ABSTRACT

Ecotourism promotes responsible travel to

natural areas, environmental conservation
and the well-being of local communities.
Eco-lodges are an important component of
ecotourism ventures but an infrequently
researched component of this eld.
Considering their inuence on the natural
environment (design and operation) and
local communities (employment practices
and purchases), the success of ecotourism
depends, in part, on the performance of
eco-lodges. This project studies the effects of
the Punta Islita (PI) eco-lodge on the Nicoya
Peninsula, Costa Rica. An interdisciplinary
nested-scale analysis, combining guest and
household interviews with multi-temporal
remote sensing analysis of forest cover
change of the lodge and surrounding areas,
is used to evaluate the environmental,
economic and social impacts of ecotourism in
the region. Our results show signicant
positive contributions of the PI eco-lodge on
forest cover, environmental conservation,
and local economic incomes within the
surrounding communities. For local
livelihoods, the PI eco-lodge was seen as
having positive social, cultural and economic
impacts for nearly all societal variables for
both employees and their neighbours. The PI
eco-lodge was also perceived as reducing
alcoholism, drug addiction and prostitution,
where conventional tourism on the Peninsula
was shown to increase these societal ills.
Land value and product pricing were the few
variables believed to have increased as a
result of tourism on the Peninsula. For
conservation, the PI eco-lodge property had
the highest rates of reforestation within the
Nicoya Peninsula and remains the scale most
reforested in both forest cover change and
total forest cover. In fact, at the landscape
scale, we nd that the Pacic coast of the
Nicoya, where the bulk of ecotourism occurs,
has undergone reforestation, whereas forest
interiors have been deforested. Historically,
reforestation occurred as cattle ranching
credit programs were halted by the
government and households in the area left
to nd better job opportunities. The PI
eco-lodge, as a source of good employment,
resulted in worker migration back to the
surrounding area, resulting, in some cases, in
increased deforestation. Overall, we feel that
the PI eco-lodge serves as an example of
successful ecotourism. However, increasing
development in the region, in particular by
standard hotel operations and large condo
developments, seeks to capitalise on the
regions natural beauty and may reverse land
cover trends if they are not accompanied by
adequate forest conservation strategies and
stresses the importance of monitoring and
assessing the impacts of accommodations
tied to nature-based tourism operations.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Received 6 September 2009; Revised 7 February 2010; Accepted
23 June 2010
Keywords: ecotourism; nested scale analysis;
land cover change.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH
Int. 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 Nicoya
Peninsula, Costa Rica
Angelica M. Almeyda
1,2,3,
*, Eben N. Broadbent
2,4
, Miriam S. Wyman
5
and William H. Durham
1,3
1
Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
2
Department of Global Ecology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
3
Center for Responsible Travel, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
4
Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
5
Department of Environment and Society, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA
*Correspondence to: A. M. Almeyda, Department of
Anthropology, Main Quad, Building 50, 450 Serra Mall,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2034, USA.
E-mail: aalmeyda@stanford.edu
804 A. M. Almeyda et 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 grown
over 400% from 1987 to 2000 (INCAE,
2000), corresponding with the increase
in tourism from roughly 250 000 in 1987 to 1
million in 1999. There has been an ongoing
debate on the role hotels have played in
nature conservation within Costa Rica.
Although empirical evidence generally sup-
ports hotels as having key roles as partners of
the national park system, other evidence indi-
cates that the rapid growth of hotels is intensi-
fying environmental problems around many
popular national parks (Rivera, 1998; Davies
and Cahill, 1999; INCAE, 2000; Jones et al.,
2001).
Eco-lodges are different from tourist hotels
in that they specically strive to adhere to the
principles of ecotourism (Hawkins et al., 1995).
Ecotourism (a form of sustainable tourism)
seeks to (1) have a minimal environmental
impact, (2) promote conservation, and (3)
improve local livelihoods through empower-
ment and socio-economic benets (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, so
too has eco-lodge development, and often
within or near natural areas and with detri-
mental environmental and social impacts
(Metha, 2006). If one considers the potential
inuence eco-lodges have on local communi-
ties (e.g. employment practices and purchases)
and the natural environment (e.g. design and
operation), the success of ecotourism in an
area depends, in part, on the performance of
eco-lodges.
Research has addressed ecotourism from
many different disciplines and angles from
community-based ecotourism (e.g. Getz &
Jamal, 1994; Belsky, 1999; Wunder, 2000;
Manyara and Jones, 2007; Wyman and Stein,
2010) to impacts to the natural environment
and 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 as
eco-lodges, their impacts have rarely been
addressed (Osland and Mackoy, 2004; Blangy
and Hitesh, 2006). There has also been very
little attention within the ecotourism literature
given to critical and strategically important
areas, including the industry and quality
control (Weaver and Lawton, 2007). Aside
from community-based ecotourism and insti-
tutions, the ecotourism sector is dominated by
private sector businesses (specialised, such as
eco-lodges and non-specialised). Additionally,
quality control and afliated indicators would
be vital to assure social and ecological expecta-
tions are met (Weaver and Lawton, 2007). Even
where there have been case studies presented
on 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 for
conservation and sustainable development
(Ceballos-Lascurain, 1998), maintaining this
sustainability 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 intricately
connected to, and inuenced by, each other
(Young, 1992; McCool, 1995). Sustainable
tourism stresses the importance of continual
monitoring of any tourism plan. Some types of
impact analysis with proper planning and
monitoring can determine to what degree
tourism development is consistent with pre-
established conservation and community
objectives and can keep negative impacts to a
minimum (Diamantis, 1998; Olsen et al., 1998;
Twining-Ward and Butler, 2002; Blangy and
Hitesh, 2006). Thus, a continued application of
impact analyses is necessary to evaluate
tourism development projects and correct any
discrepancies and can also offer the added
benet of review and improvement of certica-
tion criteria.
For assessing social impacts, it is the qualita-
tive data (social and economic) that is the most
meaningful to sustainable tourism analyses
(Kalisch, 2002), but a challenge for standard
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; Font
and Harris, 2004). This is due to the fact that
information is not very meaningful if quanti-
ed beyond basic statistics for measuring com-
munity participation with a tourism enterprise
(e.g. perceptions towards crowdedness, income
and employment) (Moore et al., 2003). When
assessing environmental impacts, however,
remote sensing data provide information on
the differences in land-cover characteristics on
spatial and temporal levels and have been
used on a wide range of analyses, one of which
is forest change detection (DiFiore, 2002;
Southworth et al., 2004).
Ecotourism will have the best chance of
maintaining responsible actions when backed
by clear consistent standards. The Certication
for Sustainable Tourism (CST) developed in
Costa Rica, a good example of such a system,
monitors a variety of social and environmental
impacts including emissions, conservation and
protection of fauna and ora, and cultural and
economic impacts.
Objectives
The objective of this study was to evaluate the
environmental and social impacts of the Punta
Islita (PI) eco-lodge, located on Costa Ricas
Nicoya Peninsula. We tested the value of eco-
tourism using PI as a model case study, as a
conservation and development tool, and also
sought to test the utility and value of the sup-
porting certication system (PI is top-ranked
by Costa Ricas CST). The relevance of certi-
cation is that by operationalising denitions of
ecotourism, it will endeavour to improve
industry performance and inuence markets
(Font, 2001; Buckley, 2002). Specically, this
study strived to understand residents opin-
ions regarding socio-cultural, environmental
and economic costs and benets. In addition,
this study evaluated the local environmental
changes experienced since PI began its opera-
tions in 1994, using remote sensing. The
primary questions that guided our investiga-
tion were as follows:
1. What have been the main social, economic
and environmental impacts positive
and negative of ecotourism at the PI
Eco-lodge on the Nicoya Peninsula?
2. Have conservation efforts at the lodge been
of sufcient magnitude and duration to
reduce deforestation?
3. Has PI had an identiable impact on local
environmental awareness, and specically
has it contributed to the spread of conser-
vation ethics in the area?
METHODS
Study site
Costa Rica is a forerunner in the development
and certication of sustainable tourism busi-
nesses and a model for nations seeking to
manage tourism responsibly. Within Costa
Rica, Hotel PI, is acclaimed for its dedication to
community development and environmental
conservation. PI eco-lodge is privately owned
and situated amidst secondary forest on the
Pacic-facing side of the Nicoya Peninsula
(Figure 1). PI eco-lodge developed from a tradi-
tional cattle and timber ranch operation. This
rural area was initially developed for timber
extraction in the 1940s, but once the precious
timbers were exhausted, the area tuned towards
cattle ranching and later to agriculture until
government agricultural incentives ended. By
the mid-1990s, most families had migrated
towards urban areas for employment. The land
was later divided into three independent but
interlinked entities PI eco-lodge, Forestales
and Lomas de Islita. PI has invested in the local
communities through art education, micro-
enterprise development, local workforce train-
ing and promotion, economic equality for
women and children through handicraft pro-
duction and general infrastructural improve-
ments. Fostering private and public collaboration,
PI has combined a for-prot hotel with a com-
munity-based foundation. Both entities are
dedicated to sustainable tourism and adhere to
the Costa Rican-based certication system, CST.
Data collection
Data collection used an interdisciplinary
nested-scale methodology (see Almeyda et al.,
2010 for detailed description) com bining
spatial analyses of forest cover and change
using remote sensing with extensive in depth
interviews with local households, semi-
806 A. M. Almeyda et al.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 803819 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
structured interviews with community leaders
and self administered questionnaires for hotel
guests. Each scale includes opportunities to
assess and monitor multi-temporal environ-
mental and socio-cultural changes, as well as
building up from information derived from
ner scales (Figure 2). The largest scale, land-
scape, is equivalent to the entire Nicoya Pen-
insula and provided the context within which
the ner scale levels were evaluated. Second
largest in extent is the community scale, which
included ve communities within PIs spatial
and cultural areas of inuence. Third is the
household scale, which included both house-
holds inuenced by PI indirectly (such as
proximity) or directly (through personal
employment). The nal scale, Punta Islita,
spatially includes the PI property, as well as
two additional adjacent properties managed by
PI ownership, and socially includes individuals
associated with the eco-lodge (owners, opera-
tors, tourists and employees). The complemen-
tary scales and methods used at multiple
locations provided a better understanding of
the diverse ecotourism impacts.
Spatial analyses. Landsat satellite imagery span-
ning from 1975 until 2008 was acquired from
online databases. Images were georeferenced
to 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 the
impact of ecotourism on the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica.
Ecotourism in the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica 807
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 803819 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
directive to generate a global database of ortho-
rectied Landsat imagery covering all terres-
trial areas (http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/
research/portal/geocover/). Root mean square
errors of the warp models used to georeference
images to the base image was less than 0.5 pixel
(or 15 m). Radiance imagery was converted to
pseudo-reectance using log residuals. Cloud
and cloud shadow areas within each image
were manually removed. Multiple image dates
were merged to minimise land area not visible
due to clouds or striping due to scan line cor-
rection malfunction in the Landsat ETM+ 2007
2008 images. Following collection of forest,
pasture and water spectral endmembers unique
to each merged image, the spectral angle mapper
algorithm was used to classify each 30 m 30 m
Landsat pixel per satellite image into forest and
non-forest classes. Areas outside the Nicoya
Peninsula were removed from the study area.
An accuracy assessment was performed
using 126 ground control points spread
throughout agriculture, pasture, secondary
forest and forest plantations within the Nicoya
Peninsula. Geographic coordinates of these
locations were collected during September
2008 using a handheld geographic positioning
system. This assessment was performed
against the 2008 image classication as rapid
land cover transformations have been occur-
ring throughout the peninsula. We employed
a classication approach independent of eld
points and designed to encompass the vari-
ability due to satellite sensor differences.
Analyses of the 2008 forest/non-forest classi-
cation calculated a users accuracy and kappa
coefcient of 92% and 0.83, respectively.
Forest plantations were classied as forests
88% of the time.
Analyses of land cover changes were per-
formed at multiple scales (Figure 3): (1) the PI
eco-lodge, Lomas and Forestales properties; (2)
a 1.5-km buffer surrounding the ve main
communities within which PI employees lived;
(3) a 1.5-km buffer surrounding PI property;
(4) and the Pacic and interior sections of the
Nicoya Peninsula. Temporal analysis included
only pixels that were not obstructed by atmo-
spheric issues in any study year. These scales
assessed land cover changes in the PI property
compared with surrounding areas and the
entire peninsula. Comparison between change
trajectories at the community scale assessed
general impacts of PI employees and non-tour-
ism-afliated neighbours on the peninsulas
forest cover.
Socio-economic analyses. Socio-economic data
were collected using questionnaires, related
data, and formal and informal interviews.
Questionnaires were applied, and eld visits
took place in September 2008. Interviews were
conducted with PI owners, operators and man-
agers, as well as with locals involved in PIs
community projects. In-depth questionnaire-
based surveys were conducted with a sample
of PI employees and neighbours not working
at PI eco-lodge.
At the landscape level, PI staff and neigh-
bours were interviewed about the develop-
ment of the Nicoya Peninsula. At the community
scale, semi-structured interviews were con-
ducted with community elders and partici-
pants of PI-supported development projects
(N = 15). We asked elders about economic
activities and cultural values that pre-date PI.
We asked art group participants on the impacts
the projects have had on their well-being. At
the household level, researchers conducted
in-depth questionnaire-based surveys with
household heads, including both husband and
wife whenever possible, for a total of 63 house-
holds (45 had at least one member employed
by PI and 17 not employed by PI, but may
receive income from tourism-related activi-
ties). In-depth surveys included household
demography and education, land use prac-
tices, income and expense sources, perceived
tourism impacts and knowledge of key con-
cepts in ecology and ecotourism. Contingency
tables, Pearson coefcients and Wilconxon/
KruskalWallis rank sum analyses statistically
compared PI employees and their neighbours.
Several questions required quantitative inter-
pretation or transformation prior to statistical
comparison, presented side by side with the
results. Non-parametric statistics were used to
avoid skewness and non-normality, as many
of the variables were ordinal or categorical.
At the PI scale, semi-structured interviews
were conducted with management on PIs
past, present and future; the relationship
between PI and local communities and institu-
tions in the Peninsula; and PI staff. PI guests
808 A. M. Almeyda et al.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 803819 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
took short, self-administered questionnaire-
based surveys on their trip, trip expenses and
tourism development in PI. A random sample
of 45 employees was selected for in-depth
surveys, representing 32% of total employ-
ment (N = 140). Employees identied their
closest neighbours, if applicable, not employed
by a tourism-related company. The same in-
depth survey was then conducted with these
neighbours, 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 1975
to 1987 (Table 1) and from 1975 to 2008 for all
study 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 with
land cover changes in areas surrounding these properties, areas surrounding the ve principal towns within
which Punta Islita employees lived and with Pacic 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.
Ecotourism in the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica 809
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 803819 (2010)
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 0.04
PI Lomas 233 0.56 0.61 0.88 0.21
PI Forestales 236 0.82 0.81 0.88 0.14
PI, all 1.5-km buffer 1870 0.7 0.71 0.88 0.3
Colonia del Valle, 1.5-km buffer 468 0.45 0.32 0.57 0.08
Corozalito, 1.5-km buffer 713 0.35 0.35 0.81 0.08
Islita, 1.5-km buffer 667 0.66 0.64 0.88 0.16
Pilas de Bejuco, 1.5-km buffer 783 0.41 0.49 0.8 0.19
Pueblo Nuevo, 1.5-km buffer 625 0.36 0.44 0.86 0.22
Nicoya Peninsula 502 353 0.36 0.43 0.51 0.19
Nicoya Pacic Coast 202 639 0.51 0.57 0.68 0.27
Nicoya 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 spatial
statistics.
PI, Punta Islita.
Figure 4. All categories ranked according to the proportion increase in forest cover from 1975 to 1987 and
from 1975 to 2008.
810 A. M. Almeyda et al.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 803819 (2010)
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 portion
decreased to 26%, while the Pacic coast region
decreased to 36% forest cover. The PI eco-lodge
property increased in forest cover from 4% to
76% during this same time period, with only a
small decrease of 2% from 1987 to 2008. The PI
property 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 from
1975 to 1987, with all increasing from almost
entirely pastoral or agricultural areas in 1975
to 5080% forest cover by 1987. Of the ve
study communities, the community of Islita,
followed by Colonia del Valle, experienced the
greatest reforestation between 1975 and 2008.
Socio-economic surveys: guests
In total, 39 tourists lled out questionnaires.
Demographic information was obtained but is
not presented in this paper. Of relevance to
this study, median visit to PI was 4 days of a
total median 9-day trip to Costa Rica. Almost
all guests were visiting PI for the rst time,
were completely satised with their stay (mean
4.5/5) and were very likely to return (mean
4.5/5). On average, tourists spent US$1815
while at PI, including travel there from within
Costa Rica, with 55% of tourists using a tour
package. Guests, on average, would be willing
to spend an additional US$138 to make the trip
possible and US$25 to support the natural and
cultural patrimony of the area. In general,
outdoor beauty and luxury were of greatest
importance and met or exceeded expectations.
Two exceptions occurred in food, dining and
general affordability. Of less importance were
local customs, architecture and sustainability,
although the quality of these categories
exceeded expectations. Of no importance to
guests were medical and dental services, likely
as few required them during their stay, and
entertainment (Table 2).
Table 2. Guest perceptions on importance and quality of natural and
societal categories at PI
Category Importance Quality Delta
Scenic landscapes 4.64 4.67 0.03
Lodgings 4.57 4.61 0.04
Food and dining 4.46 4.30 0.16
Friendly people 4.45 4.79 0.34
Cleanliness/waste disposal 4.42 4.38 0.04
Personal safety 4.38 4.53 0.15
Outdoor recreation 4.24 4.27 0.03
General affordability 4.20 3.55 0.65
Lack of crowds 4.17 4.67 0.50
Information availability 4.14 4.24 0.10
Climate 4.05 3.97 0.08
Guide services 3.89 4.24 0.35
Sustainability/responsibility 3.86 4.52 0.66
Roads and transport 3.50 2.94 0.56
Communications (Internet, telephone) 3.30 3.88 0.58
Local arts and crafts 3.23 3.97 0.74
Interesting architecture 3.11 3.53 0.42
Local music, dance or customs 3.00 3.13 0.13
Medical/dental services 2.64 3.03 0.39
Entertainment/nightlife 2.42 2.84 0.42
Mean value of categories (all with sample size greater than 35).
PI, Punta Islita.
Ecotourism in the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica 811
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 803819 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Socio-economic surveys: employees
and neighbours
Most 175 employees of PI (75.9%) reside within
the Nicoya Peninsula. And of those who reside
within the Peninsula, 58.2% reside within the
four closest communities to PI (Pilas de Bejuco,
Islita, Corozalito and Colonia del Valle) (Figure
3). Neighbour household heads spent, on
average, twice as much time on the Peninsula
as PI employees and were signicantly older
(Table 3). Neighbours received 2 years or less
education than PI employees, while males
received more education than females. Other
analyses showed that PI employees spent sig-
nicantly less on utilities, but more on trans-
portation and recreation than non-PI employees.
PI employees received an average of 90% of
their 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 their
neighbours, with the exception of drug addic-
tion, alcoholism, prostitution and product
pricing increases in some parts of the Nicoya
Peninsula (Table 5A). PI employees and
neighbours only differed signicantly on
the perceived impact of PI on hunting, with
employees viewing PI as doing more to reduce
hunting than their neighbours (Table 5B). In
comparing PI tourism and general tourism on
the Peninsula, PI was seen as having a signi-
cantly better impact on all societal variables
except health-care access, land prices and
product prices (Table 5C); additionally, PI was
perceived as reducing alcoholism, drug addic-
tion and prostitution. In comparing PI employ-
ees and their neighbours opinions on the
future desirability of more tourists on the Pen-
insula, no signicant differences were found
between 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 art
groups and conservation knowledge
Since 2002, PI eco-lodge has sponsored art
activities 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 by
residents exhibited and sold at the PI-
sponsored Casa Museo. Out of the 63 house-
holds interviewed, 16 participated in an art
group. All participants indicated the main
benet was a change in the way they see life
and themselves. Especially for married woman
in this rural area, art groups provided a
network of friends and escape from the
daily household routine. With respect to
Table 3. Comparison between PI employees and their neighbours on average values of socio-demographic
variables
Socio-demographic variables
Mean (SD) N
p-value Test
a
Neighbour 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 <0.0001 W
Male head of the household
% that was born within the Peninsula 56.3 52.6 17 38 0.81 cp
Years living in current community 37.4 (19.6) 16.3 (14.8) 17 38 0.0004 w
Years of education 7.1 (4.2) 8.5 (3.4) 15 38 0.14 w
Age 51.1 (16.3) 32.3 (9.6) 16 38 <0.0001 w
Number of dependent children 1.2 (1.1) 1.2 (1.2) 17 45 0.99 w
a
cp: contingency table and Pearson coefcients were used for both comparisons; w: Wilcoxon/KruskalWallis tests (rank
sums) was used.
PI, Punta Islita; SD, standard deviation.
812 A. M. Almeyda et al.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 803819 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Table 4. Comparison between PI employees and their neighbours on average household expenses and
income stability
Variable
Means
a
N
p Neighbour 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 <0.001
Education 12.8 (30.9) 41.5 (97.0) 16 45 0.3308
Recreation 7.4 (20.9) 28.9 (50.0) 16 45 0.0303
Savings 156.3 (255.7) 162.3 (342.6) 16 45 0.569
Investment 3.4 (13.7) 16.0 (65.3) 16 45 0.5361
Medical 16.6 (32.5) 30.7 (66.0) 17 45 0.8172
Remittance 7.7 (24.1) 8.3 (25.6) 17 45 0.9656
Other 155.2 (361.6) 91.6 (162.0) 16 45 0.2317
Unknown 40.5 (41.1) 43.9 (125.7) 16 45 0.2188
Percentage
Food 48.2 (23.8) 38.9 (19.8) 16 45 0.1011
Housing 0 (0) 34.2 (19.8) 16 45 0.1278
Utilities 14.4 (9.1) 6.7 (5.4) 16 45 0.0009
Transportation 0.7 (1.9) 7.1 (6.0) <0.0001
Education 2.6 (5.5) 5.4 (9.4) 16 45 0.3661
Recreation 0.9 (2.8) 4.4 (7.7) 16 45 0.0297
Savings 13.5 (19.1) 15.2 (17.9) 16 45 0.4345
Investment 0.3 (1.2) 2.0 (8.2) 16 45 0.5466
Medical 2.5 (4.7) 4.4 (8.5) 16 45 0.6287
Remittance 1.2 (3.3) 1.7 (5.2) 16 45 0.9292
Other 11.2 (17.8) 13.1 (14.4) 16 45 0.1393
Unknown 7.6 (9.9) 4.7 (5.7) 16 45 0.3414
B. Income stability
b
% of tourism income that comes from PI 0.0 (0.0) 90.1 (20.0) 17 45 <0.0001
Income difference between best and worst months 865.2 (1835.9) 405.9 (783.59) 14 39 0.4922
Generosity of basic salary
c
2.3 (1.0) 2.6 (1.0) 17 45 0.2198
Generosity of complete payment
c
1.2 (0.4) 1.9 (0.9) 5 40 0.122
a
The Wilcoxon/KruskalWallis Tests (rank sums ) was used for all comparisons except for the percentage of households that can afford
new goods, where the contingency table and Pearson correlation coefcient were used.
b
Based on current job.
c
The face scale (15) was used: numbers higher than 3 indicate a positive feeling, whereas those lower than 3 indicate a negative feeling.
PI, Punta Islita.
conservation knowledge (knowledge of envi-
ronmental concepts, conservation, biodiversity
and ecotourism) between PI employees and
their neighbours, the only signicant differ-
ence showed a better knowledge of the concept
of biodiversity among PI employees.
DISCUSSION
In principle, ecotourism has a small ecological
footprint, fosters environmental conservation,
and benets and empowers local communities
(Ceballos-Lascurain, 1987). In practice, however,
the outcomes have been mixed. For example,
Kruger (2005) in his review of 251 ecotourism
case studies found that ecotourism did not
create enough revenues to prevent consump-
tive land use (such as forest conversion to agri-
culture or pasture) among households. In other
studies (Stem et al., 2003a, b), while large-scale
ecotourism near Corcovado and Piedras Blancas
National Parks had the potential to offer
Ecotourism in the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica 813
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 803819 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Table 5. Comparison of PI employees and their neighbours concerning the perceived impact of tourism
Category
Means
a
N
p-value Neighbour PI employee Neighbour PI employee
A. Tourism in Nicoya impacts
a,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 ora 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 impacts
a,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 ora 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 impacts
b,c
Nicoya Punta Islita N of households
Health 2.9 2.8 52 0.135
Education 2.0 1.7 52 0.003
Job training 2.0 1.3 49 <0.0001
Hunting 2.0 1.7 54 0.0002
Deforestation 2.5 2.0 50 0.0007
Value of ora and fauna 2.1 1.8 50 0.0003
Land price 2.5 2.6 54 0.8209
Product price 3.3 3.4 53 0.6417
Alcoholism 3.4 2.3 51 <0.0001
Drug addiction 3.9 2.0 49 <0.0001
Prostitution 3.8 2.0 45 <0.0001
a
The Wilcoxon/KruskalWallis tests (rank sums) was used for all 11 mean comparisons.
b
The face scale (15) was used to do the ranking, numbers higher than 3 indicate a positive impact; numbers lower than
3 indicate a negative impact.
c
The matched pairs statistical analysis was used for mean comparisons.
PI, Punta Islita.
814 A. M. Almeyda et al.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 803819 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
economic benets to local residents that would
discourage forest conversion to other uses,
employment in ecotourism-related activities
had little impact on household conservation
attitudes or practices. Lastly, too many visitors
have led to unsustainable usage and degrada-
tion to natural areas (Farrell and Marion, 2001;
Kruger, 2005). The challenge to ecotourism then
is 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, the
entire Peninsula experienced a surge of refor-
estation, resulting in a 30% increase in forest
cover 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 4
to 78%. Following 1987, the general trend
within the Peninsula showed decreasing forest
cover, but the PI property maintained its forest
cover with the exception of PI eco-lodge devel-
opment, following trends in other touristic
areas of the Nicoya Peninsula. The other PI
properties, Lomas and Forestales, followed
similar trends through 1987, with the Lomas
property taking a different trajectory of greater
development and maintenance of pasture
areas. This has occurred, in part, as PI hotel
owners are not in direct control of this prop-
erty but are part of the development-minded
counsel in charge of its use. The surrounding
communities also experienced the surge of
reforestation of the 1970s and 1980s due to a
decline in cattle and agriculture resulting in
emigration from the area in 1975 to 5080%
forest cover by 1987. More recent job opportu-
nities, largely at PI or PI related, have brought
people back into these communities and can be
attributed to the deforestation occurring in
these communities in the last decade. Of the
ve study communities, Islita, followed by
Colonia del Valle, experienced the greatest
reforestation between 1975 and 2008.
Socio-economic analyses
The main positive economic impact was pre-
sented in the form of employment. This is
especially important for the communities
closer to the hotel as there are few other sources
of employment
or training in the area. And of employees
who reside within the Peninsula, 58.2% reside
within the four closest communities to PI
eco-lodge. Studies by Alderman (1992) and
Langholz (1996) of private reserves in Africa
and Latin America found that over 80% of the
Table 6. Comparison of PI employees and their neighbours regarding the desirability of more tourists on the
Nicoya 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 ones
Identity loss 1 1 17 45
Tourists can be a bad inuence 4 5 17 45
Not enough land for the locals 0 3 17 45
Environmental degradation 0 2 17 45
PI, Punta Islita.
Ecotourism in the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica 815
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 803819 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
individuals employed were from communities
near the reserve. Neighbour household heads
not employed by the PI eco-lodge had spent on
average twice as much time on the peninsula
as PI employees and were signicantly older.
Additionally, neighbours were found to have
received 2 years or less education than PI
employees. This is not a unique nding for
tourism employment. Goodwin (2003) found
tourism employment in Komodo as dominated
by males under 30 years of age. Additionally,
higher education and capital levels determined
involvement in tourism-related industries. PI
employees received an average of 90% of their
household income from PI. Where this pres-
ents a potential danger is if there is a decline
in the tourism industry to PI, such as the case
following the present economic recession
(20082009). The majority of both PI employ-
ees and neighbours stated they wanted more
tourists as they were important sources of
income. The danger with relying on tourism as
the main source of income is the vulnerability
to boom-bust cycles and seasonal uctuations
of the tourism market (Epler Wood, 2002).
Tourism, whether ecotourism or conventional
tourism, is an unstable source of income that
is not only subject to seasonal uctuations, but
also 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 by
those who own land as a positive outcome.
However, the increase in land value and sub-
sequent selling of land to foreigners is also
viewed as a negative impact by some neigh-
bours interviewed. Products pricing was also
perceived to have increased marginally as a
result of PI. Ination of real estate prices and
consumer goods is a common impact of
tourism development (De Haas, 2003). And as
a result, sometimes, only those who participate
in tourism-related activities can afford the new
prices; those who do not are worse off than
before tourism development. While the
increase in land prices has made it difcult for
locals to purchase land in the area, it has also
been linked with an increase in reforestation
and forest conservation, as properties owned
by foreigners are used for vacation residences
and not for active cattle or agriculture, or
bought by foreigners interested in forest con-
servation rather than active use.
With respect to tourism benets, several
studies (e.g. Campbell, 1999; Gossling, 1999;
Wunder, 1999, 2000; Walpole and Goodwin,
2001) dene tourism benets primarily as eco-
nomic, such as cash income or employment. In
fact, an assessment of the literature showed
that these benets are the most common
tourism success indicators (Agrawal and
Redford, 2006). Our study found that with
PIs sponsored art workshops and micro-
enterprises, the economic income was a more
important benet for younger participants.
During the low season months, income from
art can be as low as zero and increases to an
average monthly income of US$115 during the
high season. However, ecotourism had other
important benets within our study. For
example, of the 25% of households interviewed
who have a household member involved in an
art group, these participants feel an improve-
ment in their well-being, from making friends,
to earning an income, to seeing themselves as
productive household members. While some
argue that economic benets are paramount to
success, many peoples behaviours are driven
by non-nancial incentives, including commu-
nity projects, new skills, broader experiences
in managing people and projects, expanded
circles of contacts, etc. (Wunder, 2000; Salafsky
et al., 2001; Stem et al., 2003b). These non-
economic benets have also been labeled com-
munity empowerment (Scheyvens, 1999) and
social capital (Pretty and Smith, 2003; Jones,
2005) that help strengthen local institutions for
resource management. Together, economic
and non-economic benets are important to
identify, and Krugers (2005) review of 251
ecotourism case studies indicates that these
benets are one of the most important
factors in ecotourism sustainability.
Tourism was seen as having positive social,
cultural and economic impacts for nearly all
societal variables for PI employees and their
neighbours, with the exception of drug addic-
tion and prostitution increasing in some parts
of the Nicoya Peninsula. Tourism is often
blamed for increasing these societal ills, such
as prostitution, crime and alcoholism, which is
also sometimes attributed to imitating the
behaviour of tourists (De Haas, 2003). PI,
816 A. M. Almeyda et al.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 803819 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
however, was perceived to reduce alcoholism,
drug addiction and prostitution. Similar results
were found in our study of the Lapa Rios
eco-lodge within the Osa Peninsula (Almeyda
et al., 2010) and support the claim that eco-
tourism brings more benets than conven-
tional tourism.
Guests visiting PI were content with their
stay and were willing to visit again. Although
PI is renowned for its social and environmental
sustainability programs, these were not among
the priorities of guests. In fact, guests ranked
sustainability and responsibility and local arts
and crafts close to neutral in importance, while
placing priority on scenic landscapes and
natural beauty, good dining, friendly people
and clean rooms. Although initially out of line
with the values espoused by PI, scenic land-
scapes, natural beauty, friendly people and
personal safety are all directly affected by the
social and environmental policies, including
limiting deforestation, minimising drug and
alcohol problems, and providing educational
opportunities in the surrounding areas. Guests,
in spite of ranking general affordability of PI
as lower than hoped, remained willing to pay
an additional US$138 towards the trip and
US$25 towards natural and cultural patrimony
of the area, perhaps attributed to their experi-
ences at PI.
Ecotourism enterprises are expected to
provide opportunities for their employees to
learn about biodiversity, conservation, ecology
and related topics. Case studies, however,
show conicting results. Kruger (2005) argues
that environmental education and participa-
tion with surrounding communities promotes
non-consumptive use of natural resources and
greatly improves conservation. In contrast, a
Wallace and Pierce (1996) study in the Brazil-
ian Amazon found few cases where lodge
owners or tour operators contributed to envi-
ronmental education. In addition, Stem et al.
(2003a) found that overall, tour operators have
no signicant effect in raising environmental
awareness in local communities. However, our
present study and our previous study in Costa
Ricas Osa Peninsula (Almeyda et al., 2010)
show different outcomes. The recycling pro-
grams and trainings supported by the PI eco-
lodge have had an identiable impact on local
environmental awareness and have contrib-
uted to the spread of conservation ethics in the
area. The increased knowledge of the concept
of biodiversity among PI employees compared
with their neighbours can be attributed to
these programs and interaction with visiting
tourists. A recycling program run by PI pro-
cesses the eco-lodges own recyclables plus
those of PI community and anyone who brings
recyclables 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 the
value their natural resources had for tourists.
Seeing a large number of international visitors
all interested in these issues has encouraged
locals to feel similarly. Although PI puts more
emphasis on the human component of its social
responsibility plan, most locals now value
ora and fauna more because they understand
that tourists visit the region to enjoy nature.
CONCLUSION
This study evaluated environmental and social
impacts of the PI eco-lodge, located on Costa
Ricas Nicoya Peninsula. We tested the value
of ecotourism, using PI as a model case study,
as a conservation and development tool, and
also tested the utility and value of Costa Ricas
CST. Considering environmental conserva-
tion, PI has promoted forest preservation.
Although recent job opportunities (both
tourism and other) have brought people back
into the Peninsula and is partly linked to the
deforestation occurring in these communities
within the last decade, the PI eco-lodge prop-
erty remains the scale most reforested in both
forest cover change and total forest cover, indi-
cating that PI is actively working to conserve
forest reserves.
Considering contributions to local liveli-
hoods, PI has offered employment, educational
and empowerment opportunities to local resi-
dents. PI eco-lodge employs many residents of
the Nicoya Peninsula, with the majority from
surrounding communities. PI has also empow-
ered residents through their sponsored art
workshops and has increased environmental
knowledge among their employees. The PI
eco-lodge on a whole was seen as having
Ecotourism in the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica 817
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 803819 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
positive social, cultural and economic impacts
for nearly all societal variables for both PI
employees and their neighbours. PI was per-
ceived as reducing alcoholism, drug addiction
and prostitution, where conventional tourism
on the Peninsula was shown to increase these
societal ills. Land value and product pricing
were the few variables that were believed to
have increased as a result of tourism on the
Peninsula. With respect to tourists, both PI
employees and neighbours desire more tour-
ists in the future. For visiting tourists, although
of less importance were local customs, archi-
tecture and sustainability, the quality of these
categories exceeded expectations. A limitation
of this study is the lack of benchmarks to
compare our results with, stemming from the
paucity of studies on eco-lodge impacts.
However, we feel we went more in depth of
what Costa Ricas certication scheme (CST)
addresses and added an evaluation of forest
cover change to better assess eco-lodge perfor-
mance that other studies can use as a guide.
Although there were areas where tourism
development on the peninsula can be linked to
undesirable outcomes (e.g. increased drugs,
crime and prostitution; land value and product
pricing increases; and increased deforestation
from the return of residents seeking employ-
ment within tourism), we feel that the PI eco-
lodge serves as an example of successful
ecotourism for other lodges in similar social
and environmental situations and delivers the
socio-economic and environmental benets
expected with a ve-leaf CST certication.
However, increasing development in the
immediate region, in particular by standard
hotel operations and large condo develop-
ments by investment companies, seeks to capi-
talise on the regions natural beauty and will
result in a reversal of land cover trends if they
are not accompanied by adequate forest con-
servation strategies and stresses the impor-
tance of monitoring and assessing the impacts
of accommodations tied to nature-based
tourism operations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their appreciation to
the many people and organisations who made
this study possible, including Martha Honey, the
employees of the PI eco-lodge, the many families
on the Nicoya Peninsula who gave their time
freely for informative discussions on tourism,
conservation and their lives, and the Institito
Nacional de Biodiversidad de Costa Rica (INBIO).
We offer special thanks to the Center for Latin
American Studies at Stanford University for their
nancial support of this project.
REFERENCES
Agrawal A, Redford K. 2006. Poverty, Development,
and Biodiversity Conservation: Shooting in the Dark?
Working Paper No 26, Wildlife Conservation
Society: New York.
Alderman CL. 1992. The economics and the role of
privately 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 in
the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica: the Lapa Rios
case. Journal of Ecotourism 9(1): 6283.
Barany ME, Hammett AL, Shillington LJ, Murphy
BR. 2001. The role of private wildlife reserves in
Nicaraguas emerging ecotourism industry.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(2): 95110.
Belsky JM. 1999. Misrepresenting communities: the
politics 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 Conservation 14:
233236.
Buckley R. 2002. Tourism ecolabels. Annals of
Tourism Research 29:183208.
Campbell L. 1999. Ecotourism in rural developing
communities. Annals of Tourism Research 26:534
553.
Ceballos-Lascurain H. 1987. The future of ecotour-
ism. Mexico Journal January: 1314.
Ceballos-Lascurain H. 1998. Ecotourism as a world-
wide phenomenon. In Ecotourism: A Guide for
Planners and Managers, Lindberg K, Hawkins D
(eds). The Ecotourism Society: North Bennington;
1214.
Christ C, Hillel O; Matus S, Sweeting J. 2003. Tourism
and Biodiversity: Mapping Tourisms Global Foot-
print. United Nations Environment Program and
Conservation International: Washington, DC.
Davies T, Cahill S. 1999. Environmental Implications
of the Tourism Industry. Resources for the Future:
Washington, DC.
818 A. M. Almeyda et al.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 803819 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
De Haas HC. 2003. Sustainability of small-scale eco-
tourism: the case of Niue, South Pacic. In Global
Ecotourism Policies and Case Studies: Perspectives
and Constraints, Luck M, Kirstges T (eds). Channel
View Publications: Clevedon; Buffalo; Toronto;
Sydney.
Diamantis D. 1998. Environmental auditing: A tool
in ecotourism development. Eco-Management and
Auditing 5(1): 1521.
DiFiore SL. 2002. Remote Sensing and Exploratory
Data Analysis as Tools to Rapidly Evaluate Forest
Cover Change and Set Conservation Priorities along
the Belize River, Belize. MA Thesis, Columbia Uni-
versity: New York, NY.
Epler Wood M. 2002. Ecotourism: Principles,
practices, and policies for sustainability. United
Nations Development Programme. Accessed
online July 9, 2010 at <http://st-katherine.net/
downloads/Ecotourism Priciples, practices and
policies.pdf>.
Farrell TA, Marion J. 2001. Identifying and assess-
ing ecotourism visitor impacts at eight protected
areas in Costa Rica and Belize. Environmental Con-
servation 28(3): 215225.
Font X. 2001. Regulating the green message: the
players in ecolabelling. In Tourism Ecolabelling:
Certication and Promotion of Sustainable Manage-
ment, Font X, Buckley R (eds). CAB International:
Wallingford, UK; 118.
Font X, Harris C. 2004. Rethinking standards from
green to sustainable. Annals of Tourism Research
31(4): 9861007.
Getz D, Jamal TB. 1994. The environment
community symbiosis: a case of collabora-
tive tourism planning. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 2(3): 152173.
Goodwin H. 2003. Local community involvement in
tourism around national parks: opportunities
and constrains. In Global Ecotourism Policies and
Case Studies: Perspectives and Constraints, Luck M,
Kirstges T (eds). Channel View Publications:
Clevedon; Buffalo; Toronto; Sydney.
Gossling S. 1999. Ecotourism: a means to safeguard
biodiversity and ecosystem functions? Ecological
Economics 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 Certication: Setting
Standards in Practice. Island Press: Washington,
DC.
INCAE. 2000. Tourism in Costa Rica: A competitive
challenge. Costa Rica.
Jacobson SK, Lopez AF. 1994. Biological impacts of
ecotourism: tourists and nesting turtles in Tortu-
guero national park, Costa Rica. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 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-
ment 16(6): 701713.
Jim CY. 2000. Environmental changes associated
with mass urban tourism and nature tourism
development in Hong Kong. The Environmentalist
20(3): 233247.
Jones S. 2005. Community-based ecotourism the
signicance of social capital. Annals of Tourism
Research 32: 303324.
Jones C, Inman C, Pratt L, Mesa N, Rivera J. 2001.
Issues in the design of a green certication
program for tourism. In Environment for Growth
in Central America, Panayotou T (ed.). Harvard
University Press: Cambridge, MA; 292321.
Kalisch A. 2002. Corporate Futures: Consultation on
Good Practice: Social Responsibility in the Tourism
Industry. Tourism Concern: London.
Kruger O. 2005. The role of ecotourism in conserva-
tion: Panacea or Pandoras box? Biodiversity and
Conservation 14: 579600.
Langholz J. 1996. Economics, objectives, and success
of private nature reserves in sub-Saharan Africa
and Latin America. Conservation Biology 10(1):
271280.
Lindberg K, Enriquez J, Sproule K. 1996. Ecotour-
ism questioned: case studies from Belize. Annals
of Tourism Research 23(3): 543652.
Manyara G, Jones E. 2007. Community-based tourism
enterprises development in Kenya: an exploration
of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(6): 628644.
Marion JL, Reid SE. 2007. Minimising visitor impacts
to protected areas: the efcacy of low impact
education programmes. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 15(1): 527.
McCool SF. 1995. Linking tourism, the environmen-
tal, and concepts of sustainability: setting the
stage. 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 ecolodge
certication. In Quality control and certication in
ecotourism, Black R, Crabtree A. (eds). Cabi Pub-
lishing: Wallington, UK.
Moore S, Smith A, Newsome D. 2003. Environ-
mental performance reporting for natural
area tourism. contributions by visitor impact
Ecotourism in the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica 819
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 803819 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
management frameworks and their indicators.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11: 348371.
Obua J. 1997. The potential, development and eco-
logical impact of ecotourism in Kibale national
park, Uganda. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment 50: 2738.
Olsen MD, Tse E, West J. 1998. Strategic Management
in the Hospitality Industry, 2nd edn, Van Nostrand
Reinhold: New York
Osland GE, Mackoy R. 2004. Ecolodge performance
goals and evaluations. Journal of Ecotourism, 3(2):
109128.
Pretty J, Smith D. 2003. Social Capital in Biodiver-
sity Conservation and Management. Conservation
Biology 18: 631638.
Rivera J. 1998. Public private partnerships: the
tourism industry in Costa Rica. In Private Capital
Flows and the Environment: Lessons from Latin
America, Gentry B (ed.). Edward Elgar Press:
Northampton, MA.
Ross S, Wall G. 1999. Evaluating ecotourism: the
case of North Sulawasi, Indonesia. Tourism Man-
agement 20(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 test
of an enterprise strategy for community-based
biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology,
15: 15851595.
Scheyvens R. 1999. Ecotourism and the empower-
ment of local communities. Tourism Management
20: 245249.
Sheng-Hshiung T, Yu-Chiang L, Jo-Hui L. 2006.
Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the
integrated perspective of resource, community
and tourism. Tourism Management 27: 640653.
Southworth J, Nagendra H, Carlson LA, Tucker C.
2004. Assessing the impact of Celaque National
Park 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 Benets: The Link to Conservation Practices
and Perspectives. Society & Natural Resources
16(5): 387413.
Twining-Ward L, Butler R. 2002. Implementing STD
on a small island: development and use of
sustainable tourism development indicators in
Samoa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10(5):
363387.
Wallace GN, Pierce SM. 1996. An evaluation of eco-
tourism in Amazonas, Brazil. Annals of Tourism
Research 23(4): 843873.
Weaver DB, Lawton LJ. 2007. Progress in tourism
management. 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 around
Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental
Conservation 28: 160166.
Wber K. 2002. Benchmarking in Tourism and Hospi-
tality Industries: The Selection of Benchmarking
Partners. CABI: Wallingford, UK.
Wunder S. 1999. Promoting Forest Conservation
Through Ecotourism Income? A Case Study from the
Ecuadorian Amazon Region. Occasional Paper 21.
Center for International Forestry Research: Bogor,
Indonesia.
Wunder S. 2000. Ecotourism and economic incen-
tives: an empirical approach. Ecological Economics
32: 465479.
Wyman M, Stein T. 2010. Examining the linkages
between community benets, place-based mean-
ings, and conservation program involvement: a
study within the Community Baboon Sanctuary,
Belize. Society and Natural Resources 23(6): 115.
Young MD. 1992. Sustainable Investment and
Resource Use. The Parthenon Publishing Group:
New York.