Community Based Ecotourism and Community Building:
The Case of the Lacandones (Chiapas)
by Axel Kersten

April/Abril 1997

Introduction

"Building community, or social capital, is not a technical problem... 
Social capital [...] is free
(Wilson 1997, 1).

Whereas "social capital" might be free in economic terms, it is not at all easy to "build". Since the "lost decade" of the 80s, the mainstream development business of national and multinational institutions with its main focus on economic development has been facing a substantial identity crisis and heavy criticism. "New" concepts like individual empowerment, strengthening human and social capital, Women in Development (WID), grassroots strategies etc.0 have since arisen and together with the intellectual deconstruction of the "development paradigm" created a new, "postdevelopment" paradigm (Sachs 1992, Escobar 1995). Whenever tourism was considered to be part of development efforts, this new direction in the development discourse has also affected tourism planning and debates (Nash 1996). A recent "postdevelopment" approach within the tourism sector is community based ecotourism. The concept tries to describe a sustainable way of tourism into natural reserves while providing a source of community building or development for local people without destroying natural habitats and cultural systems. Although the academic world has not yet fully analyzed this complex concept, it has been widely used by conservation and development organizations throughout the third world (Brandon 1993, Horwich 1993).

This paper examines this community based approach and focuses on its core feature: community building. In particular, it shall be shown that not all villages have the same "high" or "low" levels of community organization prior to ecotourism projects which then affects the success of the projects. Should development institutions therefore try to "teach" local people the tools for creating more efficient community structures? In Section 2, I introduce the concept of community based ecotourism and compare it to third world tourism and ecotourism. Also, a working definition of community organization as social capital is provided which is then used for the rest of the paper. Section 3 consists of a case study of community based ecotourism in the Selva Lacandona in Chiapas. It stresses the lack of community structures among the Lacandon people and compares this case with another example in the Selva Maya region. Section 4 provides a short conclusion and sketches the inherent dilemma of diverging levels of social capital in different communities.

Community based ecotourism

The term "community based ecotourism" shall here be defined and introduced as a special kind of third world tourism and ecotourism and differentiated from these forms of tourism.

THIRD WORLD TOURISM:

The percentage of tourism into developing countries has increased constantly over the past two decades. In 1995, the "third world" received about 170 million international tourist arrivals, which is 30% of the world's total. The receipts from tourism into the third world (US$ 113 million) designate "North-South-tourism" (third world tourism overwhelmingly originates in first world countries) as the second largest source of income for developing countries.1 In Germany, e.g., in 1991 more than 20% of the population had travel experience into a third world country (BMZ 1993, 5-8). Nevertheless, despite its considerable macroeconomic potential, this kind of intercultural tourism often caught negative reactions from critiques. Apart from ecological damage from air traffic pollution, some critical points are:

* Exploiting and reckless behavior of tourism companies has led to negative consequences and sometimes local resistance in tourism areas (unsustainable planning of tourism areas; erection of luxury hotels; sewage, garbage and other environmental problems; no backward linkages for locals; sex tourism etc.)

* Lack of information, arrogance, and ignorance among many travelers as well as mass tourism and language barriers have prevented tourism to become a tool for intercultural understanding.

* The economic benefits to developing countries are limited. Only 35 % of the gross tourism income in third world countries remain in these countries while the poor segments of the population hardly profit at all. Other economic problems are: Seasonality of production and employment; labor-intensive industry (mostly in service sector with poor productivity prospects); little increase in labor skills/few spin-off effects; heavy infrastrucure costs might lead to inflation; pressure to import to fulfil tourist's needs (leakages).

* Despite its potential to introduce innovative and "modern" tools and labor into developing countries, tourism often creates dependencies on external markets and destroys traditional local economies (subsistence agriculture, internal service sector etc.) as well as social and family values and structures.

* The cultural contact with tourists and their Western consumerism and materialism might create counterproductive effects on non-Western cultures and can accelerate acculturation as well as internal social problems and alienation from the locals' own culture.2

Merely demonising tourism, however, is counterproductive. Because tourism is such a major factor in the world's economy and because it faces major political, socioeconomic, cultural and (as a major consumer of energy and resources) ecological problems, finding sustainable ways of tourism is the necessary task. The official German development agency (BMZ, a pendant to USAID) concludes (1993, 6, my translation):

"It is high time to develop sustainable forms of tourism in the destination countries of the third world. For that, culturally, environmentally, and socially sound as well as participatory tourism strategies are necessary."

There is some proof that Western travelers are willing to prepare themselves for the unique cultural and socioeconomic circumstances in the destination country.3 Meanwhile, discussions about alternative forms of tourism in the third world have been dominating the "tourism and development" debate in the past years. Now, third world tourism is even seen by some as a possible facilitator of peace. For example, the International Institute for Peace through Tourism sponsored the Second Global Conference, "Building a Sustainable World Through Tourism", in Montreal, Canada in 1994. Approximately 600 people attended from 80 countries to discuss the role of tourism in attaining international peace. Topics such as cultural heritage tourism, ecotourism, sustainable tourism development, tourism and the environment, parks and protected areas, rural and communitybased tourism, indigenous peoples tourism and barrierfree tourism demonstrated the complexity and diversity of this evolving field in tourism studies.4

ECOTOURISM:

One of the more successful and famous alternative applications of tourism has recently been ecotourism. The .i.WWF;World Wildlife Fund (WWF) uses a definition of the Mexican Ceballos-Lascuraín, who describes ecotourism as

"la ejecución de un viaje a areas naturales que están relativamente sin disturbar o contaminar con el objetivo específico de estudiar, admirar y gozar el panorama junto con sus plantas y animales silvestres y así mismo cualquier manifestación cultural (pasada y presente) que se encuentre en estas áreas..." (Boo 1990, xvi).

According to a comprehensive study on ecotourism by a working group of the BMZ, ecotourism is a kind of nature tourism and has the following objectives:

* to deter or minimize negative environmental and socio-cultural impacts

* to take place within "relatively untouched" natural areas

* to contribute to the conservation of the areas

* to improve the local economy of adjacent communities

* to primarily address tourists who maintain a certain "non-consumerism", nature-loving, and ethical conscience towards tourism. (BMZ 1995a, 3 and 31-38)

If those attributes are not (or only to a small extent) rendered, the working group speaks of nature tourism which is characterized by using nature or natural resources "in whatever way". Ecotourism as a new form of tourism has been very successful in economic terms through Latin America (especially in Costa Rica, Belize and Ecuador, not so much in Mexico, however).5

Nevertheless, the inflationary use of the term has overshadowed the innovative and alternative direction of ecotourism which often actually is nature tourism according to the definition of the working group. Given this massive distribution of the ecotourism approach (or at least, its rhetoric) and its expansion into one of the most important sources of income in many countries, it cannot surprise that, despite its low-impact intention, mainstream ecotourism now faces similar problems and criticisms as "regular" tourism.6 Paradoxically, ecotourism, especially in Belize and Costa Rica, has been responsible for damaging natural areas and habitats due to overdevelopment. It is like a classic vicious circle: more tourists bring more hotels and facilities, which bring more tourists. "In general, the higher the volume of tourists, the greater the potential for negative impacts," says Ray Ashton, author of a manual for ecotourism in Central America.7

COMMUNITY BASED ECOTOURISM:

One response to the rising criticism of ecotourism has been the concept of community8 based ecotourism which originated, according to one study, within new tourism development programs of the Canadian Government of the Northwest Territories in 1983. The same study (Woodley 1993, 137) defines:

"A community approach to tourism suggests the development of a community as a core component of a tourism destination area or tourism product. At the same time it suggests some control by residents over tourism development and management".

This definition, however, is somewhat limited to the tourism perspective within the approach. Another main perspective within the concept (apart from community development) is conservation. Furthermore, most advocates of the approach aim for more than just "some" local control. It is community based because local communities maintain full (or major) control over the management and the profits of projects. Thus, the approach combines conservation, tourism, socioeconomic development, and cultural preservation in one, a truly grand task. Mancilla, who works for the Nature Conservancy (TNC) in Guatamala, outlines the underlying dilemma in the relationship between conservation and development in third world countries:

"Conservación efectiva solo la pueden hacer las personas que viven dentro o alrededor de las áreas protegidas, sin su concurso y beneplácito todo lo que hagamos es vano. [...] Podría asegurar que conservación sin desarollo es impossible, o asegurar que desarollo sin conservación está condenado a una muerte prematura." (Mancilla 1995, 8)

Although conservation and development are often a dichotomy, they have to be addressed together. As one possible path to let local people benefit from the modern tourist sweeping into their lands, Mancilla suggests community based ecotourism. He and other development workers see the approach primarily as a tool for development and conservation, using tourism as an existing fact which can even be useful for locals - if applied correctly. The aims of community based ecotourism are

* to help preserve ecosystems and natural areas (usually already within protected areas) with a high touristic potential

* to contribute to the environmental consciousness of the local population by educating them about the dangers of overexploiting resources and unrestricted number of tourists.

* to promote new economic incentives through ecotourism, e.g., selling a wide variety of local (environmentally safe) products, crafts, and medicinal plants thereby diversifying the local economy and creating some "entrepreneurial spirit".

* to make sure that communal ownership and control is accomplished and that part of the profits flow into community development programs rather than merely into personal enrichment.

* to foster a feeling of pride and community through a revival or preservation of "traditional" practices and cultural techniques which are also - as a side effect - attractive to tourists.9

Especially important within this strategy is the focus on community development and participation in marginalized sectors (e.g., indigenous groups) rather than on regional or national development. No development organization - at least rhetorically - doubts that "the sustainability of project benefits depend strongly on the effective participation of local people" (Wells/Brandon 1992, 63). Community empowerment has become a widespread strategy in development in recent years. Three examples for this approach are:

* Conservation International's (CI) projects in the Maya Biosphere Reserve in Guatemala include:

- developing communitybased factories (micro-enterprises) to produce nontimber forest products;

- establishing the EcoEscuela de Español with the Community of San Andrés for teaching Spanish and environmental issues to tourists and thus providing income locally;

- setting up community forestry projects in Carmelita and San Andrés; and,

- establishing the Center for Information on the Culture, Nature and Arts of the Petén, promoting ecotourism in the area, and providing a market for local artisans.10

* "Overall in Central America our focus remains building local capacity by working with communities, local conservation organizations, and government entities to protect the region's biodiversity" (E-mail from Lisa Keeton, Regional Fundraising Coordinator of the Nature Conservancy - TNC, 03/14/97).

* The InterAmerican Foundation (IAF) is bringing together nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Mexico to start consortia for channeling financial resources to grassroots development programs. The Mexican consortium has established several priorities. Its focus will be on peasant and communitybased organizations and NGOs helping them plan and finance projects for sustainable regional development, cashcrop agriculture, community forest management, income generation by women, and urban ecology.

"The IAF uses the term "grassroots development" to describe the process by which disadvantaged people organize themselves to improve the social, cultural, and economic wellbeing of their families, communities, and societies. This concept is based on the premise that the key to sustainable democracies, equitable societies, and prosperous economies is a peopleoriented strategy that stresses participation, organizational development, and networking to build the social capital needed to complement human and physical assets."11

CI, TNC, and the IAF are implicitly applying one of social science's new paradigm in their strategies: the concentration on the building of "social capital". The underlying logic is explained by Friedmann (1992, 34):

"Giving full voice to the disempowered sectors of the population tends to follow a certain sequence. Political empowerment would seem to require a prior social empowerment through which effective participation in politics becomes possible."

Recent articles on social capital (Putnam 1993, Ritchey-Vance 1996, Wilson 1997) use this term and community building practically as synonyms and stress the importance of this approach for community based tourism. Harvard's political scientist Putnam defines social capital:

"By analogy with notions of physical capital and human capitaltools and training that enhance individual productivity"social capital" refers to features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. Social capital enhances the benefits of investment in physical and human capital."12

For this paper I use IAF's "Grassroots Development Framework" as a yardstick for defining (and evaluating) social capital and community development. The relevant part of the cone-shaped Framework for community based ecotourism is the center one, containing the following "buildings blocks of social capital" (Ritchey-Vance 1996, 4):

* social organizational capability: planning, administration, resources, reach/linkages (tangible) and

* social organizational culture: vision, democratic practice, autonomy, solidarity (intangible).

If community based ecotourism projects are to be successful, they seem to require a certain minimum level of social organization or community development in order to successfully fulfil its original aims (strengthening community structures, natural conservation, and cultural preservation). They cannot, by itself, create such basic social capital. What happens, however, if some communities are lacking the organizational structure to implement ecotourism projects which by definition shall benefit the whole community?

.c1. A lack of community and its consequences for community based ecotourism: The case of the Lacandon Maya13

;

Na Bolom is a Mexican NGO in San Cristóbal (Chiapas), a quite unique institution founded in 1951 in the beautiful setting of an abandoned monastery. It was the home to Swiss photojournalist and enviromentalist Gertrude Duby Blom, and her husband, Danish archaeologist Frans Blom, who built Na Bolom as a center for Mayan studies. Na Bolom is dedicated to the conservation of the natural and cultural treasures of the state of Chiapas, particularly in the Lacandon Rainforest, the Selva Lacandona. Na Bolom serves as a scientific study center, museum, guesthouse, and cultural contact center for the Lacandon Maya. The main project of Na Bolom is to establish cultural centers in the Lacandon rainforest as well as to foster the Lacandon's craft production and ecotourism (check Na Bolom's new webpage at http://www.ecosur.mx/nabolom).

Na Bolom closely cooperates with the Comunidad Zona Lacandona (CZL), an association which is made up of five Mayan communities. They are the legal title-holder to large parts of the Selva Lacandona, which includes the most extensive track of remaining virgin tropical rainforest in North America. My case study, the village of Lacanjá-Chansayab (about 250 inhabitants), consists of Lacandon Maya. Unlike some other groups in this rainforest (Tzeltales and Choles), the Lacandon culture (they call themselves "Hach Winik", true people) depends on its close relationship with the forest environment and has been passed from generation to generation for hundreds of years. The Lacandon agriculture and gardening is maybe the most diverse multi-crop system being used in the Americas (interview with DANA's Ron Nigh, a leading expert on the region, June 1995, see Nigh's ecotourism article on http://www.planeta.com/planeta/97/0297miramar2.html). However, it's practice is increasingly rare. Inefficient mono-cropping, cattle raising and a growing reliance on agro-chemicals have come to characterize the agriculture being practiced in the region. With the continuing destruction of the rainforest through logging, cattle raising, oil exploitation, slash-and burn agriculture, new settlers in search for land, and expanding tourism, the cultural traditions of the Lacandones are already heavily eroded and changed (Vásquez/March/ Lazcano 1992).

For many Lacandones, the sale of traditional crafts now is the main source of income. Over half of the community sells pottery, wood carvings and necklaces at Na Bolom, and bows and arrows at the ruins of Palenque. The Tzeltal and Chol communities are also eager to develop unique and marketable crafts, but have so far been less successful (probably due to its less "authentic" traditions as rainforest people; nevertheless, the Lacandones in Lacanjá no longer use their craft products for religious ceremonies).

Tourism has been growing constantly within the past years in Lacanjá. Most tourists, however, come with tourgroups, some have their own guides and often they do not leave many pesos for the people whose environment and culture they are visiting. Three quite rustic campgrounds exist in Lacanjá for the nature-loving traveler, very basic facilities and no restaurant. Washing and showering is done in rivers and creeks. Apart from the overall cultural immersion, the main activities for tourists are two nearby ruins, jungle hikes (with local guides), swimming in the lakes, rivers and waterfalls, birdwatching, and buying local handicrafts. The touristic potential of Lacanjá is undeniably high and is an essential part of Na Bolom's overall strategy to develop new income sources for the Lacandones and to strengthen community ties, thereby facilitating the rapid and irresistible transformation of their culture and society. Na Bolom's main project in Lacanjá (as well as in the other communities of the CZL), the establishment of a community center or House of Culture, includes the following features:

* Museographical boards with information about the environment and the traditions of the Lacandones: a genealogical tree of Lacanjá with photos of community members, information about traditional agricultural methods, fishing and hunting, and about the flora and fauna of the rainforest (e.g. medicinal plants), the history of the Lacandon community, among other topics.

* A library of books, magazines and videos that deal with Maya culture and other subjects (including some of the original films of Frans Blom during his expeditions to the rainforest). Many of the films show images of Lacandon elders when they were young men and women and how they had first contacts with the outside world.

* Marketing and displaying Lacandon handicraft.

* Coordination and marketing of ecotourism activities in the Community Center. Since all activities of the Center are equally interesting and "consumable" by tourists, the house is an ideal setting for ecotourism and promoted accordingly.

Lacanjá was part of a group of selected ecotourism destinations receiving funds through TNC's MAYAFOR program to develop community based ecotourism. TNC, CI and other development and conservation organizations have long worked on introducing community based ecotourism in these communities, before large-scale tourism might arrive. Apart from community centers and museums, MAYAFOR was trying to develop communal funds systems from ecotourism, to set up local cooperatives and organizations, and, generally, to organize most ecotourism services at the community level. These efforts included the establishment of a tri-national ecotourism network in the Selva Maya (Pedersen 1995).

Some of the participating projects in Guatemala, Belize, and Mexico have been a considerable success (Beavers 1995). The Toledo Ecotourism Association (TEA) in Belize, for example, as a reaction to increasing and uncoordinated visits of tourists into their villages, has set up a very successful program which coordinates community based ecotourism in several Mopan and Kekchi Maya communities. Those villages have touristic attractions which are very similar to Lacanjá's, but they are less spectacular in general. One of TEA's main attractions, however, are more or less "authentic" homestays in Mayan families.

TEA's strategy include a limitation of tourist numbers, a rotation of visitors between villages and families, an efficient internal quality and cleanliness control, and a communal fund project (20% of all tourism income flows into a common fund which finances education, health, and environmental projects in the communities as well as a community-run office in the major town of the area, Punta Gorda). Part of the money from tourism, together with considerable NGO funds, is also used to maintain the Rural Development Plan which consists of a village guesthouse and ecotrail program, the maintenance and management of community centers, the promotion of handicrafts, and a music and dance show program. With almost all of these activities based on communal efforts and cooperation, the enhancement of social capital through development efforts is clearly a central issue for the TEA. All of the categories in IAF's Grassroots Development Framework (see Section 2) are addressed and have overwhelmingly improved through TEA's projects.14 Two other projects from Belize within the trinational association, the Cockscomb Basin Wildlife Sanctuary and the Community Baboon Sanctuary, have also shown considerable success in community building (Horwich 1993).

Similar forms of communal projects were repeatedly proposed to the Lacandones. However, the overall acceptance has been low. Even the House of Culture itself has not - to the expected extent - turned out to be a popular general meeting place or cultural center (interviews in Na Bolom, December 1996). Also, a communal funds administration like in Toledo is problematic (due to corruption and individualism) and an effective financial self-administration (fiscalización permanente) unknown in Lacanjá. One of the first evaluations of the community development efforts in Lacanjá (Salinas 1995) mentioned the lack of a communal decision making process as one of the main problems for building social capital in Lacanjá. Many Lacandones were very interested in increasing the number of tourists into their community in general, but they were mainly interested in their individual opportunity to make money (i.e. sell handicrafts, operate as a guide, offer transportation, sell refrescos etc.). Local people who were interested in contributing to the House of Culture project (e.g., helping to construct the building) were mostly motivated by the money which they would receive for working with the house, not by the "philosophy" of the project. Few of them shared interest in the development and improvement of the village as one unit. Especially the three (rivaling) providers of ecotourism facilities were not interested in community projects since they expected a loss of individual market share if the whole village got involved.

Although many Lacandones saw the potential pitfalls of uncontrolled tourism into the region and the better chances of a strong community organization to gather external support for their matters, the Lacandones were not openly supportive of TNCs and Na Boloms ecotourism projects. Displaying a certain "Laissez-faire" attitude, they did not oppose the suggestions either, but general meetings between NGO and community representatives were depicted by mutual mistrust among the Lacandones themselves and by a lack of organized discussion (Salinas 1995).

The reason for this missing community sense (considering Lacanjá as one important sociopolitical unit) and the lack of social and political organizations probably lies in the traditional focus of the Lacandones on their families as their main (and often only) social unit.15 Traditionally, the Lacandones were spread out deeply into the rainforest, without much contact and often with hostilities and rivalries between the existing larger families. This loose social and political organization of the Lacandones beyond the family's settlement was partly due to the large number of milpas (multi-crop cornfields) each family set up around its house. Only direct family members lived in the vicinity and each family formed a kind of clan (cf. Marion 1991). After the commercial exploitation of the Selva increased in the early 1960s, which brought with it a dramatic increase in contact between the Lacandones and the "rest of the world," the Lacandones were forced to live closer together (geographically and politically). The government practically declared Lacanjá a village and the Lacandones living in the area what then became a village received a primary school, a medical unit, a church (most Lacandones are now converted to Protestants) etc.

Thus, the Lacandones suddenly had to deal with "modern" issues like community finances and administration, community decisions, and with more and more "strangers" interfering with their traditional life. Before that, hardly any issues had to be decided on a community, i.e. village level. But neither was an "improved"community structure automatically created because of the external changes nor was it encouraged by the state and national government. Rather, the government developed a distinct paternalistic treatment of the Lacandones and took advantage of their lack of social and political organization at the community level through a series of policies regarding land issues in the Selva (for details, see Vásquez/March/Lazcano 1992). Since then, the organizational capability of the Lacandones at the community level has not significantly improved. The clan structure is still intact and clan leaders are usually full of mistrust against other clan leaders. The leaders and other "important" men meet occasionally to discuss community issues, very often without consensus or useful results (Salinas 1995).

To summarize, the differences between the social organization of the Lacandones and other indigenous groups in the Selva Maya are tremendous. In comparison with the rest of the CZL and other members of the trinational association, the Lacandones are the least consistent and politically coherent group and one of the least "Western" communities in terms of community structure and organization. Organized groups of guides, systems of rotating work distribution, communal funds from ecotourism and sales as well as other forms of community-based structures are practically unknown to the Lacandones. Therefore, a theoretically well-intended project like Na Bolom´s and TNCs community based ecotourism could not easily be successful under the given circumstances. At least two of the major requirements for community based ecotourism (i.e. village level and local integration/empowerment) could not be reached in Lacanjá.

Conclusion and outlook

NGOs trying to implement community based ecotourism face two main options in a situation like the one in Lacanjá: Either, they cancel their efforts in a community like Lacanjá due to the population's lack of organizational capability and social capital, or they try to foster the building and development of these features.

Advanced community structures are not only helpful and necessary for managing low-impact and self-regulated ecotourism, but in general for the community's ability "to join together to address mutual needs and pursue common interests" (Wilson 1997, 2), e.g. for marketing and promotion of artesanías, managing of community centers, education and health issues, political strength to fight unwanted changes brought from outside - like streets, hotels, legal changes, negotiations with other public or private organizations etc.

However, to artificially implement Western ideas of "social capital" or "organizational capability" might be counterproductive in a culture which has already been heavily paternalized in recent decades. In addition, it might destroy the social kit of the community, in Lacanjá provided by strong family and kin relationships. This dilemma is a general intrinsic problem of the development business and discourse in general and cannot be untwisted in this paper. There is reason for hope, however. In December 1995, with financial support from TNC, Na Bolom organized a workshop for all affiliated communities to address the above issues (Primer Taller para el Desarrollo del Turismo Alternativo en los Altos de Chiapas y la Selva Lacandona, available on: gopher://csf.Colorado.EDU:70/00/environment/orgs/El_Planeta_ Platica/Mexico/95_ Chiapas_Taller). The results from this workshop were encouraging and might initiate a needed (self-guided) process of change in the Lacandones' attitude towards community issues. After all, social change is not per se a condemnable, let alone preventable feature of human life. And sometimes, it might even help to ensure cultural survival.

For more information, please contact the author via email: kersten@mail.utexas.edu

Notes:

0.See, e.g., Friedmann 1992, Ritchey-Vance 1995, Sachs 1992, Escobar 1995, Rich 1994.

1.Cf. Nuscheler 1995, 298; all the data and numbers are from WTO, available on: http://www.worldtourism.org/owsdoc/esta/highlights/highligh.htm

2.List was compiled from Nuscheler 1995, 298, BMZ 1993, 5, Nash 1996, 21-25, Harrison 1995, 19-34.

3.E.g., a survey of BMZ 1993 showed that 40% of German travelers uttered such readiness.

4.See the conference description on http://www.icomos.org/usicomos/usicomos1194.html.

5.On ecotourism in Mexico, see Ron Mader's newest edition of El Planeta Platica: Ecotravels in Latin America, http://www.planeta.com/planeta/97/0297.html.

6.See above. Cf. BMZ 1995a, 56-87, TNC 1993, Boo 1990 9-30, FAO 1993, 37-53, Cultural Survival Quarterly 14/1990, ed. 1 und 2 (esp.Johnston 1990), Nelson/Butler/Wall 1993.

7.Quoted in Ruth Norris: Ecotourism in the national parks of Latin America, in: National Parks, JanFeb 1994, v68, n12, p.32. Similarly criticisms are compiled in: Wheat, Sue: Taming tourism, in: Geographical Magazine, April 1994, v66, n4, p16; Begley, Sharon: Beware of the humans, in: Newsweek, Feb 5 1996, v127, n6, p52; Freedman, Adam J.: Ecotopia, in: National Review, Dec 11 1995, v47, n23, p38. All articles are available in: Academic Index (database on UTCAT system)

8.Community is here understood as a group of people who consciously share a common functional or moral link (e.g. the village as a place of residency and political unit); cf. Renard/Hudson 1992, 1.

9.Compiled from Mancilla 1995, CI 1993 (Objetivos), BMZ 1995a, Brandon 1993.

10.available on CI's webpage on http://www.conservation.org

11.available on IAF's webpage on http://www.iaf.gov

12.Putnam, Robert D.: The prosperous community: social capital and economic growth, in: Current, Oct 1993, n356, p4(6), available in: Academic Index (database on UTCAT system)

13.Most of the observations in this Section are based on research I did for my Masters thesis (Kersten 1996) and on my visits to Chiapas and Central America in 1994, 1995 and 1996.

14.Own observations in Toledo, interviews with some TEA village representatives and with Chet Schmidt, the founder of the TEA. See also TEA 1995, Beavers 1995.

15.For ethnographic details on the Lacandones cf. McGee 1990, Marion 1990 and 1991, Baer/Merrifield 1981.

Bibliography of cited references (excluding electronic references)

Baer, Phillip/William R. Merrifield 1981:

Los Lacandones de México. Dos Estudios, México, D.F., 2.ed.

Beavers, John 1995:

Communitybased ecotourism in the Selva Maya (unpublished), Flores

BMZ (Hg.) 1993:

Tourismus in Entwicklungsländer (Materialien Nr. 88), Bonn

BMZ, Arbeitsgruppe Ökotourismus (Hg.) 1995a:

Ökotourismus als Instrument des Naturschutzes?, Köln

Boo, Elizabeth 1990:

Ecoturismo. Potenciales y Escollos, Washington, D.C

Brandon, Katrina 1993:

Basic steps toward encouraging local participation in nature tourism projects, in: Ecotourism, ed.by Lindberg/Hawkins, 1993, p.134151

Conservación Internacional 1993:

Proyecto para el desarollo de actividades de protección y ecoturismo en la región de las lagunas de Ocotal, Selva Lacandona, Chiapas, México, D.F

Cultural Survival (ed.) 1990:

Breaking out of the tourist trap, in: 14 Cultural Survival Quarterly, 1/2 1990,

Drake, Susan P. 1991:

Local participation in ecotourism projects, in: Nature tourism, ed.by Whelan, 1991, p.132163

Escobar, Arturo 1995:

Encountering Development, Princeton (NJ)

FAO 1993:

El ecoturismo en los parques nacionales y otras áreas protegidas de América Latina, Santiago (Chile)

Friedmann, John 1992:

The politics of alternative development, Cambridge (MA)

Harrison, David (ed.) 1992:

Tourism and the less developed countries, London (reprint 1995)

Horwich, Robert H. et al. 1993:

Ecotourism and community development: A view from Belize, in: Lindberg/Hawkins 1993, p.152168

Kersten, Axel 1996:

Der Dualismus von Umwelt und Entwicklung, Freiburg/Germany (unpublished.)

Lindberg, Kreg/ Donald E. Hawkins (ed.) 1993:

Ecotourism. A guide for planners and managers, North Bennington (VT)

Mancilla, Mario René 1995:

Planificación de proyectos ecoturisticos a nivel comunitario, un ensayo de probabilidades, Flores (unpublished)

March, Ignacio 1990:

Una visita a LacanjáChansayab. Ecoturismo de bajo impacto en la Selva Lacandona, San Cristóbal

Marion, MarieOdile 1990:

Lacanjá Chansayab: Nuevas Estrategías frente al cambio social, in: INAREMAC, 037VI 1990, p.311

Marion, MarieOdile 1991:

Los Hombres de la Selva, México (D.F.)

Mc Gee, John 1990:

Life, ritual, and religion among the Lacandon Maya, Belmont, CA

Nash, Dennison 1996:

Anthropology of tourism, Oxford

Nelson, James G/R.W. Butler/G. Wall (Hg.) 1993:

Tourism and sustainable development, Waterloo (CDN)

Nuscheler, Franz 1995:

Lern und Arbeitsbuch Entwicklungspolitik, Bonn, 4.

Pedersen Arthur 1995:

Promotion of communitybased ecotourism in the Maya forest (MSI/Mayafor), Washington, D.C.

Putnam, Robert D. 1993:

The prosperous community: social capital and economic growth, in: Current, October 1993, p.4

Rich, Bruce 1994:

Mortgaging the earth, University Park (PA)

RitcheyVance, Marion 1996:

Social capital, sustainability, and working democracy: new yardsticks for grassroots development, in: 20 Grassroots Development, 1 1996, p.2

Sachs, Wolfgang (ed.) 1992:

The Development Dictionary, London, reprint 1995

Salinas, Samuel 1995:

Primer taller de autodiagnóstico y planeación participativa en LacanjáChansayab (unpublished)

TNC 1993:

Recursos para el exito. Un manual para organizaciones ecologistas de América Latina y el Caribe, Arlington (VA)

Toledo Ecotourism Association (TEA) 1995a:

Training Manual and Vision Statement, Punta Gorda

Vásquez, Miguel Angel/ Ignacio March/ Marco Lazcano 1992:

Características socioeconómicos de la Selva Lacandona, in: Vásquez/Ramos 1992, p.287324

Vásquez, Miguel Angel/ Mario A. Ramos (ed.) 1992:

Reserva de la Biósfera Montes Azules, Selva Lacandona: Investigación para su conservación, San Cristóbal

Whelan, Tensie (ed.) 1991:

Nature tourism: managing for the environment, Washington, D.C.

Wilson, Patricia 1997:

Building social capital: a learning agenda for the 21st century , submitted to: 34 Urban Studies, 45 1997, p.1

PLANETA.COM GUIDES

Home | About | Advertise! | Books | Central America | Ecotourism | Headlines
Learn Spanish | Mexico | Media | Site Map | South America | World Travel | Updates