xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xlink http:www.w3.org1999xlink xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance
leader 00000nas 2200000Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 000000c19749999pautr p s 0 0eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a M39-00066
El ecoturismo como conductor de la conservacin de los bosques en las fincas pequeas en Costa Rica
Ecotourism as a driver of forest conservation on small farms in Costa Rica
Conservation of fragmented forest on private land is instrumental to long-term protection of tropical biodiversity. However, few incentives exist for small landowners to conserve. This study addresses ecotourism as an incentive for forest fragment conservation. Small farmers were interviewed to determine the extent of land in regeneration or protection and the ecotouristic activities on each property. The data suggest that a greater percentage of land is in regeneration on farms with small-scale tourism (20% + 10.1) than on farms with large-scale tourism (12% + 6.0) and no tourism (5% + 2.1; Kruskal-Wallis Test, H = 6.0673, p = 0.0481, N = 19). I conclude that of the farms employing tourism, three types of private property classifications exist: 1) land that would be conserved with or without tourism, 2) land whose maintenance benefits from ecotourism directly, and 3) land with tourism that is not ecological, but could still contribute to conservation. Each property type is addressed with a specific conservation strategy that could enhance long-term biodiversity protection in the Monteverde area.
Este estudio aborda el ecoturismo como un incentivo para la conservacin de los bosques fragmentados. Los pequeos agricultores fueron entrevistados para determinar la extensin de tierra en regeneracin o proteccin y las actividades eco tursticas en cada propiedad.
Text in English.
Conservacin de los bosques
Tropical Ecology 2007
Ecologa Tropical 2007
t Monteverde Institute : Tropical Ecology
1 Ecotourism as a driver of forest conservation on small farms in Costa Rica Sarah Owens Department of Biology, Occidental College ABSTRACT Conservation of fragmented forest on private land is instrumental to long term protection of tropical biodiversi ty. However, few incentives exist for small landowners to conserve. This study addresses ecotourism as an incentive for forest fragment conservation. Small farmers were interviewed to determine the extent of land in regeneration or protection and the ec otouristic activities on each property. The data suggest that a greater percentage of land is in regeneration on farms with small scale tourism 20% + 10.1 than on farms with large scale tourism 12% + 6.0 and no tourism 5% + 2.1; Kruskal Wallis Test, H = 6.0673, p = 0.0481, N = 19. I conclude that of the farms employing tourism, three types of private property classifications exist: 1 land that would be conserved with or without tourism, 2 land whose maintenance benefits from ecotourism directly, a nd 3 land with tourism that is not ecological, but could still contribute to conservation. Each property type is addressed with a specific conservation strategy that could enhance long term biodiversity pr otection in the Monteverde area . RESUMEN La con servaciÃ³n del bosque fragmentado en tierras privadas es responsable de la protecciÃ³n a largo plazo de la biodiversidad tropical. Sin embargo, hay pocos incentivos por terratenientes pequeÃ±os para conservar. Este estudio aborda el ecoturismo como un incen tivo para conservaciÃ³n de bosques fragmentados. PequeÃ±os agricultores fueron entrevistado para determinar la extensiÃ³n de tierra en regeneraciÃ³n o protecciÃ³n y las actividades eco turÃsticas en cada propiedad. Los datos sugieren que hay un porcentaje may or de tierra que estÃ¡ en regeneraciÃ³n en fincas con turismo en pequeÃ±a escala 20% + 10.1 que en fincas con turismo a gran escala 12% + 6.0 o sin turismo 5% + 2.1. Yo concluyo que de los fincas que estÃ¡n empleando turismo, hay tres tipos de propiedad es privadas: 1 tierra que estarÃ¡ conservado con o sin ecoturismo, 2 tierra cuyo mantenimiento depende del ecoturismo directamente, y 3 tierra con turismo que no es ecolÃ³gico, pero puede contribuir a conservaciÃ³n todavÃa. Cada tipo de propiedad estÃ¡ dir igida con una estrategia especÃfica de conservaciÃ³n que puede ser responsable la protecciÃ³n a largo plazo de la biodiversidad en Monteverde. INTRODUCTION The Mesoamerican hotspot, of which Costa Rica is a part, contains exceptional concentrations of ende mic species, and is experiencing unresolved habitat loss Myers 2000, Velozo 2000. Despite the fact that Costa Rica is touted for its conservation efforts, largely due to the extensive network of national parks covering more than 12% of the country Boza 1993 and an additional 13% in privately owned reserves Velozo 2000, a significant amount of deforestation is still occurring Sanchez Azofeifa et al. 2001. Historically, the national government of Costa Rica gave farmers undeveloped land if they tran sformed forest into agricultural production Velozo 2000. As a result, deforestation rates for all life zones in Costa Rica were greater than 7% per year between 1877 1983, higher than any earlier period < 2% per year, which significantly reduced the a mount of primary forest cover Sader and Joyce 1988. Concurrently, 60% of land ownership was distributed among private owners while only 40% remained public Velozo 2000. Presently, more than 71% of
2 forest area is under private ownership Butler 2006, Sanchez Azofeifa et al. 2001. Nevertheless, biodiversity exists in the exceedingly fragmented forests often owned by small farmers Warner 2005. It is imperative that forested land on private property outside of parks be preserved to achieve effective biodiversity protection Boza 1993, Cruz 2003, Endicott 1993, Sanchez Azofeifa et al. 2001. Yet, few incentives are offered to small farmers for protection or reforestation of these remnants. One available incentive is Costa Rica s Payments for Environm ental Services program Pagos de Servicios Ambientales , PSA. PSA is a program implemented by the Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Servicios Ambientales Forestal FONAFIFO. Since 1997, it offers landowners a yearly reward of $50 per hectare of protected forest Butler 2006. In addition, the Forest Project of the Foundation for the Development of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range FUNDECOR manages two other components of the program, reforestation and forest management, such as selective logging and agro forestry. Each has helped to sustainably maintain 13,000 hectares of forest Butler 2006, Zbinden and Lee 2005. It has been shown, however, that farm size, human capital and household economic factors influence participation in the program. These f actors favor large farm and forest owners limiting access to the more widespread small farmer Zbinden and Lee 2005. Some scientists fear that payment for ecological services, such as water, carbon and biodiversity, could even displace small farmers. Le gal frameworks for trading these services have not been established and it is suspected that transaction costs will be high suggesting that industrial plantations will be able to more easily provide these services than small farmers Lamb et al. 2005. C arbon credits are one common form of payment for ecosystem services. On a global level, the BioCarbon Fund, run by the World Bank, delivers carbon finance to many developing countries that sequester or conserve greenhouse gases World Bank 2007. However , the Carbon Trading Real Estate market in Costa Rica is not very developed due to higher prices than other Latin American countries Drost 2007. Currently, finances from the BioCarbon Fund support only one project, PSA, and the money serves only to expa nd on a specific area of the already implemented program World Bank 2007. Therefore, not only are incentives limited, but also those that are available are difficult to obtain by small farmers. Many small farmers have turned to ecotourism as a means of obtaining extra income, which, in turn, allows them to continue protecting forest remnants Cruz 2003. Lowman 2004 defines the objectives of ecotourism as providing a nature based, environmental education experience for visitors while managing this ex perience in a sustainable fashion. Additionally, ecotourism ought to optimize benefits to local people while minimizing environmental impact. More specifically, ecotourism in Costa Rica is defined by the acknowledgment that wildlife is worth more alive th an dead and more attractive to visitors when in its natural habitat reaffirming the value of biodiversity protection Henderson 2002. Still, some environmentalists believe that the economic benefits of ecotourism are not sufficient enough to motivate far mers to practice true conservation Dasenbrock 2001. For example, Garen 2000 asserts that although ecotourism is noteworthy, environmentally it does more harm than good. Negative environmental impacts resulting from ecotourism include overuse, haphaza rd development, visitor overcapacity and a lack of conservation security over the long term due to the fluctuating nature of tourism Weaver 1998. Ecotourism as an incentive to conserve cannot be ignored though. The concept of private land conservation through ecotourism is currently a major topic of conversation in Costa Rica due to the proposal of Ley para la Promoci Ã³ n de la Conservaci Ã³ n en Tierras Privadas. Approval of this proposal would allow a greater amount of private
3 landowners to obtain econom ic incentives from ecotourism Madrigal 2002. The issue of whether ecotourism leads to habitat protection and reforestation due to this economic and other incentives has not been explored. Here I assess land use on small farms in order to determine the amount of land conserved and regenerating on each property. In addition I study how important ecotourism is as motivation to protect or reforest land by conducting interviews with landowners. I expect to find a greater percent of conserved and regeneratin g land on farms that employ tourism due to the economic incentive it provides. METHODS Study Site Interviews were conducted with 19 small farmers in several small communities in Monteverde, Costa Rica and the surrounding area. These communities included: CaÃ±itas, Cebadilla, La Cruz, San Luis and Monteverde. Farms were selected at random throughout the communities though they were generally chosen based on availability. Each interview comprised of two oral surveys described below, see Appendix. The Mo nteverde region was an ideal location for this study because it is considered one of the premier ecotourism orientated communities in Central America due to its large Cloud Forest Reserve. The Reserve, established in 1972, includes 10,500 hectares and is the main ecotouristic attraction in Monteverde Monteverde 2007. The entire Monteverde Reserve complex, in cluding Bosque Eterno de los Ni Ã± os and the Santa Elena Reserve is approximately 29, 000 hectares Nadkarni and Wheelwright 2000. It is a patchwork of private reserves that, together, make up the largest private reserve complex in Central America Montverde 2007. It houses 3,000 species of plants including 750 species of trees, 400 species of birds, 160 species of amphibians, 120 species of mammals, has more named species of orchids than any other place on Earth and is an important repository for montane cloud forest biodiversity in the region Nadkarni and Wheelwright 2000. Although originally only attracting scientists, the presence of the Reserv e quickly created ecotourism in the region. Bird watchers were the first to be drawn to the area after scientists began publishing literature on the unique bird species contained within the Reserve. The influx of visitors continued to grow as Monteverde i ncreased in popularity due to literature and media Nadkarni and Wheelwright 2000. More than thirty years after the Reserve was formed, the growth of ecotourism has been unparalleled, drawing in more than 74,000 tourists per year Haley 2006. Sociologis ts, such as Forster 1964 assert that by providing a new economic base for a region, the development of one large primary tourism endeavor will result in growth of smaller tourism ventures. This is what has occurred in Monteverde Burnett 1997. Small si ngle family farms incorporating ecotouristic components, such as the ones interviewed in this study, are now the region s economic mainstay Nadkarni and Wheelwright 2000. Land Distribution The first survey, Encuesta del Uso de la Tierr a and Distribuci Ã³ n d el Bosque Appendix, was used to obtain data regarding: the overall size of the farm, the amount of land in regeneration, if any, and the amount of land conserved, if any. No definition of regenerating or conserved land was offered to the farmers. The len gth of regeneration and conservation and the prior land use
4 was also documented. In a few cases, small fragments of land the owner considered to be in regeneration or conserved, generally bordering water sources or serving as windbreaks, were left out of t he data because the landowner was unable to quantify the number of hectares. The 19 farms, ranging in size from tw o hectares to 130 hectares, were then separated into 3 categories: no tourism n = 7, small scale tourism n = 6, and large scale tourism n = 6. Farms were initially separated into whether or not they employed tourism based on the response to the Encu est a del Ecoturism o survey see Ecotourism Drivers. Those farms with tourism were broken down further, based on the frequency of tourism each landowner estimated. With one exception, this break down corresponded to the type of income ecotourism served a s Table 1. Drivers of Ecotrourism A second survey, Encuestra del Ecoturismo Appendix, was conducted in order to understand what motivated farmers to develop ecotourism on their land. Farmers were first asked whether or not they employ ecotourism ac tivities on their property. Those farms without ecotourism were asked to select a reason why they have chosen not to employ ecotourism from the list provided Appendix. The subset of farmers who participated in ecotourism were asked a series of questio ns regarding: their motivation for employing ecotourism, how long they have employed ecotourism on their property, the types of activities employed, if they received training, whether or not ecotourism is a primary or secondary source of income to other me ans, and how ecotourism on their property relates to conservation see Appendix for additional questions. In addition, a workshop on sustainable farming and agro tourism, provided by the Monteverde Coope for its farmers and guides, was observed and partic ipated in. This aided in a better understanding of selective ecotourism practices in the area, as well as the type of training that exists. Once all data were acquired, comparisons were made between small scale and large scale farms in order to determine any relationships. RESULTS Land Distribution The average percent of land in regeneration was significantly greater on private properties where the landowner employed small scale ecotourism activities Fig. 1, Kruskal Wallis Test, H = 6.0673, p = 0.04 81, N = 19. Although the average percent of conserved land appears to follow the same trend, the percentages are not statistically different Fig. 1, Kruskal Wallis Test, H = 0.0174, p = 0.9913, N = 19. Nevertheless, the raw data and Figure 1 illustrat e that a greater percent of land is in regeneration or in conservation on individual farms with small scale ecotourism activities 20% + 10.1 and 61% + 12.4 respectively followed by farms with large scale ecotourism 12% + 6.0 and 30% + 11.4 respectively and finally farms without any tourism 5% + 2.1 and 21% + 7.4 respectively. It is important to note that the areas both in regeneration and in conservation are highly fragmented in almost every case given that all but six of the farms were less than 20 hectares. TABLE 1. Income of ecotourism compared to agriculture or other means. Income Primary Secondary Equal Small Scale 0 5 1 Large Scale 5 1
5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 No Tourism Small Scale Tourism Large Scale Tourism Land category Total percent of land Regeneratrion Conservation FIGURE 1. Total percent of land regenerating SE = 2.1, 10.1, 6.0 respectively and conserved SE = 7.4, 12.4, 11.4 respectively on all farms with no tourism n = 7, small scale tourism n = 6 and large scale tou rism n = 6. Small farmers were generally able to provide an estimate of the time their land had spent in regeneration Table 2 and in conservation Table 3. No definition was ever provided to farmers regarding the difference bet ween regenerating and conserved land nor did a farmer ever question the difference. However, from the responses regarding the length of time a portion of land had been regenerating or conserved, a definition has been formed for the purpose of this study. The growth period for land described as regenerating was always less than twenty years Table 2 and was often previously used as pastureland. Conserved land was described as existing for approximately 20 years or more Table. 3, three farms noted 18 19 y ears and containing primary forest trees. In se veral instances, the landowner could state with certainty that the conserved forest on his property existed when he purchased the land and has remained in conservation during his ownership. Since the leng th of time the f orest was conserved prior to his ownership was unknown, that period of time was not recorded e.g. Current owner purchased property with a portion of conserved land 41 years ago. He has conserved the forest ever since, but does not kn ow the length of time it was in conservation prior to his arrival. The length of TABLE 2. Number of farms, from those sampled N = 19, with regenerating forest and the corresponding length of time each portion of land has spent in regeneration. < 5 yrs 5 10 yrs 11 15 yrs 16 20 yrs None No tourism 0 2 0 1 4 Small sc ale 1 2 1 1 1 Large scale 0 1 1 1 3
6 time conserved was recorded as 41 years, although it was longer in reality. Ther e fore several approximations in Table 3 may be an underestimate. ___________________________ __________________________________________ TABLE 3. Number of farms, from those sampled N = 19, with conserved forest and the corresponding length of time each portion of land has spent in conservation. < 20 yrs 20 30 yrs 31 40 yrs 41 50 yrs > 50 yrs None No tourism 2 2 1 0 1 1 Small scale 1 1 0 0 2 2 Large scale 0 0 0 2 1 3 Drivers of Ecotourism All of the properties sampled employed ecotourism as a result of the general increase in tourism in the area. This is apparent i n the relative novelty of the ecotouristic enterprises. All but one farm began employing ecotourism less than four years ago and the farm that has been employing tourism for longer has only moved into large scale ecotourism within the last few years. The motivating factors for employing tourism were consistent for both small scale and large scale tourism even though this question required a free response. The responses offered were all some variation of the following: 1 protect and conserve land for the future generation, 2 share diversity and knowledge about natural resources with others, and 3 obtain more income. Small scale and large scale touristic farms responded similarly. Half stated a response related to conservation while the other half cited economics as the main driving factor. In the case of economics, several farmers noted that ecotourism was a method of obtaining adequate income to prevent them from having to sell the land due to insufficient income from agriculture . In a few instances, a combination of the three responses was noted. Whether increased income was the primary factor did not directly coordinate with the type of income ecotourism served as see Table 1. Unanimously, farmers asserted that they would continue protecting as mu ch forest as possible, even without ecotourism, but that conservation of the forest benefited from ecotourism both directly and indirectly through: increased resources to allow more land to be set aside for conservation, opportunities to educate visitors a bout the importance of tropical conservation, and local reforestation projects. Of the farms employing tourism, all but two proved to be ecotouristic enterprises according to Lowman s 2004 definition, which requires the experience to be nature based, ed ucational and managed in a sustainable fashion. One coffee farm and a sugar farm relied on these monocultures to provide a traditional cultural experience but are not ecological in nature. Two questions, addressing the types of activities employed see T able 4 and the incorporation of an educational component were used to make the distinction between ecotourism and non ecotouristic endeavors. All but one farmer answered yes to the question regarding the incorporation of an educational component. The f armer that answered no asserted that they are working on that aspect of their endeavor and will begin to incorporate education into their tour as soon as they gain more experience with tourism. Ecotourism sustainability, Lowman s second objective of ecoto urism, was not measured directly in this study. It was noted that the majority of small scale farmers had experience with a local conservation organization or received training from Coope Monteverde on sustainable agriculture, particularly agro tourism. This method of
7 farming can contribute to greater degree of conservation but does not necessarily promote conservation by itself. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TABLE 4. Types of ecotouristic ac tivities employed by farmers in Monteverde, Costa Rica N=19. Illustrates that farms with large scale tourism rely heavily on farm tours. Lodging Bird watching Trails Farm tours Canopy tour Waterfall visits Night walks Other Small scale 1 x 2 x x 3 x 4 x x 5 x 6 x x x Large scale 1 x 2 x x x x x 3 x x x x x x 4 x x x x 5 x 6 x x Additional Observations In addition to the results provided directly by the survey responses, several observations were made through conversation and examination of each property. The first observation is that there is a general consensus amongst small landowners that protecting the forest is important. Secondly, not all landown ers had the same concept of what conservation is. The definition varied in a few cases amongst individuals from different generations and individuals with different economic mindsets. For example, on one large scale tourism farm, an elderly gentleman, th e original property owner, stated that there was no conserved forest on the property with the exception of the slopes bordering the stream. On the other hand, the young man running the tourism operation on the same property considered the coffee plants, t he main tourist attraction, to be conserved land. Finally, of the farms interviewed where examination of the property was permitted, a general observation was made that the areas conserved and in regeneration are highly fragmented. Signs of disturbance, s uch as cleared paths, a crowded understory filled with saplings and patchy canopy were all evident. In many cases, these disturbances were the result of manipulating the land to make it more suitable for the touristic activities employed on the property. DISCUSSION From the results of this study, I have determined that there are three types of private properties with tourism projects in Monteverde. Each classification can benefit from a focused
8 conservation plan. Specific strategies, in conjunction wit h a more unified understanding of the sustainable ecotourism, will maximize conservation efforts by the community. The first type of property is land that would be conserved with or without tourism because it is not providing any significant service or act ing as a detriment to the landowner. The second type is land whose maintenance benefits from ecotourism directly. Lastly are the properties that are not actually ecotouristic, but could increase their benefit to the environmental by functioning in a sust ainable manner with regards to both agriculture and tourism. In recent years, conservation easements have been created in Monteverde to protect specific key habitats such as that of the Resplendent Quetzal Schwartz 2001. Conservation of properties with land that would be conserved with or without tourism ought to be targeted using this strategy. If all the properties with land that has been conserved for 40 years or more Table 3 were put under easement, just under 50% of the conserved land recorded i n this study would be under long term biodiversity protection. An easement is restrictions placed on individual properties in order to protect its associated resources. Restrictions necessary to protect biodiversity are implemented ensuring that the land owner still owns and is able to use the land Nature Conservancy 2007. One significant advantage of a conservation easement is that restrictions remain effective even if ownership changes. Therefore, unlike Costa Rica s PSA program which is only effecti ve for periods of five to ten years, conservation through easements remains for generations so long as a municipal or community organization continues to enforce the regulations Nature Conservancy 2007, Velozo 2000. With regards to property directly bene fiting from ecotourism, specific measures need to be implemented to ensure that the negative side effects of tourism do not undermine conservation of the land where ecotourism is employed. Negative effects can be induced by a number of factors including, but not limited to, visitor overcapacity, haphazard adjacent development and inadequate enforcement of protected areas Weaver 1998. A community organization, such as the Monteverde Conservation League, ought to create, implement and oversee the enforcem ent of regulations on ecotourism that ensure the greatest social, economic and environmental benefit to the landowner and the community. Prior studies have demonstrated that tourists would be willing to pay an extra US$1 if it contributed to conservation efforts, which has led to the suggestion of a flat rate ecotax in Monteverde Haley 2006. An ecotax, by definition, is designed to pay for the negative impact of humans on the environment Backhaus 1998 and could therefore be a justified source of fundi ng for the education of farmers and enforcement of ecotourism regulations. One component of the education of farmers that needs attention is the ways ecotourism can benefit conservation. Farmers responses suggest that there is a strong belief that conse rvation requires increased financial resources and opportunities to educate outsiders. From the viewpoint of biodiversity, these mentalities are human centric. Although these factors can contribute to conservation there are ways farmers can increase biod iversity protection without the contribution of these anthropological factors. Addressing these issues would also help to unify the understanding of what conserved land is. Eliminating the confusion seen in a few cases in this study could only increase t he effectiveness of conservation in the area. Lastly, examination of the survey on ecotourism leads to the conclusion that two large scale tourism farms were not practicing ecotourism. Observations suggest that the large coffee and sugar crops of these tw o farms instruct tourists on how each crop is farmed but do not contribute to conservation. Although neither directly promotes conservation, they both rely on ecotourism in the area to supply tourists and ought to contribute to biodiversity protection. E nvironmental awareness on these non ecological tourism farms could be achieved through
9 common and consistent education on sustainable agriculture, which would contribute to biodiversity protection in spite of a lack of conservation on the properties. Many farmers cited conservation as their primary motivation for employing ecotourism, which supports the belief that individual landowners are instrumental in preserving the tropics Cruz 2003, Lamb et al. 2005, Vaughan 2000. In addition, all landowners inte rviewed believe that ecotourism directly contributes to conservation on their land suggesting that ecotourism can serve as a driver for conservation. Those farms benefiting from the establishment of the Reserve and its subsequent ecotourism could contribut e to increased conservation in the area by increasing connectivity with the Reserve. Such an effort would require the guidance of biologists to create strategic biological corridors on these properties. Although fragmentation can be harmful to biodiversi ty, proximity and connectivity to a large site can significantly increase species richness due to high immigration rates Aldrich 1998, Bruun 2000. This in turn, increases the ecosystem stability and will enhance forest preservation in the Monteverde regi on Worm and Duffy 2003. Connectivity in Monteverde can be accomplished by designating specific areas in need of regeneration and indicating the importance of continued conservation in other areas. Many farmers cited intent to convert more land to regen eration and conservation in the future given the increased success of ecotourism. Although these sentiments were not equally shared amongst all farmers, it is an attitude that ought to be capitalized on. Spatially targeting property for landscape preser vation has proven to be a more efficient method of conservation than extensive regulation Wear et al. 1996. In addition, effective conservation of biodiversity and key restoration of ecological function operate at the landscape level and depend on separ ately restoring sites that complement each other. While individual conservation efforts by landowners are noteworthy, they are essentially unlikely to achieve an optimal outcome Lamb et al. 2005. This suggests that the contribution of land conserved by farmers in this study to long term biodiversity protection of the Monteverde area is not optimal. Therefore, by approaching conservation at a landscape level e.g. stabilizing areas with ecological function on individual properties not only will biodive rsity conservation be enhanced, but ecosystem function will also improve resulting in direct benefits to the landowner. The lack of statistical significance for conserved land Fig. 1, Kruskal Wallis Test, H = 0.0174, p = 0.9913, N = 19 can be explained by a small sample size, variation in farm area, and the fact that not all farms contain both regenerating and conserved land. I expect that with a greater resource pool, more farms could be sampled and analyzed resulting in the same trend but with greate r accuracy. Furthermore, I suggest that future studies of conservation on small private ecotouristic farms measure sustainability of the activities directly so that full compliance with the objectives of ecotourism can be established. In addition to measu ring sustainability of ecotourism, biodiversity indicators need to be measured to determine the effectiveness of ecotourism in and around conserved areas. In addition, comparing a sample of small farms with ecotourism in Monteverde to another area less re nowned for conservation is recommended. This type of study would aid in determining whether or not ecotourism in Monteverde could serve as a model of conservation strategy for other areas in Costa Rica and globally.
10 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study would not h ave been possible without the assistance, coordination and generosity of many individuals. I would like to thank all the landowners who granted me the opportunity to meet with them and learn about their farms and their lives. I extend special thanks to G uillermo Vargas and Coope Monteverde for providing me with resources and the opportunity to participate in a community workshop. I would also like to acknowledge the help of my home stay family and neighbors at Finca Santamaria. Living on an agro tourist ic farm with people who know the community aided in making contacts and finding study sites. I would like to thank Carmen Rojas for inspiring my interest in the subject of ecotourism and Alan Masters for guiding me through the process of scientific writin g. Finally, I would like to thank everyone at the EstaciÃ³n BiolÃ³gica de Monteverde for providing insight and knowledge regarding tropical ecology and conservation and introducing me to an aspect of science I had yet to explore. LITERATURE CITED ALDRICH , P.E. AND J.L. HAMRICK. 1998. Reproductive dominance of pasture trees in a fragmented tropical forest mosaic. Science 281: 103 105. BOZA, M.A. 1993. Conservation in action: past, present, and future of the national park system of Costa Rica. Conserva tion Biology Vol. 7 No. 2. BACKHAUS, J.G. 1998. The law and economics of environmental taxation: when should the ecotax kick in? University of Maastrict. Netherlands. Pp 2 3. BRUUN H.H. 2000. Deficit in community species richness as explained by are a and isolation of sites. Diversity and Distributions 6: 129 135. BURNETT, J. 1997. In Eco crazed Costa Rica, Monteverde provides a model of nature tourism. www.monteverdeinfo.com. BUTLER, R.A. 2006. Costa Rica a place out of time: tropical rainfor ests and the perils they face. www.mongabay.com. CRUZ, K. E d.. 2003. The real Costa Rica: your community based tourism guide. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo: San Jose, C.R.: 17. DASENBROCK , J. 2001. The pros and cons of ecotouri sm in Costa Rica: 5. DROST, A. 2007. A new market: real estate and carbon trading. www.tropisphere.com/carbon neutral information. ENDICOTT, E. 1993. Land conservation through public/ private partnerships. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: 105, 129 130. FORSTER, J. 1964. The sociological consequences of tourism. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 52: 217 227. as in COHEN, E. 1984. The sociology of tourism: approaches, issues and findings. Annual Review of Sociology: 373 392. G AREN. 2000. in DASENBROCK , J. 2001. The pros and cons of ecotourism in Costa Rica HALEY, C. 2006. The price we pay: Ecotourism s contribution to conservation in Monteverde, Costa Rica. Council on International Educational Exchange, Tropical Ecology a nd Conservation: Fall. Pp. 242 257. HENDERSON, C.L. 2002. Field guide to the wildlife of Costa Rica. University of Texas Press: Austin. Pp.8 9.
11 LAMB D., P.D. ERSKINE AND J.A. PARROTTA. 2005. Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Scienc e Vol. 310. LOWMAN, M. 2004. Ecotourism and its impact on forest conservation. www.actionbioscience.org/environment/lowman.html. MADRIGAL, Q.J. 2002. Ley para la promocion de la conservacion en tierras privadas. MONTEVERDE 2007. http://www.monteverd einfo.com/other_activities.htm . MYERS, N.R. ET AL. 200. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. NATURE 403: 853 858. NADKARNI N.M., N.T. WHEELWRIGHT Eds.. 2000. Monteverde: ecology and conservation of a tropical cloud forest. Oxford Univ ersity Press: New York. Pp. 50, 74, 224, 355. NATURE CONSERVANCY. 2007. Conservation easements. http://www.nature.org. SADER, S.A. AND A.T. JOYCE. 1988. Deforestation rates and trends in Costa Rica, 1940 to 1983. Biotropica 201: 11 19. SANCHEZ AZOFEIFA, G.A., R.C. HARRISS AND D. L. SKOLE. 2001. Deforestation in Costa Rica: a quantitative analysis using remote sensing imagery. Biotropica 333: 378 384. SCHWARTZ, H. 2001. Conservation easements: an international movement. Branching Out. ht tp://www.treesfoundation.org/publications/article 67. VAUGHN, D. 2000. Tourism and biodiversity: a convergence of interests? International Affairs Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944 Vol. 76 No. 2: 283 297. VELOZO, R. 2000. Costa Rica: Fo rest strategy and the evolution of land use. World Bank Publications WARNER, M. 2005. The role of primary forest on tropical avian communities in a mixed agricultural landscape. Council on International Educational Exchange, Tropical Ecology and Conser vation, Fall. Pp. 163. WEAR, D.N., M.G. TURNER AND R.O. FLAMM. 1996. Ecosystem management with multiple owners: landscape dynamics in a southern Appalachian watershed. Ecological Applications 64: 1173 1188. WEAVER. 1998. Ecotourism in a less develo ped world. WORLD BANK. 2007. Carbon Finance Unit. www.carbonfinance.org. WORM B. AND J.E. DUFFY. 2003. Biodiversity, productivity and stability in real food webs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol. 18 No. 12: 628 632. ZBINDEN, S. AND D.R. LEE . 2005. Paying for environmental service: an analysis of participation in Costa Rica s PSA program. World Developement Vol. 33 No. 2: 255 272. APPENDIX Encuesta del Uso del Tierra and Distribucion del Bosque Nombre: Fecha: DirecciÃ³n del Fin ca: Numero: 1. Tiene bosque que estÃ¡n en regeneraciÃ³n en su propriedad?
12 Ã°o SÃ, conteste de la a. a la e. a. # Ha de la finca en total?_____ b. # Ha para la agricultura/ pastizal?_____ c. # Ha en regeneraciÃ³n?_____ d. Hace cuanto aÃ±os empezÃ³ la regeneraciÃ³n?_ ____ e. CuÃ¡l era el uso antes de regeneraciÃ³n?___________________________________ Foto #:_____, CategorÃa:_____ DescripciÃ³n:_____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Ã°o No, conteste de la f. a la i. f. # Ha de la finca en total?_____ g. # Ha para la agricultura/ pastizal?_____ h. # Ha en otro uso?_____, especificar cual:________________________________ i. SolÃa tener bosque conservado en su propiedad? Ã°o SÃ, describe el uso acutal de esta tierra:________________________________ Ã°o No Foto #:_____, CategorÃa:_____ DescripciÃ³n:__________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 2. Tiene bosque que estÃ¡ conservado en su propriedad? Ã°o SÃ, conteste de la j. a la n. j. # Ha de la finca en total?_____ k. # Ha para la agricultura/ pastizal?_____ l. # Ha en conservaciÃ³n?_____ m. Hace cuanto aÃ±os empezÃ³ la conservaciÃ³n?_____ n. CuÃ¡l era el uso antes de conservaciÃ³n?__________________________ _________ Foto #:_____, CategorÃa:_____ DescripciÃ³n:_____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Ã°o No, conteste de la o. a la r. o. # Ha de la finca en total?_____ p. # Ha para l a agricultura/ pastizal?_____ q. # Ha en otro uso?_____, especificar cual:________________________________ r. SolÃa tener bosque conservado en su propiedad? Ã°o SÃ, describe el uso acutal de esta tierra:________________________________ Ã°o No Foto #:_____, CategorÃa :_____ DescripciÃ³n:_____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Encuesta del Ecoturismo
13 Nombre: 1. Incorpora, o incorporarÃ¡, actividades del ecoturismo en su finca? Ã°o SÃ, co nteste de la a. a la k. a. Hae cuanto aÃ±os empezÃ³, o cuando empezarÃ¡, a emplear, el ecoturismo?_____ b. CuÃ¡l es su motivaciÃ³n para emplear ecoturismo?___________________________ c. Que tipos de actividades emplea? Marque todas las que aplican Ã°o Hospedaje Ã°o Obse rvaciÃ³n de aves Ã°o Senderos Ã°o Visitas a la finca, Que tipo del cultivo cafÃ©, orgÃ¡nico, etc?_______________ Ã°o Visitas a canopy tours Ã°o Visitas a cataratas Ã°o Caminatas nocturnas Ã°o Otras:__________________________________________________________ d. Incorpora un componente de educaciÃ³n en sus actividades de ecoturismo? Ã°o SÃ, describa:_____________________________________________________ Ã°o No e. Siente que el ecoturismo en su propiedad contribuye a la conservaciÃ³n? Ã°o SÃ, describa:_________________________________ ____________________ Ã°o No f. En comparaciÃ³n con la agricultura o otro trabajo, el ingreso de ecoturismo es? Ã°o Secundario Ã°o Principal g. Tiene la intenciÃ³n de cambiar el uso de algunas de sus tierras de agricultura/ pastizal a conservada/ regenerada porque por e l Ã©xito del tourismo? Ã°o SÃ Ã°o No h. De donde obtuvo la idea del ecoturismo? Ã°o ObservaciÃ³n propia Ã°o Vecino/ Amigo Ã°o OrganizaciÃ³n Social o de la Comunidad Ã°o Otra:___________________________________________________________ i. RecibiÃ³ entrenamiento o educaciÃ³n sobr e la industria del ecoturismo? Ã°o SÃ,describa:______________________________________________________ Ã°o No j. Recibe dinero de Pago Servicios Ambientales por sus tierras? Ã°o SÃ, describa:_____________________________________________________ Ã°o No k. Sin ecoturismo, contuarÃa protegiendo los bosque por conservaciÃ³n/ regeneraciÃ³n? Ã°o SÃ Ã°o No, que harÃa con ellos?____________________________________________ Ã°o No, conteste de la a.
14 a. CuÃ¡l es el razÃ³n principal para no emplear ecoturismo? Ã°o Yo tengo bosque protegidos, per o no tengo interÃ©s Ã°o No tengo tierra suficientes Ã°o No hay apoya financiero para empezar Ã°o No hay informaciÃ³n de cÃ³mo empeza Ã°o Otro, Especificar:_________________________________________________ Notas:_______________________________________________________ _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ _____ _________________________________________________________________________ Land Use and Forest Distribution Survey Name: Date Interviewed: Farm Location: Contact Number: 3. Do you have regenerating forest on your land? Ã°o Yes, please answer a e s. # Ha the farms contains in total?_____ t. # Ha for farming/ pastureland?_____ u. # Ha regenerating?_____ v. When did you set aside this land for regeneration?_____ w. What was the land s prior use?_________________________________________ Picture #:_____, Rankin g:_____ Description:___________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Ã°o No, please answer f i x. # Ha the farms contains in total?_____ y. # Ha for farming/ pastureland?_____ z. # Ha other use?_____, please specify:___________________________________ aa. Did you ever have regenerating forest on your land? Ã°o Yes, please describe what this land is used for now:______________________ Ã°o No Picture #:_____, Ranking:_____ Description:___________ ________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 4. Do you have conserved forest on your land? Ã°o Yes, please answer j n bb. # Ha the farms contains in total?_____
15 cc. # Ha for farming/ pastureland ?_____ dd. # Ha conserved?_____ ee. When did you set aside this land for conservation?_____ ff. What was the land s prior use?_________________________________________ Picture #:_____, Ranking:_____ Description:_______________________________________________________ ____ _____________________________________________________________________ Ã°o No, please answer o r gg. # Ha the farms contains in total?_____ hh. # Ha for farming/ pastureland?_____ ii. # Ha other use?_____, please specify:___________________________________ jj. Did you ever have conserved forest on your land? Ã°o Yes, please describe what this land is used for now:______________________ Ã°o No Picture #:_____, Ranking:_____ Description:___________________________________________________________ ______________________________ _______________________________________ Ecotourism Survey Name: 2. Do you incorporate, or plan to incorporate, ecotourism activities on your farm? Ã°o Yes, please answer a k a. When did you begin, or plan to begin, employing ecotourism?_____ b. What is your motiva tion for employing ecotourism?________________________ c. What types of activities do you employ? Please check all that apply Ã°o Lodging Ã°o Bird watching Ã°o Trails Ã°o Farming Tours, What type of crop coffee, organic, etc?__________________ Ã°o Canopy Tours Ã°o W aterfall Tours Ã°o Night Walks Ã°o Other, describe:__________________________________________________ d. Do you incorporate an educational component into your tourism activities? Ã°o Yes, please describe:______________________________________________ Ã°o No e. Do you fe el that ecotourism on your property contributes to conservation? Ã°o Yes, please describe:______________________________________________ Ã°o No f. Do you consider the income from ecotourism to be supplemental to farming or primary?
16 Ã°o Supplemental Income Ã°o Primary Income g. In the future, do you intend to convert any land used for farming/ pastures to conserved/ regeneration as a result of ecotourism success? Ã°o Yes Ã°o No h. Where did the idea of ecotourism originate? Ã°o Own observation Ã°o Neighbor/ Friend Ã°o Community or Soc ial Organization Ã°o Other:__________________________________________________________ i. Did you receive any training or education on the ecotourism industry? Ã°o Yes, please describe:______________________________________________ Ã°o No j. Do you receive money from P ago Servicios Ambientales for any portion of your land? Ã°o Yes, please describe?______________________________________________ Ã°o No k. Without ecotourism, would you continue to set aside forest for conservation/ regeneration? Ã°o Yes Ã°o No, what would you use it for?______________________________________ Ã°o No, please answer a a. What is the main reason for not employing ecotourism? Ã°o Have sufficient land, but no interest/ do not need the income Ã°o Do not have sufficient land Ã°o Lack of financial support for starting Ã°o Lack of informational support on starting Ã°o Other, please specify:______________________________________________ Notes:_____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________