USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Globalization, ecotourism, and development in the Monte Verde Zone, Costa Rica

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Globalization, ecotourism, and development in the Monte Verde Zone, Costa Rica
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Amador, Edgar Allan
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
tourism
Central America
survey
demography
anthropology
Dissertations, Academic -- Applied Anthropology -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: Ecotourism has been promoted globally as a model for sustainable development because it simultaneously benefits the environment and the residents of the given destination. However, many conservationists have questioned the long term sustainability of ecotourism as it is difficult to mitigate the impact of even low levels of tourism on a particular ecosystem. Further, social scientists including anthropologists have similarly questioned whether most residents of a particular destination actually benefit significantly from the alternative tourism economy. The Globalization Research Center in cooperation with the Monteverde Institue in the Monte Verde Zone, Costa Rica, is undertaking a longitudinal study -- dubbed the Triangulation Study -- to understand the effects that development through ecotourism has on human and natural systems.In order to collect preliminary data, the Globalization Research Center funded the Development Survey which was designed to collect demographic data from a representative stratified random sample of household from nine communities in the Monte Verde Zone. Basic descriptive information was also collected for all of the businesses in the area that would agree to participate. The data collected showed that there is a significant difference in the extent that the nine communities in the Monte Verde Zone are involved in and perhaps benefiting from ecotourism despite the fact that their opinions about ecotourism are mostly positive. The communities located on the main road to the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve have demographic statistics that are significantly different from communities that are off the main road, and all communities are significantly different from the Monteverde community.Further, the ecotouristic businesses are located in these road proximate communities. Like the ecotourism literature predicted, the majority of the businesses are small and locally owned. Further study that carefully looks at the differences between those communities closest to the road and those furthest away is recommended. Perhaps a repetition of the Development Survey after a period of time would help elucidate changes in the Zone.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Edgar Allan Amador.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 168 pages.

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:
aleph - 001498152
oclc - 57724153
notis - AJU6747
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0000570
usfldc handle - e14.570
System ID:
SFS0025261:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Globalization, Ecotourism, And Development In The Monte Verde Zone, Costa Rica by Edgar Allan Amador A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of A nthropology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Trevor W. Purcell Ph.D. Mark Amen, Ph.D. Kevin Yelvington, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 16, 2004 Keywords: tourism, central america, survey, demography, anthropology Copyright 200 4 Edgar Allan Amador

PAGE 2

Dedication This thesis is dedicated to the m ost important people in my life: my wife Jennifer, my mother G ioconda, and my brothers J. Alejandro and Alvaro.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements I want to thank my wife Jennifer for her criticism patience and support during the w riting of this thesis. I also thank my mother for her self sacrifice so I could get this far. I want to also thank my major professor Dr. Trevor Purcell, who gave me the opportunity to work with him on this project. I must also thank the Globalization Research Center, especially the Centers Director Dr. Mark Amen, for offering me this two year paid internship/research position and being a part of my committee. I would also like to thank Dr. Kevin Yelvington for hi s patience and support as my third comm ittee member. Finally, I thank the Latino Graduate Fellowship folks especially Rod Hale, for giving me financial support through this process.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables iv Li st of Figures vii Abstract v iii Chapter One : Introduction 1 Introduction 1 Internship Overview 4 Purpose of Inte rnship 5 Globalization Research Center 5 The Monteverde Institute 6 Summary of Internship Activities 7 Thesis Goals and Overview 9 Chapter Two : Literature Review 11 Globalization as Context 11 Ecotourism as Development 1 7 Globalization, Ecotourism, and Development in Costa Rica 25 Ecotourism in the Monte Verde Zone 30 History of the Monte Verde Zone 32 Chapter Three : Research Methods 37 Research Problem 37 Survey Objectives 38 Research Question 38 Methodological Framework 39 Methods of Data Collection 40 Archival Research 40 Informal Interviewing 40 Survey Interviewing 41 Research Methodology for the Development Survey 41 The Household Survey 43 The Business Survey 45 Expected Outcomes 46 Ethical Considerations 47

PAGE 5

ii Chapter Four : Development Survey Results Household Instrument 49 Introduction 49 General Completion Information 50 Household Sur vey 51 Data Entry into SPSS 55 Monte Verde Zone Profile 55 Respondent Level Information for the Monte Verde Zone 56 Characteristics of Respondents 56 Views on Development and Tourism 59 Views on Community and Zone Governance 60 Views on Utilities and Services 60 Participation in Public Services 61 Transportation Results 61 Sources of Information 63 Su m mary of Respondent Results 64 Household Level Information for the Monte Verde Zone 66 Household Composition 66 Household Employment 67 Home Ownership 70 Household Vehicles 70 Household Computers 71 Summary of Household Results 71 Summary of Monte Verde Zone Results 72 Community Comparisons 74 Respondent Level Comparisons 74 Comparisons of Characterist ics of Respondents 74 Comparisons of Respondents Opinions and Attitudes 79 Comparison of Views on Development 79 Comparison of Participation in Public Services 80 Comparisons of Sources of Information 80 Comparisons of Transportation Results 82 C omparison s of Views on Governance 84 Comparison of Views on Tourism 86 Comparisons of Views on Utilities and Services 87 Summary of Respondent Level Com parisons 90 Household Level Comparisons 91 Comparisons of Household Composition 91 Comparisons of Household Employment 92 Comparisons of Home Ownership 96 Comparisons of Household Vehicles 97 Comparisons of Household Computers 99 Summary of Household Level Comparisons 99 Summary of Community Comparisons Results 101 Conclusions 103

PAGE 6

iii Chapter Five : Development Survey Results Business Instrument 106 Introduction 106 General Completion Information 107 Business Survey 107 Data Entry into SPSS 108 The Business Survey 109 Business Location 10 9 Business Inauguration 109 Business Classification 110 Sources of Initial Capital 110 Business Ownership 111 Business Employment 112 Seasonal Profits 113 Summary of Result s 113 Chapter Six: Conclusion 116 Final Analysis 116 Directions for Future Research 119 References 121 Appendices 129 Appendix A: Development Survey Final Report 13 0 Appendix B: Household Instrument 135 Appendix C: Business Instrument 151

PAGE 7

iv List of Tables Table 1 Population of the Monte V erde Zone (circa 2000) 34 Table 2 Households and Sampling in the Monte Verde Zone (cir ca 2000) 44 Table 3 Household Development Survey Sample and Completion Results 53 Table 4 Characteristics of Respondents by Gender 56 Table 5 Respondents Who Have not lived in the Zone since Birth 57 Table 6 Place of Ori gin 58 Table 7: Time of Arrival 58 Table 8: Views on Development and Tourism 59 Table 9: Views on Governance 60 Table 10: Opinions on Utilities and Services for the Monte Verde Zone 61 Table 11 : Transportation Used for Work 62 Table 12: Transportation Used to Travel Outside of Monte Verde Zone 62 Table 13: Transportation Used to Travel within Monte Verde Zone 63 Table 14: Sources of Information 64 Table 15: Employment Characteristics of Monte Verde Zone Households 67 Table 16: Characteristics of Households by Number of Working Adults 68 Table 17: Tourism and Employment 69 Table 18: Farming Households 70 Table 19: Home Ownership in the Monte Verde Zone 70

PAGE 8

v Table 20: Household Transportation 71 Table 21: Gender of Respondents by Communities 75 Table 22: Average Age by Communities 76 Table 23: Lived in the Zone since Birt h across Communities 77 Table 24: Place of Origin by Community 78 Table 25: Average Year of Arrival 78 Table 26: Views on Development by Community 80 Table 27: Sources of Information by Community 81 Table 28: Common Means and Frequency of Travel outside the Zone 82 Table 29: Common Means and Frequency of Travel inside the Zone 84 Table 30: Opinions on Community Governance by Community 85 Table 31: Opinions on Zone Governanc e by Community 86 Table 32: Opinions on Tourism by Community 86 Table 33: Opinions on Utilities and Public Services by Community 87 Table 34: Mean Annual Household Income by Community 93 Table 35: Mean Annual Inco me per Working Adult by Community 94 Table 36: Household Benefits form Tourism by Community 94 Table 37: Households Engaging in Farming Activities by Community 95 Table 38: Home Ownership by Community 97 Table 39: M eans of Transportation per Household by Community 98 Table 40: Ownership of Select Vehicles per Household by Community 99 Table 41: Business Survey Completion Results 108 Table 42: Location of Businesses 109

PAGE 9

vi Table 43: Most Common Business Self Classifications 110 Table 44: Sources of Initial Capital 111 Table 45: Types of Business Ownership 111 Table 46: Common Characteristics of Business Owners in Zone 112 Table 47: Characteristics of Employment in Monte Verde Zone 113

PAGE 10

vii List of Figures Figure 1. Cluster Analysis of Monte Verde Zone Communities 104

PAGE 11

viii Globalization, Ecotourism and Development i n t he Monte V erde Zone Costa Rica Edgar Al lan Amador ABSTRACT Ecotourism has been promoted globally as a model for sustainable development because it simultaneously benefits the environment and the residents of the given destination. However, many conservationists have questioned the long term sustainability of ecotourism as it is difficult to mitigate the impact of even low levels of tourism on a particular ecosystem. Further, social scientists including anthropologists have similarly questioned whether most residents of a particular destinati on actually benefit significantly from the alternative tourism economy. The Globalization Research Center in cooperation with the Monteverde Institue in the Monte V erde Zone, Costa Rica is undertaking a longitudinal study dubbed the Triangulation Study to understand the effects that development through ecotourism has on human and natural systems. In order to collect preliminary data the Globalization Research Center funded the Development Survey which was designed to collect demographic data from a representative stratified random sample of household from nine communities in the Monte V erde Zone. Basic descriptive information was also collected for all of the business es in the area that would agree to participate The data collected showed that the re is a significant difference in the extent that the nine communities in the

PAGE 12

ix Monte V erde Zone are involved in and perhaps benefiting from ecotou rism despite the fact that their opinio n s about ecotourism are mostly positive. The communities located on the main road to the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve have demographic statistics that are significantly different from communities that are off the main road and all communities are significantly different from the Monteverde community. Further, the e cotou ristic business es are located in these road proximate communities. Like the ecotourism literature predicted the majority of the businesses are small and locally owned. Further study that carefully looks at the differences between those communities close st to the road and those furthest away is recommended. Perhaps a repetition of the Development Survey after a period of time would help elucidate changes in the Zone.

PAGE 13

1 Chapter One Introduction Introduction The Monte Verde Zone is located up in the Cordillera Tilaran a central Costa Rican mount ain chain, approximately an hour and forty five minutes up a winding dirt road that branches off the Pan American Highway. W ithin the Zone l ies the community of Monteverde which is an international ecotourist destination because of its beautiful cloud forests that are home to an impressive array of animals and plants including many species of exotic birds. T hese pristine fore sts with their biological diversity have created a vibrant and growing ecotourist industry in the Monteverde community and the Monte V erde Zone. But, this ecotourism economy is supplanting the pre existing agric ultural economy. Additionally, d evel opment resulting from ecotourism is increasing demands on natural resources, especially water, f orests, and land, and is placing greater burdens on sanitation and health care delivery systems. Also, the potential increase in exposure to infectious/communicable d iseases created by the increase in tourism, rapid population growth and increased population density may place a yet unknown health burden on the local population. Within t he Monte Verde Zone, the communities of Monteverde, Cerro Plano, and Santa Elena c urrently have the largest popula tions and concentration of hotels, restaurants, and other service related businesses that result from development related to

PAGE 14

2 tourism In order to profit from the current tourism boom, l ocal people are transform ing their f or mer economic enterprises Some cattle ranches, for example, have been reinvented as ecological farms where cattle are no longer kept In these ranches for a fee, tourists are allowed to hike the trails within the pro perty. New attra ctions that siphon o ff tourist s interested in wildlife on their way to the Cloud Forests are appearing as well, including a ranario (frog and toad zoo) and a se rpentarium. T he economic and political transformation however, is not occurring equally in all communities within the Zone For example, t he population increase particularly in Cerro Plano, Santa Elen a, and Monteverde, is necessitating changes in delivery of government services such as he alth care facilities. But some communities in the Zone fall within the boundar ies of Gua nacaste, an entirely different p rovince. These communities, for legal reasons, do not benefit from any of the new political reorganization as only those that live within designated political boundaries will have access to these new facilities. Global forces are at work changing and shaping the community of Monteverde and the Monte Verde Zone. The growth in tourism is partially the result of efforts made by conservationists locally, nationally and internationally, partially the result of develo pment strategies pursued by the Costa Rican government partially the results of Costa Ricas place in the world economy (which impacts their development strategy) and partially the result of the growing international leisure class (the tourists) who seek out pristine natural destinations. Travel and therefore tourism to Monteverde is facilitated by improved technologies that compress space and time Such technologies include better roads and automobiles, better telephone and cell phone services bette r

PAGE 15

3 computers and improved internet capabilities. And yet, what is the net effect of these forces on local communities? How can a rural community manage the rapid ch ange and growth that may result as they integrate into the global economy through supposed equitable development strategies like ecotourism? Is ecotourism really a manageable and sustainable development strategy? How does development resulting from ecotourism affect the lives of residents? My internship and resulting thesis begin to address a portion of these questi ons under the structure developed by the Globalization Research Center and the Monteverde Institute. The collaborative longitudinal research in which these two institutions are engaged necessitated a preliminary study to begin to explore these issues and to generate unavailable baseline data. Therefore, the question that I was recruited to help answer during my internship research and resulting thesis is : How has ecotourism affected the rate, character and patterns of development, and what are the effects of such development on biodiversity and natural capital, community health, nutrition and rates of infectious diseases, and local culture, knowledge, and political systems? From this broad, interdisciplinary and inclusive questio n, smaller and more manageable questions emerged so that different researcher s on the interdisciplinary team could engage the particular dimension of the research that utilized their respective specialties. Working on the Development team, my research que stion became: What is the role of the various segments of the Monteverde population (community, occupational, local s, immigrants, business, etc.) in the overall development of the local economy and social structure?

PAGE 16

4 Internship Overview My internship con sisted of two years of employment (2001 2003) at the USF GRC where I assisted with the initial phases of the Triangulation Study. Before my initial employment, the University of South Floridas Globalization Research Center (USF GRC) had already entered into a relationship with the Monteverde Institute (MVI). The USF GRC and MVI formed a partnership in order to conduct multi disciplinary collaborative research that attempted to analyze the impact that the rapid development of the Monte V erde Zone resulti ng from ecotourism is having on human and natural systems. This collaborative multi disciplinary research project was dubbed the Triangulation Study The USF GRC and MVI included in their planning several Monteverde community organizations as well as the Institute of Research in Economic Science at the University of Costa Rica. The project s initial steps included the collection of available information and eventually, the drafting and administering of a largely demographic survey designed to provide so m e baseline data for a more ethnographic longitudinal study. My duties initially consisted of doing preliminary research, both archival and on the gr ound, to amass all available information for this study. Once the types of data available were identified and collected, the research team of which I was a part planned and conducted a baseline demographic survey of the nine communities that comprise the Monte Verde Zone to fill in the gaps of missing information. I was subsequently responsible for preparing an analysis using the data collected that described general demographic characteristi cs of the Monte Verde Zone and compared the nine communities. Particular importance was placed on collecting the data for the baseline

PAGE 17

5 survey as the road to Monteverde w as being paved making the ecotouristic destination more accessible and potentially accelerating the growth of the region significantly. Purpose of Internship T he purpose of this internship was to conduct a baseline survey for the Triangulation Study whic h had practical value to the USF GRC and MVI, as well as other members of the Mont Verde Zone community. The USF GRC intended to use the information to apply for grants, plan, and conduct the longitudinal study. MVI intended to make the data publicly ava ilable, as many stakeholders in the community had an interest in seeing the data. Additionally, MVI wanted to use the analysis of the data in presentations to the community on the general state of development resulting from ecotourism in the Monte V erde Z one. Globalization Research Center As stated on its website, the USF Globalization Research Center (USF GRC) was created to study the phenomenon of economic, social, and cultural globalization. The USF GRC has chosen to focus its research efforts on the effects of and responses to globalization in the overlapping areas of health, water, and development, with a geographic concentration on Latin America and the Caribbean. As a part of its mission within a four university Globalization Consortium, composed of USF, UCLA, University of Hawaii and George Washington University, the USF GRC selected a core project that investigates the inter relationships between biodiversity, water, health and development within a global perspective. This core project of the US F GRC is the previously mentioned Triangulation Study During the period of my employment the USF GRC consisted of a c enter director Dr. Mark Amen and three research coordinators who were

PAGE 18

6 responsible for (among other things) reviewing research proposals that pertain to their respective area of expertise. Dr. Linda Whiteford was the health coordinator, Dr. Mark Stewart was the water resource management coordinator, and Dr. Trevor Purcell was the development coordinator. Within the GRC my position durin g both years of my employment (2001 2003) was that of graduate research assistant to the development coordinator. The Monteverde Institute The Monteverde Institute (MVI) is a non profit association with public utility status located in Monteverde, Costa R ica, one of the world s most renowned ecotourist destinations. The Institute was started by members of the Monteverde community, which has a large Quaker population, and according to its mission statement is dedicated to peace, justice, knowledge and t he vision of a sustainable future. Initially this grassroots non for profit organization was primarily focused on studying the biodiversity of the Monteverde region as well as promoting and managing grassroots conservation efforts. However, the Monteve rde Institute had become increasingly interested and engaged in social issues that were important to the human inhabitants of the Monte V erde Zone particularly as the population and the development of the area increased. MVI derives its money from its co llaboration with foreign universities and runs a series of field courses mostly in tropical biology but also in sustainable development and community health and globalization. My contact at MVI was the research coordinator C. Sophia K lempn er, MPH, who was hired in part to help coordinate the Development Survey at the local level.

PAGE 19

7 Summary of Internship Activities My work on this p roject began during my initial employment in the summer of 2001 when another of the centers graduate assistants and I were sen t to Costa Rica for six weeks partly to participate and assist in a globalization and health field methods course run by MVI in collaboration with the USF GRC but also to collect any archival information available, conduct informal interviews with communit y stakeholders, and begin to make contacts with the different groups within the communities. Subsequently, it was decided by the USF GRC and MVI that conducting a baseline survey to obtain some basic information would be of use to both the USF GRC and MVI The task of developing and administering the survey was placed on the development team of the USF GRC which consisted of the development coordinator, Dr. Trevor Purcell, and the graduate assistant for the development coordinator, myself. Dr. Purcell a nd I decided to call the survey the Development Survey. Many of the community and political organizations in the Monte V erde Zone were interested in and became involved with the Development Survey. Throughout our site visits, we sought input from these o rganizations through continuing conversations/interviews with key individuals in the community including the Director of the Monteverde Institute and numerous members of his staff, leaders and members the Consejo de Distrito (Council of Districts a loca l governance body), the Camara de Tourismo (Tourist Chamber), Asociacin de Desarollo (Development Association), and at the national level the director of the Economic Science Research Institute at the University of Costa Rica. While the broader Triang ulation Study aims to examine the relationship between

PAGE 20

8 human systems, natural systems, and ecoto urism in Monteverde, the Development Survey consisted of two locally administered structured surveys conducted by native surveyors: (1) a household survey inten ded primarily to collect data on the demographic dynamics, social organizational pattern s opinions, and economic activities of a representative sample of residents of the different communities in the Monte V erde Zone; and (2) a business survey intended to provide baseline data for the construction of a profile of the ecotourism sector in order to begin to understand its impact on the overall development of the area. The development survey was conducted in late August thru September 2002. Our major concer n at the GRC was not having a person on the ground during the actual survey T he Monteverde Institute and the GRC therefore hired a research coordinator, C. Sophia Klempner, MPH, to help facilitate the research and the processing of the data. K l empner wa s also employed by MVI and had other duties that pertain to that employment. Dr. Purcell and I traveled to Costa Rica to train twelve native surveyors to collect the data and finalize procedure s with the research coordinator. During our training week we briefed the native surveyors on the goals of the general Triangulation Study and the Development Survey, survey methodology, ethnographic methodology, and research ethics. Upon completion of the training, the native surveyors began administering the two surveys in the nine communities under the supervision of the research coordinator. Once the data was collected the research coordinator began entering the data into SPSS. The data entry phase was completed by April 2003 and the data was sent to the GRC for analysis. The analysis was assigned to me and this thesis is the result of that analysis.

PAGE 21

9 Thesis Goals and Overvi e w This thesis t akes the data collected in the Development S urvey and analyzes it as a case study in globalization, ecotourism, and devel opment in a rural community of a developing country. The case study is valuable in that it provides actual household level and individual business level measures of the economic and social impact that ecotourism generated development has on peoples lives. I t answers The World Ecotourism Summits (2002) call for more baseline studies that improve our knowledge of ground conditions as well as Maria Bozzolis (2000) call for applied anthropologists to study the impacts of sustainable development strategies o n communities in Costa Rica. Additionally, it is one of few studies that focus on the impacts of ecotourism and sustainable tourism on people s lives and not on the environment. The seco nd chapter of this thesis will review pertinent globalization, ecot ourism, and development literature in order understand the way in which development through ecotourism has been studied and in order to frame the discussion within the academic literature. This chapter will also explore the historical contexts in which th e Monte Verde Zone is situated. The third chapter will delineate the methodology used in the development survey. It will describe the methodology employed in creating the two survey instruments and will also describe the sampling technique employed for e ach. Also, it will describe the different levels of analysis that will be possible given the data collected. The fourth and fifth chapter will report the results of each instrument, the household and busin ess instrument respectively. Each chapter will f irst provide some logistical information about the process of conducting the research and the completion

PAGE 22

10 rates, as well as problems that arose. The results will be summarized at the end of each chapter. Finally, the sixth chapter will connect the results of the Development Survey back to the literature. Differences and similarities between the findings in the Monte Verde Zone and those predicted by the literature will be discussed. Also, productive new directions for future research will be considered.

PAGE 23

11 Chapter Two Literature Review Globalization as Context Both applied and academic anthropologists agree that globalization will become the most important concept framing future anthropological research (Kearney 1995; Hackenberg 1999a; Cleveland 2000; Durrenberger 2001; Lewellen 2002). However, agreement on conceptualizations of globalization has proved more difficult particularly as many scholars correctly assert that definitions or conceptualizations of globalization are positioned ( Kearney 1995; Mintz 1998; Tsing 2000; Friedman 2002; Amselle 2002; Wade 2002 & 2004). As Lewellen points out, there are a plethora of theories of globalization, ranging from ultraglobalist to skeptical (2002: 74). These theories of globalization differ entially focus on the economic, the social, the political, and sometimes the abstract aspects of the contemporary globalizing world. For example, a cross disciplines scholars read and cite philosophical iterations that seek some nobility in the contemporar y global moment, a qualitative bre ak with the past. Scholtes (2000) thorough conceptualization emphasizes the growth of supraterritorial relations between peoples that are changing the nature of social space. Giddens (1990) influential description of mo dernity and globalization talks about local events shaped by events occurring in far off locals. Harvey (1989) is often cited for his assertion that the contemporary global moment includes a compression of time and space. Appadurai

PAGE 24

12 (1996) muses about cul tural global flows and the post colonial imagination filled with mediascapes and ethnoscapes. But also across disciplines, scholars contend with ideological iterations that are not as concerned with the novelty of the evolving global experience but seek t o further political agendas For neoliberal economists, for example, many scholars would argue that globalization is an ideology, the way the world should go , while for antineoliberals it is an ideology of the direction in which the world should not go (Lewellen 2002: 74). It is therefore not surprising that in many of these ideological iterations globalization is talked about but not explicitly defined. It is, as Scholte (2000) points out, conflated with internationalization, liberalization, univers alization, and westernization. It is a buzzword. In the anthropological literature, many discussions of globalization, particularly in relation to its purported novelty, do not brim with enthusiasm. This is not to say tha t claims about potentially novel aspects of contemporary globalization are dismissed ( whether truly novel or not ) I n defining globalization, for example, Kearneys seminal article (1995) accepts and borrows ma ny assertions articulated by other non anthropological scholars. He paraphra ses from Basch et al. (1994) in proclaiming that globalization includes social, economic, cultural, and demographic processes that take place within nations but also transcend them (Kearney 1995: 548) He quotes from Giddens (1990: 64) in asserting that globalization involves the intensification of world wide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vi ce versa (Kearney 1995: 548). He accepts Harveys (1989) contention that marked acceleration in a secular trend of time

PAGE 25

13 space compression in capitalist political economy is central to current culture change (Kearney 1995: 551). But, anthropologists differ, both with scholars from other disciplines and with ot her anthropologists, on many of the critical aspects surrounding the conceptualization of globalization. For me, there appear to be at least three distinguishable t ypes of globalization critiques in the globalization literature within anthropology. This first is best understood as coming from critiques of th e development studies of previous decades ( exemplified by Tsing 2000). These critiques argued that there was a lack of questioning of the development paradigm that saw the world as necessarily progres sing toward more development in much of the anthropological literature (Escobar 1991; Ferguson 1990). Even though these anthropological scholars readily accept some of the more philosophical and abstract theorizing on globalization and modernity, such as Kearney (1995), the y also transplant the same critique of development to those who readily accept the globalization paradigm and see globalization as inevitable For example, in articles like Tsing (2000) the commitment of social scientists to study cultu re change through the glo balization concept is deconstructed She terms the enthusiasm in endorsing this concept by some as globalism and warns that the modernization concept held similar sway over scholars and that it took many years before social sci entists moved beyond endorsements, refusals, and reforms of modernization to describe modernization as a set of projects with cultural and institutional specificities and limitations (2 000: 328). Similarly, in delineating the impact that globalization th eorizing will have on future anthropological endeavors, particularly the study of transnational communities, Kearney (1995) distinguishes conceptualizations of

PAGE 26

14 globalization that he accepts from political and ideological dimensions of certain definitions of globalization (he calls this globalism) that are used by nation states to further their own agendas. Additionally, anthropological scholars are also cautioned and critiqued for too easily accepting globalization ideology (getting caught up in g lobalis m) (Kearney 1995: 549). A secon d type of critique focuses on the historical analysis of globalization and its antecedents. Seen through a scholarly tradition that includes the dependency theory of Andre Gunder Frank (1966), Wallersteins world systems th eory (1974) and Wolfs subsequent critique (1982) of any study of the local that would present it as somehow pristine, unaffected by the forces of modernity and segregated from the impact of colonialism (there are no locals external to the world system), m any anthropological scholars embrace those descriptions of globalization that view it as the continuation of a long ago initiated process with a complex political history and, therefore, question claims that would place globalization as primarily a new phe nomenon (Mintz 1998; Amselle 2002; Friedman 2002). These sc holars do not engage in describing the globalization concept by focusing on its newness as mu ch as the previous group. Their focus is also not on the experience of the individual or the social co nst ruction of the experience of a globalized world Rather they are interested in critiquing the purported historical and political origins of globalization as a macro phenomenon and its future implications given its past. The third type of critique is composed of those who want to use the globalization concept to frame practical discussions of development and the impact of global economic forces on peoples lives. Interestingly, the critique against embracing an unquestioned

PAGE 27

15 globalization paradigm is b est understood when reading some of the enthusiastic endorsements of the globalization concept made by scholars in this third vein of the anthropological globalization literature: applied anthropologists and development anthropologists. Their critique is against the abstract and philosophical character of some anthropological theorizing and is an appeal for a more practical focus (methodologically and theoretically). For example, Hackenberg asserts that framework s such as modernization and development se rved us well in the past despite having become entangled in acrimonious disputes and that globalization, when grounded empirically at both intercontinental and local community poles, and connected by verifiable linkages, with consequences observed ove r time, could become the touchstone conceptual frame for revitalizing applied anthropology (emphasis original, Hackenberg 1999a: 212). From his applied perspective, Hackenberg is more concerned with scholarship that contributes to policy formation and a s such he dismisses critiques like Escobars (1989) or globalization conceptualizations like Kearneys (1995), which he speci fically characterizes as post positivist social philosophy. Instead he encourages anthropologists to deal with what he calls the empirical level globalization that looks at current trends in global political economy: We may ignore or even ridicule globalization as social philosophy. And we may avoid engagement with the empirical level of globalization phenomena. Many of us, as I have elsewhere noted, may choose lower risk venues for employment (Hackengberg 1988). But the multiethnic underclass will not go away when we turn out the lights. In the end, the main difference in Hackenbergs applied iteration of the globaliz ation concept is a greater concern for the real world outcomes resulting from current trends in the global economic policy of powerful nations; he shows more interest in the politic al

PAGE 28

16 economy of globalization tha n its philosophical construction o r deconstr uction. This is evident in Hackenberg (1999b) where he does not bother to define globalization. Instead, he concerns himself with the possible disciplinary integration of anthropology and economics in order to better inform development planning associate d with resettlement design as resettlement has had disastrous consequences for the worlds poor. Indeed, many applied anthropologists share this practical outlook. Cleveland (2000) and Durrenberger (2001), for example, argue for practical approaches to studying globalization that use both quantitative and qualitative data, consider practical issues like environmental carrying capacity, and bring together humanis tic and scientific approaches. Nor do t hese scholars practi cal and applied foci lead them t o reject more philosophical or descriptive studies of globalization. Hackenberg (1999a) specifically cites ethnographies as examples of the kinds of works that he endorses that are not necessarily applied but have great value because of their description of the lives of real people and their encounter with global forces. Indeed, many anthropological ethnographies like Aihwa Ongs (1987) Spirits of Resistance and Capitalist Discipline or Devorah Barndts (2002) Tangled Routes combine humanistic and scienti fic approaches using qualitative and quantitative data to serve as powerful critiques against neoliberal s pro globalization ideologies (globalism) by describing the impacts that globalizing economic forces have on peoples lives in Southeast Asia and Mexic o respectively. This applied thesis will therefore use a globalization framework to impart on the research the conviction that the analysis of the local must respect historical context and the impact of global forces on the local. While it is important t o realize that the

PAGE 29

17 contemporary global moment produces some new and u nique cultural experiences, such as access to new technologies that result in compression of space and time, it is equally important to remember th at as Tomilson (1999) asserts the vast majority of people on earth still live in local life, which may be affected by globalizing forces but does not have the plethora of standardized internationally similar spaces of global life ( 1999: 9). I t is too easy to get caught up in uncritical discu ssions about the novelty of social experience under globalization (possibly fall into globalism) and to forget that there is an unequal distribution of these experiences. The analysis in this thesis will also share the practical outlook expressed by appli ed anthropologists in the study of globalization because whatever globalization is, the most important aspect of the d ebate for applied projects is its impact in the lives of peoples of the wo rld, particularly the poor As new literature is coming out t hat challenge s pro globalization arguments that were constructed from macro economic data and also reveal the hegemonic influe nce that institutions like the World B ank wield in skewing macro economic statistics that are used to judge economic policy world wide (Wade 2002, 2004), it becomes important to continue to evaluate the impacts of globalization forces at the local level in order to better understand how globalizin g forces shape peoples lives. Ecotourism as Development The study of ecotourism as deve lopment involves the intersection of sometimes disparate lines of research that include social science studies of tourism and its impacts on tourists and locals, conservation biology evaluations of the impacts that tourism or ecotourism might have on the e nvironment (and sometimes an ideological plea for ecotouristic principles), and articles on tourism and ecotourism as development strategies.

PAGE 30

18 While it is beyond the scope of this thesis to fully document the history of tourism studies (and eventually alte rnative tourism or ecotourism) in the social sciences it is nevertheless important to mention some of the most important themes in tourism research. Some early influential works in the study of tourism in anthropology and other social sciences include Ma cCannells (1976) seminal ethnography of tourism and modernity, which explored the importance of leisure in contemporary society. Stronza (2001) argues that MacCannell s important contribution was contending that one can understand the modern world (its a lienations and need to reconnect with the pristine) by understanding the psychological moti ves and constructs of tourist s T he tourist experience forges unity in fragmented modern society because a common experience that is shared by all comes to organize and order life. Much of Victor Turners work bears mention here as well as he was interested in analyzing the experience of tourist/pilgrim/traveler as a time out of normal time that provide s freedom for the agent from normal structure (Turner 1969, 197 8, 1982; Turner and Turner 1978). Similar more contemporary studies into the effects of tourism on constructing or reaffirming modernity include Bruners (1991) in which he analyzes museums as places were tourists can affirm their ideas about the world a nd Graburns (1989) who analyzes tourism as a ritual process that reaffirms social values. The value of these studies is that they conceptualize tourism as a globalizing force, a force that reduces soci al space Although their claims about the commonness of the tourists experience and its purported unifying and beneficial effects are dubious, their works portray the tourist as an agent in the modern globalizing world. But, much of the work on tourism in anthropology has been focused on the effects

PAGE 31

19 of the tourism encounter and the impacts of tou rism on destinations. In evaluating the impact of tourism on social structures, the anthropological literature whether ethnographies or articles, has often concluded that tourism has negative effects ( Stronza 2001 ) Further, Stronza (2001) asserts that a nthropologists and other social scientists have also greatly challenged assumptions about the economic benefits of tourism. Stronza (2001) and Crick (19 89) affirm that during the 1970 s, and still to some extent to day, economist promoted tourism as an ideal strategy for development, while multilateral lending agencies funded touristic infrastructure in the Third World, and tourism modernization was applauded as a powerful catalyst for helping Caribbean and othe r places take off into flourishing service based economies (Stronza 2001: 268). But, a s early as the late 1970 s social scientists were arguing that tourism was not the cure for Third World economic troubles (Kadt 1979). Even detailed contemporary stu dies such as Pagdins (1995) or Sreekumar and Parayils (2002) reaffirm the established notion that tourism did little to alleviate the needs of local popu lations (Richter 1982). In fact tourism often brought new kinds of social problems instead, such as sex tourism (Oppermann 1998; Pettman 1997). Additionally, private businesses tended to siphon off the profits to developed countries (Crick 1989). Specifically, tourism development has been blamed for disrupting subsistence activities and making locals dependent on the outside world (Oliver Smith 1989; Mansperger 1995) or leading to increased stratification in local communities (Stronza 2001) or increased unhappiness resulting from loss of cultural identity and the creation of cultural dependency (Eris man 1983). Many scholars have also focused on the negative impacts that tourism has had on the environment (Honey 1999; Olsen 1997). In fact, Nash (1989) describes tourism

PAGE 32

20 development as a form of imperialism and Stronza (2001) concludes that it became the vanguard of neocolonialism. More recently, however, social scientists, as well as development planners, conservationists, international entities like the UN, and national governments like Costa Ricas, have embraced, largely on potential, new alternat ive tourism development strategies such as ecotourism. Ecotourism is defined by The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) as responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the welfare of local people. The draw of these natural areas include both animals and biota such as in bird watching or coral reef diving (Hawkins 1994), but can also involve the natural history of an area and its i ndigenous culture (Ziffer 1989). E cotourism, therefore, involves more than a journey of relaxation; it includes appreciation for and desire to learn about local ecosystems and peoples. Ecotourism is also ideally characterized as small sc ale and run by locals and, therefore, has come to be regarded by many as a development strategy that has the dual advantage of benefiting the local economy while simultaneously protecting the loc al natural capital (World Ecotourism Summit Final Report 2002) As Stronza (2001) asserts this has generated enthusiasm among social scientists looking to link cons ervation and development. Therefore, the rapidly growing ecotourism literature, wh ich includes two new journals ( Journal of Ecotourism and the Journal of Sustainable Touris m), is filled with guidelines written by advocates of ecotourism that include rheto ric about ideal practices or economic opportunities (Hawkins 1994; Hartshorn 1995; Ceballos Lascurain 1996 ; World Ecotourism Summit Final Report 2002 ). But also, because its focus is on providing opportunities for local residents through grassroots planni ng, ecotourism

PAGE 33

21 provides opportunities for applied research for disciplines like anthropology (Stronza 2001) That most ecotourism occurs in undeveloped rural areas has been seen as an additional benefit, providing income in impoverished communities, dis couraging migration to urban areas, and maintaining biodiversity. Particularly important for social scientists then is the emphasis that ecotourism touts on the non exploitation of local peoples (Burnie 1994). Some countries, such as those in east Africa have had significant ecot ourism economies for many years. F or example, Kenya and its national parks are regarded by some as the worlds foremost ecotourist destination (Olindo 1991). This form of economic development has also been encouraged in impover ished Asian countries like Nepal and Tanzania (Whelan 1991). It is important to note, however, that alternative tourism like ecotourism did not grow out of ideas put forth by developers, economists or social scientists but rather it began as part of the world wide conservationist movement. Ecotourism as an international phenomenon is dependent on western attitudes about the value of nature and responsible travel usually to non western destinations and has to be understood within that context (Dilly 1999). There are very different western ideas disseminated some of which appear to conflict ; conservationists promote either the aesthetic value of nature or the understanding of the natural ecosystem and our place in it, while developers and locals may be interested in the value of nature as a source of revenue (nature as natural capital). In a sense, ecotourism is possible because there are western tourists who want to visit pristine ecosystems in impoverished rural areas, creating an opportunity for c onservationists to proliferate conservationis t principles and for locals to profit from

PAGE 34

22 ecotourists (Menkhaus and Lober 1996). Articles like Hawkins (1994), for example, view ecotour ism solely as an opportunity to capitalize on a niche market. Therefore, ecotourism involves the imposition of multiple western ideas about the value of nature nature as a source of revenue in the form of tourist dollars, nature as something to be preserved ideas that are accepted to differing extents by host communities. This has led some conservationists to question whether the adoption of conservationist principals by host communities is actually occurring (Hunter 1994; Holl et al 1995). Further, the conservationist literature is also pessimistic regarding the purporte d adoption of conservationist principles (or cooption of these principles) by economists and developers (Watkins 2000). Many conservationists point out that even ecotourism negatively impacts the environment if not properly managed and, in fact, may amoun t to just rhetoric in some cases (Hunter 1994; Watkins 2000; Boza et al 1995; Honey 1999). Therefore, even though ecotourism comes out of conservationist ethic the conservationist literature on ecotourism is skeptical about its purported environmental be nefits, such as its supposed minimal impact on the environment or its proliferation of western conservationists values, largely because conservationists fear that ecotourism may amount to nothing more than business as usual. Part of the problem might be that as Hunter (1997) asserts, much of the literature on sustainable tourism is overly simplistic and inflexible and often fails to account for local circumstances. In fact, Hunter makes the argument that sustainable tourism rhetoric has developed in is olation from the sustainable development literature and has much that it can learn from it. Hunter tackles the problem from the perspective of environmental sustainability and therefore argues for a more adaptive paradigm for sustainable tourism, one that neither takes a product led

PAGE 35

23 (weak environmental) nor a neotenous (extreme environmental) tourism approach. He advocates for a sustainable tourism that contends with the specifics of a particular situation while addressing issues of equity, human well being, and distribution of cost and benefits which ensue from the utilization of resources (Hunter 1997). While conservationists who study the impacts of ecotourism may be weary of it, researchers who study the social and economic dimensions and impacts of development through ecotourism are also becoming cautious in recent years in tout ing its benefits Some authors claim that locals receive minimal economic returns and have little to say in prioritizing development objectives (Hartshorn 1995; Place 1998 ; Weaver and Elliott 1996). In fact, Hunters (1997) critique of sustainable tourism can be taken even further if one applies the lessons learned by anthropologists and other social scientists working in development projects over that last few decades. U phoff et al (1998), for example, reviewed many successful and unsuccessful development projects to find what worked. In sustainable rural development, su ccessful projects whether initiated by government, nongovernmental organizations, individuals, priva te se ctor, or communities themselves were undertaken in a learning process (LP) mode and with assisted self reliance (ASR) as both ends and means (emphasis original; Uphoff et al 1998: 113). LP basically emphasizes that development projects should be appropriate and flexible as the development project is a process that often encounters problems often knowledge brought into a project about the task and task environment turns out to be wrong (this point is consistently made in similar articles like Hun ter1997 or Eyben 2000). Also, the ASR mode contends that projects should always have self reliance as an objective because unless th e local communities both accept and become invested in the

PAGE 36

24 development project by contributing directly to it from their o wn meager endowments there is little chance that the development project will succeed (Uphoff et al 1998: 198). For Uphoff et al LP and ASR are both philosophies of development and practical strategies. The lesson as applied to ecotourism is that hos t communi ties must adopt conservationist values and become involved in conservation efforts for an ecotourism that is environmentally sustainable. However, there appears to be no easy answer in t he lite rature to the practical problems of managing ecotouri sm that is economically sustainable. Both Hunter (1997) and Uphoff (1998) focus more on the initial stages of sustainable development; that is, they are more concerned with obstacles that impede the initiation of the development process and its adoption b y the host communities. They only marginally address problems that may arise from rapid economic growth once development is underway and takes on a life of its own. In the literature, it seems that once ecotourism is unde rway, what keeps it in check is c haracteristics of the site. For example, most ecotourism occurs in remote rural ar eas that may have poor access. One of the classic examples in the anthropological literature of successful ecotourism is the c ampesino controlled tourism in L ake Titicaca ( Sheldon and Hakim 1988). Because of the remoteness of Lake Titicaca, located 12,000 feet up in the Andes in the border between Peru and Bolivia, the scale of this island tourism was small and the experience only for the rugged. This small scale tourism f ostered an array of committees for example, housing, weaving, food, and transportation that the Taquilenos (indigenous people), who practice communal ownership, developed t o mange tourism (Sheldon and Hakim 1988: 49) However, by the 1980 s, an incre ase in scale of

PAGE 37

25 tourism slowly resulted in imposed government regulations on the size and type of motor used in tourism boats and competition from hotels in the city of Puno (on the shores of the lake), who move tourists around in their own boats in larger numbers for quicker visits. These de velopments seriously undermined local control as tourist no longer stayed with the Taqi lenos and consequently profits w ere siphoned away from their communities (Sheldon and Hakim 1988). Although recently more articl es that look at the potential impacts of alternative tourism are being published in anthropology (Schiller 2001; Juarez 2002 ), the ecotourism literature in anthropology (and outside of it) lacks sufficient studies that focus on people and that question whe ther ecotourism a ffects local communities in a positive manner. Because ecotourism is suppose to be small scale and locally controlled, it is p articularly important to research its impacts on local populations as tourism based economies expand and locals attempt to mana ge (or not) resulting difficulties for the community. This applied thesis, therefore, is uniquely positioned to provide such an analysis or at least set the foundations for a more exhaust ive future analy sis Globalization, Ecotourism, and Development in Costa Rica To understand the context in which ecotourism exists in Costa Rica it is necessary to look at the history of both its conservation efforts and its economic development in a global context over the last few decades. Conservatio n efforts in Costa Rica can be traced to at least the 1970s when Costa Rican conservationists like Mario Boza and Alvaro Ugaldo began to lobby for the preservation of land through the creation of national parks in response to the deforestation that had bee n taking place since the 1950 a nd that had resulted in the loss of one third of the countrys forest cover (Boza

PAGE 38

26 1993; Boza et al 1995). At first conservation efforts were met with indifference and the obstacles were numerous but the situation was perce ived as urgent by these agents of change: By the early 1970s, Costa Rica was witnessing intensive deforestation to open new lands for agriculture and cattle raising; chaotic land settlement by campesinos (landless peasants), normally following the course of new highways; active trade in wild animal products; very weak en vironmental education; total indifference to environmental problems on the pa rt of the general public and decision makers; and lack of protected wild areas that could pro vi de a model of how to conserve nature (Boza 1993: 240) The strategy that these conservationist used, and one that would eventually result in and impressive network of national parks involved procuring funds and personnel both form the Costa Rican govern ment and also from interna tional funding agencies, such as the Wild Life Fund, or e ven agencies and institutions in foreign countries such as the US ( Boza 1993: 241). Important in the strategy from the beginning was bringing in international celebrity su pporters of their cause such as Prince Bernard of Holland and Prince Philip of England (241). These Costa Rican conservationists also sought to create a National Park Fund as part of the National Park Service that reinvested park entrances fee s ba ck into the park system. A dditionally, they utilized nongovernmental agencies in order to side step the bureaucratic red tape in the allocation of internationally donated funds (241). Further they systematically sought to generate an interest in conservation by writing articles about Costa Ricas natural beauty in th e national and local newspapers. I n fact, the strategy of conservationist s deliberately involved the creation of national parks in areas of stunning scenic beauty, on historic sites commemorating h eroic exploits of the past in order to merge historical, scenic, and natural values so that no one could object (240). These strategies eventually generated environmental

PAGE 39

27 education programs in the countrys universities and engendered new gene rations o f conservationists. Therefore, conservation in Costa Rica is intimately connected to the global context even from its inception; the efforts of these conservationists could not have succeeded without the support of international global actors and the deli berate side stepping of governmental bureaucracy. Because of the momentum generated by conservationists, Costa Rica, under president Jose Maria Figueres (1994 1998) began to take steps to end environmentally destructive activities. For example, he stopp ed the construction of pacific coast resorts, and he imposed a carbon tax. These actions occurred in response to global forces (Tenenbaum 1995). But to understand ecotourism in Costa Rica one must also look at the role that economic forc es play in its d evelopment. Like many other countries in Central America, the Costa Rican economy had been strongly agrarian through much of its history relying on the export of bananas and coffee and to a smaller extent cattle products Serious industrialization effo rts, in fact, only appear in the decade of 1960s (Itzigsohn 2000). But because of rapid growth in the economy during the 60s and 70s there was an economic crisis in the early 1980 that was prompted by the fall of world coffee prices, the increase in oil prices, and the instability of the area because of the Nicaraguan communist revolution of 1978 (Bulmar Thomas 1987). During the 1980s, the country (and much of the region) fell into greater economic hardship and eventually the highest debt per capita in t he world which led Costa Rica to obtain loans from the I MF and World Bank (Bulmar Thomas 1994; Itzigsohn 2000). During this decade the Costa Rican economy experienced some shifting. T he amount of people employed in agriculture was decreasing with manuf acturing slightly increasing. But the biggest rise during the 1980s

PAGE 40

28 and continuing in to the 1990s occurred and is still occurring in service sector employment (Bulmar Thomas 1994). This is where conservationists efforts converge with the economic condi tion that the country was undergoing. By the late eighties, not only had conservationists succeeded in establishing a large national park system which attracted international visitor s, but also Costa Rica was receiving more money from the US government an d private funding for conservation and research than any other country (Hambelton 1994; Boza 1995). Hambleton (1994) cites a survey conducted by the US Agency for International Development in the early 1990s that tallied 33 US government programs supporti ng biodiversi ty and 114 projects. Costa Rica was a country struggling economically to get out of debt and being pressured to diversify its economic profile by the IMF and World Bank (Bulmer Thomas 1994; Itzigsohn 2000) not just rely on exporting coffee and b ananas. Simultaneously, there are international interests in conservation in Costa Rica (with money backing it up) and an established national park system attracting international visitors. Therefore, in the late 1980s and early 1990s when there was rapid growth in the tourism sector in Costa Rica particularly in beach resorts and hotels along the pacific coast (Bulmer Thomas 1994) the go vernment, applied scholars, and policy makers begin to develop and advocate for economic strategies around susta inable tourism One can see in articles like Adamson Bad illa (1994), Figuero a B. (1996), and Frst and Hein (2001) that these scholars and policy makers (econ omists and conservationists) as well as those working with them, are aware of the challenges inhe rent in sustainable tourism, particularly the balancing of conservation and economic

PAGE 41

29 growth but still believe it is an opportunity to grow the economy in a positive way In fact, these article s really frame the discussion not in terms of environmental be nefits but in the context of the general lack of economic growth in the region, the lost decade of the 80s (alluding to the debt cris is); their focus is the opportunity that sustainable tourism offers to ameliorate the economic troubles of the past deca de Additionally most of these articles are of a theoretical nature, much like Hunter s (1997) ; they do not elaborate the practical dimensions of the application of such strategies. This led some conservationists to debate whether ecotourism in Costa Ri ca can really be sustainable. For example, Honey (1994) argues that the increasing number of tourist is stressing environmental resources in some of Costa Ricas national parks, which, some researchers say, makes ecotourism a mixed blessing (Taylor 1994 ). Many conservationists question whether ecotourism and sustainable tourism in Costa Rica are truly sustainable given the past environmental history of the country and the difficulty of managing economic growth so it does not conflict with conservation ( Hunter 1994, Honey 1999). But on the other side, advocates of Costa Rican ecotourism point out that Costa Rica should be regarded as an experiment, not ecotopia, and that the country continues to become more conservation minded (Boza et al 1995). Indeed, articles like Jacobson and Lopez s (1994) evaluation of the impact that touris m might have on nesting turtles show that ecotourism can have a negligible impact on destination biota (at least in the short run) Further, according to the seventh edition (2 001) of the Estado de la Nacion (a government sponsored publication produced for pedagogical purposes that evaluates the state of the nation, including environmental issues) the Costa Rican government sponsors environmental education programs such as Edu cacion

PAGE 42

30 Participativa Sobre la Gente y la N aturaleza which uses community based perspectives to create didactic materials that will integrate traditional and technical knowledge about the environment and species to help people make better environmental de cisions. T hese projects are coordinated by the two national universities (UNA and UNED) along wi th the Costa Rican government. Gover nment produced publications, such as Estado de la Nacion (2001) also demonstrate that the Costa Rican government is takin g the enforcement of con servation regulations seriously. In 2001, it reports 1 498 citations that documented the violation of environmental law and were brought before Costa Rican courts. Estado de la Nacion even suggests areas in which conservation effo rts must be imp roved. F or example, it argues that more attention has to be paid to wate r issues and pollution of both fresh and salt water There are also articles like Paaby et al (1991) that document government sponsored program s tha t train rural resid ents as naturalist guides. However, there is little available literature that evaluates the impact that ecotourism is having on rural communities in Costa Rica. Maria Bozzoli (2000) was one of the first to encourage applied anthropologist to study cult ural aspects of Costa Rican initiatives that promote sustainable development and sustainab le tourism This applied thesis is an attempt to fill that gap by evaluating the impacts that ecotourism is having on the people of the Monte Verde Zone. Ecotourism in the Monte V erde Zone As the development of the Monte Verde Zone has accelerated over the last two decades, shifting the local economy gradually from agriculture to ecotourism, concern for the ecological and social character of the area has increased (T obias 1989). Environmentalists worry that ce rtain biodiversity hotspots, like the Monte Verde Zone

PAGE 43

31 are also sites of increasing human popu lation density and growth. S pecies in these regions, therefore, may be particularly at risk. In Monteverde, the co ncern led to efforts to determine the status of what is now named the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve (MCFP), as a step toward controlling visitors and thereby mitigate, if not prevent, long term damage to the biodiversity of the area which is now, becaus e of ecotourism, intricately linked to the economic well being of the area. As a result, there is now substantial management of the MCFP (Murphy et al 2000). Chamberlain (2000: 376) asserts, the positive economic growth of the area is strongly related t o the MCFP, bringing jobs that generally pay more than farm jobs. In fact, in 1992, the economic impact of the tourist industry on the inhabitants was estimated at $5 million, 13% of which was spent in the MCFP (Chamberlain 2000: 376; Solorzano & Echever ria 1993). Also, estimates generated from a sample of tourist in Monteverde showed that US ecotourist visiting tropical rainforests in Costa Rica place a value of $1150.00 per visit on the experience (Menkhaus and Lober 1996) although it did not determin e the amount spent while in the Monte Verde Zone. Perhaps a good way of characterizing the Zone is as an ecotourism cluster with nature at the center of infrastructure provided by hotels, transportation, and other attractions such as galleries and stable s for guided tours ( Acuna Ortega et al 2000) Acuna Ortega et al state that the cluster has generated many spin offs like the previously mentioned ranario and serpentarium. Although they delineate many strengths and weaknesses that characterize differen t sectors of the cluster, they conclude that there is much t o laud in the Monteverde case including communal participation in conservation activities, proliferation of natural attractions, an atmosphere conducive to conservation,

PAGE 44

32 and an interest by busines s owners to reach envi ronmentally friendly standards. But despite growth and assumed benefits, few studies have been completed on the effects of the ecotourism development on the local population. There is evidence that social, economic, and infrastruct ure problems resulted from increased tourism and immigration (Chamberlain 2000: 376). The roads have deteriorated, demand for public services is outpacing supply, the price of land has increased to an amount comparable to San Jose, and waste management p rograms had to be initiated (2000: 376). This applied thesis will contribute to the understanding how the process of development affects households and businesses in the Monte Verde Zone. It will begin to fill a gap in research that evaluates ecotourism s effects on people by analyzing representative household level information of this population undergoing ecotourism generated development. History of the Monte Verde Zone Monteverde, as a legal political entity, is located in district Monte Verde within the Puntarenas county of the Puntarenas province. But colloquially, the name refers to both the small Monteverde community located adjacent to the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve (MCFP) and a larger area which includes many small communities that stretch roughly from Quebrada Maquine Creek to the MCFP. The Monte Verde Zone, a more inclusive label that is also commonly used, is perhaps a more appropriate descriptor for the larger region. This Monte Verde Zone encompasses many small communities including the town of Santa Elena, Cerro Plano, the MCFP, the childrens Rainforest (a smaller preserve also located in Monteverde at a lower elevation and down the road from

PAGE 45

33 the MCFP), and areas on both sides of the Continental Divide down to about 700m elevation ( Nadkarni & Wheelwright 2000: 5). The Monte Verde Zone was first settled by Costa Ricans in the early decades of the 1900's by gold miners, settlers, and farmers. The smaller Monteverde community, however, was established in 1950 by American members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) (Honey 1999; Nadkarni & Wheelwright 2000). Prior to the 1980s the principal industries in the Monte V erde Zone were dairy farming, cattle ranching, coffee growing, and a cheese factory. In order to protect their mountain water supply, the Quaker community set aside about 1000 hectares of cloud forest (Honey 1999) But Costa Rica, like much of Central America, underwent rapid deforestation after WWII, accelerating in the 1970s. The original forest preserve, set aside to protect the Monteverde water supply, became the subject of conservationists efforts, an ecotourist destination, and the catalyst for the protection of thousands of hectares of fo rest in the Monteverde region (Honey 1999). Ecologically, the Monteverde are a is labeled a tropical mountain cloud forest (TMCF). The TM CF is defined by Hamilton et al (1993) as the relatively narrow altitudinal zone with frequent cloud cover during much of the year, an area in which solar radiation and evapotranspiration are redu ced, and precipitation is enhanced by canopy interception of cloud water. Cloud Forests, therefore, are generally regarded as protecting watersheds by reducing run off and erosion (Nadkarni & Wheelwright 2000: 8 9). The TMCF is one of the worlds most thr eatened ecosystems (Nadkarni & Wheelwright 2000: 9; Roach 2001). Threats to the ecosystem in Monte V erde Zone include but are not limited to: (1) deforestation due to cattle grazing agriculture; (2) wood harvesting, (3)

PAGE 46

34 exploitation of non wood forest prod ucts; (4) global climate change; (5) hunting; (6) and now, high volume, human use recreation (Nadkarni & Wheelwright 2000: 9; Hamilton et al. 1993; Lugo & Lowe 1995). The population of the Monte V erde Zone is now fairly heterogeneous. The Monte V erde Zo ne is comprised of many communities of varying sizes, historical depth, and organi zational complexity (see Table 1 ). Table 1 : Population of the Monte V erde Zone (circa 2000) Community Population Santa Elena 2160 Monteverde 264 Cerro Plano 800 San Luis 339 Rio Negro 54 La Lindora 125 Los Llanos 231 Canitas & Trapiche* 400 La Cruz* 100 Total 3123 *Data are estimates as these comm unities are outside Monte Verde County Borders. An important economi c label used to describe these communities and the ir economic relationship particularly prior to ecotourism, is the Monteverde Milkshed. The Monteverde Milkshed, the area from which milk and labor comes to the cheese factory which is located in the Monteverde community, includes a number of small i nterconnected communities situated at various elevations along the Cordillera Tilaran The Milkshed encompasses a larger area that reache s further down the mountain relative to the other descriptive label used for the area, t he Monte Verde Zone. V ariou s informants during our site survey noted that people who live in the se more ru ral satellite

PAGE 47

35 communities often work, at least occasionally, in one of the three larger communities of Santa Elena, Cerro Plano, or Monteverde. As Honey (1999) asserts, this re gion is un dergoing tremendous social and organizational change because of tourism. The smaller size of the communities in their first dec ades, along with the influence of the Quaker ideals of self reliance, democracy, non violence, and community responsib ility, probably necessitated and facilitated a commitment to social coope ration. This communal spirit was evident in the Santa Elena Co op, the addition of non Quaker stakeholders in the cheese factory, and the Monteverde Conservation League. However, th e increase in tourists to the Monte V erde Zone, has fostered a competitive set of social relations. This is evidenced, in part, in the ominous dismantling of the Santa Elena Coop caused largely by more recently arrived competing businesses. Signs of te nsions that relate to social organization have also come to the forefront recently in the Monte V erde Zone There is a large movement to fight domestic violence and empower women. Social roles and gender roles may be changing as well. In San Luis, each woman interviewed during the MVI GRC summer 2001 field course was a homemaker. In contrast, in the th re e bigger communities there were a large number of women in the workforce. Therefore, the development of the Monte V erde Zone is not simply changing the occupational a nd income structure of the area. I t also appears to be changing the very social cha racter of the communities. Economic growth is a magnet attracting immigrants (from other areas of Costa Rica as well as foreign countries) with diverse moti vations and intentions. There appear to be different settlement patterns occurring related to these new arrivals. Costa Ricans from other areas and Nicaraguans

PAGE 48

36 reportedly ten d to settle in the large communities of Santa Elena and Cerro Plano, as well as the surrounding areas In contrast, immigrants from the U.S. and some European countries have tended to settle in Monteverde While Costa Ricans and Nicaraguans reportedly com e seeking employment, immigrants who c ome from the U.S. and Europe are apparent ly more likely be retire es researchers, or people seeking a rural and somehow more natural way of life. This is not to say that Monteverde was a pristine place that is now being perturbed. As many in the community remember, and some of the older Quake r residents admit, residents of the area were not conservationists at first (Honey 1999). The dairy economy led to the deforestation of the Paci fic slope fro m 99.9% forest cover to 25% and has resulted in the erosion of 60% of the pacific slope. Th e impa ct of these activities is still causing problems to conservation efforts because most of the species that inhabit the various preserves are altitude migrants that move down the pacific slope during different times of the year (largely because of a phenomen on known as cascade fruiting). These species constitute the attraction that brings many of the ecotourist in the first place. The problem, as it relates to development, is that the species need corridors of continuous forest cover in order to move down t he pacific slope. This same area, however, is where all of the new development is occurring and, with the projected population growth and imminent paving of the road, the situation is likely to deteriorate. The Monteverde Institute has been looking at th is issue for some time now, but as noted earlier, the emphasis has been on conservation biology and sustainable planning

PAGE 49

37 Chapter Three Research Methods Research Problem First, it is important to lay out the problem that the Development Survey was se t up to address. As previously mentioned, MVI has become more involved in social and health issues that pertain to the local community particularly those that are affected by socioeconomic growth and tourism. In their partnership with the USF GRC, they hope to ga in some insight into some problems that are affecting the local population as a result of development prompted by tourism Some of the local concerns include water scarcity, explosive population growth and subsequent overcrowding of certain area s, increased traffic, and increased cost of living including rising prices in real estate. As a result, the MVI and USF GRC partnership decide d to begin to plan and p artially engage in an ambitious multidisciplinary longitudinal study, The Triangulation S tudy to track development and its various impacts both social and environmental on the Monte V erde Zone. Before this Triangulation Study can be fully initiated, background data must be gathered and preliminary studies must be completed in order to prop erly apply for funding grants and also in order to have some initial inventory of some basic demographic indicators. As such, the USF GRC and MVI agree d that a baseline Development Survey should be undertaken.

PAGE 50

38 Survey Objectives The Development Survey s objectives were laid out by the development research coordinator of the GRC, Dr. Trevor Purcell: 1. to determine the basic demographic profile including household structure of the different communities constituting the Monte V erde Zone; 2. to determine t he occupational and income structure of the Zone and how they relate to the development in general and ecotourism in particular; 3. to determine, in preliminary largely qualitative terms, the magnitude of the ecotourism sector and its impact on the developme nt process; 4. to determine basic attitudes of each communitys population towards ecotourism; 5. to determine, in preliminary terms, the structure and organization of the different communities, how the communities are related, and how governance is currently structured and perceived; and 6. to determine differential community utilization of some natural resources and public services in the Monte V erde Zone. Research Question The broader, encompassing set of links between ecotourism and natural and human systems will be addressed by the Triangulation Study which will consist of multiple phases. This broader studys research question was developed by a group of multi disciplinary researchers at the Globalization Research Center and asks: How has ecotourism affe cted the rate, character and patterns of development, and what are the effects of such development on biodiversity and natural capital, community health,

PAGE 51

39 nutrition and rates of infectious diseases, and local culture, knowledge, and political systems? T he Development Survey in which I participated was conceived as a preliminary phase of the Triangulation Study, and provides some preliminary baseline indices of ecotourism and development, with some degree of historical perspective, as a foundation for t he Triangulation Study. The key question for this phase of the research was developed by the development coordinator and reads: What is the role of the various segments of the Monteverde population (community, occupational, locals, immigrants, business, etc.) in the overall development of the local economy and social structure? Methodological Framework As many prominent applied scholars like Singer (1994) have argued, applied anthropology should be primarily problem focused. Although applied anthropo l ogi s ts methodological toolkit is vast, most appropriate for the research conducted in this phase of the Triangulation Study The Development Survey, are quantitative techniques. Of course, the development of quantitative instruments must always be prece ded by archival research and some qualitative interviewing (Bernard 1995) This pre requirement was met by research conducted in the summer of 2001 and subsequent archival research in the 2001 2002 employment period of my internship But ultimately, the goal of the Development Survey as outlined by the objectives was to create a profile of the Monte V erde Zones community using mostly demographic data so a quantitative survey instrument was most appropriate. Further, t his thesis uses a methodological approach that adheres to basic principles that are inherent in a scientific methodology for the social sciences and that are

PAGE 52

40 especially appropriate for this kind of survey work As H. Russell Bernard (1995: 3 4) has pointed out with regards to scientific anthropological research, the norms of science which include a striving for objectivity, use of an explicitly stated method which is built upon empiricists assumptions (realit y is out there to be discovered and direct observation is the way to dis cover it ), and a reliability that can transcend researchers, disciplines, and nations, can only enhance social science research But, even thoug h the methodology used for creating and conducting the survey itself is scientifically rigorous, making the analysis of data collected amenable to statistical analysis the conceptualization of the study is far more important in insuring the quality of the interpretation and discussions of the findings. Methods of Data Collection Archival Research Archival research was continually used throughout my internship. Initially, I employed this method of data collection before and during the summer of 2001 in order to find all information available on Monteverde. I also used it continuously during the planning stages of the d evelopment survey during the fall of 2001 and spring of 2002. Finally, I employed this method once again in analyzing the data and writing my thesis from summer 2003 to summer 2004. Informal Interviewing During my initial summer stay in Monteverde (2001 ) and throughout subsequent site visits, I took part in many informal interviews with key stakeholders in the Monteverde community. These informal interviews help ed all of the researcher s

PAGE 53

41 participation in this project obtain a more complete understanding of the complexity of the particular site and problem being researched. Survey interviewing Two survey instruments were created for the Development Survey, one that was to be used for households and the other for businesses. The two instruments were devel oped after archival research and informal interviewing of key individuals was accomplished. Research Methodology for t he Development Survey The Triangulation S tudy addresses complex and dynamic links between ecotourism and development. It treats ecotou rism as an independent variable, and the natural and human system that are affected by the development of ecotourism as the dependent varia bles. Of course the GRCs multidisciplinary team of researchers is also interested in the feedback loop inherent in the relationship between ecotourism and natural and human systems. In other words, they are also interested in how changes in human and natural systems and particularly natural capital affect ecotourism development. Furthermore, the Triangulation Stud y seeks to understand the development of the Monte V erde Zone with some degree of historical depth. The survey provide s the basic data on development, ecotourism and social organization for the Triangulation S tudy but the analysis of this data and the c reation of the current profile of ecotourism in the Monte Verde Zone is historically based, incorporating information from various disciplines that study ecotourism and development The Development Survey as part of the Triangulation Study is conceptuali zed as a One Shot Case Study on a natural experiment (Bernard 1995). This research design is

PAGE 54

42 used primarily as a way to orient the goals of our research. The idea is that there is a natural experiment occurring in the Monte V erde Zone independent of th e researchers. The researchers begin studying the site after the intervention, or the application of the independent variable (ecotourism) to the experimental groups (the communities of the Monte Verde Zone) ; that is, the researchers are reconstructing th e natural experiment post intervention (One Shot Case Study). Therefore, the Development Survey will gather baseline information that can be used to begin to assess how the independent variable (ecotourism) has affected the many dependent variables (differ ent segments of the Monteverde community). Of course, this conceptualization is a way of acknowledging the limitations of our study as we cannot collect any primary data ourselves of the Monte V erde Zone prior to ecotourism. So we cannot directly compare our data collected in the present with some similar data collected in the past as none exists Further, it is very difficult for us to make any causal statements or describe change unless this survey is repeated again at some point in the future. It is also impossible for us to manipulate the e xperimental groups and confounding variables as this is a naturally occurring experiment so we cannot be certain that the effects observed are solely the result of development through ecotourism. What the Develop ment Survey can achieve, however, is a more complete description of the businesses and households in the Monte Verde Zone that begins to elucidate the relationship between ecotourism and changes in the area. It is a first step in a longitudinal research p rocesses. The survey consist of two components: (1) a proportional sample of households in all nine communities from which data will be collected on the demographic compositi on and dynamics of the area, as well as on opinions regarding governance, ecotour ism, and

PAGE 55

43 development; and (2) a 10 0% survey of businesses intended for the construction of a profile of the development of the sector and its impact on the overall socioeconomic evolution of the Zone. The survey instruments were translated to Spani sh by M VI personnel, and were adminis tered by native surveyors selected by MVI with the approval of USF GRC. T he native surveyors underwent training in basic survey protocol, confidentiality, survey court esies, and were familiarized with the goals and purpose of the research The training was conducted by USF GRC personnel, specifically the de velopment coordinator and I with the additional assistance of MVI personnel. The Household Survey T he household survey consisted of a stratified sample of the households i n all nine communities comprising the Monte V erde Zone (see Table 2 ). As each community is demographi cally unique, the sample is structured to account for community distinctiveness by maximizing the between group variance. T hat is, the total sample is co mprised of a proportional sub sample of each community based its household population size (see Table 2 )

PAGE 56

44 Table 2 : Households and Sampling in the Monte V erde Zone (circa 2000) Area Households Representative Sample* Santa Elena 342 181 Mont everde 174 120 Cerro Plano 81 67 San Luis 73 61 Rio Negro 14 14 La Lindora*** 24 23 Los Llanos*** 44 40 Canitas** 77 64 La Cruz** 19 19 Total 684 246 Total Sample if Stratified 589 *Representative Sample obtained using Krejcie and Morgans formu la from Bernards Research Methods in Anthropology. **T hese communities are outside Puntarenas political bo rder so estimates were obtained ***Data is estimates Each household to be surveyed is selected randomly from the total number of household in eac h community using household maps obtained from MVI. Where no map is available a ratio is used (ever y other house for example ) The original samples outlined in the research proposal were taken from the Monteverde Clinic annual he alth assessment reports for 2000. These figures were eventually not used as the above figures (Table 2) were provided by MVI and are significantly different for Cerro Plano, La Cruz, La Lindora, Los Llanos and San Luis due in part to the rapid population growth which is estimate d at 5 7% per year in some areas of the Monte Verde Zone The figures in Monteverde and in Santa Elena are also slightly off most likely due to the erratic development patterns that make housing counts difficult. In the case of Caitas, the discrepancie s may be the result of different town limit than what is commonly regarded as the town limit between Santa Elena and Caitas.

PAGE 57

45 For the purposes of this survey, we counted all houses located after the Trapiche (sugar cane m ill) as belonging to Caitas. The point here is just to emphasize that the population estimates may vary depending on the source, especially because many of the small communities may not have clearly demarcated boundaries The instr ument is included in Appendix B The questions are stru ctured and straight forward so that survey participants are all asked the same questions in the same way. Most of the questions contain a set of possible r esponses from which the informants have to choose their answers. The survey include s a few open res ponse questions but the majority of the questions have a list of possible answers. Even though the development coordinator and I came up with the original set of questions, other members of the Triangulation Study, MVI personal, and community stakeholder s suggested questions that we added. This made the household survey somewhat lengthy. It is also important to note that even though many of the questions sought out household level data, there were also sets of questions that asked the opinions of the in dividual respondents completing the survey. Therefore, we are collecting data for two levels of analysis: a household level which is used to describe and compare households, and a respondent level, which would describe and compare respondents. The Busines s Survey The busines s s urvey consist s of administering a questio nnaire to all businesses in the Zone. The survey is intended to accomplish two goals: (1) provide data for the construction of a profile of the ecotourism sector; and (2) provide data to all ow for an assessment of the impact of the ecotourism sector in relation to the wider economy of the Zone on the overall socioeconomic development of the Monte V erde Zone. The

PAGE 58

46 instrument cover s data such as type of businesses, employment pattern and ma gnitude, businesses capacity, types of clientele, age of businesses, types of ownership, and the effect of the seasonality of the tourism trade on business operation. Expected Outcomes It is important to note that these survey s are not meant to be an exha ustive assessment of the Monteverde Community. This is the most preliminary of steps and is not done to the exclusion of other important methodologies that will be employed in later phases of the Triangulation Study including a full ethnography conducted by a trained ethnographer on the ground. The Development Survey was undertaken for the purpose of generating baseline data to be used both by the community and its governing interests and by the GRC in its future study of the Zone. The GRC is interested in making both a theoretical and applied contribution through the Triangulation Study. Implicit in the GRCs mission is an attempt to understand manifestations of globalization at the local level. The Triangulation Study is also interested in the proces s of cultural, socio political, and economic change resulting from a development strate gy. The GRC hopes to develop an analytical model for understudying ecoutourism development that can be employed to analyze other ecotourist locations. The GRC also pla ns to collaborate and disseminate any and all findings with local and national policy makers. As relates to my specific involvement in the Triangulation Project, we have made arrangements with MVI to make all of the data collected through the Development Survey public and available through the MVI library for both the Monteverde public and future researchers. We are also sharing our results with the Tourist Chamber who has

PAGE 59

47 wanted to undertake a similar survey for many years. The development coordinator a nd I also plan to publish an article that analyzes some of the findings that result from the development survey. Ethical Considerations In collaboration with MVI we developed an ethical protocol and an informed consent form which we submitted for IRB a pproval. Because we were going to make the results of the survey public, we developed a survey instrument that would be coded and would protect the confidentiality of the informants. We also had MVI and other members of the community review our survey ins truments and informed consent forms and propose changes where necessary. P rocedurally, the surveyors approach ed selected household s and request ed to speak with a senior member of the hous ehold who is over 18. The native surveyors explain ed the Development Study and read the informed consent form s to the subject before he or she decided to participate. The surveyors only proceed ed after securing a sig ned informed consent. For the h ouse hold s urvey, the surveyors use d codes for the household number and locat ion. In addition, th e survey did not collect the family name of the subjects completing the survey or the family names of any other members of the household. Because the participants could have faced personal questions that they did not wish to answer, al l participants were given the leeway to quit any time they felt uncomfortable. For the business survey the surveyors use d codes for the business and did not collect the name of the business owner or manager. Also, the surveyors handling and proces sing t he raw data were instructed to properly keep and respect the confidentiality of the subjects. After the data was entered into SPSS the raw data was

PAGE 60

48 collected and kept at MVI and at USF GRC where only the PI and the director of MVI as wel l as others they designate, have had access.

PAGE 61

49 Chapter Four Development Survey Results : Household Instrument Introduction This chapter present s the result s of the Development Survey obtained fr om the household instrument and collected in the summer of 2002 by native surveyors in the Monte V erde Zone, Costa Rica. T he res ults are reported in a manner consistent with the Development Surveys objectives as outlined by the development research coordinator of the USF GRC, Dr. Trevor Purcell To reiterat e relevant objectives are : to determine the basic demographic profile including household structure of the different communities constituting the Monte V erde Zone; to determine the occupational and income structure of the Monte V erde Zone and how they relate to the development in general and ecotourism in particular; to determine basic attitudes of each communitys population towards ecotourism; to determine, in preliminary terms, the structure and organization of the different communities, how the comm unities are related, and how governance is currently structured and perceived; to determine differential community utilization of some natural resources and public services in the Monte V erde Zone. First, information concerning the completion of the surve y and data entry process is presented. This general completion information section uses the information contained

PAGE 62

50 in the final report of the execution of the Development Survey prepared by the research coordinator on the ground C. Sop hia K l empner, MPH (A ppendix A ). It is also important to remember that although the household survey was primarily designed to collect household data from a representative random sample of households the instrument also contained questions that w ere specifically aimed at col lecting information from the respondent (household representative) a scertaining his or her opinions or attitudes (an opportunistic sample of individuals). These individual respondent results will be reported before the household results along with inform ation that describes the characteristics of the respondents (individuals who represented their household) T hen the results on information that pertains to the household will be presented. Finally, a concluding section wil l summ ariz e and synthesize the results and begin t o answer the research questions for the Development Survey as much as possible [ What is the role of the various segments of the Monteverde population (community, occupational, locals, immigrants, business, etc.) in the overall developm ent of the local economy and social structure? ] General Completion Information According to the final r eport on the completion of the Development Survey submitted by the MVI research coordinator on F ebruary 12, 2003 the 12 native surveyors completed 5 32 household instruments and 93 business instruments during late August thru September with some additional data collection continuing into the middle of October. Further, o n December 16, 2002, a debrief ing meeting was held in Monteverde by the research c oordinator to which all of the native surveyors were invite d for the purpose of discu ss i n g the experience of administering the surveys as well as disclosing

PAGE 63

51 any perceived weaknesses or flaws with the two survey instruments Eight of the eleven remaining s urveyors attended the meeting but the transcription of that meeting (which was apparently re corded) was never sent to the USF GRC by the research coordinator. When I spoke to the research coordinator regarding the outcome of that meeting she revealed tha t the only complaint concerned the length of the household survey which often took more than an hour to administer. Household Survey The ho usehold survey was completed during the mont hs of August and September by 12 field surveyors O ne of the fi el d surv eyors was asked to leave her position by the MVI research coordinator because of her inability to attend weekly meetings due to scheduling conflicts, her frequent practice of interviewing people outside of the areas assigned to her, and her use of a survey form that was not in the language that was used in collecting that data The research coordinator reported that the data from this particular survey is not inclu ded in the final results because the questions were not asked in the same manner as the other interviews. According to the final r eport on the completion of the Development Survey, the household survey was mostly conducted on weekdays and surveyors worked an average of 25 hours per week collecting data They also attended weekly meetings to disc uss concerns or problems, turn in completed survey forms, pick up new materials, and review timesheets. Also important, the weekly meetings were to ols that the research coordinator used for ensuring questions were understood in a similar way by the survey ors and were asked in a standard fashion thus maintaini ng the validity and reliability of the survey The completion of the household survey also took twice as long as expected (two

PAGE 64

52 months instead of one). Three main factors contributing to this delay a ccording to th e research coordinator were (1) the a need for repeated visits to homes especially in the larger communities of Cerro Plano, Monteverde, and Santa Elena, (2) the weekly meetings needed to coordinate the distribution of work among 12 surveyor s and to troubleshoot problems that arose in the application of the s urvey which accounted for one lost morning of work each week, and (4) the l ength and detail of the survey which permitted surveyors to conduct a maximum of three surveys daily. Table 3 s hows both the initial sample size proposed which was based on the estimates provided by the health clinic and also the modified sample size obtained using MVIs population data It also shows the survey completion rates for each of the nine communities inc luded in the household survey.

PAGE 65

53 Table 3 : Household Development Survey Sample and Completion Results Community Total Households (EBAIS 2000) Total Households (MVI 2001/2002) Sample Size based on MVI household estimate Completed Surv eys (Participation Rate) Not Home/ Refused to Participate or not a house Caitas 77 46 ** 41 33 (81%) 8 Cerro Plano 81 211 136 91 (67%) 45 La Cruz 19 42 ** 38 36 (95%) 2 La Lindora 24 36 ** 33 30 (91%) 3 Los Llanos 41 59 ** 53 53 (100%) 0 Monteverd e 171 146 106 37 (35%) 69 Ro Negro 14 14 ** 14 5 (36%) 9 San Luis 73 99 ** 89 63 (71%) 26 Santa Elena 342 311 204 184 (90%) 20 TOTALS 842 959 714 532 (75%) 182 (25%) MVI figures are based on house counts conducted by students in the Sustainable Futures scenario planning project. The data is more accurate than the EBAIS figures due to using exhaustive field methods to count and classify every structure. To date the housing counts have been carried out in Cerro Plano, Santa Elena and Monteverde. The inaccuracy of this data is in the classification of structures into one of three categories: residential, business or outdoor. Since students collecting the data are from the US and are not as familiar with the types of construction, some misclassif ication exists in the data. This inaccuracy was most pronounced in Monteverde, where a considerable umber of structures classified as residential, were in fact workshops, storage sheds or abandoned housing. ** The housing estimates for the remaining com munities (Caitas, La Cruz, La Lindora, Los Lla nos, Ro Negro, and San Luis) are based on the surveyor's field work. Since household figures were not well established in these communities, surveyors were instructed to interview 9 out of every 10 houses in order to achieve an adequate sample size, except in Ro Negro, where they were instructed to visit every house due to the small size of the community. This table ( prepared by the research coordinator ) shows that overall participation rate in the house hold survey was 75% of the households targeted The research coordinator s final report explained the low participation rates in Monteverde (35%) as resulting from a large number of residences being vacant or occupied by short term tenants during parts of the year (especially during the rainy season) as their owners who live in the US or Europe use them as secondary or vacation homes. The res earch coordinator also concluded based on a necdotal and informally collected evidence that

PAGE 66

54 some Monteverde resi dents, especia lly those with roots going back into the 1950s and 1960s, have reached a saturation point with research conducted in their community Consequently they often refuse to participate in studies. I encountered similar anecdotes during my six w eek visit in the summer of 2001. The other community with low participation rates, Ro Negro (36%), i s described by the research coordinator as very small and also very guarded mostly because of events in recent history which led to the dispossession of their lands and to the failure of community based tourist enterprises. In fact, t he interviewer ass igned to this community reported to the research coordinator that the only reason she was able to complete surveys in five of the homes was because she was k nown to the community members. By contrast, success in many of the remaining communities was the result of great diligence and persistence by some of the native surveyors. The research coordinator lauded their organization and meticulousness but also r emarked that particularly important especially in some of the smaller communities was the fact that many of the native surveyors were already known by the residents. There was also an ethical issue that arose during the administration of the household survey that concerned the identification of cases of domestic violence. Here is how the research coordinator explained the situation and its resolution in the final report: One of the surveyors on this project was a participant in the Institute's (M VIs) lay health promoter program focused on family violence prevention in the mid 1990s, and is therefore known by some in the community for her work supporting women in situations of domestic violence. In two instances women she was interview ing for the survey told her of problems with domestic violence. In both cases, she consulted with the project supervisor (research coordinator) about the issue and was asked to return to the house to secure permission from the woman to report the case to the clinic for follow up by the social worker. In both cases, consent was granted and the Institute (MVI) pr ovided written reports to the clinic's domestic violence prevention initiative. The women

PAGE 67

55 were then invited to participate i n support groups and their cases were given to the social worker at the clinic for follow up. I support the actions of the research coordinator and MVI and believe that these two instances of domestic violence were handled in an ethical manner. Data En try into SPSS In October 2002 MVI moved one of its staff to help the research coordinators enter the survey data into SPSS. This process was completed by February at which time the research coordinator spent February to April checking the data for accur acy and recoding some of the numerous other selections particularly in the business survey. The data was sent to USF GRC in April an d u pon receiving it I spent the summer of 2003 putting labels and cleaning up many of the fields. The management of thi s large data set was very challenging and the most time consuming activity that I engaged in during this research project Also, some of the data was lost as I some of the categories did not match those on the survey instruments. Monte V erde Zone Profile This first section of the results, Monte V erde Zone Profile, will present the informatio n collected from the household i nstrument of the Development Survey at the level of the Monte V erde Zone. That is, this section will not compare communities or profil e specific communities but rather present the information collected for the entire Zone as defined in the earlier sections (nine communities). As previously stated, t he household instrument was meant to be conducted on a stratified (by community) random s ample of households in the Monte V erde Zone to collect household level information. We also used the opportunity to ask the

PAGE 68

56 respondents, who were answering questions on behalf of their households, survey questions that pertained only to them (not their ho useholds). These questions collected personal demographic information, as well as the respondents opinions and attitudes on several issues. The information collected on this opportunistic sample of respondents in the Monte V erde Zone w ill be presented f irst. T he information that pertains to households across the M onte V erde Zone will follow Finally, the results for this section will be summarized. Respondent Level Information for the Monte V erde Zone First, I will look at the characteristics of the r esponde nts tha t were surveyed to better understand who answered questions on behalf of their households. Characteristics of Respondents As Table 4 shows, for the Monte Verde Zone, the surveyors collected data from female respondents (73.5%) more often tha n from male respondents (26.5%). Additionally, the average age of the respondents for the entire Monte Verde Zone was 49, with male respondents averaging 54 and female respondents averaging 48. Table 4 : Characteristics of Respondents by Gender Character istics of Respondents Male Female Total Gender (n=532) 26.5% 73.5% 100% Average Age (n=531) 53.9 47.7 49.3 Self describing as head of household (n=496) 77.3% 86.5% 84.2% Not lived in the Zone since birth (n=532) 56.7% 56.0% 56.2%

PAGE 69

57 Interestingly, thi s age difference was statistically significant on an independent samples t test (p<0.001), but it is not clear to what this difference is attributable. Also, of 391 female respondents 339 (86.7%) reported being the female head of household (ama de casa) w hether married or single. Similarly, of the 141 male respondents 109 (77.3%) reported being head of household whether married or single. Further, 56.2% of respondents 56.7% of males and 56.0% of females reported not having lived in the Monte Verde Zo ne since birth. Table 5 shows some of the common characteristics of respondents who have not lived in the Zone since birth. Table 5 : Respondents Who Have not l ived in the Zone since Birth Common Characteristics Came with family (n=291) 77.3% Wants to st ay permanently (n= 299) 81.6 % From within Costa Rica (n=301) 89.0% Came after 1992 (n=292) 50.0% Came during the 1990s (n=292) 41.1% Came during the 2000s (n=292) 19.2% The majority of these respondents claimed to have come to the Zone with their fam ily (77.3%) instead of by themselves (22.7%) and expressed a desire to stay in the Zone pe rmanently (83.7%). W hen the respondents who reported not having lived in the Monte V erde Zone since birth were asked about their point of orig in 89.0% reported that they were from within Costa Rica and 11.0% reported that they were from outside of the country For respondents coming from within Costa Rica, some of the more common points of origin are shown on Table 6 All of these areas except for San Jose are ad jacent to the Monte V erde Zone. For respondents coming from outside of Costa Rica, the two most common points of origin were the US (18) and Nicaragua (8).

PAGE 70

58 Table 6 : Place of Origin Common Places of Origin ( n=301) Gaucimal 23 Tilaran 22 San Jose 20 Las Juntas de Abangares 19 San Carlos 18 US 18 Nicaragua 8 Furth er, 50% of respondents who claimed not to have lived in the Zone since birth came after 1992. In fact, 43.5 % reported coming in the 1990s and 19.2% reported coming in the first three years of the 2000s keeping in mind that this data was collected in August and October 2002. Table 7: Time of Arrival Information on Time of Arrival Arrived after 1992 50.0% Arrived in the 1990s 43.5% Arrived in the 2000s 19.2% Average Date of Arrival 1989 1 In summary, the results for the characteristics of respondents to the household instrument of t he Development S urvey are as follows: The majority of the respondents to the survey across the Mont e V erde Zone are females (73.5%). The average age of the respondents was 49 with a statistically significant difference in the average age of the male (54) vs. female (48) respondents. The majority of male (77.3%) and female (86.7%) respondents described themselves as being the head of the household (amo o ama d e casa) whether married or single. The majority of respondents (56.7%) throughout the Monte V erde Zone reported not having lived in the Zone since birth. These respondents also claimed to have come

PAGE 71

59 with their families (77.3%) instead of by themselves (22. 7%). Further, 89% of respondents who have not lived in the Zone since birth reported that their point of origin was within Costa Rica with many of these people coming from areas adjacent to the Monte V erde Zone. And, 43.5 % reported coming in the 1990s and 19.2% reported coming in the first three years of the 2000s, keeping in mind that this data was collected in August and October 2002. Views on Development and Tourism A Likert scale was used to gage the opinions of respondents on tourism and development, in general. The results are shown in Table 8. M ost respondents reported having a generally po sitive view on development in the Zone. Resp ondents were also asked about their general opinions on tourism and how it affected the Monte Verde Zon e. Similarl y, the respondents opinions on Tourism were mostly positive. Table 8 : Views on Development and Tourism Positive Neutral Negative Development (n=522) 65.3% 19.2% 15.5% Tourism (n= 521) 72.7% 13.8% 3.5% 3 respondents chose not to respond. There was a follow up, open ended question, on respondentss opinions regarding tourism that asked about its positive and negative aspects. The re sponses were lengthy and varied (and all 532 participants had something to say) but one common theme is that everyone saw the positive aspect as being economical (brings jobs). The negative aspects were more varied but could probably be characterized as issues pertaining to cultural change. For example, many respondents mentioned the arrival of drugs, the change of

PAGE 72

60 habi ts especially among young people, the rapid growth of the area, and environmental degradation. Views on Community and Zone Governance Respondents in the Monte V erde Zone surveyed were asked about their opinions regarding the governance of their particular communities and the Zone in general. As Table 9 shows that, responding in a Likert s cale the most common answer chosen by respondents throughout the Zone pertaining to their communitys governance was somewhat satisfied with not satisfied being the sec ond most common response. Respondents were also asked about their opinions on governance in the Monte V erde Zone in general, using the same Liker scale. Like the questions on community governance, the most common answer for the Zon e was somewhat satisfi ed with a higher perc entage of not satisfied than in community governance Interestingly, many respondents chose not to respond to these two questions. Table 9 : Views on Governance Very Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Not Satisfied No Response Do nt Know Community Governance (n=503) 7.4% 16.7% 39.4% 19.1% 7.2% 10.3% Zone Governance (n=486) 2.5% 12.6% 39.7% 24.5% 7.6% 13.2% Views on Utilities and Services Respondents were asked their opinions on the quality and availability of several utilitie s and services in the Monte V erde Zone. A Likert scale was used to record respondents answers. The respondents could choose values from 1 through 3 with a value of zero recorded if the respondent indicated that the service was not available.

PAGE 73

61 Table 10 i llustrates the results: Table 10: Opinions on Utilities and Services for the Monte Verde Zone Utility or Service Mean Score for Monte V erde Zone Water (n=529) 2.32 Bus (n=528) 1.61 Taxi (n=523) 1.61 Paths (n=516) 1.05 Electricity (n=525) 2.34 Garbage (n=526) 1.79 Health (n=522) 1.90 Public Education (n=529) 1.94 Agricultural Land (n=523) 1.40 Credit (n=524) 1.79 Banks (n=526) 1.84 Telephone (n=525) 2.03 Recreation (n=523) 0.71 Psychologica l Therapy or Counseling (n=524) 0.75 Recycling (n=528) 1.83 As the Table 10 shows, respondents throughout the Zone were generally dissatisfied with the availability and quality of recreation, psychological therapy and counseling services, and walking paths. On the other hand, respondents throughout the Mon te V erde Zone were most satisfied with water, electr icity, and telephone services. Participation in Public S ervices Most respondents reported having no participation (48.7%) or just being interested observers (35.2%) in public services in the Monte V erde Zone. However, 7% of respondents for the entire Zone claimed to have formal participation in public services Transportation Results Individual respondents were asked about their travel habits. As Table 11 shows, t he majority of people in the Monte V e rde Zone reported walking to work with various ways being the second most common an swer.

PAGE 74

62 Table 11 : Transportation Used for W ork Most Common Modes (n=248) Walk 51.6% Various 19.4% Car 10.5% Motorcycle 9.3% As Table 12 shows, w hen respondents were as ked about traveling outside of the Monte V erde Zone the majority of people reported u sing the bus Also, the majority of respondents in the Monte V erde Zone reported traveling outside of the Monte V erde Zone only a few times a year with monthly being the second most popular answer and less than once a year the third Table 12 : Transportation Used to Travel Outside of Monte Verde Zone Most Common Modes (n=530) Bus 61.3% Various 18.1% Car 17.7% Most Common Frequencies (n=530) Few times a year 45.3% Mo nthly or more 32.3% Yearly or less 15.3% As Table 13 shows, w hen asked about modes of transportation for travel within the Monte V erde Zone that was not related to work, the most common response chosen by survey participants was that they used vari ous methods to get around Other common re sponses included walking car, and taxi This result is interesting when compared to transportation used for work because people were more likely to walk when going to work than when just getting around Respondent were also asked with what frequency they traveled around the Monte V erde Zone excluding any travel related to work. The most common response in the Zo ne was on a weekly basis wi th several times a week and monthly or mo re also common responses. Perhaps th e selection of the weekly category

PAGE 75

63 as most common occurred because the respondents tended to be people who were home on weekdays and largely female. Based on informal interviewing in 2001, in some of the smaller communities it appeared to be the case that ama de casas (the woman head of the hou sehold) did not work outside of the home but were busy in it. It appears though that daily travel is primary for work. Table 13 : Transportation Used to Travel within Monte Verde Zone Most Common Modes (n=528) Va rious 37.5% Walk 18.8% Car 15.3% Taxi 13.8% Moto 5.7% Most Common Frequencies (n=526) Weekly 38.0% Several times a week 25.7% Monthly or more 16.0% Every day 12.2% Sources of Information The survey asked respondents about their principal source s of information and news. For the Monte V erde Zone Table 14 shows that the most common answers given by respondents we re through word of mouth through the local news magazine Agua Pura and th rough various methods. Respondents were also asked to chos e and ideal way to get information and news. Table 14 shows that for the Monte Verde Zone the most common answer for respondents was not to choose any principal method but rather to favor the answer various methods. The second most common answer was Agua Pura

PAGE 76

64 Table 14 : Sources of Information Most Common Sources of Information (n= 521 ) Word of mouth 32.4% Agua Pura 27.1% Various 29.4% Most Common Desired Sources of Information (n=527) Various 36.4% Agua Pura 21.4% Summary of Respondent Results It is important to reiterate that the information presented in this section is obtained from the individuals who were answering questions on behalf of their households. Where the household level information is very representative of the Monte V erde Zone a nd the particular communities where the households are located, the individual results are obtained from what can best be described as an opportunistic sample of individuals. As such it is important to note the characteristics of these individuals before summarizing the results. For the Monte V erde Zone, r espondents to the household instrument of the Development Survey were mostly women (73.5%) in their late 40s (48 avg.; 54 avg. for men) who described themselves as head of household, ama de casa 86.7 % The majority of respondents to the household instruments had not lived in the Monte V erde Zone since birth (56.7%). These respondents reported that they had come to the Zone with their families (77.3%) from somewhere within Costa Rica (89%) Most o f these respondents came from adjacent communities. With regards to opinions of development, governance, and tourism the following

PAGE 77

65 results were recorded: Individual respondents in this opportunistic sample throughout the Zone reported having a positive vi ew of development (65 .3%) and tourism (72.8% ). Respondents however, were slightly less happy on a Likert scale wit h their communitys governance, with only 39.4% selecting somewhat satisfied while 19.1% selected not satisfied, and with the Monte V erde Z ones governance with 39.7% selecting somewhat satisfied while 24.5% selected not satisfied While individual respondents support development and tourism, they are not as supportive of their local governments. When asked about public services and utili ties the following results were recorded: R espondents throughout the Monte V erde Zone reported being happy with their water, electricity, and telephone services and unhappy with the availability of recreation, psychological therapy and counseling services, and walking paths. Most respondents also report ed not to have any involvement (48.7%) or to only be interested observers (35.2%) with public services With regards to ways in which respondents obtain information, the following results were obtained : Wo rd of mouth also plays an important role in the Mont e V erde Zone as 32.4% of respondents reported that this was the primary means through which they obtained information. The publication Agua Pura was the second most common means of acquiring information (27.1%).

PAGE 78

66 Respondents also reported that they would like to get information through various ways with Agua Pura being the second most common response. Finally, with regards to the way in which people get around in the Monte V erde Zone the following res ults were recorded : T he majority of respondents (51.6%) reported walking to work. Respondents also reported that when traveling outside of the Monte V erde Zone, which most of them do either a few times a year (45.3%) or monthly (32.3%), they ride the bus (61.3%). For travel within the Zone that is not related to work, respondents reported that they use various methods (37.5%) with car or SUV (15.3%) and taxi (13.8%) also being common answers. These respondents claimed to travel within the Monte V erde Z one about once a week (38.0%) with several times a week (25.7%) the second most common response. Household Level Information for the Monte V erde Zone The information presented here is much more representative than the results presented in the individual r esults section. The reason for this is that the sample we collected was a sample of households not individuals. The only caveat here is that two of the communities, Monteverde and Rio Negro, had low completion rates so representativeness is not insured. Household C omposition The average household size in the Monte V erde Zone is 4.02. Interestingly, a very small percentage of households ( 5.7% ) in the Monte V erde Zone reported having at least some members that do not reside in the Zone all year long but r ather only part of the

PAGE 79

67 year. Also, 15 of the se 22 households (68%) that reported having some members who do not permanently reside in the Monte V erde Zone cited work as the reason for the seasonal of temporary absence of some household members. Household Employment T he data for salary was collected using intervals instead of exact quantities for ethical reasons. T he 8 equal intervals were chosen by MVI. At the time this data was collected the exchange rate was about 360 colones to 1 dollar. The interva ls were of 30,000 colones which was the equivalent of $33.33. The 9 th interval was 240,000 colones or more which was the equivalent of $666.67 dollars a year. Out of 1169 reported salaries for the 532 households the 9 th interval was only chosen 43 time s or 3.7%. Table 15 : Employment Characteristics of Monte Verde Zone Households Common Characteristics of Households Average household size (n=526) 4.02 Working adults per household (n=497) 1.56 Annual household i ncome (n=482) 164221.1 colones or 456.17 dollars Average income per adult (n=467) 108,350.6 colones or 300.97 dollars As Table 15 shows f or the Monte V erde Zone the mean annual household income is 164,221.1 colones which is $456.17. Further, these results could be broken down into yearly i ncome per adult For the Zone the average working adult earns 108, 350.6 colones or $301 The average number of working adults in households across the Zone has 1.56 working adults. I must add that I have no way of knowing if these results are very accu rate. It is conceivable that respondents are underreporting the amount of money their household s earn However, I will take the results at face value because this is what respondents reported.

PAGE 80

68 Further, Table 16 organizes the results by number of w orking adults in the househ old. As expected, the ratio of working adults to household members decreases with more working adults. The salaries per working adult also decrease with more working adults. This probably means that households with more working adul ts probably have working young adults (who typically earn less). It also means that households with younger children (nuclear family), which are purportedly common in the Zone have the highest ratio of household members per working adult. They are in gr eater relative poverty. Table 16 : Ch aracteristics of H ouseholds by N umber of Working Adults 1 Working Adult (45.5%) 2 Working Adults (34.0%) 3 Working Adults (7.0%) 4 Working Adults (1.9%) 5 Working Adults (0.8%) Number of household residents (n=492) 3.7 2 4.03 5.70 6.60 6.75 Ratio of working adults to household residents (n=492) 1 to 3.72 1 to 2.02 1 to 1.9 1 to 1.65 1 to 1.35 Total Household Income (n=482) 116630.80 or $323.97 210915.60 or $585.88 243646.90 or $676.80 314997.90 or $874.99 374997.30 or $1041.66 Income per working adult (n=467) 116630.80 or $323.97 105457.80 or $292.94 81215.80 or $225.60 78249.48 or $217.36 74999.45 or $208.33 Respondents in the Monte V erde Zone were asked about the benefits that tourism has brought to their househo ld. Table 17 shows that t he majority of households reported having benefited by procuring employment that is linked to tourism in the Monte V erde

PAGE 81

69 Zone. When respondents were asked about the kind s of employment 39.4% reported that someone in their househ old obtained full time employment resulting from tourism, 7.7% reported that someone in their household obtained part time employment resulting from tourism, and 26.4% reported that someone in their household obtained seasonal employment resulting from tou rism. Table 17 : Tourism and Employment Households procuring employment from Tourism (n=493) Employment 71.0% Full time employment 39.4% Part time employment 7.7% Seasonal employment 26.4% As the literature suggested that agriculture has been supplan ted by ecotourism as an employer i n the Monte V erde Zone, the survey asked if the household engaged in any form of farming activity, whether employment or subsistence farming, exclusively or as a supplement. As Table 18 shows, about one fifth of households engage in farming activities of any kind This is much smaller than the 71.0% of households that procure employment from tourism. Some f arming activities that households engaged in throughout the Zon e included dairy cattle and vegetable farming, with 47 .1% of farming household engaging in several different farming activities. Also, Table 18 shows that the majority of farming households reported having enough land for their farming activities A majori ty of farming households also reported owning the la nd that they were utilizing for their farming activities

PAGE 82

70 Table 18 : Farming Households Characteristics of Households engaged in Farming Activities Households engaged in farming activities (n=532) 19.5% E ngaged in dairy farming (n=104) 21.2% E ngage d in vegetables Farming (n=104) 24.0% Engaged in various activities (n=104) 47.1% Own land used (n=103) 64.1% Have enough land for needs (n=93) 74.1% Home O wnership As Table 19 shows, t he majority of people in the Monte V erde Zone own their house or place of residence For those households that were not owned by the residents, the majority were rented. The majority of respondents who rented stated that the owners of the rental properties they were living in we re Costa Rican Nationals Most of these Costa Rican Nationals also lived i n the Monte V erde Zone This indicates a high degree of local ownership (even of rental property) which, in the literature, is important for successful ecotourism. Table 19 : Home Ownership in the Monte Verde Zone Home Ow nership Information Own House (n=532) 73.3% Rent House (n=532) 19.9% Landlords are Costa Rican nationals residing in Zone (n= 106 ) 71.7 % Landlords are Costa Rican residing outside of Zone (n=106 ) 14.2 % Household V ehicles As Table 20 shows, t he majori ty of households in the Monte V erde Zone reported having a means of transportation including motorized vehicles bicycles, horses, and other. But, the average number of vehicles or means of transportation owned per household for the entire Monte V erde Zo ne per household was less than 1 When it

PAGE 83

71 comes to motorized vehicles the majority of respond ents throughout the Zone repor ted not having an auto or SUV. Similarly, most households also did not own mo torcycles or ATV Table 20 : Household Transportation Household Transportation Information Any Means of Transportation (n=532) 54.9% Cars or SUV (n=532) 30.5% Motorcycles (n=532) 22.9% ATVs (n=532) 4.9% Average number of vehicles or means of transportation per household (n=532) 0.77 Household C omputers Only 15.8% of households in the Monte V erde Zone have computers. Additionally, for the households that have computers 52.4% have internet access (8.3% of all households). Sum mary of Household Results The supposed ongoing shift in the economy of the ar ea from agrarian to service sector is evident in these results. At the level of the entir e Zone, more households depend on the tourism economy for their employment (71.0%) than engage in any kind of farming activity (19.5%). But about a third of househol d procuring employment from tourism (26.4% of all households) only procure seasonal employment. Further, the average household of four has a self reported a verage yearly household income of 164221.1 colones or $ 456.17. That household of four is living on less than $2 a day. I could not find any directly comparable statistics of households in the World Bank or United Nations reports but a ccording to World Bank statistics in 2002 ap proximately 26% of people in Costa Rica lived on less than $2 a day. Tha t means that if the self

PAGE 84

72 reported income levels are accurate, household in the Monte Verde Zone are probably some of the poorest in Costa Rica. Most of the households in the Zone own their place of residence 73.3%. Ownership of rental properties is also mostly in the hands of Costa Rican nationals (82.4% of renters surveyed reported that their landlord was a Costa Rican national). However, ownership of any kind of means of transportation, including animals, was barely over half ( 54.9%) with the majority of households not owning cars or SUVs (69.5%). Summary of Monte Verde Zone Results The majority of respondents surveyed ( 56%) w ere not originally from the Monte Verde Zone. Importantly, t hese individuals have come to the Monte Verde Zone from within Cost a Rica (89%), mostly from surrounding areas, with a few coming from foreign countries like Nicaragua or the United States Individual respondents in this opportunistic sample throughout the Zone reported having a positive view of development (65.3%) and t ou rism ( 72.8% ). Many respondents thought that tourisms main benefit related to employment opportunities while its draw backs related to changes it produces, such as drugs coming into the area or young people changing their habits. As more positive respo nses were recorded on the Likert scale, it is probably the case that respondents are, at this point, more satisfied with the benefits then upset by the draw backs of the ongoing rapid development. It is important to note that more than half of these respo ndents migrated to the Zone seeking the jobs generated by ecotourism. Interestingly, during my cite visit in 2001, many Costa Ricans complained about the influx of Nicaraguans to the area. During an informal conversation, someone suggested

PAGE 85

73 that perhaps t hey are occupying agricultural jobs that the Costa Ricans are leaving for tourism jobs. With so many people moving to the Monte Verde Zone from adjacent areas, the informants speculative comment seems plausible. Respondents were also not as satisfied w ith community and Zone governance as they were with development and tourism. Only 39.4% were somewhat satisfied with community governance while 19.1% selected not satisfied. With regards to Zone governance, 39.7% selected somewhat satisfied while 24.5% s elected not satisfied. It is important to reiterate that many respondents chose not to answer these questions When asked about public services and utilities, respondents throughout the Monte V erde Zone reported being happy with their water, electricity, and telephone services and unhappy with the availability of recreation, psychological therapy and counseling services, and walking paths. Most respondents also reported not to have any involvement (48.7%) or to only be interested observers (35.2%) with p ublic services. Most of the households in the Monte Verde Zone now re ly on the tourism economy for employment (71%) with very few households relying partially or exclusively on agrarian activities (19.5%) The average household of four has a self report ed average yearly household income is 164221.1 colones or $456.17 and is therefore, living on less than $2 a day. In the absence of directly comparable measures from the World Bank or United Nations reports, World Bank statistics in 2002 show that approx imately 26% of people in Costa Rica live on less than $2 a day. That means that if the self reported income levels are accurate, household in the Monte Verde Zone are probably some of the poorest in Costa Rica. Households tend to own their place of resid ence 73.3%. Ownership of rental

PAGE 86

74 properties is also mostly in the hands of Costa Rican nationals (82.4% of renters surveyed reported that their landlord was a Costa Rican national). However, ownership of any kind of means of transportation, including anim als, was barely over half (54.9%) with the majority of households not owning cars or SUVs (69.5%). Community Comparisons Having presented the data for the whole Monte V erde Zone, this section will now break down the data by communities. The communities w ill be compared to determine if there are significant differences. Patterns that emerge will be discussed. Respondent Level Comparisons This section will report the results for the individual level information collected from respondents while gathering h ousehold level information. One important issue to consider is whether there were significant differences across communities in the characteristics of the respondents answering the household instrument of the development survey. After difference s in char acteristics have been analyzed, significant differences in the respondents opinions and attitudes will be analyzed in the preceding section. Comparisons of Characteristics of Respondents As previously mentioned, t he results of the household survey show t hat for the Monte V erde Zone the surveyors collected data primarily from female respondents (73.5%) The results are shown on Table 21. A chi square analysis demonstrates that this percentage was consistent throughout the nine communities or that there was no significant difference in the rates of male to female respondents (p=0.779).

PAGE 87

75 Table 21 : Gender of Respondents by Communities Community Male Female Total Santa Elena 45 24.5% 139 75.5% 184 100.0% Cerro Plano 22 24.2% 69 75.8% 91 100.0% Monteverd e 12 32.4% 25 67.6% 37 100.0% San Luis 19 30.2% 44 69.8% 63 100.0% La Cruz 8 22.2% 28 77.8% 36 100.0% Canitas 12 36.4% 21 63.6% 33 100.0% La Lindora 9 30.0% 21 70.0% 30 100.0% Los Llanos 12 22.6% 41 77.4% 53 100.0% Rio Negro 2 40.0% 3 60.0% 5 100.0% Total (n=532) 141 26.5% 391 73.5% 532 100.0% Additionally, the average age of the respondents for the entire Monte V erde Zone was 49 with male respondents averaging 54 and female respondents averaging 48. The difference between the ages of male and fe male respondents for the Monte V erde Zone is statistically significant in an independent samples t test with a p<0.001. I am not sure as to the importance of this difference except that it may have to do with the types of respondents that are available to be interviewed or with a significant difference in age between males and females spo uses in a particular co mmunity. As Table 22 shows, the average age of respondent was also significantly different across communities on a One Way ANOVA (p<0.001). The two most populous communities, Santa Elena and Cerro Plano (both on the main road), had the lowest average ages (along with Los Llanos which is adjacent to Santa Elena and also on the main road).

PAGE 88

76 Table 22 : Average Age by Communities Community Average Age Santa Elena 46.77 Cerro Plano 48.03 Monteverde 54.74 San Luis 54.31 La Cruz 48.64 Canitas 50.23 La Lindora 56.17 Los Llanos 45.92 Rio Negro 58.50 Total (n=531) 49.33 A s previously reported, o f 391 female respondents 339 (86.7%) reported being the female head of household (ama de casa) whether married or single. Similarly, of the 141 male respondents 109 (77.3%) reported being head of household whether married or single. This observed pattern appeared very consistent across communities. Furt her, 56.2% of respondents 56.7% of males and 56.0% of females reported not having lived in the Monte V erde Zone since birth. This difference between male and female respondents was not significant in a chi square analysis across communities However, there was a significant difference when comparing rates of respondents who have lived in the Monte V erde Zone since birth across the nine communities (p<0.001) As Table 23 shows, i n the communities that are located on the main road from the Pan American Highway to the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve, Santa Elena, Cerro Plano, Monteverde, and Los Llanos the majority of respondents had not lived in the Monte V erde Zone since birth. The other communities showed mixed results It is important to reiterat e that the completion rate for Monteverde was only 35% and that this was possibly the result of this community being over studied so the high rate of non native respondents is probably elevated.

PAGE 89

77 Table 23 : Lived in the Zone since Birth across Communities C ommunity Yes No Total Santa Elena 66 35.9% 118 64.1% 184 100.0% Cerro Plano 42 46.2% 49 53.8% 91 100.0% Monteverde 7 18.9% 30 81.1% 37 100.0% San Luis 34 54.0% 29 46.0% 63 100.0% La Cruz 21 58.3% 15 41.7% 36 100.0% Canitas 14 42.4% 19 57.6% 33 100.0% La Lindora 23 76.7% 7 23.3% 30 100.0% Los Llanos 24 45.3% 29 54.7% 53 100.0% Rio Negro 2 40.0% 3 60.0% 5 100.0% Total (n=532) 233 43.9% 299 56.2% 532 100.0% There was also no significant difference in a chi square across the nine communities in the number of respondents who had not lived in the Zone since birth and who also claimed to have come to the Zone with their family (77.3%) instead of by themselves (22.7%) and expressed a desire to stay in the Zone permanently (83.7%). Finally, when resp ondents who reported not having lived in the Monte V erde Zone since birth were asked about their point of origin 89.0% reported that they had come from within Costa Rica and 11.0% claimed to have come from outside of the country. Table 24 shows the resul ts. The rate was significantly different on a chi square across communities (p<0.001) mostly because of Monteverde where only 46.7% of residents reported being from within Costa Rica while 53.3% reported being from outside Cost a Rica. In informal inter viewing before the Development Survey, key informants commented on the high number of retirees and foreign researchers living in Monteverde. But the results must be taken with caution given that this community had the lowest completion rate.

PAGE 90

78 Table 24 : P lace of Origin by Community Community Within Costa Rica Outside Costa Rica Total Santa Elena 111 93.3% 8 6.7% 119 100.0% Cerro Plano 46 92.0% 4 8.0% 50 100.0% Monteverde 14 46.7% 16 53.3% 30 100.0% San Luis 28 96.6% 1 3.4% 29 100.0% La Cruz 13 86.7% 2 13.3% 15 100.0% Canitas 17 89.5% 2 10.5% 19 100.0% La Lindora 7 100.0% 0 0.0% 7 100.0% Los Llanos 29 100.0% 0 0.0% 53 100.0% Rio Negro 3 100.0% 0 0.0% 3 100.0% Total (n=301) 268 89.0% 33 11.0% 301 100.0% Further, for the Monte V erde Zone 50% of p eople reporting not to have lived in the Zone since birth came after 1992. In fact, 41.1% reported coming in the 1990s and 19.2% reported coming in the first three years of the 2000s keeping in mind that this data was collected in August and October. T able 25 shows the average date of arrival by community. Interestingly, there was no significant difference on a one way ANOVA in the average date of arrival (which was 1989 for the Zone) across the nine communities. Table 25: Average Y ear of Arrival Commu nity Average Year of Arrival Santa Elena 1991.01 Cerro Plano 1989.31 Monteverde 1983.86 San Luis 1985.40 La Cruz 1991.29 Canitas 1987.00 La Lindora 1990.14 Los Llanos 1990.37 Rio Negro 1976.67 Total (n= 292 ) 1989.06 In summary, the results for the comparisons of the characteristics of respondents across the nine communities in the household instrument of the development survey are as follows: The percentage of female respondents across the nine communities was consistent at

PAGE 91

79 about 73.5% There wa s a significant difference in the ages of the respondents across the nine communities with younger respondents in populous communities along the main road The proportion of male (77.3%) and female (86.7%) respondents describing themselves as being the he ad of the household (amo o ama de casa) whether married or single was consistent across the nine communities. There was significant difference in the rates of respondents who reported not having lived in the Zone since birth across the nine communities wit h communities along the main road near the MCFP (Los Llanos, Santa Elena, Cerro Plano) having a majority of non native residents. The other communities showed mixed results. Comparisons of Respondent s Opinions and Attitudes In this section, the results comparing respondents views across the nin e communities will be presented. These comparisons are based on the opinions of the individual respondents; this is not a household comparison except in so far as the respondent may represent the views of a parti cular household (not likely) Comparison of Views on Development Previously it was reported that when respondents were asked about their general opinion regarding development in the Monte V erde Zone most of the respondents across the Zone reported having a generally positive view (65.3%) with a smaller portion having a neutral (19.2%) or negative (15.5%) view. However, there was a significant difference between communities in a chi square (p<0.001). Table 26 shows the results. There were only two commu nities w h ere the amount of respondents reporting a positive view was

PAGE 92

80 less than 50%, Monteverde and Los Llanos. Most of the other communities have positive percentages around 70%. One possible reason for these results (at least in Monteverde) might be the large number of foreign residents living in Monteverde. Also, the Monteverde Institute, as it is very active in promoting conservation awareness and holds many lectures that are open to the community on issues of development and conservation, might parti ally account for these results. Table 26: Views on Development by Community Community Positive Neutral Negative Total Santa Elena 124 68.9% 21 11.7% 35 19.4% 180 100.0% Cerro Plano 63 70.0% 18 20.0% 9 10.0% 90 100.0% Monteverde 9 25.0% 17 47.2% 10 27.8% 36 100.0% San Luis 46 75.4% 11 18.0% 4 6.6% 61 100.0% La Cruz 26 74.3% 2 5.7% 7 20.0% 35 100.0% Canitas 23 71.9% 5 15.6% 4 12.5% 32 100.0% La Lindora 19 63.3% 9 30.0% 2 6.7% 30 100.0% Los Llanos 26 49.1% 17 32.1% 10 18.9% 53 100.0% Rio Negro 5 100.0 % 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 5 100.0% Total (n=522) 341 65.3% 100 19.2% 81 15.5% 522 100.0% Comparison of Participation in Public S ervices In previous sections, the results show that m ost respondents reported having no participation or just be ing interested obser vers in public services in the Monte V erde Zone. There was no apparent difference observed among communities. San Luis was the only community that showed anything that fell out of the expected pattern with 31.7% of households reporting to have an other form of participation among the choices that were given. There is no information collected on the survey that could elucidate what this other form is. Comparisons of Sources of Information The survey asked respondents about their principal sources of in formation and

PAGE 93

81 news. To reiterate, f or the Monte V erde Zone the most common answers given by respondents were through word of mouth (32.4%), through the local news magazine Agua Pura (27.1%), and through various methods (29.4%). However, t here was a signi ficant difference between communities on a chi square (p<0.001) as Agua Pura was popular only in communities that were along the main road with the exception of Monteverde ( communities like Los Llanos, Santa Elena, Cerro Plano). Table 27 shows the result s. As Monteverde is the community that has the highest percentage of non Costa Rican residents, this might indicate that Agua Pura is a publication read by residents of Costa Rican origin along the main road communities. Table 27 : Sources of Information b y Community Community Word of Mouth Agua Pura Various 8 o ther categories Total Santa Elena 52 29.1% 61 34.1% 53 29.6% 13 7.2% 179 100.0% Cerro Plano 17 18.9% 22 24.4% 35 38.9% 16 17.8% 90 100.0% Monteverde 11 30.5% 2 5.6% 19 52.8% 4 11.1% 36 100.0% San Luis 19 31.1% 2 3.3% 30 49.2% 10 16.4 61 100.0% La Cruz 30 83.3% 6 16.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 36 100.0% Canitas 11 33.3% 8 24.3% 8 24.2% 6 18.2% 33 100.0% La Lindora 17 56.7% 6 20.0% 2 6.7% 5 16.6% 30 100.0% Los Llanos 10 19.6% 34 66.7% 3 5.9% 4 7.8% 51 100. 0% Rio Negro 2 40.0% 0 0.0% 3 60.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0% Total (n=521) 169 32.4% 141 27.1% 153 29.4% 58 11.1% 521 100.0% Additionally, it was previously reported that r espondents across the Monte V erde Zone were also asked to chose and ideal way to get inf ormation and n ews. T he most common answer for respondents was not to choose any principal method but rather to favor the answer various methods (36.4%). The second most common answer was Agua Pura (21.4%). T his again showed a significant difference betw een communities (p<0.001) with the Agua Pura being more popular in Santa Elena and Los Llanos.

PAGE 94

82 Comparisons of Transportation Results In previous sections i ndividual respondents were asked about their travel habits. The majority of people in the Monte V e rde Zone reported walking to work (51.6%) with various ways (19.4%) being the second most common answer. The difference between communities approached significance on a chi square A ll communities had high percentages of respondents walking (all but two a bove 50%) When respondents were asked about traveling outside of the Monte V erde Zone the majority of people reported using the bus (61.3%). However, there was a significant difference between communities in a chi square (p<0.001). Table 28 shows the r esults. Monteverde and San Luis had relatively smaller percentages of respondents using the bus exclusivel y Instead, respondents in these two communities reported using various methods at a much higher rate than other comm unities Table 28: Common Means and Frequency of Travel outside the Zone Community Bus Car Various Santa Elena 120 65.6% 32 17.5% 25 13.7% Cerro Plano 58 63.7% 18 19.8% 12 13.2% Monteverde 14 37.8% 8 21.6% 14 37.8% San Luis 24 38.1% 6 9.5% 32 50.8% La Cruz 24 68.6% 3 8.6% 8 22.9% Canitas 23 69.7% 7 21.2% 2 6.1% La Lindora 21 70.0% 8 26.7% 0 0.0% Los Llanos 39 73.6% 10 18.9% 2 3.8% Rio Negro 2 40.0% 2 40.0% 1 20.0% Yearly or Less Few Times a Year Monthly or more Santa Elena 21 11.5% 84 45.9% 64 35.0% Cerro Plano 10 11.0% 32 35.2% 39 42.9% Monteverde 4 10.8% 16 43.2% 11 29.7% San Luis 17 27.0% 39 61.9% 7 11.1% La Cruz 3 8.6% 17 48.6% 15 42.9% Canitas 2 6.1% 15 45.5% 13 39.4% La Lindora 10 33.3% 13 43.3% 5 16.7% Los Llanos 13 24.5% 23 43.4% 14 26.4% Rio Negro 1 20.0% 1 2 0.0% 3 60.0%

PAGE 95

83 Also, Table 28 shows that the majority of respondents in the Monte V erde Zone reported traveling outside of the Monte V erde Zone only a few times a year, with monthly being the se cond most popular answer and le ss than once a year the third There was a significant difference between communities in a chi square (p<0.001) with Cerro Plano respondents deviating from expected frequencies as the most common a nswer chosen was monthly There is no information collected in this survey that explain s the Cerro Plano results. When asked about modes of transportation for travel within the Monte V erde Zone that was not related to work, the most common response chosen by survey participants was that they used various methods to get around (37.5%). Othe r common responses included walking (18.8%), car (15.3%), and taxi (13.8%). However, t here was a significant difference between communities in a chi square (p<0.001). Table 29 shows these results. Re spondents in Santa Elena, Cerro Plano, and Lo s Llanos some of the more populous communities on the main road, reported walking in relatively higher rates than the other communities. These communities also reported relatively higher rates of use of taxis. Finally, respondents in San Luis and La Lindora were the only ones that reported hitching rides in milk trucks (27.0% and 13.3% respectively).

PAGE 96

84 Table 29: Common Means and Freq uency of Travel inside the Zone Community Walk Taxi Car Various Santa Elena 47 26.0% 25 13.8% 28 15.5% 67 37.0% Cerro Plano 15 16.5% 24 26.4% 13 14.3% 33 36.3% Monteverde 2 5.6% 2 5.6% 6 16.7% 23 63.9% San Luis 4 6.3% 0 0.0% 5 7.9% 28 44.4% La Cruz 1 2.8% 0 0.0% 1 2.8% 31 86.1% Canitas 3 9.1% 3 9.1% 8 24.2% 11 33.3% La Lindora 6 20.0% 8 26.7% 7 23.3% 1 3.3% Los Llanos 21 39 .6% 11 20.8% 10 18.9% 2 3.8% Rio Negro 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 60.0% 2 40.0% Monthly or more Weekly Several Times a Week Everyday Santa Elena 22 12.2% 52 28.9% 66 36.7% 31 17.2% Cerro Plano 11 12.1% 47 51.6% 15 16.5% 15 16.5% Monteverde 2 5.6% 13 36.1% 18 50 .0% 1 2.8% San Luis 22 34.9% 19 30.2% 1 1.6% 2 3.2% La Cruz 7 20.0% 17 48.6% 9 25.7% 1 2.9% Canitas 5 15.2% 10 30.3% 11 33.3% 5 15.2% La Lindora 8 26.7% 11 36.7% 7 23.3% 0 0.0% Los Llanos 7 13.2% 30 56.6% 5 9.4% 8 15.1% Rio Negro 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 3 60. 0% 1 20.0% Respondent were also asked with what frequency they traveled around the Monte V erde Zone excluding any travel related to work. The most common response in the Zone was on a weekly basis (38.0%) with several times a week (25.7%) and monthly or more (16%) also common responses. There were significant difference between communities on a chi square (p<0.001). Table 29 shows the results. San Luiss most common response category, f or example, was monthly while respondents in com munities like Mo nteverde, Santa Elena and Cani tas most commonly chose the several times a week category. C omparison s of Views on Governance Respondents in the Monte V erde Zone surveyed were asked about their opinions regarding the governance of their communities. Respo nding in a Likert scale the most

PAGE 97

85 common answer chosen by respondents throughout the Zone was somewhat satisfied (39.4%). Table 30 shows these results by community. Comparing communities a one way ANOVA showed a significant difference between communities (p<0.001) in opinions about their communitys governance. In a Scheffe post hoc test the multiple comparisons showed San Luis with its highest approval average as significantly different from the lower approval averages in Santa Elena and Cerro Plano. T able 30: Opinions on Community Governance by Community Community Average Opinion Santa Elena 1.82 Cerro Plano 2.16 Monteverde 2.32 San Luis 2.77 La Cruz 2.33 Canitas 2.04 La Lindora 2.03 Los Llanos 2.17 Rio Negro 1.80 Total (n=415 ) 2.15 Respon dents were also asked about their opinions on governance of the Zone using the same Liker scale. Like the questions on community governance, the most common answer for the Zone was somewhat satisfied (39.7%). Table 31 shows these results by community. U sing a one w ay ANOVA to compare mean satisfaction (ordinal data) there was a significant difference between communities (p=0.004). However, a post hoc Scheffe test was unable to determine which communities were significantly different. San Luis once agai n showed the highest mean satisfaction of the nine communities with Rio Negro, La Cruz, and Monteverde showing the lowest.

PAGE 98

86 Table 31 : Opinions on Zone Governance by Community Community Average Opinion Santa Elena 1.87 Cerro Plano 1.84 Monteverde 1.79 San Luis 2.29 La Cruz 1.59 Canitas 2.04 La Lindora 2.17 Los Llanos 1.91 Rio Negro 1.40 Total (n= 385 ) 1.91 Comparison of Views on Tourism Respondents in the Monte V erde Zone were also asked about their general opinions on tourism and how it affect ed the Monte V erde Zone. The most common answer given by respondents in the Zone was somewhat positive (40.9%) with very positive the second most common (31.9%). On a one way ANOVA there was a significant difference between communities (p=0.004). A Sche ffe post hoc test was unable to differentiate communities that were significantly different from ea ch other. San Luis had the least positive opinion s with Rio Negro La Cruz, and Monteverde having the most positive opinions. Table 32: Opinions on Tourism by Community Community Average Opinion Santa Elena 2.01 Cerro Plano 1.73 Monteverde 2.35 San Luis 2.03 La Cruz 2.33 Canitas 1.88 La Lindora 2.34 Los Llanos 2.55 Rio Negro 1.20 Total (n= 510 ) 2.07

PAGE 99

87 Comparisons of Views on Utilities and Services Respondents were asked their opinions on the quality and availability of several utilities and services in the Monte V erde Zone. A Likert scale was used to record respondents answers. The scale contained three values: 1 was for inadequate, 2 was for ade quate, and 3 was for more than adequate. A value of zero was recorded i f the respondent indicated that the service was not available. Table 33 below illustrates the results: Table 33: Opinions on Utilities and Public Services by Community Utility or Serv ice Mean Score for Monte V erde Zone p values for Differences Between Communities Water 2.32 0.001* Bus 1.61 <0.001* Taxi 1.61 <0.001* Paths 1.05 <0.001* Electricity 2.34 <0.001* Garbage 1.79 <0.001* Health 1.90 0.062 Public Education 1.94 <0.001* Agricultural Land 1.40 0.012* Credit 1.79 0.007* Banks 1.84 <0.001* Telephone 2.03 <0.001* Recreation 0.71 <0.001* Psychological Therapy or Counseling Services 0.75 <0.001* Recycling 1.83 <0.001* p values are significant on a one way ANOVA As the Table 33 shows, respondents throughout the Zone were generally dissatisfied with the availability and quality of recreation, psychological therapy and counseling services, and walking paths. On the other hand, respondents throughout the Monte V erde Zo ne were most satisfied with water, electricity, and telephone services. It is important to note, however, that there were significant differences in satisfaction with

PAGE 100

88 the utility and services across the nine communities for every service that we asked abo ut except for health related services. Scheffe post hoc tests were used to identify which respondents opinions were different. The differences between communities were as follows: For water, respondents opinions in La Cruz (2.09) and San Luis (2.18) on the low end were significantly different from Rio Negro (2.80) on the high end. For bus, the results were not clear as the Scheffe post hoc test grouped the nine communities into four overlapping groups. The communities with the lowest values, however, w ere La Cruz (0.83), San Luiz (1.03), and Rio Negro (1.20) while the communities with the highest values were Santa Elena (1.63), Cerro Plano (1.86), Los Llanos (1.94), Canitas (1.97), and La Lindora (2.00). For taxi, respondents opinions in La Cruz (0.97) on the low end were significantly different from Cerro Plano (1.93), Rio Negro (2.00), and La Lindora (2.03) on the high end. For walking paths, respondents opinions in La Cruz (0.50) on the low end were significantly different from Monteverde (1.29) and San Luis (1.61) on the high end. Additionally, San Luis (1.61) was also significantly different from Santa Elena (0.89) and Canitas (0.88). For electricity, respondents opinions in San Luis (1.70) and La Lindora (1.97) on the low end were significantly different from Cerro Plano (2.64) and La Cruz (2.69) on the high end. For garbage, respondents opinions in San Luis (with a value that approaches zero) were significantly different from all of the communities. Rio Negro (1.20) and La

PAGE 101

89 Lindora (1.50) on th e low end were significantly different from Cerro Plano (2.27) and La Cruz (2.36) on the high end. For public education, respondents opinions in San Luis on the low end (1.33) were significantly different from Cerro Plano (2.05), Canitas (2.07), Los Llano s (2.10), and Santa Elena (2.10) on the high end. For agricultural land, the Scheffe post hoc test could not differentiate the communities. Respondents opinions in San Luis (1.09), La Lindora (1.16), and La Cruz (1.20) were at the bottom while Monteverde (1.63), Santa Elena (1.65), and Cerro Plano (1.72) were at the top. For credit, the Scheffe post hoc test could not differentiate the communities. Respondents opinions in Canitas (1.35), San Luis (1.65), Rio Negro (1.67), and La Lindora (1.69) were at t he low end while Santa Elena (1.91) and Cerro Plano (2.06) were at the high end. For banks, the Scheffe post hoc test could not differentiate the communities. Respondents opinions in Canitas (1.36), Monteverde (1.59), and San Luis (1.62) were at the low end while Rio Negro (2.00) and Cerro Plano (2.06) were at the high end. For telephone, respondents opinions in San Luis (1.00) at the low end were significantly different from all of the other communities. For recreation, respondents opinions in La Cruz (0.14) at the low end were significantly different from Monteverde (1.18) and Los Llanos (1.39) at the high end. For psychological therapy or counseling services, respondents opinions in Rio Negro (0.20) and San Luis (0.26) on the low end were significant ly different from La

PAGE 102

90 Lindora (1.48) and Los Llanos (1.58) on the high end. Finally, for recycling, respondents opinions in San Luis (0.42) and Rio Negro (1.00) on the low end were significantly different from Los Llanos (1.96), Monteverde (1.97), Santa El ena (2.04), Cerro Plano (2.20), and La Cruz (2.42). Summary of Respondent Level Comparisons Individuals across these nine communities sampled in the Monte Verde Zone did show some significant differences. There was a significant difference between commun ities on the percentage of individuals interviewed who were not originally from the Zone. The communities along the main road, Santa Elena (64.1%), Cerro Plano (53.8%), Monteverde (81.1%), and Los Llanos (54.7%), tallied a majority of non native responden ts, while communities not on the main road showed mixed results. This makes sense as these communities are the ones w h ere all of the ecotourism related businesses are located. Interestingly, the periodical Agua Pura is a popular source of news in these c ommunities along the main road, excluding Monteverde. Respondents opinions showed some interesting results as well. Los Llanos and Monteverde had significantly lower opinions on the impact of development in the Monte V erde Zone. This is particularly interesting because Los Llanos is one of the fastest growing communities. Respondents in San Luis reported higher rates of satisfaction with community and Monte Verde Zone governance than other communities. Of course, this community is not located in on the main road. By contrast, Santa Elena and Cerro Plano which are both located on the main road and are the two most populous communities, reported low rates of satisf action with community governance. Also in contrast to respondents in San Luis respond ents in Monteverde, Rio Negro, and La Cruz reporte d

PAGE 103

91 lower rates of satisfaction with governance of the Monte Verde Zone In opinions on tourism the roles were reversed; San Luis respondents reported lower rates of satisfaction with tourism, while Montever de, Rio Negro, and La Cruz reported higher rates of satisfacti on. Transportation data also showed some significant differences across communities. Respondents in Monteverde and San Luis used the bus to travel outside of the Zone significantly less than r espondents in other communities. Respondents in Cerro Plano had higher rates of trips outside of the Zone than respondents from other communities with no data collected as to why Respondents in communities along the main road (Santa Elena, Los Llanos, C erro Plano), excluding Monteverde, reported higher rates of walking to get around the Zone when not going to work and also reported higher rates of taxi use. These results overall are probably best explained in relation to the location of the community a nd the amount of non native residents. Were there are more non native residents especially along the main road opinion on tourism and development are better and satisfaction with community governance is worse. Household Level Comparisons In this section the household information collected in the household instrument of the Development Survey will be analyzed to determine if there are any significant differences between communities. Comparisons of Household Composition The average household size in the Monte V erde Zone is 4.02. There is no significant difference in the average household size across the nine communities. I n the

PAGE 104

92 previous chapter I noted that a very small percentage of households ( 5.7% ) in the Monte V erde Zone reported having at least som e members that do not reside in the Zone all year long but rather only part of the year. This small percentage was consistent across all communities except for Monteverde where the percentage was 16.2%. Again though, due to the low rate of completion a nd the probable avoidance of participation by residents with longer tenure this percentage would probably be lower on a more representative sample of the Monteverde community Also, 15 of the 22 households (68%) that reported having some members who do n ot permanently reside in the Monte V erde Zone cited work as the r eason for the seasonal or temporary absence of some household members with this percentage consistent across communities Comparisons of Household Employment As previously mentioned, the dat a for salary was collected using intervals instead of exact quantities for ethical reasons. To reiterate, the 8 equal intervals were chosen by MVI. At the time this data was collected the exchange rate was about 360 colones to 1 dollar. The intervals we re of 30,000 colones which was the equivalent of $33.33. The 9 th interval was 240,000 colones or more which was the equivalent of $666.67 dollars a year. Out of 1169 reported salaries for the 532 households the 9 th interval was only chosen 43 times or 3 .7%. For the Monte V erde Zone, 4 8.7% of households have 1 adult who is employed while 36.4% have 2 adults who are employed with the average amount of employed adults being 1.56. The rate of adults who are employed per household for the nine communities is not significantly different in a chi square. The means for the nine communities are also not significantly different in a one way ANOVA.

PAGE 105

93 Also, f or the Zone the mean annual household income is 164,221.1 colones which would mean that the mean annual ho usehold income for the Monte V erde Zone was $456.17. Table 34 shows these results. In comparing the nine communities the average household income was significantly different between communities in a one way ANOVA with a p<0.001. The highest c ommunity a verage household income ( Monteve rde) was mor e than double the lowest ( San L uis) In a Scheffe post hoc test, Monteverde is significantly different from every community except for Cerro Plano and Canitas. Table 34 : Mean Annual Household Income by Community Community Average Household Income Santa Elena 157359.4 0 or $437.11 Cerro Plano 191249.1 0 or $531.25 Monteverde 295713.2 0 or $821.43 San Luis 113808.4 0 or $316.13 La Cruz 138386.4 0 or $384.41 Canitas 172499.1 0 or $479.16 La Lindora 134499.1 0 or $37 3.61 Los Llanos 162352.2 0 or $450.98 Rio Negro 131249.4 0 or $ 364.58 Total (n=482) 164221.1 0 or $ 456.17 Similar results are obtained if on e looks at yearly income per working adult Table 35 shows the results. For the Zone the average working adult earns 1 08,350.6 colones or $301 per year There is a significant difference in t he average amount earned per adult between communities in a one way ANOVA (p<0.001). In a Scheffe post hoc test Monteverde was significantly different from San Luis.

PAGE 106

94 Tab le 35: Mean Annual Income per Working Adult by Community Community Income per Working Adult Santa Elena 106986.60 or $297.18 Cerro Plano 123776.60 or $343.82 Monteverde 170356.50 or $473.21 San Luis 67287.48 or $186.91 La Cruz 100483.40 or $279.12 Ca nitas 97782.79 or $271.62 La Lindora 106160.20 or $294.89 Los Llanos 112449.50 or $312.36 Rio Negro 119999.5 0 or $333.33 Total (n=482) 108350.60 or $300.97 Respondents in the Monte V erde Zone were asked about the benefits that tourism has brought to their household. The majority of households in the Zone (71.0%) reported having benefited by procuring emplo yment that is linked to tourism. When respondents were asked about the kind of employment 39.4% reported that someone in their household obtained full time employment resulting from tourism, 7.7% reported that someone in their household obtained part time employment resulting from tourism, and 26.4% reported that someone in their household obtained seasonal employment resulting from tourism. Table 36 shows these results by community. Table 36: Household Benefits form Tourism by Community Community Employment (n=493) Full time Employment (n=492) Part time Employment (n=493) Seasonal Employment (n=493) Santa Elena 119 72.1% 63 38.4% 7 4.2% 51 30.9% Cerro Plano 62 69.7% 34 38.4% 8 9.0% 21 23.6% Monteverde 24 66.7% 15 38.2% 10 27.8% 5 13.9% San Luis 36 57.1% 22 41.7% 5 7.9% 12 19.0% La Cruz 13 54.2% 4 34.9% 3 12.5% 6 25.0% Canitas 22 71.0% 14 16.7% 1 3.2% 7 22.6% La Lindora 23 79.3% 9 45.2% 0 0.0 % 14 48.3% Los Llanos 49 94.2% 33 31.0% 3 5.8% 13 25.0% Rio Negro 2 50.0% 0 63.5% 1 25.0% 1 25.0% Chi square p value 0.001 0.004 <0.001 0.077

PAGE 107

95 When the rates of households benefiting from tourism through employment w ere compared across communities usi ng a chi square the differences were significant (p=0.001). Los Llanos had the highest rate of employment resulting fr om tourism. La Lindora, Santa Elena, and Canitas also reported high rates of employment in tourism. On the other hand, San Luis and La Cruz reported the lowest rates. There were also significant differences in full time employment (p=0.004) and part time employment (p<0.001) but not seasonal employment across communities. Los Llanos had the highest rate of full t ime employment whil e La Cruz had the lowest with most of the other communities reporting in the mid to high 30% range. Monteverde, on the other hand, had the highest rate of part time employment (about one fourth) with almost all of the other communities below 10%. Table 37: Households Engaging in Farming Activities by Community Community Engaged in Farming (n= 532 ) Owns Land Used (n= 103 ) Is Land Sufficient (n= 93) Santa Elena 10 5.4% 7 70.0% 5 62.5% Cerro Plano 1 1.1% 0 0.0% 3 100.0% Monteverde 4 10.8% 2 50.0% 3 100.0% San Luis 38 60.3% 21 55.3% 27 75.0% La Cruz 13 36.1% 11 84.6% 12 100.0% Canitas 9 27.3% 6 66.7% 3 50.0% La Lindora 19 63.3% 12 66.7% 9 56.3% Los Llanos 8 15.1% 6 75.0% 5 71.4% Rio Negro 2 40.0% 1 50.0% 2 100.0% Chi square p value 0.001 0.004 0.147 In the Monte V erde Zone, 19.5% of households engage in farming activities. Table 37 shows the results by community. Also, the majority of farming households reported having enough land for their farming activities (74.2%) with no significant differences be tween communities in a chi square. On the other hand, there was a

PAGE 108

96 significant difference on a chi square in the rates of farming households between communities (p<0.001). The majority of households reportedly engaged in farming activities were located in tw o communities, San Luis and La Lindora In La Cruz and Canitas about a third of households engaged in farming activities. The most populous communities, Santa Elena, Cerro Plano, and Monteverde had the lowest rates of households engaging in farming ac tivities The majority of farming households (64.1%) also reported owning the land that they were utilizing for their farming activities. However, there was a significant difference between communities in a chi square (p=0.001). Table 37 shows that o f t he communities that had many farming households, San Luis had the lowest ra tes of ownership of land, with many households borrowing the land they were utilizing Also, 23.7% of households sampled in San Luis were engaged in an undescribed other arrangem ent. Comparisons of Home O wnership T he majority of people in the Monte V erde Zone own their house or place of residence (73.3%). However, there is a significant difference when rates of homeownership are compared across communities in a chi square (p=0.0 03). Table 38 shows that a lthough most of the communities have high rates of ownership, Monteverde reported a rate that was mu ch lower than the others The next lowest ra te was in Santa Elena This low rate in Monteverde, however, may be a result of the low participation rate in the survey. As previously mentioned, the research coordinator and I both suspected that it was residents who have lived in Monteverde for longer periods of time that were the most likely to refuse to participate in the survey.

PAGE 109

97 T able 38: Home Ownership by Community Community Home Ownership (n=532) Landlord is Costa Rican National Living in Monte Verde Zone (n=1 42 ) Landlord is Foreign National Living Out of the Monte Verde Zone (n= 142 ) Santa Elena 124 67.4% 49 81.7% 0 0.0% Cerro Plano 64 70.3% 17 63.0% 3 11.1% Monteverde 20 54.1% 3 17.6% 4 23.5% San Luis 56 88.9% 6 85.7% 0 0.0% La Cruz 29 80.6% 5 71.4% 0 0.0% Canitas 25 75.8% 7 87.5% 0 0.0% La Lindora 26 86.7% 4 100.0% 0 0.0% Los Llanos 42 79.2% 8 72.7% 2 18.2% Rio Negro 4 80.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Chi square p value 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 For those households that were not owned by the residents, the majority (74.6%) were rented with no significant difference between communities. The majority of respondents who rented stated t hat the owners of the rental properties they were living in were Costa Rican Nationals (82.4%). Most of these Costa Rican Nationa ls also lived in the Zone (69.7%). As can be seen on Table 38, t he only community that showed a difference in the rates of na tionality of owners was Monteverde with 58.8% of respondents rental properties being owned by foreign nationals with 23.5% of these foreign nationals residing outside of the country. Comparisons of Household V ehicles In the previous chapter the results showed that t he majority of households (54.9%) in the Monte V erde Zone reported having a means of transportation including motorized vehicles, bicycles, horses, and other. However, there was a significant difference between the nine communities in a chi square (p=0.004) with the majority of households in some of the most populous communities not having any means of

PAGE 110

98 transportation (Santa Elena 51.6%, Cerro Plano 52.7%, and La Lindora 60.0%). In fact, the average number of vehicles owned per household for the entire Monte V erde Zone was only 0.77. Table 39 shows these results. The difference in average number of vehicles per household between the nine communities was also statistically significant in a one way ANOVA (p<0.001) with Monteverde (on the high end at 1.51 vehicles per household) being significantly different than La Lindora (on the low end at 0.50 vehicles per household) in a Scheffe post hoc test. Table 39: Means of Transportation per Household by Community Community Average Number of Vehicles per Household Santa Elena 0.65 Cerro Plano 0.60 Monteverde 1.57 San Luis 0.70 La Cruz 1.03 Canitas 1.03 La Lindora 0.50 Los Llanos 0.81 Rio Negro 1.00 Total (n=482) 0.77 When it comes to motorized vehicles the majority of respondents through out the Zone (69.5%) reported not having an auto or SUV. Table 40 shows these results by community. The difference between communities in ownership of auto or SUV was significant in a chi square (p=0.002). San Luis was much lower then the other communit ies. Further, On a one way ANOVA that compared the average number of cars or SUV per household between the nine communities the difference was statistically significant (p=0.002) with Rio Negro on the high end being significantly different from San Luis a nd La Lindora on the low end in a Scheffe post hoc test. It is important to note that there were only 5 households collected from Rio Negro and so the results may not be

PAGE 111

99 representative. Table 40: Ownership of Select Vehicles per Household by Community Com munity Cars, SUV, or Jeep (n=532) Motorcycle (n=532) ATV (n=532) Santa Elena 57 31.0% 37 20.1% 5 2.7% Cerro Plano 31 34.1% 8 8.8% 3 3.3% Monteverde 17 45.9% 10 27.0% 5 13.5% San Luis 8 12.7% 18 28.6% 3 4.8% La Cruz 15 41.7% 14 38.9% 6 16.7% Canitas 9 27.3% 10 30.3% 3 9.1% La Lindora 6 20.0% 7 23.3% 0 0.0% Los Llanos 15 28.3% 17 32.1% 1 1.9% Rio Negro 4 80.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% Chi square p value 0.002 0.006 0.003 Similarly, most households also did not own motorcycles (77.1%) or ATV (77.1%). The differences in motorcycle ownership and ATV ownership were statistically significant between the nine communities with p values on a chi square of 0.006 a nd 0.003 respectively. Comparisons of Household C omputers Only 15.8% of households in the Monte V erde Zone have computers. The difference in rates of computer ownership across the nine communities, however, is significant in a chi squared (p< 0.001). The one outlier is Monteverde with computer ownership in 59.5%. The next highest percentage is Cerro Pla no with 23.1%. Additionally, for the households that have computers 52.4% have internet access (8.3% of all households). Summ ary of Household Level Comparisons There were many significant differences between these communities households. Households in Monteverde had significantly more income than households in all other

PAGE 112

100 communities with the exception of Cerro Plano and Canitas. Households in Monteverde average d double the annual income of households in San Luis. Further, Monteverde and San Luis were s ignificantly different in the amou nt of money earned per working adult in a household $473 to $187 respectively. Also, there was a significant difference in computer ownership across the nine communities with Monteverde being an outlier (59.5%). Communi ties along the main road, such as Los Llanos, Santa Elena, Cerro Plano, and Monteverde were often significantly different from other communities on many variables relating to employment in tourism as these communities contain more households employed in th is sector. Further, the s e same populous communities along the main road with high employment in tourism had the lowest rates of households that engaged in agricultural activities (all less than 10%). In fact, La Lindora (63.3%) and San Luis (60.3%) were the only two communities where the majority of households enga ged in agricultural activities. Monteverde was significantly different from the other communities in rates of home ownership. Barely over half of households in Monteverde reported owning their house. Further, Monteverde was also significantly different from the other communities in nationality of owners of rental property where a majority (58.8%) were foreign nationals. There were also some significant differences for the nine communities in rates of ownership of vehicles or other means of transportation. The majority of households in Santa Elena, Cerro Plano, and La Lindora did not own any means of transportation. Monteverde, on the other hand, reported having 1.51 vehicles or other means o f

PAGE 113

101 transportation per household. However, t his average was significantly different from only the lowest community, La Lindora, which reported an average of 0.50. Summary of Community Comparisons Results Both the comparison or respondents and households sh ow consistent differences between communities that are located along the main road and ones that are not. But also, on many variables, but particularly on economically related variables, Monteverde is significantly different from all or most of the other communities. For example, t here was a significant difference between communities on the main road in percentage of individuals interviewed who were not originally from the Zone. The se communities Santa Elena (64.1%), Cerro Plano (53.8%), Monteverde (81. 1%), and Los Llanos (54.7%), tallied a majority of non native respondents, while communities not on the main road showed mixed results. This makes sense as these communities are the ones were all of the ecotourism related businesses are located. Interest ingly, the periodical Agua Pura is a popular source of news in these communities along the main road, excluding Monteverde. Respondents opinions also showed some of these same trends Respondents in San Luis, a community that is not located on the mai n road reported higher rates of satisfaction with community and Monte Verde Zone governance than other communities. This community also had a majority of respondents native to the Monte V erde Zone and significantly higher percentage of farming households than communities along the main road. By contrast, Santa Elena and Cerro Plano, which are both located on the main road and are the two most populous communities, reported low rates of satisfaction with community governance. Also in contrast to San Luis respondents, Monteverde, Rio

PAGE 114

102 Negro, and La Cruz reported lower rates of satisfaction with governance of the Monte Verde Zone. In opinions on tourism the roles were reversed; San Luis respondents reported lower rates of satisfaction with tourism, while Mo nteverde, Rio Negro, and La Cruz reported higher rates of satisfaction. Monteverde and Los Llanos had significantly lower opinions on the impact of development in the Monte Verde Zone. This is particularly interesting because Los Llanos is one of the fas test growing communities. But clearly, with their high opinions on tourism, low opinions on development, and low opinions of Zone governance, respondents in Monteverde set themselves apart from the other populous communities along the main road. Transp ortation data also showed some significant results that fit the described pattern. Respondents in communities along the main road (Santa Elena, Los Llanos, Cerro Plano), excluding Monteverde, reported higher rates of walking to get around the Zone when no t going to work and also reported higher rates of taxi use. These populous road communities, Santa Elena and Cerro Plano, also had a majority of households that did not own any means of transportation. By contrast, Monteverde reported having 1.51 vehicle s or other means of transportation per household. Households in Monteverde also had significantly more income than households in all other communities with the exception of Cerro Plano and Canitas. Households in Monteve rde averaged double the annual inco me of house holds in San Luis Further, Monteverde and San Luis were significantly different in the amount of money per job earned by working adults in a household $473 to $187 respectively. Also, there was a significant difference in computer ownership a cross the nine communities with Monteverde being on the high end (59.5%).

PAGE 115

103 When it comes to employment in the tourism sector, the communities along the main road had more households reporting employment in tourism. Households in and around Santa Elena repo rted significantly higher rates of employment in tourism businesses (as high as 94.2% in Los Llanos). San Luis and La Cruz reported the lowest rates. Los Llanos also reported the highest rates of full time employment in tourism (63.5%), with the Santa El ena and the communities surroundin g it close behind. Further, the s e same populous communities along the main road with high employment in tourism had the lowest rates of households that engaged in agricultural activities (all less than 10%). By contrast La Lindora (63.3%) and San Luis (60.3%) were the only two communities where the majority of households engaged in agricultural activities. Additionally, Monteverde was significantly different from the other communities in rates of home ownership. Barely over half of households in Monteverde reported owning their house. Further, Monteverde was also significantly different from the other communities in nationality of owners of rental property where a majority (58.8%) were foreign nationals. Conclusions A good wa y of summarizing the data is through a multivariate hierarchical clus ter analysis in order to determine which communities are more closely related to each other on a given set of variables Using the percentage of non native residents, the mean ye ar of arrival, opinions on community governance, opinions on Zone governance, opinions on tourism, average number of vehicles, percentage of households employed in tourism, and mean annual household income the cluster analysis shown in Figure 1 was obtaine d.

PAGE 116

104 Figure 1: Cluster Analysis of Monte Verde Zone Communities * H I E R A R C H I C A L C L U S T E R A N A L Y S I S * Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups) Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine C A S E 0 5 10 15 25 Label Num + --------+ -------+ --------+ ---------+ Santa Elena 1 Los Llanos 8 Canitas 6 Cerro Plano 2 La Cruz 5 Rio Negro 9 La Lindora 7 San Luis 4 Monteverde 3 The Dend rogram shows t wo clusters and one very distant outlier. The first cluster contains Santa Elena, Los Llanos, Canitas and Cerro Plano. Interestingly, all of these communities are along the main road to the MCFP (except for Canitas) and are the fastest growing communities. Canitas however, is adjacent to Santa Elena and on the main road to Juntas, the nearest small to wn in the Guanacaste Province. The second cluster contains La Cruz, Rio Negro, La Lindora and San Luis. These communities are smaller and growing at a slower rate. They have less participation in the ecotourism economy relative to the first cluster. Th ey also have higher percentages of native residents. In this cluster analysis, Monteverde is a very distant outlier. Through out the Development Survey results Monteverde has scored significantly different measures than the other communities. It is the community nearest to the MCFP, but als o has a high rate of foreigners and higher socio economic indicators This quantitative results echo the experience of being in Monteverde. Accounts in the literature, such as Honey (1999),

PAGE 117

105 which accurately depicts t he uniqueness of this communitys history, illustrate how different the Monteverde community is from even those that are in close proximity to it The results of the household survey portion of the Development Survey, therefore, partially begin to address the issues raised by the research question and the objectives for the survey. The results presented here begin to create a basic dem ographic profile of the Zone. The results also summarized information relevant to the income structure of households in the Zone. The opinions of a sample of respondents on Tourism and Development were also presented. Data on issues of governance and the relationship between communities was also analyzed. Data on utilization and opinions of resources was also obtained. It is important to note, however, that the results presented here are limited by their synchrony. In order to present a more comprehensive analysis it would be necessary to repeat this survey in the future.

PAGE 118

106 Chapter 5 Development Survey Resul ts Business Instrument Introduction This chapter presents the results of the Development Survey obtained from the business instrument and collected in the summer of 2002 by native surveyors in the Monte V erde Zone, Costa Rica. The results are reported in a manner consistent with the Development Surveys objectives as outlined by the development research coordinator of the GRC, Dr. Tre vor Purcell. To reiterate the objectives relevant to this section are: to determine the occupational and income structure of the Monte V erde Zone and how they relate to the development in general and ecotourism in particular; to determine, in preliminary largely qualitative terms, the magnitude of the ecotourism sector and its im pact on the development process. First, infor mation concerning the completion of the survey and data entry process is presented. This general completion information section uses the information contained in the final report of the execution of the Development Survey prepared by the research coordina tor on the ground C. Sop hia K l em pner, MPH (Appendix A ). T he results of the busin ess instrument are then presented. Finally, a concluding section will summarize and synthesize the results to begin to answer the research questions as it relates to this se ction ( What is the role of the various segments of the Monteverde population (community, occupational, locals, immigrants, business, etc.) in the overall development of the local

PAGE 119

107 economy and social structure? ). General Completion Information According to the final r eport on the completion of the Development Survey submitted by the MVI research coordinator on F ebruary 12, 2003 the 12 native surveyors completed 532 household surveys and 93 business surveys during late August thru September with some addi tional data collection continuing into th e middle of October. O n December 16, 2002, a debrief ing meeting was held in Monteverde by the research coordinator to which all of the native surveyors were invited for the purpose of discu ssing the experience of a dministering the surveys as well as disclosing any perceived weaknesses or flaws with the two survey instruments Eight of the eleven remaining surveyors attended the meeting but the transcription of that meeting (which was apparently recorded) was never sent to the USF GRC by the research coordinator. When I spoke to the research coordinator regarding the outcome of that meeting she revealed that the only complaint reported by the surveyors concerned the length of the household instrument which often took more than an hour to administer. There were no complaints reported regarding the business instrument. Business Survey The research coordinator reported that the Business surveys took longer than expected and was not completed until mid October. The final completion report details that there were difficulti es in setting up appointments with high level managers or b usiness owners and that repeated visits often bore no fruit as owners were out of town or too busy to have time for the interview. Furt her, most of the interviews were

PAGE 120

108 conducted by one surveyor who was assigned this t ask exclusively. As Table 41 shows, the participation rate was very high at 83%. Table 41 : Business Survey Completion Results Business Survey Completion Results Community Completed Surveys Refused or Not available Caitas 3 0 Cerro Plano 34 4 La Cruz 0 0 La Lindora 1 0 Los Llanos 0 1 Monteverde 15 3 Ro Negro 3 0 San Luis 3 0 Santa Elena 34 8 TOTAL 93 (83%) 16 (17%) In the final report the research coordinator also pointed out that the ecotourism business sector changes very rapidly in the Monte V erde Zone. Apparently, in the time between the end of the data collection, mid October, and the preparation of this final report, submitted in Februa ry, the research coordinator had observed two business changing ownership and at least one new restaurant, two new hotels, one new bookstore, and one new internet caf. Date Entry into SPSS In October 2002, MVI moved one of its staff to help the research coordinators ente r the survey data into SPSS. This process was completed by February at which time the research coordinator spent February to April checking the data for accuracy and recoding some of the numerous other selections. The data was sent to USF GRC in April an d, upon receiving it I spent the summer of 2003 putting labels and c leaning up many of the fields. Unfortunately, much data was lost as the fields did not match the survey questions.

PAGE 121

109 The Business Survey The business instrument was intended to collec t information from all of the business es that would consent to the survey. As such, the goal was not to survey a sample of the tourism related business but rather all of the business and ask them to report on their perceived link to tourism. Business Loca tion As Table 42 shows, t he majority (89%) of the 91 business surveyed were located in the three communities that are closest to the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve on the main road that connects back to the Pan American Highway Santa Elena (35.5%), Ce rro Plano (35.5%) and Monteverde (16.1%). Table 42 : Location of Businesses Community Number of Businesses Santa Elena 33 35.5% Cerro Plano 33 35.5% Monteverde 15 16.1% San Luis 3 3.2% La Cruz 3 3.2% Canitas 1 1.1% La Lindora 3 3.2% Los Llanos 0 0.0 % Rio Negro 3 3.2% Other 2 2.2% Total (n=93) 93 100% Business Inauguration S ome of the oldest businesses that we re surveyed dated back to the 1950s. However, more than 50% of the businesses surveyed in the Monte V erde Zone were inaugurated after 19 93 and 28.6% since 2000. There was also no difference in the age of business when communities were compared on a one way ANOVA.

PAGE 122

110 Business Classification Participating businesses were asked to classify themselves as one of several categories. Table 43 sh ows the results. The majority of businesses described themselves as either touristic (43.5%) or ecotouristic (27.1%) with the third most common self description being service sector (10.6%). Assuming that self described tourism businesses can be classif ied as service sector, 81.2% of businesses are self described as service sector with 70.6% self described as touristic or ecotouristic. There was also no significant difference on a chi square across the different communities in businesses b y type of sel f classification. Table 43 : Most Common Business Self Classification s Community Touristic Ecotouristic Service Sector Santa Elena 16 51.6% 4 12.9% 6 19.4% Cerro Plano 17 53.1% 7 21.9% 2 6.3% Monteverde 3 27.3% 5 45.5% 1 9.1% San Luis 0 0.0% 1 33.3% 0 0 .0% La Cruz 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Canitas 1 33.3% 2 66.7% 0 0.0% La Lindora 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% Los Llanos 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Rio Negro 0 0.0% 2 66.7% 0 0.0% Other 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% Total (n=85) 37 43.5% 23 27.1% 9 10.6% Participating bu sinesses were also asked to report whether they were a for profit or not for profit enterprise. The majority of businesses classified themselves as for profit enterprises (91.4%). Source of Initial Capital When businesses were asked about the source for the initial capital utilized to open the business the most common response was that the capital came from the owner (48.4%). The second most common response was from several sources (21.5%) with

PAGE 123

111 bank loan being the third (1 5 .1 %). Table 44 shows the results. Ther e was no significant difference across communities. Table 44 : Sources of Initial Capital Source of Capital Own Capital 48.4% Bank Loan 15.1% Mixed 21.5% Other 15.0% Total (n= 93 ) 100.0% Business Ownership The most common form of owners hip was family ownership (45.9%), with partnership being the second most common (35.3%) and individua l ownership the third (17.6%). The results are shown on Table 45. There is no significant difference between communities. Table 45 : Types of Business Ow nership Type of Ownership Individual 17.6% Family 45.9% Partnership 35.3% Other 1.2% Total (n=85) 100.0% About a quarter of business (26.4%) reported that their owners also owned other businesses in the Monte V erde Zone. Further, 17.6% of all busi nesses reported that their owners owned other businesses in Costa Rica. Additionally, the majority of business owners (60.7%) were Costa Rican nationals living in the Monte V erde Zone with foreign nationals residing in the Monte V erde Zone the second mos t c ommon response (17.9%). Further the average amount of time that the current owners have owned the business was 6.9 years. This number may not be significant, however, given that the distribution of length of business tenure is so wide. The majority of businesses (82.2%) also reported

PAGE 124

112 that they owned the land or lot where their business is located. These results are summarized in Table 46. Table 46 : Common Characteristics of Business Owners in Zone Characteristics of Owners Costa Ricans Residing in Monte Verde Zone 60.7% Foreign Nationals Residing in the Monte Verde Zone 17.9% Naturalized Costa Rican Living in Monte Verde Zone 6.0% Other 14.4% Total (n=84) 100.0% Businesses Employment In the Monte V erde Zone, 77.4% of businesses reported hirin g employees. This percentage was consistent across all self imposed businesses classifications ( business sectors). As Table 47 shows, m any businesses only hired 1 (20.4%) or 2 (10.8%) employees. However, businesses surveyed employed a total of 416 peopl e with the average being 4.47 per businesses. Importantly, there are four outliers employing 92, 31, 29, and 20 people who affect the average (172 people or about a third of all people employed by 4 businesses) These 4 largest employers are Productore s Monteverde (92), which is the dairy factory, the MCFP (31), and two hotels (29 & 20) that self described as ecotouristic. When looking specifically at the 60 ecotouristic and touristic businesses, 31.7% reported not employing any one. The remainder emp loys 199 people with an average of 3.32 per business. The results are shown in Table 47.

PAGE 125

113 Table 47 : Characteristics of Employment in Monte Verde Zone Characteristics of Business Employment Total Number of People Employed by businesses (n=93) 416 Busine sses Not Employing Anyone 31.2% Businesses Employing 1 employee 20.4% Businesses Employing 2 employees 10.8% Average Number of Employees per Business 4.47 Characteristics of Ecotouristic or Touristic Busines s Employment People Employed by Ecotouristic or Touristic Businesses (n=60) 199 Ecotouristic or Touristic Businesses not Employing Anyone 31.7% Ecotouristic or Touristic Businesses Employing 1 person 23.3% Ecotouristic or Touristic Businesses Employing 2 people 10.0% Avg. Number of Employees per Ecotouristic or Tourisitic Business 3.32 Seasonal Profits Because we had discovered through our initial informal interviewing that there is a marked low season in the Monte V erde Zone, businesses were asked if they were able to cover losses incurred in the low season with profits made in the high. The majority of businesses (74.4%) reported that they could cover low season loss with high season profits. When asked whether the business had obtained any loans during the last five years, 46.7% of busines ses reported that they had. Summary of Results The majority of businesses in the Monte Verde Zone are located in the three most populous communities along the main road (Santa Elena, Cerro Plano, and Monteverde). The majority of theses businesses had bee n initiated after 1993. Of the businesses surveyed, 43.5% self described as touristic and 27.1% described as ecotouristic. If the

PAGE 126

114 percentage of businesses that self described as service sector is added, and assuming that touristic businesses are service sector employment, then 81.2% of businesses sel f described as service sector. The most common source of capital for starting a business in the Zone was from the current owner ( 4 8.4 %), with bank loan and various sources at 15.1% and 21.5%). In addition, t he most common source of ownership was family (45.9%) with partnership (35.3%) second. Further, 26.4% of business owners owned other businesses in the Zone. In terms of nationality and residence of owners, 60.7% of business owners were Costa Rican nation als who resided in the Monte Verde Zone and 17.9% of owners were foreign nationals who resided in the Monte Verde Zone. In the Monte V erde Zone, 77.4% of businesses reported hiring employees. This percentage was consistent across all self imposed busines ses classifications (business sectors). The majority of businesses only hired 1 (20.4%) or 2 (10.8%) employees. However, businesses employed a total of 416 people with the average being 4.47 per businesses. Importantly, there are four outliers employing 92, 31, 29, and 20 people who affect the average (172 people or about a third of all people employed by 4 businesses). These 4 largest employers are Productores Monteverde (92), which is the dairy factory, the MCFP (31), and two hotels (29 & 20) that sel f described as ecotouristic. When looking specifically at the 60 ecotouristic and touristic businesses, 31.7% reported not employing any one. The remainder employs 199 people with an average of 3.32 per business. Finally, b ecause it appeared, through ou r initial informal interviewing that there is a marked low season in the Monte V erde Zone, businesses were asked if they were

PAGE 127

115 able to cover losses incurred in the low season with profits made in the high. The majority of businesses (74.4%) reported that they could cover low season loss with high season profits. When asked whether the business had obtained any loans during the last five years, 46.7% of businesses reported that they had. Given these results, it is fair to conclude that the majority of bus inesses in the Monte Verde Zone self described as service sector (81.2%) with most of these self describing as touristic or ecotouristic businesses. Self described touristic or ecotouristic businesses provided almost half (199 or 47.8%) of the jobs record ed by our survey. But, t he biggest single employer, however, was Productores Monteverde (the dairy factory) with 92 employees. That means that although there is a significant service sector, the agricultural sector, of which the dairy factory is a part, is still a significant employer of people in the Zone. Also, it is important to note that almost a third of touristic or ecotouristic businesses do no t employ any one (31.3%). V ery important as well, is the fact that many of these businesses are owned b y people residing in the Monte Verde Zone (78.6%) whether Costa Rican (60.7%) or foreign nationals (17.9%) The high rate of local ownership and plethora of small businesses are consistent with what the literature, including The World Summit on Ecotourism Final Report (2002), predi cted would be good ecotourism. Acuna Ortega et al (2000) characterized Monteverde as a mature ecotourism cluster and the Development Survey results seems to generally back that description.

PAGE 128

116 Chapter 6 Conclusion Final Analy sis The results for the Development Survey in the Monte Verde Zone mirrored some of the patterns described in the literature but also provided information that fills important gaps and raises important questions. In articles that described ideal ecotouri sm economies like (Hawkins 1994; Hartshorn 1995; Ceballos Lascurain 1996; World Ecotourism Summit Final Report 2002) one of the most important factors was local ownership. In the Monte Verde Zone, there is certainly high rates of local ownership with 78 .6% of businesses owned by people residing the Zone whether Costa Rican (60.7%) or foreign nationals (17.9%) This was important for scholars like Burnie (1994) who insists that ecotourism must include non exploitation of local peoples. Another finding t hat was predicted in the literature is the large service sector which provides employment for a majority of households in the Monte Verde Zone. As Honey (1999) observed, the new ecotourism based economy is displacing the agricultural economy Our survey found 71% of households are now procuring employment from tourism while only 19% of households are engaged in agrarian activities on any scale. This is important considering that 41.1% of respondents who have not lived in the Zone since birth reported com ing in the 1990s and 19.2% reported coming in the fi rst three years of the 2000s. This shift mirrors what is happening in Costa Rica in general over

PAGE 129

117 the last decade as reported by Bulmar Thomas (1994). Self described touristic or ecotouristic busines ses provided almost half (199 or 47.8%) of the jobs recorded by the business instrument of our survey. But, the biggest single employer, however, was Productores Monteverde (the dairy factory) with 92 employees. That means that although there is a signif icant service sector, the agricultural sector and manufacture sector, of which the dairy factory is a part, is still a significant employer of people in the Zone. It is important to note that almost a third of touristic or ecotouristic businesses do not e mploy any one (31.3%). The Development Survey results also help fill some gaps in the literature and answer the call by Maria Bozzoli (2000) to study the specific effects that development resulting from tourism is having on people and communities. Specif ically, the Development Survey presents some important household level findings that suggest a complex picture. For example, it is certainly no surprise that service sector jobs would not provide high salaries. Our survey found that the average household of four has a self reported average yearly household income is 164221.1 colones or $456.17 and is living on less than $2 a day. In the absence of directly comparable measures from the World Bank or United Nations reports, World Bank statistics in 2002 sh ow that approximately 26% of people in Costa Rica live on less than $2 a day. That means that if the self reported income levels are accurate, household in the Monte Verde Zone are probably some of the poorest in Costa Rica However, it is certainly the case that households in the communities that are along the main road with residents that are employed in the tourism sector have significantly more income than household in communities that are not along the main road and which

PAGE 130

118 have the highest rates of en gaging in agrarian activities. Also, t he majority of respondents surveyed (56%) were not originally from the Monte Verde Zone particularly in communities along the main road like Santa Elena (64.1%), Cerro Plano (53.8%), Monteverde (81.1%), and Los Llano s (54.7%) These individuals have come to the Monte Verde Zone from within Costa Rica (89%), mostly from surrounding areas which are agrarian communities. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that people come to the Monte Verde Zone seeking these jobs because they provide more income and because the Zone has more opportunities for employment. Clearly, this growth is what is leading to the kinds of problems described by Chamberlain (2000) Therefore, articles and books on ecotourism like (Taylor 1994; Honey 1999; and Menkhaus and Lober 1996) correctly describe ecotourism as a mixed blessing. The challenge, as both Costa Rican applied scholars like Badilla (1994), Figueroa B. (1996), and Frst and Hein (2001), as well as international scholars like Hunt er (1997) describe it, is management that balances conservation and economic growth (increased profits). But all of these articles, even international documents like the Final Report of the World Ecotoruism Summit (2002), only offer abstractions. There i s no practical strategy offered for managing growth. It is not clear from reading these documents for example, how an area like the Monte Verde Zone can slow down its growth so as not to suffer the consequences that Cham berlin (2000) is warning about. I t seems that in the age of globalizatio n, attempts to manage growth are abandoned to market forces These market forces, however, can continue to significantly change an area and result in scenarios like those predicted by Place (1998) or Weaver and Ellio tt

PAGE 131

119 (1996) w h ere ecotourism is no different from the previous tourism model that devastated local communities. In the development literature, successful development is portrayed as small scale and community directed (Uphoff et al 1998). Like the Taquileno s of lake Titicaca (Sheldon and Hakim 1988), successful communities managed growth through community organizations. But they were also helped by geographical isolation which provided an obstacle for rapid growth. Similarly, geographical obstacles also ex ist in the Monte Verde Zone as it is located up a winding dirt road in the central mountain range of the country. But the paving of the road is likely to significantly reduce this obstacle and speed up growth. It wou ld be interesting to see if a paved r oad reduces the length of stays and the use of local businesses by visitors as it becomes possible to go through the Monte Verde Zone in a shorter period of time; this is essentially what happened to the Taquilenos which undermined their management (Sheld on and Hakim 1988). Directions for Future Research It is important that future research in the Monte Verde Zone explore some of the findings in the Development Survey with more depth. Although there appears to be a difference between communities located along the main road and those located elsewhere (illustrated nicely by Figure 1) particularly in involvement in the tourism economy (resulting in higher reported rates of household income), it is important to question whether these respondents are truly better off. Additionally, as many of the residents of the Monte Verde Zone are non native, do locals welcome these newer arrivals? Is there a difference between the different groups of new arrivals (Costa Ricans vs. foreign immigrants)? How has employ ment in the service sector affected family life? Is there a

PAGE 132

120 difference in the health status of more rural and more urban communities? Yet unpublished research in the Monte Verde Zone by nutritional anthropologists David Himmelgreen seems to indicate that what predicts food insecurity in rural vs. urban households is different. It appears that household s in Santa Elena, for example, are more likely to be food insecure if they are not members of a cooperative. Combining the kinds of information collected by the Development Survey with other kinds of data, such as health outcomes would provide a more complete understanding of how ecotourism based development affects local co mmunities. Finally, the Development Survey is limited by the fact that it is a one time intervention and, therefore, is not designed to account for change. A longitudinal study and a repeat survey at some future point would produce more complete results.

PAGE 133

121 References Acuna Ortega, Marvin; Villalobos Cespedes, Daniel; and Kynor Ruiz Mejias 2000 El Cluster Ecoturistico de Monteverde, Costa Rica. Centro Nacional de Politica Economica para el Desarollo Sostenible. Universidad Nacional, Costa Rica. Adamson Badilla, Marcos 1994 Valorizacion y Politicas de Conserva cion de la Biodiversidad. Ciencias Economicas 14(1):5 31. Amselle, Jean Loup 2 002 Globalization and the F uture of Anthropology. African Affairs 101: 221 229. Barndt, Deborah 2002 Tangled Routes: Women, Work, and Globalization on the Tomato T rail. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Basch, L.; Glick Schiller, N.; Szanton Blanc, C. 1994 Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation States. Langhorne, PA: Gordon & Breach. B ernard, H. Russell 1995 Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. Boza, Mario A. 1993 Conservation in Action: Past, Present, and Future of the National Park System of Costa Rica. C onservation Biology 7(2):239 247. Boza, Mario; Jukofsky, Diane; and Chris Wille 1995 Costa Rica is a Laboratory, Not Ecotopia. Conservation Biology 9(3):684 5. Bozzoli, Maria Eugenia 2000 A Role for Anthropology in Sustainable Development in Costa Rica. Human Organization 59(3):275 280.

PAGE 134

122 Bulmer Thomas, Victor 1987 The Political Economy of Central America Since 1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994 The Economic History of Latin America since Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bruner, EM 1991 Transformation of Self in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18:238 50. Burnie, David 1994 Ecotourists to Paradise (Eco Tourism in Costa Rica). New Scientists 142(1921 April):23 28. Ceballos Lascu rain Hector 1996 Tourism, Ecotourism, and Protected Areas: the State of Nature Based Tourism Around the World and Guidelines for its Development. Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation Union. Chamberlain, Francisco 2000 Pros and Cons of E cotoruism. In Monteverde: Ecology and Conservation of a Tropical Cloud Forest. Nalini M. Nadkarni and Nathaniel T. Wheelwright, eds. Pp. 376. New York: Oxford University Press. Cleveland, David A. 2000 Globalization and Anthropology: Expanding the O ptions. Human Organization 59(3):370 3. Crick, M. 1989 Representations of International Tourism in the Social Sciences: Sun, Sex, Sights, Savings, and Servility. Annual Review of Anthropology 18:307 44. de Kadt E., ed. 1979 Tourism: Passp ort to Development? New York: Oxford University Press. Dilly, Barbara J. 1999 Ecotourism and Cultural Preservation in the Guyanese Rain Forest. In Globalization and the Rural Poor in Latin America. William M. Loker, ed. Pp. 155 172. Boulder: Lynne R einner Publishers. Durrenberger, E. Paul 2001 Anthropolgy and Globalization. American Anthropologist 103(2):531 5.

PAGE 135

123 Erisman, H. M. 1983 Tourism and Cultural Dependency in the West Indies. Annals of Tourism Research 10:337 61. Escobar, A. 1991 Anthropology and the Development Encounter: the Making and Marketing of Development Anthropology. American Ethnologist 18(4):658 82. Estado de la Nacion 2001 Estado de la Nacion e n Desarrollo Humano Sostenible, seventh edition. San Jose Costa Rica: Projecto Estado de la Nacion. Eyben, Rosalind 2000 Development and Anthropology: A View from Inside the Agency. Critique of Anthropology 20(1):7 14. Ferguson, J. 1990 The Anti Politics Machine: Development, Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lestho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Figueroa B., Eugenio 1996 Restricciones y Desafios para la Sustentabi lidad Ambiental del Crecimiento Economico en Latinoamerica. Paper presented at the Seminario Desarrollo Sostenible organized by the University of Costa Rica San Jose, Costa Rica, January 22 and 23. Friedman, Jonathan 2002 From Roots to Routes: Tropes for Trippers. Anthropological Theory 2(1):21 36. Frst, Edgar and W olfgang Hein 2001 Turismo en la era de la Globalizaci n: Implicaciones de Equidad para la Sociedad y el Ambiente Internacional. Economia y Sociedad 16:5 23. Giddens, A. 1990 The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Graburn, N. 1989 Tourism: the sacred journey. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. V. Smith, ed. Pp. 32 36. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Haber, William A. 2000 Plants and Vegetation. In Monteverde: Ecology and Conservation of a Tropical Clou d Forest. Nalini M. Nadkarni and Nathaniel T. Wheelwright, eds. Pp. 39 70. New York: Oxford University Press.

PAGE 136

124 Hackenberg, Robert A. 1999 a Globalization: Touchstone Policy Concept or Sucked Orange ? Human Organization 58(2):212 5. 1999b Victim s of Globalization: Is Economics the Instrument Needed to Provide Them a Share of the Wealth? Human Organization: 58(4):439 42. Hamilton, L. S.; Juvik, J. O.; and F. N. Scatena, eds. 1993 Tropical Montane Cloud Forest. Honolulu: East West Center. H artshorn, Gary S. 1995 Ecological Basis for Sustainable Development in Tropical Forest. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:155 175. Harvey, D. 1989 The Condition of Post modernity: An Inquiry into the Origins of Culture Change. Cambr idge: Blackwell. Hawkins, Donald E. 1994 Ecotourism: Opportunities for Developing Countries. In Global Tourism: The Next Decade. W. T. Theobald, ed. Pp. 261 274. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Holl, Karen; Daily, Gretchen; and Paul Ehrlich 19 95 Knowledge and Perception in Costa Rica Regarding Environment, Population, and Biodiversity Issues. Conservation Biology 9(6):1548 1558. Honey, Martha 1994 Paying the Price of Ecotourism: Two Pioneer Biological Reserves Face the Challanges Brou ght by a Recent Boom in Tourism. (Ecuadors Galapagos Islands and Costa Ricas Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve). Americas 46(6 Nov Dec):40 48. 1999 Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Washington, DC: Island Press. Hunter, C. 1997 Sustainable Tourism as an Adaptive Paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research 24(4):850 867. Itzigsohn, Jose 2000 Developing Poverty, the State, Labor Market Degradation, and the Informal Economy in Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic. Unive rsity Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

PAGE 137

125 Jacobson, Susan K. and Alfredo Figueroa Lopez 1994 Biological Impacts of Ecotourism: Tourist and Nesting Turtles in Tortuguero National Park, Costa Rica. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22(3 Fall):414 420 Juarez, Ana M. 2002 Ecological Degradation, Global Tourism, and Inequality: Maya Interpretations of the Changing Environment in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Human Organization 61(2):113 24. Kearney, Michael 1995 The Local and the Global: The Ant hropology of Globalization and Transnationalism. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:547 565. Lewellen, Ted 2002 Groping Toward Globalization: In Search of an Anthropology Without Boundaries. Review in Anthropology 31:73 89. Lugo, A. E. and C. Lowe, eds. 1995 Tropical Forests: Management and Ecology. New York: Springer. MacCannell, Dean 1976 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Mansperger, M. 1995 Tourism and Culture Change in Small Scale Societies. Human Organization 54:87 94. Menkhaus, S. and D. J. Lober 1996 International Ecotourism and the Valuation of Tropical Rainforest in Costa Rica. Journal of Environmental Management 47(1):1 10. Mintz, Sidney 1998 The Lo calization of Anthropological Practice: From Area Studies to Transnationalism. Critique of Anthropology 18:177 133. Nadkarni, Nalini M. and Nathaniel T. Wheelwright 2000 Introduction. In Monteverde: Ecology and Conservation of a Tropical Cloud Fore st. Nalini M. Nadkarni and Nathaniel T. Wheelwright, eds. Pp. 3 10. New York: Oxford University Press. Nash, D. 1989 Tourism as a Form of Imperialism. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. V. Smith, ed. Pp. 171 85. Philadelphia: Univers ity of Pennsylvania Press.

PAGE 138

126 Oliver Smith, Anthony 1989 Tourist Development and Struggle for Local Resources Control. Human Organization 48:345 52. Olsen, Barbara 1997 Environmentally Sustainable Development and Tourism: Lessons from Negril, Jamaica. Human Organization 56(3):285 92. Ong, Aihwa 1987 Spirits of Resistance and Capitalist Discipline: Factory Women in Malaysia: Albany: State University of New York Press. Opperman, M., ed. 1998 Sex Tourism and Prostitutions: Aspects of Leisure, Recreation, and Work. New York: Cognizant Community Corporation. Paaby, Pia; Clark, David B.; and Hector Gonzalez 1991 Training Rural Residents as Naturalists Guides: Evaluation of a Pilot Project in Costa Rica. Conservation Biology 5( 4):542 6. Pagdin, C. 1995 Assessing Tourism Impacts in the Third World: A Nepal Case Study. Progress in Planning 44(3):185 266. Pettman, Jan Jindy 1997 Body Politics: International Sex Tourism. Third World Quarterly Journal of Emerging Ar eas 18(1):93 108. Place, S. E. 1998 How Sustainable is Ecotourism in Costa Rica? In Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective. C. Hall and A. Lewis, eds. Pp. 107 118. New York: Longman. Richter, L. 1982 Land Reform and Tourism Developme nt: Policy Making in the Philippines. Cambridge: Schenkman. Seiler Baldinger, A. 1988 Tourism in the Upper Amazon and its Effects on Indigenous Populations. In Tourism: Manufacturing the Exotic. P. Rossel, ed. Pp. 177 93. Copenhagen: IWGIA. Schi ller, Anne 2001 Pampang Culture Village and International Tourism in East Kalimantan, Indonisian Borneo. Human Organization 60(4):414 22.

PAGE 139

127 Scholte, Jan Aart 2000 Globalization: A Critical Introduction. New York: St. Martins Press. Singer, Mer rill 1994 Community Centered Praxis: Toward an Alternative Non Dominative Applied Anthropology. Human Organization 53(4):336 344. Solorzano, S. and J. Echeverria 1993 Impacto Economico de la Reserva Biologica Bosque Nuboso Monteverde. San Jose Costa Rica: Tropical Science Center. Sreekumar, T. and G. Parayil 2002 Contentions and Contradictions of Tourism as Development Option: the Case of Kerala, India. Third World Quarterly 23(3):529 48. Stronza, Amanda 2001 Anthropology of To urism: Forging New Ground for Eco tourism and other Alternatives. Annual Review of Anthropology 30:261 83. Taylor, Michael R. 1994 Go, But Go Softly. Wildlife Conservation 97(2 March April):12 20. Tenenbaum, David 1995 The Greening of Costa R ica. Technology Review 98(7):42 53. Tobias, D. 1989 Biological and Social Aspects of Ecotourism; The Monteverde Case. Tropical Resources Institute Working Paper No. 34:1. New Heaven, Conneticut: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Ts ing, Anna 2000 The Global Situation. Cultural Anthropology 15(3):327 60. Turner, Victor 1969 Ritual Process: Structure and Anti structure. Chicago: Aldine. 1974 Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithica: C ornell University Press. 1982 From Ritual to Theater: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: P AJ Publications. Turner, V. and E. Turner 1978 Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture: Anthropological Perspectives. New York: Columbia Press

PAGE 140

128 Uphoff, M.; Esman, M.; and A. Krishna 1998 Reasons for Success: Learning from Instructive Experiences in Rural Development. Bloomfield. CT: Kumarian Press. Wade, Robert H. 2002 US hegemony and the World Bank: the fight over people and ideas Review of International Political Economy 9(2): 201 229. 2004 Is Globalization Reducing Poverty and Inequality? World Development 32(4):567 589. Wallerstein, I. 1974 The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic. Watkins, Steve 2000 Its eco logical. Geographical 72(6):66 7. Weaver, David; and Katherine Elliott 1996 Spatial Patterns and Problems in Contemporary Namibian Tourism. The Geographical Journal 162(2):205 17. Whelan, Tensie 1991 Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press. The World Ecotourism Summit Final Report 2002 The World Ecotourism Summit Final Report. Madrid, Spain: Wor ld Ecotourism Organization and the United Nations Environment Progamme. Wolf, Eric R. 1982 Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California Press.

PAGE 141

129 Appendices

PAGE 142

130 Appendix A : Development Surve y Final Report USF/MVI Development, Ecotourism and Social Organization Research Subagreement # 1226 032 LO A Final Report February 12, 2003 Summary of Activities, August 8, 2002 February 12, 2003 To date, the Institute has completed the first five work areas detailed in the subagreement, including data entry for the household and business surveys and a final debrief meeting with field surveyors. The total number of household surveys completed is 532 and the total number of business surveys complet ed is 93. Following are details regarding the work completed. On December 16, 2002, a debrief meeting was held with all surveyors to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the surveys and the experience in general of administering the surveys. At the me eting, eight of the eleven surveyors were present. The discussion is being transcribed and will be sent under separate cover. Supervise the administration of surveys in the designated communities of Monteverde: Household Survey The household surveys were carried out during the months of August and September by 11 field surveyors. Surveyors worked an average of twenty five hours per week, mainly on weekdays, and were required to attend weekly meetings at which concerns and problems with the application of the survey were discussed, completed forms turned in, new materials distributed, and time sheets reviewed. Weekly meetings were key to maintaining the validity of the survey by ensuring questions were understood in a similar way by the surveyors and were asked in a standard fashion. Due to the importance of the meetings, attendance was an essential requirement for the position. One surveyor (Dulce Wilson) had difficulty fitting the meetings into her schedule and thus had to be asked to leave her positio n. Dulce frequently interviewed houses that were outside of the area of households assigned to her and in one case, used a survey form that was not consistent with the language in which the interview was conducted. The data from this particular survey is not included in the final results, since the questions were not asked in the same manner as the other interviews. The original research proposal estimated a one month period for data collection. The house hold survey data collection took twice that long to complete. This was due primarily to the following three factors: 1) the need for repeated visits to homes especially in the larger communities of Cerro Plano, Monteverde, and Santa Elena, 2) the weekly meetings needed to coordinate the distribution of work among 12 surveyors and to troubleshoot problems that arose in the application of the survey (this meant that

PAGE 143

131 Appendix A (Continued) surveyors lost one morning of work each week); and 3) the length and detail of the survey, especially the household survey, permitted surveyors to conduct a maximum of three surveys daily. The other issue of concern that arose during the administration of the household survey was identification of cases of domestic violence. One of the surveyors on this project was a participant in the Institute's lay health promoter program focused on family violence prevention in the mid 1990s, and is therefore known by some in the community for her work supporting women in situations of domestic violence. In two instances women she was interviewing for the survey told her of problems with domestic violence. In both cases, she consulted with the project supervisor about the issue and was asked to return to the house to secure permission from the woman to report the case to the clini c for follow up by the social worker. In both cases, consent was granted and the Institute provided written reports to the clinic's domestic violence prevention initiative. The women were then invited to participate in support groups and their cases were given to the social worker at the clinic for follow up. In Appendix I there is a table showing the sample size and survey completion rates for each of the nine communities included in the household survey. The original samples outlined in the research p roposal were taken from the Monteverde Clinic annual health assessment reports (EBAIS) from 2000. These figures were significantly low for Cerro Plano, La Cruz, La Lindora, Los Llanos and San Luis due in part to the rapid population growth which is estima ted at 5 7% per year in some areas of Monteverde. The EBAIS figures were higher in Monteverde and in Santa Elena most likely due to the erratic development patterns that make housing counts difficult. In the case of Caitas, the overestimation by the EBA IS may be due to them using a different town limit than what is commonly regarded as the town limit between Santa Elena and Caitas. For the purposes of this survey, we counted all houses located after the Trapiche (sugar cane mill) as belonging to Caita s. The overall participation rate in the household survey was 75%. The highest response rates were in Los Llanos, La Cruz, La Lindora and Santa Elena, with Cerro Plano, Caitas, San Luis all having response rates of over 65%. The lowest response rates were in Monteverde and Ro Negro. The low response rate in Monteverde has been attributed to the unique demographics of the community characterized by large number of part year residents and a predominance of rental housing. Informal observation and anec dotal evidence also suggests that some part year residents rent out their homes during periods of the year they are not in Monteverde, others simply leave their homes vacant. Much of the rental housing is rented out to people who are living in Monteverde on a temporary basis ranging from a few months to several years. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that some Monteverde residents, especially those with roots in the 1950s and 1960s, have reached a saturation point with research and therefore refuse to par ticipate in studies. All of these factors, combined with the fact that August and September are the rainiest months of the year and a time when most part year residents, and a certain portion of

PAGE 144

132 Appendix A (Continued) year long residents are away from M onteverde (in the U.S. or Europe). Ro Negro is a very small community whose guardedness is commonly attributed to events in recent history which led to the dispossession of their lands and to the failure of community based tourist enterprises. The inte rviewer assigned to this community remarked that the only reason she was able to complete surveys in five of the homes was because she was known to the community members. Santa Elena's success was due in great measure to the persistence of the two resea rchers (a mother son team) who covered the bulk of the community. They kept careful track of the homes that they needed to return to when no one was home or when people were to busy too talk, and returned sometimes up to 4 times to homes before finding som eone to interview. The success in the other communities was primarily due to surveyors being known in those communities and also, in the cases of Caitas, La Cruz, La Lindora and Los Llanos, all rural communities, women were readily found at home and tend ed to have more time to talk and less resistance to being interviewed. Business Survey Business surveys likewise took longer than expected and were not finished until mid October. This was due to the difficulties encountered in several cases in setting u p appointments with high level managers or business owners. In some cases, repeated visits bore no fruit, as owners were repeatedly out of town or too busy to have time for the interview. Overall the participation rate was very high at 83%. Just to give a sense of how rapidly changes are occurring in the tourism sector, since the survey was completed, several businesses have opened in Monteverde and some have changed ownership. From informal observation there is at least one new restaurant, two new hote ls, one new bookstore, and one new Internet Caf in the Monteverde Zone. Two businesses in Monteverde proper have changed ownership. The following table details the distribution of survey completion in the nine communities of Monteverde. Business Survey Completion Results Community Completed Surveys Refused or Not available Caitas 3 0 Cerro Plano 34 4 La Cruz 0 0 La Lindora 1 0 Los Llanos 0 1 Monteverde 15 3 Ro Negro 3 0 San Luis 3 0 Santa Elena 34 8 TOTAL 93 (83%) 16 (17%)

PAGE 145

133 Appendix A (Con tinued) Compile and enter survey data into software: In October, Marlene Leitn was hired to enter data from the surveys into SPSS software. Once separate databases for the household and business surveys were set up at the end of October, Marlene began t o enter data. The data entry was completed at the beginning of February, 2003 and is presently being checked for accuracy. Some changes have been suggested to USF GRC representatives regarding codes for some questions in the business survey which had an unmanageable number of "other" responses. These changes were discussed and agreed upon, and have been made. The same will likely occur with the household data, once it is carefully reviewed. Data analysis and presentation: The Monteverde Institute will have all the data ready to begin analysis by February 28, 2003. Data will be analyzed together with GRC USF representatives and compiled for oral presentations to local communities during the first week in April of 2003. Further plans for written dissem ination of results are under discussion and will be mutually agreed upon by MVI an d USF GRC.

PAGE 146

134 Appendix A (Continued) Appendix I Household Survey Sample and Completion Results Household Development Survey Sample and Completion Results Community Total Ho useholds (EBAIS 2000) Total Households (MVI 2001/2002) Sample Size based on MVI household estimate Completed Surveys (Participation Rate) Not Home/ Refused to Participate or not a house Caitas 77 46 ** 41 33 (81%) 8 Cerro Plano 81 211 136 91 (67%) 45 La Cruz 19 42 ** 38 36 (95%) 2 La Lindora 24 36 ** 33 30 (91%) 3 Los Llanos 41 59 ** 53 53 (100%) 0 Monteverde 171 146 106 37 (35%) 69 Ro Negro 14 14 ** 14 5 (36%) 9 San Luis 73 99 ** 89 63 (71%) 26 Santa Elena 342 311 204 184 (90%) 20 TOTALS 842 959 714 532 (75%) 182 (25%) MVI figures are based on house counts conducted by students in the Sustainable Futures scenario planning project. The data is more accurate than the EBAIS figures due to using exhaustive field methods to count and classi fy every structure. To date the housing counts have been carried out in Cerro Plano, Santa Elena and Monteverde. The inaccuracy of this data is in the classification of structures into one of three categories: residential, business or outdoor. Since stu dents collecting the data are from the US and are not as familiar with the types of construction, some misclassification exists in the data. This inaccuracy was most pronounced in Monteverde, where a considerable umber of structures classified as resident ial, were in fact workshops, storage sheds or abandoned housing. ** The housing estimates for the remaining communities (Caitas, La Cruz, La Lindora, Los Llanos, Ro Negro, and San Luis) is based on the surveyor's field work. Since household figures we re not well established in these communities, surveyors were instructed to interview 9 out of every 10 houses in order to achieve an adequate sample size, except in Ro Negro, where they were instructed to visit every house due to the small size of the com munity.

PAGE 147

135 Appendix B: Household Instrument Household Survey Research Topic: Development and Ecotourism in Monteverde Zone Purpose: The survey is intended to collect data on the social and economic development of the Monteverde Zone. It is part of t he larger study to assess the link between ecotourism, development, in general, and biodiversity. Researcher: Dr. Trevor Purcell Interviewer: _________________________ Questionnaire No.:__________________ A. Demographic Data 1. Identification of household: ____________ 2. Number of individuals in household: ____________ 3. a) Gender of respondent: ? Male [1] ? Female [2] b) What is the position of the respondent in the household?: ________________ ________________________________________________________________ 4. Age of respondent (interviewer may fill in age based on observation): ? 18 29 [1 ] ? 30 39 [2] ? 40 49 [3] ? 50 59 [4] ? 60 69 [5] ? 70 79 [6] ? 80 up [7] ? Other [0] _____ 5. Identify community in which household is located: ? Santa Elena [1] ? Cerro Plano [2] ? Monteverde [3] ? San Luis [4] ? La Cruz [5] ? Canitas [6] ? La Lindora [7] ? Los Llanos [8] ? Rio Negro [9] ? Other [0] ________________________________________________________ 6. a) Do the members of this household reside in this household year round?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] b) If no, where do members of this ho usehold reside other than here?: ? Santa Elena [1] ? Cerro Plano [2] ? Monteverde [3] ? San Luis [4] ? La Cruz [5] ? Canitas [6] ? La Lindora [7] ? Los Llanos [8] ? Rio Negro [9] ? Costa Rica (other than Monteverde Zone) [10] Where?: __________ _________ __________________________________________________________________ ? Foreign Country [11] Where?: _______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ? Other [0] _________________________ _______________________________

PAGE 148

136 Appendix B (Continued) c) Which members of this household?: ______________________________ ____ ______________________________ ____________________________________ _____ _______________________ _______________________________ _______ d) During which parts of the year?: _______________________________ _____ __ _______________________________ _________________________________ _______________________________ ___________________________________ e) Why do members of this househol d reside in two or more places?: ? Work [1] ? Leisure [2] ? Other [0] ____ _______________ 7. Have you lived in Monteverde since birth?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] If Yes move go to #8, if No go to #9 8. If since birth, a) Have you always lived in this com munity: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] b) If no, which was the last community you lived in?: ? Santa Elena [1] ? Cerro Plano [2] ? Monteverde [3] ? San Luis [4] ? La Cruz [5] ? Canitas [6] ? La Lindora [7] ? Los Llanos [8] ? Rio Negro [9] ? Cos ta Rica (other than Mont everde Zone) [10] Where?: ___ ______________ ? Foreign Country [11] Where?: ________ _____________________________ ? Other [0] _________________________ _____________________________ c) And, why did you decide to move to this part icular community?: ? Work [1] ? Visited and stayed [2] ? Family [3] ? Friends [4] ? Other [0] ______________________________________ d) And, What year?: _______ ________________________________________ Proceed to #10 9. If not since birth, a) Wha t year did you or your household move t o the Monteverde Zone?: _____ b) Where did you move from?: ? Costa Rica (other than Mo nteverde Zone) [1] Where?: _________________ ? Foreign Country [2] Where?: __________ ____________________________ ? Other [ 0] __________________________ ____________________________

PAGE 149

137 Appendix B (Continued) c) Why did you or your household decide to move to the Monteverde Zone?: ? Employment [1] ? Family [2] ? Friends [3] ? Visit and stayed [4] ? Other [0] _____ ________ _________________ ______ _____________________________ _____________________________ d) Did you move as a household?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] If not, how many a nd who in family moved?: ___ ______________________ __________ ____________________________ ____ ______________________ ______ _____________________________ ______________________________ e) Why did you or your household decide to move to this particular community (instead of another in community in the Monteverde Z one?: ____________ __________ _____________________ ____________________________ _____ ___________________________ ____________________________ _________ 10. How long do you or your household plan on staying in the Monteverde Zone?: ? Permanently [1] ? Temporarily, I reside here all year round now for my work but only plan on staying while I work here [2] ? Temporarily, I reside here all year round now for my leisure, but plan on moving away eventually [3] ? I live here only seaso nally [4], Which season?: _______________________ And Why?: ______________ _________________________ _______ _______________________ _________________________ ________ ? Other [0] _____________________________________________________ 11. Total number of veh icles owned by household: Type Number Capacity (including driver) Cars/Jeeps Vans Trucks Bicycles Horse, other livestock for transport Motorcycle Cuadrociclo Other (specify): 12. Will household agree to do travel diary?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] 13. a) Does the household have a computer?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2]

PAGE 150

138 Appendix B (Continued) b) Does the household have internet access?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] 14. a) Do you own the house you live in?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] b) If the land is rented leased, or shared, who o wns it?: ________________ c) And is he/she/them a . ? Costa Rican national residing in the Monteverde Zone [1] ? Costa Rican national residing outside of the Monteverde Zone [2] ? Foreign national residing in the Montever de Zone [3] ? Foreign national residing in Costa Rica [4] ? Foreign national residing outside of Costa Rica [5] ? Other [0] ___________________________ _______________________ B. Employment 15. How do the members of your household make their living: a) Pers on b) Years of schooling c) Age d) Relation to respondent e) Job f) Location of Job g) Salary for specific job h) Job seasonal variation 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. Instructions on how to fill out the table: a) Write persons first name. b) Write the number of years of school completed.

PAGE 151

139 Appendix B (Continued) c) Use age cat egory code. Age categories include: 18 29 [1] 30 39 [2] 40 49 [3] 50 59 [4] 60 69 [5] 70 79 [6] 80 up [7] Other [0] Write age. d) Use relationship category code. Relationship to respondent categories include: Father [1] Mother [2] Brother [3] Sister [4] Husband [5] Wife [ 6] Grandfather [7] Grandmother [8] Son [9] Daughter [10] G Grandfather [11] G Grandmother [12] Uncle [13] Aunt [14] Cousin [15] Self [16] Grandson [17] Granddaughter [18] Nephew [19] Niece [20] Father in law [2 1] Mother in law [22] Brother in Law [23] Sister in law [24] Other [0] Write relationship. For e), f), g) and h) if person has multiple jobs, then number 1 in each box would correspond to job 1, number 2 in each box would correspond to job 2, and so on. e) Use job category code. Job categories include: Clerk [1] Waiter [2] Bartender [3] Maid [4] Maintenance [5] Tour guides [6] Managerial [7] Food service [8] Taxi operator [9] Professional [10] Public Servant [11] Business owner [12] Farmer, dai ry [13] Farmer, beef cattle [14] Farmer, coffee [15] Farmer, vegetables [16] Other [0] Write which. f) Use location category code. Location categories include: Santa Elena [1] Cerro Plano [2] Monteverde [3] San Luis [4] La Cruz [5] Canitas [6] La Lindora [7] Los Llanos [8] Rio Negro [9] Costa Rica (other than Monteverde Zone) [10] Write where. Foreign Country [11] Write where. Other [0] Write where. g) Use salary category code. Salary categories include: <30,000 [1] 30,000 60,000 [2] 60,000 100,000 [3] 100,000 250,000 [4] >250,000 [5] h) Use seasonality category codes. Seasonality categories include: Year round [1] Wet season only [2] Dry season only [3] Temporary, 1 3 months [4] Temporary, 4 6 months [5] Temporary, 7+ months [6] Other [0] Write length.

PAGE 152

140 Appendix B (Continued) Questions #16 19 pertain to farming families. If household is not involved in farming skip to question #20. 16. If household engages in farming, what type of farming does it do ( check all that apply )?: ? Dairy [1] ? Beef cattle [2] ? Coffee [3] ? V egetables [4] ? Other [5] ________________________________ 17. a) If family is farming family, do they ( check all that apply ): ? Own land [1] ? Rent [2] ? Free share (use for free) [3] ? Own and rent [4] ? Own and free share [5] ? Rent and free share [6] ? Other [0] ___________________________________________________ b) If the farming land is rented, leased, or share d, who owns it?: __________ ________________________________________ _________________ _____ c) And is(are) he/she/them . ? Costa Rican national residing in the Monteverde Zone [1] ? Costa Rican national residing outside of the Monteverde Zone [2] ? Foreign national residing in the Monteverde Zone [3] ? Foreign national residing i n Costa Rica [4] ? Foreign national residing outside of Costa Rica [5] ? Other [0] ___________________________ _________________________ 18. How much land do you have (own, leased, shared, all that you can use)?: __ __hectares 19. Is the land you ha ve adequate for your needs?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] C. Community

PAGE 153

141 Appendix B ( C ontinued) 20. To what community organizations do you or members of your household belong? a) Person b) Age c) Relationship to respondent d) Organization e) Type of partici pation f) Length of involvement 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. Instructions on how to fill out table: a) Write persons first name. b) Use age category code. Age categories include: 18 29 [1] 30 39 [2] 40 49 [3] 50 59 [4] 60 69 [5] 70 79 [6] 80 up [7] Other [0] Write age. c) Use relationship category code. Relationship to respondent categories include: Father [1] Mothe r [2] Brother [3] Sister [4] Husband [5] Wife [6] Grandfather [7] Grandmother [8] Son [9] Daughter [10] G Grandfather [11] G Grandmother [12] Uncle [13] Aunt [14] Cousin [15] Self [16] Grandson [17] Granddaughter [18] Nephew [19] Niece [20] Fat her in law [21] Mother in law [22] Brother in Law [23] Sister in law [24] Other [0] Write relationship. For d), e), and h) if person belongs to multiple organizations, then number 1 in each box would correspond to organization 1, number 2 in each box woul d correspond to organization 2, and so on.

PAGE 154

142 Appendix B (Continued) d) Write in the name and type of organization in the box. Examples of types of organizations are listed below: Cooperatives Government board Church group Community groups Health comm ittees Government assistance program e) Use type of participation category code. Type of participation Categories include: Formal member [1] (involves membership in a formal organization where there is typically an application process where participation is usually mandatory; socio). Informal member [2] (involves membership in informal organizations like a womens health group where participation is not mandatory but person usually attends and participates.) Observer [3] (attends meetings of informal or formal organizations but does not participate in meeting or/and is not officially a member.) Leader/Coordinator [4] (person in charge of planning coordinating group activities.) Volunteer [5] (member of an organization that comes together to perform a spec ific task; person do not receive monetary compensation.) d) Use length of involvement category code. Length of involvement categories codes include: 0 3 months [1] 4 6 months [2] 7 12 months [3] 1 2 years [4] 2 5 years [5] 5 years + [6] 21. What particip ation do you have in the development of the Monteverde Zone?: ? Formal participation [1] (involves membership in a formal organization where there is typically an application process and mandatory participation; socio, person who has a formal positions within formal institutions). ? Informal paticipation [2] (invol ves membership in informal organizations where participation is not mandatory but person usually attends and participates. Person and organization involve themselves in development issues even though they do not have a formal place within the institution). ? Observer [3] (does not participate or attempt to participate in development issues even though they may occasionally attend informational meetings). ? Leader [4] (person in charge of running or coordinating organizations that have formal input into devel opment process). ? Other [0] _______________ ___________________________ ____________

PAGE 155

143 Appendix B (Continued) 22. a) What participation do you have regarding public services in the Monteverde Zone?: ? Formal participation [1] (involves membership in a f ormal organization where there is typically an application process and where participation is usually mandatory; socio, person has formal positions within formal institutions). ? Informal paticipation [2] (involves membership in informal organizations wh ere participation is not mandatory but person usually attends and participates. Person and organization involve themselves in development issues even though they do not have a formal place within the institution). ? Observer [3] (does not participate or at tempt to participate in development issues even though they may occasionally attend informational meetings). ? Leader [4] (person in charge of running or coordinating organizations that have formal input into development process). ? Other [0] _______ ______ ___________________ ____________________ b) If you participate as anything other than an observer, w hich public service do you involve yourself with?: ? Water [1] ? Transportation [2] ? Electricity [3] ? Healthcare [4] ? Sewage [5] ? Roads [6] ? Educat ion [7] ? Garbage collection [8] ? Recycling [9] ? Other [0] _________ ___________________________________________ 23. If you do not agree with decisions made by leaders about the Monteverde Zone, to what formal authority or community leader do you appeal?: ___________ ____ ___________________________ __________________________ __________ _____________________ __________________________ ________________ 24. How do you receive information about decisions in the Monteverde Zone?: ? Word of Mouth [1] ? Meetings [2 ] ? Internet [3] ? Bulletin Fuerza Femenina [4] ? Magazine Agua Pura [5] ? Letters [6] ? National Newspaper [7] ? Television [8] ? Radio [9] ? Other [0] ___ ___________________________________________________ 25. How would you like to receive informatio n about decisions in the Monteverde Zone?: ? Word of Mouth [1] ? Meetings [2] ? Internet [3] ? Bulletin Fuerza Femenina [4] ? Magazine Agua Pura [5] ? Letters [6] ? National Newspaper [7] ? Television [8] ? Radio [9] ? Other [0] __ ________________ ____________________________________

PAGE 156

144 Appendix B (Continued) 26. What type of transportation do you use to . ( check all that apply ): a) go to and from work?: ? Walk [1] ? Motorcycle [2] ? Taxi [3] ? Car [4] ? Horse [5] ? Bus [6] ? Bicycle [7] ? Car p ool [8] ? Hitch ride with lechero [9] ? Hitch ride (not lechero) [10] ? Other [0] _____________________________________________________ b) go to and from areas outside of the Monteverde Zone?: ? Walk [1] ? 9 Motorcycle [2] ? Taxi [3] ? Car [4]? Horse [5 ] ? 9 Bus [6] ? Bicycle [7] ? Car pool [8] ? Hitch ride with lechero [9] ? Hitch ride (not lechero) [10] ? Other [0] ________________________ ___________________________ ___ c) How often?: ? Once a year or less [1] ? More than once a year but less than once a month [2] ? More than once a month [3] ? Once a week or more [4] ? O ther [0] ___________________ ____________________________________ d) travel inside the Monteverde Zone (not work)?: ? Walk [1] ? Motorcycle [2] ? Taxi [3] ? Car [4] ? Horse [5] ? Bus [6] ? Bicycle [7] ? Hitch ride on milk trucks (lechero) [8] ? Other [0] ___ __________________________ ________________________ e) How often?: ? Once a year or less [1] ? More than once a year but less than once a month [2] ? More than once a month [3] ? Once a week [4] ? Several times a week but not daily [5] ? Daily [6] ? Several times a day [7] ? Ot her [0] ___________________ ___________________________________ For questions #27 32 Its ok not to answer if the subject is not comfortable answering

PAGE 157

145 Appendix B (Continued) 27. How satisfied are you with the way your community is governed?: ? Not satisfied [1] ? Somewhat satisfied [2] ? Satisfied [3] ? Very satisfied [4] ? No response [00] 28. In your opinion, which individuals, group s, or groups of individuals make decisions about how the Monteverde Zone is governed?: Name/Identifier Position/Role 29. In your opinion, which individuals, groups, or groups of individuals make decisions about the affairs of your own community?: N ame/Identifier Position/Role 30. In your opinion, which individuals, groups, or groups of individuals would you like to see making decisions about the Monteverde Zone?: Name/Identifier Position/Role 31. What do you consider to be the import ant organizations in the zone?: _________ _______________________ ____________________________ ______________ ___________________ ____________________________ __________________ _______________ ____________________________ ______________________

PAGE 158

146 Appen dix B (Continued) 32. In your opinion, which individuals, groups, or groups of individuals would you like to see making decisions about your own community and what qualities in these groups or individuals do you value?: Name/Identifier Position/Role Qualitie s 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 33. a) What is your general opinion about how tourism affects the Monteverde Zone?: ? Very positive [1] ? Moderately positive [2] ? Neutral [3] ? Moderately negative [4] ? Ve ry negative [5] ? No response [00] b) Why do y ou feel the way you do?: __ _______________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________________ ________________________ ________________________________________ 34. What if any benefits has tourism brought to your fam ily?: ? Full time employment [1] ? Temporary or seasonal employment [2] ? Part time employment [3] ? Housing [4] ? Entertainment [5] ? Education/Schools [6] ? Shopping opportunities [7] ? Business opportunities [8] ? Other [0] _______ ___________________ __________________________ 35. What have been the negative effects of tourism in this area?: ___________ ____ ____________________________ ___________________________ _________ _______________________ ___________________________ ______________

PAGE 159

147 Appendix B (Continued) 36. How do you rate the availability of the following services?: Very adequate (more than satisfies my needs) [1] Adequate (satisfies my needs) [2] Not adequate (not enough for my needs) [3] Not available [4] a) Water b) Bus c) Taxi d) Roads e) Sewage f) Electricity g) Garbage collection h) Health care i) Education j) Agricultural Extension k) Credit l) Banking Services m) Telephone n) Recreation o) Therapy or Counseling p) Recycling D. Health, Water, and Sanitation 37. What is the source for your water?: ? Spring [1] ? Stream [2] ? I dont know[3] ? Other [0] __________________________________________________

PAGE 160

148 Appendix B (Continued) 38. What type of water supply system do you have?: ? Aqueduct (public) [1] ? Private system (group) [2] ? Private system (individual) [ 3] ? Other [0] __________________ 39. Is the water chlorinated?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] ? Dont know [3] 40. Are there times when you have no water?: ? Never [1] ? Sometimes [2] ? Fre quently [3] Explain.________ _______________ _____________ 41. a) Are there times when you receive water of poor quality?: ? Never [1] ? Sometimes [2] ? Frequent ly [3] Explain.__________ ______________________________ b) If you receive water of poor quality, do you treat it in your house?: ? Neve r [1] ? Sometimes [2] ? Frequently [3] Explain. __ ______________________________________ 42. Is your drinking water from the tap?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] ? I dont know [3] 43. How would you rate your water supply?: ? Poor [1] ? Satisfactory [2] ? Excellen t [3] 44. In your opinion, the monthly amount you pay for water is: ? Cheap [1] ? Reasonable [2] ? Expensive [3] ? No cost (private) [4] 45. How many toilets are there in the house/building?: ? 1 [1] ? 2 [2] ? 3 [3] ? more [4] 46. What type of toilet(s) d o you have?: ? Flushing [1] ? Latrine [2] ? Composting [3] ? Other [0] ________ _________________________________________ 47. Is your toilet(s) connected to a septic tank?: ? Y es [1] ? No [2] if no why?: _____ ___________________ ? Dont know [3]

PAGE 161

149 Ap pendix B (Continued) 48. a) What do you do when your septic tank is full?: ? Have it pumped out [1] ? Empty it ourselves [2] ? Install another septic tank [3] ? Dont know [4] ? Ot her [0] _______________ ___________________________________ b) Is your choice a matter of cost?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] ? Dont know [3] 49. Where do your gray waters go?: ? Drain [1] ? Street [2] ? Creek [3] ? Onto ground [4] ? Dont know [5] ? Other [0] ______________ _____________________________________ 50. Do you ever ha ve problems with your septic tank or grey water system?: ? Never [1] ? Sometimes [2] ? Dont know [3] ? Frequently [4] Explain. _______________________ _______________ 51. Do you have concerns about the health of your family related to either your water su pply or sanitation systems?: ? Yes [1] Explain. __________________ ________________________ __ ? No [2] 52. a) Are there any improvements to either your (or the communitys) water supply or sanitation systems (blackwater, greywater disposal) that you would l ike to see introduced?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] b) Explain. _________________________ _________________________ ___ __________________________ _________________________________ _________________________ _______________________________________ c) Would you be prepared to pay more for these improvements?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] 53. a) Has your own health and that of your family changed in the last 5 years?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] b) Brie fly explain how and why?: __ ___________________________________ __________ _______________ _______________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________ ______________________________________________ ___________ ______ _________________ _______________________________

PAGE 162

150 Appendix B (Continued) 54. a) Do you store water in your household?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] b) Briefly explain why you store water and whe re you store it: __________ ___ __ ________________________________ _____________________________ ___ ________________ __________________ __________________________ ___ ____________________________ _________________________________ _________ ___ __________________________________________ ________ __

PAGE 163

151 Appendix C: Business Instrument Survey #1 Business and Ecotourism Research Topic: Development and Ecotourism in Monteverde Zone Purpose: The survey is intended to collect data on the social and economic development of the Monteverde Zone. It is part of the larger study to ass ess the link between ecotourism, development, in general, and biodiversity. Researcher: Dr. Trevor Purcell Interviewer: ____________________ Questionnaire No.: _______________ Interviewees Name: __________________ Interviewees Position: ___________ A Type of Business 1. Name of business: _____________________________________________ If business is a combination of businesses, list additional names here: __________________________________________________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 2. Type of business: ? Adventure Tour [1] ? Animal zoo [2] ? Art gallery [3] ? Bar [4] ? Caf [5] ? Camping Ground [6] ? Department s tore [7] ? Discotheque [8] ? Ecological farm [9] ? Gas station [10] ? Gift shop [11] ? Grocery [12] ? Hotel [13] ? Hotel with restaurant [14] ? Internet caf [15] ? Laundromat [16] ? Motorcycle rentals [17] ? Park or preserve [18] ? Restaurant [19] ? Supermarket [20] ? Transportation [21] ? Hotel with other business [22] Specify: _____________________________ _______________________________________________________________ ? Multiple business (two or more businesses in one other than hotel) [23] Specify:______________________________________________________ ? Other [0] ____________________________________________________

PAGE 164

152 Appendix C (Continued) 3. Location: ? Santa Elena [1] ? Cerro Plano [2] ? Monteverde [3] ? San Luis [4] ? La Cr uz [5] ? Canitas [6] ? La Lindora [7] ? Los Llanos [8] ? Rio Negro [9] ? Other [0] ________________________________________________________ 4. In what year did this business begin in Monteverde?: _______________________ 5. a) How would you categorize y our business in terms of the Monteverde Economy?: ? Touristic [1] ? Ecotouristic [2] ? Educational [3] ? Entrepreneurial [4] ? Agricultural [5] ? Service sector [6] ? Other [0] _________________________________________________________ b) If ecot uristic, what makes it ecotour istic?: __ ________________________ ______ ____________________________ _____________________________ __ _____________________________ _________________________________ B. Type of Ownership 6. Is business: ? For profit [1] ? No t for profit [2] If answered for profit proceed to #6, if not for profit proceed to #9 7. If for profit, how is it owned?: ? Individual [1] ? Family [2] ? Partnership [3] ? Other [0] ____________________________________________________ 8. Which of t he following best describes the owner?: ? Costa Rican national residing in Monteverde Zone [1] ? Costa Rican national residing outside of Monteverde Zone [2] ? Naturalized Costa Rican living in the Monteverde Zone [3] ? Foreign national residing in Mon teverde Zone [4] ? Foreign national residing in Costa Rica [5] ? Foreign national residing outside of Costa Rica [6] ? Other [0] ________ ___________________________________________ Proceed to #10

PAGE 165

153 Appendix C (Continued) 9. If not for profit, how is this business run (e.g. by board of directors, director, etc.)?: _______ ____________________________________________________ ________ _________________________________________________________ ____ __________________________________________________________ ___ 10. How many years under the current ownership?: _____________ 11. a) Do the owners of this business own other businesses in Monteverde?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] b) Name( s) of other business(es): _____________________________________ _________________ _____ __________________________________________ __________________ ________________________________________________ _____________ ____________________________________________________ c) Do the owners of this business own other businesses in Costa Rica?: ? Y es [1] ? No [2] d) Name( s) of other business(es): _____________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________________ _________________ ________________________________________________ _____________ _________________ ____________________________________ C. Employee Profile 12. Who do you employ?: a) Type of position b) Number of persons who occupy this position c) Sex of employees (# males/# females) d) Salary provided Instructions on how to fil l out table: a) Use positions category code. Position categories include: Clerk [1] Waiter [2] Bartender [3] Maid [4] Maintenance [5] Tour guides [6] Managerial [7] Food service [8] Other (specify) [0]

PAGE 166

154 Appendix C (Continued) b) Write the number of perso ns who occupy that particular position. c) Write the number of male and female employees who occupy this position. d) Use salary category code. Salary categories include (monthly in colones): <30,000 [1] 30,000 60,000 [2] 60,000 100, 000 [3] 100,000 250,00 0 [4] >250,000 [5] No response [00] Interviewers comments: _________ _________________________________ ___________________ ____________________________________________ _____________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________ ____________________________________________ ______________ __________________________________________________ D. Facility Capacity (Hotels, Restaurants, etc.) 13. Inventory advertisements in hotel lobbies or restaurants that deal with tourism. a) Destin ations advertised: ____________________________ ______________ _____________________________ ____________________________________ _____________________________ ____________________________________ b) Who makes the flyers?: _____________________ __________ ___________ __________________________ _______________________________________ __________________________ _______________________________________ 14. Total number of rooms: Type Number one bed two bed other___________________ 15. Do you keep records of customers?: a) Annual: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] b) Seasonal: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] c) Would you be willing to allow a researcher to look at your records to study patterns in seasonal occupancy?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2]

PAGE 167

155 Appendix C (Continued) Restaur ants 16. Type of cuisine: ? Costa Rican [1] ? American (US) [2] ? Italian [3] ? French [4] ? Asian [5] ? Latin (non Costa Rican) [6] ? Other [0] ___________________ 17. Capacity of restaurant. a) Number of tables: _________ Max Occupancy: _________ _______ b) Estimated number of meals served/day during . Busiest Month: _________________ Slowest Month: _________________ F. Business Vehicles 18. Vehicles owned by business: Type Number Capacity (including driver) Cars/Jeeps Vans Trucks Bicycles Horse, other livestock for transport Motorcycle Caudrociclo Other (specify): 19. Will business be willing to do a travel diary?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] G. Additional Information 20. Where did you get capital to open this business ( che ck all that apply )?: ? Own capital [1] ? Bank loan [2] ? Loan from family [3] ? Loan from friend [4] ? Other [0] _____________________________________________________ 21. In the past year, were you able to cover your low seasons expenses with what you earned in the high season?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2] 22. a) Have you received a bank loan in the past five years?: ? Yes [1] ? No [2]

PAGE 168

156 Appendix C (Continued) b) If so, for what?: __ ______________________________________________ _____________ ______________ _____________________________________ ___________________________ _____________________________________ c) From where?: ___________________________ _____________________ __________ ___________________________ __________________________ _____________ _____ _______________ _______________________________ 23. How much land or space does the business occupy?: ___________hectares 24. Do you own or rent the space or land?: ? Own [1] ? Rent [2] 25. Why did you decide to open a business in Monteverde?: ______ __________ ___ ___________________ _____________________________ _________________ ________________ _____________________________ ____________________ 26. How does your business attempt to operate in a su stainable fashion?: _________ ________________________________ ____ _________________________ ____ _____________________________ _____________________________ _______ 27. How does your business support forest protectio n projects?: ________________ _________________________________________________ ____ __________ ______________ __________________ _____________________________ ____ 28. In what ways does your business contribute to t he community?: ______________ _________________________________ ____________________________ ____ _____________________________ ____________________________ ________ 29. What do you do with your recyclable waist now that it is no longer collected?: ? Take to recycling plant in Cerro Plano [1] ? Bury it [2] ? Throw it out [3] ? Other [0] ____________________________________________________


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001498152
003 fts
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 041209s2004 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000570
035
(OCoLC)57724153
9
AJU6747
b SE
SFE0000570
040
FHM
c FHM
090
GN397.5 (ONLINE)
1 100
Amador, Edgar Allan.
0 245
Globalization, ecotourism, and development in the Monte Verde Zone, Costa Rica
h [electronic resource] /
by Edgar Allan Amador.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2004.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 168 pages.
520
ABSTRACT: Ecotourism has been promoted globally as a model for sustainable development because it simultaneously benefits the environment and the residents of the given destination. However, many conservationists have questioned the long term sustainability of ecotourism as it is difficult to mitigate the impact of even low levels of tourism on a particular ecosystem. Further, social scientists including anthropologists have similarly questioned whether most residents of a particular destination actually benefit significantly from the alternative tourism economy. The Globalization Research Center in cooperation with the Monteverde Institue in the Monte Verde Zone, Costa Rica, is undertaking a longitudinal study -- dubbed the Triangulation Study -- to understand the effects that development through ecotourism has on human and natural systems.In order to collect preliminary data, the Globalization Research Center funded the Development Survey which was designed to collect demographic data from a representative stratified random sample of household from nine communities in the Monte Verde Zone. Basic descriptive information was also collected for all of the businesses in the area that would agree to participate. The data collected showed that there is a significant difference in the extent that the nine communities in the Monte Verde Zone are involved in and perhaps benefiting from ecotourism despite the fact that their opinions about ecotourism are mostly positive. The communities located on the main road to the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve have demographic statistics that are significantly different from communities that are off the main road, and all communities are significantly different from the Monteverde community.Further, the ecotouristic businesses are located in these road proximate communities. Like the ecotourism literature predicted, the majority of the businesses are small and locally owned. Further study that carefully looks at the differences between those communities closest to the road and those furthest away is recommended. Perhaps a repetition of the Development Survey after a period of time would help elucidate changes in the Zone.
590
Adviser: Purcell, Trevor W.
653
tourism.
Central America.
survey.
demography.
anthropology.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Applied Anthropology
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.570