAMAR works (Projeto TAMAR, 2008). The national headquarters of TAMAR are located in the fishing village of Praia do Forte. Praia do Forte lies 80 km north of Salvador, Bahia’s state capital, and is home to about 2,000 residents (PMMSJ, 2004). In 2007, 110 residents of Praia do Forte and adjacent communities worked at TAMAR’s Research Station and Visitor Center. Biologists collaborate with local fishermen to monitor sea turtles along the village’s 30 km of coastline. When the Research Station opened in 1982, it had just a few water tanks for marine wildlife. A Visitor Center opened a few years later. Today, the Center is profitable, hosting approximately 600,000 visitors per year.



271

Ecotourism activities at the Visitor Center take place throughout the year, but it is during the nesting season that sea turtle hatchlings draw most tourists. Between September and March, visitors can observe TAMAR’s biologists and trained personnel open nests located within the Center and release hatchlings at the adjacent beach. The Visitor Center also offers environmental education programs and interpretive displays of marine fauna. The Center collects entrance fees and features a retail store that sells sea turtle souvenirs, many made by local cooperatives. Revenues from the Center return to the village in wages, financial assistance to a local childcare center, and sponsorship of communal programs, such as beach clean-ups. We conducted seven months of ethnographic research in Praia do Forte, focusing on local impacts of TAMAR’s sea turtle conservation and ecotourism programs. Between May and August 2006, 25 in-depth interviews with fishermen and their families in Praia do Forte, tourism business owners, and representatives of local environmental organizations were conducted. Between September and December 2007, an additional 77 semistructured interviews were carried out with residents of Praia do Forte, including 25 employees of TAMAR. Interviews took place at the Visitor Center or at a location selected by the respondent. Each interview lasted about 90 minutes. Overall, we found a positive relationship between TAMAR and the community. When TAMAR started in 1982, only 500 people were living in Praia do Forte and tourism activities were minimal (Projeto TAMAR, 2008). Respondents described a kind of “growing together” between the Project and the community, as fishermen and scientists exchanged information, and especially as the project provided certain kinds of support to the community. These interactions prompted at least one resident to remark, “TAMAR is like a father figure for the community.” The villagers’ characterization of TAMAR reflects a larger, historical relationship of economic dependency between Praia do Forte and outside interests. Until the early 1970s, the village was part of a coconut plantation. Residents looked to the plantation owners for employment, education, and other support. Generally, what villagers needed, the plantation provided; government assistance was limited or altogether absent. For many, the arrival of TAMAR helped change this situation, although, essentially, the provider shifted from the plantation to the conservation program. Through the Visitor Center and Research Station, TAMAR now offers jobs, environmental education, and technical support to fishermen. As one resident explained, “People come to see the turtles . . . so we need the turtles and TAMAR here in the village to have an income.” Another respondent noted, “The village functions around the turtles and the turtles are here because of TAMAR.” Yet another commented, “We need the turtles and TAMAR here. Otherwise, how will we make our living?” Thus, the assistance from TAMAR makes it a “father figure” in a way that reflects the history of the plantation. The economic relationship between TAMAR and Praia do Forte seems to have positive outcomes for sea turtle conservation. Project leaders at TAMAR estimate that 70% of sea turtle nests in Brazil remain intact (Projeto TAMAR, 2008). To date, TAMAR has released more than nine million sea turtle hatchlings nationwide (Governo da Bahia, 2007). There are other signs of conservation success at the community level, too. Seventytwo respondents (94%) reported that they value sea turtles differently than they did years ago. People explained that sea turtles were once a source of food, as people harvested the eggs and nesting females for subsistence needs. Respondents report that now turtles are only symbolically important as icons of the village. Sixty-eight (88%) respondents stated that the community helps protect sea turtles. Residents said they call TAMAR if they see a turtle or hatchling that is hurt, in need of care, or if they see someone is harming a sea turtle or breaking the law. Most respondents


272


know that harvesting a sea turtle or their eggs is a federal crime leading to jail time without bail. Despite such punishment, 69 respondents (90%) stated that sea turtle protection laws are good laws. As one resident said, “I think the laws are good because they help protect the turtles . . . those who break should be penalized.” The majority of fishermen also supported the laws. Will economic benefits from TAMAR continue to be sufficient for sustaining local support for sea turtle conservation? Some factors indicate that the answer is yes as the majority of families in Praia do Forte rely on TAMAR to make a living. Tourism is thriving in the region and seems to be on the rise. In 2007, Praia do Forte was voted the eighth best beach in Brazil and the TAMAR Research Station and Visitor Center a “must see” tourism destination in the region (Veja, 2007). Despite current successes, the future relationship between ecotourism and conservation in Praia do Forte is potentially unstable. If anything were to happen to the ecotourism economy, the chances for ongoing conservation are less promising. Forty-eight respondents (62%) believe that the harvesting of sea turtle meat and eggs would pick up again if TAMAR closed the Visitor Center and Research Station. Respondents also said that local people would not be the ones harvesting, but rather non-local residents who would move in or have already done so. Local residents showed special concern for the male workers who have moved to region to work in construction of new regional businesses. An additional challenge for long-term sea turtle conservation is the fact that most residents no longer depend directly on sea turtles, fish, or other marine resources for subsistence needs or as a source of income. This means that their traditional and cultural ties with the resources their parents and grandparents depended on are now diverted to the ecotourism economy. Most people pay for their fish; and sea turtles are “consumed” primarily as symbols in T-shirts and souvenirs. Although many older residents miss traditional fishing, it is no longer economically important. Only three respondents (4%) reported direct reliance on fishing as a source of income, whereas 44 (57%) reported income from tourism and 28 (36%) from TAMAR. Finally, a concern for long-term conservation associated with ecotourism is the fact that TAMAR’s programs have not been participatory. The majority of respondents did not see themselves as co-managers with TAMAR. The majority of respondents (83%) said they do not have a voice in what takes place within the community, especially in relation to tourism development. Participation in communal meetings or projects was unusual for most respondents. In 2007, 14 residents (18%) participated in a project that benefited the community in any aspect, and only 4 (5%) stated that the community worked together in a communal project. The lack of involvement of community members in higher levels of management has precluded chances for gaining other skills. Respondents stated that younger generations would lack skills to seek higher-level employment or compete with outside labor. People described this as a serious limitation for their children especially in the face of competition with non-locals. In summary, the Projeto TAMAR in Praia do Forte is an example of positive feedbacks between economic returns from ecotourism and conservation for marine life. TAMAR researchers have addressed 99% of the original threats on sea turtle eggs and nesting females in the region (TAMAR, 2008). This success is primarily a function of economic benefits associated with ecotourism at the Research Station and Visitor Center. This case is an example of a market-based approach to conservation through ecotourism. This theory holds that economic benefits are causal mechanisms for linking ecotourism with conservation. Project directors at TAMAR explicitly promote ecotourism as a way to generate employment and economic incentives for local residents of Praia do Forte to care



273

about and protect sea turtles. The program does not include local residents of Praia do Forte in management decisions. Yet, residents in Praia do Forte have not described this lack of participation as a problem. Rather, many report support for TAMAR and sea turtle conservation. Had TAMAR engaged local residents more fully in management, perhaps the future for sea turtle conservation would be stronger, as it would be less dependent on the ecotourism economy. Perhaps the youth would have gained other skills enabling them to take direction of their own development, either with TAMAR or with the tourism industry.

Case Study 2: Rainforests and Ecotourism in Peru The case study in Brazil represents a kind of ecotourism that promotes primarily employment and income benefits for local communities. Our second case study is an example of ecotourism that involves local residents not only in employment and revenue sharing, but also in decision-making. In the southern Peruvian Amazon, a local village of 150 families, the Comunidad Nativa de Infierno (Native Community of Infierno), owns and co-manages an ecotourism lodge called Posada Amazonas (Gordillo, Hunt, & Stronza, 2008). Since 1996, the community has partnered with a Lima-based, private tourism company to share management of the lodge. As part of the 20-year, legally binding joint venture, the community earns 60% of profits, and the company earns 40%. In the year 2016, the community will assume full management of the lodge and profits. The joint venture has won numerous international ecotourism awards, including the United Nations Equator Initiative, and accolades from the International Ecotourism Society, Conservation International, Conde Nast Traveler, and Outside Magazine. The lodge accommodates 60 guests at a time, and currently has a share of 30% of all tourists who travel to the department of Madre de Dios in southeastern Peru. Annually, Posada Amazonas hosts between 6,000–7,000 guests mostly from the United States and Europe. Attractions are tropical bird and mammal species, including abundant populations of large macaws, primates, giant otters, and caiman. The lodge features a 47-meter canopy tower that provides panoramic views of primary rainforest along the Tambopata River. We have been conducting research in Infierno since 1996, studying the dynamics of ecotourism activities, economic benefits, community participation, and conservation (Stronza, 1999, 2005, 2007). The goal was to understand how social and economic principles of ecotourism in this site are associated with conservation over time. The first author has lived in the region for 28 months during various periods of fieldwork in 1996–1999, 2002–2003, and 2006. The longitudinal research has entailed gathering both qualitative and quantitative data on village life and interactions between the community and the company, and between local residents and tourists. Qualitative data comes from participant observation, field notes, key informant interviews, and focus groups. Quantitative data was compiled from surveys of tourists (n = 80) and semi-structured interviews with heads of households (n = 204, over various periods). Interviews generally lasted 2–3 hours and focused on socioeconomic characteristics of households and ecotourism-related changes in respondents’ families, households, and community. Research began two years before the lodge opened, which enabled comparisons of baseline data with post-ecotourism data. Analyses from this long-term study have led to insights on various aspects of ecotourism effects on the community, including power relations between the company and the community (Stronza, 2005), changes in livelihood strategies and resource use (Stronza, 2007), local perceptions of ecotourism benefits (Stronza & Gordillo, 2008), and cultural identity and inter-ethnic relations (Stronza, in press). Here, we discuss this case in relation


274


to the Brazil case of TAMAR with the goal of comparing how community involvement in ecotourism affects conservation. As in the first case study, the ecotourism operation in Infierno is contributing economic benefits in the form of employment and new income to local residents. In its first years of operation, 1998, Posada Amazonas was just beginning to generate new income for families in Infierno. In 2004 and 2005, the lodge earned profits of $182,583 and $208,328, respectively. Of those amounts, 60% (or $109,550 and $124,996, respectively) went directly to the community. In both years, community leaders distributed profits evenly among families and set aside a portion for communal needs, including improved education and health facilities. In 2006, average household incomes increased by 25% with dividends from tourism (Stronza, 2007). These economic benefits have had direct effects on resource use and conservation. People have generally spent new income on household needs, including beds, aluminum for roofs, school supplies, and clothing. A few families have migrated out of the community and built homes in the nearest town, two hours downriver. Some invested in items that enabled them to increase their agricultural production and forest extraction, including chainsaws, shotguns, and motorboats. Because of these purchases, new income from ecotourism did not reduce direct resource exploitation (hunting, extraction, agriculture). Instead, it enabled greater market consumption and expansion of production. In 2006, the individual with the highest annual income of $31,596 worked full time at Posada Amazonas. Yet, only $4,737 (13%) of his income came from his salary and share of communal ecotourism profits. The rest he earned through agriculture. In one year, 2005, he cleared 10 hectares of forest to plant crops; this exceeds the average household clearance of 1.6 hectares. This employee was able to expand his production because he invested half of his salary to hire six laborers to help him clear forest and plant annual crops of maize, rice, and manioc. Although income from ecotourism has enabled greater production, employment in ecotourism, has diminished people’s direct reliance on resources. At any given time, 20–25 individuals receive wage income from Posada Amazonas. Opportunities for employment rotate throughout the community every 2–3 years. At least a few workers have abandoned other productive activities and shifted entirely to tourism. Others have added tourism to their farming and forest extraction, adjusting the time they spend in each, depending on the time of year and the number of tourists. Overall, as community members began to work at the lodge, they invested less time in clearing forest for annual crops and hunting (Stronza, 2007). Interviewees explained that one advantage of working in ecotourism is the ability to count on steady and predictable monthly income. Salaries allow people to plan their spending and even save. One worker—a housekeeper at the lodge who has no spouse or family in Infierno—saved enough to travel as a tourist himself to other parts of Peru. Another employee, a guide, saved for a motorcycle, a commodity that few small farmers in the region own or can afford. Despite these advantages, community members have also noted during interviews in 2003 and again in 2006 that ecotourism income and employment is not sufficient to sustain their families. Although ecotourism revenues have increased incomes, the desire to earn and spend more has also increased. In summary, the relationship between economic benefits from ecotourism and conservation is ambiguous in Infierno. Employment and income seem to have countervailing effects on resource use—one minimizes direct reliance, whereas the other enables greater exploitation. What is clear from Infierno is that economic benefits from ecotourism are no panacea, either for community development or for long-term conservation goals. Nevertheless, in at



275

least a few ways, people of Infierno show signs of effective stewardship and conservation. Several incidents described in what follows point to the presence of strong local institutions for resource management. These institutions have emerged in part because the community has been involved in managing ecotourism. As the members of Infierno have co-managed Posada Amazonas with their tourism partner, they have gained new skills, greater organization, and wider networks of support. These changes, in turn, have enabled people to work together to initiate a number of their own conservation efforts. For example, in 2006, the community council saved $12,000 from tourism profits to gain legal title to a 1,700-hectare “ecotourism concession” from the Peruvian government. They did this in part to protect wildlife and forests in their territory from imminent changes posed by the construction of a trans-oceanic highway, which will link Brazil with the Atlantic Coast. The major thoroughfare, costing over $800 million to build, will pass within 7 km of Infierno (Balvín & Patron, 2006). Already, increasing immigration to the area is causing deforestation, typically through a change in land use from forest to agriculture. While waiting for government approval, the members of Infierno formed an association with other tour operators to protect the concession. Local involvement in managing Posada Amazonas has also prompted increasingly active local management of forests and wildlife. The lodge itself is located in a 2,000-hectare communal reserve where all hunting, timber harvesting, and farming are prohibited. The entire community of Infierno comprises 10,000 hectares; thus, the reserve represents a sizeable portion of their territory. The reserve is recognized, protected, and monitored by local families. Although the rules are sometimes broken, community members have recently stepped up their efforts to keep the reserve protected for ecotourism (Stronza & Gordillo, 2008). On at least a couple of occasions, people were caught hunting in the reserve. Rather than look the other way or wait for outside authorities (i.e., park guards) to take action, the community came together themselves to determine appropriate sanctions. In one case, the violators had tourism profits withheld as punishment. On another occasion, when loggers from a neighboring area trespassed to harvest wood, the members assembled to notify regional authorities and have the harvesting equipment expropriated. In addition to creating a new concession and monitoring their own reserve, community members have collaborated with other organizations, including Conservation International and the World Wide Fund for Nature, to study and monitor wildlife populations and establish sustainable techniques for harvesting wild aguaje palm fruits. They have also established rules for fishing and agriculture near the community oxbow lake that is prime habitat for a family of giant otters, one of the most endangered wildlife species in the Amazon. These efforts have required organization, leadership, and cooperation with outside entities—all skills improved through the experience of co-managing Posada Amazonas. In this way, community involvement in ecotourism has also strengthened local capacity for conservation. Thus, in the Peru case, the causal mechanism between ecotourism and conservation is not necessarily economic returns, but rather community participation that brings new skills and common resource management capacities to the community.

Conclusion In 20 years of ecotourism research, a number of authors have outlined defining principles (Buckley, 1994, Ross & Wall, 1999). Fennell (1999) identified 13 main principles, including the need to contribute to conservation and benefit local people. Honey (1999)


276


described seven characteristics of “genuine ecotourism,” which included providing direct financial benefits for conservation. Wallace and Pierce (1996) pointed to six “valuative principles.” The ecotourism literature is replete with examples of studies that describe how well ecotourism operations are upholding such principles. A smaller number of studies evaluate principles in association with each other, or experimentally as cause–effect interactions. On this point, Weaver and Lawton (2007) have observed persistent efforts to understand the impacts of ecotourism along various trajectories. One is a “hard scientific” path focused on the direct effects of tourism on wildlife species, and the others are on the potential for tourism to provide social and cultural benefits that lead to economic incentives for conservation. Somehow, the research on ecological impacts “is not at all linked” to the research on sociocultural impacts (p. 1176). In this article, we have compared ecotourism case studies with the intention of evaluating linkages between social changes, economic benefits, and conservation. In Brazil, employment opportunities and income from ecotourism have enabled sea turtle conservation, even though local villagers have not been engaged in management or decision-making. This case suggests that, at least in the short-term, economic benefits can effectively lead to conservation. The Peru case shows that engaging local residents as co-managers and decision-makers can provide economic incentives for conservation while also building local capacity to manage environmental problems. This case suggest that ecotourism can do more than deliver employment and income; it is can also strengthen local institutions and catalyze collective action for resource management. Together the two cases reveal that ecotourism is not merely an economic “tool” for conservation so much as a cause of new understandings, skills, and social relations. Decisions to conserve natural resources in ecotourism settings occur not solely in light of cost-benefit calculations of prices and time. They also occur as the result of new feelings of capacity, the strength of local institutions and ties with outside actors, and overall social and economic stability. Although economic benefits from ecotourism may be important for short-term conservation, greater involvement of local communities in program management may help sustain success over time.

References Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development, 29(10), 1649–72. Agrawal, A., & Redford, K. (2006). Poverty, development, and biodiversity conservation: Shooting in the dark? Wildlife Conservation Society, Working Paper 26, March. Alexander, S. (2000). Resident attitudes towards conservation and black howler monkeys in Belize: The Community Baboon Sanctuary. Environmental Conservation, 27(4), 341–350. Archabald, K., & Naughton-Treves, L. (2001). Tourism revenue-sharing around national parks in western Uganda: Early efforts to identify and reward local communities. Environmental Conservation, 28(2), 135–49. Balvín, D., & Patron, A. (2006). Carretera Interoceánico Sur: Consideraciones para su aprovechamiento sostenible. Amigos de la Tierra and Asociación Civil Labor. Lima. Barkin, D. (2003). Alleviating poverty through ecotourism: Promises and reality in the Monarch Butterfly Reserve of Mexico. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 5(3/4), 371–382. Barrett, C., Brandon, K., Gibson, C., & Gjertsen, H. (2001). Conserving tropical biodiversity amid weak institutions. BioScience, 51(3), 497–502. Belsky, J. (1999). Misrepresenting communities: The politics of community-based rural ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize. Rural Sociology, 64(4), 641–666. Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology, 18, 621–630.



277

Bookbinder, M., Dinerstein, E., Rijal, A., Cauley, H., & Rajouria, A. (1998). Ecotourism’s support of biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 12(6), 1399–1404. Borman, R. (1999). Cofan: Story of the forest people and the outsiders. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 23, 48–50. Bray, D., Cornejo, M., Cohan, S., & Beitl, C. (2005, April). Community-based Ecotourism: A Conservation and Development Strategy in Search of an Analytic Framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Santa Fe, NM. Brechin, S., Wilshusen, P., Fortwangler, C., & West, P. (2002). Beyond the square wheel: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 41–64. Brosius, P., Tsing, A., & Zerner, C. (1998). Representing communities: Histories and politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 11, 157–168. Bookbinder, M., Dinerstein, E., Rijal, A., Cauley, H., & Rajouria, A. (1998). Ecotourism’s support of biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 12(6), 1399–1404. Brown, T., & Decker, D. (2005). Research needs to support community-based wildlife management: Global perspectives. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 10, 137–140. Buckley, R. (1994). A framework for ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 661–665. Campbell, L. (2007). Local conservation practice and global discourse: A political ecology of sea turtle conservation. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97, 313–334. Cater, E., & Lowman, G. (1994). Ecotourism: A sustainable option? Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons. Doan, T. (2000). The effects of ecotourism in developing nations: An analysis of case studies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(4), 288–304. Fennell, D. (1999). Ecotourism: An introduction. London: Routledge Foucat, V. (2002). Community-based ecotourism management moving towards sustainability, in Ventanilla, Oaxaca, Mexico. Ocean & Coastal Management, 45, 511–529. Gentry, K. (2007). Belizean women and tourism work opportunity or impediment? Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2), 477–496. Gossling, S. (1999). Ecotourism: A means to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem functions? Ecological Economics, 29(2), 303–320. Gordillo, J., Hunt, C., & Stronza, A. (in press). An ecotourism partnership in the Peruvian Amazon. In A. Stronza & W. H. Durham (Eds.), Ecotourism and Conservation in the Americas. London: CABI. Governo da Bahia. (2007). Tamar alcança marca de 9 milhões de filhotes devolvidos ao mar. Retrieved January 12, 2008 from: http://www.comunicacao.ba.gov.br/noticias/2007/12/05/ projeto-tamar-alcanca-marca-de-nove-milhoes-de-filhotes-devolvidos-ao-mar/ Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? Washington, DC: Island Press. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2003). World Commission on Protected Areas. Retrieved February 14, 2008 from: http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/ Jacobson, S., & Robles, R. (1992). Ecotourism, sustainable development, and conservation education: Development of a tour guide training program in Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Environmental Management, 16(6), 701–713. Jones, S. (2005). Community-based ecotourism the significance of social capital. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 303–324. Kassilly, F. (2007). Residents’ attitudes toward non-economic values of wildlife in Nakuru municipality. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12, 193–194. Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19(5), 231–237. Kruger, O. (2005). The role of ecotourism in conservation: Panacea or Pandora’s box? Biodiversity and Conservation, 14(13), 579–600. Langholz, J. (1999). Exploring the effects of alternative income opportunities on rainforest use. Society and Natural Resources, 12(2), 139–150.


278


Lindberg, K. (1991). Economic policies for maximizing nature tourism's contribution to sustainable development. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J., & Sproule, K. (1996). Ecotourism questioned: Case studies from Belize. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 543–562. Malek-Zadeh, E. (1996). The ecotourism equation: Measuring the impacts. Bulletin Number 99, New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry. Marcovaldi, M., Baptistotte, C., Castilhos, J., Gallo, B., Lima, E., Sanches, T., & Vieitas, C. (1998). Activities by Project TAMAR in Brazilian sea turtle feeding grounds. Marine Turtle Newsletter, 80, 5–7. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ogutu, Z. (2002). The impact of ecotourism on livelihood and natural resource management in Eselenkei, Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya. Land Degradation and Development, 13, 251–256. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press. Prefeitura Municipal de Mata de São João (PMMSJ). (2004). Adequação do plano diretor urbano de Mata de São João ao estatuto da cidade. Prefeitura Municipal de Mata de São João. Pretty, J., & Ward, H. (2001). Social capital and the environment. World Development, 29, 209–227. Projeto TAMAR. (2008). Projeto TAMAR. Retrieved February 29, 2008 from: http:// www.tamar.org.br/bases/ba.asp/ Ross, S., & Wall, G. (1999). Ecotourism: Toward congruence between theory and practice. Tourism Management, 20, 123–132. Salafsky, N., & Wollenberg, E. (2000). Linking livelihoods and conservation: A conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity. World Development, 28(8), 1421–1438. Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management, 20(2), 245–249. Spotila, J. (2004). Sea turtles: A complete guide to their biology, behavior, and conservation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Stem, C., Lassoie, J., Lee, D., & Deshler, D. (2003). How "eco" is ecotourism? A comparative case study of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(4), 322–347. Stonich, S. (1998). The political ecology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 25–54. Stonich, S. (2000). The other side of paradise: Tourism, conservation and development in the Bay Islands. New York: Cognizant Communications. Stronza, A. (1999) Learning both ways: Lessons from a corporate and community ecotourism collaboration. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 23(2), 36–39. Stronza, A. (2005). Hosts and hosts: The anthropology of community-based ecotourism in the Peruvian Amazon. National Association for Practice of Anthropology Bulletin, 23, 170–190. Stronza, A. (2007). The economic promise of ecotourism for conservation. Journal of Ecotourism, 6(3), 170–190. Stronza, A., & Gordillo, J. (2008). Community views of ecotourism: Redefining benefits. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2). Stronza, A. (in press). Through a new mirror: Reflections on tourism and identity in the Amazon. Human Organization, 67(3). Taylor, J., Yunez-Naude, A., & Ardila, S. (2003). The economics of ecotourism: A Galápagos Islands economy-wide perspective. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 13(3), 978–997. Troëng, S., & Drews, C. (2004). Money talks: Economic aspects of marine turtle use and conservation. WWF-International, Gland, Switzerland. Retrieved from: www.panda.org. Veja: O Melhor do Brazil. (2007). Praia: O Melhor Destino. Retrieved on April 29, 2008 from: http://veja.abril.com.br/especiais/brasil_2007/p_018.html Walpole, M., & Goodwin, H. (2001). Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation, 28, 160–166. Wallace, G., & Pierce, S. (1996). An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(4), 843–873.



279

Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (1999). Ecotourism: Impacts, potentials, and possibilities. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Weinberg, A., Bellows, S., & Ekster, D. (2002). Sustaining ecotourism: Insights and implications from two successful case studies. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 371–380. Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tourism Management, 28, 1168–1179. West, P. (2006). Conservation is our governance now: The politics of ecology in Papua New Guinea. London: Duke University Press. West, P., & Carrier, J. (2004). Ecotourism and authenticity: Getting away from it all? Current Anthropology, 45(4), 483–491. Western, D., & Wright, R. (Eds.). (1994). The background to community-based conservation. In D. Western and R. M. Wright (Eds.), Natural connections: Perspectives in community conservation (pp. 1–12). Washington, DC: Island Press. Wilson, C., & Tisdell, C. (2003). Conservation and economic benefits of wildlife-based marine tourism: Sea turtles and whales as case studies. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8, 49–58. Wunder, S. (1999). Promoting forest conservation through ecotourism income? A case study from the Ecuadorian Amazon region. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. Wunder, S. (2000). Ecotourism and economic incentives—An empirical approach. Ecological Economics, 32, 465–479. Young, E. (1999). Balancing conservation with development in small-scale fisheries: Is ecotourism an empty promise? Human Ecology, 27(4), 581–620. Ziffer, K. (1989). Ecotourism: The uneasy alliance. Washington, DC: Conservation International. Zografos, C., & Oglethorpe, D. (2004). Multi-criteria analysis in ecotourism: Using goal programming to explore sustainable solutions. Current Issues in Tourism, 7(1), 20–43.