This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 12 November 2013, At: 16:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Human Dimensions of Wildlife: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20

Ecotourism and Conservation: Two Casesfrom Brazil and PeruAmanda Stronza a & Fernanda Pêgas aa Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences , Texas A&MUniversity , College Station, Texas, USAPublished online: 09 Jul 2008.

To cite this article: Amanda Stronza & Fernanda Pêgas (2008) Ecotourism and Conservation: TwoCases from Brazil and Peru, Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal, 13:4, 263-279,DOI: 10.1080/10871200802187097

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871200802187097

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

263

Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13:263–279, 2008Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1087-1209 print / 1533-158X onlineDOI: 10.1080/10871200802187097

UHDW1087-12091533-158XHuman Dimensions of Wildlife, Vol. 13, No. 4, May 2008: pp. 1–32Human Dimensions of Wildlife

Ecotourism and Conservation: Two Cases from Brazil and Peru

Ecotourism and ConservationA. Stronza and F. Pêgas AMANDA STRONZA AND FERNANDA PÊGAS

Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M UniversityCollege Station, Texas, USA

This article evaluates two theories to explain the relationship between ecotourism andconservation. One posits that economic benefits must accrue to local communities forecotourism to result in conservation; the other holds that social benefits, includingparticipation in management, must also be present. Although these ideas about causalmechanisms are not mutually exclusive, scholarly studies tend to reflect one more thanthe other. Two ecotourism projects from Brazil and Peru are compared. The Brazilstudy illustrates sea turtle ecotourism that generates economic benefits for coastalcommunities. The case in Peru also generates economic benefits for a local commu-nity, but has the added goal of building local management capacity. Both cases pro-vide empirical evidence for causal mechanisms linking ecotourism with conservation.In the Brazil case, economic benefits alone seem to account for conservation outcomes.In Peru, local participation in ecotourism management has also sparked collectiveaction for conservation.

Keywords ecotourism, participation, economic benefits, incentives, institutions

Introduction

Over the past 20 years, conservationists have looked to ecotourism as a potential win-winstrategy for protecting the environment while also meeting human needs. In an early paperfrom Conservation International, Ziffer (1989) predicted ecotourism would elude precisedefinitions, partly because the term seeks to do so much. “Ecotourism” describes an activity,sets forth a philosophy, and espouses a model of development. Environmental organiza-tions and development agencies have invested heavily in ecotourism, channeling signifi-cant flows of capital and technical expertise directly to local peoples residing near and inprotected areas (Weaver & Lawton, 2007). The United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment alone has spent more than US$2 billion on ecotourism projects (Kiss, 2004).In 2003, 170 nations attending the World Parks Congress in South Africa called forincreased measures to make ecotourism a more effective “vehicle” for conserving biodi-versity and reducing poverty (IUCN, 2003). Despite its popularity, theorists and practitio-ners have yet to understand the conditions under which ecotourism works effectively as atool for conservation (Doan, 2000; Kruger, 2005).

Most research on ecotourism to date comprises case studies of impacts on local com-munities and natural resources (Agrawal & Redford, 2006). Often the goal is to measurehow and why ecotourism leads to conservation. Some scholars evaluate how economic

Address correspondence to Amanda Stronza, Department of Recreation, Park, and TourismSciences, TAMU 2261, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 77843-2261. E-mail: astronza@tamu.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

264 A. Stronza and F. Pêgas

changes associated with ecotourism lead to conservation outcomes (Gossling, 1999; Langholz,1999). For example, do new revenues, employment, and income generate new incentivesand opportunities for conservation? Others focus on social changes associated with ecot-ourism (Scheyvens, 1999; Stonich, 2000). For example, do locals participate in planning,and does such involvement help foster conservation?

We suggest that these lines of inquiry reflect fundamentally different theories aboutthe mechanisms that determine how and why ecotourism leads to conservation. We evalu-ated evidence against two theories that explain the relationship between ecotourism andconservation. One theory posits that economic benefits must accrue to local communitiesfor ecotourism to result in conservation; the other holds that social benefits, such as partic-ipation in ecotourism management, must also be present. Although these ideas aboutcausal mechanisms linking ecotourism and conservation are not mutually exclusive,scholarly case studies tend to reflect one more than the other. We first review these twooverarching theories, especially as they appear in cases studies from Latin America. Wethen present two field studies from Brazil and Peru. The Brazil study illustrates sea turtleecotourism that generates economic benefits for coastal communities. The case in Perualso generates economic benefits for a local community, but has the added goal of build-ing local management capacity. Both cases provide empirical evidence for causal mecha-nisms linking ecotourism with conservation. However, in the Brazil case, economicbenefits alone seem to account for conservation outcomes. In Peru, local participation inecotourism management has also sparked collective action for conservation.

Literature Review

We define ecotourism as nature tourism that intentionally seeks to deliver net positivecontributions to environmental conservation and sustainable development for local com-munities (Cater & Lowman, 1994; Wallace & Pierce, 1996; Wearing & Neil, 1999). Attimes ecotourism’s goals of conservation and development have been mutually reinforcing(Alexander, 2000; Wunder, 1999). In other cases, ecotourism has failed to deliver benefitseither for people or the environment (Belsky, 1999; West & Carrier, 2004). Success andfailure in ecotourism have varied over time as well. Short-term economic gains in someplaces have led to degradation of resources in the long term (Barrett, Brandon, Gibson, &Gjertsen, 2001).

The variability in ecotourism success may be partly due to different methods for eval-uating conservation (Agrawal & Redford, 2006). Some researchers have measured conser-vation as an ethic, discernible through people’s attitudes or values (Archabald &Naughton-Treves, 2001; Lindberg, Enriquez & Spoule, 1996; Weinberg, Bellows, &Ekster, 2002). Others have evaluated conservation as a set of behaviors, either observed orreported, including how much people hunt or harvest timber, or how they dispose ofwaste, or whether they have established a reserve or protected area (Barkin, 2003; Ogutu,2002). See Table 1 for examples of conservation indicators.

Researchers have also differed in their theories of how and why ecotourism works forconservation. Some theorists suggest that the causal mechanism connecting ecotourismwith conservation is economic gain (Gossling, 1999; Lindberg, 1991). A central premiseof ecotourism is that tourism revenues can become incentives for local residents toconserve the natural resources tourists pay to see (Malek-Zadeh, 1996). In Papua NewGuinea, for example, the environmental organization, Conservation International,promoted bird-watching ecotourism to create financial incentives for residents to ceasehunting of some bird species (West, 2006).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

265

Tab

le 1

Sam

ple

of in

dica

tors

for

ben

efit

s, p

artic

ipat

ion,

and

con

serv

atio

n in

eco

tour

ism

stu

dies

Cita

tion

and

co

untr

yE

cono

mic

ben

efits

Com

mun

ity

part

icip

atio

nC

onse

rvat

ion

indi

cato

rsC

onse

rvat

ion

succ

ess?

Ale

xand

er (

2000

)B

eliz

eE

mpl

oym

ent,

inco

me

for

resi

dent

s; A

ssis

tanc

e in

lo

ans

to d

evel

op to

uris

m

ente

rpri

ses.

Com

mun

ity

resi

dent

s ar

e m

embe

rs o

f A

dvis

ory

Com

mit

tee;

ple

dged

la

nd m

anag

emen

t

a) P

erce

ptio

ns o

f B

aboo

n Sa

nc-

tuar

y; b

) A

ttitu

des,

kno

wl-

edge

abo

ut m

onke

ys,

cons

erva

tion

eff

orts

;c)

Res

ourc

e us

e/ac

cess

.

a) F

avor

able

per

cept

ions

of

Sanc

tuar

y; b

) bo

ndin

g w

ith

mon

keys

; sup

port

for

con

ser-

vati

on; c

) U

neve

n di

stri

buti

on

of e

cono

mic

ben

efit

s.B

arki

n (2

003)

Mex

ico

Em

ploy

men

t, in

com

e to

fe

w re

side

nts.

Em

ploy

men

t op

port

uniti

es

mos

tly s

easo

nal.

Com

mun

itie

s de

nied

m

anag

emen

t of

land

s,

deci

sion

-mak

ing

abou

t R

eser

ve.

a) A

ttitu

des

abou

t con

serv

atio

n;

b) I

lleg

al lo

ggin

g ac

tivi

ties;

c)

Res

ourc

e us

e/ac

cess

.

a) S

uppo

rt o

f con

serv

atio

n bu

t dis

-sa

tisfi

ed w

ith e

cono

mic

ben

e-fi

ts; b

) Ille

gal l

oggi

ng a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith li

mite

d em

ploy

men

t c)

No

acce

ss to

reso

urce

sB

elsk

y (1

999)

Bel

ize

Lim

ited

and

spo

radi

c in

com

e fr

om B

&B

s an

d to

urgu

idin

g.

Lim

ited

to f

ew f

amili

es

and

indi

vidu

als,

whi

ch

has

led

to c

onfl

icts

.

a) A

ttitu

des

abou

t con

serv

atio

n;

b) A

ttitu

des,

per

cept

ions

abo

ut

ecot

ouri

sm; c

) R

esou

rce

use/

acce

ss.

a) S

ome

cons

erva

tion

supp

ort;

b) D

issa

tisfa

ctio

n ab

out

econ

omic

ben

efits

; c) A

cces

s re

gula

ted

by la

w; p

ersi

sten

t de

grad

atio

n.C

ampb

ell (

1999

)C

osta

Ric

aE

ntra

nce

fees

fro

m R

efug

e;

Inco

me,

em

ploy

men

t at

B&

Bs

and

rest

aura

nts.

E

cono

mic

ben

efit

s li

mite

d to

few

hou

seho

lds

and

indi

vidu

als.

Not

in e

coto

uris

m;

Com

mun

ity fo

rmed

de

velo

pmen

t ass

ocia

tion,

ad

min

iste

rs le

gal e

gg-

harv

estin

g w

ithin

Ref

uge,

eg

g pa

ckag

ing,

and

na

tiona

l egg

dis

trib

utio

n.

a) P

erce

ptio

ns a

bout

impa

cts

of

ecot

ouri

sm o

n eg

g ha

rves

ting

an

d on

sea

turt

les;

b)

Pote

ntia

l fo

r to

uris

m to

red

uce

depe

n-de

nce

on a

nd/o

r co

nflic

t with

le

galiz

ed s

ea tu

rtle

egg

-ha

rves

ting

.

a) E

coto

uris

m e

xpec

ted

to d

imin

-is

h eg

g ha

rves

ting

; b)

Lim

ited

po

tent

ial t

o re

duce

dep

ende

nce

on e

gg h

arve

stin

g; li

kely

to

gene

rate

con

flic

t.

(Con

tinu

ed)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

266

Tab

le 1

(Con

tinu

ed)

Cita

tion

and

co

untr

yE

cono

mic

ben

efits

Com

mun

ity

part

icip

atio

nC

onse

rvat

ion

indi

cato

rsC

onse

rvat

ion

succ

ess?

Fouc

at (

2002

)M

exic

oIn

com

e, e

mpl

oym

ent f

rom

gu

ided

trip

s an

d re

stau

-ra

nts;

Sal

e of

loca

l pro

d-uc

ts f

or c

oope

rati

ve

mem

bers

; Ser

vice

s fr

om

tour

ism

for

non

-mem

bers

.

Eco

tour

ism

ope

rato

rs a

re

mem

bers

of

loca

l co

oper

ativ

e.

a) P

erce

ptio

ns a

bout

coo

pera

tive

pr

ojec

ts a

nd in

crea

se o

f to

ur-

ism

arr

ival

s; b

) Pe

rcep

tion

s of

to

uris

m im

pact

s on

env

iron

-m

ent;

c)

Perc

eptio

ns a

bout

ec

otou

rism

.

a) R

esid

ents

sup

port

coo

pera

tive

ef

fort

s; m

ore

tour

ism

is w

el-

com

e; b

) T

ouri

sm n

ot p

er-

ceiv

ed a

s m

ajor

thre

at;

c) P

osit

ive

perc

epti

ons

abou

t ec

otou

rism

.St

em e

t al.

(200

3)C

osta

Ric

aB

enef

its

vari

ed a

cros

s si

tes;

em

ploy

men

t and

inco

me

oppo

rtun

ities

at h

otel

s/re

stau

rant

s, tr

aini

ng, a

nd

infr

astr

uctu

re

deve

lopm

ent.

Min

imal

loca

l in

volv

emen

t.a)

Per

cept

ions

abo

ut h

unti

ng,

defo

rest

atio

n; b

) Per

cent

age

of

fam

ily

land

und

er fo

rest

cov

er;

c) S

olid

was

te g

ener

atio

n;

d) C

onse

rvat

ion

prac

tice

s an

d pe

rspe

ctiv

es; e

) E

nvir

onm

en-

tal a

war

enes

s.

a) D

ecli

ne in

hun

ting

, def

ores

ta-

tion

; b)

Hig

her

fore

st c

over

ra

tes

amon

g fa

mil

ies

in e

cot-

ouri

sm; c

) So

lid w

aste

in

crea

sed,

som

e ho

tels

dum

p w

aste

at s

ea.

Wal

lace

& P

ierc

e (1

996)

Bra

zil

Em

ploy

men

t at l

odge

s (a

lthou

gh m

ost p

osit

ions

fi

lled

by

non-

loca

ls);

Sal

e of

loca

l goo

ds; I

ncom

e.

No

owne

rshi

p or

man

age-

men

t of e

coto

uris

m v

en-

ture

s by

loca

l peo

ple;

No

orga

nize

d at

tem

pt to

ad

dres

s co

mm

unity

co

ncer

ns.

a) A

ttitu

des

abou

t tou

rism

/eco

t-ou

rism

; b)

Soli

d w

aste

man

-ag

emen

t; c

) Im

pact

s on

w

ildl

ife

and

at v

isit

or-u

se

site

s; a

nd d

) S

oil,

wat

er, a

nd

vege

tati

on im

pact

s.

a) P

osit

ive

atti

tude

s ab

out l

odge

s,

thou

gh le

ss f

avor

able

am

ong

loca

ls; b

) L

andf

ills

used

; no

recy

clin

g or

com

post

ing;

c)

Wil

d an

imal

s ta

med

, in

cap-

tivi

ty; l

imit

ed tr

ail m

aint

e-na

nce;

d)

Bas

ic s

epti

c sy

stem

s fo

r se

wag

e an

d gr

ay w

ater

; R

epor

ts o

f ri

ver

dum

ping

and

di

rect

dis

char

ge; N

o m

anag

e-m

ent p

lans

.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

267

Wei

nber

g et

al.

(200

2) C

osta

R

ica

Em

ploy

men

t and

inco

me

thro

ugh

rest

aura

nts,

lodg

-in

g, a

nd o

ther

ser

vice

s;

Tra

inin

g; I

ncom

e; a

nd

Fund

ing

to s

uppo

rt c

onse

r-va

tion

are

as.

Yes

, but

lim

ited

.a)

Atti

tude

s ab

out c

onse

rvat

ion;

b)

Was

te g

ener

atio

n;

c) P

erce

ived

succ

esse

s/fa

ilur

es

of e

coto

uris

m; d

) Pe

rcei

ved

hist

ory

of e

coto

uris

m in

are

a,

com

pari

son

to o

ther

des

tina

-ti

ons.

a) S

uppo

rt fo

r and

eng

agem

ent i

n co

nser

vati

on e

ffor

ts; b

) Im

ple-

men

tati

on o

f re

cycl

ing

prog

ram

; con

cern

abo

ut w

aste

ge

nera

tion;

c)

Con

serv

atio

n et

hics

vs.

pol

luti

on a

nd w

aste

ge

nera

tion;

d)

Aw

aren

ess

abou

t soc

ial a

nd e

colo

gica

l be

nefi

ts o

f ec

otou

rism

.W

unde

r (2

000)

E

cuad

orIn

com

e, e

mpl

oym

ent v

ary

by

com

mun

ity.

Em

ploy

men

t op

port

uniti

es f

rom

tour

-gu

idin

g, lo

dgin

g, c

anoe

tr

ansp

ort;

alt

erna

tive

inco

me

from

sal

es o

f fo

od,

hand

icra

fts,

tips

.

Yes

, but

par

ticip

atio

n va

ries

acr

oss

com

mun

i-tie

s w

ith

mos

t con

trol

un

der

the

cont

rol o

f tr

avel

age

ncie

s.

a) A

ttitu

des

abou

t con

serv

atio

n;

b) H

unti

ng z

onin

g an

d re

stri

c-ti

ons.

a) O

vera

ll s

uppo

rt f

or c

onse

rva-

tion

; b)

Eff

ecti

vene

ss o

f hu

nt-

ing

zoni

ngs,

rest

rict

ions

var

ied

acro

ss c

omm

unit

ies:

mor

e ef

fect

ive

whe

re lo

cals

mos

t in

volv

ed in

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g.

You

ng (

1999

) M

exic

oV

alue

s va

ried

bet

wee

n co

m-

mun

itie

s (g

reat

er im

pact

at

regi

onal

rat

her

than

loca

l).

Alt

erna

tive

inco

me,

em

ploy

men

t fro

m w

hale

w

atch

ing

tour

s, lo

dgin

g,

and

rest

aura

nts.

Fish

ing

conc

essi

ons

esta

b-li

shed

by

gove

rnm

ent.

Wha

le w

atch

ing

ecot

-ou

rism

par

ticip

atio

n th

roug

h lo

cal c

oope

ra-

tive;

mos

t act

ivit

ies

focu

sed

on f

ew f

amil

ies.

a) P

erce

ptio

ns a

bout

fis

h st

ocks

, ov

erfi

shin

g, a

nd w

hale

wat

ch-

ing;

b)

Atti

tude

s ab

out g

ray

wha

les

and

ecot

ouri

sm.

a) F

ish

stoc

ks d

ecli

ning

; Ove

r-fi

shin

g re

sults

fro

m p

oor

reso

urce

man

agem

ent;

wha

le

wat

chin

g vi

able

alt

erna

tive

; b)

Loc

als

supp

ort w

hale

w

atch

ing

ecot

ouri

sm.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

268 A. Stronza and F. Pêgas

Economic Benefits and Conservation

Studies characterize ecotourism as a market-based approach to conservation (Salafsky &Wollenberg, 2000). The assumption is that “economic interests motivate the use of naturalresources . . . [and] offering alternative income sources will alleviate the egregious behav-iors of local residents” (Brown & Decker, 2005, p. 139). The logic further holds that moreeconomic benefits from ecotourism will lead to more—or more effective—resource con-servation, and conversely, that the cessation of benefits will signal demise for resources.Measuring the impacts of ecotourism under this framework entails gathering data on num-bers of visitors, rooms occupied, expenditures, and calculating revenues, number of jobs,volume of local commerce, and other economic indices (Taylor, Yunez-Naude, & Ardila,2003; Wilson & Tisdell, 2003).

Income and employment opportunities often appear in studies as indicators of successfulecotourism projects (Bookbinder, Dinerstein, Rijal, Cauley, & Rajouria, 1998; Gossling,1999). Langholz (1999), for example, assessed how ecotourism income caused people toreduce their reliance on commercial agriculture, hunting, logging, cattle ranching, andgold mining. Under this same framework (although showing different results),Bookbinder et al. (1998) argued that ecotourism benefits were insufficient to provideincentives for local communities to conserve wildlife. Walpole and Goodwin (2001) alsofound no relationship between receipt of tourism benefits and support for conservation.Wunder (1999) identified income and employment from ecotourism activities in the Cuy-abeno Wildlife Reserve of Ecuador as important incentives for members of a local com-munity to support conservation efforts. In Costa Rica, Troëng and Drews (2004) foundthat ecotourism became a primary source of income for families near Tortuguero NationalPark, a destination where visitors pay to see sea turtles. The authors concluded that eco-nomic benefits became incentives for residents to protect sea turtles.

There are, however, limitations to the idea that economic benefits are the causalmechanism between ecotourism and conservation. Some ecotourism projects have notgenerated sufficient economic benefits to build incentives for conservation among hostcommunities (Jacobson & Robles, 1992). Ecotourism enterprises may also create rela-tively few jobs relative to the number of local residents (Lindberg et al., 1996). In Mexico,employment opportunities from the Monarch Butterfly Reserve fell short of achieving theexpected economic outcomes, and logging activities continued unabated (Barkin, 2003).Lindberg and colleagues (1996) reported similar results in Belize, where tourism activitiesfailed to generate financial support for protected area management. Belsky (1999) foundthat sporadic ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize, decreased local livelihood secu-rity, and triggered a “violent backlash against conservation” (p. 662). Even when pro-vided, economic benefits may not be sufficient to encourage conservation. In Mexico,Young (1999) found that economic revenues from Gray whale watching did not reduceexternal pressures on inshore fisheries.

Frameworks that pay attention primarily to economic change may overlook the waysin which ecotourism can alter social dynamics within host communities (Zografos &Oglenthorpe, 2004). In Papua New Guinea, West (2006) found that tourism brought morework for women in the village of Maimafu. Women became responsible not only forfamily chores, but also for producing handicraft items to sell to tourists. Gentry (2007)showed that Belizean women involved in the tourism industry experienced especially highlevels of stress and illness, problems arising from double workdays. In Costa Rica, Stem,Lassoie, Lee, and Deshler (2003) found ecotourism associated with communal disintegra-tion, and increased use of alcohol and drugs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

Ecotourism and Conservation 269

These social problems, combined with competing demands for local resources, suchas ecotourism versus fishing, have led to conflicts among local residents in Baja, Mexico(Young, 1999). In Ostional, a wildlife refuge in Costa Rica, local residents compete withthe ecotourism industry for the use of sea turtles (Campbell, 2007). Although sea turtlesare protected, local residents are not restricted from harvesting sea turtle eggs. However,because local economic benefits from harvesting are superior to those generated by ecot-ourism, changes in access and use of sea turtle eggs will likely generate resentment ratherthan increase local support for conservation.

Social Changes and Conservation

Social dimensions of ecotourism affect natural resource use and conservation in host des-tinations. Whether and how local residents participate in ecotourism management is onesocial dimension that affects resource use. Changes in people’s abilities and inclinations towork together are relevant to their potential for collective action for resource management(Berkes, 2004). Kassilly (2007) argues that conservation projects should focus on eco-nomic benefits derived from wildlife as well as on non-economic values, benefits, andpurposes for which people may want to conserve. Thus, an alternative framework looksbeyond economic benefits and pays explicit attention to social, political, and historicalvariables linking ecotourism and conservation. Case studies have generated holistic under-standings of ecotourism success, pointing to non-economic factors, such as local partici-pation in ownership and management (Stonich, 1998; Stem et al., 2003). Stonich (2000),for example, found that devolution of control from private tour operators and the govern-ment to local residents made a positive difference for conservation in Honduras. Borman(1999) also described benefits of local control over ecotourism for protecting Cofan indig-enous territories in Ecuador.

These analyses of ecotourism are rooted in discourses about community-based conser-vation (Brechin, Wilshusen, Fortwangler, & West, 2002; Western & Wright 1994). Evalua-tions focus on social organization and the strength of local institutions in direct relation toconservation (Brosius, Tsing, & Zerner, 1998). North (1990) defined institutions as “rules ofthe game” in a society; they guide the things people do as individuals in a larger collective.Communities with strong institutions have rules about behavior, including rules aboutresource use (hunting, forest extraction, and so forth), which all members of the communityunderstand (Agrawal, 2001; Ostrom, 1990). Even if not everyone follows the rules, the rulesare understood and enforced by members of a collective. Strong local institutions depend ontrust, coordination, and social capital (Pretty & Ward, 2001).

The central premise of this theory in relation to conservation is that communities withstrong institutions will be able to manage shared (“common pool”) resources. For exam-ple, residents of a community may cooperate to create and monitor an ecotourism reserve,or limit hunting and other forms of resource exploitation near a community ecotourismlodge. Yet, people will cooperate only if they have the confidence and trust that others inthe group will follow the same rules and/or face sanctions if they break the rules. Withstrong institutions, local communities may be better prepared to absorb negative changesassociated with ecotourism, such as unequal distribution of profits (Bray, Cornejo, Cohan, &Beitl, 2005). If local institutions are relatively weak, ecotourism has the potential to desta-bilize communities even more (Jones, 2005).

Some ecotourism projects involve local residents in decision-making and manage-ment. These ecotourism projects have the potential to strengthen local institutions for con-servation. Participation becomes a potential causal mechanism for linking ecotourism with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

270 A. Stronza and F. Pêgas

conservation. Sharing ecotourism management with local communities can be critical forforging real linkages between ecotourism and conservation. For example, Stronza andGordillo (2008) found that residents of an indigenous village in Bolivia who run their ownecotourism operation gained skills while managing the lodge that have prepared them towork together to manage forests and wildlife. This included establishing and monitoring abuffer zone for wildlife conservation and ecotourism outside of the Madidi National Park.In this case, the causal link between ecotourism and conservation was not just marketincentives, but also social empowerment (Scheyvens, 1999) and strengthened local insti-tutions (Bray et al., 2005).

Another example comes from the Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve in Ecuador. Wunder(2000) reported a reduction of hunting among some communities near the reserve. Thecommunities that had rules in place (institutions) for hunting were those involved in ecot-ourism management; those that did not have rules were involved in ecotourism only asemployees or income earners. Participation in ecotourism management seemed to be asso-ciated with greater support for conservation and awareness of impacts on resources(Foucat, 2002).

In summary, a review of case study literature in ecotourism suggests at least twocausal relationships between ecotourism and conservation. In one, the mechanism link-ing ecotourism with conservation is the creation of economic incentives. According toscholarship on market-based conservation, economic incentives may or may not lead toconservation outcomes. In some cases, economic benefits are sufficient for gaining atleast a modicum of local support for conservation. In other cases, economic benefitsfrom ecotourism were insufficient for conservation. In the worst cases, ecotourism gen-erated conflicts and other social problems that ultimately diminished rather thanincreased chances for collective action for conservation. A second potential mechanismfor linking ecotourism with conservation is local involvement in ecotourism manage-ment. Case study literature suggests that when local communities engage in ecotourismas managers, their capacity for collective action increases, and local institutions arestrengthened. The following evaluates these possibilities in two ecotourism case studiesfrom Brazil and Peru.

Case Study 1: Sea Turtles and Ecotourism in Brazil

The Brazilian Sea Turtle Conservation Program (TAMAR) promotes ecotourism as onestrategy for protecting sea turtles (Marcovaldi et al., 1998). Some authors have calledTAMAR a model for sea turtle conservation worldwide (Spotila, 2004). Created in 1980,TAMAR is a collaborative effort between the Brazilian government’s Institute of Renew-able Resources (IBAMA) and a non-profit organization, Fundação Pró-TAMAR. TAMARhas 22 research stations and monitors 1,100 kilometers of beaches in nine Brazilian states.It employs approximately 1,200 people from the coastal communities where TAMARworks (Projeto TAMAR, 2008).

The national headquarters of TAMAR are located in the fishing village of Praia doForte. Praia do Forte lies 80 km north of Salvador, Bahia’s state capital, and is home toabout 2,000 residents (PMMSJ, 2004). In 2007, 110 residents of Praia do Forte and adja-cent communities worked at TAMAR’s Research Station and Visitor Center. Biologistscollaborate with local fishermen to monitor sea turtles along the village’s 30 km of coast-line. When the Research Station opened in 1982, it had just a few water tanks for marinewildlife. A Visitor Center opened a few years later. Today, the Center is profitable, host-ing approximately 600,000 visitors per year.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

Ecotourism and Conservation 271

Ecotourism activities at the Visitor Center take place throughout the year, but it isduring the nesting season that sea turtle hatchlings draw most tourists. Between Septemberand March, visitors can observe TAMAR’s biologists and trained personnel open nestslocated within the Center and release hatchlings at the adjacent beach. The Visitor Centeralso offers environmental education programs and interpretive displays of marine fauna.The Center collects entrance fees and features a retail store that sells sea turtle souvenirs,many made by local cooperatives. Revenues from the Center return to the village inwages, financial assistance to a local childcare center, and sponsorship of communal pro-grams, such as beach clean-ups.

We conducted seven months of ethnographic research in Praia do Forte, focusing onlocal impacts of TAMAR’s sea turtle conservation and ecotourism programs. BetweenMay and August 2006, 25 in-depth interviews with fishermen and their families in Praiado Forte, tourism business owners, and representatives of local environmental organiza-tions were conducted. Between September and December 2007, an additional 77 semi-structured interviews were carried out with residents of Praia do Forte, including25 employees of TAMAR. Interviews took place at the Visitor Center or at a locationselected by the respondent. Each interview lasted about 90 minutes.

Overall, we found a positive relationship between TAMAR and the community.When TAMAR started in 1982, only 500 people were living in Praia do Forte and tourismactivities were minimal (Projeto TAMAR, 2008). Respondents described a kind of “grow-ing together” between the Project and the community, as fishermen and scientistsexchanged information, and especially as the project provided certain kinds of support tothe community. These interactions prompted at least one resident to remark, “TAMAR islike a father figure for the community.” The villagers’ characterization of TAMARreflects a larger, historical relationship of economic dependency between Praia do Forteand outside interests. Until the early 1970s, the village was part of a coconut plantation.Residents looked to the plantation owners for employment, education, and other support.Generally, what villagers needed, the plantation provided; government assistance waslimited or altogether absent. For many, the arrival of TAMAR helped change this situa-tion, although, essentially, the provider shifted from the plantation to the conservation pro-gram. Through the Visitor Center and Research Station, TAMAR now offers jobs,environmental education, and technical support to fishermen. As one resident explained,“People come to see the turtles . . . so we need the turtles and TAMAR here in the villageto have an income.” Another respondent noted, “The village functions around the turtlesand the turtles are here because of TAMAR.” Yet another commented, “We need the tur-tles and TAMAR here. Otherwise, how will we make our living?” Thus, the assistancefrom TAMAR makes it a “father figure” in a way that reflects the history of the plantation.

The economic relationship between TAMAR and Praia do Forte seems to have posi-tive outcomes for sea turtle conservation. Project leaders at TAMAR estimate that 70% ofsea turtle nests in Brazil remain intact (Projeto TAMAR, 2008). To date, TAMAR hasreleased more than nine million sea turtle hatchlings nationwide (Governo da Bahia,2007). There are other signs of conservation success at the community level, too. Seventy-two respondents (94%) reported that they value sea turtles differently than they did yearsago. People explained that sea turtles were once a source of food, as people harvested theeggs and nesting females for subsistence needs. Respondents report that now turtles areonly symbolically important as icons of the village.

Sixty-eight (88%) respondents stated that the community helps protect sea turtles.Residents said they call TAMAR if they see a turtle or hatchling that is hurt, in need ofcare, or if they see someone is harming a sea turtle or breaking the law. Most respondents

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

272 A. Stronza and F. Pêgas

know that harvesting a sea turtle or their eggs is a federal crime leading to jail time with-out bail. Despite such punishment, 69 respondents (90%) stated that sea turtle protectionlaws are good laws. As one resident said, “I think the laws are good because they help pro-tect the turtles . . . those who break should be penalized.” The majority of fishermen alsosupported the laws.

Will economic benefits from TAMAR continue to be sufficient for sustaining localsupport for sea turtle conservation? Some factors indicate that the answer is yes as themajority of families in Praia do Forte rely on TAMAR to make a living. Tourism is thriv-ing in the region and seems to be on the rise. In 2007, Praia do Forte was voted the eighthbest beach in Brazil and the TAMAR Research Station and Visitor Center a “must see”tourism destination in the region (Veja, 2007).

Despite current successes, the future relationship between ecotourism and conserva-tion in Praia do Forte is potentially unstable. If anything were to happen to the ecotourismeconomy, the chances for ongoing conservation are less promising. Forty-eight respon-dents (62%) believe that the harvesting of sea turtle meat and eggs would pick up again ifTAMAR closed the Visitor Center and Research Station. Respondents also said that localpeople would not be the ones harvesting, but rather non-local residents who would movein or have already done so. Local residents showed special concern for the male workerswho have moved to region to work in construction of new regional businesses.

An additional challenge for long-term sea turtle conservation is the fact that most res-idents no longer depend directly on sea turtles, fish, or other marine resources for subsis-tence needs or as a source of income. This means that their traditional and cultural tieswith the resources their parents and grandparents depended on are now diverted to theecotourism economy. Most people pay for their fish; and sea turtles are “consumed” pri-marily as symbols in T-shirts and souvenirs. Although many older residents misstraditional fishing, it is no longer economically important. Only three respondents (4%)reported direct reliance on fishing as a source of income, whereas 44 (57%) reportedincome from tourism and 28 (36%) from TAMAR.

Finally, a concern for long-term conservation associated with ecotourism is the factthat TAMAR’s programs have not been participatory. The majority of respondents did notsee themselves as co-managers with TAMAR. The majority of respondents (83%) saidthey do not have a voice in what takes place within the community, especially in relationto tourism development. Participation in communal meetings or projects was unusual formost respondents. In 2007, 14 residents (18%) participated in a project that benefited thecommunity in any aspect, and only 4 (5%) stated that the community worked together in acommunal project. The lack of involvement of community members in higher levels ofmanagement has precluded chances for gaining other skills. Respondents stated thatyounger generations would lack skills to seek higher-level employment or compete withoutside labor. People described this as a serious limitation for their children especially inthe face of competition with non-locals.

In summary, the Projeto TAMAR in Praia do Forte is an example of positive feed-backs between economic returns from ecotourism and conservation for marine life.TAMAR researchers have addressed 99% of the original threats on sea turtle eggs andnesting females in the region (TAMAR, 2008). This success is primarily a function of eco-nomic benefits associated with ecotourism at the Research Station and Visitor Center.This case is an example of a market-based approach to conservation through ecotourism.This theory holds that economic benefits are causal mechanisms for linking ecotourismwith conservation. Project directors at TAMAR explicitly promote ecotourism as a way togenerate employment and economic incentives for local residents of Praia do Forte to care

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

Ecotourism and Conservation 273

about and protect sea turtles. The program does not include local residents of Praia doForte in management decisions. Yet, residents in Praia do Forte have not described thislack of participation as a problem. Rather, many report support for TAMAR and seaturtle conservation. Had TAMAR engaged local residents more fully in management,perhaps the future for sea turtle conservation would be stronger, as it would be lessdependent on the ecotourism economy. Perhaps the youth would have gained otherskills enabling them to take direction of their own development, either with TAMAR orwith the tourism industry.

Case Study 2: Rainforests and Ecotourism in Peru

The case study in Brazil represents a kind of ecotourism that promotes primarily employ-ment and income benefits for local communities. Our second case study is an example ofecotourism that involves local residents not only in employment and revenue sharing, butalso in decision-making. In the southern Peruvian Amazon, a local village of 150 families,the Comunidad Nativa de Infierno (Native Community of Infierno), owns and co-managesan ecotourism lodge called Posada Amazonas (Gordillo, Hunt, & Stronza, 2008). Since1996, the community has partnered with a Lima-based, private tourism company to sharemanagement of the lodge. As part of the 20-year, legally binding joint venture, the com-munity earns 60% of profits, and the company earns 40%. In the year 2016, the commu-nity will assume full management of the lodge and profits.

The joint venture has won numerous international ecotourism awards, including theUnited Nations Equator Initiative, and accolades from the International Ecotourism Society,Conservation International, Conde Nast Traveler, and Outside Magazine. The lodgeaccommodates 60 guests at a time, and currently has a share of 30% of all tourists whotravel to the department of Madre de Dios in southeastern Peru. Annually, Posada Amazo-nas hosts between 6,000–7,000 guests mostly from the United States and Europe. Attractionsare tropical bird and mammal species, including abundant populations of large macaws,primates, giant otters, and caiman. The lodge features a 47-meter canopy tower thatprovides panoramic views of primary rainforest along the Tambopata River.

We have been conducting research in Infierno since 1996, studying the dynamics ofecotourism activities, economic benefits, community participation, and conservation(Stronza, 1999, 2005, 2007). The goal was to understand how social and economic princi-ples of ecotourism in this site are associated with conservation over time. The first authorhas lived in the region for 28 months during various periods of fieldwork in 1996–1999,2002–2003, and 2006. The longitudinal research has entailed gathering both qualitativeand quantitative data on village life and interactions between the community and the com-pany, and between local residents and tourists. Qualitative data comes from participantobservation, field notes, key informant interviews, and focus groups. Quantitative datawas compiled from surveys of tourists (n = 80) and semi-structured interviews with headsof households (n = 204, over various periods). Interviews generally lasted 2–3 hours andfocused on socioeconomic characteristics of households and ecotourism-related changesin respondents’ families, households, and community. Research began two years beforethe lodge opened, which enabled comparisons of baseline data with post-ecotourism data.

Analyses from this long-term study have led to insights on various aspects of ecotour-ism effects on the community, including power relations between the company and thecommunity (Stronza, 2005), changes in livelihood strategies and resource use (Stronza,2007), local perceptions of ecotourism benefits (Stronza & Gordillo, 2008), and culturalidentity and inter-ethnic relations (Stronza, in press). Here, we discuss this case in relation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

274 A. Stronza and F. Pêgas

to the Brazil case of TAMAR with the goal of comparing how community involvement inecotourism affects conservation.

As in the first case study, the ecotourism operation in Infierno is contributing eco-nomic benefits in the form of employment and new income to local residents. In its firstyears of operation, 1998, Posada Amazonas was just beginning to generate new incomefor families in Infierno. In 2004 and 2005, the lodge earned profits of $182,583 and$208,328, respectively. Of those amounts, 60% (or $109,550 and $124,996, respectively)went directly to the community. In both years, community leaders distributed profitsevenly among families and set aside a portion for communal needs, including improvededucation and health facilities. In 2006, average household incomes increased by 25%with dividends from tourism (Stronza, 2007).

These economic benefits have had direct effects on resource use and conservation.People have generally spent new income on household needs, including beds, aluminumfor roofs, school supplies, and clothing. A few families have migrated out of the commu-nity and built homes in the nearest town, two hours downriver. Some invested in itemsthat enabled them to increase their agricultural production and forest extraction, includingchainsaws, shotguns, and motorboats. Because of these purchases, new income from ecot-ourism did not reduce direct resource exploitation (hunting, extraction, agriculture).Instead, it enabled greater market consumption and expansion of production. In 2006, theindividual with the highest annual income of $31,596 worked full time at Posada Amazo-nas. Yet, only $4,737 (13%) of his income came from his salary and share of communalecotourism profits. The rest he earned through agriculture. In one year, 2005, he cleared10 hectares of forest to plant crops; this exceeds the average household clearance of1.6 hectares. This employee was able to expand his production because he invested half ofhis salary to hire six laborers to help him clear forest and plant annual crops of maize, rice,and manioc.

Although income from ecotourism has enabled greater production, employmentin ecotourism, has diminished people’s direct reliance on resources. At any given time,20–25 individuals receive wage income from Posada Amazonas. Opportunities foremployment rotate throughout the community every 2–3 years. At least a few workershave abandoned other productive activities and shifted entirely to tourism. Others haveadded tourism to their farming and forest extraction, adjusting the time they spend in each,depending on the time of year and the number of tourists. Overall, as community membersbegan to work at the lodge, they invested less time in clearing forest for annual crops andhunting (Stronza, 2007).

Interviewees explained that one advantage of working in ecotourism is the ability tocount on steady and predictable monthly income. Salaries allow people to plan theirspending and even save. One worker—a housekeeper at the lodge who has no spouse orfamily in Infierno—saved enough to travel as a tourist himself to other parts of Peru.Another employee, a guide, saved for a motorcycle, a commodity that few small farmersin the region own or can afford. Despite these advantages, community members have alsonoted during interviews in 2003 and again in 2006 that ecotourism income and employ-ment is not sufficient to sustain their families. Although ecotourism revenues haveincreased incomes, the desire to earn and spend more has also increased.

In summary, the relationship between economic benefits from ecotourism and conser-vation is ambiguous in Infierno. Employment and income seem to have countervailing effectson resource use—one minimizes direct reliance, whereas the other enables greater exploita-tion. What is clear from Infierno is that economic benefits from ecotourism are no panacea,either for community development or for long-term conservation goals. Nevertheless, in at

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

Ecotourism and Conservation 275

least a few ways, people of Infierno show signs of effective stewardship and conservation.Several incidents described in what follows point to the presence of strong local institu-tions for resource management. These institutions have emerged in part because the com-munity has been involved in managing ecotourism.

As the members of Infierno have co-managed Posada Amazonas with their tourismpartner, they have gained new skills, greater organization, and wider networks of support.These changes, in turn, have enabled people to work together to initiate a number of theirown conservation efforts. For example, in 2006, the community council saved $12,000from tourism profits to gain legal title to a 1,700-hectare “ecotourism concession” fromthe Peruvian government. They did this in part to protect wildlife and forests in their terri-tory from imminent changes posed by the construction of a trans-oceanic highway, whichwill link Brazil with the Atlantic Coast. The major thoroughfare, costing over $800 million tobuild, will pass within 7 km of Infierno (Balvín & Patron, 2006). Already, increasingimmigration to the area is causing deforestation, typically through a change in land usefrom forest to agriculture. While waiting for government approval, the members ofInfierno formed an association with other tour operators to protect the concession.

Local involvement in managing Posada Amazonas has also prompted increasingly activelocal management of forests and wildlife. The lodge itself is located in a 2,000-hectarecommunal reserve where all hunting, timber harvesting, and farming are prohibited. Theentire community of Infierno comprises 10,000 hectares; thus, the reserve represents asizeable portion of their territory. The reserve is recognized, protected, and monitored bylocal families. Although the rules are sometimes broken, community members haverecently stepped up their efforts to keep the reserve protected for ecotourism (Stronza &Gordillo, 2008). On at least a couple of occasions, people were caught hunting in thereserve. Rather than look the other way or wait for outside authorities (i.e., park guards) totake action, the community came together themselves to determine appropriate sanctions.In one case, the violators had tourism profits withheld as punishment. On anotheroccasion, when loggers from a neighboring area trespassed to harvest wood, themembers assembled to notify regional authorities and have the harvesting equipmentexpropriated.

In addition to creating a new concession and monitoring their own reserve, commu-nity members have collaborated with other organizations, including Conservation Interna-tional and the World Wide Fund for Nature, to study and monitor wildlife populations andestablish sustainable techniques for harvesting wild aguaje palm fruits. They have alsoestablished rules for fishing and agriculture near the community oxbow lake that is primehabitat for a family of giant otters, one of the most endangered wildlife species in theAmazon. These efforts have required organization, leadership, and cooperation with out-side entities—all skills improved through the experience of co-managing Posada Amazo-nas. In this way, community involvement in ecotourism has also strengthened localcapacity for conservation. Thus, in the Peru case, the causal mechanism between ecotour-ism and conservation is not necessarily economic returns, but rather community participa-tion that brings new skills and common resource management capacities to thecommunity.

Conclusion

In 20 years of ecotourism research, a number of authors have outlined defining principles(Buckley, 1994, Ross & Wall, 1999). Fennell (1999) identified 13 main principles, includ-ing the need to contribute to conservation and benefit local people. Honey (1999)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

276 A. Stronza and F. Pêgas

described seven characteristics of “genuine ecotourism,” which included providing directfinancial benefits for conservation. Wallace and Pierce (1996) pointed to six “valuativeprinciples.” The ecotourism literature is replete with examples of studies that describehow well ecotourism operations are upholding such principles. A smaller number of studiesevaluate principles in association with each other, or experimentally as cause–effect inter-actions. On this point, Weaver and Lawton (2007) have observed persistent efforts tounderstand the impacts of ecotourism along various trajectories. One is a “hard scientific”path focused on the direct effects of tourism on wildlife species, and the others are on thepotential for tourism to provide social and cultural benefits that lead to economic incen-tives for conservation. Somehow, the research on ecological impacts “is not at all linked”to the research on sociocultural impacts (p. 1176).

In this article, we have compared ecotourism case studies with the intention of evalu-ating linkages between social changes, economic benefits, and conservation. In Brazil,employment opportunities and income from ecotourism have enabled sea turtle conserva-tion, even though local villagers have not been engaged in management or decision-making.This case suggests that, at least in the short-term, economic benefits can effectively lead toconservation. The Peru case shows that engaging local residents as co-managers and deci-sion-makers can provide economic incentives for conservation while also building localcapacity to manage environmental problems. This case suggest that ecotourism can domore than deliver employment and income; it is can also strengthen local institutions andcatalyze collective action for resource management.

Together the two cases reveal that ecotourism is not merely an economic “tool” forconservation so much as a cause of new understandings, skills, and social relations.Decisions to conserve natural resources in ecotourism settings occur not solely in light ofcost-benefit calculations of prices and time. They also occur as the result of new feelingsof capacity, the strength of local institutions and ties with outside actors, and overall socialand economic stability. Although economic benefits from ecotourism may be importantfor short-term conservation, greater involvement of local communities in program man-agement may help sustain success over time.

References

Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. WorldDevelopment, 29(10), 1649–72.

Agrawal, A., & Redford, K. (2006). Poverty, development, and biodiversity conservation: Shootingin the dark? Wildlife Conservation Society, Working Paper 26, March.

Alexander, S. (2000). Resident attitudes towards conservation and black howler monkeys in Belize:The Community Baboon Sanctuary. Environmental Conservation, 27(4), 341–350.

Archabald, K., & Naughton-Treves, L. (2001). Tourism revenue-sharing around national parks inwestern Uganda: Early efforts to identify and reward local communities. Environmental Conser-vation, 28(2), 135–49.

Balvín, D., & Patron, A. (2006). Carretera Interoceánico Sur: Consideraciones para su aprove-chamiento sostenible. Amigos de la Tierra and Asociación Civil Labor. Lima.

Barkin, D. (2003). Alleviating poverty through ecotourism: Promises and reality in the MonarchButterfly Reserve of Mexico. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 5(3/4), 371–382.

Barrett, C., Brandon, K., Gibson, C., & Gjertsen, H. (2001). Conserving tropical biodiversity amidweak institutions. BioScience, 51(3), 497–502.

Belsky, J. (1999). Misrepresenting communities: The politics of community-based rural ecotourismin Gales Point Manatee, Belize. Rural Sociology, 64(4), 641–666.

Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology, 18, 621–630.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

Ecotourism and Conservation 277

Bookbinder, M., Dinerstein, E., Rijal, A., Cauley, H., & Rajouria, A. (1998). Ecotourism’s supportof biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 12(6), 1399–1404.

Borman, R. (1999). Cofan: Story of the forest people and the outsiders. Cultural Survival Quarterly,23, 48–50.

Bray, D., Cornejo, M., Cohan, S., & Beitl, C. (2005, April). Community-based Ecotourism: A Con-servation and Development Strategy in Search of an Analytic Framework. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Santa Fe, NM.

Brechin, S., Wilshusen, P., Fortwangler, C., & West, P. (2002). Beyond the square wheel: Toward amore comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process.Society and Natural Resources, 15, 41–64.

Brosius, P., Tsing, A., & Zerner, C. (1998). Representing communities: Histories and politics ofCommunity-Based Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 11, 157–168.

Bookbinder, M., Dinerstein, E., Rijal, A., Cauley, H., & Rajouria, A. (1998). Ecotourism’s supportof biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 12(6), 1399–1404.

Brown, T., & Decker, D. (2005). Research needs to support community-based wildlife management:Global perspectives. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 10, 137–140.

Buckley, R. (1994). A framework for ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 661–665.Campbell, L. (2007). Local conservation practice and global discourse: A political ecology of sea

turtle conservation. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97, 313–334.Cater, E., & Lowman, G. (1994). Ecotourism: A sustainable option? Chichester, UK: John Wiley

and Sons.Doan, T. (2000). The effects of ecotourism in developing nations: An analysis of case studies. Jour-

nal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(4), 288–304.Fennell, D. (1999). Ecotourism: An introduction. London: RoutledgeFoucat, V. (2002). Community-based ecotourism management moving towards sustainability, in

Ventanilla, Oaxaca, Mexico. Ocean & Coastal Management, 45, 511–529.Gentry, K. (2007). Belizean women and tourism work opportunity or impediment? Annals of Tourism

Research, 34(2), 477–496.Gossling, S. (1999). Ecotourism: A means to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem functions? Eco-

logical Economics, 29(2), 303–320.Gordillo, J., Hunt, C., & Stronza, A. (in press). An ecotourism partnership in the Peruvian Amazon.

In A. Stronza & W. H. Durham (Eds.), Ecotourism and Conservation in the Americas. London:CABI.

Governo da Bahia. (2007). Tamar alcança marca de 9 milhões de filhotes devolvidos ao mar.Retrieved January 12, 2008 from: http://www.comunicacao.ba.gov.br/noticias/2007/12/05/projeto-tamar-alcanca-marca-de-nove-milhoes-de-filhotes-devolvidos-ao-mar/

Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? Washington,DC: Island Press.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2003). World Commission on Pro-tected Areas. Retrieved February 14, 2008 from: http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/

Jacobson, S., & Robles, R. (1992). Ecotourism, sustainable development, and conservation educa-tion: Development of a tour guide training program in Tortuguero, Costa Rica. EnvironmentalManagement, 16(6), 701–713.

Jones, S. (2005). Community-based ecotourism the significance of social capital. Annals of TourismResearch, 32(2), 303–324.

Kassilly, F. (2007). Residents’ attitudes toward non-economic values of wildlife in Nakuru munici-pality. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12, 193–194.

Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds?Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19(5), 231–237.

Kruger, O. (2005). The role of ecotourism in conservation: Panacea or Pandora’s box? Biodiversityand Conservation, 14(13), 579–600.

Langholz, J. (1999). Exploring the effects of alternative income opportunities on rainforest use.Society and Natural Resources, 12(2), 139–150.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

278 A. Stronza and F. Pêgas

Lindberg, K. (1991). Economic policies for maximizing nature tourism's contribution to sustainabledevelopment. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J., & Sproule, K. (1996). Ecotourism questioned: Case studies from Belize.Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 543–562.

Malek-Zadeh, E. (1996). The ecotourism equation: Measuring the impacts. Bulletin Number 99,New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry.

Marcovaldi, M., Baptistotte, C., Castilhos, J., Gallo, B., Lima, E., Sanches, T., & Vieitas, C. (1998). Activ-ities by Project TAMAR in Brazilian sea turtle feeding grounds. Marine Turtle Newsletter, 80, 5–7.

North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Ogutu, Z. (2002). The impact of ecotourism on livelihood and natural resource management inEselenkei, Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya. Land Degradation and Development, 13, 251–256.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Prefeitura Municipal de Mata de São João (PMMSJ). (2004). Adequação do plano diretor urbano deMata de São João ao estatuto da cidade. Prefeitura Municipal de Mata de São João.

Pretty, J., & Ward, H. (2001). Social capital and the environment. World Development, 29, 209–227.Projeto TAMAR. (2008). Projeto TAMAR. Retrieved February 29, 2008 from: http://

www.tamar.org.br/bases/ba.asp/Ross, S., & Wall, G. (1999). Ecotourism: Toward congruence between theory and practice. Tourism

Management, 20, 123–132.Salafsky, N., & Wollenberg, E. (2000). Linking livelihoods and conservation: A conceptual frame-

work and scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity. World Develop-ment, 28(8), 1421–1438.

Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Manage-ment, 20(2), 245–249.

Spotila, J. (2004). Sea turtles: A complete guide to their biology, behavior, and conservation. Balti-more: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Stem, C., Lassoie, J., Lee, D., & Deshler, D. (2003). How "eco" is ecotourism? A comparative casestudy of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(4), 322–347.

Stonich, S. (1998). The political ecology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 25–54.Stonich, S. (2000). The other side of paradise: Tourism, conservation and development in the Bay

Islands. New York: Cognizant Communications.Stronza, A. (1999) Learning both ways: Lessons from a corporate and community ecotourism col-

laboration. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 23(2), 36–39.Stronza, A. (2005). Hosts and hosts: The anthropology of community-based ecotourism in the Peru-

vian Amazon. National Association for Practice of Anthropology Bulletin, 23, 170–190.Stronza, A. (2007). The economic promise of ecotourism for conservation. Journal of Ecotourism,

6(3), 170–190.Stronza, A., & Gordillo, J. (2008). Community views of ecotourism: Redefining benefits. Annals of

Tourism Research, 35(2).Stronza, A. (in press). Through a new mirror: Reflections on tourism and identity in the Amazon.

Human Organization, 67(3). Taylor, J., Yunez-Naude, A., & Ardila, S. (2003). The economics of ecotourism: A Galápagos Islands

economy-wide perspective. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 13(3), 978–997.Troëng, S., & Drews, C. (2004). Money talks: Economic aspects of marine turtle use and conserva-

tion. WWF-International, Gland, Switzerland. Retrieved from: www.panda.org.Veja: O Melhor do Brazil. (2007). Praia: O Melhor Destino. Retrieved on April 29, 2008 from:

http://veja.abril.com.br/especiais/brasil_2007/p_018.htmlWalpole, M., & Goodwin, H. (2001). Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around

Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation, 28, 160–166.Wallace, G., & Pierce, S. (1996). An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil. Annals of

Tourism Research, 23(4), 843–873.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013

Ecotourism and Conservation 279

Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (1999). Ecotourism: Impacts, potentials, and possibilities. Oxford: Butter-worth Heinemann.

Weinberg, A., Bellows, S., & Ekster, D. (2002). Sustaining ecotourism: Insights and implicationsfrom two successful case studies. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 371–380.

Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research.Tourism Management, 28, 1168–1179.

West, P. (2006). Conservation is our governance now: The politics of ecology in Papua NewGuinea. London: Duke University Press.

West, P., & Carrier, J. (2004). Ecotourism and authenticity: Getting away from it all? CurrentAnthropology, 45(4), 483–491.

Western, D., & Wright, R. (Eds.). (1994). The background to community-based conservation. In D.Western and R. M. Wright (Eds.), Natural connections: Perspectives in community conservation(pp. 1–12). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Wilson, C., & Tisdell, C. (2003). Conservation and economic benefits of wildlife-based marinetourism: Sea turtles and whales as case studies. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8, 49–58.

Wunder, S. (1999). Promoting forest conservation through ecotourism income? A case study fromthe Ecuadorian Amazon region. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.

Wunder, S. (2000). Ecotourism and economic incentives—An empirical approach. EcologicalEconomics, 32, 465–479.

Young, E. (1999). Balancing conservation with development in small-scale fisheries: Is ecotourisman empty promise? Human Ecology, 27(4), 581–620.

Ziffer, K. (1989). Ecotourism: The uneasy alliance. Washington, DC: Conservation International.Zografos, C., & Oglethorpe, D. (2004). Multi-criteria analysis in ecotourism: Using goal program-

ming to explore sustainable solutions. Current Issues in Tourism, 7(1), 20–43.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2013