USF Libraries

Ecotourism as a driver of forest conservation on small farms in Costa Rica

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Ecotourism as a driver of forest conservation on small farms in Costa Rica
Translated Title:
El ecoturismo como conductor de la conservación de los bosques en las fincas pequeñas en Costa Rica ( )
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Owens, Sarah
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Ecotourism   ( lcsh )
Forest conservation   ( lcsh )
Ecoturismo
Conservación de los bosques
Tropical Ecology 2007
Ecología Tropical 2007
Genre:
Reports   ( lcsh )
Reports

Notes

Abstract:
Conservation of fragmented forest on private land is instrumental to long-term protection of tropical biodiversity. However, few incentives exist for small landowners to conserve. This study addresses ecotourism as an incentive for forest fragment conservation. Small farmers were interviewed to determine the extent of land in regeneration or protection and the ecotouristic activities on each property. The data suggest that a greater percentage of land is in regeneration on farms with small-scale tourism (20% + 10.1) than on farms with large-scale tourism (12% + 6.0) and no tourism (5% + 2.1; Kruskal-Wallis Test, H = 6.0673, p = 0.0481, N = 19). I conclude that of the farms employing tourism, three types of private property classifications exist: 1) land that would be conserved with or without tourism, 2) land whose maintenance benefits from ecotourism directly, and 3) land with tourism that is not ecological, but could still contribute to conservation. Each property type is addressed with a specific conservation strategy that could enhance long-term biodiversity protection in the Monteverde area.
Abstract:
Este estudio aborda el ecoturismo como un incentivo para la conservación de los bosques fragmentados. Los pequeños agricultores fueron entrevistados para determinar la extensión de tierra en regeneración o protección y las actividades eco turísticas en cada propiedad.
Language:
Text in English.
General Note:
Born Digital

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - M39-00066
usfldc handle - m39.66
System ID:
SFS0001242:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xlink http:www.w3.org1999xlink xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance
leader 00000nas 2200000Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 000000c19749999pautr p s 0 0eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a M39-00066
040
FHM
0 041
eng
049
FHmm
1 100
Owens, Sarah
242
El ecoturismo como conductor de la conservacin de los bosques en las fincas pequeas en Costa Rica
245
Ecotourism as a driver of forest conservation on small farms in Costa Rica
260
c 2007-12
500
Born Digital
3 520
Conservation of fragmented forest on private land is instrumental to long-term protection of tropical biodiversity. However, few incentives exist for small landowners to conserve. This study addresses ecotourism as an incentive for forest fragment conservation. Small farmers were interviewed to determine the extent of land in regeneration or protection and the ecotouristic activities on each property. The data suggest that a greater percentage of land is in regeneration on farms with small-scale tourism (20% + 10.1) than on farms with large-scale tourism (12% + 6.0) and no tourism (5% + 2.1; Kruskal-Wallis Test, H = 6.0673, p = 0.0481, N = 19). I conclude that of the farms employing tourism, three types of private property classifications exist: 1) land that would be conserved with or without tourism, 2) land whose maintenance benefits from ecotourism directly, and 3) land with tourism that is not ecological, but could still contribute to conservation. Each property type is addressed with a specific conservation strategy that could enhance long-term biodiversity protection in the Monteverde area.
Este estudio aborda el ecoturismo como un incentivo para la conservacin de los bosques fragmentados. Los pequeos agricultores fueron entrevistados para determinar la extensin de tierra en regeneracin o proteccin y las actividades eco tursticas en cada propiedad.
546
Text in English.
650
Ecotourism
Forest conservation
4
Ecoturismo
Conservacin de los bosques
653
Tropical Ecology 2007
Ecologa Tropical 2007
655
Reports
720
CIEE
773
t Monteverde Institute : Tropical Ecology
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?m39.66



PAGE 1

Ecotourism as a driver of forest conservation on small farms in Costa Rica Sarah Owens Department of Biology, Occidental College ABSTRACT Conservation of fragmented forest on private land is inst rumental to long-term protection of tropical biodiversity. However, few incentives exist for small landowners to conserve. This study addresses ecotourism as an incentive for forest fragment conservation. Small farmers were interv iewed to determine the extent of land in regeneration or protection and the ecotouristic activities on each property. Th e data suggest that a greater percentage of land is in regeneration on farms with small-scale tourism (20% + 10.1) than on farms with large-scale tourism (12% + 6.0) and no tourism (5% + 2.1; Kruskal-Wallis Test, H = 6.0673, p = 0.0481, N = 19). I conclude that of the farms employing tourism, three types of private property classifications exist: 1) land that would be conserved with or without tourism, 2) land whose maintenance benefits from ecotourism directly, a nd 3) land with tourism that is not ecological, but could still contribute to conservation. Each property type is addressed with a specific conservation strategy that could enhance long-term biodiversity protection in the Monteverde area. RESUMEN La conservacin del bosque fragmentado en tierras privadas es responsable de la proteccin a largo plazo de la biodiversidad tropical. Sin embargo, hay pocos incentivos por terratenientes pequeos para conservar. Este estudio aborda el ecoturismo como un incentivo para conservacin de bosques fragmentados. Pequeos agricultores fueron entrevistado para determinar la extensin de tierra en re generacin o proteccin y las actividades eco tursticas en cada propiedad. Los datos sugieren que hay un porcentaje mayor de tierra que est en regeneracin en fincas con turismo en pequea escala (20% + 10.1) que en fincas con turismo a gran escala (12% + 6.0) o sin turismo (5% + 2.1). Yo concluyo que de los fincas que estn empleando turismo, hay tres tipos de propiedades privadas: 1) tierra que estar conservado con o sin ecoturismo, 2) tierra cuyo mantenimiento depende del ecoturismo directamente, y 3) tierra con turismo que no es ecolgico, pero puede contribuir a conservacin todava. Cada tipo de propiedad est dirigida con una estrategia especfica de conservacin qu e puede ser responsable la proteccin a largo plazo de la biodiversidad en Monteverde. INTRODUCTION The Mesoamerican hotspot, of which Costa Rica is a part, contains excepti onal concentrations of endemic species, and is experiencing unresol ved habitat loss (Myers 2000, Velozo 2000). Despite the fact that Costa Rica is touted for its conservation efforts, larg ely due to the extensive network of national parks covering more than 12 % of the country (Boza 1993) and an additional 13% in privately owned reserves (Velozo 2000), a significant amount of deforestation is still occurring (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2001). Historically, the national government of Co sta Rica gave farmers undeveloped land if they transformed forest into agricultural production (Velozo 2000). As a result, deforestation rates for all life zones in Costa Rica were greater than 7% per year between 1877-1983, higher than any earlier period (< 2% per year), which significantly reduced the amount of primary forest cover (Sader and Joyce 1988). Concurrentl y, 60% of land ownershi p was distributed among private owners while only 40% remained public (Velozo 2000). Presentl y, more than 71% of 1

PAGE 2

forest area is under privat e ownership (Butler 2006, SanchezAzofeifa et al. 2001). Nevertheless, biodiversity exists in the exceed ingly fragmented forests often owned by small farmers (Warner 2005). It is imperative that fore sted land on private proper ty outside of parks be preserved to achieve effective biodiversity protection (Boza 1993, Cruz 2003, Endicott 1993, Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2001). Ye t, few incentives are offered to small farmers for protection or reforestation of these remnants. One available incentive is Costa Ricas Payments for Environmental Services program ( Pagos de Servicios Ambientales PSA). PSA is a program implemented by the Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Servic ios Ambientales Forestal (FONAFIFO). Since 1997, it offers landowners a yearly reward of $50 per hectare of protected forest (Butle r 2006). In addition, the Forest Project of the Foundation for the De velopment of the Cent ral Volcanic Mountain Range (FUNDECOR) manages two other components of the program, reforestation and forest management, such as selective logging and agro -forestry. Each has helped to sustainably maintain 13,000 hectares of forest (Butler 2006, Zbinden and Lee 2005). It has been shown, however, that farm size, human capital and household economic factors influe nce participation in the program. These factors favor large farm and forest owners limiting access to the more widespread small farmer (Zbinden and Lee 2005). Some scientists fear that payment for ecological services, such as water, carbon and bi odiversity, could even displace small farmers. Legal frameworks for trading these services have not been established a nd it is suspected that transaction costs will be high s uggesting that industrial plantati ons will be able to more easily provide these services than sma ll farmers (Lamb et al. 2005). Carbon credits are one common form of paym ent for ecosystem services. On a global level, the BioCarbon Fund, run by the World Bank, delivers carbon finance to many developing countries that sequester or conserve greenhouse gases (World Bank 2007). However, the Carbon Trading Real Estate market in Costa Rica is not very developed due to higher prices than other Latin American countries (Drost 2007). Currently, finances from the BioCarbon Fund support only one project, PSA, and the money serves only to expand on a specific area of the already implemented program (World Bank 2007). Therefor e, not only are incentives limited, but also those that are available are diffi cult to obtain by small farmers. Many small farmers have turned to ecotour ism as a means of obtaining extra income, which, in turn, allows them to continue protec ting forest remnants (Cruz 2003). Lowman (2004) defines the objectives of ecotourism as providing a nature-based, environmental education experience for visitors while managing this expe rience in a sustainable fashion. Additionally, ecotourism ought to optimize benefits to local people while minimizing environmental impact. More specifically, ecotourism in Costa Rica is defined by the acknowledg ment that wildlife is worth more alive than dead and mo re attractive to visitors when in its natural habitat reaffirming the value of biodiversity protecti on (Henderson 2002). Still, some environmentalists believe that the economic benefits of ecotourism are not su fficient enough to motivate farmers to practice true conservation (Dasenbrock 2001). For exam ple, Garen (2000) asserts that although ecotourism is noteworthy, environmentally it does more harm than good. Negative environmental impacts resulting from ecotouris m include overuse, haphazard development, visitor overcapacity and a lack of conservation security over the l ong-term due to the fluctuating nature of tourism (Weaver 1998). Ecotourism as an incentive to conserve cannot be ignored though. The concept of private land conservation through ecotourism is currently a major topic of conversation in Costa Ri ca due to the proposal of Ley para la Promocion de la Conservacion en Tierras Privadas. Approval of this proposal would a llow a greater amount of private 2

PAGE 3

landowners to obtain economic incentives from ecotourism (Madrigal 2002). The issue of whether ecotourism leads to habi tat protection and reforestation due to this economic and other incentives has not been explored. Here I assess land use on small farms in order to determine the amount of land conserved and regenerating on each property. In addition I study how important ecotourism is as motivation to protect or reforest land by c onducting interviews with landowners. I expect to find a greater percent of conserved and regenerating land on farms that employ tourism due to the economic incentive it provides. METHODS Study Site Interviews were conducted with 19 small farmer s in several small comm unities in Monteverde, Costa Rica and the surrounding area. These comm unities included: Caitas, Cebadilla, La Cruz, San Luis and Monteverde. Farms were sele cted at random throughout the communities though they were generally chosen based on availability. Each interview comprised of two oral surveys (described below, see Appendix). The Monteverde region was an ideal location for this study because it is considered one of the premie r ecotourism-orientated communities in Central America due to its large Cloud Forest Reserve. The Reserve, established in 1972, includes 10,500 hectares and is the main ecotouristic attr action in Monteverde (Monteverde 2007). The entire Monteverde Reserve complex, including Bos que Eterno de los Ninos and the Santa Elena Reserve is approximately 29, 000 hectares (Nadka rni and Wheelwright 2000). It is a patchwork of private reserves that, together, make up the largest private reserve complex in Central America (Montverde 2007). It houses 3,000 species of plants including 750 species of trees, 400 species of birds, 160 species of amphibians, 120 species of mammals, has more named species of orchids than any other place on Earth and is an im portant repository for montane cloud forest biodiversity in the region (Nadkarni and Wheel wright 2000). Although orig inally only attracting scientists, the presence of the Reserve quickly created ecotourism in the region. Bird watchers were the first to be drawn to the area after sc ientists began publishing literature on the unique bird species contained within the Reserve. The influx of visitors continued to grow as Monteverde increased in popular ity due to literature and media (Nadkarni and Wheelwright 2000). More than thirty years after the Reserve was formed, the growth of ecotourism has been unparalleled, drawing in more than 74,000 tourists per year (Haley 2006). Sociologists, such as Forster (1964) assert that by providing a new economic base for a region, the development of one large primary tourism endeavor will result in growth of smaller tourism ventures. This is what has occurred in Monteverde (Burnett 199 7). Small single-family farms incorporating ecotouristic components, such as the ones inte rviewed in this study, are now the regions economic mainstay (Nadkarni and Wheelwright 2000). Land Distribution The first survey, Encuesta del Uso del Tierra and Distribucion del Bosque (Appendix), was used to obtain data regarding: the overall size of the fa rm, the amount of land in regeneration, if any, and the amount of land conserved, if any. No definition of regenerating or conserved land was offered to the farmers. The length of regenera tion and conservation and the prior landuse was 3

PAGE 4

also documented. In a few cases, small fragme nts of land the owner considered to be in regeneration or conserved, genera lly bordering water sources or se rving as windbreaks, were left out of the data because the landowner was una ble to quantify the number of hectares. The 19 farms, ranging in size from two hectares to 130 hectares, were then separated into 3 categories: no tourism (n = 7), small-scale tour ism (n = 6), and large-scale tourism (n = 6). Farms were initially separated into whether or not they employed tourism based on the response to the Encuestra del Ecoturism survey (see Ecotourism Drivers). Those farms with tourism were broken down further, based on the frequency of tourism each landowner estimated. With one exception, this break down corresponded to the type of income ecotourism served as (Table 1). TABLE 1. Income of ecotourism compared to agriculture or other means. Income Primary Secondary Equal Small Scale 0 5 1 Large Scale 5 1 Drivers of Ecotrourism A second survey, Encuestra del Ecoturismo (Appendix), was conducted in order to understand what motivated farmers to develop ecotourism on their land. Farmers were first asked whether or not they employ ecotourism activities on th eir property. Those farms without ecotourism were asked to select a reason why they have chosen not to employ ecotourism from the list provided (Appendix). The subset of farmers who participated in ecotourism were asked a series of questions regarding: their motivation for employing ecotour ism, how long they have employed ecotourism on their property, the types of activities employe d, if they received training, whether or not ecotourism is a primary or secondary source of income to other means, and how ecotourism on their property relates to conservation (see Appendix for additi onal questions). In addition, a workshop on sustainable farming and agro-tourism, provided by the Monteverde Coope for its farmers and guides, was observed and participated in. This aided in a better understanding of selective ecotourism practices in the area, as well as the type of training that exists. Once all data were acquired, comparisons were made between sm all-scale and large-scale farms in order to determine any relationships. RESULTS Land Distribution The average percent of land in regeneration was significantly greater on pr ivate properties where the landowner employed small-scale ecotourism activities (Fig. 1, Kruskal-Wallis Test, H = 6.0673, p = 0.0481, N = 19). Although the average per cent of conserved land appears to follow the same trend, the percentages are not statistic ally different (Fig. 1, Kruskal-Wallis Test, H = 0.0174, p = 0.9913, N = 19). Nevertheless, the raw data and Figure 1 illustra te that a greater percent of land is in regeneration or in c onservation on individual fa rms with small-scale ecotourism activities (20% + 10.1 and 61% + 12.4 respectively) followe d by farms with largescale ecotourism (12% + 6.0 and 30% + 11.4 respectively) and finally farms without any tourism (5% + 2.1 and 21% + 7.4 respectively). It is important to note that the areas both in regeneration and in conservation are highly fragmented in almost every case given that all but six of the farms were less than 20 hectares. 4

PAGE 5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 No TourismSmall Scale Tourism Large Scale Tourism Land category Regeneratrion Conservation FIGURE 1. Total percent of land regenerati ng (SE = 2.1, 10.1, 6.0 respectively) and conserved (SE = 7.4, 12.4, 11.4 respectively) on all farms with no tourism (n = 7), small-scale tourism (n = 6) and large-scale tourism (n = 6). Small farmers were generally able to provide an estimate of the time their land had spent in regeneration (Table 2) and in conservation (T able 3). No definition was ever provided to farmers regarding the difference between regenera ting and conserved land nor did a farmer ever question the difference. However, from the responses regarding the length of time a portion of land had been regenerating or conserved, a definition has been formed for the purpose of this study. The growth period for land described as re generating was always less than twenty years (Table 2) and was often previously used as pastureland. Conserved land was described as existing for approximately 20 years or more (Table. 3, three farms noted 18-19 years) and containing primary forest trees. In serveral instan ces, the landowner could state with certainty that the conserved forest on his property existed when he purchased the land and has remained in conservation during his ownership. Since the length of time the forest was conserved prior to the his ownership was unknown, that period of time wa s not recorded (e.g. Current owner purchased property with a portion of conserved land 41 years ago. He has conserved the forest ever since, but does not know the length of time it was in cons ervation prior to his arrival. The length of TABLE 2. Number of farms, from those sampled (N = 19), with regenerating forest and the corresponding length of time each portion of land has spent in regeneration. < 5 yrs 5-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs None No tourism 0 2 0 1 4 Small scale 1 2 1 1 1 Large scale 0 1 1 1 3 5

PAGE 6

time conserved was recorded as 41 years, althou gh it was longer in realit y). Therfore several approximations in Table 3 ma y be an underestimate. _____________________________________________________________________ TABLE 3. Number of farms, from thos e sampled (N = 19), with conserved forest and the corresponding length of time each portion of land has spent in conservation. < 20 yrs 20-30 yrs 31-40 yr s 41-50 yrs > 50 yrs None No tourism 2 2 1 0 1 1 Small scale 1 1 0 0 2 2 Large scale 0 0 0 2 1 3 Drivers of Ecotourism All of the properties sampled employed ecotourism as a result of the general increase in tourism in the area. This is apparent in the relative novelty of the ecotour istic enterprises. All but one farm began employing ecotourism less than four years ago and the farm that has been employing tourism for longer has only moved into large-sc ale ecotourism within the last few years. The motivating factors for employing tourism were consistent for both small-scale and large-scale tourism even though th is question required a free res ponse. The responses offered were all some variation of the following: 1) pr otect and conserve land for the future generation, 2) share diversity and knowledge about natura l resources with others, and 3) obtain more income. Small-scale and large-scale touristic fa rms responded similarly. Half stated a response related to conservation while the other half cited economics as the main driving factor. In the case of economics, several farmers noted that ecotourism was a method of obtaining adequate income to prevent them from having to sell the la nd due to insufficient income from agriculture In a few instances, a combination of the three responses was noted. Whether increased income was the primary factor did not dire ctly coordinate with the type of income ecotourism served as (see Table 1). Unanimously, farmers asserted that they would continue protecting as much forest as possible, even without ecotourism, but that conservation of the fo rest benefited from ecotourism both directly and indir ectly through: increased resources to allow more land to be set aside for conservation, opportunities to educate visitors about the importance of tropical conservation, and local reforestation projects. Of the farms employing tourism, all but two proved to be ecotouristic enterprises according to Lowmans (2004) definition, which re quires the experience to be nature-based, educational and managed in a sustainable fashio n. One coffee farm and a sugar farm relied on these monocultures to provide a tr aditional cultural experience but are not ecological in nature. Two questions, addressing the types of activities employed (see Tabl e 4) and the incorporation of an educational component, were used to make the distinction between ecotourism and nonecotouristic endeavors. All but one farmer answered yes to the question regarding the incorporation of an educational component. The fa rmer that answered no asserted that they are working on that aspect of their endeavor and will be gin to incorporate education into their tour as soon as they gain more experience with tourism. Ecotourism sustainability, Lowmans second objective of ecotourism, was not measured directly in this study. It was noted that the majority of small-scale farmers had experience with a lo cal conservation organiza tion or received training from Coope Monteverde on sustainable agriculture, particularly agro-tourism. This method of 6

PAGE 7

farming can contribute to greater degree of conservation but does not necessarily promote conservation by itself. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TABLE 4. Types of ecotouristic activities employed by farmers in Monteverde, Costa Rica (N=19). Illustrates that farms with larg e-scale tourism rely heavily on farm tours. Lodging Bird watching Trails Farm tours Canopy tour Waterfall visits Night walks Other Small scale 1 x 2 x x 3 x 4 x x 5 x 6 x x x Large scale 1 x 2 x x x x x 3 x x x x x x 4 x x x x 5 x 6 x x Additional Observations In addition to the results provide d directly by the survey respon ses, several observations were made through conversation and examination of each property. The first obse rvation is that there is a general consensus amongst small landowners that protecting the forest is important. Secondly, not all landowners had the same concep t of what conservation is. The definition varied in a few cases amongst individuals from different generations and individuals with different economic mindsets. For example, on one large-scale tourism farm, an elderly gentleman, the original property owner, stated th at there was no conserved forest on the property with the exception of the slopes bordering the stream. On the other hand, the young man running the tourism operation on the same property cons idered the coffee plants, the main tourist attraction, to be conserved land. Finally, of th e farms interviewed where examination of the property was permitted, a general observation wa s made that the areas conserved and in regeneration are highly fragmented. Signs of di sturbance, such as cleared paths, a crowded understory filled with saplings and patchy canop y were all evident. In many cases, these disturbances were the result of manipulating the land to make it more suitable for the touristic activities employed on the property. DISCUSSION From the results of this study, I have determined that there are three types of private properties with tourism projects in Monteverde. Each classification can benefit from a focused 7

PAGE 8

conservation plan. Specific strategies, in conjunc tion with a more unified understanding of the sustainable ecotourism, will maximize conservati on efforts by the community. The first type of property is land that would be conserved with or without tourism because it is not providing any significant service or acting as a detriment to the landowner. The second type is land whose maintenance benefits from ecotourism directly. Lastly are the propertie s that are not actually ecotouristic, but could increase th eir benefit to the environmenta l by functioning in a sustainable manner with regards to both agriculture and tourism. In recent years, conservation easements have been created in Monteverde to protect specific key habitats such as that of the Resp lendent Quetzal (Schwartz 2001). Conservation of properties with land that would be conserved with or without tour ism ought to be targeted using this strategy. If all the properties with land that has been conserved for 40 years or more (Table 3) were put under easement, just under 50% of th e conserved land recorded in this study would be under long-term biodiversity protection. An easement is restrictions placed on individual properties in order to protect its associated resources. Rest rictions necessary to protect biodiversity are implemented ensuring that the la ndowner still owns and is able to use the land (Nature Conservancy 2007). One significant advantage of a conservation easement is that restrictions remain effective ev en if ownership changes. Therefore, unlike Costa Ricas PSA program which is only effective for periods of five to ten years, conservation through easements remains for generations so long as a municipal or community organization continues to enforce the regulations (Nature Conservancy 2007, Velozo 2000). With regards to property directly benefiting from ecotourism, specific measures need to be implemented to ensure that the negative side effects of tourism do not undermine conservation of the land where ecotourism is employed. Nega tive effects can be induced by a number of factors including, but not limited to, visitor ove rcapacity, haphazard adjacent development and inadequate enforcement of protected areas (Weav er 1998). A community organization, such as the Monteverde Conservation League, ought to cr eate, implement and oversee the enforcement of regulations on ecotourism that ensure the gr eatest social, economic and environmental benefit to the landowner and the community. Prior studie s have demonstrated th at tourists would be willing to pay an extra US$1 if it contributed to conservation efforts, which has led to the suggestion of a flat rate ecotax in Monteverde (Haley 2006). An ecotax, by definition, is designed to pay for the negative impact of humans on the environment (Backhaus 1998) and could therefore be a justified s ource of funding for the education of farmers and enforcement of ecotourism regulations. One component of the education of farmer s that needs attention is the ways ecotourism can benefit conservation. Farmer s responses suggest th at there is a strong belief that conservation require s increased financial resources and opportunities to educate outsiders. From the viewpoint of biodiversit y, these mentalities are human-centric. Although these factors can contribute to conservation th ere are ways farmers can increase biodiversity protection without the contributi on of these anthropologi cal factors. Addr essing these issues would also help to unify the understanding of what conserved land is. Eliminating the confusion seen in a few cases in this study could only increase the effectiveness of conservation in the area. Lastly, examination of the survey on ecotour ism leads to the conclusion that two largescale tourism farms were not prac ticing ecotourism. Observations suggest that the large coffee and sugar crops of these two farms instruct tourists on how each crop is farmed but do not contribute to conservation. A lthough neither directly promotes conservation, they both rely on ecotourism in the area to supply tourists and ough t to contribute to biodiversity protection. Environmental awareness on these non-ecologi cal tourism farms could be achieved through 8

PAGE 9

common and consistent educati on on sustainable agriculture, which would contribute to biodiversity protection in spite of a la ck of conservation on the properties. Many farmers cited conservation as their pr imary motivation for employing ecotourism, which supports the belief that individual landowne rs are instrumental in preserving the tropics (Cruz 2003, Lamb et al. 2005, Vaughan 2000). In addition, all landowners interviewed believe that ecotourism directly contri butes to conservation on their la nd suggesting that ecotourism can serve as a driver for conservation. Those farms benefiting from the establishment of the Reserve and its subsequent ecotourism could contribute to in creased conservation in the area by increasing connectivity with the Reserve. Such an effort would require the guidance of biologists to create strategic biological corridors on these properties. Although fragmentation can be harmful to biodiversity, proximity and connectivity to a large site can significantly increase species richness due to high immigration rates (Aldrich 1998, Bruun 2000). This in turn, increases the eco system stability and will enhance forest preservation in the Monteverde region (Worm and Duffy 2003). Connectivity in Monteverde can be accomplishe d by designating specific areas in need of regeneration and indicating the importance of co ntinued conservation in other areas. Many farmers cited intent to convert more land to regeneration and conservation in the future given the increased success of ecotourism. Although these sentiments were not equally shared amongst all farmers, it is an attitude that ought to be capitalized on. Spatially targeting property for landscape pres ervation has proven to be a more efficient method of conservation than extensive regulatio n (Wear et al. 1996). In addition, effective conservation of biodiversity and key restoration of ecological f unction operate at the landscape level and depend on separately restoring sites th at complement each other. While individual conservation efforts by landowners are noteworthy, they are essentially un likely to achieve an optimal outcome (Lamb et al. 2005). This sugge sts that the contribution of land conserved by farmers in this study to long-term biodiversity pr otection of the Monteverde area is not optimal. Therefore, by approaching conservation at a landscape level (e.g. stabilizing areas with ecological function on individual properties) not only will biodiversity conservation be enhanced, but ecosystem function will also improve re sulting in direct benef its to the landowner. The lack of statistical significance for cons erved land (Fig. 1, Kruskal-Wallis Test, H = 0.0174, p = 0.9913, N = 19) can be explained by a small sample size, variation in farm area, and the fact that not all farms contain both regenerating and conserved land. I expect that with a greater resource pool, more farms could be sampled and analyzed resulting in the same trend but with greater accuracy. Furthermore, I suggest that future studies of conservation on small private ecotouristic farms measure sustainability of the activities direc tly so that full compliance with the objectives of ecotourism can be established. In addition to measuring sustainabi lity of ecotourism, biodiversity indicators need to be measured to determine the effectiveness of ecotourism in and around conserved areas. In addition, comparing a sample of small farms with ecotourism in Monteverde to another area less renowned for conservation is recommended. This type of study would aid in determining whether or not ecotour ism in Monteverde could serve as a model of conservation strategy for other ar eas in Costa Rica and globally. 9

PAGE 10

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study would not have been possible without the assistance, coordination and generosity of many individuals. I would like to thank all the landowners who granted me the opportunity to meet with them and learn about their farms and th eir lives. I extend special thanks to Guillermo Vargas and Coope Monteverde for providing me with resources and the opportunity to participate in a community workshop. I would also like to acknowledge the help of my home stay family and neighbors at Finca Santamaria. Living on an agro-touristic farm with people who know the community aided in making contact s and finding study sites. I would like to thank Carmen Rojas for inspiring my interest in the subject of ecotourism and Alan Masters for guiding me through the process of scientific writ ing. Finally, I would like to thank everyone at the Estacin Biologica de Monteverde for pr oviding insight and knowle dge regarding tropical ecology and conservation and introducing me to an aspect of science I had yet to explore. LITERATURE CITED ALDRICH, P.E. AND J.L. HAMRICK. 1998. Repr oductive dominance of pasture trees in a fragmented tropical forest mosaic. Science 281: 103-105. BOZA, M.A. 1993. Conservation in ac tion: past, present, and future of the national park system of Costa Rica. Conservation Biology Vol. 7 No. 2. BACKHAUS, J.G. 1998. The law and economics of environmental taxation: when should the ecotax kick in? University of Maastrict. Netherlands. Pp 2-3. BRUUN H.H. 2000. Deficit in community specie s richness as explained by area and isolation of sites. Diversity a nd Distributions 6: 129-135. BURNETT, J. 1997. In Eco-crazed Costa Rica, Monteverde provides a model of nature tourism. www.monteverdeinfo.com. BUTLER, R.A. 2006. Costa Rica a place out of tim e: tropical rainforests and the perils they face. www.mongabay.com. CRUZ, K. (Ed.). 2003. The real Costa Rica: yo ur community-based tourism guide. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo: San Jose, C.R.: 17. DASENBROCK, J. 2001. The pros and cons of ecotourism in Costa Rica: 5. DROST, A. 2007. A new market: real estate and carbon trading. www.tropisphere.com/carbonneutral-information. ENDICOTT, E. 1993. Land conservation through pub lic/ private partnerships. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: 105, 129-130. FORSTER, J. 1964. The sociolog ical consequences of tourism. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 5(2): 217-227. as in COHEN, E. 1984. The sociology of tourism: approaches, issues and findings Annual Review of Sociology: 373-392. GAREN. 2000. in DASENBROCK, J. 2001. The pr os and cons of ecotourism in Costa Rica HALEY, C. 2006. The price we pay: Ecotourism s contribution to conservation in Monteverde, Costa Rica. Council on International E ducational Exchange, Tropical Ecology and Conservation: Fall. Pp. 242-257. HENDERSON, C.L. 2002. Field guide to the wildlife of Costa Rica. University of Texas Press: Austin. Pp.8-9. 10

PAGE 11

LAMB D., P.D. ERSKINE AND J.A. PARROTTA. 2005. Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science Vol. 310. LOWMAN, M. 2004. Ecotourism and its impact on forest conservation. www.actionbioscience.org/environment/lowman.html. MADRIGAL, Q.J. 2002. Ley para la promocion de la conservacion en tierras privadas. MONTEVERDE 2007. http://www.monteverde info.com/other_activities.htm. MYERS, N.R. ET AL. 200. Biodiversity hotspot s for conservation priorities. NATURE 403: 853-858. NADKARNI N.M., N.T. WHEELWRIGHT (E ds.). 2000. Monteverde: ecology and conservation of a tropical cloud forest. Oxfo rd University Press: New York. Pp. 50, 74, 224, 355. NATURE CONSERVANCY. 2007. Conservation easements. http://www.nature.org. SADER, S.A. AND A.T. JOYCE. 1988. Deforestation rates and trends in Costa Rica, 1940 to 1983. Biotropica 20(1): 11-19. SANCHEZ-AZOFEIFA, G.A., R.C. HARRISS AND D. L. SKOLE. 2001. Deforestation in Costa Rica: a quantitative analysis using remo te sensing imagery. Biotropica 33(3): 378384. SCHWARTZ, H. 2001. Conservatio n easements: an international movement. Branching Out. http://www.treesfoundation.org/ publications/article-67. VAUGHN, D. 2000. Tourism and biodiversity: a convergence of interests? International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) Vol. 76 No. 2: 283-297. VELOZO, R. 2000. Costa Rica: Forest strategy and the evolution of land use. World Bank Publications WARNER, M. 2005. The role of primary fore st on tropical avian communities in a mixed agricultural landscape. Council on Intern ational Educational Exchange, Tropical Ecology and Conservation, Fall. Pp. 163. WEAR, D.N., M.G. TURNER AND R.O. FLA MM. 1996. Ecosystem management with multiple owners: landscape dynamics in a s outhern Appalachian watershed. Ecological Applications 6(4): 1173-1188. WEAVER. 1998. Ecotourism in a less developed world. WORLD BANK. 2007. Carbon Finan ce Unit. www.carbonfinance.org. WORM B. AND J.E. DUFFY. 2003. Biodiversity, productivity and st ability in real food webs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol. 18 No. 12: 628-632. ZBINDEN, S. AND D.R. LEE. 2005. Paying for environmental service: an analysis of participation in Costa Ricas PSA program. World Developement Vol. 33 No. 2: 255272. APPENDIX Encuesta del Uso del Tierra an d Distribucion del Bosque Nombre: Fecha: Direccin del Finca: Numero: 1. Tiene bosque que estn en regeneracin en su propriedad? 11

PAGE 12

S, conteste de la a. a la e. a. # Ha de la finca en total?_____ b. # Ha para la agricultu ra/ pastizal?_____ c. # Ha en regeneracin?_____ d. Hace cuanto aos empez la regeneracin?_____ e. Cul era el uso antes de regeneracin?___________________________________ Foto #:_____, Categora:_____ Descripcin:_____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ No, conteste de la f. a la i. f. # Ha de la finca en total?_____ g. # Ha para la agricu ltura/ pastizal?_____ h. # Ha en otro uso?_____, especificar cual:________________________________ i. Sola tener bosque conservado en su propiedad? S, describe el uso acut al de esta tierra:________________________________ No Foto #:_____, Categora:_____ Descripcin:__________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 2. Tiene bosque que est cons ervado en su propriedad? S, conteste de la j. a la n. j. # Ha de la finca en total?_____ k. # Ha para la agricultu ra/ pastizal?_____ l. # Ha en conservacin?_____ m. Hace cuanto aos empez la conservacin?_____ n. Cul era el uso antes de conservacin?___________________________________ Foto #:_____, Categora:_____ Descripcin:_____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ No, conteste de la o. a la r. o. # Ha de la finca en total?_____ p. # Ha para la agricu ltura/ pastizal?_____ q. # Ha en otro uso?_____, especificar cual:________________________________ r. Sola tener bosque conservado en su propiedad? S, describe el uso acut al de esta tierra:________________________________ No Foto #:_____, Categora:_____ Descripcin:_____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Encuesta del Ecoturismo 12

PAGE 13

Nombre: 1. Incorpora, o incorporar, activid ades del ecoturismo en su finca? S, conteste de la a. a la k. a. Hae cuanto aos empez, o cuando empezar, a emplear, el ecoturismo?_____ b. Cul es su motivacin para emplear ecoturismo?___________________________ c. Que tipos de actividades emplea? (Marque todas las que aplican) Hospedaje Observacin de aves Senderos Visitas a la finca, Que tipo del cultivo (caf, orgnico, etc)?_______________ Visitas a canopy tours Visitas a cataratas Caminatas nocturnas Otras:__________________________________________________________ d. Incorpora un componente de educacin en sus actividades de ecoturismo? S, describa:_____________________________________________________ No e. Siente que el ecoturismo en su propied ad contribuye a la conservacin? S, describa:_____________________________________________________ No f. En comparacin con la agricu ltura o otro trabajo, el ingreso de ecoturismo es? Secundario Principal g. Tiene la intencin de cambiar el uso de algunas de sus tierras de agricultura/ pastizal a conservada/ regenerada porque por el xito del tourismo? S No h. De donde obtuvo la idea del ecoturismo? Observacin propia Vecino/ Amigo Organizacin Social o de la Comunidad Otra:___________________________________________________________ i. Recibi entrenamiento o educacin sobr e la industria del ecoturismo? S,describa:______________________________________________________ No j. Recibe dinero de Pago Servicio s Ambientales por sus tierras? S, describa:_____________________________________________________ No k. Sin ecoturismo, contuara protegie ndo los bosque por conservacin/ regeneracin? S No, que hara con ellos?____________________________________________ No, conteste de la a. 13

PAGE 14

a. Cul es el razn principal para no emplear ecoturismo? Yo tengo bosque protegidos, pero no tengo inters No tengo tierra suficientes No hay apoya financiero para empezar No hay informacin de cmo empeza Otro, Especificar:_________________________________________________ Notas:________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Land Use and Forest Distribution Survey Name: Date Interviewed: Farm Location: Contact Number: 3. Do you have regenerating forest on your land? Yes, please answer a-e s. # Ha the farms contains in total?_____ t. # Ha for farming/ pastureland?_____ u. # Ha regenerating?_____ v. When did you set aside this land for regeneration?_____ w. What was the lands prior use?_________________________________________ Picture #:_____, Ranking:_____ Description:___________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ No, please answer f-i x. # Ha the farms contains in total?_____ y. # Ha for farming/ pastureland?_____ z. # Ha other use?_____, please specify:___________________________________ aa. Did you ever have regenerating forest on your land? Yes, please describe what this land is used for now:______________________ No Picture #:_____, Ranking:_____ Description:___________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 4. Do you have conserved forest on your land? Yes, please answer j-n bb. # Ha the farms contains in total?_____ 14

PAGE 15

cc. # Ha for farming/ pastureland?_____ dd. # Ha conserved?_____ ee. When did you set aside this land for conservation?_____ ff. What was the lands prior use?_________________________________________ Picture #:_____, Ranking:_____ Description:___________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ No, please answer o-r gg. # Ha the farms contains in total?_____ hh. # Ha for farming/ pastureland?_____ ii. # Ha other use?_____, please specify:___________________________________ jj. Did you ever have conserved forest on your land? Yes, please describe what this land is used for now:______________________ No Picture #:_____, Ranking:_____ Description:___________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Ecotourism Survey Name: 2. Do you incorporate, or plan to in corporate, ecotourism activities on your farm? Yes, please answer a-k a. When did you begin, or plan to begin, employing ecotourism?_____ b. What is your motivation for employing ecotourism?________________________ c. What types of activities do you employ? (Please check all that apply) Lodging Bird watching Trails Farming Tours, What type of cr op (coffee, organic, etc)?__________________ Canopy Tours Waterfall Tours Night Walks Other, describe:__________________________________________________ d. Do you incorporate an educational component into your tourism activities? Yes, please describe:______________________________________________ No e. Do you feel that ecotourism on your pr operty contributes to conservation? Yes, please describe:______________________________________________ No f. Do you consider the income from ecotour ism to be supplemental to farming or primary? 15

PAGE 16

16 Supplemental Income Primary Income g. In the future, do you intend to convert a ny land used for farming/ pastures to conserved/ regeneration as a result of ecotourism success? Yes No h. Where did the idea of ecotourism originate? Own observation Neighbor/ Friend Community or Social Organization Other:__________________________________________________________ i. Did you receive any training or educ ation on the ecotourism industry? Yes, please describe:______________________________________________ No j. Do you receive money from Pago Servicios Ambientales for any portion of your land? Yes, please describe?______________________________________________ No k. Without ecotourism, would you continue to set aside forest for conservation/ regeneration? Yes No, what would you use it for?______________________________________ No, please answer a a. What is the main reason for not employing ecotourism? Have sufficient land, but no in terest/ do not need the income Do not have sufficient land Lack of financial support for starting Lack of informational support on starting Other, please specify:______________________________________________ Notes:___________________________ __________________________________ ________________________ __________________________________________ ________________________ __________________________________________ ________________________ __________________________________________ ________________________ __________________________________________ ________________________ __________________________________________