ecotourism's role in positive land-use and land-cover change ... - ETDA [PDF]

Apr 25, 2006 - that I would finish this project and for providing me with all of the ..... destructive effects European

0 downloads 5 Views 7MB Size

Recommend Stories


comparative study of pixel-based and object-based image analysis in landcover and landuse
Don't fear change. The surprise is the only way to new discoveries. Be playful! Gordana Biernat

analysis of landuse and landcover data for giridih district of jharkhand to identify a new industrial
If you feel beautiful, then you are. Even if you don't, you still are. Terri Guillemets

Creating Positive Social Change
If you feel beautiful, then you are. Even if you don't, you still are. Terri Guillemets

Landuse change within Okomu and Gilli-Gilli Forest Reserves, south
Life is not meant to be easy, my child; but take courage: it can be delightful. George Bernard Shaw

Quantifying Spatiotemporal Change in Landuse and Land Cover and Accessing Water Quality
Be like the sun for grace and mercy. Be like the night to cover others' faults. Be like running water

Landcover Change, Land Surface Temperature, Surface Albedo and Topography in the Plateau
Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that

Landcover Change, Land Surface Temperature, Surface Albedo and Topography in the Plateau
It always seems impossible until it is done. Nelson Mandela

National landuse guidelines nema
Ego says, "Once everything falls into place, I'll feel peace." Spirit says "Find your peace, and then

The Role of Communication in Change Management
It always seems impossible until it is done. Nelson Mandela

The role of traditional institutions in political change and development
We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone. Ronald Reagan

Idea Transcript


The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Earth and Mineral Sciences

ECOTOURISM’S ROLE IN POSITIVE LAND-USE AND LAND-COVER CHANGE IN A COSTA RICAN TROPICAL MONTANE CLOUD FOREST

A Thesis in Geography by John L. Morrow

©2010 John L. Morrow

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science

MAY 2010

The thesis of John L. Morrow was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Deryck W. Holdsworth Professor of Geography Thesis Advisor

Brian H. King Assistant Professor of Geography

Karl S. Zimmerer Professor of Geography Head of the Department of Geography

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

ii

ABSTRACT Ecotourism’s Role in Positive Land-Use and Land-Cover Change in a Costa Rican Tropical Montane Cloud Forest

Tropical Montane Cloud Forests (TMCFs) are among the most fragile and biologically diverse of all ecosystems on Earth. However, little is known about TMCF cover change for periods longer than 30 years at local scales. The purpose of this study is to explain and estimate TMCF cover changes for a 65-year period of time beginning in 1941, in a small, steep-sloping, montane environment located in the upper Savegre River watershed in both Dota and Pérez Zeledón counties, San José Province, Costa Rica. Thus, this study investigates how global and national drivers shape local land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) on the basis of retrospective monitoring – by interpreting historical sets of aerial photographs (1941, 1956, 1969, 1973, 1984, 1992, 1997) and a satellite image (2006) – in combination with ground data collected in 1996, 2001, and 2009. Typically, LULCC studies focus on patterns of negative landcover change, mainly deforestation, primarily because positive examples are not common. However, over the past 20 years an excellent case of forest recovery has taken place as a result of numerous socioeconomic and biophysical factors. Chief among these factors has been the boom in ecotourism, both in the study area and within Costa Rica. The results from this analysis are quite hopeful and can assist policy makers and land managers at the regional and national levels in other tropical mountain locations to understand the impacts of economic, political, and social factors on local land users.

KEY WORDS: Tropical Montane Cloud Forest, Land-Use and Land-Cover Change, Deforestation, Forest Recovery, Ecotourism, Savegre River, Costa Rica

iii

Table of Contents List of Figures

.......................................................................................................... viii

List of Tables

.............................................................................................................. x

Abbreviations and acronyms Acknowledgements

...................................................................................... xi

............................................................................................. xiv

Chapter 1 – Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 – Issues

............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 – Purpose and Approach of Study 1.3 – Thesis Outline

.................................................................. 3

............................................................................................ 7

Chapter 2 – Ecotourism’s Origins: The Global Context

................................................ 10

2.1 – Introduction ................................................................................................... 10 2.2 – The Development of Ecotourism

.............................................................. 11

2.2.1 – Concern for the Environment 2.2.2 – Sustainable Development

........................................................... 11 .............................................................. 18

2.2.3 – Concern over the Impacts of Tourism 2.2.4 – Concern for Communities

................................................. 20

.............................................................. 25

2.3 –The Emergence of the Concept of Ecotourism

............................................... 28

2.4 – Ecotourism’s Contemporary Development

.............................................. 32

2.4.1 – Ecotourism as an Experience: Definitional Developments 2.4.2 – Ecotourism as a Sub-field of Study

..................................................... 35

2.4.3 – Ecotourism as a Major Segment of the Tourism Industry 2.4.4 – Ecotourism and Certification 2.5 – Conclusion

............... 32

.................. 36

............................................................. 38

................................................................................................. 39

iv

Chapter 3 – Ecotourism in Costa Rica: The National Context 3.1 – Introduction

............................... 40

.................................................................................................. 40

3.2 – History of Ecotourism’s Development 3.2.1 – Research and Education

........................................................... 41

...................................................................... 41

3.2.2 – Development and the Environmental Problem

............................... 47

3.2.3 – Preservation and the Conservationist Solution

................................. 53

3.3 – Ecotourism’s Contemporary Development

.............................................. 56

3.3.1 – The Growth of the National Park System

........................................... 57

3.3.2 – Tourism’s Phases of Development, 1980-2001

.................................. 58

3.3.3 – The Negative Impacts of Tourism

..................................................... 60

3.4 – Evaluation and Certification of Tourism

.................................................. 62

3.4.1 – The New Key to Costa Rica

................................................................. 63

3.4.2 – Certification for Sustainable Tourism 3.4.3 – The Blue Flag Ecological Program 3.5 – Conclusion

................................................ 64 ..................................................... 66

................................................................................................. 66

Chapter 4 – Ecotourism and the Upper Savegre River Watershed: The Local Context .................................................................. 68 4.1 – Introduction

.................................................................................................. 68

4.2 – Study Area

................................................................................................. 69

4.3 – Tropical Montane Cloud Forests

................................................................. 72

4.3.1 – Definition of Tropical Montane Cloud Forests 4.3.2 – Importance of Tropical Montane Cloud Forests 4.4 – San Gerardo de Dota: The Early Years

..................................... 73 ............................. 75

.......................................................... 79

4.4.1 – Exploration and Settlement (1954-1957)

........................................... 81

4.4.2 – Connection and Community (1957-1965)

................................... 85 v

4.5 – The Years of Great Opportunities (1965-1976) 4.5.1 – Road Construction

............................................................................. 88

4.5.2 – Land Expansion and Ownership 4.5.3 – Dairy Farming

........................................ 86

.................................................... 89

............................................................................... 91

4.5.4 – The School “La Lidia”

.................................................................. 94

4.5.5 – Rainbow Trout and Fishing 4.5.6 – Fruit Tree Cultivation

................................................................ 94 ..................................................................... 100

4.6 – The Years of Great Growth (1973-1986)

.................................................. 102

4.7 – Origin and Development of Ecotourism in the Valley (1975-1994)

.................................................... 103

4.8 – Contemporary Ecotourism in the Valley (1994-2007) ................................... 109 4.9 – Ecotourism Certification Programs in the Valley (2008-2009) 4.10 – Conclusion

............................................................................................. 115

Chapter 5 – Land-Use/Land-Cover Change in the Upper Savegre River Watershed: 1941-2006 5.1 – Introduction

............................................... 118

5.3 – Brief History of Land Cover Classification in Costa Rica 5.4 – A New Ecological Classification System

5.6 – Results 5.7 – Conclusion Chapter 6 – Discussion 6.1 – Introduction

.................................. 117

............................................................................................... 117

5.2 – Overview of Land-Use/Land-Cover Change

5.5 – Methods

................ 114

............................ 122

........................................................ 123

.................................................................................................. 128 ............................................................................................. 133 ............................................................................................... 139 ..................................................................................... 141 ........................................................................................ 141

6.2 – Framework Used to Describe LULCC in the Study Area

............................. 141 vi

6.2.1 – Proximate Causes and Underlying Driving Forces of LULCC ................................................................ 142 6.2.2 – Description of Underlying Causes 6.3 – Discussion of LULCC in the Study Area

................................................ 144 .................................................. 148

6.3.1 – Explanation of Deforestation (1941-1997) 6.3.2 – Explanation of Forest Recovery (1984-2006) 6.4 – Conclusion

..................................... 148 ............................. 153

............................................................................................... 162

Chapter 7 – Conclusion and Recommendations 7.1 – Summary

....................................................... 164

.................................................................................................. 164

7.2 – Conclusion

............................................................................................... 164

7.3 – Recommendations for Future Research 7.4 - Final Remarks

............................................... 167

.......................................................................................... 170

Appendix A – The New Key to Costa Rica Sustainable Tourism Survey ...................... 171 Appendix B – History of Efraín Chacón and President José Figueres Ferrer Bibliography

.............. 176

....................................................................................................... 187

vii

List of Figures 1.1 – Map of Costa Rica

....................................................................................................... 4

1.2 – Location of the study area

.......................................................................................... 5

1.3 – Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of forest loss 2.1 – Definitions describing the experience of ecotourism 4.1 – Map of the study region

........................................ 6

.............................................. 34

............................................................................................. 70

4.2 – Map of the Cerro Buenavista “La Muerte” Massif

......................................................... 71

4.3 – The Holdridge Diagram for the classification of World Life Zones

............................... 72

4.4 – Map of the Los Santos Forest Reserve

.................................................................. 73

4.5 – Generalized altitudinal forest formation

................................................................... 74

4.6 – Photo of Male Resplendent Quetzal 4.7 – Photo of Efraín Chacón

.............................................................................. 78

............................................................................................. 81

4.8 – Photo of house in La Cima

.......................................................................................... 83

4.9 – Route to the Savegre River Valley

................................................................................. 84

4.10 – Map of land owners in San Gerardo in 1973

............................................................ 87

4.11 – Photo of Efraín’s family’s first day in valley, 1963

................................................... 88

4.12 – Photo of Federico’s land, 1975

................................................................................ 91

4.13 – Photo of Efraín’s milking area

............................................................................... 92

4.14 – Photo of Marino, César, and Efraín, 1976

................................................................... 93

4.15 – Photo of Efraín and Sonia at competition, 1976 4.16 – Photo of Efraín outside of Gilca, Ltd.

...................................................................... 96

4.17 – Aerial photo of Efraín’s and Federico’s land, 1973 4.18 – Photo of Marino fishing in Savegre River 4.19 – Photo of Efraín’s cabins, 1978

.......................................................... 93

................................................. 97

................................................................... 98

................................................................................... 99 viii

4.20 – Photo of Efraín’s Anna Apple, 1978 4.21 – Photo of White Oak, 1996

..................................................................... 101

....................................................................................... 105

4.22 – Photo of “Banky” Hydroelectric Generator, 2009

................................................... 107

4.23 – Photo of LASP students presenting research, 1996 4.24 – Photo of Efraín and Dr. Finkenbinder 4.25 – Photo of QERC, 2009

.................................................................... 111

............................................................................................... 112

4.26 – Photo of Hotel Savegre’s Blue Flag Award 4.27 – Efraín and his axe, 1974

............................................ 109

................................................................. 114

...................................................................................... 116

5.1 – Structural physiognomic vegetation classification

.................................................... 124

5.2 – Example of an area mapped with new classification system 5.3 – Ecosystem classification of the study area 5.4 – Savegre River Basin

...................................... 125

............................................................... 127

.............................................................................................. 129

5.5 – Digital elevation model of the upper Savegre River watershed 5.6 – Spatial trends of deforestation, 1941-2006

......................................................... 136-137

5.7 – Causes of forest loss in the study area, 1941-1997

................................................. 138

6.1 – Proximate causes and underlying driving forces (revisited) 6.2 – Trail made by the pioneer Pedro Calderón 6.3 – Land-use capability map as of 2004

................................... 143

.......................................................... 149 .................................................................... 154

6.4 – Location of businesses within the study area 6.5 – Location of Los Santos Forest Reserve

............................... 132

....................................................... 159 ............................................................... 160

6.6 – Proposed expansion area for Los Quetzales National Park

...................................... 162

7.1 – Aerial image of Providencia in relation to the study area

........................................ 168

ix

List of Tables 2.1 – Rationales supporting the need for a definition of ecotourism 3.1 – Number and extent of protected areas in Costa Rica

.................................. 31

............................................ 55

3.2 – International Arrivals to Costa Rica, 1975-2001 (for Selected Years) 5.1 – Physiognomic key used for classification

....................... 59

............................................................. 125

5.2 – Statistics on TMCF loss and deforestation rates

........................................................... 134

5.3 – Vegetation cover classified by Van Omme in 1996

.................................................... 134

5.4 – Statistics on forest loss for study area, 1941-2006

.............................................. 135

5.5 – Simple statistics representing landscape configuration

........................................... 139

6.1 – Population statistics of areas with San José Province, 1892-2000

........................... 152

6.2 – Growth of the Chacón family’s hotel business, 1971-2008

..................................... 157

6.3 – Growth of ecotourism businesses in San Gerardo de Dota

................................... 158

7.1 – Comparative statistics about the growth of tourism and decline of forest loss 7.2 – Climatological data on the lower part of the study area

.......... 166

....................................... 169

x

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACLA-P

La Amistad-Pacific Conservation Area (Área de Conservación La AmistadPacífico)

ACOPAC

Central Pacific Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Pacífico Central)

ACOPROT

Costa Rican Association of Professionals in Tourism (Asociación de Costarricense de Profesionales en Turismo)

APACO

Association of Agricultural Producers and Marketers (Asociación de Productores Agrícolas y Comercializadores)

AyA

Institute of Aqueducts and Sewer Systems (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados)

BBC

British Broadcasting Company

BPR

Bureau of Public Roads (from the United States)

CANATUR

National Tourism Chamber (Cámara Nacional de Turismo)

CATIE

Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñaza)

CCC

Caribbean Conservation Corporation

CITES

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CST

Certification for Sustainable Tourism (Certificación para la Sostenibilidad Turística)

DEM

Digital Elevation Model

DGF

General Forestry Directorate (Dirección General Forestal)

EBA

Endemic Bird Area

ESRI

Environmental Systems Research Institute

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GIS

Geographic Information System

IAH

Inter-American Highway xi

ICT

Costa Rican Tourism Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo)

IDB

Inter-American Development Bank

IGN

National Geographical Institute (Instituto Geográfico Nacional)

IICA

Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura)

ILWIS

Integrated Land and Water Information System

INA

National Training Institute (Instituto Nacional de Aprendizaje)

INBio

National Biodiversity Institute (Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad)

INEC

National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos)

ISO

International Organization for Standardization

ISTF

International Society of Tropical Foresters

ITC

Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation

ITCO

Institute of Lands and Colonization (Instituto de Tierras y Colonización)

IUCN

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

IYE

International Year of Ecotourism

LACSA

Lineas Aereas Costarricenses S.A.

LASP

Latin American Studies Program

LULCC

Land-Use and Land-Cover Change

MAG

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería)

MINAE

Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía)

MINSA

Ministry of Public Health (Ministerio de Salud)

NGO

Non-governmental Organization

NSF

National Science Foundation

OAS

Organization of American States

OTS

Organization for Tropical Studies

Pan Am

Pan American World Airways

PBAE

Blue Flag Ecological Program (Programa Bandera Azul Ecológica) xii

PRONATURA

Mexican Association for the Conservation of Nature

QERC

Quetzal Education Research Center

SEDUE

Mexican Ministry of Urban Development and Ecology

SINAC

National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Areas de Conservacion)

TIES

The International Ecotourism Society

TM

Thematic Mapper

TMCF

Tropical Montane Cloud Forest

TSC

Tropical Science Center

UCR

University of Costa Rica (Universidad de Costa Rica)

UFCo

United Fruit Company

UNCHE

United Nations Conference on the Human Environment

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UNEP

United Nations Environment Program

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

USC

University of Southern California

USFS

United States Forest Service

WCED

World Commission on Environment and Development

WCS

World Conservation Strategy

WTO

World Tourism Organization

WWF

World Wildlife Fund

xiii

Acknowledgements

“Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.” 1

When I began this journey two years ago, I could not have imagined that I would be writing a thesis about the very place I visited during a semester of college back in 1996. However, through a series of amazing events, I was able to complete a study that cost over $US 2 million dollars, took 14 years, and required the effort of at least 4 graduate students (myself included). Truly this opportunity and experience has been a blessing from God and I thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ for his guidance, my health, protection, and for the will to keep going. I also thank my wise, beautiful, and loving wife, Melissa, for traveling with me to Costa Rica (while being three months pregnant) and enduring the difficulties of raising a new and wonderful baby girl, Madison Grace, while dealing with my hectic work schedule. Your daily encouragement, comforting words, and fresh ideas have sustained me through this long process. My life would be so much less without you! I thank my dedicated and supportive “prayer warrior” mother who has made so many sacrifices to enable me to be where I am today. Though there were many difficult times, you never wavered in your dedication to raising me with Christian values, providing me with diverse and exciting experiences, and facilitating quality opportunities (such as the semester in Costa Rica). I thank my dad, the Reverend, for also praying me through all my adventures. Thank you Grandma and Pap Morrow for your humble example, as I have learned how to be a more diligent worker, sticking to the task at hand until it is finished. I see so many similarities between you and the Chacóns that I feel as though I understand them better because of knowing you both. Two years ago when I was applying to the department, I had no idea what I wanted to study, but I appreciate the patience and guidance I have received from my wonderful advisor, Dr. Deryck Holdsworth. I’m sure that my numerous ideas about possible thesis topics as well as the many directions I have taken with this thesis have seemed rather odd. But, you have 1

Proverbs 3:5-6, Bible, New International Version.

xiv

handled them with such ease and confidence as to make me feel as though I am doing the right things. Additionally, I am grateful for your time and efforts in reviewing my work. I feel as though I have grown so much as a researcher and writer as a result of your instruction. I also thank Dr. Brian King for your very enlightening political ecology seminar and for your insightful feedback on my thesis work. I feel as though that seminar helped me understand new ways to evaluate issues and gave me the depth I needed to analyze deforestation and forest recovery in my study area in Costa Rica. I also want to thank Dr. Maarten Kappelle for your trust and faith that I would finish this project and for providing me with all of the necessary previously compiled information. I also want to thank the wonderful Chacón family! This study, of course, would not even exist without your amazing example. Your lives are truly a testament to the many ways in which humans can live in harmony with nature and I am honored to be the one to tell your story. To Efraín and Caridad, I am humbled at the many difficult experiences you have had over the years and am grateful for your abundant hospitality and openness. It has been such a pleasure to study your lives and I wish you both the happiest of years to come. To all the Chacón sons and daughters, thank you for entertaining me and my requests while in your homes. Your stories have been fascinating to learn and I hope to continue the dream of writing a book that eloquently and accurately showcases your lives. I also want to thank Marino Chacón for giving me access to all of the family’s photos, newspaper and magazine articles, and letters, which helped me better understand the history of the valley. Raúl Fernández Chacón and Felipe Chacón, your interviews with your grandfather were more beneficial than I could have imagined. Because of your sincere interest in your heritage and the family business, Efraín and Caridad were so much more willing and interested to discuss their history. I appreciate your time and your enthusiasm. To all the other families and individuals I interviewed in the valley, I want to thank you for your time and willingness to open your homes and lives to a stranger. I have learned so much from your examples as you have sacrificed so much to achieve the seemingly impossible. Your lives are a beacon for all who desire to combine conservation with development in a sustainable manner. Many thanks to Cristian Zuñiga-Brenes for your friendship and daily help with my research. You definitely made the time in the valley the richest and most rewarding experience I could have ever had; thank you for always being willing to accompany me on my many interviews and explorations. Time spent with you was both educational and enjoyable. You helped me gain a perspective about the lives of the people in the valley that I would have otherwise completely missed.

xv

I also want to commend the work of David Hille, Fieldstation Manager of the Quetzal Education Research Center (QERC), and his wife Sarah Hille who were invaluable in getting me incorporated into the Chacón family as well as into the lives of the other families in the valley. Your names are well respected within the community, which is a result of your hard work and commitment to improving the conservation awareness of those in the valley. You have created a wonderful study environment for the students who visit during the summer as well as for those who spend a semester studying in the valley; you have a solid program and great selection of resources for the students. Last, but not least, I want to thank my former professor (during my time with the Latin American Studies Program in 1996) and one of the main drivers behind the transformation that took place within San Gerardo de Dota, Dr. Leo Finkenbinder. My time in Costa Rica during my junior year in college was one of the highlights of my undergraduate experience and your tropical biology academic program was the best! This research would not have been completed, if it weren’t for your course. Thank you for your time at Olivet Nazarene University, which was tremendously valuable in guiding my thinking about the history of the valley, prior to conducting my summer research.

xvi

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 – ISSUES Deforestation and tropical montane cloud forests Within the past few decades, concern over the rapid rate of tropical deforestation has become widespread. This is mainly due to the resulting irreversible ecological changes, such as the loss of plant and animal species, at a pace and on a scale never before experienced in human history. In both scholarly and mass media literature, cries of alarm abound: organisms that may possess cures to humankind’s most terrible diseases are being eradicated before scientists can discover their secrets; indigenous populations are being displaced, transformed, or are decreasing in number as a result of contact with foreigners and loss of habitat; and the loss of forests, which are sources (and sinks) of carbon, are adding to the ever-growing climate change issue. 1 However, much of the attention directed at deforestation has focused on tropical lowland forests, such as the Amazon rainforest, most likely because of the exceptionally high concentration of biodiversity present in these areas. More recently, though, researchers have become aware of the importance and disappearance of tropical montane cloud forests (TMCFs), “which are characterized by persistent, frequent or seasonal cloud cover at the vegetation level, are biologically rich and diverse as well as one of the most threatened ecosystems in the world.” 2 Currently, less than half of the world’s original TMCF extent is left and only 20 percent has a protected status. 3 Additionally, following clearing, TMCF recovery is extremely slow and may take one to several centuries. 4

1

Peter Klepeis, “From Farmers to Satellites: A Human Geography Perspective on Tropical Deforestation,” in Tropical Deforestation (eds.) Sharon L. Spray and Matthew D. Moran (Lanham: Rownam & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006), 77-102. 2 Deepak K. Ray, Udaysankar S. Nair, Robert O. Lawton, Ronald M. Welch, and Roger A. Pielke Sr., “Impact of land use on Costa Rican tropical montane cloud forests: Sensitivity of orographic cloud formation to deforestation in the plains,” Journal of Geophysical Research (2006) 111: 1. 3 Philip Bubb, Ian May, Lera Miles, and Jeff Sayer, Cloud Forest Agenda (UK: Swaingrove Imaging, 2005), 11. 4 Maarten Kappelle, Peer A.F. Kennis, and Rob A.J. de Vries, “Changes in diversity along a successional gradient in a Costa Rican upper montane Quercus forest,” Biodiversity and Conservation (1995) 4: 10-34; Maarten Kappelle, Thorwald Geuze, Miguel E. Leal, and Antoine M. Cleef, “Successional age and forest structure in a Costa Rican upper montane Quercus forest,” Journal of Tropical Ecology (1996) 12: 681-698.

1

Although TMCFs occupy only 0.4 percent of the earth’s surface, they support nearly 20 percent and 16 percent of the planet’s plant and vertebrate diversity, respectively. 5 Moreover, within the Neotropical ecozone (one of the eight world ecozones that includes Central and South America, plus the southern portion of Mexico, the Caribbean Islands and Florida) these forests are core components of two (i.e., Mesoamerica and the Northern Andes) of the richest and most threatened biodiversity hotspots out of a total of 25 around the globe. Although important, most of these hotspots have lost as much as 75 percent of their original land cover and are continuing to experience rapid forest loss due to deforestation and climatic change. 6 Unfortunately, TMCFs “have been subjected to little research and even less long-term monitoring.” 7 As such, knowledge about deforestation trends within TMCF environments over long periods of time and at detailed scales is lacking. This is likely due to their remote locations and inhospitable environments for research, along with the limited availability of cartographically large-scale, remotely-sensed imagery. Almost no remote sensing imagery is available for periods before the 1970s when, for the first time, Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite imagery became available to tropical scientists. Studies on deforestation dynamics in Neotropical forest areas mainly cover the last 30 years, although exceptions do occur. 8 Understanding causal factors of deforestation Along with concerns over the possible and perceived negative impacts (used in this study to describe those decisions, actions, or impacts that degrade the environment and, in the long run, threaten the well-being of humankind) of tropical deforestation on the environment and on society, are numerous assumptions about the causes of forest loss. Traditionally, the main culprits have been population growth and poverty (more specifically, poor and migratory farmers who occupy forested land and practice slash-and-burn agriculture). Other explanations point to logging and cattle ranching activities. However, the majority of these explanations fail to conduct a careful review of all the evidence, both direct and indirect, thereby simplifying the complexity of land-cover change dynamics. Land use is a highly political affair and in many cases these mischaracterizations of the problem have led to policies and programs that only account for the well-being of the environmental component (and usually not for the benefit of the ecosystem itself, but for some economic purpose), thereby excluding the human component. Not only does this create 5

Norman Myers, Russell A. Mittermeier, Cristina G. Mittermeier, Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca, and Jennifer Kent, “Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities,” Nature (2000) 403: 853-858. 6 Ibid. 7 L.A. Bruijnzeel and Lawrence S. Hamilton, Decision Time for Cloud Forests IHP Humid Tropics Programme Series no. 13 (Paris: UNESCO Division of Water Sciences, 2000), 33. 8 Steven A. Sader and Armond T. Joyce, “Deforestation Rates and Trends in Costa Rica, 1940 to 1983,” Biotropica (1988) 20(1): 11-19.

2

tenuous situations for numerous communities around the world, but many times policies that are created based on erroneous or deceitful information become one of the major causes of land degradation. Therefore, understanding environmental change requires a thorough examination of all factors involved in driving land-use decisions. For example, economic, political, biophysical, demographic, and technological factors need to be considered to determine those conditions that have enabled or hindered local decision-making, whether positive or negative.

1.2 – PURPOSE AND APPROACH OF STUDY Why Geography? Since understanding deforestation requires ecological, economic, cultural, and ethical considerations, it’s no wonder that researchers from the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities routinely explore this issue. Increasingly, though, deforestation research has found a home within the discipline of geography. This is because geographers typically strive to connect changes in landscapes with the multiple social and biophysical factors involved. “Geographers contrast characteristics that are common to tropical deforestation worldwide with those that are unique to particular places. And they consider societal response,” as such, geography represents a disciplinary middle ground. 9 Those within the discipline of geography have a long and distinguished tradition of exploring human-environment relationships and linking environmental change with its underlying processes: this study seeks to further this tradition. Overview of research To help fill the gap in knowledge about deforestation patterns within TMCF environments for a period longer than 30 years, and to help understand how and why TMCF deforestation takes place, the author of this project was able to complete a retrospective monitoring and analysis study of the social dynamics of land-use/land-cover change (LULCC) that began in 1996. Research took place in a small, recently-colonized, partially pristine TMCF located in the upper Savegre River watershed on the Pacific slope of the Cordillera de Talamanca in central Costa Rica (see Figures 1.1 and 1.2). The study area was chosen because this mountain chain harbors the last large block of continuous TMCF in southern Central America. 10 Additionally, aerial photographs and satellite imagery were available for this region, covering the last 65 years (1941-2006). Furthermore, while most LULCC studies have focused on examples of negative land-cover change, presumably because models of positive land-cover 9

Klepeis, “From Farmers to Satellites,” 78. Maarten Kappelle and Marta E. Juárez, “The Los Santos Forest Reserve: A bufferzone vital for the Costa Rican La Amistad Biosphere Reserve,” Environmental Conservation (1994) 21(2): 166-169.

10

3

change were not common, this study highlights an outstanding example of TMCF recovery that has taken place over the past two decades. Figure 1.1 – Map of Costa Rica 11

Previous researchers working on this study analyzed historical aerial photo sets with the goal of establishing trends in deforestation in relation to society-driven LULCC and how these trends have affected the condition and ecological integrity of a local TMCF. In order to finish the research, this author analyzed satellite imagery from 2006, compared the results with previous data (1941-1997), and examined the numerous global and national factors that have influenced local land owners’ land-use decisions. Analytical framework In order to identify the causes and processes of forest cover change within the study area, two fundamental questions needed to be answered: the first was what types of land-use 11

GIS data for this map were obtained from Oscar Chacón at INBio, in Costa Rica, on January 8, 2010.

4

and land-cover changes have taken place over the 65-year period starting in 1941; and second, what were the causal factors involved in those changes? Figure 1.2 – Location of the study area 12

While a great deal of work was completed by the previous researchers to answer the first question, much research remained to answer the second. The approach used in this study to identify and assign causal power to possible factors, follows the framework designed in 2002 by Helmut J. Geist and Eric F. Lambin, both of whom have been deeply involved in guiding thinking about LULCC. 13 Through this approach, Geist and Lambin have identified numerous factors (see Figure 1.3) that “interact in specific contexts at the local, regional, or global scale to influence

12

GIS data for this map were obtained from Oscar Chacón at INBio, in Costa Rica, on January 8, 2010. Helmut J. Geist and Eric F. Lambin, “Proximate Causes and Underlying Driving Forces of Tropical Deforestation,” BioScience (2002) 52(2): 143-150.

13

5

land-use decision-making.” 14 Since its inception, this approach has been widely used because it is a useful conceptual model about the links between human activities (at different temporal and spatial scales) and land use and land cover. Figure 1.3 – Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of forest loss 15

According to this framework, in order to better explain the causes of land dynamics it was necessary to, first, be clear about the distinction between land cover (the visible features of the surface of the Earth) and land use (the use of the land surface by humans) 16 and, second, to distinguish between proximate causes (direct and/or local) and underlying driving forces 14

Helmut Geist, William McConnell, Eric F. Lambin, Emilio Moran, Diogenes Alves, and Thomas Rudel, “Causes and Trajectories of Land-Use/Cover Change,” in Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: Local Processes and Global Impacts (eds.) Eric F. Lambin and Helmut Geist (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2006), 41-70. 15 Geist and Lambin, “Proximate Causes,” 144. 16 James B. Campbell, Introduction to Remote Sensing, 4th edition (New York: The Guilford Press, 2006), 559.

6

(indirect or root). Once these concepts were defined, it was then necessary to explore the decisions made by local land owners, since it was their actions that had a direct impact on the land cover of the valley. This was accomplished through personal interviews conducted with 20 land owners within the study area. However, it was also important to explore those factors that underlay the decisions made by those land owners over the past 50 years. To accomplish this task the author conducted a thorough review of relevant literature, including works in both English and Spanish. Documents from numerous sources (e.g., articles from peer-reviewed journals and newspapers, dissertations, and government reports) were included that covered a wide range of topics such as geography, national and regional history, and government policy on forest use and agriculture. Additionally, demographic data was collected covering the past 150 years.

1.3 – THESIS OUTLINE Because of the great amount of influence ecotourism has had in transforming the negative land-use and cover patterns both in Costa Rica and within the study area, the first part of this thesis centers around ecotourism’s global and national development. The purpose of these chapters is to help the reader understand those events that have guided and directed thinking about the environment, rural communities, and economic development. These chapters dive deep into history to uncover the sources of many themes that are typically absent in most accounts of ecotourism’s origins. While many authors of ecotourism literature begin their accounts with where the term and definition of ecotourism originated, this author believes that the global and national concern for the environment, concern over social justice, and the application of sustainable development have all played a role in how ecotourism has been shaped (both globally and within Costa Rica). Additionally, many scientists who were involved in the advancement of Costa Rica’s environmental consciousness and scientific education were also involved in promoting ecotourism internationally. Therefore, Chapter 2 discusses ecotourism’s origins and historical growth within the global context. It does this by tracing its development to four themes, some of which have taken place concurrently through time. The first, concern for the environment, looks at the history of nature conservation and preservation that led to the establishment of parks and protected areas designed for recreational and scientific use. Following this theme is sustainable development, which is included because ecotourism is often one of the responsible forms of tourism suggested by the concept to achieve development that is environmentally, culturally, and economically beneficial. The third theme, concern over the impacts of tourism, shows how ecotourism emerged as a reaction to the negative ecological and social effects of mass tourism. The final theme, concern over communities, examines how issues of social injustice became included in the concepts of sustainable development and ecotourism. From there the chapter 7

examines ecotourism’s contemporary development, exploring its more recent roots: its definition as an experience, its development as a sub-field of study, its progression as a major segment of the tourism industry, and the push to validate and certify sectors within this segment (as a way to gain credibility). Chapter 3 examines ecotourism’s emergence and development in Costa Rica. Similar in many respects to the global context, ecotourism in the national context progressed as a result of several themes that took place throughout the last 150 years of the country’s history. The first theme explains how the growing amount of scientific research and education, which started in the mid-1800s, helped create a conservation consciousness in the country by raising awareness about Costa Rica’s rich abundance of flora and fauna. Concurrent with this theme was the advancement of political policies designed to stimulate economic development, but whose programs ultimately created ecological degradation. One estimate of forest loss in Costa Rica states that by 1940, 67 percent of the country was still covered by primary forest, yet by 1977 only 32 percent remained. 17 This rapid decline in forested land prompted the third theme, the creation of one of the most amazing land-conservation programs the world has ever seen. The remainder of the chapter highlights the development of ecotourism in Costa Rica since the early 1980s, with roots that are almost identical to those found in the global context. Chapter 4 explains the history of the study area by following the life of one of the pioneers of the valley, from the time of its discovery in 1954 to events that took place in 2008 and 2009. The author chose this family because their decisions have helped shape the direction of LULCC within the valley for nearly 60 years. Additionally, their experiences are closely related to those of most other land-owning families in the valley. Finally, more than 60 newspaper articles, book chapters, and journal articles have been written about this family that have facilitated a more complete and accurate account of LULCC in the study area. Chapter 5 provides the results of the retrospective monitoring study of land-cover change within the upper Savegre River watershed for the 65-year period starting in 1941 and ending in 2006. It gives information regarding the history of previous work conducted on this study and highlights a land-cover classification method used to analyze the entire Savegre River Basin. It shows deforestation trends covering the entire study period and supports these trends with statistics on forest clearing and deforestation rates and percentages for seven different time periods. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of what this data suggests about the landscape configuration and leaves the examination of the social dynamics of LULCC for Chapter 6.

17

Sader and Joyce, “Deforestation Rates,” 12.

8

Chapter 6 includes a thorough discussion about the framework used to analyze the direct and indirect causes of LULCC and explains these factors as they relate to the upper Savegre River watershed. While many factors involved in both negative and positive LULCC within the study area are discussed in other chapters, the purpose of this chapter is to further explore those proximate causes and underlying driving forces not fully examined in the preceding chapters and to investigate other factors not discussed elsewhere. The explanation of LULCC within the study area is divided into two sections, deforestation and forest recovery (as each issue has its own associated causal factors). The final chapter, Conclusions and Recommendations summarizes the work completed in this study and briefly discusses its importance at the local and national level. It offers and discusses some possible future research topics to include a comparative study between San Gerardo de Dota and Providencia (a town to the west of the study area), a comparative study between the upper Savegre River watershed TMCF environment and that of the famous Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve, and a climate change study to determine the effects of warmer climate on the TMCF environment as well as on the livelihood of the local community in the study area.

9

Chapter 2

Ecotourism’s Origins: The Global Context

2.1 – INTRODUCTION Ecotourism is often described as a successful strategy to combine the interests of environmental conservation, community empowerment, and sustainable development. It is said to have the potential to finance conservation and protect natural resources, benefit local communities, improve biological and cultural understanding, and even improve the tourism industry. According to Elizabeth Boo, a well-known writer and researcher in the field of tourism, the concept of ecotourism emerged from two global trends that took place simultaneously and became more and more intertwined over time: the first was "a rapid expansion of the tourism industry, with a growing demand for “specialized" tourism and, in particular, tourism to protected natural areas,” that took place during the 1950s and 1960s. 1 The second trend was a change in conservation strategies for the management of parks and protected areas, from a protectionist approach to a linked-incentives strategy, which emerged in the early 1970s. 2 Although this is true, the concept of ecotourism has more antecedents than just the above mentioned trends. First, a large number of travelers began desiring a “specialized” form of tourism (different from mass tourism) to get away from the negative impacts the growing tourism industry was having on host countries’ environments and culture. Tourism to protected natural areas was one avenue that these people took. Second, travellers were able to escape to parks and protected areas because of the environmental concern that had developed over the previous century, which shaped policies that, in turn, established such areas. Unfortunately, these policies and practices usually separated local people from essential natural resources needed to support their livelihoods. Third, in recognition of this dilemma, the concept of sustainable development, which emerged in the 1960s, proposed that through ecotourism, parks could become places that could meet the needs of the local people while maintaining the health of the environment.

1

Elizabeth Boo, Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls, Vol 1 and 2 (Washington: World Wide Fund for Nature, 1990), 1. 2 Nick Salafsky and Eva Wollenberg, “Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: A Conceptual Framework and Scale for Assessing the Integration of Human Needs and Biodiversity,” World Development (2000) 28(8): 1421-1438.

10

Many published sources about ecotourism’s history discuss the more recent developments such as the two trends mentioned above. However, absent from these works are discussions about the concern for the environment that emerged in the mid-1800s in Western Europe and North America, and an examination about the history of thinking about sustainable development that arose in the 1960s (which is closely linked to the history of environmental concern). In order to address these deficiencies and adequately describe the context in which ecotourism emerged, this chapter will discuss four themes that overlap in time: concern for the environment, sustainable development, concern over the impacts of tourism, and concern for communities. Additionally, this chapter will explain the reason behind the proliferation of ecotourism definitions. Finally, an examination of ecotourism’s contemporary development will conclude the chapter.

2.2 – THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECOTOURISM 2.2.1 – Concern for the Environment Scientific Forestry and Early Environmentalism While not limited to North America or Europe, the majority of available literature on the “global environmental movement” is almost exclusively focused on countries in the northern hemisphere. 3 This suggests that concern for the relationship between humans and their environment originated in the global North in the late 1800s as a result of industrialization or Northern beliefs towards nature. However, as Richard Grove points out, concern for the environment is an idea that originated far earlier, during the colonial period, as a result of the destructive effects European economic activity was having in many expansion areas. As a result of increased global trade and travel, European ideas about nature were slowly transformed through contact with indigenous peoples and new worlds. In particular, tropical locations increasingly became the “symbolic location for the idealized landscapes and aspirations of the Western imagination.” 4 Moreover, tropical islands were seen as a type of Eden or paradise. The full development of this Edenic thinking corresponded with the realization that colonial demands on tropical islands were threatening their natural beauty. What developed in the mideighteenth century, then, were theories about environmental limits and an acknowledgement of the need for conservation. It is ironic that these theories developed during and as a result of the commercial expansion of the Dutch and English East India Companies and later of the French Compagnie des Indes, since much ecological destruction took place in their pursuit of economic prosperity. 3

W.M. Adams, Green Development: Environment and sustainability in the Third World, 2nd edition (New York: Routledge, 2001). 4 Richard Grove, “The origins of environmentalism,” Nature (1990) 345(6270): 11-14.

11

However, employed by these companies was a cadre of highly educated medical surgeons turned scientists who were hired to understand unfamiliar floras and faunas both for commercial interests and to protect against possible health risks. Works about the natural environment produced by these doctors were disseminated to scientific communities throughout the colonial world. 5 One source of such works was located on the French controlled island of Mauritius where ideas about forest conservation and pollution control were developed between 1768 and 1810, by scientists who observed the negative climatic consequences of deforestation. 6 Later, under British control, ideas and methods produced on this island were transferred to India where they were strengthened by theories created by Alexander von Humboldt, considered to be the grandfather of modern geography. 7 Starting in the late eighteenth century, botanists and other scientists warned of the dire consequences of deforestation that began earlier that century. They believed the rapid loss of forest cover resulted in land surface desiccation, flash floods, soil degradation, and even a decrease in the amount of rainfall. 8 During the first half of the nineteenth century, India was experiencing a rapid decline in timber resources. This was due to a quick expansion in colonial agriculture, an increase in teak exports to England, and the construction of a railway network that started in the 1850s. 9 As a result, authorities in India realized that the unplanned and rapid extraction of wood resources could not be sustained indefinitely. In the 1840s and 1850s, surgeons such as Alexander Gibson in Bombay and Hugh Cleghorn in Madras warned of the negative results of deforestation. Called the “father of scientific forestry in India,” Cleghorn, a Scottish medical doctor, became a passionate supporter of conservationist ideas and the organizer of the Forestry Department in Madras. 10 Many who spent time serving in the forest service in British India moved on to other parts of the Empire such as Australia and South Africa. 11 Early settlers in Australia had similar attitudes towards forests as those in the United States, that they were impediments to progress. As a result it wasn’t long before removal of forest cover led to soil erosion, flooding, silting of rivers, and land desiccation as a result of 5

Ibid., 12. Richard Grove, Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600-1860 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995). 7 Paul Robbins, Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 22. 8 Richard Grove, Ecology, Climate and Empire: Colonialism and Global Environmental History (Cambridge: The White Horse Press, 1997), 5-7. 9 Ramachandra Guha, “Forestry in British and Post-British India: A Historical Analysis,” Economic and Political Weekly (1983) 18(44): 1882-1896. 10 J. W. Oliver, “Forestry in India,” The Indian Forester (1901) 27: 620; “Obituary: Hugh F. C. Cleghorn, M. D., LL. D., F. R. S. E.,” The Geographical Journal (1895) 6(1): 83; Hugh Francis Clarke Cleghorn, The Forests and Gardens of South India (London: W. H. Allen & CO., 1861). 11 John McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise: The Global Environmental Movement (London: Belhaven Press, 1992), 7. 6

12

overgrazing. Introduced foreign plant and animal species often times replaced native species of flora and wildlife. It took until the mid-nineteenth century before any action was taken to attempt to decrease the devastation on the native flora and fauna of Australia. Though laws were passed to protect select bird and marsupial species, most national parks created were designed more for recreation than for preservation. 12 In South Africa, concern over the rapid decline in penguin, seal and elephant populations in the eighteenth century prompted the passing of legislation aimed at regulating reckless hunting practices. Additionally, in the early nineteenth century worry over the depletion of forests in the Cape Colony grew and by 1880 a conservation conscious developed in South Africa that was a mix of Indian and Cape philosophies. 13 In addition to traveling to other locations in the Empire, some who served in the forest service in British India returned to Europe to teach in forestry schools that were established at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries. Probably the most influential educator was Sir Dietrich Brandis. Referred to as the “father of tropical forestry,” Brandis returned to England after more than 20 years of service in India, where he founded the Indian Forest College at Dehra Dun. He retired from his position in India to teach at the forestry school of Cooper’s Hill. 14 While there he taught and mentored many future significant pioneers in the United States forestry movement; men like Gifford Pinchot, Bernard Fernow, and Carl A. Schenck. Nature Preservation Although the foundation of institutions responsible for promoting and carrying out conservation began in the nineteenth century in the United States, the intellectual roots started to grow throughout the eighteenth century. 15 Furthermore, while similarities exist about the rise of awareness of and awe for the natural environment between Western Europe and the United States, there was a major difference: Europe had been settled and exploited for centuries whereas the great expanse in the western part of the United States was being opened for settlement. This provided an experience unlike that of most other places, save for Australia or South Africa. Poets, romantics, painters, and travelers were inspired by the natural beauty of the unexplored and unexploited landscapes of North America.

12

Ibid., 7-8. Richard H. Grove, “Early themes in African conservation: the Cape in the nineteenth century,” in Conservation in Africa: People, Policies and Practice, eds. David Anderson and Richard H. Grove (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 35. 14 “Obituary: Sir Dietrich Brandis, F. R. S.,” The Geographical Journal (1907) 30(1): 97. 15 Ibid., 25; McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise, 10. 13

13

Throughout the early 1800s, John James Audubon became the dominate wildlife artists, surpassing Alexander Wilson (the first person to attempt to paint and describe all of the birds of the United States). 16 Audubon’s Birds of America, published in London between 1826 and 1838 helped bring the splendor of nature to a larger audience. Writers like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau further influenced American thinking about man’s relationship with nature. 17 A self-educated naturalist and knowledgeable field ecologist, Thoreau wrote about the dire ecological and economic effects caused by farmers who cleared forests in order to plant rye for only one or two seasons of profitability. 18 The destructive consequences of man’s activities on the environment were most powerfully expressed in the publication of Man and Nature in 1864 by George Perkins Marsh. 19 Though he acknowledged the need for human use of the environment, Marsh warned of the imminent collapse of the new American republic due to ecological failure as a result of the reckless damage humans were causing. He used ancient civilizations in the Mediterranean that brought about their own destruction, as a result of abusing their environment, as examples of what was to come if Americans continued their irresponsible ecological practices. 20 Hailed as “the fountainhead of the conservation movement,” 21 Marsh’s book influenced American, Italian, and Indian foresters as well as writers in France and was one of the most influential books of its time, with respect to its impact on the manner in which humans viewed and used land. 22 The same year Marsh’s book was published Congress transferred Yosemite Park and Mariposa Grove of Big Trees to the State of California with the condition that they be maintained for public use. This was the first time in the history of land management in the United States that an area was reserved for recreation. In 1872, the government created the world’s first nation park, Yellowstone, in Wyoming; a model that substantiated the ideas of Thoreau and Marsh and one that was duplicated, albeit for different reasons, in other countries in the late nineteenth century. 23 For example, in the 1880s and 1890s, national parks were

16

“John James Audubon 1785-1851” The American Woodsman: Our Namesake and Inspiration, found at http://www.audubon.org/nas/jja.html, on 15 January 2010. 17 McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise, 10. 18 Donald Worster, Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas, 2nd edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 71. 19 George Perkins Marsh, Man and Nature (Reprint; Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2003). 20 Marsh, Man and Nature, 7-52. 21 Lewis Mumford, The brown decades: a study of the arts in America, 1865-1895, 2nd edition (Canada: General Publishing Company, 1971), 35. 22 McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise, 11; David Lowenthal, “Introduction,” in Man and Nature, George Perkins Marsh, Reprint (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965), ix. 23 McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise, 12.

14

established in Southern Australia, Canada and New Zealand. However, it would take Britain until the mid-1900s before national parks and reserves were created. 24 Conservation vs. Preservation At the beginning of the twentieth century, the environmental movement in the United States became divided into two groups: the conservationists and the preservationists. The former wanted to rationally and sustainably use natural resources while the latter wanted to preserve wilderness areas exclusively for recreational or educational purposes. The former was rooted in the scientific forestry tradition taught in Germany while the latter was developed by a Scottish-born American naturalist, John Muir. Muir’s philosophy about nature was the result of his Christian upbringing that was augmented by his adulthood experiences in the wilderness. Muir “saw another primary source for understanding God – the Book of Nature. In Nature, especially wilderness, one could observe and study the landscape...that [he] believed came straight from the hand of God, uncorrupted by civilization and domestication.” 25 No other promoter of preservation was as influential as Muir. His earliest victory was the creation of Yosemite National Park in 1890. This was the first preserve created to protect wilderness. 26 Following this triumph, Muir realized the need for an association designed to protect the newly established national parks. Joining with 26 other men who were interested in forming an alpine club, Muir helped found the Sierra Club in 1892, with the two-fold mission of making the mountains of the Pacific Coast Region accessible to those who enjoy wilderness and the preservation of wilderness areas. About the same time Muir was establishing himself as the leader of the preservationist movement, Pinchot returned from his studies in Europe, eager to engage himself in the nascent forestry movement with a desire to help design national forestry policies. Although he and Muir initially became close friends, based on a shared love of the woods, “their common interests had definite limits. For all his love of the woods, Pinchot’s ultimate loyalty was to civilization and forestry; Muir’s to wilderness and preservation.” 27 Though Muir agreed with the idea of sustainable forest management he understood that even the wisest forest management plan for economic purposes involved clearing land and felling trees, which was, in his opinion, the opposite of preserving wilderness. After 1905, Muir’s pursuit for wilderness preservation involved countering the influence Pinchot exerted as the first Chief of the United States Forest Service (USFS). In his work Breaking New Ground, Pinchot claimed the word “conservation” for 24

Adams, Green Development, 26. Dennis C. Williams, God’s Wilds: John Muir’s Vision of Nature (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2002), 43. 26 Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 3rd edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), 132. 27 Ibid., 135. 25

15

the wise-use perspective. This left preservations with no choice but to refer to Pinchot as a “deconservationist,” believing that his definition of conservation was just the opposite of the idea’s true meaning. 28 In the end, Muir and his newly established Sierra Club were successful in creating more national parks and protected areas. However, the ideas behind much of the new environmental movement that took place after 1945 were the result of the “utilitarian concern over the proper use of societal resources.” 29 Foresters were responsible for much of the practical policies created in the early twentieth century and, according to Fernow who served as the third Chief of the USFS, they were able to do this by escaping the romantic emotions found in much of the preservationist ideology. Fernow believed that scientific forestry was the seed from which environmentalism was born. 30 The New Environmental Movement New environmentalism was different from early environmentalism in at least two ways and resulted in a “mass movement that swept the industrial world.” 31 First, where the early movement was defined by nature preservation as a moral imperative that was focused on the non-human environment or conservation as a practical and scientific use of natural resources, the new movement focused on humanity in addition to the environment. Second, the new environmental movement was more political and activist focusing on issues that were universal, thereby making it a more social movement than early environmentalism. Following the Second World War, the international community faced a decision to determine how to deal with the natural environment. While much environmental degradation resulted from war, most countries were focused on rebuilding industries and infrastructure rather than on environmental conservation or preservation. Therefore, the new environmental movement did not take place until the 1960s. Though incorporating many of the ideas espoused in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the focus of the new movement was different for at least three reasons: the consequences of affluence, Rachael Carson’s Silent Spring, and numerous highly publicized environmental disasters and chemical hazards. 32 According to Timothy O’Riordan, a specialist in environmental policy analysis, impact assessment and governance, conservation movements tend to follow times of economic prosperity and are the result of anxiety over the possibility of a decrease in the current 28

Nash, Wilderness, 139. Gregory Barton, “Empire Forestry and the Origins of Environmentalism,” Journal of Historical Geography (2001) 27(4): 542. 30 Ibid., 543. 31 McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise, 47. 32 Ibid., 49. 29

16

standards of living. 33 Not wanting to slow economic growth, environmentalists have sought to ensure continued economic growth, albeit in a more organized fashion. As a result, this pattern of a growth in environmental groups can be seen in Britain and the United States in the 1890s, 1920s, and 1950s – periods of great economic growth. With this growth in environmental groups came a renewed interest in studies about the environment. Highly regarded as the defining event signaling the new environmental movement, the publication of Silent Spring in 1963 exposed the ecological consequences of using pesticides and insecticides and linked these consequences to their effects on society. Although other books had been published on the same subject, Carson's book was unique in that she was able to use her scientific knowledge and great writing ability to present a complex technical issue to the general public. 34 Her book was immediately successful and exerted a great amount of influence in the United States, Britain, Denmark, Sweden, and Hungary and generated public debate that lasted throughout the rest of the decade. 35 In the end, all twelve of the most toxic chemicals were either banned or restricted. 36 The concern raised by the detrimental effects of nuclear fallout and the warnings presented in Silent Spring were compounded by a string of environmental disasters that took place in the 1960s and early 1970s. Though these types of disasters occurred prior to this time period, environmental awareness among the public was not as heightened prior to the late 1960s. 37 In 1967, the first major oil spill in the world took place off the coast of England, releasing 875,000 barrels of crude oil into the ocean. In 1969, an oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara sent an estimated 78,000 barrels of crude oil into the Channel waters. 38 It is estimated that a total of over 10,000 spills of oil or other hazardous material were polluting the waterways of the United States in the late 1960. 39 The ecological effects were shocking to the general public and were a catalyst for greater support of environmental campaigns. This support generated increased media coverage which aided in informing a broader audience. Additionally, in the 1970s, concern grew over the harmful effects of chemical use in the workplace to which workers were exposed, to toxic waste dumps which leaked chemicals into the soil, water, and air, and to chemical leaks from industrial plants that contaminated the water and air. This type of damage to the environment was not limited to one country or region 33

Timothy O’Riordan, Environmentalism, 2nd edition, (London: Pion Ltd., 1981), 37. C. G. Dobbs, “Silent Spring,” Forestry (1963) 36(2): 195-198. 35 McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise, 56. 36 Stephen R. Fox, The American Conservation Movement: John Muir and His Legacy (Reprint; Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981), 298. 37 McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise, 57. 38 M. Foster, A. C. Charters & M. Neushul, “The Santa Barbara Oil Spill Part 1: Initial Quantities and Distribution of Pollutant Crude Oil,” Environmental Pollution (1971) 2(2): 97-113. 39 McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise, 58. 34

17

and therefore environmental affairs became a part of the international focus. 40 These issues were addressed at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE), held in Stockholm in 1972. Called the “landmark event in the growth of international environmentalism,” this conference was the first international gathering that directed discussion on the political, social, and economic problems facing the global community with the purpose of actually taking corrective action. 41 The focus of the conference was not about technical or scientific solutions to ecological problems, but to organize international policy geared toward regulating its degradation. At the conclusion, the 113 countries represented at the conference agreed to compromise on 26 principles and 109 recommendations for action. 42 This was considered to be the most important result of the event as it became an example for international cooperation on issues of environmental degradation. The principles and recommendations for action were an official agreement between the countries attending about the shared responsibility for the health of the environment. A direct result of the UNCHE was the creation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), an organization created to act as a governing council for environmental programs. UNEP was established in Nairobi, Kenya, a decision that was symbolic as it was the first UN organization stationed outside the developed world. 43 Increased studies of ecological systems ensued and environmental experts in the United States began researching and writing about economic development and associated ecological problems, many times with specialists from other nations. One such report published in 1980, called the World Conservation Strategy, was organized by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), UNEP, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), which was founded in 1948 as the world’s first global environmental organization. The purpose behind this document was conservationist in nature and marked a turning point in the environmental movement; no longer was economic development seen as being in opposition to the protection or proper management of natural resources. 44

2.2.2 – Sustainable Development In today’s global society, most people have become familiar with thinking about themselves as divided into developed or developing countries. Equally familiar is the concept 40

Samuel P. Hayes, “The Environmental Movement,” Journal of Forest History (1981) 25(4): 219-221. McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise, 88. 42 Adams, Green Development, 56. 43 Ibid., 57. 44 John McCormick, “The Origins of the World Conservation Strategy,” Environmental Review (1986) 10(3): 177187. 41

18

that developing countries should continue developing. However, what is meant by the term development is not as clear: increased income per capita, higher standards of living, control over nature, growth with fairness, elimination of poverty, liberation, economic independence, self-reliance, or economic growth are some of the ideas that describe development. 45 Prior to the publication of the World Conservation Strategy (WCS), environmentalists saw these ideas used to describe development as the sources of environmental degradation and as threats to the survival of humans. However, after the WCS they promoted the equitable distribution of limited resources, accepted the sustainable use of renewable resources, and supported the development of environmentally friendly technology. 46 Although sustainable development is a concept that has been used and abused by many, the intent behind the phrase is to “describe economic and social development that improves the living conditions of the world’s poor, especially in the Third World, without destroying or undermining natural resources.” 47 Though this should be the goal of all economic and social development, regardless of the development status of the country, the ideas expressed by UNEP in 1977 emphasized the sentiment held by many developing countries toward development, that much of the global degradation of the environment was a result of overdevelopment in the global North and underdevelopment in the global South. 48 Great strides were made in the construction of the WCS; however, there were obvious flaws with the manner in which the document addressed certain issues. First, there was little mention of the growing economic disparity between the global North and global South, or the reliance of one on the other. Second, the framers of the WCS were unable to appreciate the true nature of the politics of international development and failed to connect with the theoretical concepts discussed in the development discourse. 49 These shortcomings changed with the establishment of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1983, at the request of the UN General Assembly. In 1987, the WCED published a report entitled Our Common Future that was relevant to development and environmental issues facing the global community. In Our Common Future, sustainable development was defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet

45

Heinz Wolfgang Arndt, Economic Development: The History of an Idea (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 1. 46 McCormick, “The Origins,” 177. 47 Ibid., 178. 48 United Nations Environment Programme, Report of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Program, Fifth Session (New York: United Nations, 1977), 11. 49 Adams, Green Development, 69.

19

their own needs.” 50 This definition was based on two key concepts: the first was the basic needs of the world’s poor and the fact that development should benefit them. The second was the idea of environmental limits that are set by technology and social organization. It is important to note that this second concept is a subtle change in perspective from the WCED about sustainable development. No longer was sustainable development measured by the evaluated health of a particular environment, but rather it was defined by the attainment of certain socioeconomic objectives. 51 In 1989 the UN planned to convene a conference on the environment and development, five years after the release of Our Common Future, to check progress. Dubbed the “Earth Summit,” the conference was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June 1992. A number of documents were agreed to that continued the ideas found in the WCS and Our Common Future. The main output of the conference was Agenda 21 which gave many recommendations on how to implement sustainable development, though it did so without making them compulsory. One means of implementing sustainable development mentioned in Agenda 21, was through tourism. Although mentioned briefly in Our Common Future, tourism had come to be seen as a “potential response to resource depletion in traditional resource sectors and as a means to diversify human activity in mountain environments.” 52 However, neither the Earth Summit nor Agenda 21 gave much attention to the impacts of tourism on the host country or on the environment.

2.2.3 – Concern over the Impacts of Tourism History Tourism is not a new phenomenon. It has been around since the time of the ancient Greek and Roman cultures. In fact, “travel, in the form of nomadism, was the norm for Homo sapiens for much of our species’ history.” 53 Early travel was typically conducted for religious pilgrimages, conquest, human or natural resource exploitation, geographic exploration, or scientific investigations. Yet, from the beginning, there were travelers who sought out places of serenity and natural beauty for the purposes of relaxation or pleasure. In the Roman Empire, there are many examples of members of the social elite traveling to the coast during the

50

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Our Common Future, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 43. 51 WCED, Our Common Future, 43; Adams, Green Development, 71. 52 Dimitrios Diamantis, Ecotourism: Management and Assessment (London: Thompson, 2004), 73. 53 Stephen L. J. Smith, “The Measurement of Global Tourism: Old Debates, New Consensus, and Continuing Challenges,” in A Companion to Tourism, eds. Alan A. Lew, Colin Michael Hall & Allan M. Williams (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd., 2004), 25.

20

summer to escape the unhealthy conditions present in Rome. 54 However, the term “tourism” did not appear until 1811 when it was defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as travel for pleasure. This is likely because the origin of modern-day “[v]acation taking and holiday-making turn up...at more or less the same moment as the consumer. For some time in the second half of the eighteenth century, consumers began to take vacations.” 55 From about 1763, European aristocrats found it fashionable to take ‘grand tours’ of the continent and until the middle of the nineteenth century travel for pleasure grew among the members of the upper class across both Europe and the United States. Beginning in 1856, Thomas Cook began advertizing railway excursions across the European continent at a more accessible price, thereby opening travel to the growing middle class. By the end of that century, tourism had become much more common in many parts of Europe, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand as a result of the level of affluence, holiday entitlements, and advances in technology. 56 While tourism in the nineteenth century progressed much more rapidly than in the previous centuries, nothing would affect tourism as much as the advent of the airplane. In 1927, Pan American World Airways (Pan Am) became the first American airline to offer international air service and in 1944 became the first airline to devise a plan for low cost, mass transportation on a global basis. Then in 1948, Pan Am became the first airline company to provide tourist-class service outside the continental United States. 57 Other airlines began offering similar services and when, in the 1950s and 1960s, air travel became widespread and more economically possible for the working class, tourism accelerated. 58 This growth is evident in the comparison of the total number of international tourist arrivals in 1950 and 1960: in 1950 it was 25 million, generating US$2.1 billion in receipts and in 1960 the total was 69 million generating US$6.9 billion in receipts. 59 When mass tourism began to surpass travel by those in the upper and middle classes, most travel was within and between North America and Western Europe. However, by the 1970s, travel to developing countries became more accessible to the general public as a result of wide-bodied, high-speed aircraft, which reduced the cost of airfare per person. Travel to 54

Stephen Page and Joanne Connell, Tourism: A Modern Synthesis, 2nd edition (London: Thomson Learning, 2006), 23. 55 Fred Inglis, The Delicious History of the Holiday (New York: Routledge, 2000), 1. 56 Page and Connell, Tourism, 33. 57 Pan American World Airways History, “Pan Am Firsts,” found at http://www.panam.org/default1.asp, on 18 January 2010. 58 Héctor Ceballos-Lascuráin, Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas: The state of nature-based tourism around the world and guidelines for its development (Switzerland and Cambridge: IUCN, 1996), 2. 59 John Fletcher, “Economics of International Tourism,” in The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies, eds. Mike Robinson and Tazim Jamal (Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2009), 168.

21

these destinations was desirable due to the availability of pristine nature, inexpensive goods and services, diverse culture, cheap labor, and other resources. 60 The result was that by the mid-1970s, nearly eight percent of all tourists traveled from developed to developing countries; this was out of a world total of 222 million international arrivals that generated US$40.7 billion in receipts. Just one decade later, the number had more than doubled to seventeen percent out of 329 million international arrivals that generated US$118 billion in receipts. 61 Tourism as a Development Strategy Although the advent of the airplane was the major catalyst behind the boom in international travel, the underlying “political and economic conditions and demands systematically created by international agencies such as the World Bank, together with national governments,” 62 facilitated its phenomenal growth. This is because tourism has been seen as a key component in diversifying national economies against unstable commodity prices on the world market. Furthermore, tourism was seen as a means of gaining access to foreign currency, planning, investment potential, infrastructure development, technology, and enhanced status, in exchange for readily available resources , such as beautiful environments, sun, sea, and wildlife. 63 The development of underdeveloped areas, however, required more than the investment of foreign currency and the transfer of technology, as cultures too had to be reconciled with the world community. It is little wonder then that “international technocrats express such satisfaction when a government announces that it plans to promote tourism as one of its major industries. For such a policy implies a willingness to meet the expectations of those foreigners who want political stability, safety, and congeniality when they travel.” 64 Beginning in the 1960s, many governments of developing countries responded positively to the idea of tourism as a means of development because of its possibilities and potential. However, growing evidence showed that the promised economic benefits of tourism were marginal for host nations while the environmental and social costs were high. Impacts of Tourism Since the beginning of its history, tourism has impacted everything and everyone it touched. Ideally, these impacts should have been positive. Local communities should have 60

Zhao Weibing and Li Xingqun, “Globalization of Tourism and Third World Tourism Development,” Chinese Geographical Science (2006) 16(3): 203-210. 61 Richard Sharpley and David J. Telfer, Tourism and Development in the Developing World (New York: Routledge, 2008), 22. 62 Anita Pleumarom, “The Political Economy of Tourism,” The Ecologist (1994) 24(4): 142. 63 Ibid., 142-143. 64 Cynthia H. Enloe, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 31.

22

improved their economic situation which in turn should have helped protect natural resources. Visitors should have gained environmental, social, and cultural understanding and appreciation, thereby promoting respect for all involved. In theory, tourism should have produced benefits far greater than their costs. 65 Unfortunately, this was not the case. Initial studies on tourism’s impacts, which originated from within the field of tourism, focused on the economic aspects since those were the easiest to quantify and measure. Additionally, many believed that the income generated from tourism could outweigh any of its negative consequences. Furthermore, studies showing tourism’s positive economic significance gave the tourism industry greater respect in the eyes of the general public, host nation officials, and local residents of the tourism area. As a result, statistics touting the amount of jobs created by tourism in a particular area, thereby generating a large amount of sales or income, became commonplace. This, however, was not the full story. More often than not, the economic benefits did not stay in the tourism area and instead went to foreign owned and operated companies. Most jobs created in the local community were low-paying, service-oriented positions such as drivers, guides, or maids. Additionally, rather than being a “smokeless” or nonpolluting industry, mass tourism often promoted overdevelopment, uneven development, and contributed to environmental pollution. Although much of the improvements in infrastructure (e.g., electricity, telephones, clean water, waste treatment facilities, roadways, and even airports) were eventually available to local communities, they were often times constructed without the completion of environmental impact assessments. As a result, many fragile ecosystems were at best only disturbed and at worst destroyed. During the new environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s, studies were designed to analyze the impacts of tourism on the environment. 66 What was found was disturbing and prompted the World Tourism Organization (WTO) to hold a conference in 1980 to “clarify the real nature of tourism...and the role tourism is bound to play in a dynamic and vastly changing world.” 67 The output of this conference was the Manila Declaration on World Tourism, referred to as “the most comprehensive international statement adopted on the goals of modern tourism,” which stressed the importance of natural and cultural resources and the need to conserve, to benefit both tourism and residents of the tourism area. 68 For example, article 18 of the Manila Declaration points out that the environment and natural resources, “which are the fundamental attraction of tourism...cannot be left uncontrolled without running

65

William F. Theobald, Global Tourism, 3rd edition (Burlington: Elsevier Inc., 2005), 75. Alister Mathieson, Tourism: Economic, Physical, and Social Impacts (New York: Longman, 1982). 67 Manila Declaration on World Tourism, (1980), 1-4. 68 Edward Inskeep, “Environmental Planning for Tourism,” Annals of Tourism Research (1987) 14(1): 119. 66

23

the risk of their deterioration or even their destruction...National communities and the entire international community must take the necessary steps to ensure their preservation.” Continuing this theme, in 1982 the WTO, the only intergovernmental establishment with global responsibility for travel and tourism, together with UNEP, adopted a set of principles known as the Joint Declaration on Tourism and Environment. 69 In it they declared: The protection, enhancement and improvement of the various components of man’s environment are among the fundamental conditions for the harmonious development of tourism. Similarly, rational management of tourism may contribute to a large extent to protecting and developing the physical environment and the cultural heritage, as well as improving the quality of life. 70 Three themes emphasized in this document are the economic, social, and environmental. It highlighted the important role tourism can play in development, argued for the protection of rights of those engaged in tourism, stated that access to tourism should be guaranteed for all, and stressed the need to prevent environmental degradation. Following the publication of these documents, those involved in tourism were forced to begin critically thinking about their philosophies and actions. This was because tourism, more than any other industry, depends on healthy environments and willing communities for its survival. Agenda 21 continued to pressure travel and tourism organizations requesting that they collectively develop a plan for sustainable development. In 1995, Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry was published in response to this call. This report highlighted the fact that those involved in travel and tourism “[have] a moral responsibility to take the lead in making the transition to sustainable development.” 71 Additionally, the report acknowledges that the product the industry sells and packages “ultimately relies on clean seas, pristine mountain slopes, unpolluted water, litter-free streets, well-preserved buildings and archaeological sites, and diverse cultural traditions.” 72 This was an important shift in thinking because the focus was no longer just economic in nature, as the environment and the local community were included.

69

Ceballos-Lascuráin, Tourism, 15. Joint Declaration between WTO and UNEP, 1982, in Inskeep, “Environmental Planning,” 119. 71 WTTC, UNWTO, and the Earth Council, Agenda 21 for the Travel & Tourism Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development (1995), 34. 72 Ibid., 34. 70

24

2.2.4 – Concern for Communities Local People and Sustainable Development Much of the research on environmental degradation in the developed world has focused on the impacts of industrialization and urbanization, for example the problems with toxic waste, pollution, and the loss of biodiverse habitats and wildlife. However, studies about environmental degradation in the developing world, particularly in countries that are industrializing, have given their focus to the degradation of rural environments as a result of the destructive actions of the poor themselves. 73 Third World environments are continually portrayed as “suffering degradation at the hand of the teeming multitudes of the Third World poor, being eroded and destroyed by the multiple problems of overgrazing, soil erosion, and desertification.” 74 The problem with this perspective is that unlike the studies conducted in developed countries about environmental destruction as a result of industrialization, the belief that the source of environmental degradation in Third World countries is due to the actions of the poor has been accepted and reiterated time and again in the environmental discourse. However, as poor people are indeed the ones who actually degrade their environment with their own actions, they are not the only actors responsible for ecological degradation. Piers Blaikie, pointed out that “small producers cause soil erosion because they are poor, and in turn soil erosion exacerbates that condition,” but their circumstances are created by “[a] set of socio-economic relations called underdevelopment...” 75 Most of the time the poor have neither the means to stop causing degradation, nor the opportunity to move to another place. This was a novel idea in the early 1980s and was established by the new field of political ecology. With the publication of The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries, Blaikie, considered one of the main founders of the field, 76 argued for a perspective that understands the link between the environment, society, and the economy. This connection was important because it was more holistic and stood in contrast to erroneous environmental narratives about degradation that were informing and guiding policy makers, which in turn affected land users. For example, in tropical areas in Central and South America, previous environmental degradation accounts vilified forest dwellers that were seen by government forestry officials as either opportunists who knowingly cleared the land and managed it unsustainably or as uninformed victims who lacked education and were doomed to

73

Adams, Green Development, 176. Ibid., 176. 75 Piers M. Blaikie, The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries (London: Longman, 1985), 138. 76 Raymond Bryant and Michael K. Goodman, “A pioneering reputation: Assessing Piers Blaikie’s contributions to political ecology,” Geoforum (2008) 39(2): 708-715. 74

25

ravage the forest. 77 The reaction to this type of narrative by many nations was to replicate the model of parks and protected areas found in most industrialized nations; land set aside with the purpose of protecting nature and wildlife where use by humans was either prevented or extremely limited. Unfortunately, in most developing countries this type of conservation conflicted with the livelihoods of the local people who depended upon the resources in the protected area. Local People and Protected Areas Throughout the Third World the dominate model of protected areas has been greatly influenced by ideas about conservation developed in the United States at the end of the nineteenth century. However, in the United States the majority of protected areas were created in remote and sparsely populated regions, where the human costs of exclusion and removal were low or nonexistent. 78 These types of areas became symbols of the idealized nature possessing almost healing properties both for wildlife and for humans. Moreover, with little to no local population depending on the natural resources within the protected areas, conservation of land and wildlife was promoted as successful for all involved. This was not the experience of many in the Third World, however. Examples of conflict between conservation and local use of natural resources in protected areas are most poignant in Africa, though “conservation refugees,” used to describe people displaced for the creation of protected areas, are found on every continent except Antarctica. 79 In his speech to the IUCN’s 2003 World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa, former president Nelson Mandela concisely expressed the dichotomous nature of conservation when he explained that “[m]any of Africa’s beautiful protected areas have their origins in the colonial past, and have a legacy of being ‘set aside,’ thus alienating local people who viewed them as meaningless or even costly.” 80 Unfortunately, in Africa, as in many other parts of the developing world, conflict over land and resources defined politics within the societies and between states during the colonial era. 81 Starting at the end of the nineteenth century, numerous game reserves were established in British South African territories, such as the Sabie Game Reserve established in 1892 and then changed to the Kruger National Park in 1926. In these game reserves hunting was limited to the visiting and predominately white sportsman (since what white men did was

77

Adams, Green Development, 267. Ibid., 271. 79 Honey, Ecotourism, 97. 80 Nelson Mandela quoted in Ecotourism and Sustainable Development, Martha Honey, 2nd edition, (Washington: Island Press, 2008), 97. 81 Roderick P. Neumann, Imposing Wilderness: Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 2. 78

26

hunt, but what Africans did was something else). Actions by Africans were seen as poaching and described as indiscriminate killing and as destroying Africa’s fauna. 82 Following 1945, game reserves and national parks were open to other hunters: the camera carrying tourist, tour operators, scientists, and hotel owners and where conservation was given as the main reason for protection, increasingly nature tourism was the true reason for keeping protected areas ‘natural,’ (i.e., absent of the ‘unnatural’ presence of the local people). This was because nature tourism was becoming one of the top foreign exchange earners for numerous sub-Saharan countries. 83 This is not to say that all conservation necessarily involves taking action against the interests of local people, though most often it does and still continues to do so. After the publication of the WCS in 1980, a momentous shift in conservation thinking started that was similar to the shift in thinking about development, as people were no longer seen as enemies to wildlife. One of the main objectives in the document was to “ensure the sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems...which support millions of rural communities...[because]...hundreds of millions of rural people in developing countries... are compelled to destroy the resources necessary to free them from starvation and poverty.” 84 It was effectively argued that conservation could sustain development and that development could be made to promote conservation. Behind this argument were three ideological strands woven together to provide compelling arguments that helped change policies regarding conservation. 85 The first strand stated that communities should be included in conservation, now widely referred to as community-based conservation or as a linked-incentives strategy. 86 This perspective argued that indigenous people must be recognized as citizens, and not criminals, with sophisticated knowledge about environmental processes. The second strand concerned the conceptualization of conservation itself. When the shift in thinking about conservation took place, no longer did conservation automatically mean set aside. Under the ideology of sustainable development, concepts like biodiversity, habitats, or species were seen as renewable natural resources that could be exploited in a sustainable manner. The third and final strand was based on the neoliberal economic thought that dominated the twentieth century. From this perspective, conservation was most effective in the hands of the market and not the state. According to this 82

Adams, Green Development, 27-28, 272. Neumann, Imposing Wilderness, 6. 84 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), UNEP, and WWF, World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development (IUCN-UNEP-WWF, 1980), VI. 85 David Hulme and Marshall Murphree, “Communities, wildlife and the ‘new conservation’ in Africa,” Journal of International Development (1999) 11(2): 277-285. 86 David Western and R. Michael Wright, Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation (Washington: Island Press, 1994). 83

27

ideology, those natural resources that are scarce will set a higher price, thereby ensuring their wise-use. 87 Although this shift in thinking has taken place in theory, with a considerable amount of planning and effort, it did not happen instantaneously, nor did this change occur equally in all areas. 88 In fact, one of the largest forced removals of rural people, which gained international attention, took place in the 1990s in the central African country of Chad. The forced removal of an estimated 600,000 people from their land happened in the name of conservation. During that same time, the amount of protected area in Chad grew from 1 percent to 9.1 percent. 89 However, one thing that remains certain is the fact that the old approach to conservation, as purely state run and enforced entities that evolved during the early part of the twentieth century is no longer presented as a workable option.

2.3 – THE EMERGENCE OF THE CONCEPT OF ECOTOURISM Prior to the 1960s, the concept of ecotourism did not exist. True, there have been naturalist travelers for centuries, such as early pioneers like Alexander von Humboldt, Charles Darwin, Henry Walter Bates, and Alfred Russel Wallace. However, the experiences of these earlier travelers were not substantial enough to produce significant socio-economic benefits to the local residents, nor did their activities appear to be used for the conservation of the natural resources, wildlife, or culture of the visited areas. Only after tourism became widespread, and seemingly destructive, did environmentalists, ecologists, and many others question the practices of mass tourism. Massive beachfront resorts, expansive golf courses, along with luxurious environments created to cater to the tourists’ desires for comfort and relaxation, were all features of mainstream tourism in the post-Second World War period. It was from this context that ecotourism emerged as an alternative form of tourism that sought to correct the wrongs of mass tourism both as a philosophy and as an experience. 90 The specific origin of the concept of ecotourism is typically traced back to N. D. Hetzer, a Mexican ecologist, who identified four fundamental principles of a more responsible form of tourism: (1) minimum environmental impact, (2) minimum impact on, and maximum respect for, host cultures, (3) maximum economic benefits to the host country’s grassroots, and (4) maximum recreational satisfaction to participating tourists. 91 Though he did not coin the term “ecotourism,” Hetzer is generally considered the first person to develop the idea. Giving more publicity to Hetzer’s ideas, Gerardo Budowski, who at the time was the interim Director87

Hulme and Murphree, “Communities,” 278-280. Adams, Green Development, 270. 89 Martha Honey, Ecotourism and Sustainable Development, 2nd edition, (Washington: Island Press, 2008), p.98. 90 Wearing and Neil, Ecotourism, xiii. 91 N. D. Hetzer, “Environment, tourism, culture,” Links (1965). Reprinted in Ecosphere (1970) 1(2): 1-3. 88

28

General of the IUCN, wrote an article titled “Tourism and Environmental Conservation: Conflict, Coexistence, or Symbiosis.” In it he suggested that the relationship between nature conservation and tourism could be symbiotic, “provided appropriate steps are taken.” 92 He explained that tourism could indeed support environmental conservation and listed several ways to accomplish this objective (including education, proper planning, and increased financial contributions from governments and private donors), thereby giving ecotourism more substance. Incorporating ideas from the nascent sustainable development discourse in the late 1970s, the concept of ecotourism was further expanded by Kenton R. Miller, an American conservationist and national park planner working with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Latin America. In his book, Planning National Parks for Ecodevelopment, Miller stated that his work “relates to ecodevelopment – the way in which man organizes and manages his habitat to provide for his necessities both now and in the future.” 93 Miller argued that conservation and development can coexist with proper planning and emphasized the need to incorporate ecological and social interests in the process of development. He believed that national parks could serve the needs of conservation, development, and of a form of tourism development that is respectful of the “natural and cultural characteristics of the nation.” 94 Despite these advances, most authors would agree that the term ecotourism was provided by Héctor Ceballos-Lascuráin, a Mexican architect and environmentalist who was the Director General of Standards and Technology of the Mexican Ministry of Urban Development and Ecology (SEDUE). In 1981, Ceballos-Lascuráin was the founding president of the Mexican Association for the Conservation of Nature (PRONATURA), and in that same year he began using the Spanish term turismo ecologico to highlight forms of ecological tourism. 95 This was later shortened to ecotourismo in 1983, and was defined as “tourism that involves traveling to relatively undisturbed natural areas with the specific object of studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural aspects (both past and present) found in these areas.” 96 In 1993, as the Protected Areas Program Coordinator of the IUCN, Ceballos-Lascuráin refined his definition of ecotourism, since the original did not address the impacts on the

92

Gerardo Budowski, “To Tourism and Environmental Conservation: Conflict, Coexistence, or Symbiosis,” Environmental Conservation (1976) 3(1): 27-31. 93 Kenton R. Miller, Planning National Parks for Ecodevelopment: Methods and Cases from Latin America: Volume I and II (Ann Arbor: Center for Strategic Wildland Management Studies, 1978), iii. 94 Ibid., 2 95 Wearing and Neil, Ecotourism, 5. 96 Interview with ECOCLUB, “The Architect of Ecotourism,” ECOCLUB (2006) 85: 2.

29

environment or benefits to local communities. This revised definition was officially adopted three years later by the IUCN and stated that: Ecotourism is environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy, study and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features - both past and present), that promotes conservation, has low negative visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations. 97 Clearly, the well-established concept of sustainable development greatly influenced CeballosLascuráin’s concept of ecotourism. Although this second definition seemingly contains all the necessary components for successful ecotourism, literally hundreds of definitions have been developed since the idea first emerged. 98 Though the exact reasons for the proliferation of ecotourism definitions are unclear, this author would argue that it has to do with the unique nature of the concept itself in addition to the manner in which it developed. Reasons for the Proliferation of Ecotourism Definitions The need to define ecotourism and even the value of different definitions for the idea has been broadly debated. 99 However, a focus on developing an overarching definition of ecotourism is necessary if there is any hope of instilling meaning and control into a sector of the tourism industry that has developed too fast with poorly defined objectives, policies, and regulations. 100 The reason for this is that definitions enable theory development. Theory development is important because “theory can inform practice...[and]...if done well, it defines the field and drives it forward.” 101 Dr. Peter Björk, who has written extensively about ecotourism, succinctly summed up the argument by stating that "[o]nly by first having a strict theoretical definition (an ideal situation) is it possible to go on and adjust the dimensions in accordance with the unique characteristics of a specific tourism area." 102 Therefore, a definition is required from which variables can be developed, thereby facilitating effective analysis of the

97

Ceballos-Lascuráin, Tourism, 20. David A. Fennell, “A Content Analysis of Ecotourism Definitions,” Current Issues in Tourism (2001) 4(5): 403-421. 99 Peter Björk, “Ecotourism from a Conceptual Perspective, an Extended Definition of a Unique Tourism Form,” International Journal of Tourism Research (2000) 2: 189-202; David A. Fennell, Ecotourism: An introduction (New York: Routledge, 1999). 100 Fennell, “A Content Analysis,” 404. 101 Scott Campbell and Susan S. Fainstein, “Introduction: The Structure and Debates of Planning Theory,” in Readings in Planning Theory, eds. Scott Campbell and Susan S. Fainstein (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 2003), 3. 102 Björk, “Ecotourism from a Conceptual Perspective,” 190. 98

30

concept applied in a particular area and context. Table 2.1 provides a ten-point synopsis of rationales supporting the need for an accepted definition. 103 Table 2.1 – A synopsis of rationales supporting the need for an accepted and operational definition of ecotourism 104 Identity: The search for a dividing line between ecotourism and nature tourism is critical to recognizing excellence in the ecotourism sector (e.g. through industry awards). 2. Research: Definition of ecotourism allows the accurate expression of supply and demand. This is important for defining ecotourism operations and researching/profiling visitors to those operations. 3. Planning and development: A conceptual basis from which planning and development can proceed is critical to the ecotourism sector. 4. Product development: A clear identity based on definition affords advantages in terms of focused data, reporting and information dissemination. This may assist in product development and fostering links to the demand side of tourism through marketing and promotional avenues. 5. Awareness: Public awareness of issues affecting the ecotourism sector may be enhanced with a more rigorous understanding of ecotourism experiences and activities. 6. Government support: Government support, measuring change, understanding the opportunities that ecotourism development may offer regional or peripheral economies and advocacy are facilitated through accurate definition. 7. Sustainability: Industry development, certification, product development and impact management. These aspects of ecotourism relate closely to industry reputation, particularly in light of the emerging cynicism associated with issues of ‘egotourism’, ‘ecoterrorism’ and ‘ecosell’ 105 8. Policy: The development of appropriate policy by relevant administrative and government agencies must be guided by definition. 9. International comparability: A common understanding of the definition of ecotourism may enhance international comparison and communication. 10. International reputation: The development of national and international standards may be achieved, notwithstanding the differences that will invariably exist between ecotourism operations in different environmental, social, cultural economic and political contexts. 1.

103

James Higham and Anna Carr, “Defining Ecotourism in New Zealand: Differentiating Between the Defining Parameters within a National/Regional Context,” Journal of Ecotourism (2003) 2(1): 17-32. 104 Higham and Carr, “Defining Ecotourism,” 18. 105 Pamela Wight, “North American Ecotourists: Market Profile and Trip Characteristics,” Journal of Travel Research (1996) 34(4): 2-10.

31

Ecotourism has already been described as a philosophy and as an experience. While this is true about the concept’s initial development, ecotourism continued to evolve and in the 1980s and 1990s, as more research interest in the concept developed, became a sub-field of study. Additionally, as general interest in the experience and philosophy grew in the 1980s and 1990s, ecotourism became a major segment of the tourism industry. During this period of development, independent organizations realized the need for a universal set of standards that could be applied to this major segment and as a result, the idea of eco-certification programs developed. For these reason this author argues that ecotourism has developed as a philosophy, experience, a sub-field of study, and a well-established segment of the tourism industry. These four aspects of the concept have facilitated diverse developments with respect to its definition. Ecotourism’s philosophical roots have been traced in the earlier parts of this chapter and for that reason the rest of this chapter will focus on the remaining three aspects of the concept.

2.4 – ECOTOURISM’S CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT 2.4.1 – Ecotourism as an Experience: Definitional Developments In 2001, David Fennell, a highly respected and prolific writer of ecotourism literature, conducted an analysis of 85 definitions of ecotourism published from 1970 to 1999. The results from his research showed that nearly 45 percent of the definitions stated that ecotourism took place in natural areas. 106 This supports the “historically prevalent trend of travel as a form of escape to nature,” 107 caused by the pressures of city living that motivate people to desire solitude with nature. However, not all nature-based tourism necessarily qualifies as ecotourism. Activities such as hunting, birdwatching, camping, or hiking are not automatically considered ecotourism simply because they are based in nature. The unique component in ecotourism is that travel to natural areas (i.e., the experience) is not just for the enjoyment of nature, but also to actively contribute to the conservation of the natural resources found in the tourism area. Equally important is the desire for the experience to have as little negative impact on the environment as possible. Typically this requires the tourism experience to be small-scale, thereby minimizing the amount of infrastructure necessary to support the activity. Furthermore, ecotourism seeks to support wise-use of resources through such acts as using recycled materials for the construction of buildings, recycling and responsible disposal of garbage and waste, and through renewable sources of energy. 108 This again, is aimed at decreasing the negative impacts on the environment. 106

Fennell, “A Content Analysis,” 410. Wearing and Neil, Ecotourism, 4. 108 Honey, Ecotourism, 29. 107

32

From the very beginning, concern for the local residents of the tourism area has been incorporated into the definitions of ecotourism. This aspect was focused initially on protecting the culture by minimizing the negative impacts of tourism on the host country’s way of life. Gradually, however, concern over the livelihoods of local people was included into the definitions of ecotourism. This component was the result of the change in thinking in the 1980s about parks and protected areas, from state-run to community-run, thereby generating income for the community members. By the 1990s, this idea was expanded to include promoting the use of locally-owned business (e.g., airlines, hotels, car rental agencies, and tour companies), so that profits would remain in the host country. Finally, as ideas about ecotourism developed throughout the 1980s and 1990s, definitions about the concept increasingly acknowledged the need for an educational component to be added to the experience. “Ecotourism means education, for both tourists and residents of nearby communities.” 109 There are several aspects to this component that has progressed over time. The first was ensuring that tourists participating in ecotourism activities were provided with information about the environment during the tour, including the cultural aspects. Essential to this aspect are “well-trained, multilingual naturalist guides with skills in natural and cultural history, environmental interpretation, ethical principles, and effective communication.” 110 The second component was providing educational opportunities for members of the local community. This involved both members of the community who are involved in the activities and those who were not. It required offering a reduced rate for local nationals or free educational tours for local students. The third component, which was added more recently, focused on providing educational materials and instruction about the culture and environment to tourists prior to visiting the tourism area, thereby enabling them to gain a better appreciation about the those features prior to and during their trip. Figure 2.1 shows the competing descriptions of ecotourism that developed during the late 1980s and early 1990s in an attempt to define ecotourism by the expected types of experiences. As seen in Figure 2.1, what developed over two decades were contrasting ideas about the nature of ecotourism. Definitions described ecotourism as either a passive or active experience. The dominant models viewed ecotourism as having either a low or high amount of human responsibility toward the environment and local community. Therefore each set of definitions contained differing degrees of “true” ecotourism; low responsibility, passive forms, were described as “soft” ecotourism and high responsibility, active forms, were described as “hard” ecotourism.

109 110

Ibid., 30. Ibid.

33

Figure 2.1 – Definitions describing the experience of ecotourism 111 Low Human Responsibility Pole Passive, seeks to minimize damage

High Human Responsibility Pole Active contribution to protect resources

Definitions Include: 112 Ceballos-Lascuráin (1987) Mulion (1992) Zell (1992) Figgis (1993)

Definitions Include: 113 Ziffer (1989) Valentine (1993) Richardson (1993) Wight (1993)

Key Attributes: Tourist satisfaction and enjoyment of scenery, flora and fauna Terms used such as ‘ecologically responsible’, ‘responsible travel’, ‘environmentally sensitive’, ‘avoid damage’ Number of facilities and services

Key Attributes: Tourist responsibility and role in conservation Education, study and learning Non-damaging or degrading Contribution to protection of resources (via financial assistance, labor) Strong management and interpretation element Minimal facilities and services

‘Softer’ ecotourism experiences ‘Generalist’ ecotourists Outcomes Financial gain for companies/ operators Minimal disturbance on environment Tourist satisfaction

‘Harder’ ecotourism experiences ‘Specialist/expert’ ecotourists Outcomes Sustains well-being of the natural resources/habitat protection Sustains well-being of local people Modification of tourist behavior and attitudes

111

Brent W. Ritchie, Managing Educational Tourism (Tonawanda: Channel View Publications, 2003), 33. Héctor Ceballos-Lascuráin, “The Future of Ecotourism,” Mexico Journal (1987) January: 13-14; S. Mulion, “Wilderness Access for Persons with a Disability: A Discussion,” in Ecotourism: Incorporating the Global Classroom (1992), paper presented at the International Conference on Ecotourism at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; L. Zell, “Ecotourism of the Future – the vicarious experience,” in Ecotourism (1992); P. Figgs, “Ecotourism: Special interest or major direction?” Habitat (1993) 21(2): 8-11. 113 Karen A. Ziffer, “Ecotourism: The Uneasy Alliance,” (Draft Report) (Washington: Conservation International, 1989); Peter S. Valentine, “Ecotourism and nature conservation: A definition with some recent developments in Micronesia,” Tourism Management (1993) April: 107-115; J. Richardson, Ecotourism and Nature Based Holidays (Sydney: Simon and Schuster, 1993); Pamela Wight, “Ecotourism: ethics or eco-sell?” Journal of Travel Research (1993) 32(3): 3-9. 112

34

So, for example, definitions that viewed ecotourism through a framework of high human responsibility, described the activity as actively contributing to conservation, minimizing negative impacts, and as instilling education. The expected outcome of this type of ecotourism is an experience that moves the tourist “beyond mere enjoyment to incorporate learning and to facilitate attitude and behaviour change.” 114 The obvious problem with these definitions is that they are very subjective, since one person’s perspective will vary greatly from someone else’s.

2.4.2 – Ecotourism as a Sub-field of Study During the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, the separate sub-field of ecotourism emerged in the tourism and environmental fields of study (eventually getting its own journal in 2002). Within this sub-field, a substantial amount of literature was being published that promoted the concept of ecotourism as a sustainable means of local economic development. However, this literature was advocating ecotourism “in the absence of widespread recognition of the practical conditions under which it may be best promoted, managed and evaluated.” 115 Though much of the literature touted the potential benefits of ecotourism, there was a growing number of case studies that discussed the failure of ecotourism to achieve the goals upon which the concept was based. 116 In other words, there were many inconsistencies between the theory of ecotourism and its practical application. These inconsistencies arose because of the numerous perspectives in the academic realm about the nature of ecotourism (i.e., what ecotourism was supposed to be and what it was supposed to look like). This included the motivations for promoting ecotourism (for economic development, for conservation, for education), the motivations of the users of ecotourism (are they concerned with the local community or conservation), the scale of the activity’s environmental, social, and economic impacts (can Yosemite National Park with 3.5 million visitors annually and an ecolodge that only receives 2000, both be considered ecotourism?), and the quality of the services provided (are there educational material or multilingual, knowledgeable guides available?). These perspectives were guiding researchers conducting the case studies. Therefore, they traveled to ecotourism sites (whether they were national parks or locally owned ecolodges) and conducted their evaluations using a particular set of criteria to determine the type, quality, and motivations behind the ecotourism activity. 114

Mark B, Orams, “Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism,” Tourism Management (1995) 16(1): 5. Sheryl Ross and Geoffrey Wall, “Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory and practice,” Tourism Management (1999) 20: 123. 116 Oliver Krüger, “The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or Pandora’s box?” Biodiversity and Conservation (2005) 14: 579-600. In his study of 251 case studies on ecotourism, Krüger found that between 1969 and 1989, less than five case studies were published per year. However, from 1990 to 2001, the average number of ecotourism studies was 20 per year with the most being published in 1992. This increase corresponded to the IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas and subsequent publication in 1996 of Ceballos-Lascuráin’s, Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas. 115

35

The results from these case studies caused many to doubt whether ecotourism could achieve its ideal goals and objectives. Despite the growing amount of inconsistencies between the theory and practice of ecotourism, the concept began to attract a large number of people and as a result it became a major segment of the tourism industry.

2.4.3 – Ecotourism as a Major Segment of the Tourism Industry Because of the issues with defining ecotourism, it is difficult to calculate the size of the ecotourism segment within the tourism industry. Additionally, there has been little effort to collect data worldwide on ecotourism as an activity distinct from adventure, wildlife, or nature tourism. 117 However, estimates of ecotourism’s growth have been offered. During the 1990s, its growth was estimated to be 12 percent per year, twice as high as the tourism industry, though some estimates claimed that ecotourism’s growth rate was as high as 30 percent. 118 In 2004, the WTO stated that ecotourism and nature tourism were growing three times faster than mass tourism. In 2005, the WTO estimated that ecotourism had an annual growth rate of five percent worldwide which represented six percent of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP). That amount was equal to 11.4 percent of consumer spending for that year. 119 In 2008, international tourist arrivals reached 922 million which was up 18 million from 2007; an overall increase of 35 percent from 2000. By 2008 the market share of worldwide international arrivals in developing countries was up to 45 percent. This growth is not expected to slow down as the WTO expects international arrivals to reach 1.6 billion by 2020. 120 The WTO also predicts that cruise tourism and ecotourism will continue to be the fastest growing sectors over the next decade. It is little wonder then, that most developing countries have included ecotourism as a core part of their economic development strategies and conservation campaigns. Just about every country in the world now promotes some form of ecotourism. 121 Ecotourism gained international attention when the UN General Assembly designated 2002 as the International Year of Ecotourism (IYE). The designation was an attempt to “encourage the intensification of cooperative efforts by Governments and international and regional organizations, as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), to achieve the aims of Agenda 21 in promoting development and the protection of the environment.” 122 In the late 1990s, the UN Economic and Social Council recognized the implications of the growing amount 117

Honey, Ecotourism, 7. Krüger, “The role of ecotourism,” 580. 119 The Tourism Network, April 2005 newsletter, found at www.tourismknowledge.com/Newsletters/Issue6.pdf (accessed on January 20, 2010). 120 UNWTO, Tourism Highlights, 2. 121 Honey, Ecotourism, 8. 122 United Nations Resolution 1998/40, (UN Economic and Social Council, 1998), found at http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/res/1998/eres1998-40.htm (accessed on January 20, 2010). 118

36

of literature showing ecotourism’s failure, mentioned above. Therefore, in 1998 they requested that the UN General Assembly approve the designation of 2002 as the IYE with the expectation that the designation would raise awareness about the importance of ecotourism and promote a better understanding worldwide of its potential. It was expected that this, in turn, would help overcome the shortcomings and failures ecotourism was reportedly having around the world. In May of 2002, more than one thousand representatives from 132 countries met in Quebec City, Canada for the World Ecotourism Summit. The purpose of the event was to have international collaboration from numerous people, governments, and organizations to “identify some agreed principles and priorities for the future development and management of ecotourism.” The direct outcome of the event was the Quebec Declaration on Ecotourism, a visionary document published on behalf of all participants that recognized that “ecotourism embraces the principles of sustainable tourism, concerning the economic, social and environmental impacts of tourism.” Among many other principles and recommendations, the Declaration emphasized the need for governments, NGOs, and international institutions to support small and micro businesses “seeking to meet social and environmental objectives” through legal policies, credit programs, grants, and incentives. 123 For many years prior to the IYE, numerous international lending and aid organizations had sponsored projects that were described as sustainable development or ecotourism in nature. However, following the IYE, support for projects designed to improve infrastructure, alleviate poverty, protect biodiversity, support sustainable rural development, and generate income for local communities increased dramatically. According to one estimate, by 2005, 12 international aid agencies, including the UN Development Programme (UNDP), World Bank, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), were donating nearly US$ 10 billion to 370 tourism-related projects. 124 As a result of a growing interest in ecotourism, many major international conservation organizations, like The International Ecotourism Society (TIES), have created departments, programs, or studies that focus on ecotourism. They have published definitions, guidelines, and even held conferences on ecotourism. The most recent conference, held in Oslo, Norway in 2007, was sponsored by TIES, UNEP, and Ecotourism Norway. The outcome from this conference was the Oslo Statement on Ecotourism which sought to assess the achievements made since the 2002 World Ecotourism Summit. What they found was that although ecotourism had been more widely recognized and funded and although more governments had 123

World Ecotourism Summit Final Report, (Madrid, WTO and UNEP, 2002), 5, 65, 67, found at http://www.gdrc.org/uem/eco-tour/Final-Report-WES-Eng.pdf (accessed on January 22, 2010). 124 Honey, Ecotourism, 8.

37

developed ecotourism strategies, ecotourism continued to be “abused, as it is not sufficiently anchored to the definition.” 125 This discovery, of course, was not new and simply reinforced what had become clear to researchers in the early 1990s; that there was a need for a standardized or widely utilized system to help guide ecotourism planning, development, implementation, and management.

2.4.4 – Ecotourism and Certification Because of confusion over the precise meaning of the concept and uncertainty between different types of tourism, three trends have resulted. First, and most common, was what has been termed “ecotourism lite” which consists of “small, cosmetic, and often cost-saving steps rather than fundamental reforms that constitute socially and environmentally sensitive practices.” 126 The second trend involved practices termed “greenwashing,” or false advertizing of products and attractions by tourism organizations that use environmentally and socially conscious language in an attempt to secure profits in this growing sector. The third trend was for tourism organizations to practice the true and genuine form of ecotourism, actually adhering to its principles. The proposed strategy (to bring the first two divergent practices inline with the third trend) was a unified, worldwide sustainable tourism certification program. Unfortunately, there are currently over 100 eco-labeling and certifying programs in existence worldwide. 127 This has occurred because of the absence of internationally accepted standards, which has caused each program to develop its own standards. Though admirable in their attempts, the explosion of certification initiatives has caused much confusion and distrust among consumers. Confusion over what exactly was being certified and uncertainty about the certification process, to the point where people started believing that certifications were subjective and therefore worthless. However, there are several examples of certification programs that have promoted change within the tourism industry. “Certification – as voluntary, third-party, multi-stakeholder programs that award logos based on environmental, economic, and social criteria – is a tool uniquely suited to our times.” 128 This is because if done correctly, these programs have the power to promote local and host country rights and environmental protection in ways that governments never could. With the ability to raise funds to support their programs, these

125

“Oslo Statement of Ecotourism,” (Washington: The International Ecotourism Society, 2007), 3, found at http://www.ecotourismglobalconference.org/?page_id=179 (accessed on January 22, 2010). 126 Martha Honey and Emma Stewart, “Introduction,” in Ecotourism and Certification: Setting Standards in Practice, ed. Martha Honey (Washington: Island Press, 2002), 6. 127 Ibid., 151. 128 Honey, Ecotourism, 114.

38

organizations, often run by NGOs, provide an image of credibility and impartiality which builds trust among consumers. According to Michael Conroy, an economist and member of a sustainable development certification organization, “[t]he certification revolution has shown remarkable success in creating the conditions that help transform corporate practices towards greater social and environmental accountability.” The revolution he is referring to includes unmatched changes in global corporate practices moving across sectors around the world. 129 Certification programs are able to do this through marketing campaigns that draw public attention to businesses that are not conforming to particular rules. Through public opinion and perception, they are able to influence international and local corporations that would otherwise not have the incentive to change or to operate in more sustainable ways.

2.5 - CONCLUSION Ecotourism claims to be a successful strategy to improve biological and cultural understanding, finance conservation and protect natural resources, benefit local communities, and even improve the tourism industry. However, due to the presence of widely divergent models of ecotourism that either pretend to fulfill or minimally fulfill the goals of the concept, many have questioned its effectiveness. In fact, two well-cited and respected ecotourism authors have claimed that “contemporary ecotourism is facing a crisis of credibility.” 130 Although this perspective is understandable, it may be more appropriate to say that ecotourism is facing a crisis of identity. To be sure, ecotourism has the potential to be an agent of positive change, but just because the term is used does not mean that the practice is automatically sustainable. If an ecotourism enterprise is to be sustainable, it must conserve the natural resources, be economically viable, and it must be culturally acceptable. For this to happen, precise definitions, characteristics, distinctions between forms of tourism, and certification programs need to be universally accepted. Without this, ecotourism will continue to be used and abused by many in the tourism industry, thereby degrading the image of the concept, and perpetuating the crisis.

129

Michael E. Conroy, Branded! How the ‘Certification Revolution’ is Transforming Global Corporations (Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 2007), 287. 130 David Fennell and David Weaver, “ The Ecotourium Concept and Tourism-Conservation Symbiosis,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism (2005) 13(4): 373.

39

Chapter 3

Ecotourism in Costa Rica: The National Context

3.1 – INTRODUCTION Costa Rica has been hailed as ecotourism’s “poster child.” 1 According to many travel agencies, newspapers, and magazines, it is one of the top ecotourism destinations in the world. In a small country roughly the size of West Virginia (see Figure 1.1), visitors can enjoy pristine white beaches, active volcanoes, raging rivers, beautiful waterfalls, and dramatic mountains that reach 3,832 meters (12,573 feet). The country has twelve life zones that sustain over 500,000 species of flora and fauna. Peaceful, democratic, and friendly, Costa Rica has protected more than 26 percent of its land, thereby conserving five percent of the world’s biodiversity in just 0.035 percent of the earth’s surface. Amazingly, Costa Rica’s international reputation as a leader in balancing conservation and economic development took place in less than 20 years. Prior to the 1980s, however, Costa Rica had one of the world’s highest rates of deforestation, at four percent. Estimates at that time suggested that primary forests would be completely depleted of commercial timber by 1995 if forest clearance trends continued. 2 Additionally, in the 1970s Costa Rica experienced a population growth that was the highest in the Americas at 3.25 percent, further pressuring the country’s precious natural resources. Yet, by the early 1990s, Costa Rica was a more popular ecotourism destination than many of the older, more established nature travel destinations such as Kenya, the Galapagos Islands, or Nepal. From 1975 to 1995, tourists visiting the country more than doubled from 299,037 to 784,610 respectively. In 1997, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT) began promoting the country using the highly successful slogan, “Costa Rica – No Artificial Ingredients,” 3 and by 2001, Costa Rica was receiving 1.1 million tourists per year. So, what facilitated these changes? What events led to the country’s emergence as a world leader in balancing conservation and economic development? What facilitated the amazing transformation from one of the world’s most deforested countries to one of the 1

Honey, Ecotourism, 160. G. Arturo Sánchez-Azofeifa, Robert C. Harriss, and David L. Skole, “Deforestation in Costa Rica: A Quantitative Analysis Using Remote Sensing Imagry,” Biotropica (2001) 33(3): 378-384. 3 Pedro Raventos, “The internet strategy of the Costa Rican Tourism Board,” Journal of Business Research (2006) 59(3): 377. 2

40

world’s top ecotourism destination? How is it that in 1987, amid economic, environmental, and social turmoil, President Oscar Arias Sanchez became the first person in the country’s history to receive the Nobel Peace Prize? The answers to these questions stem from the fact that Costa Rica has the necessary ecological, political, economic, and social building blocks for ecotourism’s development. Its natural abundance and conservation history prepared the country to be the right place at the right time, when nature tourism was rapidly growing throughout the world. Countless scientists, educators, politicians, and private citizens have contributed to the emergence and development of ecotourism in Costa Rica. As in the global context, ecotourism’s development in this tiny country occurred in several phases, overlapping in time. The first phase was the increased interest in scientific research and education that has taken place since the mid-1800s. The second phase was the political push for development and the ensuing ecological crisis, which also began in the mid-1800s and lasted until the late 1900s. The rapid pace of environmental destruction gained international attention and prompted the third phase, preservation and the conservationist response that began in the 1970s. This was a turning point in Costa Rican history as many laws were passed that created environmentally focused governmental departments, as well as the country’s first national parks. These changes helped establish the necessary conditions that opened the country initially to nature tourism and later ecotourism. The fourth and final phase has been the amazing growth of ecotourism and its importance to the economy and Costa Rican society since the 1980s. Although far from creating an “ecotopia,” these phases have helped produce an environmental ethic among Costa Ricans that has helped reverse the country’s ecologically destructive trajectory, thereby protecting the environment and ultimately the welfare of the country’s populace. 4

3.2 – HISTORY OF ECOTOURISM’S DEVELOPMENT 3.2.1 – Research and Education Part of Costa Rica’s uniqueness has been its ability to attract foreign scientists and build scientific organizations and institutions. This characteristic has provided local researchers with quality education and opportunities to explore and understand the nation’s exceptional natural history and diversity. According to Mario A. Boza, one of Costa Rica’s leading conservationists, “the diversity and wealth of Costa Rica’s flora and fauna, as well as the majesty of its countryside, have attracted the attention of scientists and naturalists from all over the world

4

Mario A. Boza, Diane Jukofsky, and Chris Wille, “Costa Rica Is a Laboratory, Not Ecotopia,” Conservation Biology (1995) 9(3): 684-685.

41

since the mid-1800s.” 5 Scientific exploration and ecological education have been instrumental in the development of Costa Rica’s contemporary conservation consciousness. The history of scientific interest in Costa Rica can be traced back to two main events that took place in the mid- to late-1800s. The first event was the growth in international demand for coffee and the second was an interest in a trans-isthmus canal in lower Central America. Not only did roads and railroads open the country’s previously unexplored areas, but the coffee trade established with Europe brought many researchers and professionals to Costa Rica. Additionally, in the late 1800s, when commercial interest in constructing a trans-isthmus canal grew, numerous scientists were sent to the country to investigate possible canal site locations. Some of the earliest and most notable explorer-naturalists were Moritz Wagner and Karl von Scherzer who traveled through North and Central America and the Caribbean. In 1856 they published Die Republik Costa Rica which became popular and widely cited in both the United States and Britain. According to one historian, their work probably did more to bring European scientists to Costa Rica than any other. 6 Another notable explorer was the Danish naturalist Anders Sandoe Ørsted, who traveled through Nicaragua and Costa Rica from 1846 to 1848, to study their geography and flora. He published the now famous work, L’Amérique Centrale: Recherches sur sa géographie politique, sa faune et sa floraI, in Copenhagen with the support of the Costa Rican government. In 1853, two German physicians, Karl Hoffmann and Alexander von Frantzius, traveled to Costa Rica carrying a letter of introduction to Costa Rica’s president from Alexander von Humboldt. As a result, these men were personally welcomed to the country by President Mora Fernández. Hoffmann is credited with collecting numerous animal and plant species (of which 12 bear his name) and for serving as a doctor in the Costa Rican army in the war against William Walker in 1856. Frantzius gained even more fame, though not through his botanical explorations of Costa Rica, but through teaching natural history to Costa Ricans. He opened a drug store in San José and mentored, among others, José C. Zeledón who later became wellknown worldwide as an ornithologist. 7 When Frantzius left the country to return to the United States in 1869, he took Zeledón with him. Because of Zeledón’s work with Robert Ridgway, who worked as curator at the United States National Museum, interest in Cost Rica grew among

5

Mario A. Boza, quoted in The Green Republic: A Conservation History of Costa Rica, Sterling Evans (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999), 15. 6 Sterling Evans, The Green Republic: A Conservation History of Costa Rica (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999), 17. 7 L. D. Gomez and J. M. Savage, ”Searchers on that Rich Coast: Costa Rican Field Biology 1400-1980,” in Costa Rican Natural History, ed. Daniel H. Janzen (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 2-4.

42

American scientists and by 1914, Costa Rica had become the center of scientific research in Central America. 8 One such scientist attracted to the country was American botanist (and later ornithologist) Dr. Alexander Skutch. In 1935, Dr. Skutch, who became perhaps the most famous and prolific ornithologist in the world and one of the more influential faculty members in the School of Biology at the University of Costa Rica (UCR), began working in the San Isidro del General valley (see Figure 1.2). He had become interested in studying birds while he was in Panama and wanted to further the scientific community’s knowledge about the way tropical birds lived. He felt that Costa Rica was the best place to conduct his research because, Costa Rica was still largely unspoiled. Its population concentrated in the narrow Meseta Central, or central plateau...Other advantages that Costa Rica offered to the naturalist were its political stability and the friendliness of its people...Thus, the naturalist working in some remote spot was not likely to have his studies suddenly cut by a violent civil upheaval, as happened to many in Latin America and elsewhere. To support himself and his studies, he collected plants which he sold to museums and research institutions. In 1941, Dr. Skutch purchased 76 hectares (ha) of land located in the San Isidro del General Valley along the Peña Blanca River. Over the next 60 years, Dr. Skutch published “the largest body of natural-history information ever collected by a single observer,” 9 which amounted to more than 40 books and over 200 papers on ornithology. Through his writings and lectures at the UCR, Dr. Skutch became a great proponent for conservation in Costa Rica. Continuing the momentum of promoting scientific research and the idea of conservation was the establishment of the Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences (IICA) in Turrialba in 1942. 10 Created in 1948 by the Pan-American Union (which became the Organization of American States (OAS), its establishment was the result of visionary men, such as Henry Wallace, then the United States Secretary of Agriculture, who proposed the idea during the VII American Scientific Congress, in Washington, DC in 1940. The institute’s mission was to train individuals and conduct research in agriculture, forestry and wildlife management. Over the next two decades, the institute grew and began working with every country in the Western Hemisphere. In 1972, members of the institute decided to create an independent 8

Evans, The Green Republic, 20. F. Gary Stiles, “In Memoriam,” The Auk (2005) 122(2): 710. 10 This institute, later changed to the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, was strategically located in Costa Rica because the country is centrally located within the Americas and had agricultural characteristics that were typical throughout North and South America. Information found at the organization’s website, http://www.iica.int/Eng/infoinstitucional/Pages/Brief%20history%20of%20IICA.aspx (accessed on January 25, 2010). 9

43

teaching and research entity, and in 1973 the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE) was formed through an agreement between IICA and the government of Costa Rica. An exciting event in Costa Rica’s conservation history was the initiation of a course on national parks and wildlife started by the IICA in 1966. This course was directed by Dr. Kenton Miller, a world-renowned leader in park and protected areas management who later served as the Director General of IUCN and gained international recognition for his contributions to the global conservation effort. One of his students in the late 1960s was a Costa Rican named Mario A. Boza, who became one of the most prominent figures in the country’s national park program. Writing his master’s thesis on park development and management for the Poás Volcano, Boza was hired as the national park service’s first director and was the natural resources advisor to President Rodrigo Carazo. He founded the conservation organization Fundación de Parques Nacionales, was a university professor, and wrote numerous books about the national parks of Costa Rica. In 1949, Dr. Leslie R. Holdridge, a world-renowned and foremost expert of tropical forestry, who spent most of his adult life living in Costa Rica, began working at IICA. He was one of the institution’s first instructors and became the most instrumental leaders there. 11 He was a firm believer in rainforest preservation and in 1954 he purchased a large and heavily forested plot of land located in the north-central part of the country. That same year he established La Selva research station on his land, which he used to further his studies of tropical lowland ecosystems. During the 1960s and 1970s, he developed a bioclimatic classification system of land areas that has become known as The Holdridge Life Zone System, which has been used around the world to classify the life zones of more than 20 countries. 12 One of Dr. Holdridge’s brightest and most prominent students was Venezuelan graduate student Gerardo Budowski, who moved to IICA in 1952 to earn his master’s degree in science. After completing his doctorate degree in forestry at Yale University, Dr. Budowski applied his knowledge of tropical ecology to advance nature conservation and to promote sustainable development in Costa Rica as well as internationally through a variety of positions abroad. As the Head of Ecology and Conservation at the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Paris, he organized the World Biosphere Conference in 1968. He went on to be the Director General of the IUCN (now the World Conservation Union), located in Switzerland, from 1970 to 1976. He was the president of the World Ecotourism Society (now The International Ecotourism Society) and has been a special advisor to the World Wide Fund 11

Evans, The Green Republic, 23. A. E. Lugo, S. L. Brown, R. Dodson, T. S. Smith, and H. H. Shugart, “The Holdridge Life Zones of the Conterminous United States in Relation to Ecosystem Mapping,” Journal of Biogeography (1999) 26(5): 1028.

12

44

for Nature (prior to the 1980s this was known as the World Wildlife Fund) and the Global Environmental Facility of the World Bank. Because of his efforts, “[i]n Latin America the name Gerardo Budowski is associated with most conservation initiatives.” 13 Few people from this region have attained such distinguished professional recognition or positions of influence on conservation worldwide. In 1954, Dr. Archie Carr, who became the world’s leading authority on sea turtles, began tagging turtles at Tortuguero, Costa Rica, which continues today and has become one of the “longest continuous population studies of any reptile.” 14 In 1955, Dr. Carr started working in the newly created School of Biology at the UCR, and developed its curriculum. As a Graduate Research Professor at the University of Florida, Dr. Carr was afforded time to pursue his passion, the conservation work of sea turtles. He spent 20 years as the chairman of the Marine Turtle Specialist Group of the IUCN’s Survival Service Commission organizing and directing the worldwide movement for the conservation of sea turtles. From 1959 until his death in 1987, he was the Scientific Director of the Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC), an organization started in response to his book The Windward Road, which made history by exposing the plight of sea turtles. Dr. Carr started and directed the United States Navy’s “Operation Green Turtle,” in the 1960s, which was a program to distribute green turtle eggs and hatchlings from Tortuguero in Costa Rica to other beaches around the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. This program lasted until the Vietnam War, when naval air support was redirected to the war effort. His work in Tortuguero helped establish the National Park by the same name. Through his positions and work, Dr. Carr was instrumental in helping shape the conservation consciousness of Costa Rica. 15 During the 1950s and 1960s, interest in strengthening education and research in tropical science studies grew in the United States. Harvard University had offered a course in tropical botany since the beginning of the 1900s, at Atkins Gardens in Cuba. Unfortunately, with growing tensions in the late 1950s, they began thinking about relocating. Since the 1950s, the University of Michigan attempted unsuccessfully to establish a field station in Mexico. Additionally, the Universities of Miami, Kansas, Florida, and Washington were looking to develop similar programs within their institutions. However, in 1961 the University of Southern California (USC) was successful in forging a working relationship with UCR and began offering a field-oriented tropical biology course in Costa Rica. Because of the success of the USC-UCR course, a series of meetings were held between the seven universities to determine if their 13

Fausto Sarmiento, “Gerardo Budowski: A Beacon to Conservation of Tropical Mountains,” Mountain Research and Development (2002) 22(2): 197. 14 James R. Spotila, “Archie Carr: To the Edge of Hope, 1909-1987,” Herpetologica (1988) 44(1): 131. 15 David Ehrenfield, “Archie Carr: In Memoriam,” Conservation Biology (1987) 1(2): 169-172.

45

individual goals could be met through the creation of one organization. They determined that they could and as a result the Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS) was established in 1963. 16 The objectives of the organization were to provide leadership in graduate and undergraduate education in tropical sciences, facilitate research, and promote tropical forest conservation. The expectations of this non-profit consortium were that a new generation of tropical studies experts would increase the amount of research on tropical issues; that participation and interest in tropical studies would grow among Latin American researchers; and that graduates of their courses would become involved in the planning and sustainable management of natural resources. Since then, OTS has “offered over 200 graduate-level courses in the natural sciences and can count more than 3,600 graduate students and professionals as alumni.” 17 It has been claimed that “almost every major figure in tropical biology today,” has been involved with OTS. 18 One such figure and one of OTS’s first students was Dr. Daniel H. Janzen, from the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Janzen, who later taught courses at OTS, became a leader and role model for countless tropical scientists. Throughout his life, Dr. Janzen has promoted the conservation of tropical wetlands. 19 OTS has grown to include 63 universities and research institutions from the United States, Australia, and Latin America. OTS owns three research stations in Costa Rica: the first, La Selva Biological Station, purchased from Dr. Holdridge in 1968, has become one of the most productive field stations in the world. 20 The second is the Palo Verde Biological Research Station, located in the Guanacaste Province, which known for its tropical dry forests (one of the most endangered types of forests in the world). The third is Las Cruces Biological Station (which contains the Wilson Botanical Garden) located in Coto Brus County in southern Costa Rica, only 5 km from the Panamanian border, which is a part of the Amistad Biosphere Reserve. Prior to 1964 there were no parks or protected areas in Costa Rica. Realizing the need to care for the rapidly declining natural resources of the country, Dr. Holdridge, Dr. Joseph A. Tosi (a forester and land-use expert), and Dr. Robert J. Hunter (an agriculturalist) founded the Tropical Science Center (TSC) in 1962. Their objective was to establish a network of privatelyowned biological reserves to help protect the country’s environment. Its mission was to gain understanding about tropical biodiversity and to promote the sustainable use of natural resources. As a private consulting firm, the TSC worked with the IICA on numerous projects, 16

Gomez and Savage, “Searchers,” 8. “Organization for Tropical Studies,” http://www.ots.ac.cr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=258 (accessed January 27, 2010). 18 Gomez and Savage, “Searchers,” 9. 19 Nalini Nadkarni, “Dr. Daniel H. Janzen Honorary Fellow, ATB, 2002,” Biotropica (2002) 34(4): 482. 20 Robert B. Matlock Jr. and Gary S. Hartshorn, “La Selva Biological Station (OTS),” Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America (1999) 80(3): 188-193. 17

46

organized training sessions and conferences, and established a research station at Rincón de Osa. However, their greatest achievement was their management of the Monteverde Cloud Forest Biological Reserve which began in 1971. Acquired from the Quakers, the 10,500 hectare Reserve has become the most famous cloud forest reserve in the world hosting more than 70,000 visitors and researchers every year. The Reserve is home to over 400 species of birds, 120 species of reptiles, 100 species of mammals and amphibians, 2,500 species of plants, and tens of thousands of insect species. 21 Learning and knowing as much as possible about Costa Rica’s environment (i.e., how ecosystems function and how humans affect and are affected by them) is the key to understanding how to protect the country’s natural resources and why it is necessary to do so. The beginning of this understanding has come from interest in the country’s vast wealth of flora and fauna as well as from its stunning physical geography. It was sustained by the stable democratic republic and friendly attitude towards foreigners. 22 Finally, this understanding was spread throughout the country by education provided by local and international researchers and teachers. Even if the number of biological science students is small, the number of people that support the goals of conservation is large. This is the result of Costa Rica’s research and education legacy.

3.2.2 – Development and the Environmental Problem Costa Rica is often used as an example of how developing nations can manage the difficult balance between nature conservation and economic development. The government has set aside over 26 percent of the country’s land for conservation (one of the highest percentages of any country in the world) and has been a leader in developing programs for the use of their protected areas, such as for ecotourism, biodiversity inventory, and carbon sequestration. 23 However, outside of protected areas, deforestation rates were among the highest in the world at approximately 3.7 percent between the 1970s and 1990s, before decreasing to 1.5 percent or less at the end of the twentieth century. 24 How can this situation be explained, especially in light of the enormous progress made in scientific education and research? The answers involve a web of factors that includes: consumption patterns in developed countries, changes in the country’s political paradigm, government programs that encouraged poor land-use and management, infrastructure development, and the dramatic population growth that took place following 1950. These factors will be discussed in five main 21

Evans, The Green Republic, 27. Ibid., 32. 23 Sánchez-Azofeifa, Harriss, and Skole, “Deforestation in Costa Rica,” 378. 24 G. Arturo Sánchez-Azofeifa, Gretchen C. Daily, Alexander S.P. Pfaff, and Christopher Busch, “Integrity and isolation of Costa Rica’s national parks and biological reserves: examining the dynamics of land-cover change,” Biological Conservation (2003) 109: 123-135. 22

47

themes that dominated the late 1800s and the majority of the 1900s: coffee production, banana cultivation and trade, frontier laws, infrastructure and population growth, and the cattle business. Coffee Production Costa Rica’s geographical isolation, lack of precious mineral deposits, and low numbers of Indian labor were all factors that prevented Spanish conquistadors from reproducing the economic relations found elsewhere in Central America. During the colonial period, the Costa Rican economy was self-sufficient, based mainly on small-scale agriculture, and thus basically closed. The majority of the population was concentrated in the Central Valley and isolated both from access to the coasts and from the rest of the Spanish colonies in Central America. As a result, Costa Rica remained unattractive and poor and therefore “formed an insignificant part of the Spanish Empire in the New World.” 25 However, following independence, demand for coffee in Europe and demand for bananas in the United States completely changed the economic, political, social, and environmental landscapes of this newly independent nation. In the 1830s, coffee production emerged as the country’s major economic activity. Revenues from coffee exports helped finance numerous public works projects that were greatly influenced by local consumption patterns that ultimately changed the cultural image of Costa Rica. In place of adobe-style homes, that were damp and dark, Costa Ricans started building homes from brick and wood and installing windows. Iron stoves replaced open fires and porcelain dinnerware replaced wooden ones. By the 1850s, two-story buildings appeared along with stores, pavement, and street-lamps. 26 In the fields, plows, steel hoes, shovels, machetes, saws, and axes greatly improved agricultural efficiency. However, the transformation from a traditional, subsistence-based economy to a market economy produced other effects. Products suddenly had greater value and prices rapidly increased. Land that was once only valuable to the owner now became worth more than the landowner could afford. This caused a slow-moving concentration of small farms into large holdings (though not to the point of eliminating the small farm) and a spatial expansion from the settled center to the unexplored periphery of the country. 27 Additionally, profits from coffee produced a class of elites that dominated the coffee industry and trade to foreign markets. Members from this class dominated politics competitively for the remainder of the nineteenth century and into the early part of the twentieth century. To ensure the supply met 25

Marshall C. Eakin, “The Origins of Modern Science in Costa Rica: The Instituto Físico-Geográfico Nacional, 18871904,” Latin American Research Review (1999) 34(1): 126. 26 Iván Molina and Steven Palmer, The History of Costa Rica: Brief and Up-To-Date and Illustrated, 2nd edition (Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007), 59. 27 John P. Augelli, “Costa Rica’s Frontier Legacy,” Geographical Review (1987) 77(1): 8.

48

the demand, the government administration dominated by the elites encouraged the conversion of previously undisturbed forest into coffee fields. To accomplish this, many administrations offered incentives to coffee growers in the form of tax breaks and land entitlements. For the next 40 years, coffee was practically Costa Rica’s only export product. By the early 1880s, many elites in Costa Rica were ready for new politics based on a liberal ideology influenced by positivism and individualism. Prior to this time, the government had been dominated by more conservative parties that promoted hierarchy, centralism, and government intervention in the economy. These parties followed their Spanish heritage and values to help guide the newly independent country. Additionally, these elites (known as the Liberals) wanted to bring about educational reforms that would remove the responsibility traditionally held by the Catholic Church and place it in the hands of the government. According to the liberal belief of the time, progress was the result of scientific thinking and economic development. However, the conservative parties continued to deny this effort, fearing the emergence of an interventionist state. 28 In 1882, the Liberals got their chance when they won the presidential election and were able to gain control of the country. That election ushered in the beginning of the “Liberal Republic,” (so named to distinguish this period from the previous period that was ruled by the elites since 1821 and from the liberal democracy that existed after 1949) that lasted until Revolution of 1948. During the next 60 years, a small and “educated minority...competed and cooperated in the control of political power,” while at the same time pursuing reformist policies to intensify development tendencies that were already present. 29 Liberals saw educational reform as benefiting both their party and the country. They hoped that creating a literate Costa Rica would increase electoral support for their party and they expected prosperity to follow progress. They planned to use the country’s economic accomplishments to modernize the cities of the Central Valley. 30 Besides electricity, telegraphs, and steamships, during this period of history the one thing that symbolized a modern society to Costa Rican leaders was the railroad. Banana Cultivation and Trade Although initially proposed as a means to transport coffee to the Caribbean coast (a much more economical plan since current exports were leaving by the Pacific coast and traveling around the southern tip of South America), the railroad from San José to Limón opened and exposed the Caribbean lowlands to rapid land conversion for banana plantations. 28

Consuelo Cruz, Political Culture and Institutional Development in Costa Rica and Nicaragua (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 117. 29 John Peeler, Latin American Democracies: Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 64. 30 Meg Tyler Mitchell and Scott Pentzer, Costa Rica: A Global Studies Handbook (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2008), 59.

49

In the late 1870s, knowing that the coffee trade alone would not sustain the growing costs of the railroad, Minor C. Keith, an American contracted to complete the construction of the railroad, planted some banana rhizomes he received while in Panama, to sustain his workers. Realizing the potential, in 1878 Keith sent 250 stems back to New Orleans and in 1879 he began shipping bananas to a growing market in New York City. Thus began the events that led to the formation of the United Fruit Company (UFCo) in 1899. The production of bananas was politically, economically, and ecologically much different than coffee production for at least three reasons. First, the government promised Keith 800,000 acres of undeveloped national land (which was equal to seven percent of the country’s territory), a 20-year land tax exemption, and guaranteed use of the country’s railway for 99 years. 31 Second, the profits from banana exports went almost exclusively to UFCo, since startup costs were high (preventing most Costa Ricans from cultivating bananas), most of the labor force was imported (again excluding most Costa Ricans), and since public land was transferred to corporate ownership (settlement by landless farmers was precluded). 32 Third, banana production caused continual forest removal because bananas exhaust the productivity of the soil in only seven years. Then in the 1930s, the UFCo began to shift their operations to the Pacific coast, near the town of Golfito, as a result of Panama disease that decimated the crops and due to social unrest in the Caribbean plantations. This move caused even more forest clearance. According to the UFCo’s records, the total amount of land cleared for banana production between 1900 and 1965 was close to 75,000 ha. However, from 1966 until 1990, it was estimated that land clearance was as high as 62,000 ha per year! This accounted for as much as 11 percent of Costa Rica’s total annual deforestation. 33 Frontier Laws Few historical conditions in Costa Rica have shaped the society as much as the existence of a settlement frontier that a growing population could obtain in exchange for occupation. Much like the early model in the United States, the frontier in Costa Rica “gave a campesino a measure of economic security and...a sense of political egalitarianism and a stake in an orderly democratic process.” 34 As a holdover from the Spanish law, Costa Rican common law has accepted explicitly that a person who openly occupies and works land not owned or occupied by another gains the rights to the area as a result of “improvements” made to the land. 31

James Wiley, The Banana: Empires, Trade Wars, and Globalization (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008), 6-7. 32 Augelli, “Costa Rica’s Frontier Legacy,” 8. 33 Evans, The Green Republic, 36-37. 34 Augelli, “Costa Rica’s Frontier Legacy,” 1. Campesino is the Spanish word for a farmer.

50

Typically, settlers would exhibit these improvements through forest removal and agricultural usage. Official ownership of newly cleared land was formalized in the Civil Code of 1888, allowing settlers to own their property by putting a fence around that portion of land that was cleared. Legal title was granted to those people who occupied the land publicly, continually, and without contention for at least 10 years. Unfortunately, the frontier experience gave rise to a perception that the country possessed a plentiful, almost limitless amount of land. This perception encouraged numerous bad practices that produced several negative environmental outcomes, such as wasteful clearance of forests using slash-and-burn techniques, as well as the pollution of soils and water through the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Additionally, this perception caused many to believe that land was cheap and that families had a right to use as much as was needed. 35 Therefore, the general rules about land tenure and the court’s interpretation of them have enabled many to abuse their original intent. Infrastructure Development and Population Growth Although frontier expansion continued into the twentieth century, the pattern of internal migration did not reflect the 2.7 percent growth rate that the country experienced between 1900 and 1940. The reason for this was due to the underdeveloped transportation system that prohibited commercial agricultural production outside the preexisting settled areas. Even through the 1930s, only 33 percent of the country was occupied. However, by the 1970s, 66 percent had been colonized. 36 The rapid movement of persons from the Central Valley to the south was facilitated by the completion of the Inter-American Highway (IAH) from San José to San Isidro del General in 1945. During the 1950s the Costa Rican government initiated numerous road-building projects which further opened primary forest in the peripheral regions. The extreme southern areas were penetrated during the 1960s when the IAH was finished down to the border with Panama and finally, by the 1980s, 27,360 kilometers of road had been constructed, the most of any country in Central America. 37 If the disappearance of the Costa Rican frontier was facilitated by the improvements to the road network, it was accelerated by the explosive growth in population. While an influx of foreign labor accounted for the rise in population in the beginning of the twentieth century, immigration became insignificant after 1925. 38 However, over the next quarter century the population entered a period of unprecedented growth: from 471,524 in 1927 to 1,336,274 in 35

Augelli, “Costa Rica’s Frontier Legacy,” 5. Carolyn Hall, Costa Rica: A Geographical Interpretation in Historical Perspective (Boulder: Westview Press, Inc., 1985), 103. 37 Evans, The Green Republic, 41. 38 Hall, Costa Rica, 101. 36

51

1963, which was a growth rate of four percent per year. 39 This rate was among the highest in the world, exceeding most rates of industrialized countries in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The causes of such a phenomenal growth in population were due to changes in the mortality and fertility patterns. During this time, mortality rates fell from around 20 percent in the 1930s to five percent in the 1970s, which was the lowest in Latin America and comparable to rates in developed countries. 40 The rise in population fueled the rush to the periphery to settle the remaining unoccupied public land, which had disappeared by the early 1980s. Cattle Business Although the above mentioned causes of deforestation significantly contributed to the removal of forested areas in Costa Rica, no cause was as extensive or destructive as the explosive growth in Costa Rica’s cattle industry in the late 1960s and 1970s. This expansion was a response to the increased demand for beef in developed nations that occurred during the same period. Prior to this time, the cattle business in Costa Rica mainly provided beef for local or regional consumption. However, as beef prices in the United States soared past the cost of overall living, countries in Central America were encouraged to expand their ranching interests. Costa Rican ranchers, farmers, and speculators did everything possible to take advantage of the opportunity, to the point where they convinced the government to offer tax and credit incentives to ranchers to increase cattle production. 41 To meet the demand in the United States, beef production in Costa Rica more than tripled between the 1960s and 1970s. In 1960, the country’s cattle herds totaled 900,000 head. However, by 1978 they exceeded 2 million. Unfortunately, over that same period of time, “local consumption of beef actually declined to a mere 12.6 kilograms per head per year – less meat than a domestic cat received in the United States.” 42 For their efforts, by the 1980s, Costa Rica was the top producer of beef in Central America, producing 89 million tons. Of that amount, 36 million were exported with 96 percent going to the United States. The result of this increased production was a rapid conversion of forest and woodlands, much of it primary forest, to pasture. According to data collected at the country level from five reference dates, the total amount of primary forest remaining in 1940, 1950, 1961, 1977, and

39

Hermógenes Hernández, Costa Rica: Evolución Territorial Y Principales Censos de Población 1502-1984 (San José: Editorial Universidad Estatal A Distancia, 1985). 40 Hall, Costa Rica, 101. 41 Evans, The Green Republic, 38-39. 42 John Augelli, “Modernization of Costa Rica’s Beef Cattle Economy: 1950-1985,” Journal of Cultural Geography (1989) 9(2): 82; Norman Myers, “The Hamburger Connection: How Central America’s Forests Become North America’s Hamburgers,” Ambio (1981) 10(1): 6.

52

1983 was 67, 56, 45, 32, and 17 percent respectively. 43 In 1961 the total amount of forest and wooded land cover in Costa Rica was equal to 28,480 km2 and by 1978 the total amount was 19,300 km2. The amount of pasture land during that same time grew from 9,690 km2 to 17,640 km2. As of 1950, cattle-raising areas covered only one-eighth of the country, but by the end of the 1970s they covered over one-third. 44 Not surprisingly, according to land-use capability studies conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, there was a wide divergence between land use and land capability, since only nine percent of Costa Rica was determined to be suitable for pastureland, 45 with as much as 60 percent classified as suitable for forests. One other negative effect of the cattle industry in Costa Rica was the growth in the number of large estates. Although this trend started with coffee and increased with banana production, land consolidation was intensified even greater to support the needs of the growing cattle industry. By the end of the 1970s, large estates accounted for half of all agricultural land in use and were owned by only about 2,000 ranchers at an average size of 750 ha each. This pattern displaced small farmers either farther into the steeper frontier land or back into the cities, thereby raising the number of landless workers and farmers to 25 percent – which was the highest in Central America at that time. 46

3.2.3 – Preservation and the Conservationist Solution The developments that took place under the Liberal government’s programs to promote growth and modernization in the early 1900s prompted many involved in scientific research and education to recommend measures designed to govern the use of the country’s natural resources. As a result, from the early 1900s, numerous environmental laws and regulations were approved by various government administrations. Although important in the conservation movement of Costa Rica, these measures were not well funded or enforced and therefore they were ineffective at stopping forest clearance. However, most experts on environmental policy making in Costa Rica agree that the turning point in the country’s conservation history began with the passage of the Forestry Law of 1969. 47 This law was developed in response to calls, from the conservation community, for the government to design a bill that would limit deforestation. Its purpose was to “ensure the protection, use, conservation and development of the country’s forest resources.” Its plan to accomplish this was by establishing a system of “protected zones, forest reserves, national 43

Sader and Joyce, “Deforestation Rates,” 12. Myers, “The Hamburger Connection,” 5. 45 Evans, The Green Republic, 39. 46 Geroge M. Guess, “Pasture Expansion, Forestry, and Development Contradictions: The Case of Costa Rica,” Studies in Comparative International Development (1979) 14(1): 44. 47 Evans, The Green Republic, 64-65. 44

53

parks, and biological reserves,” to be set aside for “public recreation and education, for tourism, and for scientific research.” 48 The major difference between this and previous measures was that this law facilitated the creation of a General Forestry Directorate (DGF), a division within the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG), to regulate the timber industry. Additionally, the law provided the legal basis for punishment of infractions, thereby discouraging unwise use of the country’s natural resources. Although, the Forestry Law did not slow deforestation rates in the decade following its inception, it was the vehicle that facilitated the establishment of the National Parks Department within the DGF. To direct this new department, the DGF hired Mario A Boza, the former student of Drs. Budowski and Miller at the IICA, who then dedicated his time and effort to directing and shaping the country’s national park program. As a result of his efforts, and those of countless others, Costa Rica gained an international reputation as a country that has embraced the principles of sustainable development, with protected areas as the foundation. For example, according to the IUCN, prior to 1969 no national parks or protected areas existed in Costa Rica. Six years later, however, the FAO used Costa Rica as a model of how to preserve natural areas and in 1980 Costa Rica had more areas under some form of protection with more workers than any other country in Central America. Finally, by 2006, Costa Rica had 160 different protected areas, an amount of national territory that equaled more than 26 percent (see Table 3.1). This is a higher percentage of protected land than is in the United States (which would have to have an equivalent park system the size of Oklahoma and Texas combined). 49 Since the passing of the original Forestry Law, Costa Rica has also enacted and implemented two modifications, in 1986 and 1996, which reflects the dynamic nature of the nation’s system of conservation and its adaptation to the country’s changing development policies. 50 In the 1995, to compliment these policy changes, the General Forestry Directorate, the National Parks Directorate, and the Wildlife General Directorate, were consolidated into the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC). The purpose of this was to integrate the management of protected areas to better care for the biodiversity of the nation. To improve the management of these lands, SINAC established 11 Regional Conservation Areas (which are different than the national parks, biological reserves, etc.) throughout the country. Management of these areas was decentralized to the regional level to encourage participation of local community members.

48

Forestry Law 4465, Articles 1, 2, 74, created on November 25, 1969. Evans, The Green Republic, 7. 50 Sánchez-Azofeifa, Daily, Pfaff, and Busch, “Integrity and isolation,” 125. 49

54

Table 3.1 – Number and extent of protected areas in Costa Rica 51 Category National Parks Biological Reserves National Wildlife Refuges Forest Reserves Protected Zones Wetlands/Mangroves Other Areas* Total

Number in Category 27 8

Amount of Area (ha) 625,531 22,032

Percent Protected (out of 51,100 km2) 12.24 0.43

67

243,040

4.76

9 31 13 5 160

221,239 153,506 66,388 7,843 1,339,579

4.33 3.00 1.30 0.15 26.21

*Other areas include Absolute Natural Reserves, National and Natural Monuments

Under the Regional Conservation Areas management plan, the different categories of protected areas have been classified as one of two management types. Type I areas are completely protected and limit use to research and tourism. These areas include national parks, biological reserves, wildlife refuges, national monuments and natural reserves. Type II areas were established to protect essential watersheds and wildlife. They are managed under the multiple-use perspective for purposes like tourism or logging and include forest reserves and protected zones, which are open to controlled exploitation. 52 Unlike many remote parts of the world that have been protected, few areas within Costa Rica could be considered remote. Therefore, to legally establish parks and protected areas, the state had to acquire the property rights by paying, rather than forcibly evicting, the people living on the land. Though costly and time-consuming, with many landowners waiting years to receive payment for expropriated lands, Costa Rica realized early that protected areas need to be linked to the surrounding communities to be ecologically and socially successful. However, according to one author, as of 2000, much of the land managed by SINAC had yet to be purchased, as evident by the following estimates of land seized without purchase: 15 percent of national parks; 46 percent of biological reserves; 59 percent of national wildlife refuges; 74 percent of forest reserves; 76 percent of protected zones; 12 percent of wetlands/mangroves. 53 This means that although these areas are under some form of protection, the government cannot by law prevent grazing, farming, or logging until the land is completely purchased.

51

SINAC-MINAE, Informe Nacional sobre el Sistema de Área Silvestres Protegidas (San José: Ministerio del Ambiente y Engergía, 2005). 52 Evans, The Green Republic, 8-9. 53 Sánchez-Azofeifa, Daily, Pfaff, and Busch, “Integrity and isolation,” 125.

55

3.3 – ECOTOURISM’S CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT Despite these shortcomings, “Costa Rica’s world-renowned system of national parks and protected areas has in fact served as the springboard for ecotourism.” 54 Early in his career, Boza understood how concepts about a new type of tourism proffered by Drs. Budowski and Miller, could have positive impacts on both Costa Rica’s economy and on the proposed development of national parks. In 1969, as the new Forestry Law was up for debate in the Legislative Assembly, Boza wrote an editorial in the Costa Rican newspaper, La República. He stated: Although from a commercial viewpoint parks might seem an unnecessary investment, they could become one of the major sources of revenues for the nation. East Africa, by having more vision than us in this field, increased its annual income from tourism by fifteen percent. What couldn’t our country do, being closer to the main source of tourist in the world? 55 Indeed, what couldn’t Costa Rica do? At that time Costa Rica had all the fundamental building blocks for ecotourism. The country possessed necessary components that were lacking in many developing countries: a stable democratic government, respect for human rights, long life, high literacy rates, and a high per capita income. They had a pleasant climate as well as an adequate infrastructure of roads, bridges, telephones, and electricity. They had good health care and the highest standards of living in Central America. Their country did not experience the same civil wars that had torn other Latin American countries apart. Plus Costa Rica is located only a few hours away from the United States, the “main source of tourists in the world.” Additionally, Costa Rica’s amount and diversity of natural wonders per unit area is one of the highest in the world. Out of the 500,000 plus species, approximately 1,700 are vertebrates. This includes at least 228 mammals (such as monkeys, squirrels, sloths, and bats which make up over half of the total amount!); 878 birds (like trogons, macaws, and toucans); at least 218 reptiles (including crocodilians, snakes, turtles, and geckos); roughly 175 amphibians (like frogs and toads); and 181 fresh water fish (such as rainbow trout, catfish, and largemouth bass). Invertebrates consist of about 493,000 species including over 300,000 insects, of which are 1,250 species of butterflies and at least 8,000 species of moths. The rest are made up of species like beetles, bees, and ants. 56 Flora completes the number with over 54

Honey, Ecotourism, 170. David Rains Wallace, The Quetzal and the Macaw: The Story of Costa Rica’s National Parks (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1992), 15. 56 Totals are from Carrol L. Henderson, Field Guide to the Wildlife of Costa Rica (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002). Also Rhett Butler, List of Freshwater Fishes for Costa Rica, found at http://fish.mongabay.com/data/Costa_Rica.htm (accessed on October 12, 2009). 55

56

9,000 species of vascular plants, which includes over 1,200 species of hardwood trees and over 1300 species of orchids. Indeed, the total number plant and animal species in Costa Rica is larger than that of Canada and the United States combined. 57

3.3.1 – The Growth of the National Park System However, Boza was not only concerned with the economic benefit of tourism to parks (though he had to sell the idea for parks in those terms to get lawmakers to understand the importance of conserving natural areas), but he understood the human impacts of having protected areas as well. In another article published later that year in La Prensa Libre, Boza wrote that the recent growth in population, that had more than doubled since 1940, had caused serious ecological, economic, and recreational problems, and that “the establishment and management of national parks is the best solution to these problems.” He believed that the form of tourism discussed by his mentors at IIAC would both protect the country’s natural heritage and improve the economic circumstances of its people. 58 In the 1960s and 1970s, many tourist clubs and resorts were created by Costa Ricans to meet the country’s increasing trend in tourism among the upper and middle class. Domestic tourism was considerable and “most foreign tourists were from other Central American countries.” 59 To capture a portion of the revenue from this trend for the National Parks Service, Boza and his classmate Alvaro Ugaldo began working towards four main objectives. The first was to procure funds, which they did from the government, through grants, and through a debt-for nature swap, and personnel, most of which came from the United States Peace Corps. The second objective was to obtain support from national and international sources, including President José Figures’ wife, Mrs. Karen Olsen, who was an active conservationist. The third was to develop conservation education programs, for which they utilized the press to highlight progress, added national parks to the biology curriculum in high school, and published a book about the national parks in Costa Rica. The fourth and final objective was to pursue environmental legislation. 60 The Costa Rican park system grew rapidly in the early 1970s as a result of working toward those four objectives. Costa Ricans began seeing full-page ads in the newspapers that boasted of the wonderful experience of visiting national parks. Additionally, weekly newspaper articles discussed deforestation, declining quetzal population, slaughter of sea turtles, and endangered species (most of the time stating that the solution was national parks). This 57

Evans, The Green Republic, 2. Mario A. Boza, quoted in Wallace, The Quetzal and the Macaw, 15. 59 Honey, Ecotourism, 162. 60 Mario A. Boza, “Conservation in Action: Past, Present, and Future of the National Parks System of Costa Rica,” Conservation Biology (1993) 7(2): 239-247. 58

57

advertising campaign was successful and visitation to national parks grew rapidly. However, park tourism by Costa Ricans peaked around 1979 and declined in the 1980s because of a severe economic crisis that hit the country. Similar to many countries in Latin America, Costa Rica went into deep financial debt because of overextended loans from international banks. Unable to repay their debt, Cost Rica became one of the 17 most highly indebted nations in the world. Much of the problem had to do with the international recession caused by a rise in oil prices. This in turn raised interest rates and decreased prices on many of Costa Rica’s export products. During this crisis, international visitation to Costa Rica’s national parks also declined since the number of Nicaraguans, the largest percentage of visitors to Costa Rica’s parks, declined as a result of the Sandinista revolution. Important to the history of the development of ecotourism is the fact that during this decline in tourism to parks, visitation by scientists conducting research in places like La Selva, Palo Verde and Las Cruces managed by OTS, or to Monteverde, managed by TSC, helped keep interest in the country growing. Return trips by scientists, or by others they persuaded, brought in much needed revenue for the country. Also, in the late 1970s, several individuals from the United States moved to Costa Rica to buy land and establish private ecotourism businesses or travel agencies. These entrepreneurs began advertising abroad attracting a variety of tourists, some who wanted “off-the-beaten-path” experiences like hiking or fishing and others that wanted higher intensity experiences like whitewater rafting or canopy tours.

3.3.2 – Tourism’s Phases of Development, 1980-2001 In their strategic plan for tourism development, 2002-2010, the ICT described the development of tourism in Costa Rica, since the 1970s, as taking place in overlapping, but discernable phases. The first phase was the Pioneering Period that occurred between 1970 and 1987. The second phase was called the Growth Period, which lasted from 1988 to 1994. The third phase was called the Evolution Period that lasted from 1995 to 2001. The Pioneering Period During the first phase, the ICT became one of the country’s biggest supporters and promoters of ecotourism. They began a major advertising campaign using the slogan “Costa Rica is natural.” Thousands of large posters with pictures of the country’s most prominent national parks and natural wonders were printed and tens of thousands of brochures were sent to tour companies and travel agencies throughout the world. 61 The target audience was serious ecotourists, students, scientists, and researchers. The typical accommodations were small and 61

Evans, The Green Republic, 223.

58

simple cabins or lodges that had 20 rooms or less or the research stations that were managed by foreign organizations. These tourists were satisfied with basic amenities and enjoyed spending most of their time in the “wild.” Though this campaign attracted tourists, the number of international arrivals to Costa Rica dropped below the amount received in 1975, due to the international financial issues and fears about the growing unrest in many countries throughout Central America (see Table 3.2). Table 3.2 – International Arrivals to Costa Rica, by Country, 1975-2001 (for Selected Years) 62 Country Total North America Canada United States Mexico Central America Caribbean South America Europe Other

1975 1981 1983 1985 1987 1988 1995 2001 299,037 333,102 326,142 261,552 277,861 329,386 784,610 1,131,406 87,997 73,062 84,762 89,825 104,841 123,551 349,307 518,595 4,617 4,544 6,229 6,291 7,310 13,037 41,898 52,661 75,304 60,136 72,148 77,346 90,581 102,822 287,434 429,093 8,076 8,382 6,385 6,188 6,950 7,692 36,841 19,975 161,681 191,654 173,844 112,623 108,543 124,728 218,023 320,277 2,007 6,707 7,425 4,294 3,438 5,103 9,298 7,125 23,887 26,190 23,112 20,915 21,768 26,150 58,600 103,917 19,461 28,415 31,740 28,179 32,354 41,396 132,057 150,796 4,004 7,074 5,259 5,716 6,917 8,458 28,523 19,498

Then in 1987, President Oscar Arias Sanchez received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in negotiating peace between El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. This event more than any other showed the world that Costa Rica was indeed a safe place to visit. ICT seized the opportunity and began using the slogan, “Escape to Paradise,” which helped attract thousands of new “foreigners seeking a peaceful tropical nirvana.” 63 LACSA, the country’s airline, also began promoting Costa Rica as the perfect retreat for nature lovers by including many articles that highlighted several ecotourism destinations throughout the country in their in-flight magazine, LACSA’s World. 64 All of these events and efforts resulted in a dramatic increase in international arrivals from 1987 to 1988, which grew by 18.5 percent. The Growth Period Throughout the second phase, international arrivals grew at an average rate of 15 percent per year. This period experienced the arrival of tourists who, though still being ecologically minded, were less interested in “off-the-beaten-path” ecotourism experiences and wanted to combine a nature-related experience with extended periods of time at the beach or 62

Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, Anuario Estadísticos de Turismo (San José: ICT, 1975-2001). Tom Barry, Costa Rica: A Country Guide, 2nd edition (Albuquerque: Inter-Hemispheric Education Resource Center, 1990), 81. 64 Evans, The Green Republic, 223. 63

59

in the sun. These tourists enjoyed their “creature comforts” and were considered more as moderate ecotourists. To meet this demand, larger cabins were constructed, rated as one- to three-stars with 20-40 rooms. Additionally, 50-80 room, four- and five-star hotels became more prominent around the country. In the late part of this phase, ICT began promoting the rainy season as the “green season” to attract more visitors during this traditionally slow period in the year. By 1993, these efforts paid off as tourism became Costa Rica’s number-one foreign exchange earner, ahead of coffee, bananas, and cattle. The Evolution Period In the third phase, tourists arriving in Costa Rica were looking for new ways to experience nature. Demand for surfing, kayaking, white-water rafting, bungee jumping, sky and scuba diving (all classified as adventure tourism) increased, as did the number of tourist traveling in groups. Groups were now between 20 and 100, compared to the more specialized ecotourism groups of 10-15 travelers in the previous phases. The largest hotel expansion in the country’s history occurred during this phase, increasing the number and size of three- to fivestar hotels. 65 In 1996, for the first time since the tourism boom started, the number of tourists declined. To help improve the situation, numerous tourism organizations joined with the ICT and in 1997 launched a highly successful advertising campaign using the slogan, “Costa Rica – No Artificial Ingredients,” which is still used by the country. By 1998, international arrivals were up 20 percent and by 1999 Costa Rica received over 1 million tourists.

3.3.3 – The Negative Impacts of Tourism Although the growth and development of the tourism industry was good for Costa Rica’s economy, the negative environmental and social impacts taking place throughout the country were becoming unmanageable and noticeable to the international audience. Though most ecotourism operations in the country were meeting the goals of the concept by supporting local conservation efforts, minimizing environmental impacts, and supporting the local community, a growing number of others were not. As mentioned in Chapter 2, ecotourism is both an activity and philosophy (a way of thinking and acting). During the early part of the Pioneer Period of tourism’s growth, most tourists were practicing genuine ecotourism since their intent was to conduct responsible travel to natural areas, conserve the environment, and improve the welfare of the local people. Additionally, most tourism operations in the country at that time were adhering to these same precepts, since they understood that their businesses depended upon a healthy ecological and

65

Raventos, “The internet strategy,” 377.

60

social environment (tourists usually do not want to visit a degraded environment surrounded by unfriendly or angry people). However, during the later part of the Pioneer Period and continuing through the Growth and Evolution Periods, ecotourism was essentially watered-down and became simply nature or adventure tourism, which are commonly but incorrectly considered the same as ecotourism. Nature tourism is defined as “travel to unspoiled places to experience and enjoy nature,” and adventure tourism is described as nature tourism with the added element of risk taking and physical endurance. This transition to alternative forms of tourism in Costa Rica marked a shift in the fundamental reason for the trip. “Nature and adventure tourism focuses on what the tourist or traveler is seeking. In contrast, ecotourism is qualitatively different: it focuses on what the traveler does, plus the impact of this travel on both the environment and the people in the host country.” 66 Facilitating this change in focus were transformations in government policies regarding tourism. In 1984, the government passed legislation that provided investment incentives for many sectors of the tourism industry, such as travel agencies, air and sea transportation companies, hotels, and rental car agencies. Then in 1985, Costa Rica passed the Tourist Development Incentives Law which offered tax exemptions and economic incentives for tourism-related businesses. 67 However, these incentives were not automatic. For example, hotels needed a minimum of 20 rooms that met strict codes on the use of space and types of amenities. More often than not, these restrictions precluded local people from qualifying. 68 The Incentives Law offered complete income tax exemption to the above mentioned sectors for a period of 12 years, in exchange for investments in new tourism projects. Additionally, select organizations in the tourism industry were offered exemptions from all tariffs and surcharges on both imported and locally made products. In the decade following the passing of this law, the number of rooms in Costa Rica almost tripled from 4,866 to over 12,000. 69 Obviously, local entrepreneurs found it hard to compete with the amount of money flowing into the country to buy land and all other necessary materials to construct these large resorts. As a result, many locals went from landowners to workers in foreign-owned companies. Compounding the situation were the many environmental controversies that ensued following the passing of the government’s policies. Although Costa Rica still maintained a reputation as one of the world’s leading ecotourism destinations in the 1990s, the government began

66

Honey and Stewart, “Introduction,” 1. Brian Coffee, “Investment Incentives as a Means of Encouraging Tourism Development: The Case of Costa Rica,” Bulletin of Latin American Research (1993) 12(1): 87. 68 Carole Hill, “The Paradox of Tourism in Costa Rica,” Cultural Survival Quarterly (1990) 14(1): 17. 69 Honey, Ecotourism, 163. 67

61

pursuing policies that supported both ecotourism ventures and conventional tourism development projects, such as large beach resorts and urban hotels. Many of these conventional tourism projects were surrounded by environmental controversies. The most famous was the ICT supported construction of a large beach resort at Playa Tambor, on the Nicoya Peninsula, by the Barcelona-based investment group Barceló. Completing the construction required clearing part of a tropical forest, destroying mangroves, bullying local owners, and removing part of a mountain side (simply to improve the view). Because of this situation, in 1993 the ICT director received the “Green Devil” award from two German environmental organizations while visiting Germany, ironically, to promote ecotourism. On the statue was written, “For the most hypocritical ecotourism - To the government of Costa Rica.” 70 Many other examples of companies ignoring environmental regulations in pursuit of tourism development took place in the early 1990s, such as plans by Eurocaribeña to build a large resort on the Caribbean near Grandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge in Limón province, or plans to build a US$3 billion Cancún-style resort around the Gulf of Papagayo. Unfortunately, environmental dilemmas were not limited to conventional tourism development projects. During the early 1990s, visitation to some of Costa Rica’s more accessible and popular national parks grew faster than the parks department could manage. Lacking management plans, financial resources, proper infrastructure (for trash and human waste), and knowledgeable guides (to effectively control tourists within the park), environmental destruction and a general degradation of the nature experience ensued. To tackle this problem several certification programs were designed and implemented to not only promote true ecotourism, but to try and transform conventional tourism into a more sustainable form.

3.4 – EVALUATION AND CERTIFICATION OF TOURISM “Although the travel industry did not originate the concept of ecotourism, it quickly adopted it, popularized it, mainstreamed it – and watered it down,” 71 or in the worse cases, promoted the concept while practicing just the opposite. This trend, termed “greenwashing,” became commonplace in Costa Rica in the late 1980s and early 1990s, as many tourism businesses saw the financial opportunities available among the growing number of environmentally and socially concerned travelers. Realizing this segment of the market was looking for an alternative to mass tourism, many businesses began using the concept of ecotourism in their advertising campaigns. This practice confused and often angered many tourists who wanted to spend their time and money doing “ecotourism.” 70 71

Evans, The Green Republic, 231. Honey, Ecotourism, 25.

62

3.4.1 – The New Key to Costa Rica In response to this trend, long-time writer of a Costa Rican travel guide and travel consultant Beatrice Blake along with researchers Ronnie Cummins and Rose Welch decided to use their writings to “contribute to environmental conservation and to sustaining the local culture and economy.” 72 They devised a plan to begin promoting what they called “sustainable tourism,” (a term they later changed to sustainable ecotourism). They determined they would identify and evaluate all hotels and lodges in Costa Rica that claimed to be involved in ecotourism using a rating system based on three factors: its environmental impact, its contribution to the local economy, and its support of the local culture. In 1992, in the 11th edition of their book, The New Key to Costa Rica, the authors evaluated and “certified” 24 hotels and lodges that were practicing true ecotourism. In 1994, the 12th edition was published and contained a more in-depth survey conducted by Blake’s co-author Anne Becher and her assistant, master’s student Jane Segleau Earle (see Appendix A). The team spent countless hours traveling the country interviewing hotel and lodge owners, employees, and community members in an attempt to get the full story about each business. 73 Those who met or exceeded the criteria were given a rating of between one and three “suns” and were included in the book, and those that did not meet the criteria were not included. The survey results were not published, but Becher wrote a detailed letter to all the owners outlining their strengths and weaknesses. 74 They felt that this system would meet their objectives by commending those businesses practicing sustainable ecotourism and by encouraging and educating those who were not. The intent was not to humiliate those hotels or lodges that did not meet their criteria of sustainability with bad publicity, and so the names of all lodges surveyed was confidential. They hoped that good publicity given to those who were published would generate changes among those who were not. For their efforts, they were invited to be part of the planning and implementation stages of ICTs new Certification for Sustainable Tourism (CST) program. 75 At the 1996 International Society of Tropical Foresters (ISTF) Conference, The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the Impacts, held at Yale University, Bary Roberts from ICT announced that CST would begin evaluating hotels within the next year. In 1997, the first edition of the program was released and by the end of 1998, the first hotels were certified. 72

Beatrice Blake, Anne Beacher, Jane Segleau Earle, “Evaluating Ecotourism Lodgings in The New Key to Costa Rica,” in The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the Impacts, eds. Joseph A. Miller and Elizabeth Malek-Zadeh (New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 1996), 141. 73 Anne Becher and Beatrice Blake, “Reflections on ‘Green Ratings,’” August 1998, see http://www.planeta.com/planeta/98/0898rating.html (accessed on February 4, 2010). 74 Honey, Ecotourism, 202. 75 Blake, Beacher, and Earle, “Evaluating Ecotourism,” 142.

63

3.4.2 – Certification for Sustainable Tourism Although inspired by The New Key, the CST program was fundamentally different in that it “was designed to be applicable to all medium to large lodging facilities, whatever their market. It does not evaluate ecotourism criteria per se.” 76 The reason for the shift in focus from The New Key program was due to the changing nature of tourism activities during the Evolution Period in the development of tourism in Costa Rica at that time. Not only was it important for small ecotourism businesses to abide by the principles of the concept, but to retain the international reputation as the world’s top ecotourism destination, larger and often times more luxurious hotels also needed to practice more sustainable operations. CST measures sustainability along three axes, environmental, social, and economic by using a questionnaire of 153 yes or no questions divided among four fundamental categories: (1) physical-biological surroundings, (2) infrastructure and services, (3) external clients, and (4) socio-economic context. Questions are weighted by importance and refer to an element of sustainability with which the company should conform in order to qualify in any one of the different categories. A minimum score of 20 percent in each category is required to achieve the lowest level and thereby be certified. There are a total of five levels that can be earned, from one to five, and the final rating assigned to a business is the lowest score achieved in any one of the four categories. So, for example, to achieve a level three rating, a company must earn at least a level three score in each of the four rated categories. Though a system that averages the scores to give a final rating (which may be higher than any individual score) may seem more just, the intent is to ensure companies work toward achieving excellence in all of the areas. This certification scheme provides a means to classify tourist operations in terms of levels in a program that mirrors the widely-used five-star rating system. Firms receive a final rating of between one and five green leaves. A rating of five green leaves means that a business has met 95 percent or more of the criteria in each of the four categories. Unfortunately, the original program in operation between 1997 and 2002 was almost doomed to fail before it started, because the program was (and still is) resourced by the government and free to businesses pursuing certification. However, funding was modest, thereby limiting the number of auditors available to conduct the evaluations or reevaluations. By the middle of 2000, 171 of the estimated 400 hotels and lodges in Costa Rica had requested an inspection, but only 37 had been certified, while the others remained on a long waiting list. Then in 2001, Blake accused the CST of greenwashing because, in her own words: 76

Amos Bien, “Environmental Certification for Tourism in Central America: CST and Other Programs,” in Ecotourism and Certification: Setting Standards in Practice, ed. Martha Honey (Washington: Island Press, 2002), 148.

64

CST in its present form and presentation does not offer reliable information about which businesses really make an effort to offer a sustainable tourism product (because most sustainable businesses are not on it) and how it helps big businesses compete with the visionary ecotourism businesses that have made Costa Rica famous. The CST has become another greenwasher itself. According to Blake, the reason for the problem stemmed from the confusion over the terms sustainable tourism and ecotourism. 77 As a result, by 2002, interest in the program by both ICT officials and the tourism industry had decreased drastically. However, two key changes took place, which increased the reliability and desirability of the certification program. The first change was made to the program in response to the criticisms raised by Blake. In a conference held in Mohonk, New York in November 2000, most of the major organizations involved in environmental certification in tourism met and agreed on a framework of principles that clearly defined sustainable tourism and ecotourism. Under this agreement, ecotourism was defined as a subset of sustainable tourism. In other words, for a business to be classified as ecotourism, it first had to meet the requirements for sustainable tourism and then comply with additional criteria. These changes were addressed in the second edition of the CST program. 78 The second change took place in 2005, when the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) formed a committee on tourism standardization. In response to this, Costa Rica established a similar committee to represent all sectors of the tourism industry. This committee began pressuring the government to reinvest in the CST program. Soon after, a CST for Tour Operators was implemented and seven of the country’s largest tour companies were certified. 79 They in turn announced that they would only promote and use CST certified hotels. This drew attention back to the program and between 2004 and 2009 the number of certified hotels grew from 37 to 107. 80 Additionally, as large resorts, big-name hotels, casinos, and night clubs became more prominent throughout the country, Costa Rica’s ecotourism image was being eroded. Costa Rica’s government and leaders within the tourism industry were willing to renew interest in the CST program because they realized that strong competition was growing in other ecotourism destinations within Central America. Although exit surveys at the country’s international airports still confirmed that nature tourism was the primary reason tourists visited Costa Rica, 77

Beatrice Blake, “Comparing the ICT’s Certification of Sustainable Tourism and The New Key to Costa Rica’s Sustainable Tourism Rating: CST: Another Form of Greenwashing?” August 2001, see http://www.planeta.com/planeta/01/0104costa.html (accessed on February 4, 2010). 78 Bien, “Environmental Certification,” 151. 79 Honey, Ecotourism, 205. 80 Certification for Sustainable Tourism (CST), see www.turismo-sostenible.co.cr and www.turismosostenible.co.cr/EN/homoe.shtml.

65

people began complaining that the country was not committed to sustainable practices outside of the nation’s parks and protected areas. 81

3.4.3 – The Blue Flag Ecological Program In addition to CST, in 1996 the Blue Flag Ecological Program (PBAE) was established by the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewer Systems (AyA), the National Tourism Chamber (CANATUR), the Ministry of Public Health (MINSA), and the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) to certify the quality of beaches and marinas. This program was launched as part of an effort to improve the health and safety conditions of the country’s beaches and was based on the highly successful program that has been operating in Europe since 1987. Because of its success, the program expanded to include five new categories: Communities (2002), Education Centers (2004), Natural Spaces (2007), Rivers (2008), and Actions to Confront Climate Change (2008). The Program awards the Blue Flag with either one-, two- or three-stars to indicate the level of environmental protection, conservation, and community involvement. To earn one star, an organization pursuing one of the six different awards must meet, at a minimum, 90 percent of the criteria required by the program by the end of the year. Two stars are awarded for meeting 100 percent of the criteria and for adhering to additional environmental principles. To earn a rating of three-stars, the two-star criteria must be met and an organization must promote social responsibility in the local community and schools. The Blue Flag with three stars is the program’s highest possible level of recognition for practicing environmentally and socially sustainable operations. Results of this program have been encouraging: as of 2007 a total of 59 beaches, 33 communities, 402 education centers, and 10 natural spaces have been evaluated and certified. 82

3.5 - CONCLUSION This chapter has attempted to show the multidimensional history of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Its roots are found in the country’s unique physical geography, abundant flora and fauna, legacy of scientific research and education, stable democratic government, and friendly attitude toward foreigners. Its foundation is built upon the country’s national park system which developed in response to the environmental destruction taking place in the mid-to late-1900s. International market demands, government policies, and a rapidly growing population all contributed to the ecological crisis the country faced starting in the 1950s. Ecotourism’s emergence took place in phases and developed along with conventional tourism. 81

Honey, Ecotourism, 206. Darner Adrian Mora Alvarado and Arcelio Chavez Aguilar, “Programa Bandera Azul Ecologica: Organizacion Comunal y Salud Publica en Costa Rica: 1996-2007,” unpublished study conducted by the Director and Promoter of the Blue Flag Ecological Program.

82

66

While the concept was once declared a panacea, it was obvious that there was still much work to be done. As a result, numerous certification programs developed in the 1990s that attempted to regulate the tourism industry. Since they were voluntary and underfunded, their initial effect was only to help those organizations that were already practicing true ecotourism. However, due to two key events the country’s main sustainable tourism certification program gained popularity, credibility, and desirability in 2005. This program helped transform many conventional tourism operations and strengthen Costa Rica’s international reputation as one of the world’s top ecotourism destinations. Although critics claim there is much in Costa Rica to appall, the question to ask is what would this tiny republic look like without the current sustainable development initiatives? According to Dr. Sterling Evans, an expert on Costa Rica’s conservation history, the nation would be much worse economically and environmentally: The Tilarán and Talamanca mountains no doubt would be completely denuded, if not by now, then soon into the twenty-first century. Endangered species would be extinct. The tropical dry forest would be gone from the globe. Some of the most beautiful shorelines might look like Torremolinos (Spain), Cancún (Mexico), or South Padre Island (Texas). Instead of green, Costa Rica would be a brown republic. 83 This includes ecotourism, as without it, the country’s landscape (not to mention economy) would be much different and much worse off than it is now. Ecotourism has helped establish the conservation ethic started by numerous scientists and educators involved in the conservation movement. Over the past decade, ecotourism’s principles and good practices have been applied in more mainstream sectors of the tourism industry. Though most times termed “sustainable tourism” these initiatives have helped modify conventional tourism operations to be more environmentally and socially responsible. 84 Even if these businesses are only changing their operations to earn the certification with the intent of increasing their profits, the outcome is still the same: they are changing the way they do business for the betterment of society and nature.

83 84

Evans, The Green Republic, 247. Honey, Ecotourism, 447.

67

Chapter 4

Ecotourism and the Upper Savegre River Watershed: The Local Context

4.1 – INTRODUCTION Ecotourism is often described as the ideal economic activity to promote both sustainability and development. This is because “the emphasis in ecotourism is on a set of principles and how to put them into practice: on what ecotourism stands for and how these standards are being implemented.” 1 These principles demand that businesses and organizations must go beyond simply offering activities that allow tourists to interact with nature while minimizing their impacts, to activities that incorporate “the social dimensions of productive organization and environmental conservation.” 2 Because the concept requires much of its practitioners, many have failed to achieve all aspects of its precepts. This has led many to wonder whether ecotourism is a “pious hope or a Trojan horse.” 3 The reasons for this are many, not least of which is the devious practice of “greenwashing.” However, there are many excellent examples that show that ecotourism can and will continue to meet the economic, social, and environmental requirements set forth in its definition. One such example is found in San Gerardo de Dota and Jaboncillo, located in the upper Savegre River watershed, in central Costa Rica. Situated in one of the last large blocks of continuous tropical montane cloud forests (TMCFs) in southern Central America, 4 this sparsely populated rural community has found a way to develop ecotourism enterprises that effectively blend the tripartite goals of the concept. Their example is extremely important because it shows that true ecotourism is a viable economic venture. Additionally, because of this concept, the people of the valley have been able to help conserve one of Costa Rica’s more valuable natural resources, the TMCF of the Savegre River watershed. This chapter will discuss the significance of TMCFs by providing a definition and describing the services these forests provide. Then the chapter will explore the area’s history and show the progression of an environmental consciousness in the valley. One of the advantages of the study area is that it has been highly documented in newspaper and magazine 1

Honey, Ecotourism, 29. David Barkin, “Ecotourism: A Tool for Sustainable Development in an Era of International Integration,” in The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the Impacts, eds. Joseph A. Miller and Elizabeth Malek-Zadeh (New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 1996), 263. 3 R. W. Butler, “Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope or Trojan Horse?” Journal of Travel Research (1990) 28(3): 40-45. 4 Kappelle and Juárez, “The Los Santos Forest Reserve,” 166- 169. 2

68

articles throughout the past 30 years, thereby enabling a more accurate portrayal of its history (by verifying current accounts with past records). Additionally, because one of the very first pioneers of the valley is still living, the perceptions, ideas, and rationales can be more precisely analyzed.

4.2 - STUDY AREA The upper Savegre River watershed is located in San José Province in the counties of Dota and Pérez Zeledón (see Figure 4.1). The extent of the study area is 5,400 ha (50 km2) and contains the towns of Jaboncillo and San Gerardo. The elevation ranges from 2,200 meters, at the floor of the valley, to 3,491 meters at the Cerro Buenavista, famously known as the Cerro de la Muerte (see Figure 4.2). The La Muerte mountain summit is located on the Pacific slope of Costa Rica’s Cordillera de Talamanca. According to Holdridge’s classification, the area’s TMCF includes Lower Montane Rain Forest and Montane Rain Forest life zones (see Figure 4.3). This particular area has been classified as dense, natural and tropical broad-leaved evergreen montane Quercus (oak) forest. 5 The mean annual temperature ranges from 16 ºC at 2200 meters to 8 ºC at 3400 meters. The latter altitude coincides with an arbitrarily chosen upper forest line (that is continuously moving due to forest fires) separating the TMCF from tropical (sub)alpine paramo vegetation (which is dominated by Chusquea bamboos and gnarled shrubs). 6 The mean annual precipitation ranges from 2,000 to 3,000 millimeters, depending on the orientation of slopes (with or without rain shadow, due to trade winds and local convection). The average relative humidity is 70 percent year round. The TMCF in this study belongs to the partially deforested, 62,000 ha Los Santos Forest Reserve (see Figure 4.4), a protected area created in 1975 that buffers the 612,570 ha Amistad Biosphere Reserve at its southwestern tip. Because of its biological and cultural megadiversity, this Biosphere Reserve, which includes the world-famous national parks Tapantí–Macizo de la Muerte, Chirripó and La Amistad, has been recognized as a World Heritage Site and an Endemic Bird Area, a Centre of Plant Diversity, as well as an Eco-region of global importance. 7

5

Maarten Kappelle, Jan-Gerrit Van Uffelen & Antoine M. Cleef, “Altitudinal zonation of montane Quercus forests along two transects in the Chirripó National Park, Costa Rica,” Vegetatio (1995) 119: 119-153. 6 Maarten Kappelle, Marco Castro, Alfonso Garita, Luis Gonzalez, and Huberth Monge, “Ecosistemas de los páramos del Área de Conservación la Amistad-Pacífico en Costa Rica,” in Páramos de Costa Rica, eds. Maarten Kappelle and Sally Peterson Horn (San José: Editorial INBio, 2005). 7 Kappelle and Juárez, “The Los Santos Forest Reserve,” 166.

69

Figure 4.1 – Map of the study region 8

8

GIS data for this map were obtained from Oscar Chacón at INBio, in Costa Rica, on January 8, 2010.

70

Figure 4.2 – Map of the Cerro Buenavista “La Muerte” Massif 9

9

GIS data for this map were obtained from Oscar Chacón at INBio, in Costa Rica, on January 8, 2010.

71

Figure 4.3 – The Holdridge Diagram for the classification of World Life Zones 10

Currently, Costa Rica has 26.21 percent (1,291,307 ha) of its national territory under some form of Figure protected status, while 21 percent (1,075,700 ha) of its territory is occupied by dense and degraded TMCF, 60 percent of which is found in protected areas. 11

4.3 – TROPICAL MONTANE CLOUD FORESTS For the past two decades, awareness about the importance and disappearance of cloud forests of tropical mountains has steadily increased. It has become recognized that tropical montane cloud forests (TMCFs) are among the world’s most fragile and threatened ecosystems. 12 Globally, their rate of loss is greater than that of the more publicized lowland tropical rain forests. Covering only about 380,000 km2 of total area, which is 0.26 percent of the Earth’s land surface, their loss over the past 50 years has been estimated at 55 percent

10

L. R. Holdridge, W. C. Grenke, W. H. Hatheway, T. Liang, and J. A. Tosi, Jr., Forest Environments In Tropical Life Zones: A Pilot Study (Elmsford: Pergamon Press Inc., 1971), 10. Image from “Holdridge Life Zones,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holdridge_life_zones (accessed on February 6, 2010). 11 Maarten Kapelle, “Bosques Nublados de Costa Rica,” in Bosques Nublados del Neotrópico, eds. Maarten Kappelle and Alejandro D. Brown (Santo Domingo de Heredia: Editorial INBio, 2001), 301-370. 12 Thomas Stadtmüller, Cloud Forests in the Humid Tropics (Costa Rica: The United Nations University, 1987).

72

compared to 47 percent for all tropical forests. 13 This rate of loss, the equivalent of 1.1 percent per year, is a serious concern because TMCFs have high levels of biodiversity. Additionally, restoration is extremely difficult since TMCFs typically occur in shallow soils and steep slopes. Traditionally, the main culprits of loss are conversion for agricultural purposes, charcoal production, and for sources of firewood. However, damaging activities and threats are many. Figure 4.4 – Map of the Los Santos Forest Reserve and other protected areas 14

4.3.1 - Definition of Tropical Montane Cloud Forests A clear definition of TMCFs is challenging and fraught with difficulty. Some authors attempt to classify this type of forest as being the upper portion of montane rain forests that is

13

Bubb, May, Miles, and Sayer, Cloud Forest Agenda, 11; Mark Mulligan and Sophia Burke, Global Cloud Forests and Environmental Change in a Hydrological Context (UK: Department for International Development, 2005), 2. 14 GIS data for this map were obtained from Oscar Chacón at INBio, in Costa Rica, on January 8, 2010.

73

frequently covered with clouds. 15 Others discuss the plant diversity of TMCFs in comparison to montane rain forests. 16 Still others distinguish TMCFs by describing their unique structure, form, or even growth of epiphytes. A simple, but useful, diagram for picturing TMCFs is shown in Figure 4.5. Figure 4.5 – Generalized altitudinal forest formation series in the humid tropics 17

However, the defining characteristic of TMCFs that make them unique is that they capture water from the clouds and rain and this, combined with its low evapotranspiration rate, adds to the hydrologic cycle and greatly influences the ecology and soil properties of cloud forests. 18 Though a difficult task, a comprehensive definition was developed at the 1993 International Tropical Mountain Cloud Forest Symposium that included many of the previously mentioned ideas (which is still used by UNEP and the World Conservation Monitoring Center): The tropical montane cloud forest is composed of forest ecosystems of distinctive floristic and structural form. It typically occurs at a relatively narrow altitudinal zone 15

Wolfgang L. Werner, “Biogeography and Ecology of the Upper Montane Rain Forest of Sri Lanka (Ceylon),” in Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, (eds.) Lawrence S. Hamilton, James O. Juvik, and F. N. Scatena (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995), 343-362; Kenneth R. Young and Blanca León, “Distribution and Conservation of Peru’s montane Forests: Interaction Between the Biota and Human Society,” in Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, (eds.) Lawrence S. Hamilton, James O. Juvik, and F. N. Scatena (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995), 363-376. 16 A. Henderson, S.P. Churchill, & J. Luteyn, Neotropical Plant Diversity, Nature (1991) 351(6321): 44-45. 17 L.A. Bruijnzeel and L.S. Hamilton, Decision Time for Cloud Forests, IHP Humid Tropics Programme Series No. 13. (Paris: UNESCO Division of Water Sciences), 1. 18 Lawrence S. Hamilton, James O. Juvik, and F. N. Scatena, “The Puerto Rico Tropical Cloud Forest Symposium: Introduction and Workshop Synthesis,” in Hamilton et al., Tropical Montane Cloud forests (New York: SpringerVerlag, 1995), 1-23.

74

where the atmospheric environment is characterized by persistent, frequent, or seasonal cloud cover at the vegetation level. Enveloping clouds or wind-driven clouds influence the atmospheric interaction through reduced solar radiation and vapor deficit, canopy wetting, and general suppression of evapotranspiration. The net precipitation (throughfall) in such forests is significantly enhanced (beyond rainfall contribution) through direct canopy interception of cloud water (horizontal precipitation or cloud stripping) and low water use by the vegetation. In comparison with lower altitude tropical moist forests, the stand characteristics generally include reduced tree stature and increased stem density. Canopy trees usually exhibit gnarled trunks and branches; dense, compact crowns; and small, thick, and hard (sclerophyll) leaves. TMCF is also characterized by having a high proportion of biomass as epiphytes (bryophytes, lichens, and filmy ferns) and a corresponding reduction in woody climbers. Soils are wet and frequently waterlogged and highly organic in the form of mor humus and peat (histosol). Biodiversity in terms of tree species of herbs, shrubs, and epiphytes can be relatively high (considering the small areal extent) when compared with tree species-rich lowland rain forest. Endemism is often very high. TMCF occurs on a global scale within a wide range of annual and seasonal rainfall regimes (i.e., 500-10,000 mm/year). There is also significant variation in the altitudinal position of this mountain vegetation belt. For large, inland mountain systems, TMCF may typically be found between 2,000-3,500 m (Andes, Rwenzoris), whereas in coastal and insular mountains this zone may descend to 1,000 m (Hawai’i). 19 Additionally, the presence of low level clouds profoundly affects the light, energy and temperature regimes further making these ecosystems biologically and hydrologically unique. 20

4.3.2 - Importance of Tropical Montane Cloud Forests Tropical montane cloud forests have been classified in 736 areas in 59 countries. 21 TMCFs play an important role in sustaining the livelihoods of local populations by providing unpolluted freshwater, timber and non-timber forest products, and protecting watersheds. Additionally, they are a vital habitat for numerous endemic and threatened animal and plant species. Vital Source of Water Mountain forests of all kinds have an important role as protective cover on the steep slopes of headwater catchments as a healthy forest canopy minimizes soil surface erosion and shallow landslides. Mountain forests also guard water quality and maintain the natural flow

19

Ibid., 3. Mulligan and Burke, Global Cloud Forests, 8. 21 Silvia Hostettler, “Tropical montane cloud forests: a challenge for conservation,” Bois Et Forêts Des Tropiques (2002) 274(4): 19-31. 20

75

regime of streams and rivers originating from them. 22 TMCFs not only perform these services extremely well, but they also capture water from clouds and fog. Their exposure to fog provides an additional source of water compared to forests located below the average cloud level. During the dry season or in places with low rainfall, this ‘stripping’ of windblown fog becomes extremely important. Additionally, because evapotranspiration and water uptake from the soil of vegetation whetted by fog or rain is reduced, water use by TMCFs is much less when compared to lower montane or lowland rain forests. As a result, TMCF streamflow volumes are typically greater for similar amounts of rainfall and more reliable during dry periods. Though extremely difficult to measure, the amount of water intercepted by the vegetation of cloud forests in areas of average humidity is estimated to be 15-20 percent of the amount of direct rainfall (or 300-600 mm per year given an average rainfall of 2,000-3,000 mm), and as high as 50-60 percent for more exposed areas. This estimate is still higher for areas at higher altitudes. 23 The high quality and dependable volume of water from cloud forests is a vital resource in many parts of the world. Capital cities such as Quito, Ecuador, with 2.1 million people, and Mexico City with over 19 million augment their water supply with cloud forest water. Additionally, the montane forests of Mount Kenya are the catchment for the Tana River, Kenya’s largest river, which supplies water to over 5 million people. 24 Finally, water originating in the Uluguru Mountains in Tanzania provides 100 percent of the water used by Dar es Salaam during the dry season. 25 High Concentration of Biodiversity Much of the value of TMCFs is a result of their isolation and uniqueness that promotes high speciation and remarkably high endemism. Additionally, TMCFs serve as a sanctuary for endangered species, some of which are being displaced by the transformation or destruction of lower elevation ecosystems. Historically, it has been reported that TMCFs are not as speciesrich as their lower montane and tropical lowland counterparts. 26 This is due to the lower numbers of observed large vertebrates, bats, birds, butterflies, and tree species associated with increasing elevation as a result of diminished food supplies, steeper slopes, and cooler temperatures. However, more recent studies in the humid tropics have shown that the number of species of bryophytes, lichens, orchids, and ferns increases with elevation. Previous forest survey studies omitted or discounted epiphytes, such as bromeliads, lichens, mosses, ferns, and orchids (stating their biomass was not significant). We now know 22

Ibid., 12; Bruijnzeel and Hamilton, Decision Time, 11. Bruijnzeel and Hamilton, Decision Time, 12. 24 Christian Lambrechts, “The Threatened Forests of Mount Kenya,” in Mountain Forests and Sustainable Development, Mountain Agenda (Switzerland: University of Berne, 2000), 30-31. 25 Bubb, May, Miles, and Sayer, Cloud Forest Agenda, 12. 26 Bruijnzeel and Hamilton, Decision Time, 17. 23

76

that epiphytic plants are a significant part of the hydrology and ecology of cloud forests as they make up approximately 25 percent of all cloud forest plant species. 27 The leaves of epiphytes are shaped such that they can collect and store water from rain and fog which not only provides nutrients for the plant, but also supports a diversity of microhabitats for invertebrates and many lower vertebrates, especially frogs. Additionally, epiphytes are able to provide more than half of the total input of nitrates and other important ions to forests from water stripped from the clouds. 28 While the density and function of flora make TMCFs an important local, national, and global resource, TMCFs have gained general popularity for their number of endemic and threatened bird species. One such threatened species is the Resplendent Quetzal (Pharomachrus mocinno). Found in only three regions in Costa Rica, this pigeon-sized bird of the trogon family has been described as “one of the most stunning and beautiful birds in the world.” 29 This is due to its vivid, iridescent green plumage that shimmers when ignited by sunshine. More magnificently colored than the female, the male sports a gold-crested spiky crown, a dazzling crimson belly, and two shimmering green tail coverts that can reach 60.96 cm (24 in) in length (see Figure 4.6). Its beauty was so spectacular and the bird so elusive that early European naturalists believed the quetzal was a myth fabricated by Central American natives. One such naturalist, Osbert Salvin, wrote in 1861 that he was “determined, rain or no rain, to be off to the mountain forests in search of quetzals, to see and shoot, which has been a daydream for me ever since I set foot in Central America.” As the first European to record observing the elusive bird, Salvin declared that it “was unequalled for splendour among the birds of the New World,” and swiftly shot it. 30 Until the end of the nineteenth century, thousands of quetzal plumes were sold in Europe as their feathers became fashionable. Because of their popularity among fashion designers and due to more recent habitat fragmentation, P. mocinno was added to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (which are the most endangered among CITES-listed animals) and the “near-threatened” category of the IUCN Red Lists. 31

27

Pru Foster, “The potential negative impacts of global climate change on tropical montane cloud forests,” EarthScience Reviews (2001) 55(1-2): 73-106. 28 David H. Benzing, “Vulnerabilities of Tropical Forests to Climate Change: The Significance of Resident Epiphytes,” Climatic Change (1998) 39(2-3): 519-540. 29 Henderson, Field Guide to the Wildlife of Costa Rica, 294. 30 Osbert Salvin quoted in The Eponym Dictionary of Mammals, Bo Beolens, Michael Watkins, and Michael Grayson (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009), 356. 31 See CITES list at http://www.cites.org/eng/app/index.shtml; IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2, found at www.iucnredlist.org.

77

BirdLife International has conducted global studies showing the importance of cloud forests to threatened and restricted-range birds (those with a global breeding range of less than 50,000 km2). They identified areas that support two or more species completely confined to them, termed Endemic Bird Areas (EBAs), and found Figure 4.6 – Photo of Male Resplendent that 36 percent of all EBAs (79 out of 218) have at Quetzal taken by the author in 2009 least one species using TMCFs. Moreover, 10 percent of the world’s 2,609 restricted-range species are confined to or are found in cloud forests, with an additional 315 species (or 12 percent) using both TMCFs and other habitats. 32 In Central America there are 22 EBAs; three of which are located on islands. The mountain ranges of this region have been divided into seven EBAs with five that contain restricted-range species requiring a cloud forest environment. One of these mountain range EBAs is found in the Costa Rican and Panamanian Cordillera de Talamanca highlands (which includes the study area). This EBA contains 52 species of restricted-range birds, one of the highest species number in the world, despite its small size of only 23,000 km2. The cloud forest is the primary habitat for ten of these species with most other endemics found in this region. 33 Because cloud forests are relatively isolated and found in difficult terrain, many of the more recent discovery of new species made in the last decade have been in TMCFs. 34 These discoveries are not limited to birds, but include mammals, and numerous species of plants. Discoveries like these are not only important to the scientific community, but also to the local community. For example, a few months after the discovery of the Jocotoco Antpitta (a large groundbird) in only 5,000 ha of cloud forest in the Andes of southern Ecuador in 1997,

32

Adrian J. Long, “The Importance of Tropical Montane Cloud Forests for Endemic and Threatened Birds,” in Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, (eds.) Lawrence S. Hamilton, James O. Juvik, and F. N. Scatena (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995), 79-106. 33 BirdLife International, Birdlife’s online World Bird Database: the site for bird conservation, Version 2.0 (Cambridge: BirdLife International, 2003), available at: http://www.birdlife.org (accessed December 23, 2009). 34 Bruijnzeel and Hamilton, Decision Time, 18.

78

naturalists from around the world traveled to the area with money for food, lodging, and guides, thereby improving the economic situation of the people of Quebrada Hondo. 35 An Excellent Monitor of Global Climate Change TMCFs are among the least studied vegetation habitats in the world. As such, scientists are just now realizing the sensitivity of TMCFs to changes in climate and air quality. For years, researchers have used the frequency of occurrence of liverworts and lichens in temperate areas as an indicator of changes to the quality of air as a result of pollutants. More recently, in Monteverde, Costa Rica, the decline in numbers of anoline lizards and a complete disappearance of 20 of 50 species of anurans, toads and frogs (including the famous endemic golden toad), are the result of changes in dry-season mist frequency and sea-surface temperature. Dry-season mist frequency is “negatively correlated with sea surface temperatures...[and]...biological and climatic patterns suggest that atmospheric warming has raised the average altitude at the base of the orographic cloud bank.” 36 Since TMCF species depend on persistently wet conditions they will experience major population crashes or complete disappearance in the absence of constant cloud cover. Therefore, highly adaptive species typically found in TMCFs may be used as early indicators of changes in climate. A Rich Source of Genetic Diversity TMCFs have been likened to bank accounts in that they house a wealth of biological diversity at the species level. However, TMCFs are equally wealthy in terms of their genetic diversity. It is impressive to note that Monteverde, for example, contains 2,500 plant species (420 of which are orchids and 350 of which are ferns), 400 bird species, 120 amphibian and reptilian species, and 100 species of mammals. More impressive still are recent discoveries of numerous wild relatives of strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, and gooseberries in three protected Ecuadorian montane cloud forests. Discoveries such as these are important for the continued improvement of plant species. 37

4.4 - SAN GERARDO DE DOTA: THE EARLY YEARS Located within this TMCF is the now famous mountain village of San Gerardo de Dota. 38 Named after the Patron Saint of Motherhood, this village has become a “mecca for birders, 35

Ibid., 18; Niels Krabbe, D. J. Agro, N. H. Rice, M. Jacome, L. Navarrete, and F. Sornoza M., “A New Species of Antpitta (Formicariidae: Grallaria) from the Southern Ecuadorian Andes,” The Auk (1999) 116(4): 882-890. 36 J. Alan Pounds, Michael P. L. Fogden, and John H. Campbell, “Biological response to climate change on a tropical mountain,” Nature (1999) 398(6728): 611-615. 37 Bruijnzeel and Hamilton, Decision Time, 18; Bubb, May, Miles, and Sayer, Cloud Forest Agenda, 14. 38 Since towns like San Gerardo, Santa María, Copey, and La Cima are located within the Dota canton, it is normally written with “de Dota,” after the city or town name, signifying that it is “of Dota.” For the rest of the thesis, only the city or town name will be given, minus the “de Dota.”

79

hikers, and trout fishers.” 39 The reasons are clear: the valley is full of stunning views, crystal clear streams that feed the Savegre River, waterfalls, and numerous hiking trails. Additionally, the valley is home to numerous amphibians, mammals, insects, and more than 170 species of birds, including the elusive Resplendent Quetzal. Prior to human settlement, this remote valley was completely covered by pristine primary forest. Now, however, the valley is home to more than 200 inhabitants that use the forest’s resources to make a living. In sharp contrast to surrounding villages, the residents of San Gerardo have not followed the typical pattern of forest destruction in the tropical frontier. Through innovation and perseverance the valley has experienced several changes in livelihood practices. In the end, the residents of the valley have developed a desire to live in harmony with their environment, thereby halting deforestation by applying a multiple-use approach to consumption of forest resources. Though the valley is composed of numerous families that have different perspectives on how best to make a living, the history of the valley is most closely tied to the Chacón family (who live in San Gerardo). As the original pioneers of the valley, this family has continually provided leadership in guiding the development of the community and its environment. Their influence has been invaluable to the promotion of trout-raising, to the development of dairyfarming, the establishment of fruit orchards, and the growth of ecotourism. One recent article stated that the Chacóns were the valley’s beginning and end. 40 Therefore, I will use this family’s experience to trace the history of this area. However, even the Chacón family acknowledges that San Gerardo wouldn’t be what it is today without the community. The support and insight that have been gained from other residents (both for this study and by the Chacón family) has been invaluable and so, where necessary, the histories of other families will be included. As noted above, the upper Savegre River watershed is composed of two communities: San Gerardo and Jaboncillo. However, Jaboncillo is considerably smaller in areal size and population (approximately 7 families compared to more than 30 families in San Gerardo). Located at the upper limits of the watershed, Jaboncillo lacks the lodges and attractions that are found lower in San Gerardo. The main sources of income in this upper region are two restaurants, and one large pasture area (that belongs to an absentee owner). Furthermore, all land-use and land-cover changes that occurred in Jaboncillo were the result of initiatives started in San Gerardo. Therefore, the history of the valley will be explained as events and changes that took place in San Gerardo and the history of Jaboncillo will not be treated as unique and will be highlighted only when necessary.

39 40

Beatrice Blake, The New Key to Costa Rica, 19th edition (Berkeley: Ulysses Press, 2009), 397-398. Gabriela Camacho, “San Gerardo de Dota: su principio y fin,” Perfil (April 2008), 564: 82-85.

80

4.4.1 - Exploration and Settlement (1954-1957) The history of San Gerardo began in 1954 when Efraín Chacón Ureña (see Figure 4.7), his brother Federico, and a couple of their friends were out on a hunting expedition. Following the Revolution in 1948, this group of young men began hunting together in their spare time. They became quite good and started using dogs to Figure 4.7 – Photo of Efraín Chacón taken in 1980, courtesy of Sonia Vindas-Chacón hunt bigger and faster game. One day, this group was hunting much farther to the south of Providencia than they had ever been before: the reason was because they were chasing their dogs, which had run on ahead of them. They eventually caught them and found themselves in a very remote, beautiful, and untouched area: the valley floor, separated by a crystal clear river, was surrounded by mountain peaks that rose up to the sky; oak trees stood some 30 meters in the air from the mountain slope; bamboo trees filled the understory and the whole valley was filled with the most amazing wildlife. Being so far from home, however, meant that they had to stay the night. They were able to find a large rock protruding from the mountain side under which they could sleep. The next day they awoke and found tiger tracks nearby their “cave.” They wisely decided to return home. Initially they didn’t return to the valley because of the distance and difficulty of the terrain, but the memory of the valley’s beauty and possibilities never left the Chacón brothers’ minds. Prior to the 1940s, this newly discovered region of the Talamanca Mountains “existed as a wilderness island of tropical cloud forest.” 41 In the Central Valley to the north, the cities of San José, Cartago, Alajuela, and Heredia had grown together and were surrounded by coffee plantations that spread up the volcanic slopes of the valley’s mountain range. In the General Valley to the south spread the region’s major agricultural and transportation hub, San Isidro del 41

Dennis Williams, “Transformations in the Environmental Economy of the Upper Savegre Valley, Costa Rica, 19522002,” unpublished paper presented at a meeting for the American Society for Environmental History, April 2004, 1.

81

General, which was established in the early 1930s. 42 Until the early 1940s, the only road connecting the Central and General Valleys was an unimproved cart trail that followed the high crests of the Talamanca Mountains. Travel between these two valleys was dangerous and sometimes deadly, although necessary. In an effort to better their circumstances, men San Isidro would load up their horses with as much produce as they could carry, gather their herd of pigs and make the month-long journey to San José on foot, driving their herds the whole way. Many of these men, wearing nothing but thin shirts and pants, lost their life at the now-famous spot, the Cerro de la Muerte (or Hill of Death) because of the wet and freezing weather that persists throughout much of the year. 43 Then, in 1940, with U.S. interest firmly established in Panamá and with the threat of a world war becoming more real, the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) sent representatives to Costa Rica to begin the planning and construction of a highway across the country to connect to Panamá and Nicaragua. Shortly after their arrival, construction began in the northern part of the country connecting San José with Nicaragua. However, the section through the Cordillera de Talamanca took until 1943 to finish, thereby completing the 573 kilometer long section of the Inter-American Highway (IAH) through Costa Rica. 44 The completion of the IAH facilitated the rapid flow of people south to the General Valley from the Central Valley and to the areas in between. However, the rugged and steep terrain of the Talamanca Mountains in the region of the La Muerte summit had protected the upper Savegre watershed from permanent settlement. This changed in 1955, when Efraín and Federico decided to return to the valley to begin a new life; one full year after their first serendipitous expedition. By this time, both brothers had married and were living with their families in La Cima on a plot of land given to them by one of their maternal uncles (see Figure 4.8). They were poor and lived together in a small ranch house that the brothers had built six years earlier. For the past 21 years the brothers had worked as wage laborers on both their maternal uncles’ farm in Santa María de Dota and later, on their paternal uncle’s farm in Copey. They earned money harvesting coffee, milking cows, and plowing the fields. In the early 1950s, the brothers started working on a small plot of land in Providencia. There, they plowed the fields and managed the pasture areas. Although the brothers had a fairly good life, they were ready to try working for themselves. Because of the distance to the valley and because of its remote location, they weren’t automatically thinking 42

Robert E. Nunley, The Distribution of Population In Costa Rica, (Washington: National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council, 1960), 32-33. 43 Chacón, Personal interview, May 16, 2009. 44 Norman Wood, “The Trailblazers: IAH 1940-1957,” U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/blazer009a.cfm (accessed November 24, 2009). Norman Wood was assigned to the Inter-American Highway Office in Costa Rica in 1940 and was assigned as the Chief of the office from 1953-1957.

82

about claiming the area when they first discovered it in 1954. However, one year later they were ready. Since the trip between La Cima and the valley was nearly a day’s journey, their time there was limited. They still had to earn money working on their paternal uncle’s farm and were only able to make the trip every few weeks. Over the next two years, they continued to brave the 26 kilometer journey between the two areas, slowly clearing part of the forest in preparation for moving to the valley permanently (see Figure 4.9). The brothers planned to take in some pigs, a cow for milk, and various seeds with which to start a small farm. During those two years, they lived and Figure 4.8 – Photo of Efraín and Caridad Chacón in front of their worked out of the cave they house in La Cima, date unknown, courtesy of Efraín found in 1954 and prepared the area for pasture and crops using the slash-andburn technique. By 1957, the brothers had cleared nearly 14.5 ha of land and planted enough crops, especially beans, to sustain full-time living in the valley. They built a small shelter and decided to stop working for their uncle and move to their new-found paradise. In preparation for their move to the valley, the two families started a small store in their house in La Cima, which their wives managed. They sold agricultural produce, grown on their property, and other basic necessities to local community members. Additionally, Efraín took out a loan from the bank and bought a pregnant pig, a few beef cows, and other supplies they needed to start their new life. Finally, familiar with the frontier laws of the country, the brothers took out an ad in Costa Rica ’s official newspaper, La Gaceta, stating they were clearing and working land, which they planned to own, in the upper Savegre River watershed. Once in the valley, the brothers had two major plans: the first was to continue clearing the forest so they could eventually start raising dairy cattle and the second was to find a way up to the IAH so they could start selling their agricultural products and pigs. They knew they had to start raising pigs first because pigs were easier to manage and were not dependent on pasture land. Cows, however, would need a large amount of grassland, which would take time to 83

establish in the valley. They brought those first few beef cows because they wanted to see how they would handle the terrain and weather. They were able to manage in the terrain and as it turned out, the weather actually kept the fly and mosquito populations down, thereby reducing disease. Since they had only cleared a couple of hectares, they allowed the cows to roam free to find their own food. Sometimes they didn’t see the cows for three months at a time and one never came back. In those first few years, life in the valley was extremely difficult. Not only were the brothers completely separated from their families (with only one of them returning home once every month), but as far as they were concerned they were completely separated from the rest of the world. The weather was cold and wet most of the year making it difficult to survive, but the brothers persevered. Figure 4.9 – Route to the Savegre River Valley and trails cut to the IAH 45

45

GIS data for this map were obtained from Oscar Chacón at INBio, in Costa Rica, on January 8, 2010.

84

4.4.2 - Connection and Community (1957-1965) From 1957 until 1960, the two men cleared the land, increased their pig herd, and made a few trails up to the IAH. They knew the IAH was up on the highest ridge line to the north because they could occasionally hear and see trucks driving by. The first two trails they made followed the ridge lines on either side of the valley, straight up toward the highway (see Figure 4.9). They made the trail on the eastern side first and named it the Cerro de La Muerte trail, since it went up toward the La Muerte summit (a 9 km hike nearly straight up). The second one, on the western side, was called the Ruta de Los Chanchos, or the route of the pigs. However, these trails were much too steep for either the animals or the brothers to easily travel – especially when the trails were wet. Therefore, in 1958, they decided to make a trail that followed the Savegre River up the hill and this trail proved much easier to maneuver and manage. It took a lot of time and effort, but by 1960, they connected the valley floor with the IAH and took their vegetables and pigs up to the highway for the first time. Over the next year, they continued to use the trail, improving it each time they made the nine kilometer trip. Although the brothers were able to sell their goods to a few of the stores located along the IAH, they realized that they were not being paid as well as they could. The vendors along the highway knew there was no other local place to sell their goods and therefore didn’t have to pay top price. To change the situation, Efraín decided that he would organize day trips into Cartago to sell the pigs at the market, called La Plaza, where he could get better prices. One day in 1961 when he returned home to visit his family, he went into Santa María de Dota and arranged a pick-up with some truck drivers that made runs from San Isidro del General to Cartago. Efraín arranged for these truck drivers to pick him up at kilometer marker 80 (which is at the entrance to San Gerardo). They made runs every other Wednesday and so one of the brothers would either take the pigs up the night before, or early on the morning of the pick-up to link-up with the drivers and travel into Cartago to sell their pigs. They would either sell them from the stalls they rented (to the people who would pass by) or they would sell them auction-style on a podium. After they sold all of their goods, they would ride back to marker 80 and then hike back down into the valley. With the money they raised at the market, they were able to buy more supplies for their families in La Cima and for themselves out in San Gerardo. However, Efraín was not making enough money to pay back his loan to the bank. To make ends meet, he borrowed money from one of his acquaintances and paid-off his bank loan. With his account clear, he was able to get an even bigger loan from the bank with which he bought a few more pregnant pigs to increase the herd, and a couple of horses to make travel between La Cima and the valley a bit easier. Though things were progressing quite well, the Chacóns realized that being in such a remote 85

location without any support was too risky and dangerous for the rest of their families. To better their odds of surviving in the valley, they started talking about the opportunities in the San Gerardo to some of their friends and family back in Santa María, Copey, and La Cima. They were able to convince a few and in 1962 one of the Chacóns’ cousins, Delfin Ureña Elizondo, moved to the valley and began clearing land. Over the next few years, many more people began moving to the valley. A friend of theirs named Ulises Monge Mora moved from Copey. A younger man, named Miguel Viquez Gomez who was only 22, moved from La Cima and started working for the Chacón brothers. He was eventually able to buy some land in the valley (below the Chacón brothers’ land) from a man named Miguel Rivera who also owned land in the study area near the IAH. Additionally, Froyalan Prado Cruz, Gonzalo Serrano, Roldolfo Vargas Calderon, Enrique Gomez, and Enóch Rodriguez moved to the valley during the early 1960s (see Figure 4.10). The last two neighbors decided not to stay in the valley and sold their land to Juan Miguel Dada in 1970. Each of these families faced similar issues and opportunities as the Chacóns: they used slash-and-burn techniques to clear the land; they were able to get loans to buy cows and supplies; and they planted crops and started pasture lands for their cows. Finally, in 1963, Efraín and Federico brought their families to the valley (see Figure 4.11). The brothers had built a better ranch-style house prior to their families’ arrival and they lived together in the newer house for the next five years. Efraín continued taking his pigs to the market in Cartago and even started taking some of his cows. The same year their families moved, Efraín bought a Holstein calf and brought it to the valley. He started making cheese that he occasionally sold to stores along the IAH and in Cartago. These were exciting times for the Chacón family as many changes took place.

4.5 – THE YEARS OF GREAT OPPORTUNITIES (1965-1976) Traditionally, when landless farmers in Costa Rica pushed into forested public areas, they converted the forest into land suitable for pastures or crops. They practiced slash-andburn techniques because most of the nutrients in tropical forests are found in the canopy. To get those nutrients into the thin layer of topsoil, farmers cut down the trees and burned everything on the ground. The left-over ash was high in nutrients, thereby allowing the farmers to enjoy high-yields for a few years. However, after that time the soils became exhausted due to erosion and overuse. After only about five years these areas were completely cleared of forest cover and the settlers became very poor, since the land did not produce as much as it did before. Most farmers were forced to move on in search of other forested areas or to move to the city in search of employment. Only a few would stay behind to graze cattle on the badly degraded land, which prevented secondary growth. 86

Figure 4.10 – Map of land owners in San Gerardo in 1973 46

46

This map is not exact and is only intended to give a general understanding of the location of land owners. Information for this map comes from interviews and survey plans obtained from the Registro Nacional Area de Servicios, created by the Instituto de Tierras y Colonizacion Departamento de Titulacion in 1973. The areas of unknown ownership remain so because the original owners are no longer living in the area.

87

However, this was not the story of San Gerardo. The people of this valley were able to take advantage of exciting opportunities made available to them by the state: government programs that helped diversify their means of living (see 4.5.1 through 4.5.6). The community members were open to new ideas and were dedicated to making a home for their families. They were committed to finding ways to make money that were both economical and ecologically functional. This was their home and they were dependent on the health of their environment. Over the next eight years this small community was connected to national markets (through the government programs discussed below) because of their ingenuity and hard work. They were officially recognized as landowners, an event that helped to strengthen their commitment to the valley. They grew rainbow trout and started profitable dairy farms. They also planted fruit orchards which helped prevent erosion and provided another means of income. They built a school and received government-funded teachers to instruct their children through the sixth grade. Key to this amazing amount of development in such a short period of time was their willingness to work together as a community to accomplish numerous goals, not least of which was the improvement of their trail to the IAH. Figure 4.11 – Photo of Efraín’s family’s first day in the valley in 1963, courtesy of Efraín

4.5.1 - Road Construction As a result of numerous people using the trail to the highway, by 1965 it had been improved and was now able to support horses and cows in addition to the pigs. Although the trail was much easier to use than before, the community members realized that they needed to construct a road that would support vehicular traffic. If they could accomplish that, they knew they would be able to keep pace with the development occurring in some of the larger towns in the surrounding areas. Cars, generators, and other machinery were necessary if they wanted to improve their current standard of living. So, in 1965, the community came together and decided they would improve the road. They formed an association and pooled what little 88

money they had, to put toward the cost of road construction. Then they negotiated a deal with the government to help support the plan to improve the road from the IAH down to the valley floor. Seeing that these community members were committed (through the association and with the small amount of money they raised), the government agreed to pay half of the cost. To cover their half, the community went to the bank to obtain a loan. Again, the banks saw that this community was serious about improving the area and gave them a loan. The state provided the engineer, and some materials, and construction started in 1966. However, since the cost to complete the project was large, road development was divided into three phases: each phase was a third of the total road length and as a result, it took until 1969 to finish the project. Although it may seem odd that the government would pay half the cost of road construction, in the context of the country’s history it is completely rational. From the early part of the twentieth century until about 1960, the “number of landless and land-poor peasants was growing with each passing decade and, with the success of Castro’s revolution in Cuba, Costa Rican law makers increasingly feared rural unrest.” 47 Therefore, the country created the Institute of Lands and Colonization (ITCO), by law, with the goal of solving the growing problem of land occupation. The government attempted 11 colonization projects for 1,222 peasants covering 35,412 ha. However, these colonies were largely unsuccessful because they lacked the infrastructure necessary to give these farmers access to markets where they could sell their crops and obtain the necessary supplies. 48 In the case in San Gerardo, the government wanted these families to stay in the valley and work their land, rather than abandon the area and start over somewhere else.

4.5.2 - Land Expansion and Ownership Legislation known as denuncio, the law governing the occupation of public domain lands, stated that a person could legally claim up to 50 ha of state-owned “wasteland” (tierra baldía), after clearing the land of forest for cultivation and after continually working on it for a period of 10 years. 49 When Efraín and his brother started inviting other people to live in the valley, they knew that they needed to mark-off their land. However, instead of just claiming 50 ha, they marked-off 205 ha for each family (410 ha total) with their lands located on both sides of the river. Since they hadn’t cleared that amount of forest, to delineate the boundary they dug a small trench around the perimeter. They figured 205 ha each would be enough land to support their dairy farms.

47

Mitchell A. Seligson, “Agrarian Policies in Dependent Societies: Costa Rica,” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs (1977) 19(2): 224. 48 Ibid., 225. 49 Anja Nygren, “Deforestation in Costa Rica: An Examination of Social and Historical Factors,” Forest & Conservation History (1995) 39(1): 28.

89

However, in 1966, Efraín was offered a great opportunity: to buy extra land for a reasonable price. He bought approximately 195 additional hectares of land located southeast from his current property, from Modesto Duran’s family. Modesto had a history similar to Efraín’s except that he moved to the valley from the south. Efraín agreed to a price of 7,000 colones, which was a lot for that time, and so he worked a deal where he didn’t have to pay using money. He paid for the land over a three year period by giving Modesto’s family some of his animals. Efraín wanted to buy the extra land because he was preparing to increase the size of his herd and because that land was a bit flatter than his land in the valley. Additionally, the Modesto family had already converted it to pasture. Initially when Efraín bought the land, there was no title to go along with the deal. It was a gentleman’s agreement. The Modesto family had the right to sell it and they gave Efraín their escritura, or the unofficial notes taken about the land by the owner. Efraín was able to use this paperwork to complete the legal process of putting the land in his name. In the end, Efraín had claimed or purchased 400 hectares of land. In 1968, Efraín and Federico were finally able to live in separate houses. Efraín built a house on his land on the east side of the river and he, his wife Caridad, and their 11 children moved across the river. Federico, his wife Claudina (who, incidentally, was Caridad’s sister), and their 11 children stayed in the house on Federico’s land (see Figure 4.12). The two families continued to help each other with land clearance and other chores for the next 20 years. Other residents in the valley had similar experiences during that time. Following the failure of the colonization projects mentioned earlier, ITCO spent the period of 1967 and 1972 legalizing the occupation of 23,826 hectares of state land for 3,264 families. 50 In 1972, an engineer from ITCO went to the valley to survey the residents’ land in preparation for issuing titles. However, because the law stated that the maximum size of land authorized for a single family was 50 hectares, the ITCO surveyor was going to limit Efraín to that amount. To get around that limitation, Efraín went to Providencia to talk with President José Figueres Ferrer, who was serving his third term (non-consecutive) as president of Costa Rica (1970-1974) (see Appendix B for the history between these two men). Efraín had heard on the radio that the president would be in Providencia to talk to the people. Being an excombatant he was able to talk to the president and he asked to be granted a title for the full 205 hectares. President Figueres told Efraín that the country was having a similar problem with some land owners in Nicoya, in Guanacaste Province. To solve the problem in Nicoya, the president was going to grant the people an exception to the law and give them a title to their land. President Figueres told Efraín that he would do the same for him as well. In 1973, the same engineer who surveyed the land came back and gave Efraín the title to his land, which

50

Seligson, “Agrarian Policies,” 225.

90

was for the full 205 hectares; 152 hectares on the east side of the river and 53 hectares on the west side. Figure 4.12 - Photo of Federico’s barn (in the foreground), house (in the background), and fish pond (on the right side). Viewpoint is looking east toward the Savegre River. Photo from La Nacion, October 16, 1975. Also see Figure 4.17

4.5.3 – Dairy Farming The Chacóns wanted to work towards owning a dairy farm: this was their dream. They believed that raising dairy cows was more economical than either the pigs or the beef cows. Although there was a push for people to raise beef cattle, Efraín knew that he would need to maintain a large herd, requiring more land than he had, to make any money from the cows. According to Efraín, the problem with beef cattle is that once you raise them you only get to sell them once. With dairy cows, you can continue to earn a profit for at least six to eight years before having to sell them to be used for meat. However, the Chacóns had to start with beef cattle because they didn’t have the time or labor to manage dairy cows. Dairying is much more labor intensive because cows have to be milked twice a day, taking approximately 30 minutes per cow. 91

In 1965, Efraín bought a few pregnant dairy cows to start building his herd. By this time he had between 15 and 20 pigs and approximately 15 beef cattle. However, now that the community was committed to improving the road, Efraín started to focus his efforts towards dairying and gave his farm the name Finca Zacatales (meaning Grass Farm). He used this name because there is a river and a hill in the watershed with that name and he felt that it would be logical to name his land after something that represented the valley. 51 By 1965, Efraín’s family was already making small amounts of cheese and selling it at the stores along the highway and to stores in the nearby cities. Figure 4.13 – Photo of Efraín’s milking area, date unknown, However, after the completion of coutresy of Efraín the road in 1969, Efraín bought a pick-up truck and this was when he was truly able to start constructing his dairy farm and intensifying his production of cheese. Efrain went to work on building a covered area (see Figure 4.13) where he could milk the cows and he bought some used milking equipment (four large storage tanks, the milking machines, and all hoses) and a used diesel generator to provide the electricity for the equipment. They had to bring the generator in to the valley on a big truck and the truck had to cross the river twice to get to Efrain's house since there were no bridges in the valley at that time. The trucks were able to cross the river because the level of water was much lower than it is today. In fact, that is how they would take their cows up to the highway (by crossing the river). The generator was strong enough to provide electricity for the barn and for their house. However, since gas was expensive, they only used it when they needed to milk the cows and for their dinner meals. Other than that they used candles for light. Additionally, they installed an electric fence around the milking area to separate it from the pasture. In 1970, Efraín started to buy any reasonably priced dairy cows he could find. The breed didn't matter, because he started to artificially inseminate his cows with Holstein semen. This program was started by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG) in 1953 in an attempt to improve the species of cow in Costa Rica. Efraín heard about the program on the radio and decided that he wanted to participate. 51

Efraín had seen a map of this region that was published in 1962.

92

Figure 4.14 – Photo of (from left to right) Marino Chacón, César Vindas (the MAG official), and Efraín birthing a cow in 1976, courtesy of Efraín

Figure 4.15 - Photo of Efraín and Sonia at a competition in 1976, courtesy of Sonia Vindas-Chacón

During that time, Costa Rica was importing Holstein semen from the U.S. and Canada and if a farmer bought the semen, the MAG would send an expert to their house to help inseminate their cows and teach the farmer how to carry out the insemination process (see Figure 4.14). Efraín went to the MAG and bought semen and an expert came to his house to inseminate his cows (interestingly enough, the expert from the MAG ended up marrying one of Efraín’s daughters, Sonya, and they moved to a farm not far from San Gerardo to start raising dairy cows and trout). Once the cows were pregnant the expert would return occasionally to check the cows and, when ready, to help with the delivery.

After about a year, Efraín started to inseminate the offspring of the originally inseminated cows and in this way he improved the purity of his herd. In 1973, a couple of years after starting the program, Efraín began directly purchasing the semen from the U.S., Costa Rica was also importing bull semen from Holland, but Efraín states that those breed of cows wouldn’t be especially suited for the terrain of the valley. He chose to stay with the Holstein breed that came from the U.S. Although the goal of participating in the artificial insemination program was to improve the quality of his herd and their milk production, Efraín became interested in the regional and state fairs and began entering his Holstein breed in the dairy cow competitions (see Figure 4.15).

93

4.5.4 – The School “La Lidia” Because their dad left the family early on, Efraín took the responsibility and began working to support his brother and mother when he was only nine years old. As a result, he was only able to finish through the third grade. However, he still recognized that education was an important part of a child’s life. He knew that reading and writing were necessary components of progress. Therefore, he and the rest of the community members decided to start a school. They built a small building, similar to Efraín’s first house in the valley, and created a roster of all the children who would be attending the school. Unfortunately, there were only about eight or nine children in the valley at that time who would attend the school, not enough to convince the government to pay for a teacher. To solve the problem, the community simply created a roster with the required amount of childrens’ names. They submitted their request to the government and were authorized a teacher. In 1972, when Efraín went to Providencia to talk with President Figueres, he also asked the president if the government would provide materials to establish a real school in the valley. The building they had used for the past three years was insufficient for teaching the children. Surprisingly, Figueres agreed and told Efraín to send the government a letter telling them that he personally authorized the state-sponsored construction of a school in San Gerardo. Shortly after sending the letter, some workers came to the valley with the necessary materials. However, it was the responsibility of the community members to construct the school. Since his property was centrally located, Juan Miguel Dada donated part of his land on which to build the school. By 1973, the school was finished; complete with separate classrooms for kindergarten through sixth grade, a kitchen, cafeteria, bathroom, concrete courtyard, and a small apartment for the teacher. Because of his help, a plaque was placed on the side of the school in honor of President Figueres.

4.5.5 – Rainbow Trout and Fishing Although the valley experienced numerous changes that greatly affected the livelihoods of the community members of San Gerardo, no change would be as great as the introduction of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to the fresh waters of the Savegre River. This one event helped bring fame to the valley, since freshwater fishing was almost non-existent during the 1960s and 1970s. Besides that, no other location within the country contained as much beauty and biodiversity as the upper Savegre River watershed. The air is cool, clean, and the valley is peaceful. These factors helped create a setting that is “almost heaven...above the clouds.” 52 When word spread that a new type of fish could be caught in the high elevation Savegre River, a regular stream of fishermen descended on the valley each weekend hoping to catch a few to 52

Dave Sherwood, “Above the Clouds, It’s Almost Heaven, Costa Rica,” New York Times, August 16, 2007.

94

take home for dinner. Because of the distance to the Central and General Valleys, many of these fishermen began asking Efraín if they could buy food and drink from his family for dinner, before their journey home. What developed was the first phase in tourism to the valley. History Fishing in Costa Rica is not a new phenomenon to the twentieth century. Fishermen have been catching tarpon, sailfish, marlin, snook, and many other species of fish out of river mouths and blue waters off both coasts for centuries. However, prior to the 1900s, thousands of kilometers of inland freshwater streams, lakes, and rivers that snake through this tiny country were practically ignored due to the lack of or low numbers of native fish populations and species that were worth catching and eating. The history of the introduction of freshwater fish in general, and rainbow trout in particular, in Costa Rica’s freshwater system is poorly documented; most accounts are either from personal communication with persons working in the MAG or are completely lacking references. However, according to most sources, between 1927 and 1928, rainbow trout from the Sacramento River in California were introduced into Costa Rican rivers, along the border with Panamá, for sport fishing. Then in 1954, the MAG imported 50,000 rainbow trout eggs from the U.S. and then released them in the Cotton and Coto Brus rivers, also near Panamá, with great success. Between 1959 and 1962, a total of 250,000 rainbow trout eggs were imported from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico and a large number of alevin were released into the Macho, Pejibaye, Reventazón, Humo, Parrita, Poás, El Roble, and La Paz rivers. 53 The goal of these efforts was to develop low-cost animal protein production opportunities for rural communities. Unfortunately, many of these fish did not survive and in the 1960s, the MAG began to establish fisheries to cultivate the fish in a more organized manner (to help ensure their survival). Efraín heard about a fishery that was in Copey and went to inquire about the possibility of putting some fingerlings in the Savegre River. In 1966, Efraín coordinated to have some fingerlings brought to the valley and after releasing nearly 100 fingerlings, over the next three years no fish were found in the river. However, one day in 1969 when Efraín was walking his cows, an object in the river caught his eye: it was the brightly colored rainbow trout! To this day he claims that the fish was about one meter long. As soon as he had the chance, Efraín went to one of the only tackle shops in the country, Gilca Ltd., located in San José, to buy fishing supplies (see Figure 4.16).

53

Tomás Brenner, “Las pesquerías de aguas continentales frías en América Latina,” COPESCAL Documento Ocasional (1994) 7: 1-32, found at http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/t4675s/t4675s00.htm (accessed January 24, 2010).

95

Early Tourism and Fishing Tournaments When the owner, Carlos Barrantes, Sr. 54 asked where Efrain was planning to go fishing, Efraín responded that he was going to fish right outside of his house in the Savegre River. Of course Carlos did not believe the Figure 4.16 – Photo of Efraín outside of Gilca, Ltd., with a Trout, story and had to see for himself. One date unknown, courtesy of Efraín weekend Carlos showed up in the valley and learned for himself that the river was indeed stocked with rainbow trout. So it was, in 1969 that San Gerardo was forever changed. Once word got out that the valley was teeming with beautiful rainbow trout, people began showing up to fish. With this new influx of people came requests for services. People stopped by Efraín’s house and asked if they could buy food or drink and occasionally they asked if they could pay to stay the night. In typical Costa Rican fashion, Efraín entertained them and soon Caridad was cooking meals for numerous repeat guests. These first guests however, became more like family than patrons as they stayed the night in the Chacón's already full house. After it was dark and after milking the cows, the visitors would gather in the family room with the rest of the family and listen to Efraín tell numerous stories about his life, play with the Chacón's many children, or just relax by the fire. In 1970, Efraín and his brother built a pond behind Federico's house (see Figure4.12 and 4.17). They used a backhoe to dig out the dirt, fed the pond using a nearby spring, and channeled the overflow back into the Savegre. At the time they didn't know how to raise fish, but they hoped that they could cultivate the fish there for two reasons: first, they wanted to have a food source that would be easy to catch that they could use to feed their guests (in the event that the guests didn’t catch any fish in the river). Second, they wanted to make an area where those fishermen who were not as lucky in the river could go to practice. To Efraín’s knowledge, besides the ponds in Copey, this was the only other pond stocked with rainbow 54

Carlos Barrantes, Sr. was the founder of Gilca Ltd. and the Costa Rican representative for the International Game Fish Association. He was inducted into the Costa Rican Hall of Fame in 2003 for his work in opening the country to sportfishing. He founded and was the president of Costa Rica’s National Fishing Federation.

96

trout in the whole country. For the first few years it was difficult to keep the fish alive since the food they used was not specially formulated for fish; it was the same food they gave their horses and pigs. According to Efraín, even the MAG had a difficult time keeping their fish healthy and living. There just wasn't much experience raising rainbow trout. Figure 4.17 – Aerial photo of Efraín’s and Federico’s land 55

Because of these amazing developments and because of their extraordinary story, Efraín and Federico were featured in a four-page article in the nation’s newspaper, La Nacion. 56 This article helped increase the number of visitors to the valley and, in 1971, Efraín decided to build two small cabins. Although his neighbors made fun of him, telling him that he was crazy for wasting his time, effort, and money, Efraín thought it was important for the visiting fishermen to have a place to stay (other than in the family room). The most common question Efraín was asked by the community members was “what are you going to do when all the trout are gone?”

55 56

Aerial image purchased from the Instituto Geográfico Nacional, in Costa Rica, on January 07, 2010. Miguel Salguero, “Gentes y Paisajes,” La Nación, June 18, 1970.

97

This was not something Efraín thought much about since demands for services and lodging increased beyond the family’s capability. Efraín had to devise a plan to manage the visitors: what he did was set up a reservation system. If people wanted to stay in the cabins they would tell Carlos Rodriguez, the manager at Gilca, who would keep a list for the Chacóns. Then when Efraín went into the city to sell his cheese or to buy supplies, he would stop by the store and pick-up the reservation list. This system worked very well and was beneficial for the store and for the Chacón family as they both received publicity through this agreement; for example, in 1980 it was mentioned in a full-length, three-page article about San Gerardo and the Chacón family farm. 57 Figure 4.18 – Photo of Marino Chacón fishing in the Savegre River, date unknown, courtesy of Efraín. Sign says “Zacatales Farm – Efraín Chacón and Sons”

In the early 1970s, sportfishing became a popular recreational activity. Each year, many tournaments were held throughout the country. At least once a year, a tournament would be held in the Savegre River. Marino Chacón, Efraín’s eldest son, became quite good at fishing and won many tournaments which gave him and San Gerardo extra publicity (see Figure 4.18). By 1973, business was good enough that Efraín build another cabin, bringing his total to three (see Figure 4.19). Also to accommodate the numerous visitors staying with the family, the Chacóns built a covered patio next to their house on which to feed their guests. This was the first “restaurant,” in the valley, though there really wasn’t a menu as the family was financially limited to provide

57

Héctor Fallas, “ San Gerardo de Dota: Lecho de truchas, agua fresca y montañas,” La Nación, October 10, 1980, 7-9C.

98

only a set type of meal. Figure 4.19 – Photo of Efraín’s three cabins, featured in La Nacion, 1978 (exact date unknown)

Commercial Production In 1973, Efraín dug a pond on the east side of the river and fed it with river water. This pond was much easier to use than their first pond and so the brothers eventually let the other pond dry out. They used this new pond to support the sport fisherman and their small restaurant as well as their family and community. Then in 1976, Efraín thought it would be possible to sell the trout to some of the restaurants in San José. He knew that the fish was rich in flavor and because of its popularity among the visitors and community he believed that people in the city would love the taste once they tried it. Efraín caught several fish and took the fillets to the city. Going restaurant to restaurant, he tried to introduce his product and establish regular deliveries. However, since this fish was new to the country and since many Costa Ricans had never tasted trout, he was initially unsuccessful in creating a demand. He realized that he was trying to sell his product to the wrong clientele. What he needed to do was to sell his fish to those restaurants that served mainly foreigners. Most people in the U.S. and Europe were familiar with the fish, but were not able to find trout on the menu at any restaurant in the country. Therefore, Efraín went to a restaurant named La Bastille, a French restaurant that is still in San José and has been in business for over 50 years, and was able to sell them his trout. Part of the reason they accepted his fish was because Carlos Barrantes called the restaurant and told them that rainbow trout had a good flavor and that they should try it. In this way, Efraín was able to start selling his fish commercially. 99

Once the Chacóns made the new pond, they began buying their fish from the MAG in Copey (something they did until about 2002 at which time they started to buy their eggs directly from the U.S.), as opposed to breeding their own. They did this because it was easier to buy the eggs and cultivate the fish, than it was to try and breed on their own. First, breeding fish have to be much older and bigger than the fish they would typically sell. According to Efraín, once a fish gets to be that size and weight the meat doesn't taste as good. Second, the MAG continually bought eggs from the U.S. and Canada and the stock was always improving (i.e., the survival rate and strength of the breed continued to improve).

4.5.6 – Fruit Tree Cultivation Growing up as a young boy in Costa Rica, Cristian Zuñiga-Brenes (the front desk manager at the Chacón’s hotel) can remember receiving a beautiful red apple on Christmas Eve. He could hardly wait to eat the sweet and juicy fruit, since it was a treat he would get only once a year. The reason this fruit was so valuable was because the tropical climate of Costa Rica and the lack of effective chilling during the dormant season were major problems for apple growing, effectively limiting its cultivation in the country. 58 Although Costa Rica had some apples, this imported variety was much tastier than the wild apples grown in the country. As a result, these American apples were much more expensive than the locally grown apples. These facts did not escape President Figueres and in the early 1970s, the president began looking for a way to grow a better tasting variety of apple in Costa Rica. 59 Many varieties from numerous countries were tested throughout the nation, with little success. Then on a trip to Israel, the president found a species that he thought might work in his country, the Anna Apple (see Figure 4.20). The Anna apple is the most widely grown, low-chilling-requirement apples in the world. Developed in 1959 and introduced in 1963 by Abba Stein in Doar Na Shomron, Israel, the apple is a cross between the local “Red Hadassiya,” and the “Golden Delicious.” The fruit has a reddish color when exposed to the sun, is subacid to sweet, and is juicy with a smooth texture. It requires very little “winter chilling” in order for bud break to occur and the period from flowering to harvest is between 163-181 days. 61 For these trees to grow well in Costa Rica, two things are necessary: the first is a good rootstock and the second is a chemical that will induce bud break, since there are not enough winter chilling days anywhere in the country. Wild apple trees have been used as the rootstock in Costa Rica, since they grow well in many 60

58

Dereje Ashebir, Tom Deckers, Jan Nyssen, Wubetu Bihon, Alemtsehay Tsegay, Hailemariam Tekie, Jean Poesen, Mitiku Haile, Fekadu Wondumagegneheu, Dirk Raes, Mintesinot Behailu, and Jozef Deckers, “Growing Apple (Makus Domestica) Under Tropical Mountain Climate Conditions in Northern Ethiopia,” Experimental Agriculture (2010) 46(1): 53-65. 59 Pablo Chacón, Personal interview, May 14, 2009. 60 John Ellwood Jackson, Biology of Apples and Pears (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 44. 61 Ibid., 44.

100

types of soils and Dormex (hydrogen cyanamide) has been used to induce bud break and to increase crop yields. Figueres and Jenaro Rojas, the leading agricultural engineer within the MAG, imported the first Anna apple trees from Israel in 1971 and they successfully planted and grew the first trees in Llano Grande de Cartago. From these trees they took some branches and experimented with grafting on two other farms located in the Dota region. At the same time they were testing the Anna apple trees, Figueres and Rojas began experimenting with other types of apples to determine which one(s) would be best suited to Costa Rica’s climate and other environmental conditions. In 1972, Rojas started a project in La Cima on Tobías Serrano’s farm, where he attempted to grow 10 varieties of apples in just half of a hectare. 62 Early in 1973, in search of more volunteers, the president decided to announce the concept of the program in his weekly radio address. Figure 4.20 – Photo of Efraín’s Anna Apple in 1978, featured in La Nacion, 1978 (exact date unknown)

Sometime during the middle of that year, at exactly 3 pm in the middle of the week, Efraín and Federico were listening to the president’s address on the hand radio they had purchased for news updates and other information (as this was the best means of communication during that time) when they heard Figueres talking about a MAG program to grow a new type of apple in Costa Rica. He said that it was a variety of apple from Israel and was called Anna. At the conclusion of the address, the president gave Jenaro Rojas’ name as the person to contact to participate in the program. After hearing the radio announcement, the Chacón brothers decided they were interested in growing the apples on their land. They had unsuccessfully attempted to grow other types of fruit on their land before, but felt that since this program was well supported by the government the likelihood of victory would be much higher. If the program was successful, not only would it be economically smart to grow them, but it would be a good source of food for the family and for the growing restaurant business. They contacted Rojas and became the third farm in the country to 62

Levi Vega M., “Cosecha de manzanas en la zona de Dota,” La Nación, Suplemento Agropecuario, November 19, 1980, 2C.

101

experiment with numerous varieties of apples. Rojas felt that the conditions were quite good in San Gerardo and planted 30 varieties of apples in half of a hectare of Efraín’s land. In the end, when asked which location was the best for growing apples and which apples were best suited to the country, Rojas stated that La Cima and San Gerardo had the best conditions and that the Anna apple was better suited than all the other varieties of apples. 63

4.6 – THE YEARS OF GREAT GROWTH (1973-1986) While he was still president, Figueres visited Efraín’s farm to check on the progress of the apple trees. He was impressed to see the abundance and good health of the experiment. Efraín had one of the largest apple plantations in the country at that time with three and a half hectares, compared to one or less on the other farms. Because of the success of the two farms in the Dota region, Rojas stated that “with the experience obtained from these first plantations, driven by these pioneers, we expect, at the end of this present decade, that Costa Rica will be self-sufficient in apples...” By 1980, Efraín’s orchards were producing 50 kilos of apples per tree, more kilograms of apples per tree than any other farm in the country. 64 Because of the abundance of their harvests, the Chacón family was able to sell their fruit along the IAH and to some of the grocery stores in Cartago and San José. The various activities occurring in San Gerardo continued to increase publicity for the valley and for the Chacón family, as numerous newspaper and magazine articles were written. For example, in 1975, the National Training Institute (INA) held a 120 hour training course on farming and dairying techniques for the men and women of the valley providing them with certificates of completion, which was considered a big accomplishment at that time. 65 In 1978, Efraín’s farm was highlighted for the advanced gravity-fed irrigation techniques being used during the dry season to help water the pastures. Also in that year, Efraín entered his nearfamous cheese in the regional fair and won second place and took first as the best in show in both agriculture and cattle. 66 Although the Chacón family was becoming well-known for their numerous activities nothing pleased Efraín more than his Holstein cows. Though they were a source of income for the family, they meant more to him than just a simple job would. This was his passion. He enjoyed spending time reading about the different bulls from which he could buy semen. He 63

Ibid. Ibid. The other farms were as follows: Raúl Morales in Ochomogo was producing 30 kilos per tree and the Serrano farm in La Cima was producing 40 kilos per tree. 65 “Júbilo en las montañas de Dota,” La Nación, October 16, 1975, 23 C. The INA was created in 1965 and was responsible for promoting and developing the vocational training of men and women in every productive sector to further economic development and contribute to the improvement of life and work conditions of the people of Costa Rica through the training and certification. See http://www.ina.ac.cr/institucional/mision_vision.html. 66 “Gentes y Paisajes,” La Nación, 1978, 8A. 64

102

participated in the artificial insemination process and delivered the calves. He took great pleasure in taking his breed to the regional fairs and from 1976 until 1986 Efraín won more than 50 trophies, plaques, and ribbons for his cows. At the peak of his dairy business, Efraín had approximately 120 cows. He became a major player in the buying and selling of Holsteins in Costa Rica. Because of his diligence and hard work, in 1986 he won two national titles for his breed. This was quite an honor and gave him an elevated status within the country. Additionally, as a result of the experience and knowledge he gained from growing apples, Efraín decided to grow peaches and plums. However, cultivation of these fruits was not sponsored by the government and so he had to purchase the trees himself. He bought the plumbs in Cartago and he purchased the peaches from the MAG. The peaches were imported from California since the trees were a better species than the peaches in Costa Rica.

4.7 – ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF ECOTOURISM IN THE VALLEY (1975-1994) Although the area’s community members recognized and appreciated the beauty and diversity of the valley’s natural resources, their approach to forested land was similar to the traditional perspective held by the majority of Costa Ricans: there was an almost limitless abundance of virgin land available in the country, that crops could be cultivated on any land where trees grew, and that forested land was of no value because it was unproductive. 67 This perspective affected the residents’ land-use decisions in very concrete ways: land was cleared; water was channeled and populated with fish; wood was used to make charcoal and houses or for cooking and heating; and numerous types of fruit were cultivated. These decisions affected the landscape in predictable patterns (see chapter six). These land-use decisions were, in most situations, economically beneficial for the valley and served to reaffirm the prevailing perspective about natural resource use: they were present to be consumed. The concept of conservation was not even a consideration for the members of this small community. Therefore, the radical change in environmental ideology that has occurred in the valley is nothing short of a miracle and was the result of scientific research, personal relationships, and the economic possibilities that existed with changes in livelihood practices. Scientific interest in the watershed’s biodiversity had not penetrated this remote village until 1974, when, according to Efraín, two professors from Harvard University visited to study the area’s small orchids. They were working in different locations throughout Central America and San Gerardo was one of their stops. Efraín recalls that they published a paper that had a picture of a female quetzal with the inscription, “never that easy, never that common,” in reference to the likelihood of both seeing the bird and being able to photograph it. Following that publication, in 1980, there was another group of researchers from Chile who planned to 67

Augelli, “Costa Rica’s Frontier Legacy,” 1-16.

103

study quetzals in Guatemala. However, after the unsuccessful trip to the country whose national bird is the quetzal, they visited San Gerardo and were able to film the bird. 68 Though these studies were probably important in the development of scientific interest in the valley, no event would affect the environmental consciousness of the community members as much as the arrival of Dr. Leo Finkenbinder along with faculty, staff, and students from the Southern Nazarene University (SNU) out of Bethany, Oklahoma. In the summer of 1981, Dr. Finkenbinder was talking with a missionary named Phil Cory, who was applying to be the pastor of a church in Dr. Finkenbinder’s area. 69 Dr. Finkenbinder explained how he was preparing to return to Trinidad with some of his biology student in the summer of 1982. He had previously taken students there to study tropical biology and deforestation. As it turned out, this missionary happened to have studied Spanish in Costa Rica for one year prior to going to Chile and told Dr. Finkenbinder, “you don’t want to go back to Trinidad, because there’s this place in Costa Rica,” and he held up his hand and said, “that’s this far under heaven,” motioning with his two fingers close together. 70 For the next two hours, they talked about San Gerardo. Cory was an avid fly fisherman and when he was in Costa Rica he frequented the baitand-tackle shop down by the Pacific Railroad Station in San José (Gilca Ltd.) and one day he noticed an advertisement on their bulletin board for rainbow trout fishing in San Gerardo. The notice stated that a Mr. Efraín Chacón would pick up fishermen on the IAH and take them down to his farm where they could fly fish during the day and enjoy their catch at night. There were small cabins for rent and visitors could hire a guide (Marino Chacón) to show them the best fishing spots. From that day on, Cory and his wife spent as much free time in the valley as possible. After talking with Cory, Dr. Finkenbinder was intrigued and asked Cory if he would help lead a team back to Costa Rica the following year. Cory agreed and in January 1982, the biology professor led 14 students, three faculty, and two alumni on an 18-day field trip to San Gerardo. Though the conditions were still fairly rough compared to American standards, the trip was highly educational both for the students and for the Chacón family. After returning home, several of the students wrote letters to the Chacóns describing their amazing experience in San Gerardo and praising the family for all of the wonderful work they were doing. Amazingly, one year later, Marino called Dr. Finkenbinder and told him that the family had decided to stop cutting down the trees! Part of the reason for this radical change was because of the visit and follow-up letters from the students. Marino told Dr. Finkenbinder that although the family

68

Efraín Chacón, Personal Interview, June 25, 2009. Efraín still has a couple of letters from Phil and Linda Cory written in 1979, thanking the Chacóns for their wonderful hospitality while in San Gerardo. 70 Dr. Leo Finkenbinder, Personal Interview, March 26, 2009. 69

104

appreciated the beauty of the forest, it took someone from the outside to help them see how beautiful it really was. 71 Efraín recalls the day they decided to stop cutting the trees with happiness. It was late at night and he and his boys had finished a long day of working up on the eastern hill. They were still using axes to cut the trees and so were exhausted. They decided to watch the sunset over the Pacific before walking down the hill to their house. They leaned their axes against this large white oak tree and sat down under its large canopy (Figure 4.21). As Efraín looked out over the lower part of the valley and across the hill at his land, he realized that he was able to see all the way down to his house Figure 4.21 – Photo of the White Oak in 1996 take by the author near the river. At that moment it hit him: if he continued to cut down the trees, his grandchildren would not be able to enjoy the beauty he was able to enjoy. He talked about it with his sons there on the hill and then with the rest of the family later that night. What Efraín and his family realized was that raising cattle was an exceptionally poor use of the valley’s natural resources. According to research it has been determined that one cow requires one hectare of land immediately following forest clearing, and one animal for every five to seven hectares within five to 10 years, as the nutrients in the soil decrease and the nutritional value of the grasses declines. 72 Though they didn’t have these facts available for consideration, the Chacon family physically saw the necessary ecological outcome of dairying.

71 72

Dr. Leo Finkenbinder, Personal Interview, March 26, 2009. Myers, “The Hamburger Connection,” 6.

105

From that point on, the family committed their efforts to growing their other businesses and decided to decrease their dairy farm. After that phone call, Dr. Finkenbinder knew he had to return to Costa Rica to continue his studies. In 1986, he returned on an eight-month sabbatical to study the life history of the quetzals, which had not been extensively studied at that time. While in country, Dr. Finkenbinder was able to work for six weeks with researchers from the Max Plank Institute of Munich, West Germany, whose work was later featured in television series by both the National Geographic Society and the British Broadcasting Company (BBC). Additionally, Dr. Finkenbinder was able to take one of the first known pictures of a quetzal in full flight, in addition to other shots of the quetzal’s nesting habits. 73 That same year, Efraín began selling his prized cows. Although he kept some to continue making cheese, he sold two-thirds of his herd to Venezuelan investors. According to Efraín, Costa Rica had become quite famous throughout Latin America for their high-quality dairy cows. As such, some Venezuelans went to the Costa Rican MAG to request a list of all registered dairy cows, those whose genealogy was on file and certified by the state. Since the majority of Efraín’s cows were registered and because he had just won the nation’s top award for his breed of Holstein cows, the MAG contacted the Chacón family about meeting these people. The Venezuelans visited the Zacatales Farm, inspected the cows, and paid for the majority of Efraín’s herd to be delivered to Limón on the Caribbean coast, where they were loaded onto a cargo boat and shipped to Venezuela. Selling his cattle was difficult, but Efraín was excited about the opportunities yet to come. There was always something new taking place on his farm. For example, in 1981, a frequent visitor to the valley suggested that Efraín start using a hydroelectric power plant in place of his diesel engine. This visitor was an engineer who had studied in Germany and made a type of hydroelectric generator called “Banky.” After studying different types of generators and after learning about the benefits of this source of energy, Efraín decided to purchase one and it was installed along the river. They had to build a canal to channel the water into the mouth of the machine and in the end it produced 12 kilowatts of power which was enough to run electricity to the barn and Efraín house all day long. Several other residents of the valley also purchased this type of generator, but they quickly sold them when the valley received electricity in 1989. Efraín was the only one to keep his generator which he proudly displays in front of his house (see Figure 4.22).

73

“Mayan Legend Reveals Secret,” The Perspective: Southern Nazarene University Alumni Magazine (1986) Fall/Winter: 4-7.

106

Despite the fact that the family began selling their main source of income, their standards of living did not decrease. In fact, they were able to build two more cabins in 1986 and then 15 more in 1989. The reason for the dramatic increase in the number of cabins was due to an agreement the family had with a tour agency named Tikal Tours. This tour agency told the Chacóns that they needed more rooms to accommodate the large group sizes the tour agency wanted to send them. As the only farm catering to tourists at that time, the Chacóns were making a wise investment when they built the extra cabins. Figure 4.22 – Photo of “Banky” Hydroelectric Generator, take by author in 2009

The reason for the steady influx of tourists to the valley was due to a shift in the type of clientele. Whereas before the early 1980s most visitors to the valley were interested in fly fishing, after the early 1980s most visitors were interested in bird watching. This shift coincided with the rise in tourism described in chapter two, and the changing pattern of tourism in Costa Rica described in chapter three. Additionally, binoculars and cameras were increasingly becoming more accessible which also helped fuel interest in birding. Finally, numerous books and newspaper articles drew attention to the exotic birds that could be found in San Gerardo; Efraín still has a collection of articles dating back to the 1970s, and 14 articles out of 61 were written in the 1980s. In 1987, after more than a decade of practicing nature tourism and hosting researchers in his cabins, an article was written in La Nación commending the Chacón’s model of ecological tourism. Mario Carvajal H. wrote that “Efraín Chacón in San Gerardo de Dota has demonstrated that it is possible to practice scientific tourism [and] to devise plans to ensure the permanent conservation of the forest. He and his family deserve our appreciation. Will the ICT be able to use these experiences to design policies in line with this promising field (ecological tourism)?” 74 This marked a turning point in the type of publicity the valley would receive. Before the mid1980s, most articles about San Gerardo highlighted the rainbow trout, fruit trees, or Holstein 74

Mario Carvajal H., “Turismo ecológical,” La Nación, Feburary 7, 1987, 15A.

107

cows being raised in the valley. However, after the mid-1980s, most articles highlighted the amazing abundance of flora and fauna, the majestic waterfall, and of course the wonderful hospitality of the Chacón family. When the family decided to focus the majority of their efforts on growing their tourism business, they realized that they need to make some improvements to the natural environment. According to Efraín, by the mid-1980s, the family had cleared approximately 40 hectares of their own land. When factoring in the clearing that occurred on the extra 195 hectares, by the late 1980s the Chacón farm still had close to 275 hectares of primary forest. Because the new tourists wanted to see the exotic birds in the forest and because most of the trails on their land were created by the cows, the Chacóns began improving the trails. They enhanced some sections to prevent erosion, widened others to allow safe passage, and made signs to direct the tourists, thereby minimizing damage to the ecosystem. Additionally, they began to reforest the cleared areas with native trees such as the oak, but especially the Lauraceae, or wild avocado, the quetzal’s main food source. Efraín applied the same enthusiasm and determination toward tourism as he had in dairying. Leading tourists on long hikes through the forest, in search of the elusive quetzal, became his new passion. “Every time I enjoy seeing them more...the joy of the people when they see the quetzals is contagious.” 75 Even at 68 years old, Efraín was more nimble and fit than most of his tourists, often having to wait for them to catch up to him. He took great pride in showing his land and telling his story to the tourists. In the evening, after a full day of hiking and birding, Efraín would spend his time in the restaurant talking with his guests. By 1994, the family had been involved in nature tourism for more than 20 years and for nearly the past 10 years their business had been referred to as ecological tourism. As a result, in the summer of that year, the family was visited by Anne Becher and Jane Segleau Earle, working with The New Key to Costa Rica, to evaluate their business according to a new type of tourism called “ecotourism.” The family had not heard this term before, but was willing to support the investigation of this company as they were eager to improve the quality of their family businesses, which were completely integrated by this point; the fruit and fish grown on the property were used in the restaurant as a part of the menu, as were the milk and cheese. 76

75

Efraín Chacón, quoted in “Pioneer tamed a wild corner of the land,” by David Dudenhoefer, Costa Rica Today, March 4, 1993, 8. 76 Milk and cheese were homegrown until 1994 when they sold the last of their cows. At that time they started buying their milk and cheese from their daughter, Sonya and her husband Cezar (the MAG engineer involved in the artificial insemination program) who owned a farm only 15 km northwest from San Gerardo along the IAH.

108

4.8 – CONTEMPORARY ECOTOURISM IN THE VALLEY (1994-2007) In September, 1994, the family received a letter from Becher and Earle stating that they had been included in the list of businesses that were practicing ecotourism in Costa Rica. Out of 90 businesses evaluated, only 45 met the criteria. As a result, the Albergue de Montaña Savegre (the new name of the family’s tourism business) was included in the 12th edition of The New Key as a business seeking sustainability. Their business was described as helping to contribute to the “construction of a Costa Rica that cares for its environment and ensures the well-being of Costa Ricans, while being an attractive country for tourism.” 77 One of the main reasons for their inclusion in the list was because of the agreement made between the Chacón family and Dr. Finkenbinder: in 1988, Efraín agreed to support SNU research in the valley by housing their students, by opening their land to school research projects, and by allowing the students to observe their business activities. By 1993, Dr. Finkenbinder developed a partnership with the Latin American Studies Program (LASP) 78 whereby he would design the course curriculum for their Environmental Science Concentration tract, and they would supply the financial support for the students to stay in the valley for two weeks during their 16-week spring semester. While in the valley, “students choose Figure 4.23 - Photo of the author (on right) and another LASP student presenting their research in 1996 to San Gerardo community members at the Chacón’s from a variety of restaurant topics, collect data, write up results and present their findings in Spanish for the local community of San Gerardo de Dota,” (see Figure 4.23). 79 In 1994, Dr. Finkenbinder built a small laboratory (which consisted of a concrete pad and 77

Ann Becher and Jane Segleau Earle, Personal letter to the Chacón family, dated September 6, 1994. This program is one of eleven semester programs offered by the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). 79 “Environmental Science and Sustainable Development Concentration,” 2, fact sheet found at http://www.bestsemester.com/docLib/20090227_EnvironmentalScienceConcentration.pdf (accessed on January 25, 2010). 78

109

small building with a tin roof), filled it with some research supplies and named it the Quetzal Education Research Center (QERC). This research center was mentioned by name in the BecherEarle letter to the Chacóns because of the effect this relationship was having on the community and because of the opportunities the Chacón family were offering the LASP students and San Gerardo. While the QERC-Chacón relationship had a great amount of influence on many members of the valley, there were other changes that took place approximately five kilometers to the north that also helped shape the environmental consciousness of San Gerardo. In the late 1980s, a young graduate student from the Netherlands decided to study the phytosociological composition and ecology of the oak forest in the upper Savegre River watershed. 80 Completing his master’s and Ph.D. work in the valley, Dr. Maarten Kappelle was responsible for introducing numerous graduate students to the human and natural communities in the upper part of the valley. At least a dozen peer-reviewed journal articles and a few books were written about the ecology and conservation occurring in San Gerardo. 81 His students stayed with many families while they conducted their field work, thereby helping both the residents to better appreciate the value of the natural environment and the students to more fully comprehend the intricate relationship that existed between the complex tropical montane ecosystem and the community members. Because of his interest in the Savegre watershed, Dr. Kappelle led the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based ECOMAPAS Project from 1998 to 2002, which was a joint capacity building effort in ecosystem mapping whose focus was to inventory and map the ecosystems and vegetation of five conservation areas throughout Costa Rica: Osa, Arenal, Tempisque, Amistad-Caribbean Region, and the Amistad-Pacific Region. According to Chapter 37 of Agenda 21: Specifically, capacity building encompasses the country’s human, scientific, technological, organizational, institutional and resource capabilities. A fundamental goal of capacity building is to enhance the ability to evaluate and address the crucial questions related to policy choices and modes of implementation among development options, based on an understanding of environment potentials and limits and of needs perceived by the people of the country concerned. 82

80

Maarten Kappelle, A phytosociological analysis of oak forests in the western Talamanca Range, Costa Rica M.Sc. Thesis (Hugo de Vries Laboratorium: University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1987). 81 Maarten Kappelle (ed.), Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Montane Oak Forests (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2006). This book includes many of the papers previously published by students who conducted their work in San Gerardo. 82 N. Robinson (ed.) Agenda 21: Earth’s action plan (New York: Oceana Publications, 1993), 229.

110

The project was funded, in part, by the Netherlands Ministry of Development Cooperation through the Netherlands Embassy in Costa Rica and implemented by Costa Rica’s National Biodiversity Institute (INBio), SINAC, and MINAE. The first publication from this project was the results of the ecological study conducted on the ecosystem of the Savegre River watershed. Funded by the government of Spain and supported by INBio, the National Museum, and the Central Pacific Conservation Area (ACOPAC), this study produced a detailed color map of the entire Savegre River watershed. 83 Additionally, this study provided extensive descriptions of the vegetation found within two of the country’s conservation areas: ACOPAC and La AmistadFigure 4.24 – Efraín (left) and Dr. Finkenbinder Pacific Conservation Area (ACLA-P). As with (right) in a photo that is symbolic of their other publications, this project helped to agreement, date unknown, courtesy of the bring publicity to San Gerardo. Never before QERC had such an extensive inventory been conducted in the region and this study highlighted the need for further investigations. Meanwhile, in 1997, the QERC negotiated a 25-year lease agreement with the Chacón family (see Figure 4.24), thereby enabling SNU to expand their education program in the valley. In May 2001, one year after breaking ground, SNU completed a twostory research center with modern laboratory facilities and enough space to house 30 students (see Figure 4.25). 84 On the 22nd of that month, the day of dedication, most residents from the valley were present along with the vice-minister to the president, Carlos Castro Arias. This was a significant event because it underscored the Chacón family’s hard work, dedication, and commitment to conservation in a way that was different than before; this time the government of Costa 83

Hector Acevedo, Julio Bustamante, Luis Paniagua, and Ronald Chaves, Ecosistemas de La Cuenca Hidrográfica del Río Savegre, Costa Rica (Santo Domingo de Heredia: Editorial INBio, 2002). 84 Dorothy MacKinnon, “New Research Center Blooms,” The Tico Times, June 1, 2001, W-7; Debbie Ponchner, “Universidad En El Bosque,” La Nación, June 5, 2001.

111

Rica publicly acknowledged their efforts and commended the amazing transformation that had taken place in the valley. Figure 4.25 – Photo of the Quetzal Education Research Center, taken by author in 2009

By 2002, most of the valley’s residents were participating in tourism. Most had sold their cows and forest removal had ceased. Those who were in the valley from the beginning had either sold their property and moved on, started a tourism business, or were providing services to support tourism in the area (e.g. restaurants, tour guides, horses for tours, and spa services) in addition to their other forms of income (e.g. fruit or trout). For their efforts, San Gerardo and the Chacón family were chosen to host an international program much larger than anything they had previously experienced: the 17th edition of the Ruta Quetzal. Ruta Quetzal (Quetzal Route) is a program that was started in 1979 in Spain with the aim of “forging bonds between young people aged 16 and 17 in all Spanish-speaking countries, as well as Brazil and Portugal.” These young people participate in two-month expeditions that follow “historic routes in the footsteps of figures who were crucial to the history of the IberoAmerican community.” 85 The journeys include courses, workshops, seminars, and conferences 85

“A Program of Study and Adventure,” in What’s Ruta Quetzal BBVA, from the Ruta Quetzal BBVA website found at http://www.rutaquetzalbbva.com/TLRQ/index.php?id=7&no_cache=1&L=1 (accessed on February 10, 2010); “More Info,” in What’s Ruta Quetzal BBVA, found at http://www.rutaquetzalbbva.com/TLRQ/index.php?id=16&no_cache=1&L=1 (accessed on February 10, 2010).

112

covering a multitude of subjects, including geography, archeology, biology, ethnography, and zoology. To commemorate the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’ fourth journey to the New World, Ruta Quetzal decided they would visit Panama, Costa Rica and Spain. Following the impressive and extensive study on the Savegre River watershed and given the exceptional examples of its sustainable use, Ruta Quetzal chose San Gerardo to host 350 students from 43 countries. These students stayed in the valley for nearly three days to experience sustainable development and, of course, catch a glimpse of the beautiful quetzal, a bird which most of the teenagers had never seen, and the bird after which Ruta Quetzal was named. Academic classes on birds, insects, plants, and fungus were taught by some 28 specialists from INBio, including Dr. Kappelle. 86 Then in 2003, Efraín was awarded one of the most prestigious awards in the tourism industry in Costa Rica, the title of tourism’s pioneer given by the Costa Rican Association of Professionals in Tourism (ACOPROT). ACOPROT is a non-profit organization founded in 1982 that has more than 1000 affiliates, equal to 60 percent of those who occupy leadership or managerial positions within the tourism industry in the country. 87 Hailed as “ecotourism in its maximum expression,” Efraín’s “successful sustainable tourism project” was recognized as being “a laboratory for scientists from around the world and a university for national and international students, that also serves as a refuge for the majestic quetzal, an attraction for more than nine thousand tourists that visit the project each year.” 88 By the time Efraín received this award, many within Costa Rica were familiar with his establishment and knew that the research laboratory on his property had hosted researchers from numerous prestigious organizations: the Institute of Systematic Botany in New York and the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago whose researchers studied endemic mushrooms with funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF); researchers from the German Universities of Kassel and Gottingen in coordination with the UCR and INBio studied epiphytes and their effects on the hydrogen cycle in the area; and film crews from the National Geographic and BBC had visited the valley several times to produce documentaries on the life of the jaguar and quetzal. 89

86

Isaac Lobo, “Ruta Historica,” Al Día, July 3, 2002, 1-3; “Curso Académico,” Ruta Quetzal BBVA 2002, 26, found at http://www.rutaquetzalbbva.com/TLRQ/index.php?id=63&no_cache=1&L=1&expid=7&cHash=4c923752ec (accessed on February 10, 2010). 87 “Descripción de la asociación,” ACOPROT, found at http://www.acoprot.org/index.php?q=mision (accessed on February 10, 2010). 88 Grettel Prendas, “La Reserva Es Usada Para La Investigacion Cientifica: Sevegre Impulsa Ecotourismo,” La Republica, June 6, 2003, 1, 8; “Pionero Del Turismo,” Tecnitur: Revista Oficial De La Asociacion Costarricense De Profesionales En Turismo, (2003) 94: 16. 89 Dorothy MacKinnon, “Finding the Fungus Among Us,” The Tico Times, June 13, 2003; Efraín Chacon, Personal Interview, July 3, 2009; Fabiola Pomareda, “Paraíso agroecoturístico,” Revista Dominical, March 4, 2001, 10-12.

113

Finally, in 2007, San Gerardo’s reputation as one of the premier locations to visit in Costa Rica was solidified in the book, Fifty Places to Go Birding Before You Die. As with most books in this series (i.e., “Fifty places to Sail...”, “...Fly Fish...”, and “...Golf...”), the author asked many famous birders (from conservationists and tour leaders to academics and ornithologists) to provide him with their number one location (from around the world) for watching birds. Ralph Paonessa, a world-renowned bird photographer and tour leader, chose San Gerardo as the one location to represent Costa Rica because it is one of the only places where birders are almost guaranteed to see the Resplendent Quetzal, among numerous other species of exotic birds.

4.9 – ECOTOURISM CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS IN THE VALLEY (2008-2009) As with the development of ecotourism in the global and national contexts, ecotourism in San Gerardo has entered a new phase: the valley’s business models of environmentally and socially responsible tourism development have been evaluated and, for some, certified. However, unlike most businesses in the tourism industry, a few of the tourism enterprises in the valley actually sought evaluation to confirm that their practices were in fact meeting the goals of the concept. In 2008, the Chacón family began the long process of gathering the necessary paperwork that documented all of the environmentally and socially responsible initiatives involved in their ecotourism business, in preparation for the PBAE’s Natural Spaces evaluation category. In September of that year they submitted a final report to the PBAE’s evaluation committee and on March 24, 2009, Hotel Savegre (their new name that reflected the shift in clientele to mostly Englishspeaking tourists) was rewarded with Three Stars (see Figure 4.26), the program’s highest award; making the list as one of only eight businesses in the country to earn the top award (two others on that list include the Research Station at La Selva (OET) and EARTH University). In addition to their efforts certifying Figure 4.26 – Photo of Hotel Savegre’s Blue Flag Award. The hotel received three stars in 2008. Each category has a different symbol in the center. For Natural Spaces, the symbol is a tree. Underneath the caption says, “in harmony with nature.” Photo taken by the author in 2009

114

their own business, the Chacóns also worked with La Lidia (the valley’s school), which was also awarded the PBAE’s Education Centers program’s highest award: Three Stars. Much of the work completed for the Blue Flag award was done to help Hotel Savegre prepare for their final goal: to be certified by the CST program. Throughout the rest of 2008 and for the majority of 2009, the Chacón family prepared for the inspection and again gathered the documentation required by the certification program. Hotel Savegre was evaluated by an independent inspector and by the end of the year they were awarded four leaves; a score that placed them on the list with only 16 other businesses in the country. During that same year, Dantica, another tourism business in San Gerardo, was also awarded four leaves by the CST program. 90 Started in 2005 by one of Dr. Kappelle’s former students, Dantica (which means little Tapir in an Amazonian Indian dialect) is located on approximately 10 hectares of primary forests, almost five kilometers north of Hotel Savegre. The owner, Joost Wilms, who published an article about frugivorous birds in San Gerardo, was no stranger to the concept of sustainable development. 91 In 1993, as a master’s student conducting his research in the valley, Wilms became aware of the importance of living in harmony with nature and he carried these lessons with him when he returned in 2005. Like the Chacón family, Wilms was already doing a lot to protect the environment and support the local community and wanted to be certified to show his visitors that he was indeed practicing sustainable tourism. Now that Wilms has four leaves with the CST program, he is pursuing the PBAE’s certification program for Actions to Confront Climate Change.

4.10 – CONCLUSION Eugene Odum, known as “The Father of Modern Ecology,” 92 and as a pioneer of ecosystems ecology, wrote that “[m]an’s power to change and control seems to be increasing faster than man’s realization and understanding of the results of the profound change of which he is now capable...[and]...although nature has remarkable resilience, the limits of homeostatic mechanisms can easily be exceeded by the actions of man.” 93 In a discussion with Dr. Finkenbinder and his students in 1989, Efraín reflected on his time in the Savegre River watershed and stated that he was grateful to God that he did not have a chainsaw when he started clearing the forest, “because by the time I would have realized the importance of the 90

The results of these inspections can be found at http://www.turismo-sostenible.co.cr/en/. J.J.A.M Wilms, “Frugivorous Birds, Habitat Preferences and Seed Dispersal in a Fragmented Costa Rican Montane Oak Forest Landscape,” in Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Montane Oak Forests, (ed.) Maarten Kappelle (Berlin: Springer, 2006). 92 Phil Williams, “In Memoriam: Eugene Odum,” Wetland Science and Practice (2002) 19(4): 27-28. 93 Eugene P. Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology, 2nd edition (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1959), 26. 91

115

forest, it would have disappeared. The forest is there only because I had an axe,” (see Figure 4.27). 94 Although some experts have declared that ecotourism is at best a hopeless endeavor and at worst is dead, the model practiced in San Gerardo shows that the concept is in fact alive and well. According to Martha Honey, “although ecotourism is indeed rare, often misdefined, and frequently imperfect, it is still in its adolescence, not on its deathbed.” 95 The local community members of the valley have shown that it is possible to have a profitable business whose practices are environmentally responsible and socially beneficial. Some may question whether these practices have been adopted to be genuinely favorable for environment, society, and business, or simply as a “marketing tool responding to perceived short-term demand for environmental protection in the market place.” 96 However, following the nimble and enthusiastic Efraín on a search to find the quetzal or when sitting down to talk with the members of the Chacón family, Wilms, or many of the other residents of San Gerardo, it becomes clear that the concept of ecotourism has become a way of life in the valley. As most long-term research has shown, when “given the chance and access to resources, the poor are more likely than other groups to engage in direct actions to protect and improve the environment.” 97 This has proven true for the residents of San Gerardo de Dota. Figure 4.27 – Efraín and his axe in 1974, courtesy of Efraín

94

Efraín Chacón quoted in, “The Chainsaw and the White Oak: From Astrobiology to Environmental Sustainability,” Dwight E. Neuenschwander and Leo R. Finkenbinder, Radiations (2001) Spring: 7. 95 Honey, Ecotourism, 33. 96 Tim Forsyth, “Environmental responsibility and business regulation: the case of sustainable tourism,” The Geographical Journal (1997) 163(3): 272. 97 Barkin, “Ecotourism: A Tool for Sustainable Development,” 264.

116

Chapter 5

Land-Use/Land-Cover Change in the Upper Savegre River Watershed: 1941-2006

5.1 – INTRODUCTION Humans have been altering the surface of the earth for thousands of years, for numerous purposes, and through various means. In the past two centuries, however, the rate and extent of anthropogenic change of the world’s land cover has grown dramatically, altering entire landscapes and affecting the earth’s nutrient and hydrological cycles. In many cases, these changes have had negative environmental and social consequences, such as lost ecosystems and species or increased land degradation. These consequences have increased the vulnerability of most of the world’s poor to the risks inherent in such problems as drought, crop failure, erosion, or desertification. Although LULCC is local and site specific (often occurring over time in ways that escape our attention) collectively these changes influence weather and climate on regional and even global scales. Over the past forty years, considerable amounts of tropical forests have been converted to pasture, cultivated land, or for some other non-forestry land uses. Although much is known about land conversion trends in tropical lowlands, there are many uncertainties about the rates and trends of TMCF cover changes for periods over 30 years at the local scale. These ecosystems are considered to be among the most fragile and biologically diverse of all ecosystems on Earth. 1 Only through continuous assessment of land-cover changes within these threatened ecosystems can we begin to understand the rate and extent of loss. Traditionally, LULCC studies have focused on examples of negative land-use patterns and land-cover change (particularly deforestation), in part, because positive examples were rare. During the last two decades, however, an excellent example of restoration within a TMCF has taken place in the upper Savegre River watershed, providing a unique opportunity to study how and why TMCF regrowth occurs. The purpose of this chapter is to report the findings of a retrospective analysis of the social dynamics of deforestation and subsequent restoration of a TMCF on the Pacific slope of the Cordillera de Talamanca in central Costa Rica. The most recent work on this area completes a study that began in 1996, resulting in the construction of a deforestation map that covers 65 years (1941-2006). Land-use patterns were determined through interviews with local residents conducted in 1996 and 2009. Land-cover changes during 1

Stadtmüller, Cloud Forests.

117

the same period were analyzed using seven historical aerial photograph sets and one satellite image, in combination with ground data collected in 1996, 2001, and 2009.

5.2 – OVERVIEW OF LAND-USE/LAND-COVER CHANGE Brief History At the global scale, concerns over LULCC surfaced in the research agenda on environmental change nearly 40 years ago when many experts realized that land-surface patterns influence climate. By the mid-1970s, several researchers discovered that changes in land-cover manipulate surface albedo, which affects energy exchanges between the atmosphere and the surface of the earth. Then in the 1980s, it was determined that a relationship exists between terrestrial ecosystems (which act as sources and sinks of carbon) and global climate patterns. Finally, in the early 1990s, researchers acknowledged the importance of local evapotranspiration to the water cycle (a function of land cover) which also greatly impacts the climate at regional and global scales. Perhaps more important at smaller scales are impacts of LULCC on ecosystem goods and services, such as on biodiversity, soil degradation, and the ability of the natural environment to support human needs. It should be pointed out that not all impacts of LULCC are negative, since many forms of change are associated with more efficient resource use, increased production of food and fiber, and with a higher standard of living. 2 Within the last 30 years, researchers have realized that a thorough understanding of the dynamic human-environment relationship is necessary for “[p]redicting how land-use changes affect land degradation, the feedback on livelihood strategies from land degradation, and the vulnerability of places and people in the face of land-use/cover changes.” 3 Although contemporary land-cover change is primarily the result of human activity, attempts to explain why these changes have occurred have sparked debate among researchers working on global environmental change issues. Some authors hypothesized that changes were caused by a single-factor, such as population growth, shifting cultivation, or the lack of understanding about the impacts certain land-use practices were having. Others have claimed that causes are too numerous and varied, thereby showing no distinct pattern. 4 Issues with these two major, mutually exclusive explanations are that they are either too vague at the global scale or too specific at local ones, and rarely were they able to work across socio-temporal scales.

2

Eric F. Lambin, Helmut Geist, and Ronald R. Rindfuss, “Introduction: Local Processes with Global Impacts,” in Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: Local Processes and Global Impacts (eds.) E. F. Lambin, H. J. Geist (New York: Springer, 2006), 1. 3 Ibid. 4 Geist and Lambin, “Proximate Causes,” 143-150.

118

However, more recently, two authors have designed a framework by which to analyze causes of LULCC at the local level by examining proximate causes and underlying driving forces that take place from the local through the global scales. Proximate causes are those actions that originate at the local scale (such as agricultural expansion), which are the result of the intended land use and which directly affect the land cover. Underlying driving forces (i.e., indirect, or root) are basic social processes (such as human population dynamics) that support proximate causes and are found operating at either at the local scale or indirectly at the regional, national, or global scales. 5 To better understand the complex synergistic relationships that exist, it is first necessary to distinguish between land use and land cover. Definitions of Land Use and Land Cover Land use is a phrase used to describe use of the land surface by humans. Typically, use of land is defined in economic terms, and thus is often referred to as agricultural, commercial, residential, or some other purpose. However, strictly speaking, these uses are rarely perceptible, except under close inspection. Therefore, the use of the phrase land cover is used. Land cover is defined as the visible features that characterize a certain area, such as vegetation cover types, both natural and as changed by humans. 6 So, for example, “recreation area” is a land-use term that may be applied to different land cover types and “grassland” is a land-cover term that supports such land uses as “tennis court” or “rangeland.” 7 Typically, land cover and associated changes are visible in remotely-sensed data or through evidence collected from secondary sources, such as agricultural census data. This type of data is verified through ground-truthing. In contrast, land-use information is gathered mainly through ground based investigation, such as interviews or historical documents. Although under certain circumstances land-use patterns can be inferred through analysis of remotely sensed data, in reality, because land use and land cover are so intimately linked, they must be considered together if an understanding of either is desired. With that said, the first step in describing and explaining LULCC is to detect the changes in the visible features of the area under investigation. This requires both the remotely-sensed data and a method by which to classify the land cover. Though the first requirement has only been available since the early part of the 1900s (through aerial photographs and more recently through satellite imagery), while the latter has been in existence for centuries.

5

Ibid., 143. Campbell, Introduction to Remote Sensing, 559. 7 Antonio Di Gregorio and Louisa J.M. Jansen, Land Cover Classification System: Classification concepts and user manual (Rome: Food & Agricultural Organization, 2005), 3. 6

119

Land Cover Classifications Currently, there is no one universal classification system for land use and land cover and it is unlikely that one will ever be developed. Classification of land cover and land use tends to be a process that is subjective, even when an objective framework is used. 8 Classification, then, is an abstract depiction of the condition in the field using well-defined analytical standards that are designed according to the needs of the user. Robert Sokal, a biostatistician who helped develop new statistical methods for the assessment of geographic variations, defined classification as “the ordering or arrangement of objects into groups or sets on the basis of their relationships.” 9 However, though most classification systems are subjective in nature, their basic structure follows one of two formats: hierarchical and non-hierarchical. Most systems are hierarchically structured because such a system allows users to start with broad-level classes that can be further divided into more detailed sub-classes. At each level, the number of standards used to differentiate the classes increases, with each class being mutually exclusive. Therefore, a classification framework necessarily involves a definition of class boundaries that must be precise, clear, and possibly quantitative. 10 Additionally, classification process can be conducted in one of two ways: either a priori or a posteriori. In an a priori classification system, a pre-defined set of classes is adopted which direct the data collection process. So, once in the field, each sample plot is categorized according to the classification scheme. Obviously the advantage of this scheme is that data collection will be standardized regardless of the area of study. However, the drawback is that this method does not allow flexibility for the classification of samples that may not fit easily into a specific category. Examples of this type of approach are the United States Department of Agriculture’s Soil Taxonomy and the Revised Legend of the Soil Map of the World. 11 In contrast, the a posteriori approach is based upon a system that is free from predetermined ideas about the types of classes, thereby allowing the user to define the classes after the field samples are collected; in fact, the data and actual processing methods define the classes. Under this method, criteria are defined according to their assigned relevance, which is dictated by the local conditions. This relevance is determined once all collection efforts have been completed to better define the different classes. The advantages and disadvantages of this system are just the opposite of a priori.

8

James R. Anderson, Ernest E. Hardy, John T. Roach, and Richard E, Witmer, A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data, Geological Survey Professional paper 964 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976), 4. 9 Robert R. Sokal, “Classification: Purposes, Principles, Progress, Prospects,” Science (1974) 185(4157): 1116. 10 Di Gregorio and Jansen, Land Cover Classification System, 3-5. 11 Ibid., 5.

120

Inconsistencies within Classification Systems As mentioned above, classification systems are designed according to the needs of the user. Therefore, systems are chosen or developed to serve a specific purpose. Most of the existing classification systems usually fall into one of three broad categories: (1) a vegetation classification (the most popular), with classes such as trees, shrubs, herbaceous, or sparse vegetation; (2) a broad land cover classification; or (3) a classification system that describes a specific land-cover feature, such as an agricultural or urban area. Whatever the purpose, difficulty arises when attempting to choose which features will be used to characterize a particular land-cover class. For example, users have a mixture of different features to choose from when classifying vegetation, such as climate, soil type, geology, and landform. Thus, in a “tropical rain forest”, the term “tropical” is climate related and is used to describe the specific floristic composition present in the area under investigation. However, features such as climate, soil type, or geology only influence the land cover and are not inherent features of it. Furthermore, standards used to differentiate the classes, such as “height” or “cover” will differ significantly from classes that are defined by “leaf phenology” and “leaf type.” 12 Often, because of inconsistencies, classification systems are not suitable for mapping and subsequent monitoring projects. The reason for this is due to the ambiguity of class distinctions that would allow for a clear delineation of a boundary between two classes; thereby enabling accurate map construction. In monitoring projects, land cover changes are described as either conversions or modifications and are defined as follows: Land-cover conversions constitute the replacement of one cover type by another and are measured by a shift from one land-cover category to another, as is the case of agricultural expansion, deforestation, or change in urban extent. Land-cover modifications, in contrast, are more subtle changes that affect the character of the land cover without changing its overall classification. 13 An example of a land-cover conversion would be a change from forest to grassland, where-as a land-cover modification would be tree thinning of a forest or a change in its composition. 14

12

Ibid., 8-9. Lambin, Geist, and Rindfuss, “Introduction,” 4. 14 William B. Meyer and B. L. Turner II, “Global Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: An Overview,” in Changes in Land Use and Land Cover: A Global Perspective, (eds.) William B. Meyer and B. L. Turner II (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 3-10. 13

121

5.3 – BRIEF HISTORY OF LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION IN COSTA RICA Since the middle of the twentieth century, Costa Rica has experienced intense landcover conversion and modification. Tropical premontane rain forests and lower montane moist forests have been impacted significantly due to forest conversion for agricultural land. Throughout much of the 1980s, areas previously covered with banana plantations have been abandoned for economic reasons, giving way to natural successional processes resulting in large areas of secondary forest growth. As a result of urban expansion in much of the Central Valley, coffee plantations have been lost. Whether for agricultural land, commercial production, urban expansion, or land abandonment, the need to understand processes related to these extreme land-cover changes and their impacts on ecosystem functions has led some environmental science experts in Costa Rica to recognize the need to map the current land cover types present in the country. 15 Since the late 1960s, the most useful method of classifying land cover in Costa Rica has been the Holdridge Life Zone Classification System, which is a hierarchical, a priori land-cover classification system designed for the analysis of tropical vegetation (but also used in other areas throughout the world). Developed in the late 1940s by Leslie R. Holdridge, the system is based upon the relationship between vegetation and climate and was “derived experimentally from comparative observations of natural vegetation as related to climatic factors over a very wide range of geographic environments. Its bases have not been drawn arbitrarily but accord with observable phenomena in nature.” 16 The model divides the earth’s climatic range, defined by specific temperature, humidity, and evapotranspiration regimes, into ecologically-equivalent units, called life zones or plant formations, which number about 100 over the earth’s surface. 17 In 1969 the system formed the basis for Joseph A. Tosi’s ecological map of Costa Rica, which divides the country into 12 distinct life zones. Although still used within the tropics, this system is not without its limitations. For example, some authors have argued that maps made using climatically –based ecological data are extremely coarse and speculative, since in most developing countries, data are collected from poorly maintained and sparsely distributed weather stations. Additionally and in contrast to Holdridge’s explanation, because the system assumes that vegetation classes change in relation to certain climatic and altitudinal gradients, it is predictive rather than descriptive and 15

Maarten Kappelle, Marco Castro, Heiner Acevedo, Pedro Cordero, Luis González, Edgar Méndez, and Huberth Monge, “A Rapid Method in Ecosystem Mapping and Monitoring as a Tool for Managing Costa Rican Ecosystem Health,” in Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, (eds.) David J. Rapport, William L. Lasley, Dennis E. Rolston, N. Ole Nielsen, Calvin O. Qualset, and Ardeshir B. Damania (Boca Raton: CRC Press, LLC, 2003), 449. 16 Joseph A. Tosi, Jr., “Climatic Control of Terrestrial Ecosystems: A Report on the Holdridge Model,” Economic Geography (1964), 40(2): 175. 17 L. R. Holdridge, W. C. Grenke, W. H. Hatheway, T. Liang, and J. A. Tosi, Jr., Forest Environments in Tropical Life Zones: A Pilot Study (New York: Pergamon Press Inc., 1971), 11.

122

even then is only predictive for natural community types. Thus this system does not provide the user with information about the presence or absence of natural communities, its physical appearance as observed in situ, or its replacement by anthropic systems. 18 To address these limitations, other authors have proposed their own version of vegetation classification systems. 19 However, these too had their deficiencies, such as coarseness of scale, absence of any human influence, or a lack of a definition for specific classes, thereby limiting their usefulness. Therefore, in 1998, one author proposed that a new system be developed to meet Costa Rica’s growing political and scientific needs for accurate land cover maps. Presented to SINAC and INBio, this author listed several reasons for an improved classification system: (1) to show Costa Rica’s actual (as opposed to potential) vegetation distribution; (2) to classify natural as well as seminatural and cultural vegetation types; (3) to improve the detail of classification (i.e., show vegetation cover at a scale of 1:50,000, which corresponds to the country’s widely used topographic map sheets); (4) to aid in defining sites in need of intensive biodiversity inventories; (5) to serve as a reference for future land-use/land-cover change monitoring projects; (6) to include both digital and print formats; and most importantly (7) to serve as a practical decision-making tool for local land managers responsible for ecosystem health. 20 To meet these needs, INBio and SINAC established the Netherlands-funded ECOMAPAS Project, discussed in Chapter 4, and developed a new method to classify ecological vegetation that was designed to easily and rapidly map these ecosystems throughout the country.

5.4 – A NEW ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM This system, which has been used by the ECOMAPAS project to map two conservation areas within Costa Rica (the Savegre River Basin located in ACLA-P and the Osa Conservation Area, ACOSA), is based upon principles found in several popular and useful classification systems, including the U. S. Geological Service and U. S. National Park Service. This system is based on photo characteristics visible in semi-detailed aerial photographs (that are identified during interpretation): such as texture (the roughness or smoothness of the land surface), tone or color (the reflection that characterizes an object – whether it is light or dark in color), size (buildings, trees, etc.), form (roads, rivers, etc.), structure (forest, shrubland, or herbland), and shade of polygons (shadow cast by the angle of the sun falling on objects or clouds). 21 18

Daan Vreugdenhil, Jan Meerman, Alain Meyrat, Luis Diego Gómez, and Douglas J. Graham, Map of the Ecosystems of Central America: Final Report (Washington: World Bank, 2002), 5-6. 19 See Kappelle, Castro, Acevedo, Cordero, González, Méndez, and Monge, “A Rapid Method in Ecosystem Mapping,” 450, for a description of various classification systems. 20 Marco V. Castro’s recommendations as reported in Kappelle, Castro, Acevedo, Cordero, González, Méndez, and Monge, “A Rapid Method in Ecosystem Mapping,” 451. 21 Acevedo, Bustamante, Paniagua, and Chaves, Ecosistemas, 25.

123

Based on these characteristics, a hierarchical, a priori, vegetation classification system was formulated using the proportion of tree, herb, or shrub cover in a given polygon as a vegetation structure parameter (see Figure 5.1 and Table 5.1). Based on this system the following nine land cover types could be distinguished: (1) dense forest; (2) sparse forest; (3) woody herbland; (4) dense shrubland; (5) sparse shrubland; (6) dense woody shrubland; (7) dense herbland; (8) sparse herbland; and (9) shrubby herbland. In addition to these nine classes, five additional land-cover classes were used in order to map entire areas that include non-vegetated or unidentifiable land cover types. These areas include: (1) bare soil and rock outcroppings; (2) water bodies; (3) infrastructures; (4) areas covered by shade: and (5) areas covered by cloud. An example of a mapped area using this classification scheme is illustrated in Figure 5.2. From these broad categories, ground-truthing was conducted to enable further, more specific land-cover classifications. Figure 5.1 – Structural physiognomic vegetation classification for aerial photo-interpretation 22

22

Ibid., 27.

124

Table 5.1 – Physiognomic key used for the classification of an area’s vegetation structure 23

1

Dense Forest

> 66.7

< 33.3

Sum of Trees and Shrubs (% Cover) > 66.7

2

Sparse Forest

33.3 - 66.7

< 33.3

> 66.7

3

Woody Herbland

33.3 - 66.7

< 33.3

33.3 - 66.7

4

Dense Shrubland

< 33.3

> 66.7

> 66.7

5

Sparse Shrubland

< 33.3

33.3 - 66.7

> 66.7

6

Dense Woody Shrubland

33.3 - 66.7

33.3 - 66.7

> 66.7

7

Dense Herbland

< 33.3

< 33.3

< 33.3

8

Sparse Herbland

< 33.3

< 33.3

33.3 - 66.7

9

Shrubby Herbland

< 33.3

33.3 - 66.7

33.3 - 66.7

Class Number

Physiognomic Class

Trees (% Cover)

Shrubs (% Cover)

Figure 5.2 – Example of an area mapped on the basis of aerial photo-interpretation 24

Within the Savegre River Basin project, the investigators defined three overarching functional categories to describe the amount of human intervention involved in the land cover under examination as natural, seminatural, and cultural. Within the natural ecosystem classification, only those areas that had little to no human intervention were included. This included areas classified as primary vegetation, forests that had very little alteration, and

23

Ibid. Kappelle, Castro, Acevedo, Cordero, González, Méndez, and Monge, “A Rapid Method in Ecosystem Mapping,” 451-452. 24

125

secondary forests in the advanced stages of successional growth. Under the seminatural ecosystem classification, those ecosystems that displayed sufficient evidence of human intervention, but which showed clear signs of recovery or ecological succession of the original vegetation, were included. This included areas that were considered as emerging secondary forests, secondary forests in the intermediate stages of successional growth, or mature forests used for timber extraction. The final category, cultural ecosystems, included areas identified as being used for development or subsistence activities such as pastures, commercial agricultural plantations and forests, or cultivated areas in general – regardless of the size of the cultivated land. 25 With respect to the natural and semi-natural categories, land cover was classified according to the following hierarchical structure: the first level was based on the latitudinal zone (in this case all land-cover types were located in the tropical zone); the second level described the origin of the dominate vegetation (natural, semi-natural); the third level was based on the average annual temperature (determined from altitude level and thermal provinces, such as lower-montane, upper-montane, or subalpine); the fourth level was defined by the dominate physiognomy (forest, herbland, or shrubland); the fifth level described the leaf phenology (evergreen vs. semi-deciduous vs. deciduous); the sixth level was defined by the dominate leaf stratum (broadleaved or needlelike leaves); the seventh level was based on the hydrological regime (good or bad drainage capability and permeability); the eighth level described the density of vegetation of the area (dense, sparse, woody, or shrubby). Though the order is lost in the translation, an example of a natural land cover type would be a tropical upper-montane dense broadleaf evergreen forest, well drained and dominated by Quercus. A portion of the final 2003 product of the Savegre River Basin is shown in Figure 5.3. For cultural ecosystems, land cover was classified according to the following hierarchical structure: the first level was defined by the dominate tropical vegetation type (in this case it was cultural); the second level described the dominate physiognomy present in the area (such as (1) size and architecture: forests, herbland, shrubland and (2) cultivated lands: tree plantations of both shrubby and herbaceous types); the third level was based upon the actual use of the land (timber trees vs. fruit trees vs. scrub vs. herb); and the final level described the floristic composition (the dominate species). Again, although the order is lost in the translation, an example of this ecosystem land-cover type would be a tropical fruit tree plantation of raspberries.

25

Acevedo, Bustamante, Paniagua, Chaves, Ecosistemas de La Cuenca Hidrográfica, 33.

126

Figure 5.3 – Ecosystem classification of the study area 26

26

Adapted from Heiner Acevedo, Julio Bustamante, Luis Paniagua, and Ronald Cháves, Mapa de ecosistemas de la cuenca hidrográfica del río Savegre, Costa Rica (San José: Editorial INBio, 2003).

127

This discussion about the new classification method and its product is necessary because it represents the first attempt at large-scale mapping of the ecosystems of Costa Rica. More specifically, the map produced in 2003 is the first large-scale map of the Savegre River Basin. As such, this product will help inform future monitoring projects of the study area. However, there were some noticeable errors with this map with respect to the upper Savegre River watershed and it appears that a more thorough ground-truthing effort was needed. For example, the map shows a few areas covered by coffee plantations. However, coffee does not grow at such a high altitudes. Additionally, fruit trees (such as apples or peaches) are not even listed as one of the map’s cultural classifications, which is obviously a mistake within the study area. Finally, there are two areas misclassified: the first as alpine dense forest located between 2,500 and 2,800 meters, which should have been classified as upper montane dense forest and the other as subalpine dense forest located at between 3,000 and 3,142 meters that should have been classified as upper montane cloud forest.

5.5 – METHODS As discussed in Chapter 4, the study area comprises the 5,400 ha upper Savegre River watershed, located on the Pacific slope of Costa Rica’s Cordillera de Talamanca. The upper Savegre River watershed is made up of three microwatersheds (see Figure 5.4) and comprises 9.17 percent of the total Savegre River Basin (which is 58,917.87 ha). 27 According to John Wesley Powell, the famous scientist and geographer who led the 1869 expedition through the Grand Canyon, a watershed is “that area of land, a bounded hydrologic system, within which all living things are inextricably linked by their common water course and where, as humans settled, simple logic demanded that they become part of a community." 28 Each watershed has its own network of streams and rivers that drain water from and through a particular basin (a basin is a group of watersheds within the same large area). Additionally, watersheds are separated from each other by ridges of high land, each being drained by different river systems. History of the Study The current research completes a 14-year LULCC study started in 1996. In that year, E. van Omme, a graduate student from the University of Amsterdam working with Dr. Kappelle, began the study by classifying the current land cover, which was mapped using black and white aerial photographs (at a scale of 1:10,000) taken in 1992. Omme conducted ground-truthing using 77 sample points, which were chosen using stratified random sampling, between April and July of 1996. 27

Acevedo, Bustamante, Paniagua, Chaves, Ecosistemas de La Cuenca Hidrográfica, 18. John Wesley Powell quoted in Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities by Mark A. Benedict and Edward T. McMahon (Washington: Island Press, 2006), 206.

28

128

Figure 5.4 – Savegre River Basin 29

29

GIS data for this map were obtained from Oscar Chacón at INBio, in Costa Rica, on January 8, 2010.

129

Stratified random sampling is preferred to random sampling since random samples may not cover all of the areas of habitat equally. Since individual habitats are rarely uniform throughout a particular study area, stratified random sampling is used to avoid missing important habitat areas. Plant species were identified and collected and vegetation was classified using the TWINSPAN software package. Additionally, Omme analyzed black and white aerial photographs from 1941, 1956, 1969, and 1984, to determine forest change with the goal of producing a deforestation map. 30 However, she was unable to complete the study and between 1998 and 2000, research was continued by another graduate student from the Netherlands who analyzed LULCC in seven sets of aerial photographs from the same years as Omme, with the addition of two years; 1973 and 1997. The sources of the photographs are as follows: the first six black and white photo sets were obtained from the National Geographical Institute (IGN) and the seventh and final image was a color photo set obtained from the TERRA and MINAE-RECOPE programs. Scales of the aerial images ranged from 1:8,000 (1941) to 1:80,000 (1984), thus not allowing for a detailed statistical data analysis of the fragmentation of patch size and shape. The first aerial photos of the area (1941) were taken during the construction of the southern portion of the IAH (1940-1943). 31 LULCC interpretation of the aerial photographs was accomplished using mirror stereoscopes and stereo pairs (45 to 65 percent overlap) on the basis of photo characteristics (color, texture, tone, pattern, distance to roads, etc.) and photo elements (within-polygon cover proportions of canopy trees, shrubs, herbs and barren soil) modeled after methods presented by several different researchers. 32 Polygons were classified as dense TMCF when withinpolygon canopy closure (proportion of trees) was equal to or higher than 66.7 percent, as described above. For all photo sets, cloud cover (including cloud shadow) did not limit interpretation of the landscape characteristics. Manually drawn lines and polygons were digitized in a vectorized geographic information system (GIS), using the Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC) developed Integrated Land and Water Information System (ILWIS) software program for the 1941, 1956, 1969, 1973, 1984, and 1992 photo sets. Additionally, the Environmental Systems

30

E. van Omme, Maarten Kappelle, and Marta E. Juárez, “Land cover/use changes and deforestation trends over 55 years (1941-1996) in a Costa Rican montane cloud forest watershed area,” in Abstr Vol Conf Geo-Information for Sustainable Land Management, ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands (1997), 5.14. 31 Maarten Kappelle, Marta E. Juárez, and Antoine M. Cleef, “Effects of 60 years of land use and cover change in a tropical montane cloud forest: Deforestation arrested at last,” unpublished manuscript, 2002. 32 H.A.M.J. Van Gils, and W. van Wijngaarden, “Vegetation structure in reconnaissance and semi-detailed vegetation surveys,” ITC Journal (1984) 3:213-218; I. S. Zonneveld, Land Ecology (Amsterdam: SPB Academic Publishing, 1995); Kappelle, Castro, Acevedo, Cordero, González, Méndez, and Monge, “A Rapid Method.”

130

Research Institute (ESRI) ArcView 3 program was used for the 1997 aerial photos. Preliminary maps were validated using 25 to 50 control points per photo. The 1997 aerial photos, on which the 2003 ECOMAPAS project land-cover map was based, were orthorectified with the aim to correct for visual distortion (a common phenomenon in remotely-sensed images of steeply sloping areas) and augment accuracy. 33 A digital elevation model (DEM) of the study area was generated using digital topographic information in order to get a good insight in the tri-dimensional structure of the hilly landscape (see Figure 5.5). Unfortunately, this graduate student was unable to complete the study and in 2001, Dr. Marcela Quiñones (then a Ph.D. candidate, also from the Netherlands) collected all of the information from the previous studies and added data collected by investigators working on the ECOMAPAS project in the Savegre River Basin. While working on the ECOMAPAS project, GPSbased geo-referencing and ground-truthing for the 1997 images were conducted in 2001 by Heiner Acevedo, Luis Paniagua and Huberth Monge and José González (all at INBio), and Julio Bustamente and Ronald Cháves (both at MINAE), using 19 sample points. Twenty-five landcover units were distinguished within the study area (out of a total of 44 used in the 2003 map of the basin) and were divided into the three overarching categories mentioned above (natural seminatural, and cultural ecosystems). Field verification campaigns, both in 1997 and 2001, were conducted to include corrections of photo interpretations with respect to the size and shape of polygons as well as the corresponding land-use/land-cover classifications. The analysis of plant community composition completed in 2001 was conducted on the basis of stratified random sampling and oral interviews with local residents. For each year and time interval, the extent of pristine TMCF and converted lands were mapped and calculated. Maps for all photo years were integrated into a GIS-based deforestation map, using a minimum mapping unit of three ha and showing areas that were cleared during intervals between subsequent photo years. Basic geographic features (contour lines, drainage systems, road network, infrastructure, etc.) were extracted from the 1:50,000 Vueltas topographic sheet. 34 Finally, forest loss was quantified and deforestation rates were estimated. Most Recent Work on the Study However, Dr. Quiñones was also unable to finish the research. One of the goals of the previous research on the upper Savegre River watershed was to determine the LULCC and deforestation trends since 1941 with results that were to be published in an academic journal. 33 34

Acevedo, Bustamante, Paniagua, Chaves, Ecosistemas de La Cuenca Hidrográfica. Vueltas, Topographic Sheet 3444 IV, Scale 1:50,000, San José: IGN de Costa Rica, 1962.

131

Figure 5.5 – Digital elevation model of the upper Savegre River watershed 35

Therefore, in 2009 the author of this thesis traveled to the valley to conduct GPS-based georeferencing and ground-truthing (using 89 reference points ) for a 2006 QuickBird multispectral, 35

GIS data for this map was obtained by the author from Oscar Chacón at INBio, in Costa Rica, on January 8, 2010.

132

natural color, georeferenced satellite image with zero percent cloud cover and with a resolution of 1:2,291 (or 60 cm), purchased from DigitalGlobe. LULCC was analyzed using the ESRI developed ArcGIS 9 (ArcMap Version 9.3.1) program, an updated version of ArcView 3. For the final time period of the study, the extent of pristine TMCF and converted lands were mapped, calculated, and added to the previous data to complete the deforestation map. Information regarding secondary forest growth was collected from the 1997 aerial photos and from the 2006 satellite image.

5.6 – RESULTS The DEM in Figure 5.5 shows the tri-dimensional structure of the hilly landscape dominated by steep slopes between 2,200 and 3,000 meters, in a fluvially-dissected terrain with a V-shaped valley bottom. This is the terrain that was originally (pre-colonization) totally covered with TMCF. 36 At higher altitudes (i.e., greater than 3,000 meters), in the páramo ecosystem, U-shaped landforms are observed, showing the expression of a long history of climate changes during the Pleistocene (glacial-interglacial cycles), when ice and mountain glaciers covered the highest peaks of the La Muerte massif. 37 Data analysis showed that at time zero, in 1941 during the construction of the IAH, a total of 85.6 percent (4,622 ha) of the 5,400 ha upper Savegre River watershed was undisturbed, dense, closed TMCF. The remaining 14.4 percent was distributed as follows: 5.7 percent was natural alpine and subalpine, dense forest dominated by Comarostaphylis; 4.2 percent was covered with alpine and subalpine dense herbland dominated by Chusquea; 2.5 percent was alpine and subalpine dense shrubland covered mainly with Asteraceae and Ericaceae; 1.6 percent was shrubby herbland; 0.2 percent was dominated by alpine and subalpine dense, woody shrubland; and 0.2 percent was bare ground due to basalt mining for the construction of the IAH. If 4,622 ha of TMCF in 1941 are considered to be 100 percent of the land cover in the upper Savegre River watershed (because this is the land cover with which we are most concerned), then 98.67 percent of TMCF remained in 1956, just two years after the first pioneers arrived. Despite being included in the Los Santos Forest Reserve in 1975, the study area continued to experience natural TMCF cover loss and by 1984 the percentage was 79.42 (see Table 5.2). It actually took until after 1992 before deforestation stabilized, resulting in a TMCF cover of 71.06 percent by 1997. Between 1997 and 2006, the final analysis period, deforestation completely ceased with no new areas being cleared. While the classification of regrowth of forest cover is beyond the scope of this study, it is clear that the extent of regrowth 36

Kappelle, Geuze, Leal, and Cleff, “Successional age and forest structure,” 681-698. Maarten Kappelle and Sally P. Horn (eds.), Páramos de Costa Rica (Santo Domingo de Heredia: Editorial INBio, 2005).

37

133

is significant since the total amount of cleared land remaining in the TMCF area by 2006 was only 382.96 ha (a decrease of over 900 ha from the previous period). Table 5.2 - Statistics on TMCF loss and deforestation rates and percentages for 1941-2006 Statistics for Tropical Montane Cloud Forest Cover Period of Forest Loss

Total area deforested per time period (ha)

Cumulative deforested area (ha)

Remaining forest area (ha): Initial TMCF: 4622 ha

Cumulative forest loss percentage

Rate of forest loss (ha/year)

Percentage deforested/ year

Percent TMCF Remaining

1941-1956

61.46

61.46

4560.56

1.33

4.10

0.09

98.67

1956-1969

615.76

677.22

3944.80

14.65

52.09

1.04

83.92

1969-1973

39.98

717.19

3904.83

15.52

9.99

0.25

83.07

1973-1984

171.66

888.86

3733.16

19.23

15.61

0.40

79.42

1984-1992

380.58

1269.44

3352.58

27.47

47.57

1.27

71.32

1992-1997

12.22

1281.66

3340.36

27.73

2.44

0.07

71.06

1997-2006

0.00

382.96

> 3333.65

27.87

0.00

0.00

> 70.92

*The total amount of deforested area was significantly less in 2006 than in the previous periods, showing that reforestation has taken place. ** Classification of reforested areas was not conducted for this study. However, TMCF area has increased and is therefore greater than 3333.65 ha.

However, regrowth has taken place since the early 1980s, and according to the analysis conducted by Van Omme in 1996, a total of 59.6 percent of the TMCF area cleared since 1941 was observed to be regenerating (see Table 5.3). This seems to be consistent with what this author found in 2006 as 59.6 percent in 1996 would have been 512.85 ha of cleared land remaining (using the cumulative deforested area from the 1984-1992 period, since Van Omme only had up through the 1992 images). Statistics on forest clearing, deforestation rates and percentages for this entire period are presented in Tables 5.3. Table 5.3 – Vegetation cover classified by Van Omme in 1996 38 Vegetation Cover Types Secondary forest Secondary shrub vegetation Pasture land Orchard Timber plantation Bare ground Total TMCF Area

38

Area Cover (%) 49.3 10.3 29.8 8.6 0.5 1.5 100

Omme, Kappelle, and Juárez, “Land Use / Land Cover Change,” 3.

134

Although this study is primarily concerned with TMCF cover within the study, the entire upper Savegre River watershed is also included in the analysis. This is because the watershed is an important component in the health of the TMCF ecosystem, as well as in the health of the numerous members of the San Gerardo community that rely on its constant fresh water. Table 5.4 is similar to Table 5.2, except it includes deforestation trends for the entire 5400 ha study area. Table 5.4 - Statistics on forest loss and deforestation rates and percentages for 1941-2006 Statistics for Entire Study Area

Period of Forest Loss

Total area deforested per time period (ha)

Cumulative deforested area (ha)

Remaining forest area (ha): Initial Area: 5400 ha

Cumulative forest loss percentage

Rate of forest loss (ha/year)

Percentage deforested/ year

Percent Area Remaining

1941-1956

61.46

61.46

5338.54

1.14

4.10

0.08

98.86

1956-1969

686.63

748.09

4651.91

13.85

57.55

0.99

86.15

1969-1973

68.96

817.06

4582.94

15.13

17.24

0.37

84.87

1973-1984

171.66

988.72

4411.28

18.31

15.61

0.34

81.69

1984-1992

446.63

1435.34

3964.66

26.58

55.83

1.27

73.42

1992-1997

64.34

1499.69

3900.31

27.77

12.87

0.32

72.23

1997-2006

0.00

406.60

> 3333.65

27.87

0.00

0.00

> 72.10

Additionally, the series of eight maps in Figure 5.6 depict the spatial trends of deforestation over the 65 year period. These maps follows the 2003 land classification map shown in Figure 5.3 in with respect to the location of the limits of each Life Zone (as classified by Holdridge). The lower montane, upper montane, subalpine, and alpine areas are shown to give spatial reference to the deforestation maps. As described in the legends, black areas indicate forest patches that were cleared during that time period and blue areas are those that were previously deforested. The reader will note that the final map shows no new deforested areas and actually contains less previously deforested areas than in the preceding periods. During this final period, the total amount of cleared TMCF area actually decreased by 70.12 percent (i.e., the amount of forested land increased during this period). Finally, Figure 5.7 shows the causes of forest loss for the entire study period.

135

Figure 5.6 – Deforestation trends in the upper Savegre River Watershed, 1941-2006

136

Figure 5.6 (Continued) – Deforestation trends in the upper Savegre River Watershed, 1941-2006

137

Figure 5.7 – Causes of forest loss in the upper Savegre River watershed, 1941-1997

138

Evaluation of forest conversion demonstrates that initially between 1941 and 1956, a deforestation rate of 4.10 ha yr–1 was recorded. However, taking into account the arrival of the first colonists in 1954, the deforestation rate between 1954 and 1956 appears to be 20.49 ha yr –1 for two years. After 1956, TMCF loss increased exponentially, most likely during the later stages of the 1956 to 1969 time period (a rate of 52.09 ha yr –1) and subsequently remained stable until 1984 (a rate of 14.11 ha yr –1 for the period 1969-1984). During the next time period, between 1984 and 1992, the deforestation rate dramatically increased (47.57 ha yr –1). In the following time period (1992-1997) analysis showed a dramatic decrease in forest loss (deforestation rate of 2.44 ha yr –1) with a complete arrest in forest loss by 2006 (a rate of 0.00 ha yr –1). On the basis of the most recent (2003) land-use/cover map of the upper Savegre River watershed (see Figure 5.3), patches of non-pristine TMCF (secondary and selectively-logged sparse TMCF) and other vegetated land cover types were assessed, comparing the 1997 landscape configuration with those from earlier years, beginning in 1941 (see Table 5.5). It turns out that both the number of patches, as well as the number of land cover types they belonged to, increased with time generating a great environmental heterogeneity and complex landscape mosaic – particularly along the Savegre River itself – with non-pristine TMCF patches linearly (E-W) embedded in a TMCF matrix. Table 5.5 – Simple statistics representing landscape configuration Landscape Configuration Statistics for the TMCF Area Mean Study Number Maximum Largest Patch Patch Size Period of Patches Patch Size (ha) Index (LPI) (ha) 1941-1956 5 12.29 40.39 0.87 1956-1969 76 8.10 51.79 1.12 1969-1973 8 5.00 15.65 0.34 1973-1984 24 7.15 20.00 0.43 1984-1992 34 11.19 50.32 1.09 1992-1997 5 2.44 4.63 0.10 1997-2006 34 11.26 49.93 1.06

5.7 – CONCLUSION Efforts to monitor deforestation trends in TMCF environments over long periods of time and at detailed scales are still small in number due to the limited availability of cartographically large-scale, remotely-sensed imagery and the lack of field verification campaigns to validate image interpretations. This study represents one of the few assessments of its kind. Through 139

the efforts of several researchers, including the current author, it was determined that the deforestation rate within the study area following 1992 decreased significantly with a complete arrest in forest loss following 1997. This data suggests that the current landscape configuration with its complex vegetation mosaics shows a reduction in connectivity between the east and west slopes of the Savegre River valley. As said above, this may complicate between-slope gene flow, seed dispersal, and migration of mammals, thus potentially affecting the population viability of a variety of species, such as the puma (Puma concolor) that resides in the TMCF. In North America, densities for this large carnivorous mammal ranged from 0.5 to 4.9 individuals/100 km2. 39 Harley G. Shaw, a research biologist with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, concludes that adult resident carrying capacity in temperate forests is of the order of 26-52 km2 per individual. 40 Although no data are yet available on puma carrying capacities in tropical forests, it may be postulated that the area under study may sustain just one or two puma individuals (20 to 40 km2 per individual). Fortunately, the study area is bordered by the 585 km2 Tapantí-Macizo de la Muerte National Park, which may harbor another 11 to 22 individuals, as estimated on the basis of Shaw’s numbers. However, the Savegre River Basin is abruptly separated from this park by the IAH, which imposes its death toll on local mammal populations. As numerous authors have reported, Costa Rica has had one of the highest rates of deforestation both in Central America and around the world. 41 The rate averaged 3.7 percent from the early 1970s until the early 1990s, before dropping to less than 1.5 percent at the end of the twentieth century. The data for the study are suggests that deforestation rates were not equal for all parts of the country, as rates of 0.25 percent, 0.40 percent, and 1.28 percent were recorded for the periods from 1969 to 1973, 1973 to 1984, and 1984 to 1992 respectively. The reasons for this lower deforestation rate within the study area are due to government programs, economic opportunities available to the local residents, and fundamental changes in livelihood practices (factors that will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6). As will be shown, this study demonstrates that deterioration of TMCF health or ecological integrity may be positively counteracted by new socioeconomic alternatives implemented by a rural, visionary population that is well aware of the strong dynamic that exists between the health of the ecosystem and the long-term well-being of the community.

39

A. E. Anderson, “A Critical Reviwe of Literature on Puma (Felis concolor),” Colorado Division of Wildlife, Wildlife Research Section, Special Report Number 54: 1-91. 40 Harley G. Shaw, Soul Among Lions: The Cougar as Peaceful Adversary (Boulder: Johnson Books, 1989). 41 S. Harrison, “Population growth, land use and deforestation in Costa Rica, 1950-1984,” Interciencia (1991) 16(2): 83-93; Sánchez-Azofeifa, Arturo, Daily, Pfaff, and Busch. “Integrity and isolation,” 123-135.

140

Chapter 6

Discussion

6.1 – INTRODUCTION Until recently, the common understanding of the causes of land-use and land-cover change, especially tropical deforestation, has been dominated by simplifications (e.g., population growth or poverty) that have informed and shaped many environmentdevelopment policies. However, within the past decade numerous authors have published results of thorough case studies that support the view that factors such as population are neither the sole cause nor the major underlying driving force behind land-cover change worldwide . “Rather, peoples’ responses to economic opportunities, as mediated by institutional factors, drive land-cover changes. Opportunities and constraints for new land uses are created by local as well as national markets and policies.” 1 Further complicating these issues is the fact that global actors, circumstances, and institutions are playing a greater role in determining the outcome of local land-use decision and land-cover changes. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the results of the retrospective analysis of the social dynamics of LULCC within the upper Savegre River watershed. To accomplish this goal, the chapter thoroughly explains the framework used to analyze those factors involved in LULCC and examines those direct and indirect factors that have influenced land-use decisions within the study area over the past 65 years. The discussion of LULCC is divided into those related to deforestation and those associated with forest recovery, as each trend has its own set of casual factors.

6.2 – FRAMEWORK USED TO DESCRIBE LULCC IN THE STUDY AREA When attempting to describe the causes of LULCC there are two fundamental steps that must be taken: the first is to detect the change and the second is to explain that change using some set of causal factors. While the first task has become relatively easy due to advances in technology and the availability of products from aerial- and satellite-based remote sensing platforms, explaining the observed change remains a difficult task. This is because “[i]dentifying 1

Eric F. Lambin, B.L. Turner, Helmut J. Geist, Samuel B. Agbola, Arild Angelsen, John W. Bruce, Oliver T. Coomes, Rodolfo Dirzo, Günther Fischer, Carl Folke, P.S. George, Katherine Homewood, Jacques Imbernon, Rik Leemans, Xiubin Lin, Emilio F. Moran, Michael Mortimore, P.S. Ramakrishnan, John F. Richards, Helle Skånes, Will Steffen, Glenn D. Stone, Uno Svedin, Tom A. Veldkamp, Coleen Vogel, Jianchu Xu, “The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths,” Global Environmental Change (2001) 11: 261.

141

the causative factors requires an understanding of how people make land-use decisions and how various factors (including the biophysical setting and changes therein) interact in specific contexts at the local, regional, or global scales to influence land-use decision-making.” 2 To accurately address the causes of land dynamics it is first necessary to define the difference between land use and land cover (see Section 5.2 in Chapter 5) and second to distinguish between proximate causes and underlying driving forces.

6.2.1 – Proximate Causes and Underlying Driving Forces of LULCC Proximate causes (direct, local) of land-use change explain how and why land cover and ecosystems are converted or modified directly by humans. As such, land use is the sum of all proximate causes of land-cover change, i.e., those activities that originate with humans and are intend to manipulate the earth’s surface for a specific purpose. In a study of 152 published case studies of tropical forest cover change, Helmut Geist and Eric Lambin, who have been heavily involved in helping shape thinking about LULCC, found that the most prevalent proximate causes of forest loss are typically limited to four broad categories (the fourth being an “Other factors” category): agriculture expansion, infrastructure extension (either new construction or expansion of existing structures), or wood extraction (see Figure 6.1). 3 Within each of the four categories, further subdivisions are possible. For example, agricultural expansion can be classified as being either permanent cultivation, shifting cultivation, cattle ranching, or colonization. Proximate causes usually operate at the local level, (e.g., in households, individual farms, or in communities). These actions are considered direct drivers of changes to land cover and ecosystems, in addition to other proximate causes such as species introduction or removal. Because proximate causes occur at the local level, many of the factors affecting land-cover change are said to be endogenous to the decision makers. 4 In contrast, underlying driving forces (indirect or root) are “fundamental forces that underpin the more proximate circumstances.” They operate more diffusely (at a distance), usually by influencing one or more proximate causes. 5 Underlying causes tend to originate from the regional (district-, province-, or country-level) through the global levels and influence the proximate causes through complex interplays between the levels of organization. As such, these forces are usually complex and are formed by social, political, economic, demographic, technological, cultural, or biophysical factors, the structural situations in which 2

Geist, McConnell, Lambin, Moran, Alves, and Rudel, “Causes and Trajectories,” 42. Geist and Lambin, “Proximate Causes,” 143-150. 4 Eric F. Lambin, Helmut J. Geist, and Erika Lepers, “Dynamics of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change in Tropical Regions,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources (2003) 28: 216. 5 Geist, McConnell, Lambin, Moran, Alves, and Rudel, “Causes and Trajectories,” 43. 3

142

human-environment relations take place. These forces are mostly exogenous to individuals or communities managing the land and are thus difficult for them to control. 6 Figure 6.1 – Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of forest loss (revisited) 7

It is important to note that anthropogenic and biophysical process, both of which change land cover, operate at different temporal scales. Some changes will be slow-moving, gradual, or delayed, with long turn-over times, such as reforestation or tectonic forces. However, some processes can be quite rapid and immediate, such as war, earthquakes, hurricanes, or floods. Typically, land-use dynamics are caused by a combination of those factors that take place over long periods of time and those that occur rather quickly.

6 7

Lambin, Geist, and Lepers, “Dynamics of Land-Use,” 217. Geist and Lambin, “Proximate Causes,” 144.

143

6.2.2 – Description of Underlying Causes Biophysical Factors Though briefly mentioned above and although it is included in the “Other factors” category, biophysical drivers (whether gradual or rapid) of LULCC are just as important as human drivers. Processes such as droughts caused by changes in climate or loss of soil fertility due to erosion can have an equal, if not greater, impact on human land-use decision-making processes than economic or political policies. Biophysical factors are those that “define the natural capacity or predisposing environmental conditions for land-use change.” 8 Those biophysical factors involved in conditioning land-use decisions are the properties of the landscape such as its terrain, soils, hydrology, flora and fauna, as well as its climate. These factors influence, to varying degrees, the quality of the land as well as establish the initial conditions within which land-use decisions are made. However, in certain situations these factors are able to assume causal powers, such as in the case of desertification or drought. In these examples the biophysical conditions would be considered proximate causes shaping both the potential land cover as well as land-use dynamics. 9 Demographic Factors Population growth has been used (and abused) to describe changes in land use ever since the classic essay by Thomas Malthus was published in 1798. Typically, population has been proffered by numerous authors as the single-factor causing negative changes in land cover. These types of cause-consequence relationship have been widely accepted because they are often difficult to discredit empirically, often fit within prevalent worldviews, and offer simplistic technical or population control solutions. In many cases, these ideas have been so influential that they are used to construct policies related to development and to the environment. 10 It is understood that both increases and decreases in local populations have great impacts on land use; however, more recently, researchers have realized that what matters more than population growth is the composition and distribution of that growth. While demographic changes include shifts in mortality and fertility rates, also included in this category are changes in household structure and dynamics that include migration, labor availability, and the breakdown of the extended family into smaller family units. According to Lambin and Geist, “[m]igration is the single most important demographic factor causing rapid 8

Geist, McConnell, Lambin, Moran, Alves, and Rudel, “Causes and Trajectories,” 45. Harold Brookfield, “Environmental damage: distinguishing human from geophysical causes,” Environmental Hazards (1999) 1: 3-11. 10 Lambin, Turner, Geist, Agbola, Angelsen, Bruce, Coomes, Dirzo, Fischer, Folke, George, Homewood, Imbernon, Leemans, Lin, Moran, Mortimore, Ramakrishnan, Richards, Skånes, Steffen, Stone, Svedin, Veldkamp, Vogel, Xu, “The causes of land-use and land-cover ,” 261-269. 9

144

land-use changes, and interacts with government policies, changes in consumption patterns, economic integration, and globalization.” 11 This is because growth in urban areas can put pressures on rural areas in the form of policies that require increased agricultural yield to support a growing urban population. Also, it has also been shown that when families move to frontier lands, they exhibit high fertility rates. 12 Although in certain cases, spontaneous migration does occur as a result of overpopulation, more often it is triggered by natural disasters, government policies, and infrastructure expansion. Drought, earthquakes, fire, and other disasters have caused migration from one location to another (whether to urban or rural areas) for thousands of years and are still causing migration within the new millennium. For example, government programs to encourage settlement in remote, forested locations within Costa Rica (Chapter 3) have resulted in land change. Finally, infrastructure expansion, especially roads, has been an important driver of resettlement and land-use intensification in previously remote locations. Policy and Institutional Factors LULCC is influenced (both directly and indirectly) by political, economic, legal, and traditional institutions and their influence on individual decision-makers. Access to land, capital, labor, information, and technology are controlled and structured by national and regional policies and institutions. Involved are policies, supported by institutions, such as propertyrights, environmental policies and programs for land management, and social networks that affect access to resources. Additionally, local involvement in decision-making processes within these institutions is typically restricted, thereby limiting land-managers’ ability to influence policies that affect their land-use. As a result, land degradation and other negative environmental situations are increasingly the result of ill-designed national land-use policies that undermine local adaptations strategies. 13 Conversely, examples of land recovery, restoration, and wise-use are typically the result of policies designed by institutions that work in cooperation with local land-managers. Economic and Technological Factors Economic factors and policies are an important influence in decisions about land use. Policies that alter prices, subsidies on land-use inputs and products, taxes, or transportation 11

Eric Lambin and Helmut J. Geist, “Causes of land-use and land-cover change,” in Encyclopedia of Earth (ed.) Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment, 2007), at http://www.eoearth.org/article/Causes_of_land-use_and_land-cover_change (accessed February 20, 2010). 12 David L. Carr, “Proximate Population Factors and Deforestation in Tropical Agricultural Frontiers,” Population and Environment (2004) 25(6): 585-612. 13 Geist, McConnell, Lambin, Moran, Alves, and Rudel, “Causes and Trajectories,” 57.

145

costs all greatly affect land managers. Furthermore, changes in access to credit, technology, trade, and capital flows and investments play a strong role in the ability of land managers to effectively use their natural resources. Studies have shown that in many cases, individual landuse decisions are made in response to economic conditions, which are affected by institutional factors (i.e., opportunities for and restrictions against land users are created by markets and policies). 14 Driving economic policy is an increase in international demand for goods and services that are fueled by an ever-growing consumption that is permitted by affluence. 15 Market demands for forest products and agricultural output (i.e., food and livestock crops for human and animal diets, fiber products for clothing, and timber for shelter), not only cover basic needs, but also perceived or relative needs that go above and beyond traditional subsistence production. 16 These demands greatly influence local producers who desire to meet the “needs” of global markets, and who do so through an expansion of crops and pastures into forest areas and drylands. 17 Concern over the influence exerted by technology is a bit more difficult and two-sided: some see technology as a problem and some see it as a solution. Certainly, advances in technology have facilitated more rapid changes to the landscape, e.g., through infrastructure expansion or agricultural intensification. However, through the development of more environmentally benign technologies in industrialized countries, pollution of air, water, and soils has decreased. Unfortunately, because of high research, development, and production costs associated with new technology, many countries (not to mention individual land owners) are not able to develop or use technologies that could ultimately increase profits from such land management schemes as large-scale mechanized agriculture. Cultural Factors There are many cultural factors that affect the decisions made by land managers. Landuse decisions are based upon the motivations, personal histories, and attitudes of individuals. Their beliefs, values, and individual perceptions, such as ideas about risk, profoundly affect land-management techniques and approaches. The decisions and approaches have intended and unintended consequences on land cover and ecosystem health and are dependent upon the knowledge, access to information, and management skills of land users. Often times, cultural conditions are inextricably linked with political and economic inequalities, such as the 14

Ibid., 47; Lambin and Geist, “Causes of land-use and land-cover change.” Robert W. Kates, “Population and Consumption: What We Know, What We Need to Know,” Environment (2000) 42(3): 10-19. 16 Lambin, Geist, and Lepers, “Dynamics of Land-Use,” 218. 17 Geist, McConnell, Lambin, Moran, Alves, and Rudel, “Causes and Trajectories,” 48. 15

146

status of minorities and women. 18 These inequalities affect access to and use of natural resources. Therefore, an understanding of these factors may help explain land-management practices, policies, and strategies exhibited in particular countries, regions, and local areas. Amplification, Attenuation, and Globalization Although it is convenient to explain LULCC using the causative factors discussed above, in many situations these patterns of causation are simplifications that are useful for communicating or modeling particular environmental issues. The relationship between these factors (the causes) and the outcomes visible in land-cover patterns is neither linear nor unidirectional. With respect to deforestation, some factors will amplify the effects of land-use decisions (or have “positive” feedback loops), which tend to accelerate the change. This acceleration is considered to be a negative change and typically results in rapid environmental degradation, which can sometimes lead to a complete collapse of the societies that rely upon these ecosystems. Conversely, factors can attenuate, or diminish, human impacts on the environment, thereby creating “negative” feedback loops that decrease the rate of negative change, or in some cases (such as this study), completely reverse the negative land-use trend. 19 Adding to the complexity of understanding land-use/land-cover dynamics, is the concept and process of globalization, i.e., the global interconnectedness of people and places through politics, economics, travel, communication, and flows of technology. This process affects the driving forces mentioned above and “cross-cut[s] the local and national pathways of land-use/cover change, and they therefore attenuate or amplify the driving forces by removing regional barriers, weakening connections within nations, and increasing the interdependency among people and between nations.” 20 Many times people associate this concept with economic globalization which is simply one part, but which has had the most profound effects in countries with fragile ecosystems. Numerous examples exist (such as in Costa Rica, explained in Chapter 3) of national economies being integrated into the international economy through trade or direct foreign investment with a direct and observable result of a rapid loss of forested land. However, there is a cultural aspect to globalization that is most apparent in more affluent areas. For example, the diffusion of recreational behaviors such as golf or shopping has led to the construction of areas that will support these types of lifestyle choices. Additionally in many industrializing and prospering countries, there have been countless forested lands that have been cleared for the construction of second homes or luxury resorts.

18

Lambin, Geist, and Lepers, “Dynamics of Land-Use,” 220-221. Geist, McConnell, Lambin, Moran, Alves, and Rudel, “Causes and Trajectories,” 64. 20 Ibid., 65. 19

147

6.3 – DISCUSSION OF LULCC IN THE STUDY AREA 6.3.1 – Explanation of Deforestation (1941 – 1997) Inter-American Highway Before the construction of the Inter-American Highway (the term for the section of the Pan American Highway that extends from Mexico to Panama), Costa Rican government officials were looking for ways to connect the Central Valley with the General Valley. In fact, in 1861 the Costa Rican Congress offered a reward to anyone who could best plan a trail between Cartago and new agricultural settlements within the General Valley. Though many tried, a trail was not opened until 1885 and was named Camino de Calderón, after its pioneer Pedro Calderón. 21 His trail made its way from Santa María de Dota east to Copey and then headed south to a point known as the Alto de Roble. From there the trail headed east, crested the Cerro Vueltas, and then headed south along the route that is approximately close to the current route of the IAH (see Figure 6.2). 22 While the “dream of uniting North and South America by a convenient means of overland communication has long been popular,” 23 it would take until 1946 before the route through the toughest parts of the Cordillera de Talamanca (especially near the Cerro de la Muerte) was opened to vehicular traffic. Even then, the road was not paved and the area was still very isolated. Though the lands near the study area were now accessible to agriculturalists from the Central Valley (establishing numerous small settlements such as Tres de Junio, Salsipuedes, Dos Amigos, and Ojo de Agua), and though in those areas these farmers exploited the oak forests for charcoal and timber, and cleared land for cattle pasture, the northern part of the study area was not affected until after 1956. This was mostly due to its remote location between Copey, 18 km to the north, and San Isidro, 45 km to the south. In contrast to many studies highlighting the negative environmental effects of road construction such as has taken place in many lowland areas within Central America, the Amazon basin, or in other parts of Latin America, Sally P. Horn found that the IAH may have actually “reduced anthropogenic disturbance...in the Buenavista páramo;” 24 this is the area that contains the Cerro de la Muerte (see Figure 4.2). The reason for this is due to the nature of travel through this area. Prior to the construction of the highway, travelers would typically spend the night in the Buenavista páramo area. There they would cook and keep warm using 21

E. Ureña, “Monografia del Cantón de Pérez Zeledón,”Revista de los Archivos Nacionales de Costa Rica (1941) 5(910): 494-505. 22 Sally P. Horn, “The Inter-American highway and human disturbance of páramo vegetation in Costa Rica,” Yearbook of the Conference of Lantin Americanist Geographers (1989) 15: 13-22. 23 Warren Kelchner, “The Pan American Highway,” Foreign Affairs (1938) 16(4): 723. 24 Horn, “The Inter-American highway,” 19.

148

campfires made from the trees in the area. Additionally, they would allow their pigs and cattle to graze along the way and during their rest period. Figure 6.2 – Trail made by the pioneer Pedro Calderón 25

After construction, however, travelers would not typically spend time near the study area as travel through this region would take less than an hour. Most of the study area’s land farther down slope (south) from the IAH was primarily perceived as having less value than land right along the highway and for that reason the majority of this forested area was not exploited until after its discovery in 1954. With that said, logging did take place between 1984 and 1992 (see Figure 5.6, the blackened areas) along the IAH starting in the northwest corner of the study area and working around toward the east side. Additionally, between 1992 and 1997, there were areas destroyed by fire (source and reason unknown), which occurred in the northeastern portion of the study area. For the most part, deforestation caused by the residents of the valley had ceased during 25

GIS data for this map were obtained from Oscar Chacón at INBio, in Costa Rica, on January 8, 2010.

149

this five year period. So, in this case, the road did facilitate the removal of trees for timber, but it was not immediate and the assumption is that it was to some degree controlled since this area had been declared a forest reserve in 1975 (see below). Population Growth within San José Province (1892-2000) Although Costa Rica experienced one of the highest rates of population growth between 1925 and 1950 (reaching 4 percent per year), according to Carolyn Hall, one of Central America’s leading geographers and a retired professor of Geography from the UCR, In absolute terms, [this] increase in population...has been quite small, both in relation to the area of the republic and in comparison with the population growth in many other developing countries. Costa Rica does not face the problems of overpopulation that beset many countries...It is the exceptionally high rate of increase that has made the population explosion such an important catalyst of change, first accelerating pioneer settlement on the frontiers of colonization and then nourishing a process of rapid urbanization. 26 The move to the frontier she describes had taken place since the late 1500s, but intensified during the quarter century between 1925 and 1950, with frontier land finally disappearing in the 1960s. 27 As land became scarce in the late 1950s and through the 1960s, urban areas replaced the periphery as the major destination of internal migration. However, because of its unforgiving terrain, harsh climate, and remote location, the study area was not seen as desirable until after the construction of the IAH. As mentioned above, the construction of the IAH did not result in rapid environmental deterioration within the study area in the same way as in other tropical lowland area; rather it facilitated access to markets and necessities that would otherwise lie beyond the reach of such remote settlements. In fact, settlement of the upper Savegre River watershed started from within (9 km south of the IAH) and the point of entry was a small trail cut from Providencia (see Figure 4.8). The valley’s first pioneers did realize, though, that their key to a better quality of life was linking to the IAH in order to transport their goods to the market, thereby improving their economic situation. Moreover, in contrast to other tropical lowland areas (where traditionally land has been occupied by farmers that practiced shifting cultivation, typically moving in following road construction), the decision to establish a new settlement (San Gerardo) was made in response to the shortage of available land in Santa María, Copey, and La Cima; these lands, by the 1950s and 1960s, had been completely occupied. This was due to the rapid rise in population within 26 27

Hall, Costa Rica, 102. Augelli, “Costa Rica’s Frontier Legacy,” 1.

150

these areas beginning in the early 1900s (see Table 6.1). Every one of the valley’s pioneers interviewed for this study mentioned that they moved to the area because they desired to own land. Nationalization of the Nation’s Banks Following the Revolution of 1948 (see Appendix A), one of the first acts of the new Founding Junta was to nationalize the country’s banks. Seen as necessary by Jose Figueres Ferrer’s lifetime friend and minister of economy, treasury, and commerce, Alberto Martén felt that nationalizing the banks would help “enable the Second Republic to control credit in order to undertake economic planning.” In his address to the nation on June 19th, 1948, Figueres announced that “[t]he administration of money and credit ought not be in private hands any more than the distribution of water and the mails.” He felt that “through the control of credit, banks decided the fate of every enterprise, reducing thereby each business to a “tributary” and determining the “economic progress” of the nation.” 28 According to Figueres, since banks made a profit from mobilizing people’s money, thereby performing a public service, they should be publicly owned with power in the hands of the people. The nationalization of the country’s banks enabled the government to ensure that the benefits of economic growth did not “become overly concentrated in only one social sector.” 29 As a result, state-led development programs institutionalized following the Revolution enabled a majority of rural Costa Ricans to enjoy a standard of living unequalled in most of Central America (until the economic crisis in the 1980s). These programs provided education, health care, and social security benefits for the vast majority of the population. However, more important to many rural families was the new and easier access to credit that facilitated greater purchasing power. This was extremely important to the residents of San Gerardo as they were able to purchase food, livestock, basic necessities, and better equipment that was otherwise unavailable to landless, poor farmers. Most of the pioneers were able to secure loans from local banks in Santa María that enabled them to survive in the remote wilderness of the valley. This flow of money was available exactly when members of San Gerardo needed it, since 20 years later, following the economic crisis, Costa Rica’s foreign debt caused economic and political leaders to abandon many of the policies and programs instituted in 1948 and sustained through the 1970s, thereby removing this opportunity for landless and poor farmers. 30 28

José Figueres quoted in Don Pepe: A Political Biography of José Figueres of Costa Rica, by Charles D. Ameringer (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1978), 70-71. 29 Gregg L. Vunderink, “Peasant Participation and Mobilization During Economic Crisis: The Case of Costa Rica,” Studies in Comparative International Development (1990) 25(4): 4. 30 Ibid., 3-34.

151

Table 6.1 – Population statistics of select areas within San José Province, 1892-2000 31 Year

Country Costa Rica

Province County

San José

Perez Zeledón (as of 1940)

Dota (as of 1927)

Terrazú

Towns Santa María

Santa María

San Isidro

Copey

1892

243,205

76,718

2,583

809

1900

312,819

98,237

3,504

-

1910

379,533

118,497

4,806

-

1915

430,701

131,332

5,994

1,753

678

1920

468,373

141,342

7,036

2,120

853

1927

471,524

153,183

5,734

4,712

1,561

518

1,199

1930

516,031

167,669

6,537

5,653

1865

608

1,435

1940

656,129

213,022

9,061

3,647

2539

813

5,179

2,776

1950

800,875

281,822

7,465

2,801

1645

953

19,630

11,956

1963

1,336,274

487,658

5,392

3,718

2424

1,075

47,319

23,831

1973

1,871,780

695,163

7,542

4,375

2683

1,264

67,089

32,929

1984

2,416,809

890,434

8,845

4,934

3324

1,242

82,370

28,261

2000

3,810,179

1,345,750

14,160

6,519

4274

1,770

122,187

41,221

Many of the other underlying driving forces behind deforestation in the study area have been discussed in previous chapters; such as frontier laws and the mentality of the endless abundance of free land that caused many to regard forested areas as worthless and unproductive. Under this mindset, government officials encouraged people in need of property (to use as a source of sustenance and/or income) to move to public forested areas, clear the land and cultivate crops or raise cattle. This last means of income was especially desirable for both the farmer and the country as international interests in beef products put pressure on Costa Rica to meet the demand. Most of the original pioneers of the valley started by raising beef cattle, which they sold at the markets in Cartago, knowing that this was a rather secure way to earn money. The environmental effects of this issue are evident in the amount of forest loss experienced in the upper Savegre River watershed (the entire study area) between 1956 31

Hernández, Costa Rica: Evolución Territorial, 66-162; Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC), IX Censo Nacional de Población y V de Vivienda del 2000: Resultados Generales (San José: INEC, 2001), 23-25.

152

and 1969, which reached 58.06 ha per year (a deforestation rate of 1.0 percent). Clearance in the valley for pasture continued, though at a much slower rate, until 1997.

6.3.2 – Explanation of Forest Recovery (1984 – 2006) While the framework described above is normally used to describe causes of forest loss, these factors can just as easily be applied to the task of explaining forest recovery. Wise landuse decisions are made for similar reasons as are poor land-use decisions: people respond to economic opportunities that are mediated by institutional factors. This has been the experience for the residents of San Gerardo. As a result of government programs and international and national tourism trends, community members within the study area were able to change their livelihood practices from those that were destructive to the environment to those that have been economically viable as well as ecologically benign. Biophysical Factors As with most areas within Costa Rica, during the first 30 years of occupation in the valley, ecological problems existed, stemming from the wide divergence between land capability and land use. Of course the first step toward solving this problem is to study the land capability to determine the best combination of land use and conservation of natural resources. However, the first land capability study in Costa Rica was not conducted until 1964 when researchers sponsored by the FAO carried out a general survey of the entire country. 32 Subsequent studies were conducted in 1970, 1973, and 1978. 33 While their findings about the percentages of each category differed, they all used the same four basic classifications of suitable land use: intensive cultivation, extensive cultivation, productive forest, and protective forest. According to these surveys, the study area is located within land classified as protective forest, meaning that ecological equilibrium can only be maintained through permanent forest cover. 34 More recently, a land use capability study was conducted in 2004 and once again the study area was included in land classified as protective area (see Figure 6.3).

32

C. V. Plath and A. Van Der Sluis, Uso potencial de la tierra de Costa Rica (Rome: FAO, 1967). A. Coto, Jorge Alberto and Jorge Eduardo Torres H., Uso potencial de la tierra de Costa Rica (San José: Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, 1970); Helmut Nuhn, Regionalización de Costa Rica para la planificación del desarrollo y la administración (San José: Oficina de Planificación, 1973); Samuel Pérez Rosales, Mapa de capacidad de uso del suelo, Costa Rica, 1:200,000, 9 sheets (San José: Oficina de Planificación, Sectorial Agropecuaria, 1978). 34 Hall, Costa Rica, 191. 33

153

Figure 6.3 – Land-use capability map as of 2004 35

Because of the study area’s preexisting natural resources, the trend in tourism patterns (both globally and nationally), and because of the residents’ decision to allow the majority of the forest to regenerate, the amazing transformation of livelihood practices was able to occur. 35

GIS data for the map come from the Laboratorio de Sistemas de Información Geográfica, Escuela de Ingeniería Forestal, 2004.

154

Since the region is covered in clouds, there is a seemingly endless supply of fresh water, both in the streams and in springs. This fresh water enabled rainbow trout to flourish, supported the human population, and provided for the irrigation of vegetable (initially) and fruit tree (after 1970) crops. Furthermore, the abundance of wild avocado trees supported several exotic and endangered bird species – one of the main attractions of the valley. Finally, because of the valley’s altitudinal location, many people visit the valley to escape the hot and humid climate found in the Central and General Valleys. Government Programs (Rainbow Trout and Fruit Tree Growth) In the late 1920s and later in 1959, the government of Costa Rica decided to introduce rainbow trout into the inland waterways in hopes that these fish would flourish, thereby providing rural citizens with a source of low-cost animal protein; something lacking in traditional Costa Rican diets (see Chapter 4). Though not immediately or seemingly related to land-cover change within the valley, this one program would effectively change the dominate land-use pattern (cattle ranching), and therefore the mosaic of the land-cover. Because trout were introduced into the Savegre River and because the members of the community were able to maintain the fish population, both within the river and within man-made ponds, the area became known first to fly fishermen and later to bird watchers. Following this program in the 1970s was President Figueres’ plan to introduce a type of apple that would be pleasing to eat and would be rather easy to cultivate. Finding the variety called “Anna,” Figueres searched for persons interested in growing this new fruit. People within the valley were willing and though it took until the early 1980s before profits were realized, this program did turn out to be economically viable for many of San Gerardo’s residents. Additionally, this program had a lasting effect on the natural environment of the valley: early in the 1980s, before deciding to cease pasture expansion operations, the Chacóns evaluated the economic benefits of the orchards they had planted. They realized that dairy farming was not only a poor use of the land, but that economically it was a poor allocation of effort. They determined that because apple and peach trees are a better protection against erosion and a better source of income than dairy cows, this would be a better use of their land. However, this activity would not generate enough income to support most families within the valley. To make ends meet, they needed another capital-producing activity, namely ecotourism.

155

Ecotourism Although, in retrospect, the decision to sell his dairy cows seems logical given the sustained success of the ecotourism business, at the time there were no guarantees for Efraín that this venture would be economically viable over the long-term. The Chacóns had been involved in nature tourism since the early 1970s, but only on a small scale. To support the family, a substantial amount of tourists would need to visit the valley on a regular basis. Fortunately, in the late 1980s Costa Rica was experiencing a growth within the tourism industry, especially in ecotourism. Once word about the valley got out, the family was reassured that selling their cows was the correct decision. Though there is an absence of accurate annual tourist numbers visiting the Chacón’s growing ecotourism enterprise throughout the 1980s and 1990s, it is safe to say that business must have been quite good for the family since they built 15 cabins in 1989 to meet the growing demand (see Table 6.2). Additionally, by 1987 the Chacón family was receiving approximately 2,200 visitors per year, thereby enabling them to increase the price of lodging and meals to almost three times the rate charged in 1984. 36 Because of their success, others in the valley were encouraged to follow, with numerous restaurants and hotels opening between 1992 and 2000 (see Table 6.3 and Figure 6.4). As a result, many of San Gerardo’s residents were able to make the switch from dairy farming to ecotourism. The Los Santos Forest Reserve and Los Quetzales National Park The Los Santos Forest Reserve (see Figure 6.5) was created through executive order 5389 on October 28, 1975. 37 This reserve was created during a time when Costa Rica was experiencing one of the highest rates of deforestation in the world. According to Arsenio Agüero Arias, the park ranger responsible for Los Quetzales National Park (located within Los Santos Forest Reserve), the reserve was created in response to a social movement, led by local farmers and other residents within Dota county, against a foreign company that was exploiting the oak trees (Quercus sp). This company was exporting the wood to make wine barrels. Additionally, these farmers were lobbying the government to stop or diminish the “indiscriminate alteration the ecosystem was suffering with the exploitation of this species to make sleeper cars for trains.” 38 Furthermore, these residents were concerned about the pace and extent of forest loss due to clearing for new agricultural or ranching purposes.

36

Marjorie De Oduber, “Un abra en la selva virgen,” La Nacion, 10 February 1987, 15A. The announcement of its creation was subsequently published in the “Collection de Leyes y Decretos, Numero 5389” La Gaceta 12 November 1975, issue 215, 1056-1058. 38 Arsenio Agüero Arias, “Área de Conservacion Pacifico Central, Sub-región los Santos, Nuestra Áreas Silvestres Protegidas,” unpublished paper written in 2005. 37

156

Table 6.2 – Growth of the Chacón family’s hotel business, 1971-2008 Year

Total No. of Cabins

Capacity*

Cost Per Person Per Night w/3 meals; Colones/Dollars

1971

2

4

No data available

Name used was Finca Zacatales

1973

3

6

No data available

Reservations made through Gilca, Ltd. or by letter to family

1980

3

6

₡120 / $14.00 39

Reservations made through Gilca, Ltd., by phone

1984

3

6

₡575 / $12.91 40

1 kilo of apples cost ₡125; 1 kilo of trout cost ₡200; round trip pick-up from IAH cost ₡500

1986

5

12

No data available

Registered with ICT and installed phone line

1987

5

12

No data available

Receiving 2,200 visitors/year

1989

20

51

₡1,550 / $19.02 41

Valley received electricity; 1 way pick-up at IAH cost ₡1,000

1993

20

51

₡5,000 / $40.00 42

Began using Albergue de Montaña Savegre as name for hotel business

1994

20

51

No data available

Inspected by The New Key to Costa Rica

1997

20

51

No data available

Joined the Costa Rican Network of Nature Reserves

2000

20

51

₡11,692 / $37.00 - Low ₡13,272/ $42.00 - High 43

2001

20

51

₡13,272/ $42.00 - Local ₡23,680 / $74.00 - Foreigner 44

2002

25

62

No data available

Built five more standard rooms

2005

31

86

No data available

First year to build junior suites; built six

2006

31

86

$156.00 - Standard $210.00 - Junior Suite 45

2007

39

109

No data available

2008

41

115

$150.00/$161.00 - Standard $199.00/$217.00 - Junior Suite 46

Notes

Different costs for different parts of the year; high and low seasons Began using the internet to book reservations in addition to phones; started using the name Hotel Savegre

Prices are now in U.S. currency Built eight more junior suites (25 standard; 14 junior suites) Double prices are for low and high season for each type of room; built 2 more junior suites

*The hotel has rooms that vary in capacity, from 1- to 4-persons. 39

Héctor Fallas, “San Gerardo de Dota: Lecho de truchas, agua fresca y montañas,” La Nacion 10 October 1980, 7C9C. 40 “Un apacible rincón en San Gerardo de Dota,” La Nacion 30 November 1984. 41 “Su opción familiar,” Tiempo Libre 10 March 1989, 12-13. 42 Sorrel Downer, “Enter another world in San Gerardo de Dota: The secret treasures of the hidden valley,” Costa Rica Today 02 December 1993, 24-25. 43 Gina Polini, “Pídalo Verde,” Tiempo Libre 23 November 2000, 36-37. 44 Jorge Arce, “Paraíso agroecoturístico,” Revista Dominica 04 March 2001, 10-12. 45 Mara Vorhees and Matthew Firestone, Lonely Planet Costa Rica (Berkeley, Lonely Planet Publications, 2006), 375. 46 Nick Ruggia, “Quetzals Not So Elusive in San Gerardo,” The Tico Times 06 June 2008.

157

Table 6.3 – Growth of ecotourism businesses in San Gerardo de Dota 47 Year Started

Capacity

Cabins

Costs

El Jilguero

1994

n/a

n/a

n/a

Restaurant

None

Soda El Junco

2001

n/a

n/a

n/a

Restaurant

None

1993

18

3

$60-$70

Restaurant

www.cataratas.guiapz.com

1994

8

2

$20-$40

Restaurant

None

8

$126-$152 (Superior); $152-$178 (Deluxe)

Establishment

Cabinas y Senderos Las Cataratas Comida Típica Miriam

Dantica

2005

20

Services

Restaurant (Breakfast/ Lunch); Dinner is available at Comida Típica Miriam Restaurant, bar, lounge, canopy tour, guided tours Restaurant; camping; tours

Website

www.dantica.com

Trogon Lodge

1992

60

23

$79 (double); $130 (junior suite)

Los Lagos

1992

n/a

n/a

n/a

Cabinas El Quetzal

1996

20

2

$50-$60

El Manantial

1994

45

1 big building

$50-$80

Hotel Savegre

1971

115

41

$150-$270

Los Ranchos/ Sueños del Bosque

2005

22

4

$60-70

2-3 room cabins w/kitchen

http://ecoindextourism.org/en/suen os_cr_en

Suria Lodge

2003

24

8

$70-$80

Restaurant

suria-lodge.com

47

Restaurant Restaurant; steam and clay bath Meals included; Restaurant, bar, horseback riding, guided tours, biological reserve, research station

www.grupomawamba.com / trogon_lodge/index.php None www.cabinaselquetzal.com www.elmanantiallodge.com

www.savegre.co.cr

Information for table obtained from interviews and individual websites.

158

Figure 6.4 – Location of businesses within the study area 48

48

GIS data for this map were obtained from Oscar Chacón at INBio, in Costa Rica, on January 8, 2010.

159

Figure 6.5 – Location of Los Santos Forest Reserve 49

49

GIS data for this map were obtained from Oscar Chacón at INBio, in Costa Rica, on January 8, 2010.

160

The reserve is located within the counties of Dota and Pérez Zeledón, in the province of San José. However, most of the 62,000 ha reserve (60 percent) is located within Dota county. As defined by the Forestry Law, Number 4465 published on November 25, 1969, a forestry reserve is an area that permanently provides maximum economic utility, in accordance with sustainable criteria, i.e., forested land whose principal use is for the production of wood. Under article 58 of this law, “the use of Forest Reserves will be in accordance with the technical forest management plans, which determine the annual quantity to be exploited and the silviculture technical standards to be followed.” 50 However, the question remains, to what extent the establishment of the Los Santos Forest Reserve contributed to halting forest conversion in the study area. According to this author’s work, it is clear that the reserve’s establishment did not have any significant effect, at least initially, on the behavior of the local residents of San Gerardo. In fact, from 1973 until 1992 (the period from 1992 to 1997 is excluded as most of the deforestation during these years was conducted by people other than the valley’s residents) the amount of forest loss nearly doubled, going from 793.13 ha in 1973 to 1411.42 ha in 1992, a change of 618.29 ha. The lack of effectiveness of the forest reserve was due to several reasons (see Chapter 3) most important of which were the shortage of workers to enforce the laws and the lack of money to purchase all the newly claimed land. Even though the state had the power to declare the area a forest reserve, they had neither the means to ensure compliance nor the authority to stop infractions (since by law the state had to own the land before they could enforce its sustainable use). The government acknowledged this fact when they created the Los Quetzales National Park in 2005. As described in La Gaceta, published April 25, 2006, the government explained that “the forestry reserve category of management has not been efficient at preventing the advancement of the processes of deforestation and fragmentation of the forest, since in the past 30 years more than 20 percent of the forest cover has been lost.” 51 Although the total area of Los Quetzales National Park was set at 4,117.09 ha, only 6.64 percent of the total Los Santos Forest Reserve area, more important to the forest recovery and sustainable use effort within San Gerardo is the presence of dedicated and paid park personnel that manage the national park. Not only are these officials in charge of maintaining Los Quetzales, but they are responsible for enforcing all of the forestry laws applicable to the forestry and biological reserves as well as the wildlife refuge. These authorities have been very active within Providencia and San Gerardo, as they regularly have meetings with community members and routinely make inspections within these towns to ensure compliance with the 50 51

Law 4465, Article 58, Ley Forestal, Leyes, decretos, y resolucione. “Poder Ejecutivo, Decretos, Numero 32981-MINAE,” La Gaceta 25 April 2006, 79, 2.

161

forestry laws. These actions, along with plans to expand the national park area (see Figure 6.6), are sure to promote forest protection and wise use. Figure 6.6 – Proposed expansion area for Los Quetzales National Park 52

6.4 – CONCLUSION This chapter presents a synthesis of numerous social and biophysical factors that have been associated with land-use and, thus, land-cover change. The results of this portion of the research have aimed at dispelling the many simplifications about land dynamics, such as poverty or population growth, that have been popularly accepted as the leading causes of changes in land conditions. Therefore, by using the framework discussed above, this chapter has helped move understanding about land dynamics from single- or even double-cause explanations to a much more insightful and meaningful explanation that involves a large number of factors occurring at different temporal and spatial scales. 52

GIS data for this map were obtained from Oscar Chacón at INBio, in Costa Rica, on January 8, 2010 and data for the proposed expansion area was received from Arsenio Agüero Arias.

162

Deforestation trends within the study area, which took place from 1941 and finally ended in 1997, were the result of numerous international and national factors that influenced the valley’s residents in such a way as to create a very nearly homogenous landscape (pastures for cows, fruit tree orchards, and fish ponds). Land-use decisions for the study period were based, for the most part, on economic opportunities and benefits with little regard for the condition of the natural environment (at least for the majority of the time). Although the area was declared a forest reserve in 1975, there was little regulation or incentive to sustainably manage the natural resource in the study area. It appears that the major reason deforestation ceased in 1997 was due to the economic opportunities available in ecotourism, since this trend was growing both in the country and within the valley (due to the sustained and growing interest in the Chacón family’s ecotourism business). However, the growing ecotourism trend was also a result of numerous international and national factors that took place over a long period of time, which ultimately offered the valley’s residents a more sustainable means of using their natural resources.

163

Chapter 7

Conclusion and Recommendations

7.1 – SUMMARY This study completes a 14-year investigation that began in 1996 and covers a 65-year period beginning in 1941. The purpose of this study was to improve the current understanding of deforestation trends within a local TMCF at detailed scales (both spatial and temporal) and for a period of time longer than 30 years. To accomplish this goal it was necessary to collect information from three different types of sources: (1) aerial photographs and remote sensing images that provided information about the pattern of land change; (2) interviews with local land owners within the study area, which gave local-level perspectives of how and why land-use decisions were made; and (3) a review of documents from numerous sources and covering several topics that helped uncover underlying driving forces of LULCC occurring at the national and international levels, as well as a compilation of demographic data to aid in understanding mobility patterns and growth rates. This study discussed the emergence and development of ecotourism at the global and national levels because of the concept’s importance in changing the negative land-use patterns (specifically deforestation) both in Costa Rica and in the study area. Through a discussion of ecotourism’s history, this research was able to highlight numerous distal factors (forces that precipitate action) that influenced the creation of policies and which affected local farmers’ decisions (proximate factors) regarding the use of their land (both negative and positive).

7.2 – CONCLUSION In contrast to “top-down” driven solutions to forest loss, is the theory that “if local people directly benefit from a business that depends on the biodiversity at a given site, then they should have the incentive to act to protect it against both internal and external threats to its destruction,” 1 (i.e., a “bottom-up” approach). According to this thesis three conditions must be met: (1) there must be a linkage between a viable business and biodiversity (the business must depend upon the natural resources within the area since the enterprise will fail if the environment is significantly degraded); (2) there must be both short- and long-term benefits (i.e., the business must provide financial, social, and environmental benefits for the community 1

Nick Salafsky, Bernd Cordes, John Parks, and Cheryl Hochman, Evaluating LINKAGES Between BUSINESS, the ENVIRONMENT, and Local COMMUNITIES: Final Analytical Results from the Biodiversity Conservation Network (Washington: Biodiversity Support Program, 1999), 2.

164

of stakeholders); and (3) there must be community involvement (i.e., stakeholders in local businesses and biodiversity must have the capacity to take action against threats to biodiversity). 2 The current situation of the community members within the study area support this thesis and meet these three criteria. As a result, the residents of the valley have been able to maintain (and actually improve) the health of their natural environment. Additionally, they now have a higher standard of living than they did when they were using the land without concern for the environmental. Furthermore, the recent decisions (over the past two decades) of the residents of San Gerardo support the view that it is possible to balance satisfying immediate human needs through land use with maintaining the capacity of the biosphere to provide goods and services. However, land use is a “highly political activity” and “[m]isguided or uncoordinated sectoral policies are one of the major causes of land degradation.” 3 For policies to be effective within a given location, a detailed understanding of the complex sets of factors affecting local land-use decisions is necessary. In other words, “no universal policy for controlling tropical deforestation can be conceived,” 4 rather policies must be created according to the complex needs of those areas that will be affected by political intervention. This principle has also been proven true in the study area. Although the Los Santos Forest Reserve was created in 1975, forest clearance continued uncontrolled until 1992 when the deforestation rate decreased dramatically. Natural resources in the upper Savegre River watershed were protected only after ecotourism grew to be the valley’s most desirable business opportunity as shown in Tables 6.2 and 6.3. LULCC in Costa Rica from the 1950s through the early 1990s had been generally driven by the expansion of cattle and crop production, which was encouraged by legislation that placed a high value on agricultural development and a low value on forested land. Furthermore, deforestation within the country was supported by international and national loans that promoted increased cattle production. 5 Therefore, it would appear as though Costa Rica was able to control its forested areas only after ecotourism (and tourism in general) grew to be the nation’s number one industry, ahead of coffee, bananas, and cattle. For example, between 1950 and 1984 the country’s deforestation rate was estimated to be 3.9 percent per year, 2

N. Salafsky, H. Cauley, G. Balachander, B. Cordes, J. Parks, C. Margoluis, S. Bhatt, C. Encarnacion, D. Russell, and R. Margoluis, “A Systematic Test of an Enterprise Strategy for Community-Based Biodiversity Conservation,” Conservation Biology (2001) 15(6): 1586. 3 Scientific Steering Committee of the Land-Use/Cover Change (LUCC) Project, “Conclusion,” in Land-Use and LandCover Change: Local Processes and Global Impacts (eds.) E. F. Lambin, H. J. Geist (New York: Springer, 2006), 174. 4 Geist and Lambin, “Proximate Causes,” 150. 5 G. Arturo Sánchez-Azofeifa, “Land Use and Cover Change in Costa Rica,” in Charles A.S. Hall (ed.) Quantifying Sustainable Development: The Future of Tropical Economies (New York: Academic Press, 2000), 473-501; SánchezAzofeifa, Harriss, and Skole, “Deforestation in Costa Rica,” 379.

165

decreasing to 1.5 percent in the late 1990s (see Table 7.1). 6 Concurrently, the remaining extent of primary forest (defined as being > 80 percent coverage) decreased from 56 percent in 1950 to 17 percent in 1983. Between 1983 and 1991, as tourism grew, there was a significant amount of forest recovery that resulted in 29 percent of the land cover of Costa Rica being classified as closed forest. 7 Table 7.1 – Comparative statistics about the growth of tourism and decline of forest loss in Costa Rica 8 Year 1940 1950 1961 1970 1975 1977 1978 1981 1983 1984 1987 1989 1991 1993 1996 1998 1999

Deforestation Rates -

3.9 % per year

Primary Forest Cover Remaining (%) 67.0 56.0 45.0 46.7 32.0 -

National Territory Protected

International Tourist Arrivals

Prior to 1970 it was 0 %

-

2.5 %

14.0 In late 1980s rate was 2.9 % -

29.0 -

In late 1990s rate was 1.5 %

-

39.5 -

12.2 % > 25.0 %

299,037 333,102 326,142 277,861 375,951 504,649 684,005 781,127 942,853 1,031,585

*Note – data for areas with a dash (-) were unavailable.

6

H. Jeffrey Leonard, Recursos naturales y dessarrollo economico en America Central: Un perfil ambiental regional (Turrialba: CATIE, 1985); Sánchez-Azofeifa, Daily, Pfaff, and Busch, “Integrity and isolation,” 123. 7 Sader and Joyce, “Deforestation Rates,” 12; Azofeifa, Harriss, and Skole, “Deforestation in Costa Rica,” 378. 8 Ibid; Leonard, Recursos naturales; Sánchez-Azofeifa, “Land Use and Cover Change,” 473; Christopher Kleinn, Lenin Corrales, and David Morales, “Forest Area in Costa Rica: A Comparative Study of Tropical Forest Cover Estimates Over Time,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2002) 73(1): 17-40; Mario Boza, Los parques nacionalse de Costa Rica (San José: INCAFO, 1978), 9; Boza, “Conservation in Action,” 239; Martha Honey, Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? (Washington: Island Press, 1999), 139; ICT, Anuario Estadísticos de Turismo.

166

7.3 – RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH First, now that statistical and historical information has been collected about deforestation trends within the local TMCF, an interesting comparison could be made with Providencia, the town nearest San Gerardo to the west. Though older and more populated than San Gerardo, according to Pablo Chacón (son of Efraín Chacón) who has gathered some historical information on Providencia, this town did not receive electricity until after San Gerardo, since the lines run from the Cerro de la Muerte area down into San Gerardo and continue west into Providencia. Furthermore, they do not have the same type of economy (still agrarian) as San Gerardo, nor do they appear to be conserving the land in the same way as those in the study area (see Figure 7.1). The 13 kilometer road that leads to this town is not as well maintained and bridges are not the same quality as those in the study area. The author of this study was told that the government does not support Providencia in the same way as it does with San Gerardo. If this is the case it would be interesting to determine the reasons. Furthermore, it would be very useful to discover the causes of the different land-use patterns found within Providencia, for comparison with the results of this study. Second, a more accurate, up-to-date, and cartographically large-scale land-cover map is needed to accurately assess the type of forest recovery taking place within the study area. Although in this study it was possible to accurately determine the amount of cleared area still remaining in the upper Savegre River watershed, information regarding the type of successional vegetation would be useful toward improving our current knowledge about the type and rate of recovery within a TMCF environment. Since few studies have addressed “the patterns and processes of recovery following clearing in these fragile high-altitude ecosystems,” 9 filling this gap in knowledge would be very useful in understanding these complex and important life zones. Third, more in-depth and long-term climatological monitoring projects need to be established to determine the effects of climate change on the local TMCF. According to Efraín, the climate of the valley has changed noticeably since the first years of colonization. Throughout numerous interviews, Efraín has stated that he can remember when frost and ice would form within the lower part of the valley during the colder months of the year. However, currently there are rarely days when the temperature will drop below freezing (see Table 7.2). In September of 2008, the Association of Agricultural Producers and Marketers (APACO) installed a weather station (one of five in the Los Santos region) on Gerardo Chacón’s (Efraín’s nephew) property which collects all information included in Table 7.2 with the addition of wind speed data.

9

Kappelle, Geuze, Leal, and Cleef, “Successional age,” 681.

167

Figure 7.1 – Aerial image of Providencia in relation to the study area 10

10

Aerial image is from the RECOPE-MINAE Project (known as TERRA); December 13, 1997, flight line RT06/L27A/F108. Additionally, GIS data for this map were obtained from Oscar Chacón at INBio, in Costa Rica, on January 8, 2010.

168

Table 7.2 – Climatological data on the lower part of the study area 11 San Gerardo Station Information: Elevation - 2182 m; Lat 9° 32' 54" N; Long -83° 48' 38" W MONTH OCT 2008 NOV DEC JAN 2009 FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

Annual Average

AVERAGE MONTHLY MEAN TEMP (°C)

MONTH HIGH (°C)

AVERAGE HIGH (°C)

MONTH LOW (°C)

AVERAGE LOW (°C)

TOTAL RAIN (mm)

13.9 13.2 13.4 13.7 14.4 14.0 14.0 14.3 14.3 14.6 14.3 14.2

20.9 19.6 21.2 23.4 21.8 22.3 22.6 20.8 20.7 21.7 22.0 21.1

17.91 16.93 18.74 19.35 19.98 19.40 19.53 18.93 18.81 18.82 18.82 19.44

9.3 7.3 5.3 5.6 2.7 5.7 3.2 9.7 9.5 8.0 8.7 8.0

10.93 10.27 8.68 8.82 9.29 9.61 8.63 10.80 10.81 10.72 10.81 10.13

555.4 226.4 25.4 59.4 5.0 45.8 75.4 257.1 284.80 146.2 279.0 231.4

14.0

21.5

18.9

6.9

10.0

2191.3*

*Note – this number represents the total amount of rain for this 12 month period of time

Now that there is a continuous-collection weather station within the valley, more accurate and long-term climatological studies can and should be conducted. In addition to the change in temperature, lower elevation birds are being seen more frequently in San Gerardo, yet another indication that temperatures have increased since 1955. An increase in temperature will potentially have significant negative impacts on the cloud forest’s health since “nearly every aspect of the cloud forest is affected by regular cloud immersion, from the hydrological cycle to the species of plants and animals within the forest.” 12 Climatological information collected from this TMCF could be compared to studies conducted on the more famous Monteverde Cloud Forest in 2001. 13 Of particular interest to the members of the valley will be the effects of increased temperature on their ability to grow the different types of fruit that require certain amounts of cold-weather days (such as the Anna apple).

11

Data for this table come from the Asociación de Productores Agrícolas y Comercializadores (APACO) website at http://meteoroapaco.yolasite.com/gerardo.php (last accessed on March 24, 2010). 12 Foster, “The potential negative impacts” 73. 13 Ibid., 73-106.

169

7.4 – FINAL REMARKS This retrospective analysis of the social dynamics of forest change for a 65-year period demonstrates how variable land-use/land-cover change is over time. It also indicates that such change can be unpredictable and even temporary, depending on proximate factors and underlying driving forces, such as infrastructure extension, agricultural expansion, and economic or cultural factors. For example, few models of LULCC could have predicted that the pattern of deforestation within the study area would radically change, due to the growth of ecotourism. Furthermore, this study shows that a more thorough understanding of the trends and spatial distribution of LULCC can be achieved through the integration of personal interviews and literature reviews with remote sensing-derived information and GIS. The experiences of the Chacón family and the other families within the study area provide an excellent model of sustainability. While adding to literature about TMCFs, this study presents a story of an observed trend that is quite hopeful and may be exemplary for other tropical mountain watersheds in countries looking for sustainable land uses. Although this “good-news” story is not representative of the majority of the TMCFs throughout the Neotropics, it may represent one of the first accounts of a change in behavior among local residents toward a more responsible attitude in conserving TMCFs and the ecosystem goods and services they provide for the benefit of all humankind.

170

Appendix A: THE NEW KEY TO COSTA RICA SUSTAINABLE TOURISM SURVEY Copyright 1994, Anne Becher & Jane Segleau Earle Name of Hotel Address Postal Address Telephone/Fax Name of Person Interviewed Position at Hotel Introduction: The objective of this interview is to find out in the most objective way possible about all the efforts being made in this business to practice a type of ecotourism based on sustainable development. Businesses which are making outstanding efforts to practice “sustainable tourism,” according to this survey, will be recognized in the next edition of The New Key to Costa Rica. This is a guide for the discussion, but the participants should feel free to mention anything they feel is important. I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 1.1 Number of rooms_______Total capacity________ 1.2 How much for double per night?_____ Food included?___ 1.3 Amenities in rooms/project: private/shared bath cold/heated/hot water ceiling/standing/wall fan; air-conditioning television phone pool others: 1.4 Which ecotourist attractions are nearby? area name/location public protected area private reserve (own/neighbor’s) beach farm nearby town river/lake/ocean indigenous reserve

171

1.5 Tours: yes no Where: Maximum number of tourists: Type of guide: II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 2.1 What type of environmental impact do you think this hotel had during construction? None___ some degree___ a large impact___. Why? 2.2 What studies have been done before or during construction, or during operation? Why? 2.3 What materials were used in construction? area material (including species, if wood) floor posts/beams walls ceiling/roof other Where were they obtained?_________________________________________ If you used wood, did you find out if it was an endangered species?__________ _______________________________________________________________ If endangered species were used, were they replenished in any way?__________ 2.5 Do you participate in any private or community projects to conserve the environment? What are the accomplishments of these projects? 2.6 If you depend upon a protected area that is not your own property, how do you help protect it? 2.7 If you have your own reserve, describe it: Total area of property_____ Area of reserve_____ (primary forest______ secondary forest______ area in regeneration_____ other_________________________________________________________________) 2.8 If you have your own reserve, how is it managed? Management plan____ Monitoring plan______ Carrying Capacity studies____ Leave it untouched_____ Guard against hunters____ Explain: 2.9 How do you avoid erosion problems on trails?

172

2.10 How is sewage treated? Flows to body of water without treatment___ Outhouse___ Septic tank___ (what is done with sludge?________________________________ Less than 30 meters between leach fields and wells___) Treatment Ponds___ Treatment Plant___ Biodigestor___ 2.11 How are grey waters treated? Flow to a body of water without treatment___ Filter into soil without treatment___ Septic Tank___ (Separated from sewage___ Same tank as sewage___) 2.12 What type of garbage disposal methods do you use? compost bury burn recycle reduction reuse animals municipal other organic steel cans aluminium bottles plastic paper 2.13 Are biodegradable soaps used? yes no 2.14 Do you have any systems to conserve water? Average water consumption in high season according to bill _________ 2.15 Do you do anything to conserve energy? Average electricity consumption in high season according to bill _________ Style of architecture helps with energy conservation______ (light, natural ventilation, other_________________________) No electricity used___ Use alternative sources of energy___ (solar, wind, hydroelectric mini-plants, firewood collected where?___________________) Management implements some type of conservation (energy saving technology, energy saving practices, employee training, request that tourists conserve ________________) No efforts made in this area_____ Architectural style promotes over-use of energy (How?_____________________________________) 2.16 Are there any captive, caged animals on your grounds? (explain) 2.17 Do you offer any type of training for your employees on environmental topics? 2.18 What additional information is offered to tourists? specialized guides___ Library with environmentally/culturally-oriented collection___ presentations/talks___ own publications ___ 173

III. ECONOMY 3.1 Has this area traditionally benefited from tourism? What benefit does your business offer the local economy? 3.2 Where do you buy: local community food materials and supplies furnishings Comments:

nearby city

Central Valley

imported

3.3 Do you contract or send tourists to any local service? (indicate contract or send) guides tours laundry rental (horse, bicycle, other) transportation (boat, car, etc.) restaurant others: Comments: 3.4 Sales of Souvenirs yes no; Local artisans’ work ___100% ___+50% ___-50% ___none send tourists to artisans___ Comments: 3.6 Owners: Is the business a company w/partners___ family business___ community business___ association___ other: Owners’ Names: Where are they from originally? Current residence 3.7 Employees Total number of employees______ Where lived before working here 3.8 What incentives do you offer your employees? Training___ (describe:___________________________________________________) Stock in the business___ profit-sharing___ Opportunities for advancement in the company___Solidarity organization___ Union___ Recognition and appreciation of good service___(How?____________________) Other______________________________ 3.9 Do you have to let people go during the low season? yes no How many? 3.10 What are your major marketing challenges? 174

3.11 Does the hotel promote sales of land to foreigners? 3.12 Are there special offers for Costa Rican tourists? IV. SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS 4.1 What type of relations do you have with the local community? 4.2 Do you participate in local organizations? (Which ones? What do you do?) 4.3 Do you donate resources to local organizations? (Which ones? What resources? Why?) 4.4 What do you know about the history of this area? 4.5 What do you know about the organizations in this area? 4.6 What do you know about the customs and values of this area? 4.7 Do you support and strengthen local culture? (reinforcing positive aspects. Combating negative aspects)

175

Appendix B – History of Efraín Chacón and President José Figueres Ferrer THE FIGHT AGAINST WILLIAM WALKER, 1856-1857 Following in the footsteps of his great-great grandfather, Domingo Barrantes, and his great-grandfather, José María Ureña, Efraín decided to fight in the revolution that took place in 1948. This decision was not a hasty one, but one that was born out of the inspiration he had received through stories about Domingo and José, who fought in the war against William Walker, in the National Campaign of 1856-1857. Domingo and José were two of the many brave men who decided to face the enemy to protect the sovereignty of his family and the independence of the new republic of Costa Rica. Bravery and Courage At the time, President Juan Rafael Mora knew the progress Walker was making in Nicaragua and was against it, for many reasons. First, although Walker was peaceful with Costa Rica, Mora knew that Walker’s plans were to ultimately enslave the people of Central America and claim the territory for the United States. Peace with Walker would only facilitate this plan. Therefore, Costa Rica refused to respect the envoy sent by Walker causing Walker to declare war on Costa Rica shortly afterward. 1 In response to this, Mora declared war on March 1, 1856, not on Nicaragua, but on William Walker and his army of filibusters. Second, Mora was nervous about the American influence Walker brought to the area. Mora knew that if Walker gained control of Nicaragua, and more importantly, the Guanacaste region of Costa Rica, this part of Central America would belong to the U.S. and be used as the proposed canal site. Since relations were tense between the Nicaraguans and Costa Ricans over the border disputes, this was the perfect opportunity to invade the newest region added to Costa Rica, to stake their claim on this part of the country. Domingo and José heard the call the President gave when Mora cried, “[w]e do not go to contend for a piece of land, or to acquire ephemeral power; not to achieve miserable conquest of much less for sacrilegious purposes. No! We go to struggle for the redemption of our brethren from the most iniquitous tyranny.” 2 They enlisted and marched to Puntarenas and sailed for Liberia with the President himself accompanying them. From there, Mora led Domingo and José, along with 3,000 other soldiers, to the town of Santa Rosa, on the outskirts of Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Although Walker’s 207 men were already encamped there, they were tired and under the leadership of the incompetent Colonel

1 2

William Vincent Wells, Walker’s Expedition to Nicaragua (New York: Stringer & Townsend, 1856), 146-153. Laurence Greene, The Filibuster: The Career of William Walker (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1937), 170.

176

Louis Schlessinger. 3 On March 20, the well equipped and rested Costa Rican troops attacked and sent Colonel Schlessinger running for his life, leaving his troops without leadership; disorganized, and vulnerable. The troops were not quality soldiers, after all, being described as “hoodlums from New York...[v]igilante fugitives from San Francisco, wharf rats from New Orleans, and villains from half the countries of the world...In victory they were tough and brave; in defeat they were craven and drunk.” 4 The victory at Santa Rosa was easy for Mora and his troops and caused Walker’s men to flee to Rivas to join the rest of the filibusters. 5 Fearing attack from the northern governments, Walker withdrew to Granada from Rivas “and he left open to Mora’s advancing three thousand the key city of Nicaragua of that day— Rivas, commanding the Transit.” 6 Mora easily entered the city and word got back to Walker who immediately led troops to Rivas. On April 11, 1856, Walker entered the city and drove the Costa Ricans to take refuge in houses and buildings. The battle raged on for a total of 12 hours and was ended by the now-famous legend of Juan Santamaría. Although Walker retreated from the city, the victory was nonetheless sweet and worthy of celebration. The celebration was cut short, however, as the bodies of the dead were not properly buried causing the water supply to become contaminated, resulting in a large outbreak of cholera within the city. As José and other men were returning to their families from the war, the Barrantes family eagerly awaited the arrival of Domingo. However, Domingo was sick with cholera and couldn’t return with his war mates. After one month, when Domingo didn’t return, his family believed that he passed away and they began the customary nine-day mourning ceremony. Late in the afternoon on the ninth day, the family was inside grieving their loss while the children were outside playing. Late in the day when the sun was near the horizon, one of the children noticed a gaunt and scraggly haired man with a long beard walking toward them. When the man got close enough, the children ran for their lives as they saw what they thought to be the ghost of Domingo! Remarkably, Domingo survived the war, survived cholera, and had survived the long walk back to San Marcos. Hearing stories like these about courage, adventure, adversity, and ultimate victory inspired Efraín. These were the types of stories Efraín knew by heart, which motivated him to become very interested in politics. Believing that his country was again being threatened by a man who did not care for the best interests of his people or country, Efraín and a group of his friends from Santa María discussed plans to become part of a movement to change the current political situation. “I decided to fight in the revolution because of the corruption that took place 3

Wells, Walker’s Expedition, 153-155. Having just finished a 7 day forced march, during the heat of the day – as opposed to in the evening when it was cool – the soldiers were exhausted, hungry, and unprepared for battle. 4 Greene, The Filibuster, 175. 5 For their efforts, a Monument to the Heroes was erected in Santa Rosa National Park. 6 Ibid., 179.

177

in the elections during the time. The government was corrupt and they abolished the results from the 1948 election.” 7 THE REVOLUTION, 1948 Responding to the Call Efraín was familiar with Don Pepe, “because he would come to Santa María to sell the goods he grew on his farm in La Lucha—a town near Santa María (see Figure B.1). These were the biggest towns in the area at that time and it was there that I got to know him.” 8 Therefore, in 1948, he and his friends went to La Lucha to pledge their allegiance to Figueres. Don Pepe was, of course, grateful and let them know that he would notify them if they were needed. Figueres was waiting on the results of the election and as feared, or maybe hoped, the election results were voided. “The Costa Rican election crisis of 1948 lasted a little more than a month from the actual voting on February 8, until José Figueres took up arms on March 11.” 9 After the ballots were counted and the election annulled, tension was high and protests broke out. Later that evening, while Otilio Ulate (the true winner of the election for president) and his advisors were meeting at the home of Dr. Carlos Luis Valverde, police were ordered to surround the house and inform the occupants that they were not permitted to leave. Though ordered by his superior to notify those inside by telephone, Police Colonel Juan José Tavío yelled for Valverde to come out. When he did, someone started shooting, fatally wounding Valverde. As the number two man in the opposition party, his death was a national tragedy that fueled the fire. 10 On March 13, 1948, Figueres sent out a messenger to notify Efraín and his friends that their services were needed. However, they didn’t have a way to transport themselves as there were very few vehicles in Santa María at that time. However, there were two trucks that were used to transport the coffee from the factory in San Marcos. Efraín and his friends were able to persuade the drivers to take them to La Lucha. Unfortunately, La Lucha had been abandoned by Figueres almost two months prior and was destroyed by government troops on March 13. 11 As such, a man at La Lucha by the name of Mario Sosa told them to go to San Isidro de El General, located about two hours south along the IAH. 12

7

Chacón, Personal interview, 16 May 2009. Chacón, Personal interview, 16 May 2009. 9 Ameringer, Don Pepe, 43. 10 Ibid., 47. 11 Ibid., 52. 12 Mario Sosa was a Honduran who arrived on the first flight mission to Guatemala from San Isidro de General. With him were six other guerrilleros, along with 600 Argentine (German) Mauser rifles. Ameringer, Don Pepe, 51. 8

178

Figure B.1 – Map of central Costa Rica

They arrived in San Isidro and received their weapons and ammunition. Efraín received a Mauser (Figure B.2) and orders to meet up with a man named Alberto Martén, a childhood friend of Figueres, at El Empalme. Martén was at La Lucha before it fell and narrowly escaped government troops in La Sierra on his way south towards San Isidro. Afraid that his vehicles would not outrun the advancing troops, he set up a defensive position at El Empalme, located about six kilometers south of La Sierra. El Empalme guarded the entrance to Santa María, the new site of Figueres’ headquarters, and blocked the IAH to San Isidro. Before Martén finished his defensive preparations, Frank Marshall Jiménez joined him. 13 Efraín and his friends left San Isidro and

13

Ameringer, Don Pepe, 52. Frank Marshall was one of the initial seven people assigned as officers for Figueres at La Lucha on February 4, 1948. He became one of the war’s heroes and a monument was erected to honor him and his “Battalion of El Empalme,” in 1998, along the IAH, near El Empalme.

179

Figure B.2 – Efraín Chacón and his Mauser rifle in 1948, courtesy of Leda Umaña-Chacón

arrived at Empalme at the same time as Hondurans Jorge Ribas Montes and Francisco “El Indio” Sánchez who had flown into the country just days earlier and were on the same flight as Sosa. Efraín recounted how he and his friends went without food for about two days on account of their travels. Once there, they were finally able to get food at a local farm. Combat

Although government forces moved on La Lucha and La Sierra, they were slow to commit men to eradicate the revolutionary forces. However, they began an offensive on March 20. Efraín was assigned to the “Battalion of El Empalme” under the leadership of Frank Marshall and Max “Tuta” Cortés. 14 The government’s Mobile Unit made a twopronged attack; one against San Isidro and the other against El Empalme. Montes, Martén, Cortés, Marshall and the rest of his men held their position and repelled the enemy. They held their position again on March 30, when the government tried to overrun El Empalme. After days of no activity, Marshall and Cortés readied their troops for battle. “Those two men were like 100 and were very valiant and truly daring men.” 15 From Empalme, Marshall’s troops moved north to La Sierra. They fought all day long and only sustained a few casualties, including a young man from San Marcos with whom Efraín was familiar. For their efforts they gained control of La Sierra, thereby strengthening their position. However, over the next few days government forces bombarded the liberation army: They rained down a hail of fire on us and they also bombed us using cargo planes. Out of one of the cargo planes, that had Nicaragua’s National Guard symbol on the belly, they 14

15

Max Cortés was also one of the “original seven.” Ibid., p.48. Chacón, Personal interview, 16 May 2009.

180

threw bombs made from oxygen tanks full of nails and iron shavings. They destroyed numerous houses that were built by the company who constructed the Inter-American Highway. The explosions were deafening and impressive: all that was left were huge holes in the dirt and the little pieces of wood. So we withdrew to El Empalme. It was believed that it was easier to protect this area since the conditions were more appropriate for defense. 16 Therefore, it was time to execute Phase II of Figueres’ plan: Operation Magnolia (see Figure B.3 and Table B.1). This operation included two simultaneous plans: (1) descend from the hills with 600 men, infiltrate the enemy’s lines, and take Cartago by surprise; and (2) take Puerto Limón using two cargo planes and 65 men—designated as La Legión Caribe, or the Caribbean Legion. 17 Figure B.3 – Map of battle plans

16

Chacón, Personal interview, 16 May 2009. Ameringer, Don Pepe, 57. This was the first time this name was used in reference to these men and this name gained notoriety a few years later. 17

181

Both plans were carried out with precision and blessing, though the occupation of Puerto Limón was the easier of the two. 18 Table B.1 - List of key events in the Revolution of 1948 Date February 8 March 11 March 1112 March 13 March 14 March 20 March 30 April 10 April 11 April 12 April 13 April 13

Event Election results nulled by current government administration Figueres' fighters capture San Isidro, airfield and 3 DC-3s (sent two to Guatemala) Chico Orlich conducts operations in San Ramón Government forces capture La Sierra Figueres defeats government forces at Frailes with 180 men and establishes new HQ in Santa María Government forces attack Empalme and San Isidro Figueres' forces conduct an air raid over San José and bombed the Presidential Courtyard Phantom March from Jardín to Llano de Los Angeles Puerto Limón occupied by Figueres' forces (Caribbean League) by noon A small party from Cartago links-up with the Caribbean League advance party at Turrialba and government forces capture Paraíso Figueres' fighters meet government forces at Tejar in bloodiest battle in civil war, which was won by the Battalion of El Empalme after 12 hours of fighting End of Revolution

Figueres assembled his troops at Jardín, near Empalme, on the evening of April 10 to begin la marcha fantasma, or the phantom march. His plan was to silently march his troops over the hills using footpaths and oxcart trails. Efraín remembers having to carry his rifle, ammunition, and provisions—which weren’t very much. The march through the night was difficult because of the distance, terrain, and amount of weight each man had to carry. They crossed the enemy lines that ran from La Sierra to Frailes, along the ridgeline above La Lucha, and planned to descend the hills just south of Llano de Los Angeles (see Figure B.4). It was here that Figueres and his men received their blessing. Just as the men reached the descent point, the sun crested the hills thereby exposing their position. Figueres noticed that the enemy had machine guns and an artillery position set up in San Cristóbal Norte and he knew if they continued forward they would be destroyed. Miraculously, however, there was a line of clouds moving in over their position.

18

The Caribbean Legion landed in Limón at 8 a.m. on April 11, and secured it by 12 p.m. Ameringer, Don Pepe, 57.

182

Figure B.4 – Map of battle areas, 1948 19

19

GIS data for this map were obtained from Oscar Chacón at INBio, in Costa Rica, on January 8, 2010.

183

Within minutes their position was concealed and they were able to march down into Los Angeles in what has since been referred to as the miracle of La Virgen de Los Angeles. 20 Here they spent the day resting, mending bruises, and waiting for nightfall to continue their march to Cartago. While they were in that town there was a man and his wife who appeared carrying a newborn baby. The man explained how they had to leave their house for fear of being killed by the government troops. They fled into the forest and while there his wife gave birth. What happened next was quite strange: They asked us if there was a priest in the town who could baptize the child. We told them that Padre Benjamín Núñez, a close friend of Figueres, was there with us. Also with us was the only women who did the phantom march whose name was Elieth Zamora. Padre Núñez agreed to do the baptism and he became the godfather and Elieth became the godmother. Padre Núñez used a gourd to hold the water. It was the strangest thing, that there was a baptism in the middle of a bunch of armed bearded guys. 21 That evening, the men resumed their march and descended the hills near Copalchi. From the valley floor, Figueres divided his forces into three groups: one group, under the command of the Nicaraguan José Mariá Tercero, was tasked with securing Congreja, located on the IAH; the second was given to Edmundo Woodbridge and was tasked to secure Ochomongo; and the third was to remain with Figueres to march in and capture Cartago. 22 Efraín was with Figueres when they arrived in the city at around 6 a.m. They didn’t encounter much resistance on their way to the city since this was where most of Figures’ volunteers lived. Efraín explained that this was also due to good fortune since the government sent over 200 men to Limón to try to repel the invasion on the coast. Had those forces been in the city, occupation would have been much harder. Once they reached the barrio, or district, of El Molino, they were greeted by José Joaquín Peralta Esquivel. 23 They occupied the Jesús Jiménez Zamora School and later established their headquarters in the San Luis Gonzaga High School and the soldiers were given bread, warm milk, and coffee by the people of Cartago. 24 Figueres sent some of his soldiers to occupy other parts of the town and some occupied Las Ruinas, an unfinished church that was first built in 1575, but later destroyed the earthquakes. Other soldiers were sent to nearby 20

Ibid., 57. Chacón, Personal interview, 03 July 2009. 22 Ameringer, Don Pepe, 58. 23 Peralta was the former minister of culture to Calderón Guardia and was vice president from 1958-1962. 24 Ameringer, Don Pepe, 58. 21

184

towns; one group met the advance party from the Caribbean Legion, and in Paraíso the soldiers encountered resistance. However, the most deadly and decisive battle took place on April 13. While Figueres and his men enjoyed a virtually incident-free occupation of Cartago, Tercero and his men encountered difficulty almost immediately after securing their position. By the time Figueres entered Cartago, word reached the loyalist forces still holding their line between La Sierra and Frailes. They organized and marched toward Cartago using the IAH. Along the way they met and overcame Tercero’s forces at Congreja. To head off the advancing troops, Figueres sent Marshall, Montes, and their troops to Tejar. “In El Tejar we met them and many people died there.” 25 That battle lasted 12 hours and was the last battle of the war. Although there were many tense situations over the next week, the war was indeed over, but not without a high cost; 40 days of chaos and over 2,000 lives. Efraín fought through the revolution armed only with his Mauser rifle, ammunition, and whatever provisions he could find. Those were definitely hard days for him. Not only did he have to endure the hardship and burden of war, he had to leave his brother and family for nearly five weeks, not knowing how they were and not knowing if he would see them again. Federico, being the younger brother, stayed to work in their uncles’ fields as there was a lot of work still to be done. Also he had to care for their mother and grandmother. Although Efraín was offered a position in the Junta after the revolution was complete, he turned it down and returned to his family. For his efforts, in 1958 Efraín was awarded a certificate signed by President José Figueres (during his second term in office, 1953-1958) for his participation in the “War of National Liberation,” as see in Figure B.5. Additionally, in 1998 a monument was erected in honor of those “Heroes of the El Empalme Battalion,” who were under the direction of Frank Marshall Jimenez (see Figure B.6). The monument is located along the IAH near the entrance to La Lucha. The monument says “To Frank Marshall Jimenez and the Heroes of the El Empalme Battalion,” erected by the National Association of Ex-combatants on April 1, 1998. Finally, for his participation in the revolution, Efraín was able to gain the respect and trust of the country’s president.

25

Chacón, Personal interview, 03 July 2009.

185

Figure B.5 – Efraín’s certificate for participating in the War of National Liberation in 1948 26

Figure B.6 – Monument erected in honor of the Heroes of the El Empalme Battalion 27

26 27

Certificate is courtesy of Efraín Chacón. Photo taken by the author in 2009.

186

Bibliography “A Program of Study and Adventure.” In What’s Ruta Quetzal BBVA. http://www.rutaquetzalbbva.com/TLRQ/index.php?id=7&no_cache=1&L=1 (accessed on February 10, 2010). Acevedo, Hector, Julio Bustamante, Luis Paniagua, and Ronald Chaves. Ecosistemas de La Cuenca Hidrográfica del Río Savegre, Costa Rica. Santo Domingo de Heredia: Editorial INBio, 2002. Acevedo, Heiner, Julio Bustamante, Luis Paniagua, and Ronald Cháves. Mapa de ecosistemas de la cuenca hidrográica del río Savegre, Costa Rica. San José: Editorial INBio, 2003. Adams, W.M. Green Development: Environment and sustainability in the Third World. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge, 2001. Alvarado, Darner Adrian Mora and Arcelio Chavez Aguilar. “Programa Bandera Azul Ecologica: Organizacion Comunal y Salud Publica en Costa Rica: 1996-2007.” Unpublished study conducted by the Director and Promoter of the Blue Flag Ecological Program. Anderson, A. E. “A Critical Reviwe of Literature on Puma (Felis concolor).” Colorado Division of Wildlife. Wildlife Research Section. Special Report, Number 54: 1-91. Anderson, James R., Ernest E. Hardy, John T. Roach, and Richard E, Witmer. A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data. Geological Survey Professional paper 964. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. Arce, Jorge. “Paraíso agroecoturístico.” Revista Dominica 04 March 2001, 10-12. Arias, Arsenio Agüero. “Área de Conservacion Pacifico Central, Sub-región los Santos, Nuestra Áreas Silvestres Protegidas.” Unpublished paper written in 2005. Arndt, Heinz Wolfgang. Economic Development: The History of an Idea. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Ashebir, Dereje, Tom Deckers, Jan Nyssen, Wubetu Bihon, Alemtsehay Tsegay, Hailemariam Tekie, Jean Poesen, Mitiku Haile, Fekadu Wondumagegneheu, Dirk Raes, Mintesinot Behailu, and Jozef Deckers. “Growing Apple (Makus Domestica) Under Tropical Mountain Climate Conditions in Northern Ethiopia.” Experimental Agriculture 46.1 (2010) : 53-65. Asociación de Productores Agrícolas y Comercializadores (APACO). http://meteoroapaco.yolasite.com/gerardo.php (last accessed on March 24, 2010). Augelli, John P. “Costa Rica’s Frontier Legacy.” Geographical Review 77.1 (1987) : 1-16. Augelli, John P. “Modernization of Costa Rica’s Beef Cattle Economy: 1950-1985.” Journal of Cultural Geography 9.2 (1989) : 77-90.

187

Barkin, David. “Ecotourism: A Tool for Sustainable Development in an Era of International Integration.” In The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the Impacts, edited by Joseph A. Miller and Elizabeth Malek-Zadeh, 263-271. New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 1996. Barry, Tom. Costa Rica: A Country Guide, 2nd edition. Albuquerque: Inter-Hemispheric Education Resource Center, 1990. Barton, Gregory. “Empire Forestry and the Origins of Environmentalism.” Journal of Historical Geography 27.4 (2001) : 529-552. Becher, Ann and Jane Segleau Earle. Personal letter to the Chacón family, dated September 6, 1994. Becher, Anne and Beatrice Blake. “Reflections on ‘Green Ratings.’” August 1998, see http://www.planeta.com/planeta/98/0898rating.html (accessed on February 4, 2010). Benzing, David H. “Vulnerabilities of Tropical Forests to Climate Change: The Significance of Resident Epiphytes.” Climatic Change 39.2-3 (1998) : 519-540. Bien, Amos. “Environmental Certification for Tourism in Central America: CST and Other Programs.” In Ecotourism and Certification: Setting Standards in Practice, edited by Martha Honey. Washington: Island Press, 2002. BirdLife International. Birdlife’s online World Bird Database: the site for bird conservation, Version 2.0. Cambridge: BirdLife International, 2003. http://www.birdlife.org (accessed December 23, 2009). Björk, Peter. “Ecotourism from a Conceptual Perspective, an Extended Definition of a Unique Tourism Form.” International Journal of Tourism Research 2 (2000) : 189-202. Blaikie, Piers M. and Harold C. Brookfield. Land Degradation and Society. New York: Methuen, 1987. Blake, Beatrice, Anne Beacher, Jane Segleau Earle. “Evaluating Ecotourism Lodgings in The New Key to Costa Rica.” In The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the Impacts, edited by Joseph A. Miller and Elizabeth Malek-Zadeh. New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 1996. Blake, Beatrice. “Comparing the ICT’s Certification of Sustainable Tourism and The New Key to Costa Rica’s Sustainable Tourism Rating: CST: Another Form of Greenwashing?” August 2001, see http://www.planeta.com/planeta/01/0104costa.html (accessed on February 4, 2010). Blake, Beatrice. The New Key to Costa Rica, 19th edition. Berkeley: Ulysses Press, 2009. Boo, Elizabeth. Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls, Vol 1 and 2. Washington: World Wide Fund for Nature, 1990.

188

Boza, Mario A. “Conservation in Action: Past, Present, and Future of the National Parks System of Costa Rica.” Conservation Biology 7.2 (1993) : 239-247. Boza, Mario A. Quoted in The Green Republic: A Conservation History of Costa Rica. Sterling Evans. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999. Boza, Mario A. Quoted in The Quetzal and the Macaw: The Story of Costa Rica’s National Parks. David Rains Wallace. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1992. Boza, Mario A., Diane Jukofsky, and Chris Wille. “Costa Rica Is a Laboratory, Not Ecotopia.” Conservation Biology 9.3 (1995) : 684-685. Boza, Mario. Los parques nacionalse de Costa Rica. San José: INCAFO, 1978. Brenner, Tomás. “Las pesquerías de aguas continentales frías en América Latina.” COPESCAL Documento Ocasional 7 (1994) : 1-32. http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/t4675s/t4675s00.htm (accessed January 24, 2010). Bruijnzeel, L.A. and L.S. Hamilton. Decision Time for Cloud Forests. IHP Humid Tropics Programme Series No. 13. Paris: UNESCO Division of Water Sciences. Bruijnzeel, L.A. and Lawrence S. Hamilton. Decision Time for Cloud Forests. IHP Humid Tropics Programme Series no. 13. Paris: UNESCO Division of Water Sciences, 2000. Bryant, Raymond and Michael K. Goodman. “A pioneering reputation: Assessing Piers Blaikie’s contributions to political ecology.” Geoforum 39.2 (2008) : 708-715. Bubb, Philip, Ian May, Lera Miles, and Jeff Saye. Cloud Forest Agenda. UK: Swaingrove Imaging, 2005. Budowski, Gerardo. “To Tourism and Environmental Conservation: Conflict, Coexistence, or Symbiosis.” Environmental Conservation 3.1 (1976) : 27-31. Butler, R. W. “Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope or Trojan Horse?” Journal of Travel Research 28.3 (1990) : 40-45. Butler, Rhett. List of Freshwater Fishes for Costa Rica. http://fish.mongabay.com/data/Costa_Rica.htm (accessed on October 12, 2009). Camacho, Gabriela. “San Gerardo de Dota: su principio y fin.” Perfil 564 (April 2008) : 82-85. Campbell, James B. Introduction to Remote Sensing. 4th edition. New York: The Guilford Press, 2006. Campbell, Scott and Susan S. Fainstein. “Introduction: The Structure and Debates of Planning Theory.” In Readings in Planning Theory, edited by Scott Campbell and Susan S. Fainstein. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 2003. Carr, David L. “Proximate Population Factors and Deforestation in Tropical Agricultural Frontiers.” Population and Environment 25.6 (2004) : 585-612. 189

Carvajal H., Mario. “Turismo ecológical.” La Nación, Feburary 7, 1987, 15A. Ceballos-Lascuráin, Héctor. “The Future of Ecotourism.” Mexico Journal January (1987) : 13-14. Ceballos-Lascuráin, Héctor. Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas: The state of naturebased tourism around the world and guidelines for its development. Switzerland and Cambridge: IUCN, 1996. Certification for Sustainable Tourism (CST). See www.turismo-sostenible.co.cr and www.turismo-sostenible.co.cr/EN/homoe.shtml. Chacón, Efraín. Quoted in “Pioneer tamed a wild corner of the land.” David Dudenhoefer. Costa Rica Today, March 4, 1993, 8. Chacón, Efraín. Quoted in, “The Chainsaw and the White Oak: From Astrobiology to Environmental Sustainability.” Dwight E. Neuenschwander and Leo R. Finkenbinder. Radiations Spring (2001) : 5-10. Cleghorn, Hugh Francis Clarke. The Forests and Gardens of South India. London: W. H. Allen & CO., 1861. Coffee, Brian. “Investment Incentives as a Means of Encouraging Tourism Development: The Case of Costa Rica.” Bulletin of Latin American Research 12.1 (1993) : 83-90. “Collection de Leyes y Decretos, Numero 5389” La Gaceta 12 November 1975, issue 215, 10561058. Conroy, Michael E. Branded! How the ‘Certification Revolution’ is Transforming Global Corporations. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 2007. Coto, A., Jorge Alberto and Jorge Eduardo Torres H. Uso potencial de la tierra de Costa Rica. San José: Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, 1970. Cruz, Consuelo. Political Culture and Institutional Development in Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. “Curso Académico.” Ruta Quetzal BBVA. 2002. http://www.rutaquetzalbbva.com/TLRQ/index.php?id=63&no_cache=1&L=1&expid=7&cHa sh=4c923752ec

(accessed on February 10, 2010).

De Oduber, Marjorie. “Un abra en la selva virgen.” La Nacion 10 February 1987, 15. “Descripción de la asociación.” ACOPROT. http://www.acoprot.org/index.php?q=mision (accessed on February 10, 2010). Di Gregorio, Antonio and Louisa J.M. Jansen. Land Cover Classification System: Classification concepts and user manual. Rome: Food & Agricultural Organization, 2005. Diamantis, Dimitrios. Ecotourism: Management and Assessment. London: Thompson, 2004. Dobbs, C. G. “Silent Spring,” Forestry 36.2 (1963) : 195-198. 190

Downer, Sorrel. “Enter another world in San Gerardo de Dota: The secret treasures of the hidden valley.” Costa Rica Today 02 December 1993, 24-25. Eakin, Marshall C. “The Origins of Modern Science in Costa Rica: The Instituto Físico-Geográfico Nacional, 1887-1904.” Latin American Research Review 34.1 (1999) : 123-150. Ehrenfield, David. “Archie Carr: In Memoriam.” Conservation Biology 1.2 (1987) : 169-172. Enloe, Cynthia H. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. “Environmental Science and Sustainable Development Concentration.” http://www.bestsemester.com/docLib/20090227_EnvironmentalScienceConcentration.pdf (accessed on January 25, 2010). Evans, Sterling. The Green Republic: A Conservation History of Costa Rica. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999. Fallas, Héctor. “ San Gerardo de Dota: Lecho de truchas, agua fresca y montañas.” La Nación, October 10, 1980, 7-9C. Fallas, Héctor. “San Gerardo de Dota: Lecho de truchas, agua fresca y montañas.” La Nacion 10 October 1980, 7C-9C. Fennell, David A. “A Content Analysis of Ecotourism Definitions.” Current Issues in Tourism 4.5 (2001) : 403-421. Fennell, David A. Ecotourism: An introduction. New York: Routledge, 1999. Fennell, David and David Weaver. “ The Ecotourium Concept and Tourism-Conservation Symbiosis.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13.4 (2005) : 373-390. Figgs, P. “Ecotourism: Special interest or major direction?” Habitat 21.2 (1993) : 8-11. Figueres, José. Quoted in Don Pepe: A Political Biography of José Figueres of Costa Rica, by Charles D. Ameringer. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1978. Fletcher, John. “Economics of International Tourism.” In The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies, edited by Mike Robinson and Tazim Jamal (Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2009), 168 Forestry Law 4465. Articles 1, 2, 74. Created on November 25, 1969. Forsyth, Tim. “Environmental responsibility and business regulation: the case of sustainable tourism.” The Geographical Journal 163.3 (1997) : 270-280. Foster, M., A. C. Charters & M. Neushul. “The Santa Barbara Oil Spill Part 1: Initial Quantities and Distribution of Pollutant Crude Oil.” Environmental Pollution 2.2 (1971) : 97-113. Foster, Pru. “The potential negative impacts of global climate change on tropical montane cloud forests.” Earth-Science Reviews 55.1-2 (2001) : 73-106. 191

Fox, Stephen R. The American Conservation Movement: John Muir and His Legacy. Reprint. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981. Geist, Helmut J. and Eric F. Lambin. “Proximate Causes and Underlying Driving Forces of Tropical Deforestation.” BioScience 52.2 (2002) : 143-150. Geist, Helmut, William McConnell, Eric F. Lambin, Emilio Moran, Diogenes Alves, and Thomas Rudel. “Causes and Trajectories of Land-Use/Cover Change.” In Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: Local Processes and Global Impacts, edited by Eric F. Lambin and Helmut Geist, 4170. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2006. "Gentes y Paisajes." La Nacion. 1978, 8A. Gomez, L. D., and J. M. Savage. ”Searchers on that Rich Coast: Costa Rican Field Biology 14001980.” In Costa Rican Natural History, edited by Daniel H. Janzen, 1-11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Grove, Richard H. “Early themes in African conservation: the Cape in the nineteenth century.” In Conservation in Africa: People, Policies and Practice, edited by David Anderson and Richard H. Grove, 32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Grove, Richard. “The origins of environmentalism,” Nature 345.6270 (1990) : 11-14. Grove, Richard. Ecology, Climate and Empire: Colonialism and Global Environmental History. Cambridge: The White Horse Press, 1997. Grove, Richard. Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600-1860. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995. Guess, Geroge M. “Pasture Expansion, Forestry, and Development Contradictions: The Case of Costa Rica.” Studies in Comparative International Development 14.1 (1979) : 42-55. Guha, Ramachandra. “Forestry in British and Post-British India: A Historical Analysis.” Economic and Political Weekly 18.44 (1983) : 1882-1896. Hall, Carolyn. Costa Rica: A Geographical Interpretation in Historical Perspective. Boulder: Westview Press, Inc., 1985. Hamilton, Lawrence S., James O. Juvik, and F. N. Scatena. “The Puerto Rico Tropical Cloud Forest Symposium: Introduction and Workshop Synthesis.” In Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, edited by Lawrence S. Hamilton, James O. Juvik, and F. N. Scatena, 1-23. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995. Harold Brookfield. “Environmental damage: distinguishing human from geophysical causes.” Environmental Hazards 1 (1999) : 3-11. Harrison, S. “Population growth, land use and deforestation in Costa Rica, 1950-1984.” Interciencia 16.2 (1991) : 83-93.

192

Hayes, Samuel P. “The Environmental Movement.” Journal of Forest History 25.4 (1981) : 219221. Henderson, A., S.P. Churchill, & J. Luteyn. "Neotropical Plant Diversity." Nature 351.6321 (1991) : 21-22. Henderson, Carrol L. Field Guide to the Wildlife of Costa Rica. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Hernández, Hermógenes. Costa Rica: Evolución Territorial Y Principales Censos de Población 1502-1984. San José: Editorial Universidad Estatal A Distancia, 1985. Hetzer, N. D. “Environment, tourism, culture.” Links July (1965). Reprinted in Ecosphere 1.2 (1970) : 1-3. Higham, James and Anna Carr, “Defining Ecotourism in New Zealand: Differentiating Between the Defining Parameters within a National/Regional Context.” Journal of Ecotourism 2.1 (2003) : 17-32. Hill, Carole. “The Paradox of Tourism in Costa Rica.” Cultural Survival Quarterly 14.1 (1990) : 1419. Holdridge, L. R., W. C. Grenke, W. H. Hatheway, T. Liang, and J. A. Tosi, Jr. Forest Environments In Tropical Life Zones: A Pilot Study. Elmsford: Pergamon Press Inc., 1971. Holdridge, L. R., W. C. Grenke, W. H. Hatheway, T. Liang, and J. A. Tosi, Jr. Forest Environments in Tropical Life Zones: A Pilot Study. New York: Pergamon Press Inc., 1971. “Holdridge Life Zones.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holdridge_life_zones (accessed on February 6, 2010). Honey, Martha and Emma Stewart. “Introduction.” In Ecotourism and Certification: Setting Standards in Practice, edited by Martha Honey. Washington: Island Press, 2002. Honey, Martha. Ecotourism and Sustainable Development. 2nd edition. Washington: Island Press, 2008. Honey, Martha. Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Washington: Island Press, 1999. Horn, Sally P. “The Inter-American highway and human disturbance of páramo vegetation in Costa Rica.” Yearbook of the Conference of Lantin Americanist Geographers 15 (1989) : 1322. Hostettler, Silvia. “Tropical montane cloud forests: a challenge for conservation.” Bois Et Forêts Des Tropiques 274.4 (2002) : 19-31. Hulme, David and Marshall Murphree. “Communities, wildlife and the ‘new conservation’ in Africa.” Journal of International Development 11.2 (1999) : 277-285.

193

Inglis, Fred. The Delicious History of the Holiday. New York: Routledge, 2000. Inskeep, Edward. “Environmental Planning for Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 14.1 (1987) : 118-135. Instituto Costarricense de Turismo. Anuario Estadísticos de Turismo. San José: ICT, 1975-2001. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC). IX Censo Nacional de Población y V de Vivienda del 2000: Resultados Generales. San José: INEC, 2001. 23-25. Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences. http://www.iica.int/Eng/infoinstitucional/Pages/Brief%20history%20of%20IICA.aspx (accessed on January 25, 2010). International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), UNEP, and WWF. World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. IUCN-UNEP-WWF, 1980. Interview with ECOCLUB. “The Architect of Ecotourism.” ECOCLUB 85 (2006) : 2. Jackson, John Ellwood. Biology of Apples and Pears. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. “John James Audubon 1785-1851.” The American Woodsman: Our Namesake and Inspiration. http://www.audubon.org/nas/jja.html (accessed on January 15, 2010). Joint Declaration between WTO and UNEP. 1982. In “Environmental Planning for Tourism.” Edward Inskeep. Annals of Tourism Research 14.1 (1987) : 118-135. “Júbilo en las montañas de Dota.” La Nación, October 16, 1975, 23 C Kappelle, Maarten (ed.). Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Montane Oak Forests. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2006. Kappelle, Maarten and Marta E. Juárez. “The Los Santos Forest Reserve: A bufferzone vital for the Costa Rican La Amistad Biosphere Reserve.” Environmental Conservation 21.2 (1994) : 166-169. Kappelle, Maarten and Sally P. Horn, editors. Páramos de Costa Rica. Santo Domingo de Heredia: Editorial INBio, 2005. Kappelle, Maarten, Jan-Gerrit Van Uffelen & Antoine M. Cleef. “Altitudinal zonation of montane Quercus forests along two transects in the Chirripó National Park, Costa Rica.” Vegetatio 119 (1995) : 119-153. Kappelle, Maarten, Marco Castro, Alfonso Garita, Luis Gonzalez, and Huberth Monge. “Ecosistemas de los páramos del Área de Conservación la Amistad-Pacífico en Costa Rica.” In Páramos de Costa Rica, edited by Maarten Kappelle and Sally Peterson Horn, 549-575. San José: Editorial INBio, 2005.

194

Kappelle, Maarten, Marco Castro, Heiner Acevedo, Pedro Cordero, Luis González, Edgar Méndez, and Huberth Monge. “A Rapid Method in Ecosystem Mapping and Monitoring as a Tool for Managing Costa Rican Ecosystem Health.” In Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, edited by David J. Rapport, William L. Lasley, Dennis E. Rolston, N. Ole Nielsen, Calvin O. Qualset, and Ardeshir B. Damania, 449-458. Boca Raton: CRC Press, LLC, 2003. Kappelle, Maarten, Marta E. Juárez, and Antoine M. Cleef. “Effects of 60 years of land use and cover change in a tropical montane cloud forest: Deforestation arrested at last.” Unpublished manuscript, 2002. Kappelle, Maarten, Peer A.F. Kennis, and Rob A.J. de Vries. “Changes in diversity along a successional gradient in a Costa Rican upper montane Quercus forest.” Biodiversity and Conservation 4 (1995) : 10-34. Kappelle, Maarten, Thorwald Geuze, Miguel E. Leal, and Antoine M. Cleef. “Successional age and forest structure in a Costa Rican upper montane Quercus forest.” Journal of Tropical Ecology 12 (1996) : 681-698. Kappelle, Maarten. “Bosques Nublados de Costa Rica.” In Bosques Nublados del Neotrópico, edited by Maarten Kappelle and Alejandro D. Brown, 301-370. Santo Domingo de Heredia: Editorial INBio, 2001. Kappelle, Maarten. A phytosociological analysis of oak forests in the western Talamanca Range, Costa Rica. M.Sc. Thesis. Hugo de Vries Laboratorium: University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1987. Kates, Robert W. “Population and Consumption: What We Know, What We Need to Know.” Environment 42.3 (2000) : 10-19. Kelchner, Warren. “The Pan American Highway.” Foreign Affairs 16.4 (1938) : 723-727. Kleinn, Christopher, Lenin Corrales, and David Morales. “Forest Area in Costa Rica: A Comparative Study of Tropical Forest Cover Estimates Over Time.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 73.1 (2002) : 17-40. Klepeis, Peter. “From Farmers to Satellites: A Human Geography Perspective on Tropical Deforestation.” In Tropical Deforestation, edited by Sharon L. Spray and Matthew D. Moran, 77-102. Lanham: Rownam & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006. Krabbe, Niels, D. J. Agro, N. H. Rice, M. Jacome, L. Navarrete, and F. Sornoza M. “A New Species of Antpitta (Formicariidae: Grallaria) from the Southern Ecuadorian Andes.” The Auk 116.4 (1999) : 882-890. Krüger, Oliver. “The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or Pandora’s box?” Biodiversity and Conservation 14 (2005) : 579-600.

195

Lambin, Eric and Helmut J. Geist. “Causes of land-use and land-cover change.” In Encyclopedia of Earth, edited by Cutler J. Cleveland. Washington: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment, 2007. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Causes_of_land-use_and_land-cover_change (accessed February 20, 2010). Lambin, Eric F., B.L. Turner, Helmut J. Geist, Samuel B. Agbola, Arild Angelsen, John W. Bruce, Oliver T. Coomes, Rodolfo Dirzo, Günther Fischer, Carl Folke, P.S. George, Katherine Homewood, Jacques Imbernon, Rik Leemans, Xiubin Lin, Emilio F. Moran, Michael Mortimore, P.S. Ramakrishnan, John F. Richards, Helle Skånes, Will Steffen, Glenn D. Stone, Uno Svedin, Tom A. Veldkamp, Coleen Vogel, and Jianchu Xu. “The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths.” Global Environmental Change 11 (2001) : 261-269. Lambin, Eric F., Helmut Geist, and Ronald R. Rindfuss. “Introduction: Local Processes with Global Impacts.” In Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: Local Processes and Global Impacts, edited by E. F. Lambin, H. J. Geist, 1-8. New York: Springer, 2006. Lambin, Eric F., Helmut J. Geist, and Erika Lepers. “Dynamics of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change in Tropical Regions.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28 (2003) : 205241. Lambrechts, Christian. “The Threatened Forests of Mount Kenya.” In Mountain Forests and Sustainable Development. Mountain Agenda, 30-31. Switzerland: University of Berne, 2000. Law 4465, Article 58, Ley Forestal, Leyes, decretos, y resoluciones, semester 2, vol. 2. San José: Imprenta Nacional, 1969. Leonard, H. Jeffrey. Recursos naturales y dessarrollo economico en America Central: Un perfil ambiental regional. Turrialba: CATIE, 1985. Lobo, Isaac. “Ruta Historica.” Al Día, July 3, 2002, 1-3. Long, Adrian J. “The Importance of Tropical Montane Cloud Forests for Endemic and Threatened Birds.” In Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, edited by Lawrence S. Hamilton, James O. Juvik, and F. N. Scatena, 79-106. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995. Lowenthal, David. "Introduction." In Man and Nature. George Perkins Marsh. Reprint. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965. Lugo, A. E., S. L. Brown, R. Dodson, T. S. Smith, and H. H. Shugart. “The Holdridge Life Zones of the Conterminous United States in Relation to Ecosystem Mapping.” Journal of Biogeography 26.5 (1999) : 1025-1038. MacKinnon, Dorothy. “Finding the Fungus Among Us.” The Tico Times, June 13, 2003. MacKinnon, Dorothy. “New Research Center Blooms.” The Tico Times, June 1, 2001, W-7. Mandela, Nelson. Quoted in Ecotourism and Sustainable Development. Martha Honey. 2nd edition. Washington: Island Press, 2008. 196

Manila Declaration on World Tourism. 1980. Marsh, George Perkins. Man and Nature. Reprint. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2003. Mathieson, Alister. Tourism: Economic, Physical, and Social Impacts. New York: Longman, 1982. Matlock, Robert B., Jr. and Gary S. Hartshorn. “La Selva Biological Station (OTS).” Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 80.3 (1999) : 188-193. “Mayan Legend Reveals Secret.” The Perspective: Southern Nazarene University Alumni Magazine (Fall/Winter 1986) : 4-7. McCormick, John. “The Origins of the World Conservation Strategy.” Environmental Review 10.3 (1986) : 177-187. McCormick, John. Reclaiming Paradise: The Global Environmental Movement. London: Belhaven Press, 1992. Meyer, William B. and B. L. Turner II. “Global Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: An Overview.” In Changes in Land Use and Land Cover: A Global Perspective, edited by William B. Meyer and B. L. Turner II, 3-10. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Miller, Kenton R. Planning National Parks for Ecodevelopment: Methods and Cases from Latin America: Volume I and II. Ann Arbor: Center for Strategic Wildland Management Studies, 1978. Mitchell, Meg Tyler and Scott Pentzer. Costa Rica: A Global Studies Handbook. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2008. Molina, Iván and Steven Palmer. The History of Costa Rica: Brief and Up-To-Date and Illustrated. 2nd edition. Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007. “More Info.” In What’s Ruta Quetzal BBVA. http://www.rutaquetzalbbva.com/TLRQ/index.php?id=16&no_cache=1&L=1 (accessed on February 10, 2010). Mulion, S. “Wilderness Access for Persons with a Disability: A Discussion.” In Ecotourism: Incorporating the Global Classroom. (1992) Paper presented at the International Conference on Ecotourism at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Mulligan, Mark and Sophia Burke. Global Cloud Forests and Environmental Change in a Hydrological Context. UK: Department for International Development, 2005. Mumford, Lewis. The brown decades: a study of the arts in America, 1865-1895. 2nd edition. Canada: General Publishing Company, 1971. Myers, Norman, Russell A. Mittermeier, Cristina G. Mittermeier, Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca, and Jennifer Kent. “Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.” Nature 403 (2000) : 853858. 197

Myers, Norman. “The Hamburger Connection: How Central America’s Forests Become North America’s Hamburgers.” Ambio 10.1 (1981) : 2-8. Nadkarni, Nalini Nadkarni. “Dr. Daniel H. Janzen Honorary Fellow, ATB, 2002.” Biotropica 34.4 (2002) : 482. Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind. 3rd edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973. Newmann, Roderick P. Imposing Wilderness: Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Nuhn, Helmut. Regionalización de Costa Rica para la planificación del desarrollo y la administración. San José: Oficina de Planificación, 1973. Nunley, Robert E. The Distribution of Population In Costa Rica. Washington: National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council, 1960. Nygren, Anja. “Deforestation in Costa Rica: An Examination of Social and Historical Factors.” Forest & Conservation History 39.1 (1995) : 27-35. O’Riordan, Timothy. Environmentalism. 2nd edition. London: Pion Ltd., 1981. “Obituary: Hugh F. C. Cleghorn, M. D., LL. D., F. R. S. E.” The Geographical Journal 6.1 (1895) : 83. “Obituary: Sir Dietrich Brandis, F. R. S.” The Geographical Journal 30.1 (1907) : 97. Odum, Eugene P. Fundamentals of Ecology. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1959. Oliver, J. W. “Forestry in India.” The Indian Forester 27 (1901) : 617-623. Orams, Mark B. “Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism.” Tourism Management 16.1 (1995) : 3-8. “Organization for Tropical Studies.” http://www.ots.ac.cr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=258 (accessed January 27, 2010). “Oslo Statement of Ecotourism.” Washington: The International Ecotourism Society, 2007. http://www.ecotourismglobalconference.org/?page_id=179 (accessed on January 22, 2010). Page, Stephen and Joanne Connell. Tourism: A Modern Synthesis. 2nd edition. London: Thomson Learning, 2006. Pan American. World Airways History. “Pan Am Firsts.” http://www.panam.org/default1.asp (accessed on January 18, 2010). Peeler, John. Latin American Democracies: Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985. 198

“Pionero Del Turismo.” Tecnitur: Revista Oficial De La Asociacion Costarricense De Profesionales En Turismo 94 (2003) : 16. Plath, C. V. and A. Van Der Sluis. Uso potencial de la tierra de Costa Rica. Rome:FAO, 1967. Pleumarom, Anita. “The Political Economy of Tourism.” The Ecologist 24.4 (1994) : 142-148. “Poder Ejecutivo, Decretos, Numero 32981-MINAE,” La Gaceta 25 April 2006, issue 79, 2. Polini, Gina. “Pídalo Verde.” Tiempo Libre 23 November 2000, 36-37. Pomareda, Fabiola. “Paraíso agroecoturístico.” Revista Dominical, March 4, 2001, 10-12. Ponchner, Debbie. “Universidad En El Bosque.” La Nación, June 5, 2001. Pounds, J. Alan, Michael P. L. Fogden, and John H. Campbell. “Biological response to climate change on a tropical mountain.” Nature 398.6728 (1999) : 611-615. Powell, John Wesley. Quoted in Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Mark A. Benedict and Edward T. McMahon. Washington: Island Press, 2006. Prendas, Grettel. “La Reserva Es Usada Para La Investigacion Cientifica: Sevegre Impulsa Ecotourismo.” La Republica, June 6, 2003, 1, 8. Raventos, Pedro. “The internet strategy of the Costa Rican Tourism Board.” Journal of Business Research 59.3 (2006) : 375-386. Ray, Deepak K., Udaysankar S. Nair, Robert O. Lawton, Ronald M. Welch, and Roger A. Pielke Sr. “Impact of land use on Costa Rican tropical montane cloud forests: Sensitivity of orographic cloud formation to deforestation in the plains.” Journal of Geophysical Research 111 (2006): 1-16. Richardson, J. Ecotourism and Nature Based Holidays. Sydney: Simon and Schuster, 1993. Ritchie, Brent W. Managing Educational Tourism. Tonawanda: Channel View Publications, 2003. Robbins, Paul. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Robinson, N. (ed.) Agenda 21: Earth’s action plan. New York: Oceana Publications, 1993. Rosales, Samuel Pérez. Mapa de capacidad de uso del suelo. Costa Rica, 1:200,000, 9 sheet. San José: Oficina de Planificación, Sectorial Agropecuaria, 1978. Ross, Sheryl and Geoffrey Wall. “Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory and practice.” Tourism Management 20 (1999) : 123-132. Ruggia, Nick. “Quetzals Not So Elusive in San Gerardo.” The Tico Times 06 June 2008. Sader, Steven A. and Armond T. Joyce. “Deforestation Rates and Trends in Costa Rica, 1940 to 1983.” Biotropica 20.1 (1988) : 11-19.

199

Salafsky, N., H. Cauley, G. Balachander, B. Cordes, J. Parks, C. Margoluis, S. Bhatt, C. Encarnacion, D. Russell, and R. Margoluis. “A Systematic Test of an Enterprise Strategy for Community-Based Biodiversity Conservation.” Conservation Biology 15.6 (2001) : 15851595. Salafsky, Nick and Eva Wollenberg, “Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: A Conceptual Framework and Scale for Assessing the Integration of Human Needs and Biodiversity.” World Development 28.8 (2000) : 1421-1438. Salafsky, Nick, Bernd Cordes, John Parks, and Cheryl Hochman. Evaluating LINKAGES Between BUSINESS, the ENVIRONMENT, and Local COMMUNITIES: Final Analytical Results from the Biodiversity Conservation Network. Washington: Biodiversity Support Program, 1999. Salguero, Miguel. “Gentes y Paisajes.” La Nación, June 18, 1970. Salvin, Osbert. Quoted in The Eponym Dictionary of Mammals. Bo Beolens, Michael Watkins, and Michael Grayson. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. Sánchez-Azofeifa, G. Arturo , Robert C. Harriss, and David L. Skole. “Deforestation in Costa Rica: A Quantitative Analysis Using Remote Sensing Imagry.” Biotropica 33.3 (2001) : 378-384. Sánchez-Azofeifa, G. Arturo, Gretchen C. Daily, Alexander S.P. Pfaff, and Christopher Busch. “Integrity and isolation of Costa Rica’s national parks and biological reserves: examining the dynamics of land-cover change.” Biological Conservation 109 (2003) : 123-135. Sánchez-Azofeifa, G. Arturo. “Land Use and Cover Change in Costa Rica.” In Quantifying Sustainable Development: The Future of Tropical Economies, edited by Charles A.S. Hall, 473-501. New York: Academic Press, 2000. Sarmiento, Fausto. “Gerardo Budowski: A Beacon to Conservation of Tropical Mountains.” Mountain Research and Development 22.2 (2002) : 197-199. Scientific Steering Committee of the Land-Use/Cover Change (LUCC) Project. “Conclusion.” In Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: Local Processes and Global Impacts, edited by E. F. Lambin, H. J. Geist, 173-176. New York: Springer, 2006. Seligson, Mitchell A. “Agrarian Policies in Dependent Societies: Costa Rica.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 19.2 (1977) : 201-232. Sharpley, Richard and David J. Telfer. Tourism and Development in the Developing World. New York: Routledge, 2008. Shaw, Harley G. Soul Among Lions: The Cougar as Peaceful Adversary. Boulder: Johnson Books, 1989. Sherwood, Dave. “Above the Clouds, It’s Almost Heaven, Costa Rica.” New York Times, August 16, 2007. SINAC-MINAE. Informe Nacional sobre el Sistema de Área Silvestres Protegidas. San José: Ministerio del Ambiente y Engergía, 2005. 200

Smith, Stephen L. J. “The Measurement of Global Tourism: Old Debates, New Consensus, and Continuing Challenges.” In A Companion to Tourism, edited by Alan A. Lew, Colin Michael Hall and Allan M. Williams. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd., 2004. Sokal, Robert R. “Classification: Purposes, Principles, Progress, Prospects.” Science 185.4157 (1974) : 1115-1123. Spotila, James R. “Archie Carr: To the Edge of Hope, 1909-1987.” Herpetologica 44.1 (1988) : 128-132. Stadtmüller, Thomas. Cloud Forests in the Humid Tropics. Costa Rica: The United Nations University, 1987. Stiles, F. Gary. “In Memoriam.” The Auk 122.2 (2005) : 708-710. “Su opción familia.,” Tiempo Libre 10 March 1989, 12-13. The Tourism Network. April 2005 newsletter. www.tourismknowledge.com/Newsletters/Issue6.pdf (accessed on January 20, 2010). Theobald, William F. Global Tourism. 3rd edition. Burlington: Elsevier Inc., 2005. Tosi, Jr., Joseph A. “Climatic Control of Terrestrial Ecosystems: A Report on the Holdridge Model.” Economic Geography 40.2 (1964) : 173-181. “Un apacible rincón en San Gerardo de Dota.” La Nacion 30 November 1984. United Nations Environment Programme. Report of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Program. Fifth Session. New York: United Nations, 1977. United Nations Resolution 1998/40. UN Economic and Social Council, 1998. http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/res/1998/eres1998-40.htm (accessed on January 20, 2010). UNWTO. Tourism Highlights. 2009. Edition 2. http://www.world-tourism.org/facts/eng/highlights.htm (accessed on January 22, 2010). Ureña, E. “Monografia del Cantón de Pérez Zeledón.”Revista de los Archivos Nacionales de Costa Rica 5.9-10 (1941) : 494-505. Valentine, Peter S. “Ecotourism and nature conservation: A definition with some recent developments in Micronesia.” Tourism Management April (1993) : 107-115. Van Gils, H.A.M.J. and W. van Wijngaarden. “Vegetation structure in reconnaissance and semidetailed vegetation surveys.” ITC Journal 3 (1984) : 213-218. Van Omme, E., Maarten Kappelle, and Marta E. Juárez. “Land cover/use changes and deforestation trends over 55 years (1941-1996) in a Costa Rican montane cloud forest watershed area.” In Abstr Vol Conf Geo-Information for Sustainable Land Management. Enschede: ITC, 1998. 201

Vega M., Levi. “Cosecha de manzanas en la zona de Dota.” La Nación, Suplemento Agropecuario, November 19, 1980, 2C. Vorhees, Mara and Matthew Firestone. Lonely Planet Costa Rica. Berkeley, Lonely Planet Publications, 2006. Vreugdenhil, Daan, Jan Meerman, Alain Meyrat, Luis Diego Gómez, and Douglas J. Graham. Map of the Ecosystems of Central America: Final Report. Washington: World Banks, 2002. Vueltas. Topographic Sheet 3444 IV. Scale 1:50,000. San José: Instituto Geográfico de Costa Rica, 1962. Vunderink, Gregg L. “Peasant Participation and Mobilization During Economic Crisis: The Case of Costa Rica.” Studies in Comparative International Development 25.4 (1990) : 3-34. Wallace, David Rains. The Quetzal and the Macaw: The Story of Costa Rica’s National Parks. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1992. Weibing, Zhao and Li Xingqun. “Globalization of Tourism and Third World Tourism Development.” Chinese Geographical Science 16.3 (2006) : 203-210. Werner, Wolfgang L. “Biogeography and Ecology of the Upper Montane Rain Forest of Sri Lanka (Ceylon).” In Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, edited by Lawrence S. Hamilton, James O. Juvik, and F. N. Scatena, 343-362. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995. Western, David and R. Michael Wright. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. Washington: Island Press, 1994. Wight, Pamela. “Ecotourism: ethics or eco-sell?” Journal of Travel Research 32.3 (1993) : 3-9.. Wight, Pamela. “North American Ecotourists: Market Profile and Trip Characteristics.” Journal of Travel Research 34.4 (1996) : 2-10. Wiley, James. The Banana: Empires, Trade Wars, and Globalization. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008. Williams, Dennis C. God’s Wilds: John Muir’s Vision of Nature. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2002. Williams, Dennis. “Transformations in the Environmental Economy of the Upper Savegre Valley, Costa Rica, 1952-2002.” Unpublished paper presented at a meeting for the American Society for Environmental History, April 2004. Williams, Phil. “In Memoriam: Eugene Odum.” Wetland Science and Practice 19.4 (2002) : 2728. Wilms, J.J.A.M. “Frugivorous Birds, Habitat Preferences and Seed Dispersal in a Fragmented Costa Rican Montane Oak Forest Landscape.” In Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Montane Oak Forests, edited by Maarten Kappelle, 309-324. Berlin: Springer, 2006.

202

Wood, Norman. “The Trailblazers: IAH 1940-1957.” U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/blazer009a.cfm (accessed November 24, 2009). World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. World Ecotourism Summit Final Report. Madrid, WTO and UNEP, 2002. http://www.gdrc.org/uem/eco-tour/Final-Report-WES-Eng.pdf (accessed on January 22, 2010). Worster, Donald. Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. WTTC, UNWTO, and the Earth Council. Agenda 21 for the Travel & Tourism Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development. 1995. Young, Kenneth R. and Blanca León. “Distribution and Conservation of Peru’s montane Forests: Interaction Between the Biota and Human Society.” In Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, edited by Lawrence S. Hamilton, James O. Juvik, and F. N. Scatena, 363-376. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995. Zell, L. “Ecotourism of the Future – the vicarious experience.” In Ecotourism: Incorporating the Global Classroom. (1992) Paper presented at the International Conference on Ecotourism at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Ziffer, Karen A. “Ecotourism: The Uneasy Alliance.” Draft Report. Washington: Conservation I nternational, 1989. Zonneveld, I. S. Land Ecology. Amsterdam: SPB Academic Publishing, 1995.

203

Smile Life

When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have a thousand reasons to smile

Get in touch

© Copyright 2015 - 2024 PDFFOX.COM - All rights reserved.