Almeyda, Broadbent, Wyman & Durham- Ecotourism Impacts in the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica

8/12/2019 Almeyda, Broadbent, Wyman & Durham- Ecotourism Impacts in the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica

1/17

ABSTRACT

Ecotourism promotes responsible travel tonatural areas, environmental conservationand the well-being of local communities.Eco-lodges are an important component ofecotourism ventures but an infrequentlyresearched component of this field.Considering their influence on the naturalenvironment (design and operation) andlocal communities (employment practicesand purchases), the success of ecotourismdepends, in part, on the performance ofeco-lodges. This project studies the effects ofthe Punta Islita (PI) eco-lodge on the NicoyaPeninsula, Costa Rica. An interdisciplinarynested-scale analysis, combining guest and

household interviews with multi-temporalremote sensing analysis of forest coverchange of the lodge and surrounding areas,is used to evaluate the environmental,economic and social impacts of ecotourism inthe region. Our results show significantpositive contributions of the PI eco-lodge onforest cover, environmental conservation,and local economic incomes within thesurrounding communities. For locallivelihoods, the PI eco-lodge was seen ashaving positive social, cultural and economic

impacts for nearly all societal variables forboth employees and their neighbours. The PIeco-lodge was also perceived as reducingalcoholism, drug addiction and prostitution,where conventional tourism on the Peninsulawas shown to increase these societal ills.

Land value and product pricing were the fewvariables believed to have increased as aresult of tourism on the Peninsula. Forconservation, the PI eco-lodge property hadthe highest rates of reforestation within theNicoya Peninsula and remains the scale mostreforested in both forest cover change andtotal forest cover. In fact, at the landscapescale, we find that the Pacific coast of theNicoya, where the bulk of ecotourism occurs,has undergone reforestation, whereas forestinteriors have been deforested. Historically,reforestation occurred as cattle ranchingcredit programs were halted by thegovernment and households in the area leftto find better job opportunities. The PIeco-lodge, as a source of good employment,

resulted in worker migration back to thesurrounding area, resulting, in some cases, inincreased deforestation. Overall, we feel thatthe PI eco-lodge serves as an example ofsuccessful ecotourism. However, increasingdevelopment in the region, in particular bystandard hotel operations and large condodevelopments, seeks to capitalise on theregions natural beauty and may reverse landcover trends if they are not accompanied byadequate forest conservation strategies andstresses the importance of monitoring and

assessing the impacts of accommodationstied to nature-based tourism operations.Copyright 2010 John Wiley &Sons, Ltd.

Received 6 September 2009; Revised 7 February 2010; Accepted23 June 2010

Keywords:ecotourism; nested scale analysis;land cover change.

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCHInt. J. Tourism Res.12, 803819 (2010)Published online 27 July 2010 in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.797

Ecotourism Impacts in the NicoyaPeninsula, Costa Rica

Angelica M. Almeyda

1,2,3,

*, Eben N. Broadbent

2,4

, Miriam S. Wyman

5

and William H. Durham

1,3

1Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA2Department of Global Ecology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA3Center for Responsible Travel, Washington, District of Columbia, USA4Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA5Department of Environment and Society, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA

*Correspondence to: A. M. Almeyda, Department ofAnthropology, Main Quad, Building 50, 450 Serra Mall,Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2034, USA.E-mail: [email protected]


2/17

804 A. M. Almeydaet al.

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res.12, 803819 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr

INTRODUCTION

Ecotourism and eco-lodges

T

he hotel sector in Costa Rica has grownover 400% from 1987 to 2000 (INCAE,

2000), corresponding with the increasein tourism from roughly 250 000 in 1987 to 1million in 1999. There has been an ongoingdebate on the role hotels have played innature conservation within Costa Rica.Although empirical evidence generally sup-ports hotels as having key roles as partners ofthe national park system, other evidence indi-cates that the rapid growth of hotels is intensi-fying environmental problems around manypopular national parks (Rivera, 1998; Daviesand Cahill, 1999; INCAE, 2000; Jones et al.,

2001).Eco-lodges are different from tourist hotels

in that they specifically strive to adhere to theprinciples of ecotourism (Hawkins et al., 1995).Ecotourism (a form of sustainable tourism)seeks to (1) have a minimal environmentalimpact, (2) promote conservation, and (3)improve local livelihoods through empower-ment and socio-economic benefits (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1987; Scheyvens, 1999; Christ et al.,2003). Nevertheless, unease remains with eco-lodges in Costa Rica with the concern that as

nature-based tourism has rapidly grown, sotoo has eco-lodge development, and oftenwithin or near natural areas and with detri-mental environmental and social impacts(Metha, 2006). If one considers the potentialinfluence eco-lodges have on local communi-ties (e.g. employment practices and purchases)and the natural environment (e.g. design andoperation), the success of ecotourism in anarea depends, in part, on the performance ofeco-lodges.

Research has addressed ecotourism frommany different disciplines and angles fromcommunity-based ecotourism (e.g. Getz &

Jamal, 1994; Belsky, 1999; Wunder, 2000;Manyara and Jones, 2007; Wyman and Stein,2010) to impacts to the natural environmentand wildlife (e.g. Jacobson and Lopez, 1994;Obua, 1997; Jim, 2000; Marion and Reid, 2007).However, despite the importance of accom-modation services in ecotourism, such aseco-lodges, their impacts have rarely been

addressed (Osland and Mackoy, 2004; Blangyand Hitesh, 2006). There has also been verylittle attention within the ecotourism literaturegiven to critical and strategically importantareas, including the industry and qualitycontrol (Weaver and Lawton, 2007). Aside

from community-based ecotourism and insti-tutions, the ecotourism sector is dominated byprivate sector businesses (specialised, such aseco-lodges and non-specialised). Additionally,quality control and affiliated indicators would

be vital to assure social and ecological expecta-tions are met (Weaver and Lawton, 2007). Evenwhere there have been case studies presentedon ecotourism facilities (e.g. Lindberg et al.,1996; Ross and Wall, 1999; Barany et al., 2001),studies have not applied any strategic manage-ment framework to analyse impacts (Olsen

et al., 1998).

Impact analysis

Considering ecotourisms role as a tool forconservation and sustainable development(Ceballos-Lascurain, 1998), maintaining thissustainability for a site has become an impor-tant issue (Sheng-Hshiung et al., 2006). Sustain-able development implies that environmental,economic and social dimensions be taken into

consideration because they are intricatelyconnected to, and influenced by, each other(Young, 1992; McCool, 1995). Sustainabletourism stresses the importance of continualmonitoring of any tourism plan. Some types ofimpact analysis with proper planning andmonitoring can determine to what degreetourism development is consistent with pre-established conservation and communityobjectives and can keep negative impacts to aminimum (Diamantis, 1998; Olsen et al., 1998;Twining-Ward and Butler, 2002; Blangy andHitesh, 2006). Thus, a continued application ofimpact analyses is necessary to evaluatetourism development projects and correct anydiscrepancies and can also offer the added

benefit of review and improvement of certifica-tion criteria.

For assessing social impacts, it is the qualita-tive data (social and economic) that is the mostmeaningful to sustainable tourism analyses(Kalisch, 2002), but a challenge for standard


3/17

Ecotourism in the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica 805

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 803819 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr

setting and benchmarking (Wber, 2002; Fontand Harris, 2004). This is due to the fact thatinformation is not very meaningful if quanti-fied beyond basic statistics for measuring com-munity participation with a tourism enterprise(e.g. perceptions towards crowdedness, income

and employment) (Moore et al., 2003). Whenassessing environmental impacts, however,remote sensing data provide information onthe differences in land-cover characteristics onspatial and temporal levels and have beenused on a wide range of analyses, one of whichis forest change detection (DiFiore, 2002;Southworth et al., 2004).

Ecotourism will have the best chance ofmaintaining responsible actions when backed

by clear consistent standards. The Certificationfor Sustainable Tourism (CST) developed in

Costa Rica, a good example of such a system,monitors a variety of social and environmentalimpacts including emissions, conservation andprotection of fauna and flora, and cultural andeconomic impacts.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to evaluate theenvironmental and social impacts of the PuntaIslita (PI) eco-lodge, located on Costa Ricas

Nicoya Peninsula. We tested the value of eco-tourism using PI as a model case study, as aconservation and development tool, and alsosought to test the utility and value of the sup-porting certification system (PI is top-ranked

by Costa Ricas CST). The relevance of certifi-cation is that by operationalising definitions ofecotourism, it will endeavour to improveindustry performance and influence markets(Font, 2001; Buckley, 2002). Specifically, thisstudy strived to understand residents opin-ions regarding socio-cultural, environmental

and economic costs and benefits. In addition,this study evaluated the local environmentalchanges experienced since PI began its opera-tions in 1994, using remote sensing. Theprimary questions that guided our investiga-tion were as follows:

1. What have been the main social, economicand environmental impacts positiveand negative of ecotourism at the PIEco-lodge on the Nicoya Peninsula?

2. Have conservation efforts at the lodge beenof sufficient magnitude and duration toreduce deforestation?

3. Has PI had an identifiable impact on localenvironmental awareness, and specificallyhas it contributed to the spread of conser-

vation ethics in the area?

METHODS

Study site

Costa Rica is a forerunner in the developmentand certification of sustainable tourism busi-nesses and a model for nations seeking tomanage tourism responsibly. Within CostaRica, Hotel PI, is acclaimed for its dedication tocommunity development and environmental

conservation. PI eco-lodge is privately ownedand situated amidst secondary forest on thePacific-facing side of the Nicoya Peninsula(Figure 1). PI eco-lodge developed from a tradi-tional cattle and timber ranch operation. Thisrural area was initially developed for timberextraction in the 1940s, but once the precioustimbers were exhausted, the area tuned towardscattle ranching and later to agriculture untilgovernment agricultural incentives ended. Bythe mid-1990s, most families had migratedtowards urban areas for employment. The land

was later divided into three independent butinterlinked entities PI eco-lodge, Forestalesand Lomas de Islita. PI has invested in the localcommunities through art education, micro-enterprise development, local workforce train-ing and promotion, economic equality forwomen and children through handicraft pro-duction and general infrastructural improve-ments. Fostering private and public collaboration,PI has combined a for-profit hotel with a com-munity-based foundation. Both entities arededicated to sustainable tourism and adhere tothe Costa Rican-based certification system, CST.

Data collection

Data collection used an interdisciplinarynested-scale methodology (see Almeyda et al.,2010 for detailed description) combiningspatial analyses of forest cover and changeusing remote sensing with extensive in depthinterviews with local households, semi-


4/17



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

structured interviews with community leadersand self administered questionnaires for hotelguests. Each scale includes opportunities toassess and monitor multi-temporal environ-mental and socio-cultural changes, as well as

building up from information derived fromfiner scales (Figure 2). The largest scale, land-scape, is equivalent to the entire Nicoya Pen-insula and provided the context within whichthe finer scale levels were evaluated. Secondlargest in extent is the community scale, whichincluded five communities within PIs spatialand cultural areas of influence. Third is thehousehold scale, which included both house-holds influenced by PI indirectly (such as

proximity) or directly (through personalemployment). The final scale, Punta Islita,spatially includes the PI property, as well astwo additional adjacent properties managed byPI ownership, and socially includes individuals

associated with the eco-lodge (owners, opera-tors, tourists and employees). The complemen-tary scales and methods used at multiplelocations provided a better understanding ofthe diverse ecotourism impacts.

Spatial analyses.Landsat satellite imagery span-ning from 1975 until 2008 was acquired fromonline databases. Images were georeferencedto a base image generated through a NASA

Figure 1. Close up of Punta Islita properties. Red =Lomas, white =Punta Islita Hotel, blue =Forestales. (A)A color composite 2001 Landsat image. (B) Courtesy of Google Earth. Green areas represent forest cover;pink areas are developed, pasture or agricultural areas.

Figure 2. Nested scales of analysis used in this study, showing key methods used at each level to assess theimpact of ecotourism on the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica.


5/17



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

directive to generate a global database of ortho-rectified Landsat imagery covering all terres-trial areas (http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/research/portal/geocover/). Root mean squareerrors of the warp models used to georeferenceimages to the base image was less than 0.5 pixel

(or 15 m). Radiance imagery was converted topseudo-reflectance using log residuals. Cloudand cloud shadow areas within each imagewere manually removed. Multiple image dateswere merged to minimise land area not visibledue to clouds or striping due to scan line cor-rection malfunction in the Landsat ETM+20072008 images. Following collection of forest,pasture and water spectral endmembers uniqueto each merged image, the spectral angle mapperalgorithm was used to classify each 30 m 30 mLandsat pixel per satellite image into forest and

non-forest classes. Areas outside the NicoyaPeninsula were removed from the study area.

An accuracy assessment was performedusing 126 ground control points spreadthroughout agriculture, pasture, secondaryforest and forest plantations within the NicoyaPeninsula. Geographic coordinates of theselocations were collected during September2008 using a handheld geographic positioningsystem. This assessment was performedagainst the 2008 image classification as rapidland cover transformations have been occur-

ring throughout the peninsula. We employeda classification approach independent of fieldpoints and designed to encompass the vari-ability due to satellite sensor differences.Analyses of the 2008 forest/non-forest classifi-cation calculated a users accuracy and kappacoefficient of 92% and 0.83, respectively.Forest plantations were classified as forests88% of the time.

Analyses of land cover changes were per-formed at multiple scales (Figure 3): (1) the PIeco-lodge, Lomas and Forestales properties; (2)a 1.5-km buffer surrounding the five maincommunities within which PI employees lived;(3) a 1.5-km buffer surrounding PI property;(4) and the Pacific and interior sections of theNicoya Peninsula. Temporal analysis includedonly pixels that were not obstructed by atmo-spheric issues in any study year. These scalesassessed land cover changes in the PI propertycompared with surrounding areas and theentire peninsula. Comparison between change

trajectories at the community scale assessedgeneral impacts of PI employees and non-tour-ism-affiliated neighbours on the peninsulasforest cover.

Socio-economic analyses. Socio-economic data

were collected using questionnaires, relateddata, and formal and informal interviews.Questionnaires were applied, and field visitstook place in September 2008. Interviews wereconducted with PI owners, operators and man-agers, as well as with locals involved in PIscommunity projects. In-depth questionnaire-

based surveys were conducted with a sampleof PI employees and neighbours not workingat PI eco-lodge.

At the landscape level, PI staff and neigh-bours were interviewed about the develop-

ment of the Nicoya Peninsula. At the communityscale, semi-structured interviews were con-ducted with community elders and partici-pants of PI-supported development projects(N = 15). We asked elders about economicactivities and cultural values that pre-date PI.We asked art group participants on the impactsthe projects have had on their well-being. Atthe household level, researchers conductedin-depth questionnaire-based surveys withhousehold heads, including both husband andwife whenever possible, for a total of 63 house-

holds (45 had at least one member employedby PI and 17 not employed by PI, but mayreceive income from tourism-related activi-ties). In-depth surveys included householddemography and education, land use prac-tices, income and expense sources, perceivedtourism impacts and knowledge of key con-cepts in ecology and ecotourism. Contingencytables, Pearson coefficients and Wilconxon/KruskalWallis rank sum analyses statisticallycompared PI employees and their neighbours.Several questions required quantitative inter-pretation or transformation prior to statisticalcomparison, presented side by side with theresults. Non-parametric statistics were used toavoid skewness and non-normality, as manyof the variables were ordinal or categorical.

At the PI scale, semi-structured interviewswere conducted with management on PIspast, present and future; the relationship

between PI and local communities and institu-tions in the Peninsula; and PI staff. PI guests


6/17



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

took short, self-administered questionnaire-based surveys on their trip, trip expenses andtourism development in PI. A random sampleof 45 employees was selected for in-depthsurveys, representing 32% of total employ-ment (N = 140). Employees identified theirclosest neighbours, if applicable, not employed

by a tourism-related company. The same in-depth survey was then conducted with theseneighbours, providing a control for issues of

spatial auto-correlation of access and environ-mental variables.

RESULTS

Spatial analyses

An increase in forest cover occurred from 1975to 1987 (Table 1) and from 1975 to 2008 for allstudy scales (Figure 4). From 1975 to 1987, the

Figure 3. Study areas and community names addressed in this study. The Punta Islita hotel property (red),Lomas (light blue) and Forestales (orange) properties, shown in the close up image, were compared withland cover changes in areas surrounding these properties, areas surrounding the five principal towns withinwhich Punta Islita employees lived and with Pacific and interior portions of the entire Nicoya Peninsula(divisions shown in red). Green areas on the peninsula are forested areas, whereas pink areas are developed,pasture or agricultural areas.


7/17



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Table 1. Proportion forest cover at all scales during study years

Study area Area (ha)

Proportion forest in study year

2008 2001 1987 1975

PI property 27 0.76 0.66 0.78 0.04PI Lomas 233 0.56 0.61 0.88 0.21

PI Forestales 236 0.82 0.81 0.88 0.14PI, all 1.5-km buffer 1870 0.7 0.71 0.88 0.3Colonia del Valle, 1.5-km buffer 468 0.45 0.32 0.57 0.08Corozalito, 1.5-km buffer 713 0.35 0.35 0.81 0.08Islita, 1.5-km buffer 667 0.66 0.64 0.88 0.16Pilas de Bejuco, 1.5-km buffer 783 0.41 0.49 0.8 0.19Pueblo Nuevo, 1.5-km buffer 625 0.36 0.44 0.86 0.22Nicoya Peninsula 502 353 0.36 0.43 0.51 0.19Nicoya Pacific Coast 202 639 0.51 0.57 0.68 0.27Nicoya Interior 299 714 0.26 0.34 0.39 0.14

All pixels having either cloud issues or water present in any study year were removed prior to calculating spatialstatistics.

PI, Punta Islita.

Figure 4. All categories ranked according to the proportion increase in forest cover from 1975 to 1987 andfrom 1975 to 2008.


8/17



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

entire peninsula increased from 19% to 51%forest cover. However, from 1975 to 2008, pen-insula trends are split; the interior portiondecreased to 26%, while the Pacific coast regiondecreased to 36% forest cover. The PI eco-lodgeproperty increased in forest cover from 4% to

76% during this same time period, with only asmall decrease of 2% from 1987 to 2008. The PIproperty remains the scale most reforested in

both forest cover change and total forest cover.The surrounding communities have experi-enced similar changes in forest cover from1975 to 1987, with all increasing from almostentirely pastoral or agricultural areas in 1975to 5080% forest cover by 1987. Of the fivestudy communities, the community of Islita,followed by Colonia del Valle, experienced thegreatest reforestation between 1975 and 2008.

Socio-economic surveys: guests

In total, 39 tourists filled out questionnaires.Demographic information was obtained but is

not presented in this paper. Of relevance tothis study, median visit to PI was 4 days of atotal median 9-day trip to Costa Rica. Almostall guests were visiting PI for the first time,were completely satisfied with their stay (mean4.5/5) and were very likely to return (mean

4.5/5). On average, tourists spent US$1815while at PI, including travel there from withinCosta Rica, with 55% of tourists using a tourpackage. Guests, on average, would be willingto spend an additional US$138 to make the trippossible and US$25 to support the natural andcultural patrimony of the area. In general,outdoor beauty and luxury were of greatestimportance and met or exceeded expectations.Two exceptions occurred in food, dining andgeneral affordability. Of less importance werelocal customs, architecture and sustainability,

although the quality of these categoriesexceeded expectations. Of no importance toguests were medical and dental services, likelyas few required them during their stay, andentertainment (Table 2).

Table 2. Guest perceptions on importance and quality of natural andsocietal categories at PI

Category Importance Quality Delta

Scenic landscapes 4.64 4.67 0.03Lodgings 4.57 4.61 0.04Food and dining 4.46 4.30 0.16Friendly people 4.45 4.79 0.34Cleanliness/waste disposal 4.42 4.38 0.04Personal safety 4.38 4.53 0.15Outdoor recreation 4.24 4.27 0.03General affordability 4.20 3.55 0.65Lack of crowds 4.17 4.67 0.50Information availability 4.14 4.24 0.10Climate 4.05 3.97 0.08Guide services 3.89 4.24 0.35

Sustainability/responsibility 3.86 4.52 0.66Roads and transport 3.50 2.94 0.56Communications (Internet, telephone) 3.30 3.88 0.58Local arts and crafts 3.23 3.97 0.74Interesting architecture 3.11 3.53 0.42Local music, dance or customs 3.00 3.13 0.13Medical/dental services 2.64 3.03 0.39Entertainment/nightlife 2.42 2.84 0.42

Mean value of categories (all with sample size greater than 35).PI, Punta Islita.


9/17



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Socio-economic surveys: employeesand neighbours

Most 175 employees of PI (75.9%) reside withinthe Nicoya Peninsula. And of those who residewithin the Peninsula, 58.2% reside within thefour closest communities to PI (Pilas de Bejuco,Islita, Corozalito and Colonia del Valle) (Figure3). Neighbour household heads spent, on

average, twice as much time on the Peninsulaas PI employees and were significantly older(Table 3). Neighbours received 2 years or lesseducation than PI employees, while malesreceived more education than females. Otheranalyses showed that PI employees spent sig-nificantly less on utilities, but more on trans-portation and recreation than non-PI employees.PI employees received an average of 90% oftheir household income from PI (Table 4).

Tourism was seen as having positive social,cultural and economic impacts for nearly all

societal variables for PI employees and theirneighbours, with the exception of drug addic-tion, alcoholism, prostitution and productpricing increases in some parts of the NicoyaPeninsula (Table 5A). PI employees andneighbours only differed significantly onthe perceived impact of PI on hunting, withemployees viewing PI as doing more to reducehunting than their neighbours (Table 5B). Incomparing PI tourism and general tourism on

the Peninsula, PI was seen as having a signifi-cantly better impact on all societal variablesexcept health-care access, land prices andproduct prices (Table 5C); additionally, PI wasperceived as reducing alcoholism, drug addic-tion and prostitution. In comparing PI employ-ees and their neighbours opinions on thefuture desirability of more tourists on the Pen-

insula, no significant differences were foundbetween the two groups. In general, more tour-ists were desired in the future and were recog-nised as important sources of income (Table 6).

Socio-economic surveys: participants of artgroups and conservation knowledge

Since 2002, PI eco-lodge has sponsored artactivities for surrounding communities. Cur-rently, PI sponsors six different art groups (tex-tiles, ceramics, wood carving, wood painting,drift wood and candles) with art produced byresidents exhibited and sold at the PI-sponsored Casa Museo. Out of the 63 house-holds interviewed, 16 participated in an artgroup. All participants indicated the main

benefit was a change in the way they see lifeand themselves. Especially for married womanin this rural area, art groups provided anetwork of friends and escape from thedaily household routine. With respect to

Table 3. Comparison between PI employees and their neighbours on average values of socio-demographicvariables

Socio-demographic variables

Mean (SD) N

p-value TestaNeighbour Employee Neighbour Employee

Female head of household

% that was born within the Peninsula 66.7 54.8 15 31 0.45 cp Years living in current community 37.3 (20.3) 14.2 (13.2) 16 31 0.0002 w Years of education 6.9 (3.2) 8.4 (3.5) 16 31 0.13 w Age 49.5 (17.5) 30.1 (8.5) 16 31


10/17



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Table 4. Comparison between PI employees and their neighbours on average household expenses andincome stability

Variable

Meansa N

pNeighbour PI employee Neighbour PI employee

A. Distribution of household expenses

Amount Food 191.7 (95.0) 176.9 (110.3) 16 45 0.3834 Housing 0.0 (0.0) 7.7 (23.8) 16 45 0.1278 Utilities 68.4 (43.1) 33.7 (28.8) 16 45 0.0004 Transportation 5.2 (11.8) 34.9 (26.0) 16 45


11/17



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Table 5. Comparison of PI employees and their neighbours concerning the perceived impact of tourism

Category

Meansa N

p-valueNeighbour PI employee Neighbour PI employee

A. Tourism in Nicoya impactsa,b

Health 2.9 (0.2) 2.9 (0.5) 17 38 0.3564

Education 2.4 (0.6) 1.9 (0.8) 16 39 0.0445 Job training 2.2 (0.5) 1.9 (0.7) 17 34 0.2488 Hunting 2.5 (0.5) 1.8 (0.7) 17 39 0.0008 Deforestation 2.6 (0.6) 2.5 (1.2) 16 38 0.6367 Value of flora and fauna 2.3 (0.6) 2.0 (0.7) 16 36 0.1384 Land price 2.5 (1.7) 2.4 (1.8) 17 40 0.7215 Product price 3.1 (0.4) 3.4 (0.9) 16 39 0.0821 Alcoholism 3.1 (0.6) 3.5 (0.9) 17 38 0.0472 Drug addiction 3.8 (0.7) 3.8 (0.8) 15 38 0.735 Prostitution 4.1 (0.8) 3.7 (0.8) 14 35 0.0999

B. PI impactsa,b

Health 2.9 (0.4) 2.8 (0.5) 15 40 0.5351

Education 1.9 (0.8) 1.7 (0.8) 16 40 0.1626 Job training 1.3 (0.4) 1.3 (0.6) 16 42 0.9628 Hunting 2.1 (0.8) 1.6 (0.7) 16 41 0.0144 Deforestation 2.1 (0.5) 1.9 (0.9) 15 37 0.2439 Value of flora and fauna 1.7 (0.8) 1.7 (0.7) 15 37 0.6151 Land price 2.3 (1.8) 2.6 (1.8) 15 42 0.5043 Product price 3.0 (0.4) 3.4 (0.9) 15 41 0.085 Alcoholism 2.5 (0.8) 2.1 (1.2) 14 41 0.1992 Drug addiction 1.6 (0.7) 2.0 (1.0) 12 41 0.2132 Prostitution 2.1 (0.8) 1.9 (1.0) 12 37 0.5679

C. Comparison between Nicoya tourism and PI impactsb,c

Nicoya Punta Islita Nof households Health 2.9 2.8 52 0.135 Education 2.0 1.7 52 0.003 Job training 2.0 1.3 49


12/17



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

economic benefits to local residents that woulddiscourage forest conversion to other uses,employment in ecotourism-related activitieshad little impact on household conservationattitudes or practices. Lastly, too many visitorshave led to unsustainable usage and degrada-tion to natural areas (Farrell and Marion, 2001;Kruger, 2005). The challenge to ecotourism thenis to overcome such issues to meet the stated

objectives of responsibility.

Spatial analyses

On the landscape level, the PI property expe-rienced the greatest reforestation and mainte-nance of forest cover. From 1975 to 1987, theentire Peninsula experienced a surge of refor-estation, resulting in a 30% increase in forestcover from 19% to 51%, most likely from large-scale abandonment of cattle operations follow-ing loss of incentives. During this time, the PI

property increased 75% in forest cover, from 4to 78%. Following 1987, the general trendwithin the Peninsula showed decreasing forestcover, but the PI property maintained its forestcover with the exception of PI eco-lodge devel-opment, following trends in other touristicareas of the Nicoya Peninsula. The other PIproperties, Lomas and Forestales, followedsimilar trends through 1987, with the Lomasproperty taking a different trajectory of greater

development and maintenance of pastureareas. This has occurred, in part, as PI hotelowners are not in direct control of this prop-erty but are part of the development-mindedcounsel in charge of its use. The surroundingcommunities also experienced the surge ofreforestation of the 1970s and 1980s due to adecline in cattle and agriculture resulting inemigration from the area in 1975 to 5080%

forest cover by 1987. More recent job opportu-nities, largely at PI or PI related, have broughtpeople back into these communities and can beattributed to the deforestation occurring inthese communities in the last decade. Of thefive study communities, Islita, followed byColonia del Valle, experienced the greatestreforestation between 1975 and 2008.

Socio-economic analyses

The main positive economic impact was pre-

sented in the form of employment. This isespecially important for the communitiescloser to the hotel as there are few other sourcesof employment

or training in the area. And of employeeswho reside within the Peninsula, 58.2% residewithin the four closest communities to PIeco-lodge. Studies by Alderman (1992) andLangholz (1996) of private reserves in Africaand Latin America found that over 80% of the

Table 6. Comparison of PI employees and their neighbours regarding the desirability of more tourists on theNicoya Peninsula

Variables

Count (%) N

Neighbour PI employee Neighbour PI employee

Would you like to see more tourists un the future?

Yes 16 (94) 42 (93) 17 45 Not too many and/or only good ones 7 (44) 10 (24) 17 45

Why yes? Economic income 12 (75) 32 (76) 17 45 Other 4 (25) 10 (24) 17 45

Why not, not too many and/or only good onesIdentity loss 1 1 17 45Tourists can be a bad influence 4 5 17 45Not enough land for the locals 0 3 17 45Environmental degradation 0 2 17 45

PI, Punta Islita.


13/17



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

individuals employed were from communitiesnear the reserve. Neighbour household headsnot employed by the PI eco-lodge had spent onaverage twice as much time on the peninsulaas PI employees and were significantly older.Additionally, neighbours were found to have

received 2 years or less education than PIemployees. This is not a unique finding fortourism employment. Goodwin (2003) foundtourism employment in Komodo as dominated

by males under 30 years of age. Additionally,higher education and capital levels determinedinvolvement in tourism-related industries. PIemployees received an average of 90% of theirhousehold income from PI. Where this pres-ents a potential danger is if there is a declinein the tourism industry to PI, such as the casefollowing the present economic recession

(20082009). The majority of both PI employ-ees and neighbours stated they wanted moretourists as they were important sources ofincome. The danger with relying on tourism asthe main source of income is the vulnerabilityto boom-bust cycles and seasonal fluctuationsof the tourism market (Epler Wood, 2002).Tourism, whether ecotourism or conventionaltourism, is an unstable source of income thatis not only subject to seasonal fluctuations, butalso to political unrest and natural disasters(Jacobson and Robles, 1992; Epler Wood,

2002).Another important economic impact was the

increase in land value, which is perceived bythose who own land as a positive outcome.However, the increase in land value and sub-sequent selling of land to foreigners is alsoviewed as a negative impact by some neigh-

bours interviewed. Products pricing was alsoperceived to have increased marginally as aresult of PI. Inflation of real estate prices andconsumer goods is a common impact oftourism development (De Haas, 2003). And asa result, sometimes, only those who participatein tourism-related activities can afford the newprices; those who do not are worse off than

before tourism development. While theincrease in land prices has made it difficult forlocals to purchase land in the area, it has also

been linked with an increase in reforestationand forest conservation, as properties owned

by foreigners are used for vacation residencesand not for active cattle or agriculture, or

bought by foreigners interested in forest con-servation rather than active use.

With respect to tourism benefits, severalstudies (e.g. Campbell, 1999; Gossling, 1999;Wunder, 1999, 2000; Walpole and Goodwin,2001) define tourism benefits primarily as eco-

nomic, such as cash income or employment. Infact, an assessment of the literature showedthat these benefits are the most commontourism success indicators (Agrawal andRedford, 2006). Our study found that withPIs sponsored art workshops and micro-enterprises, the economic income was a moreimportant benefit for younger participants.During the low season months, income fromart can be as low as zero and increases to anaverage monthly income of US$115 during thehigh season. However, ecotourism had other

important benefits within our study. Forexample, of the 25% of households interviewedwho have a household member involved in anart group, these participants feel an improve-ment in their well-being, from making friends,to earning an income, to seeing themselves asproductive household members. While someargue that economic benefits are paramount tosuccess, many peoples behaviours are driven

by non-financial incentives, including commu-nity projects, new skills, broader experiencesin managing people and projects, expanded

circles of contacts, etc. (Wunder, 2000; Salafskyet al., 2001; Stem et al., 2003b). These non-economic benefits have also been labeled com-munity empowerment (Scheyvens, 1999) andsocial capital (Pretty and Smith, 2003; Jones,2005) that help strengthen local institutions forresource management. Together, economicand non-economic benefits are important toidentify, and Krugers (2005) review of 251ecotourism case studies indicates that these

benefits are one of the most importantfactors in ecotourism sustainability.

Tourism was seen as having positive social,cultural and economic impacts for nearly allsocietal variables for PI employees and theirneighbours, with the exception of drug addic-tion and prostitution increasing in some partsof the Nicoya Peninsula. Tourism is often

blamed for increasing these societal ills, suchas prostitution, crime and alcoholism, which isalso sometimes attributed to imitating the

behaviour of tourists (De Haas, 2003). PI,


14/17



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

however, was perceived to reduce alcoholism,drug addiction and prostitution. Similar resultswere found in our study of the Lapa Rioseco-lodge within the Osa Peninsula (Almeydaet al., 2010) and support the claim that eco-tourism brings more benefits than conven-

tional tourism.Guests visiting PI were content with theirstay and were willing to visit again. AlthoughPI is renowned for its social and environmentalsustainability programs, these were not amongthe priorities of guests. In fact, guests rankedsustainability and responsibility and local artsand crafts close to neutral in importance, whileplacing priority on scenic landscapes andnatural beauty, good dining, friendly peopleand clean rooms. Although initially out of linewith the values espoused by PI, scenic land-

scapes, natural beauty, friendly people andpersonal safety are all directly affected by thesocial and environmental policies, includinglimiting deforestation, minimising drug andalcohol problems, and providing educationalopportunities in the surrounding areas. Guests,in spite of ranking general affordability of PIas lower than hoped, remained willing to payan additional US$138 towards the trip andUS$25 towards natural and cultural patrimonyof the area, perhaps attributed to their experi-ences at PI.

Ecotourism enterprises are expected toprovide opportunities for their employees tolearn about biodiversity, conservation, ecologyand related topics. Case studies, however,show conflicting results. Kruger (2005) arguesthat environmental education and participa-tion with surrounding communities promotesnon-consumptive use of natural resources andgreatly improves conservation. In contrast, aWallace and Pierce (1996) study in the Brazil-ian Amazon found few cases where lodgeowners or tour operators contributed to envi-ronmental education. In addition, Stem et al.(2003a) found that overall, tour operators haveno significant effect in raising environmentalawareness in local communities. However, ourpresent study and our previous study in CostaRicas Osa Peninsula (Almeyda et al., 2010)show different outcomes. The recycling pro-grams and trainings supported by the PI eco-lodge have had an identifiable impact on localenvironmental awareness and have contrib-

uted to the spread of conservation ethics in thearea. The increased knowledge of the conceptof biodiversity among PI employees comparedwith their neighbours can be attributed tothese programs and interaction with visitingtourists. A recycling program run by PI pro-

cesses the eco-lodges own recyclables plusthose of PI community and anyone who bringsrecyclables to the collection center. PI employ-ees felt an increasing value of wildlife, conser-vation and conservation of resources through

both experiences learned at PI and also,perhaps more importantly, by realising thevalue their natural resources had for tourists.Seeing a large number of international visitorsall interested in these issues has encouragedlocals to feel similarly. Although PI puts moreemphasis on the human component of its social

responsibility plan, most locals now valueflora and fauna more because they understandthat tourists visit the region to enjoy nature.

CONCLUSION

This study evaluated environmental and socialimpacts of the PI eco-lodge, located on CostaRicas Nicoya Peninsula. We tested the valueof ecotourism, using PI as a model case study,as a conservation and development tool, and

also tested the utility and value of Costa RicasCST. Considering environmental conserva-tion, PI has promoted forest preservation.Although recent job opportunities (bothtourism and other) have brought people backinto the Peninsula and is partly linked to thedeforestation occurring in these communitieswithin the last decade, the PI eco-lodge prop-erty remains the scale most reforested in bothforest cover change and total forest cover, indi-cating that PI is actively working to conserveforest reserves.

Considering contributions to local liveli-hoods, PI has offered employment, educationaland empowerment opportunities to local resi-dents. PI eco-lodge employs many residents ofthe Nicoya Peninsula, with the majority fromsurrounding communities. PI has also empow-ered residents through their sponsored artworkshops and has increased environmentalknowledge among their employees. The PIeco-lodge on a whole was seen as having


15/17



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

positive social, cultural and economic impactsfor nearly all societal variables for both PIemployees and their neighbours. PI was per-ceived as reducing alcoholism, drug addictionand prostitution, where conventional tourismon the Peninsula was shown to increase these

societal ills. Land value and product pricingwere the few variables that were believed tohave increased as a result of tourism on thePeninsula. With respect to tourists, both PIemployees and neighbours desire more tour-ists in the future. For visiting tourists, althoughof less importance were local customs, archi-tecture and sustainability, the quality of thesecategories exceeded expectations. A limitationof this study is the lack of benchmarks tocompare our results with, stemming from thepaucity of studies on eco-lodge impacts.

However, we feel we went more in depth ofwhat Costa Ricas certification scheme (CST)addresses and added an evaluation of forestcover change to better assess eco-lodge perfor-mance that other studies can use as a guide.

Although there were areas where tourismdevelopment on the peninsula can be linked toundesirable outcomes (e.g. increased drugs,crime and prostitution; land value and productpricing increases; and increased deforestationfrom the return of residents seeking employ-ment within tourism), we feel that the PI eco-

lodge serves as an example of successfulecotourism for other lodges in similar socialand environmental situations and delivers thesocio-economic and environmental benefitsexpected with a five-leaf CST certification.However, increasing development in theimmediate region, in particular by standardhotel operations and large condo develop-ments by investment companies, seeks to capi-talise on the regions natural beauty and willresult in a reversal of land cover trends if theyare not accompanied by adequate forest con-servation strategies and stresses the impor-tance of monitoring and assessing the impactsof accommodations tied to nature-basedtourism operations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express their appreciation tothe many people and organisations who madethis study possible, including Martha Honey, the

employees of the PI eco-lodge, the many familieson the Nicoya Peninsula who gave their timefreely for informative discussions on tourism,conservation and their lives, and the InstititoNacional de Biodiversidad de Costa Rica (INBIO).We offer special thanks to the Center for Latin

American Studies at Stanford University for theirfinancial support of this project.

REFERENCES

Agrawal A, Redford K. 2006. Poverty, Development,and Biodiversity Conservation: Shooting in the Dark?Working Paper No 26, Wildlife ConservationSociety: New York.

Alderman CL. 1992. The economics and the role ofprivately owned lands used for nature tourism,education and conservation. In People and Parks:

Linking Protected Area Management with Local Com-munities,Wells M, Brandon K (eds).World Bank:Washington, DC; 287300.

Almeyda AM, Broadbent EN, Durham WH. 2010.Social and environmental effects of ecotourism inthe Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica: the Lapa Rioscase.Journal of Ecotourism 9(1): 6283.

Barany ME, Hammett AL, Shillington LJ, MurphyBR. 2001. The role of private wildlife reserves inNicaraguas emerging ecotourism industry.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(2): 95110.

Belsky JM. 1999. Misrepresenting communities: thepolitics of community based rural ecotourism in

Gales Point Manatee, Belize. Rural Sociology 64:641666.

Blangy S, Hitesh M. 2006. Ecotourism and ecologi-cal restoration.Journal for Nature Conservation14:233236.

Buckley R. 2002. Tourism ecolabels. Annals ofTourism Research29:183208.

Campbell L. 1999. Ecotourism in rural developingcommunities. Annals of Tourism Research 26:534553.

Ceballos-Lascurain H. 1987. The future of ecotour-ism.Mexico JournalJanuary: 1314.

Ceballos-Lascurain H. 1998. Ecotourism as a world-

wide phenomenon. In Ecotourism: A Guide forPlanners and Managers, Lindberg K, Hawkins D(eds). The Ecotourism Society: North Bennington;1214.

Christ C, Hillel O; Matus S, Sweeting J. 2003. Tourismand Biodiversity: Mapping Tourisms Global Foot-print. United Nations Environment Program andConservation International: Washington, DC.

Davies T, Cahill S. 1999. Environmental Implicationsof the Tourism Industry. Resources for the Future:Washington, DC.


16/17



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

De Haas HC. 2003. Sustainability of small-scale eco-tourism: the case of Niue, South Pacific. In GlobalEcotourism Policies and Case Studies: Perspectivesand Constraints, Luck M, Kirstges T (eds). ChannelView Publications: Clevedon; Buffalo; Toronto;Sydney.

Diamantis D. 1998. Environmental auditing: A tool

in ecotourism development. Eco-Management andAuditing5(1): 1521.

DiFiore SL. 2002. Remote Sensing and ExploratoryData Analysis as Tools to Rapidly Evaluate ForestCover Change and Set Conservation Priorities alongthe Belize River, Belize. MA Thesis, Columbia Uni-versity: New York, NY.

Epler Wood M. 2002. Ecotourism: Principles,practices, and policies for sustainability. UnitedNations Development Programme. Accessedonline July 9, 2010 at .

Farrell TA, Marion J. 2001. Identifying and assess-ing ecotourism visitor impacts at eight protectedareas in Costa Rica and Belize. Environmental Con-servation 28(3): 215225.

Font X. 2001. Regulating the green message: theplayers in ecolabelling. In Tourism Ecolabelling:Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Manage-ment, Font X, Buckley R (eds). CAB International:Wallingford, UK; 118.

Font X, Harris C. 2004. Rethinking standards fromgreen to sustainable. Annals of Tourism Research31(4): 9861007.

Getz D, Jamal TB. 1994. The environmentcommunity symbiosis: a case of collabora-tive tourism planning. Journal of SustainableTourism 2(3): 152173.

Goodwin H. 2003. Local community involvement intourism around national parks: opportunitiesand constrains. In Global Ecotourism Policies andCase Studies: Perspectives and Constraints, Luck M,Kirstges T (eds). Channel View Publications:Clevedon; Buffalo; Toronto; Sydney.

Gossling S. 1999. Ecotourism: a means to safeguardbiodiversity and ecosystem functions? EcologicalEconomics 29: 303320.

Hawkins DE, Epler Wood M, Bittman S (eds). 1995.The Ecolodge Sourcebook. The Ecotourism Society:North Bennington, VT.

Honey M. 1999. Ecotourism and Sustainable Develop-ment: Who Owns Paradise? Island Press: Washing-ton, DC.

Honey M. 2002. Ecotourism and Certification: SettingStandards in Practice. Island Press: Washington,DC.

INCAE. 2000. Tourism in Costa Rica: A competitivechallenge. Costa Rica.

Jacobson SK, Lopez AF. 1994. Biological impacts ofecotourism: tourists and nesting turtles in Tortu-guero national park, Costa Rica. Wildlife SocietyBulletin 22: 414419.

Jacobson SK, Robles R. 1992. Ecotourism, sustain-able development, and conservation education:Development of a tour guide training program in

Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Environmental Manage-ment16(6): 701713.

Jim CY. 2000. Environmental changes associatedwith mass urban tourism and nature tourismdevelopment in Hong Kong. The Environmentalist20(3): 233247.

Jones S. 2005. Community-based ecotourism thesignificance of social capital. Annals of TourismResearch 32: 303324.

Jones C, Inman C, Pratt L, Mesa N, Rivera J. 2001.Issues in the design of a green certificationprogram for tourism. In Environment for Growthin Central America, Panayotou T (ed.). Harvard

University Press: Cambridge, MA; 292321.Kalisch A. 2002. Corporate Futures: Consultation on

Good Practice: Social Responsibility in the TourismIndustry. Tourism Concern: London.

Kruger O. 2005. The role of ecotourism in conserva-tion: Panacea or Pandoras box? Biodiversity andConservation 14: 579600.

Langholz J. 1996. Economics, objectives, and successof private nature reserves in sub-Saharan Africaand Latin America. Conservation Biology 10(1):271280.

Lindberg K, Enriquez J, Sproule K. 1996. Ecotour-ism questioned: case studies from Belize. Annalsof Tourism Research 23(3): 543652.

Manyara G, Jones E. 2007. Community-based tourismenterprises development in Kenya: an explorationof their potential as avenues of poverty reduction.Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(6): 628644.

Marion JL, Reid SE. 2007. Minimising visitor impactsto protected areas: the efficacy of low impacteducation programmes. Journal of SustainableTourism 15(1): 527.

McCool SF. 1995. Linking tourism, the environmen-tal, and concepts of sustainability: setting thestage. In Comps. Linking Tourism, the Environmen-tal, and Sustainability, McCool SF, Watson AE(eds). Gen. Tech. Rep. INNNTGTR-323. USDA,Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station:Ogden, UT.

Metha, H. 2006. Towards an international ecolodgecertification. In Quality control and certification inecotourism, Black R, Crabtree A. (eds). Cabi Pub-lishing: Wallington, UK.

Moore S, Smith A, Newsome D. 2003. Environ-mental performance reporting for naturalarea tourism. contributions by visitor impact


17/17



management frameworks and their indicators.Journal of Sustainable Tourism11: 348371.

Obua J. 1997. The potential, development and eco-logical impact of ecotourism in Kibale nationalpark, Uganda. Journal of Environmental Manage-ment 50: 2738.

Olsen MD, Tse E, West J. 1998. Strategic Management

in the Hospitality Industry, 2nd edn, Van NostrandReinhold: New York

Osland GE, Mackoy R. 2004. Ecolodge performancegoals and evaluations.Journal of Ecotourism, 3(2):109128.

Pretty J, Smith D. 2003. Social Capital in Biodiver-sity Conservation and Management. ConservationBiology 18: 631638.

Rivera J. 1998. Public private partnerships: thetourism industry in Costa Rica. In Private CapitalFlows and the Environment: Lessons from LatinAmerica, Gentry B (ed.). Edward Elgar Press:Northampton, MA.

Ross S, Wall G. 1999. Evaluating ecotourism: thecase of North Sulawasi, Indonesia. Tourism Man-agement20(6): 673682.

Salafsky N, Cauley H, Balachander G, Cordes B,Parks J, Margolvis C, Bhatt S, Encarnacion C,Russell D, Margolis R. 2001. A systematic testof an enterprise strategy for community-based

biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology,15: 15851595.

Scheyvens R. 1999. Ecotourism and the empower-ment of local communities. Tourism Management20: 245249.

Sheng-Hshiung T, Yu-Chiang L, Jo-Hui L. 2006.Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from theintegrated perspective of resource, communityand tourism. Tourism Management 27: 640653.

Southworth J, Nagendra H, Carlson LA, Tucker C.2004. Assessing the impact of Celaque NationalPark on forest fragmentation in western Hondu-ras.Applied Geography 24: 303322.

Stem CJ, Lassoie JP, Lee DR, Deshler DJ. 2003a.How eco is ecotourism? A comparative case

study of ecotourism in Costa Rica.Journal of Sus-tainable Tourism 11(4): 322347.

Stem CJ, Lassoie JP, Lee DR, Deshler DD, Schelhas,JW. 2003b. Community Participation in Ecotour-ism Benefits: The Link to Conservation Practicesand Perspectives. Society & Natural Resources16(5): 387413.

Twining-Ward L, Butler R. 2002. Implementing STDon a small island: development and use ofsustainable tourism development indicators inSamoa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10(5):363387.

Wallace GN, Pierce SM. 1996. An evaluation of eco-tourism in Amazonas, Brazil. Annals of TourismResearch 23(4): 843873.

Weaver DB, Lawton LJ. 2007. Progress in tourismmanagement. Twenty years on: the state of con-temporary ecotourism research. Tourism Manage-ment 28: 11681179

Walpole M, Goodwin H. 2001. Local attitudes

towards conservation and tourism aroundKomodo National Park, Indonesia. EnvironmentalConservation 28: 160166.

Wber K. 2002. Benchmarking in Tourism and Hospi-tality Industries: The Selection of BenchmarkingPartners. CABI: Wallingford, UK.

Wunder S. 1999. Promoting Forest ConservationThrough Ecotourism Income? A Case Study from theEcuadorian Amazon Region. Occasional Paper 21.Center for International Forestry Research: Bogor,Indonesia.

Wunder S. 2000. Ecotourism and economic incen-tives: an empirical approach. Ecological Economics32: 465479.

Wyman M, Stein T. 2010. Examining the linkagesbetween community benefits, place-based mean-ings, and conservation program involvement: astudy within the Community Baboon Sanctuary,Belize. Society and Natural Resources23(6): 115.

Young MD. 1992. Sustainable Investment andResource Use. The Parthenon Publishing Group:New York.

Documents

Almeyda, Broadbent, Wyman & Durham- Ecotourism Impacts in the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica