A Delicate Balance: Conservation and Development Scenarios for Panama's Coiba National Park

This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 20 October 2014, At: 22:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environment: Science and Policy for SustainableDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/venv20

A Delicate Balance: Conservation and DevelopmentScenarios for Panama's Coiba National ParkCarl Steinitz , Robert Faris , Michael Flaxman , Kimberly Karish , Andrew D. Mellinger ,Tess Canfield & Lider SucrePublished online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Carl Steinitz , Robert Faris , Michael Flaxman , Kimberly Karish , Andrew D. Mellinger , Tess Canfield& Lider Sucre (2005) A Delicate Balance: Conservation and Development Scenarios for Panama's Coiba National Park,Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47:5, 24-39, DOI: 10.3200/ENVT.47.5.24-43

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.47.5.24-43

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and 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 Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not beliable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out ofthe use of the Content.

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/venv20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.3200/ENVT.47.5.24-43

http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.47.5.24-43

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ADELICATE

BALANCECONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS

FOR PANAMA’S COIBA NATIONAL PARK

By Carl Steinitz, Robert Faris, Michael Flaxman,

Kimberly Karish, Andrew D. Mellinger, Tess Canfield, and Lider Sucre

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

© A

ND

ON

I CA

NEL

A/A

SA—

IPN

STO

CK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

26 ENVIRONMENT JUNE 2005

argely untouched by human development, the tropical island of Coiba, Panama, houses one of Central America’s most diverse

ecosystems. The Republic of Panama has used Coiba as a prison colony for nearly a century, and in 1991, the island was designated a national park, further discouraging human activity. However, the island’s future hangs in the balance, as Panama’s government and the tourism industry look toward Coiba to play a role in the country’s growing tourism market. Although the relatively pristine site is a prime candidate for conservation, propo-nents of development argue that building tourism facilities on the island will aid the Panamanian economy and also help gain the resources needed to manage the park. The basic policy questions fac-ing decisionmakers are straightforward: What, how much, and where should development be allowed? The interplay of issues, interests, and actors, however, is much more complex.

In 2003, a team of scientists and planners began a six-month study that investigated a scenarios-based participa-tory research framework for organizing landscape-planning assessments1 to assist the government of Panama as it decided the future of Coiba Island. The framework was used to develop and apply a range of scenarios of potential development and conservation in the region. It then assessed the economic and ecological impacts of the alternative futures that could result from these scenarios.

Other studies in various regions of the world have employed a variety of similar and related scenario-based meth-odologies2 and can be seen as an attempt to improve the integration of science and information management into controver-sial issues of public land-use policy.3 These studies have several other aspects in common: public involvement in shap-ing the study, the use of computer models based on geographic information sys-tems (GIS),4 formulation and comparative assessment of alternative future for a large geography, and public presentation of the results. Such scenario-based studies also assume that the most effective assess-

ment will be made by an outside group whose independence and objectivity are not easily in question and that no decision or recommendation will be made by the research team.

Research applied to complex decisions such as those exemplified in the case of Coiba is perhaps best conducted with the active participation of well-informed civic leaders. To play a prominent role in pro-moting such participation, such research must be timely, relevant to the issues at hand, and easily understood. It must also engage an audience that is interested and receptive; in such a context, participa-tory research can help to foster a better- informed dialogue toward improving policy decisions.

This approach works best when it advances and informs an ongoing policy dialogue, supporting the various interests groups with better information and gener-ating heightened public interest. The deci-sions and implementation, however, must be the responsibility of local leadership.

Conservation and Development on Coiba Island

With an area of approximately 500 square kilometers (km2), Coiba Island is the largest of a group of islands lying 22 km off the Pacific coast of Panama’s Province of Veraguas (see Figure 1 on page 27). The island has supported small human populations throughout its history: Pre-Columbian cultures are known to have lived on Coiba supported by agriculture, hunting, and fishing, and there is evidence of active pearl fisheries in the area at vari-ous times from the 1700s until the early twentieth century.5 In 1912, a penal colony was established on the island. The penal colony has housed prisoners numbering in the hundreds for much of its history, although a prison population of more than 1,000 was reported in the 1980s.6

The existence of the prison brought with it agriculture and domestic animals to support the population of prisoners and guards. However, it also prevented widespread destruction of Coiba’s natural ecosystems. As a result, a large majority of

the island is still covered in primary forest, constituting a rare and valuable tropical Pacific forest ecosystem.

Coiba Island and its surrounding waters were designated a national park in 1991 by an executive decree by the govern-ment. This is a relatively weak vehicle from a legal standpoint, as the park des-ignation could be similarly overturned by executive decree. The region designated as Coiba National Park has an area of 2,701 km2, which includes 2,165 km2 of ocean. The penal colony has continued to operate after the park’s designation, thus acting as a deterrent to other human activities in the area.

By 2001, Panama was experiencing double-digit growth in its tourism indus-try. The Panamanian government was gradually reducing the penal colony, apparently with the intention to develop hotel concessions in the national park. Entities such as the Spanish Cooperation Agency, the local conservation organ-ization ANCON (Asociación Nacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, or National Association for the Conservation of Nature) and many individuals issued statements against hotel development in the park. It was widely accepted that leg-islation strengthening the legal status of the national park was needed.7

The first attempt to strengthen the legal mandate for protecting the region through a legislative act was initiated in Septem-ber 2001. The act aimed to bring the park under the authority of local municipali-

L

© A

ND

ON

I CA

NEL

A/A

SA—

IPN

STO

CK

Panama’s Coiba island supports one of the most valuable tropical forest ecosystems in Central America.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

VOLUME 47 NUMBER 5 ENVIRONMENT 27

ties and entities rather than the National Environmental Authority, which was seen to be pro-development. A heated public debate emerged about the best regulation for the park and how to assure the long-term conservation of this important eco-system while financially supporting park management and fostering the economic and social well-being of the neighboring regions and of Panama as a whole.

Under increasingly intense public scru-tiny, the proposed law evolved to priori-tize the park’s conservation while incor-porating civil society and local entities in the park’s governance. Hotel develop-ment would largely be banned within the park and encouraged instead in the nearby coastal areas. This version of the law was approved by Panama’s Legislative Assembly in May 2002 but was vetoed by President Mireya Moscoso in July of the same year, amid concerns that it was too restrictive to tourism develop-ment. The veto was very unpopular, and Panama’s Office of the Presidency began meetings in October with ANCON—and, gradually, with other entities—to come up with a new draft of the law. The new text was significantly less restrictive of hotel

development, basically opening the door for an undefined number of “low profile” hotel concessions.

By January 2003, this new draft began to garner political support. Expansion of the proposed park boundaries with the addition of an adjoining managed fisheryaimed at sustainable fisheries manage-ment brought the fisheries sector into the debate. By March, sufficient consensus had been reached to move the law for-ward in Congress. However, an alterna-tive version of the law was then put forth by Panama’s Minister of Finance and Economics. This second version is thought to have been designed to allow more extensive development of hotels and natural resource exploitation in the park.8 The existence of conflicting draft laws brought about a serious rift within government, and the whole process was brought to a standstill.

Alternative Futures for Coiba National Park

At this critical juncture, the research project “Alternative Futures for Coiba

National Park,” carried out by a team from the Harvard Graduate School of Design, was being completed. The study team had been invited to Panama in September 2002 by the AVINA Founda-tion—an organization that partners with leaders of civil society and business to promote sustainable development in Ibero-America—to assess the usefulness and viability of carrying out a study of alternative futures for the Coiba region (see Figure 1). The study commenced in January 2003 with the first of a series of meetings with selected stakeholders. The research was to be limited in time to six months and was based upon existing and available data. This study relied heav-ily on Panamanian expertise and experi-ence: Interviews and discussions with relevant individuals and groups provided information used to determine the types and extent of the potential conservation and development strategies as well as to define the economic and ecological assessment models to be applied.

The study group worked for one week each month in Panama, meeting with key participants and technical experts to shape to the study as well as with government

Figure 1. Map of the Coiba National Park study region

Isla de Coiba

North Pacific Ocean

Caribbean Sea

bColombbia

Costa CRicaRicaR

PanamáLago Bayano

Gulf of PanamaSantiago

Chitré

David

ColónColónC

PanamaCanal

Bocas del TorTorT o

Golfo de losMosquitos

El Porvenir

La Palma

Yaviza

Golfo de Chiriquí

400

0 40 80 km

80 mi

Panama

SOURCE: Adapted from The World Factbook 2005, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pm.html.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


policymakers, park managers, hotel own-ers, tour operators, environmental organi-zations, and international donor groups, among others. The study was completed after five months of work in May 2003 and was presented to the public at Panama City’s Atlapa Convention Center.

The Conceptual Framework

The study of Coiba National Park was organized according to a framework for alternative-futures studies consisting of six questions.9 In designing a study of alternative futures for an area, the answers—the models and their applica-tions—are particular to the case study.

• How should the state of the land-scape be described in content, space, and time? The geographical extent of the study was defined such that the researchers could model the park and mainland areas most directly impacted by policy decisions made for Coiba National Park. To accom-plish this, a digital GIS was organized from existing data sources. In addition, a photographic survey was conducted, potential development areas were visited, and data from a wide range of reports and studies were acquired and incorporated.

• How does the landscape operate? What are the functional and structural relationships among its elements? In the Coiba study, models developed for eco-logical and economic processes answered these questions. The economic analysis centered on job creation, income growth, investment requirements, and govern-ment revenue.

The communities along the mainland coast adjacent to Coiba occupy one of the poorest regions of Panama. Eco-nomic activity is concentrated in fish-ing—commercial and artisanal—and low- productivity agriculture. The prospects for improving employment opportunities and income through agricultural produc-tion do not appear to be promising, as the land in Veraguas is generally of poor qual-ity, degraded from inappropriate land-use practices, and relatively far from major markets. Although marginal improve-ments are possible, low-intensity, exten-sive production systems such as cattle

ranching are not going to be replaced with highly productive and profitable agricul-tural systems in the near future.

The growth prospects for the fishing sector are constrained as well. The prof-itable shrimp sector is near or above a sustainable level of extraction, as is the small-scale fishing sector. Illegal fish-ing—including shark finning—is rampant. Sport fishing and diving occupies a profit-able but small niche in the economic land-scape and operators are deeply concerned about the impact of commercial fishing on their future. There is also a nascent tour-ism industry on the mainland coast based on second homes and surfing. Looking forward, various small-scale enterprises may succeed in the area, such as handi-craft and furniture production.

The potential for growth in the tourism sector stands out as the most promising hope for raising the standard of living in the area. Tourism is increasing rapidly in Panama, and the expectation is that Coiba National Park will act as a magnet for growth in the area over the next couple of decades. The economic modeling there-fore focuses on the tourism sector. Devel-oping a tourism industry that benefits local communities is of central concern—it is

not unusual for the benefits of tourism to largely bypass local communities, with the exception of low-paying service jobs.

The economic models assessed the growth in employment and income asso-ciated with each of the scenarios. These employment and income estimates were generated using a multiplier model that tracks direct job and income creation and secondary impacts. Tourism development inevitably leads to additional economic activity in sectors that support the tourism industry—such as construction, transpor-tation, and agriculture—and businesses that serve the tourism-sector workers, including housing, food, and household goods. This additional growth often sur-passes the magnitude of economic activity stemming directly from new resorts and hotels, increasing the potential econom-ic benefits and the likely environmental impacts. Moreover, it provides the impetus for in-migration to the region of families looking for employment. To estimate the attraction of new migrants, the economic model estimated the share of job and income growth secured by the existing population, the new migrants, and the country as a whole. This activity did not attempt to estimate the complex socio-

The scarlet macaw—a large parrot found in the rainforests of Central and South America—was included as a representative species in the Coiba study.

© A

ND

ON

I CA

NEL

A/A

SA—

IPN

STO

CK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


logical changes that occur in communities that experience a large influx of new residents, although the estimates of migra-tion do provide a good substitute for these processes.

Finally, the economic model estimated the amount of revenue that accrues to the government in each of the scenarios. These estimates were based on a moderate fee structure for tourists visiting the park, reasonable fees for development of tour-ism facilities in the park, and the existing tax structure for the tourism and service sectors in Panama. The potential revenue for the government in each of the scenarios is important for its impact on the political decisionmaking process and as a possible revenue stream for managing the park.

The ecological models identified poten-tial habitat for several terrestrial ani-mals and birds that are rare, restricted, or endemic to Coiba or the mainland, as well as coral communities surrounding the islands within the park. The Harvard study team aimed to include one representative species from each taxon of vertebrates but did not include terrestrial invertebrates or terrestrial or freshwater flora due to the limitations of known information about these groups (see the box below).

The creation of species-specific habitat models was done on a GIS platform.10 Multiple data layers were combined to create a digital depiction of the potential distribution of each species. Based on information researched for each species, the total area that each model encom-passed was delineated by habitat type and use into a digital representation of their primary, secondary, and if possible, tertiary habitat preferences. Specific ele-ments of each data layer were included or excluded in the creation of the model, based on the natural history informa-tion researched for each species. When appropriate, the data layers used to create the models included vegetation, land use, surface hydrology, slope, aspect, and elevation. In several cases, specific data operations were performed to delineate areas of habitat directly related to specifi-cations in species’ descriptors. For exam-ple, documentation suggested that the Coiban agouti is found in close proximity to fresh water, so a habitat buffer was calculated around the surface hydrologi-cal model.

Using the analysis of the scarlet macaw as an example, natural history information was gathered from mul-

tiple Web-based sources and published literature11 and was supplemented by anecdotal information from Coiba Island park rangers and ANCON staff mem-bers. Using this information, a land-cover data layer was used to distinguish primary, secondary, and tertiary habitat for the macaw on the mainland and the island. Mature natural forests and freshwater wetlands were classified as primary habitats. Secondary mature for-ests were classified as secondary habitat. Intervened forests (such as selectively logged or slightly disturbed) and man-groves were classified as tertiary habitats (see Figure 2 on page 30).

• Is the current landscape working well? Evaluation models—which are dependent on the cultural knowledge and values of the decisionmaking stake-holders—determined whether the current landscape in and around Coiba is work-ing well. The Coiba National Park study was conducted under the assumptions that more employment, more profitable investment, and less impact on important species’ habitat are desirable.

• How might the landscape be altered, by what policies and actions, and where and when? Change scenarios were used to answer this fourth question. The sce-narios were based on discussions with more than 30 people from the government and the private sector representing a wide range of interests and perspectives regard-ing the future of Coiba. These scenarios were intended to represent the widest reasonable range of possibilities, based on different levels of conservation and development. To reflect the alternative futures and their economic and ecological impacts as fairly as possible, the study team adopted a position of neutrality in the elaboration of the study and in the pre-sentation and interpretation of the results.

Fifteen alternative futures were gener-ated from the scenarios (described in Table 1 on page 31). The scenarios assume escalating levels of development as mea-sured by numbers of beds in new tourism facilities. Future tourism development was allocated to 13 possible sites—7 on Coiba Island and 6 on the mainland—and a site plan was then generated for each

The final selection of species to be rep-resented in ecological models of Coiba Island included:

• brown-backed dove, paloma cabezi ceniza (Leptotila battyi bat-tyi)—endemic to Coiba; • Coiba spinetail, cola espina de Coiba (Cranioleuca dissita)—endemic to Coiba; • Coiba Island howler monkey, mono aullador (Alouatta coibensis)—endemic to Coiba; • Coiban agouti, ñeque de coiba (Dasyprocta coibae)—endemic to Coiba; • Coiba Island white-tailed deer, venado cola blanca (Odocoileus virgin-ianus rothschildi)—endemic to Coiba; • scarlet macaw, guacamaya roja

(Ara macao)—rare species, breeding on Coiba; • blue-throated goldentail hum-mingbird, colibrí zafiro gorgiazul (Hylocharis eliciae)—rare species, unusually common on Coiba; • false vampire bat, vampiro común (Vampyrum spectrum)—rare species; • ornate hawk-eagle, aguilillo ador-nado (Spizaetus ornatus)—restricted species on the mainland due to loss of primary forest habitat; • white-throated capuchin monkey, mono cariblanco (Cebus capucinus)—restricted species on the mainland due to loss of primary forest habitat but one that has acclimated to some types of disturbed landscapes; and • corals, corales—largely endemic around Coiba.

SPECIES INCLUDED IN THE COIBA NATIONAL PARK STUDY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


location. The size of future development ranged from a low of 50 beds in the first 2 scenarios to 1,660 beds in the last scenario (see Figure 3 on page 32). The development allocations for each of the scenarios also include new infrastructure such as roads and national park facilities commensurate with the scale and location of development. These scenarios were created with the input of many of the local participants and reviewed to ensure that they covered the range of the current policy dialogue.

• What difference might the changes cause? The economic and ecological models described above were used to assess the alternative futures of Coiba. The models estimate impacts for each alternative future when anticipated devel-opments have been fully implemented. However, the analyses do not address cumulative, long-term processes or com-plex interaction effects.

The parameters of the economic model were constructed using the avail-able information from published sources and interviews with government experts and tourism operators. A number of key assumptions shaped the analysis: First, as the size of development increases, the number of jobs and income for local residents are expected to increase. How-ever, the proportion of jobs held by locals actually declines. Second, profit per visi-tor declines with increasing size of the tourism market. This is also correlated with a loss of exclusivity and a decline in the quality of the natural environment. Third, tourism development on the island requires a higher employee-to-visitor ratio, yet the secondary economic growth experienced in adjoining communities is smaller as more visitors travel directly to and from the island and more sup-plies are brought in directly to the island from larger market centers. Fourth, tour-

ism development on the island employs a smaller proportion of workers from nearby communities. Lastly, government revenues per visitor are higher for devel-opment on the island as the government has more options for applying user charg-es and concession fees.

The results of the economic model display an array of tradeoffs between local and nationwide income growth and varying levels of government revenue, depending on the scale and location of growth: In the short term, maximizing government revenues would suggest a medium-to-high level of development spread across the island and the main-land. Similarly, promoting a goal for economic growth for the nation would seem to be best served by a strategy of balancing development on the mainland and the island. Alternatively, local eco-nomic development is better served by restricting development on the island

Figure 2. Potential habitat model for the scarlet macaw

SOURCE: C. Steinitz, R. Faris, M. Flaxman, K. Karish, A. D. Mellinger, T. Canfield, and L. Sucre.

Potential habitat

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


Table 1. The alternative futures

Alternate future Abbreviation Description

Coiba Unregulated C 50 This scenario assumes no investment in management of the National Park.a

Coiba Science &Education

CS 50 This scenario maintains the island and facilities for science and education. In this scenario, there would be no new investments in tourism capacity or trails and no tourism development on Coiba or the coast.b

Coiba ANAM Site C 100 This scenario expands development at the Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (National Environmental Authority, ANAM) headquarters site to a 100-bed tourism concession.b

Coiba North CN 150 This scenario expands on Coiba ANAM site by introducing new development in the Bay of Machete.b,c

Coiba Dispersed CD 150 This scenario comprises five guest houses built on disturbed sites on Coiba. This is the “eyes and ears management” scenario, with the distribution of guesthouses in five different locations around the island.b,c

Mainland Dispersed

M 150 M 150 assumes five guesthouses built on the mainland at Isla Cebaco, Santa Catalina, San Lorenzo, Bahia Honda, and Pixvae.b,c

Coiba North & Mainland Dispersed

CN MD 300 This scenario combines Coiba North and Mainland Dispersed.b,c

Coiba Dispersed & Mainland Dispersed

CD MD 300 This scenario combines Coiba Dispersed and Mainland Dispersed.b,c

Coiba Mixed C 300 This scenario includes development at Machete, the ANAM site, and Playa Punta Esquina.b,c

Mainland Mixed M 300 This scenario brings a mix of development to Santa Catalina and San Lorenzo.b,c

Coiba North &Mainland Mixed Plus

CM 500 This scenario includes Coiba North and 350 beds in the Santa Catalina and San Lorenzo area.b,c

Coiba Mixed Plus C 500 C 500 is an expansion of Coiba Mixed to 350 beds at Punta Esquina.b,c

Coiba Spread C 800 This scenario combines Coiba Mixed Plus with a new 300-bed resort at Playa Blanca.b,c

Mainland Spread M 800 This scenario spreads a mix of development along the coast of the mainland and nearby islands.b,c

Coiba Spread & Mainland Spread

CM 1660 This scenario combines Mainland Spread and Coiba Spread with two guesthouses at Playa Hermosa and Barco Quebrado.b,c

a Coiba Unregulated does not include policing of terrestrial or fishing activities.b Policing of fishing activities in the park: Permitted fishing includes non-destructive, small-scale fishing and sport fishing but not commercial fishing. Policing facilities are at the ANAM site, the penal colony, and Playa Hermosa. These include renovation of the penal colony site for visitors.

c These include the development of trails for tourists and an observation tower. NOTE: This table provides a summary of the 15 alternative futures including the name of the alternative, an abbreviation of the name, and the location of new development across the 13 possible sites. The numerical portion of the abbreviation of the name indicates the amount of new development measured in the number of beds.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


NOTE: This alternative includes 860 new beds on the island distributed across 6 sites and 800 new beds on the mainland in 6 locations.


Figure 3. Alternative future CM 1660

Center Map (Land Cover)Commercial agricultureAgricultureCoral reefNo dataForest/resources extractedPrimary forestSecondary forestFreshwater wetlandSponge communitySandy bottomSandy bottom with coral patchesConsolidated rocky bottomwith microalgaePatchy rocky bottomOceanMangrove

Other usesWhite sand beachBlack sand beachAbandoned agriculture/new forest growth

Detail Maps (Land Use)Administrative/policeSnorkeling/heavily used areaSnorkeling/occasionally used areaCabinExisting unpaved roadCountry houseCommercial/institutionalNew paved roadBoat jettyStaff housing

HotelMarinaExisting road to be pavedPaved landing stripSewage treatment plantRecreation beachRenovated buildingsRural recreationResortTrailSCUBA divingSeptic tankAnchorage zoneCitiesRoads

A. Playa Punta Esquina

B. Penal

C. Playa Blanca

D. Playa Barco Quebrado

E. Playa Hermosa

F. Playa Machete

G. ANAM

H. Pixvae

I. Bahía Honda

J. Playa Azul

K. San Lorenzo

L. Santa Catalina

M. Isla Cebaco

G H I J K L M

F

E

D

C

B

A

G

H

IJ K

LM

F

E

D

CB

A

Parque Nacional de Coiba

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


while promoting growth on the mainland (see Table 1).

A summary of the economic analysis is presented in Figure 4 on page 34, show-ing the income accruing to residents of the study area, to Panamanians outside of the study area, and to the Panamanian government.

The ecological models assessed the impacts of the alternative futures on the potential habitats of each of the selected species—from the scarlet macaw to the corals surrounding the island—and on a summary measure of species richness.

The assessments and maps were cre-ated through a series of calculations in GIS. The first step was to create a scenario-specific impact map for each species, considering negative effects not limited to the loss of habitat where new development occurs but also including disturbance from noise and light, pre-dicted invasion of non-native species and humans, predicted vegetation change in adjacent areas, and marine species loss due to sedimentation or destruction of coral from recreational overuse. The resulting impact grid was overlaid on the species habitat model to calculate the areas of habitat that would be affected by the scenario. The second step in the pro-cess was to create a summary impact map for each scenario recapitulating the extent and severity of impact on each species.

Assessments were made in five lev-els: beneficial (positive improvement), compatible (no perceivable change), moderate (“natural” mitigation), severe (“engineering” mitigation), and terminal (mitigation not possible).

Each species impact map represents the location and value of the impact on the habitat of the relevant species. The values for each cell were assigned based on the type of impact and the importance of the habitat to the particular species. The analysis used a simple scoring system in which the impact values vary from -3 for a “terminal” impact to +3 for a “benefi-cial” impact.

Similar total impact values in the mod-els may reflect markedly different circum-stances. It is possible to have the same impact value in a cell from a combina-

tion of many species with low individual impacts or a combination of a few species with very high individual impacts. In some cases, the creation of, or conversion to, certain types of land use actually has a positive effect on some species. In these cases, the impact value is positive.

A summary measure of the terres-trial ecology impact of each scenario was then created through a multipart calcu-lation summing up the values from each species impact model. Similar calcula-tions were carried out for the impacts on corals from sedimentation and diving.

The impacts on terrestrial species and the coral community vary predictably across the alternative futures (see Figure 5 on page 35). Scenarios with a greater number of allocated beds typically have a larger adverse effect on species. How-ever, the unregulated scenario (C 50)—in which the land is not protected against extensive extraction and agriculture—is a good example of a scenario with a minimum number of beds but a maxi-mum extent of negative effects. Figure 6 on page 36 shows the ecologic impacts of one alternative future, the build-out scenario of CM 1660. (The summary measures depicted in Figure 6 have been normalized to create scale-neutral com-parative measures.)

• How should the landscape be changed? Decisionmaking is the respon-sibility of the region’s stakeholders, from

the individual citizen to organizations at the national level. This study was formu-lated to respond to the issues and choices posed by the stakeholders. To make deci-sions, the questions in the framework must be asked and answered, and options for choice must be framed and deliberated. The alternative futures and the results of the assessments of their impacts were pre-sented for stakeholder review to inform the many decisionmaking processes that must precede any major action.

To assist in the interpretation of the results, the Coiba study team aggregated the measures of economic and ecological impacts depicted above in Figures 4 and 6 into one summary graph, Figure 7 on page 37.12

In interpreting this graph, the alterna-tives that perform worst in economic terms appear toward the bottom of the graph. The alternatives that perform worst in ecological terms are found toward the left side of the graph. The worst alterna-tive is in the lower left corner. The best alternative is found in the upper right corner.

Alternatives that appear both higher and to the right of other alternatives are superior in both economic and ecologi-cal terms. Thus, all those that are toward the lower left appear to be unattractive alternatives. The remaining alternatives, moving from the lower right to the upper left, illustrate trade-offs between increas-

Results from the Coiba study suggest that the island’s most important vegetation regions, including its mangroves, require maximum protection from development.

© A

ND

ON

I CA

NEL

A/A

SA—

IPN

STO

CK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


ing ecological quality and increasing economic benefits.

Discussion

As the study team became familiar with Coiba Island, a number of key charac-teristics stood out. Maintaining the eco-logical health and beauty of the Coiba National Park region will determine in large part the success, profitability, and sustainability of tourism development in the area. The public perception of Coiba National Park will change with increased tourism development and use, and the image of the region could shift from a place of globally significant ecology, great natural beauty, and important Pana-manian patrimony to that of just another tropical recreational tourism destination. It is apparent that the Coiba region is not competitive in traditional large-scale, recreation-oriented tourism markets. Con-servation efforts focused on the ecological assets of Coiba National Park will be central to any tourism development, while efforts at protecting these natural areas are

likely to fail if economic benefits do not accompany conservation measures. Large-scale development of the area could pro-vide a substantial contribution to growth for the region and a source of government revenue. It is not possible to accurately predict the sustainability of a given level of tourism, but one must seriously ques-tion the sustainability—economic and ecological—of medium- and higher-level growth scenarios presented in the Coiba study. Low to moderate levels of tourism development may be consistent with con-servation goals. Given the government of Panama’s mandate to manage the park and its development for science and education and for development subject to ecological and economic sustainability, development should proceed slowly and not exceed the set of “moderate” scenarios in Table 1.

The Coiba study was conducted under stringent time limitations and relied upon a limited range of data. It was completed in five months, a very short period con-sidering the breadth and complexity of the ecological and economic relationships studied. However, although a study of

many years may seem more appropriate from a research perspective, only a rapid study would have been timely and useful for the important decisions on Coiba’s future that were being made. Given these constraints, the study team applied a mod-eling approach that is simple, robust, flex-ible, easy to update and easy to change. This approach turns out to be very useful for eliminating poor strategies—that is, defining what not to do. However, the sim-plicity of the modeling approach makes it less appropriate as a means to determine a single-best strategy. Given the uncer-tainty inherent in complex ecological and economic relationships, it may be wise to choose a low-risk starting point and to adapt management strategies over time.

The worst-case scenario is Coiba Unreg-ulated (C 50), in which the prison colony is closed down without being replaced by an effective management system, thus opening up the island for agriculture and resource extraction. The ecological dev-astation would be accompanied by the destruction of the tourism industry, pre-cluding the anticipated economic benefits

Figure 4. Income for each alternative future


C 5

0

CS

50

C 10

0

CN

150

CD

150

M 1

50

CN

MD

300

CD

MD

300

C 30

0

M 3

00

CM

500

C 50

0

C 80

0

M 8

00

CM

160

0

Government income

Regional income

Local income

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

U.S.

dol

lars

(mill

ions

)

Alternative future

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


from tourism. Deciding which of the more promising candidates is the best choice depends on how one values the various economic and ecological outcomes. At one end of the spectrum, the Science and Education scenario (CS 50) assumes no development of overnight tourism facili-ties on either the island or mainland, rather maintaining the island for activities related to reasearch and conservation. This pro-vides the best ecological result—but only by largely forgoing the potential economic benefits of tourism expansion. Were one to value only medium-term economic growth, then the build-out scenario (CM 1660) would be permitted to proceed, assuming that growth in the tourism industry sup-ported it. The location and magnitude of ecological damage, as seen in Figure 4, would be considerable, emanating from a few principal sources: the direct damage to

reefs and marine environments from tourist visits, the indirect damage to marine eco-systems from pollution and sedimentation associated with new roads and facilities, and harm to terrestrial ecosystems from new development.

Comparing the four scenarios that depict tourism development limited to 300 beds (C 300, CN MD 300, CD MD 300, and M 300) is illustrative of the prin-cipal trade-offs. Ecologically, it is best to limit new development to the mainland. One can increase the economic returns by allocating a portion of the development to the island, though at a cost of increased ecological damage. Allocating all the beds to the island does not appear to be a good choice—compared to the mainland only and mixed scenarios, this scenario does not perform as well by ecological or eco-nomic measures. The increased ecological

damages associated with development on the island are intuitively expected. The rel-atively poor economic performance of the scenarios that limit tourism development to the island is explained by the lower spillover effects on the local economy. Tourism development on the island can be expected to be a set of self-contained enclaves both for geographic reasons and by policies restricting the growth of ser-vices towns on the island. This reduces the secondary economic opportunities for the region.

This comparative analysis provides a picture of the costs and benefits of the different alternatives, as well as highlight-ing the trade-offs for policymakers. For comparable levels of tourism, develop-ment on the mainland generates higher total income and higher local incomes than development on the island. For medi-

Figure 5. Ecological impacts of CM 1660


Negative

Zero

Positive

Negative

Zero

Impact

Impact to coral

Parque Nacional de Coiba

G

H

IJ

KL

M

F

E

D

CB

A

See Figure 3 on page 32 for corresponding locations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


um levels of growth, the best income- earning strategy would allocate a por-tion of the beds on Coiba and the rest to the mainland. However, this approach generates fewer jobs and less income for local communities compared to an all-mainland development approach. The disadvantage of development on the mainland is that it will not gain as much revenue for the government compared to development on the island.

Limitations and Research Needs

The Coiba study was based upon exist-ing data and reports, augmented by inter-views with Panamanian experts. Local sources contributed a database that sat-isfied most of the principal data needs. However, there are a still a number of omissions in the data that a future study might address. For example, there are no comprehensive and detailed soil or vegetation surveys for Coiba National Park. There are few species habitat mod-els for Panama, no surveys of actual fau-

nal abundance in the region, and no region-al empirical studies of the impacts of past development.

The most significant limitation to this study, however, was the lack of data to adequately model the impacts of different management strategies on the fishing sec-tor. Fishing is one of the principal sources of income in the study area, and overfish-ing will have a deleterious impact on the ecology of the marine areas. The policy decisions that would most directly impact

the fishing sector include the designation of areas of the park to prohibit particular fish-ing sectors or techniques—for example, excluding commercial fishing in the park. The economic impact of closing areas to fishing is not known, but it is highly likely that all sectors of the fishing industry will benefit in the long term from closures that protect recruitment and spawning grounds. However, depending on the extent and location of closures, some segments of the fishing sector could experience a loss

Figure 6. Ecological impacts


As it considers opening Coiba to the tourism industry, the government of Panama has begun phasing out the island’s century-old prison colony.

C 5

0

CS

50

C 10

0

CN

150

CD

150

M 1

50

CN

MD

300

CD

MD

300

C 30

0

M 3

00

CM

500

C 50

0

C 80

0

M 8

00

CM

160

0

Alternative future

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

-1.0

Stan

dard

ized

impa

ct s

core

Terrestrial species impacts

Coral impacts from sedimentation

Coral impacts from diving

© A

ND

ON

I CA

NEL

A/A

SA—

IPN

STO

CK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


of income. It is also plausible that fisher-men might suffer short-term losses and medium-to-long-term gains.

Overfishing and inappropriate fishing practices can have a profound impact on the health and integrity of marine ecosys-tems, with consequent losses for tourism, conservation and science, and the fishing communities. However, data do not exist to estimate the location or magnitude of these impacts. Anecdotal evidence sug-gests that the medium to long-term sus-tainability of the fishing sector is in jeop-ardy. The growth of a regional tourism sector, while providing alternative jobs, will not solve the problems of the fishing sector. Creation of an effective marine protected area may slow the decline of the fishing sector and even ensure the ecologi-cal sustainability of the fishery.13 Marine protected areas alone will not solve all the economic problems associated with the

fishery—this can only be achieved with an improved regulatory structure and the active cooperation of the fishing sector. 14

Toward the Future of Coiba National Park

Many individuals and organizations have spent years trying to secure a sound legal and managerial basis for conserving and developing Coiba. The study appears to have made a contribution toward these ongoing efforts to influence policy deci-sions for the Coiba National Park region. The final presentation of the study in Panama City, Panama, attracted a large audience, was attended by top government officials, and was thoroughly covered by the press.15 The study was subsequently used by individuals and institutions in Panama in their continuing efforts to avoid

large-scale development on Coiba—an outcome that would have seriously endan-gered the park’s biological integrity while doing relatively little to improve the lot of the impoverished communities outside the park. The study concluded that scenarios emphasizing accommodation and infra-structure on the mainland outside the park boundary generated better economic and social returns in the long term while better protecting the park’s biodiversity from the impacts of increased tourism.

A few weeks after the Coiba study was completed, the alternative proposal by Panama’s Minister of Finance and Economics for a new law was abandoned, and the debate over the desirability of significant hotel development on Coiba came to a halt. Deliberation returned to the original law, although with addition-al, more stringent provisions prohibiting high-impact construction on the island

Figure 7. Summary of alternative futures


Worst Best

Best

Worst

Ecological summary: impacts index

Economic summary:

total incomeDow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


(and restricting even low-impact construc-tion) and emphasizing development of the nearby coast and communities as the main base for visitors to the park. This law passed first debate in the legislature in mid-June 2003. While other aspects of the law (particularly those governing fisheries) generated further controversy and were not resolved until a year later, by July 2004, the president of Panama had finally sanctioned the Law for Coiba National Park—regulation of the highest legal standing in the Republic of Panama. The future of Coiba National Park appears to be promising, and the park has now qualified for nomination as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Looking ahead, it is important that any development in Coiba National Park be preceded by a detailed survey of the island’s hydrology, soils, vegetation, fauna, and prevailing coastal marine cur-rents. Protection of the area’s biodiversity will be critical for the economic future of the region, particularly given its heavy reliance on fishing and tourism. The most important vegetation regions—contiguous primary forests, cativo wetlands and man-grove areas, and the extensive high-qual-ity reefs—require maximum protection. In addition, the most sensitive coral areas need to be totally protected from direct development-related impacts, excessive user contact, and secondary impacts such as sedimentation. Land concessions, if any, should be limited to the immediate development zone, with no allowance for adjacent territorial infringements. Any

development must be closely and indepen-dently monitored.

The next step is for Panama to create a management plan that sets the parameters for managing development and conserva-tion of the national park. For this plan to work, it is critical that it be prepared based upon the best available scientific and tech-nical information—and that it be simple to understand, implement, and enforce. This is especially true of the management of the ocean sector, where inappropri-ate fishing techniques and overfishing are causing damage.16

Effective management of Coiba Nation-al Park will be expensive. Yet the park can become financially self-sufficient with moderate levels of tourism growth for the region, assuming the introduction of a reasonably aggressive revenue capture regime based on charging fees for tour-ists entering the park.17 This conclusion also rests on the assumption that an ade-quate share of revenue generated from the park will be allocated toward managing the park.

The Coiba study took place in a coun-try where public-policy decisions are not always made with such open debate. Yet one of the objectives of the study was to produce an easily understandable and transparent comparative assessment of a wide range of reasonable alternative futures for the region. This approach was not universally embraced by all the partic-ipants, as many were initially reluctant to participate. These doubts were not unique to any one interest group; participants

from all sides expressed misgivings about the impact of the study at various times in the process. Some of the government representatives were enthusiastic support-ers of the study, while others remained deeply suspicious of the impact the study would have on their plans for the Coiba region. Some representatives of the envi-ronmental community were worried that the open consideration of alternatives that depicted high levels of development on the island would introduce a new level of legitimacy to this approach—one that they felt was better left unvoiced. Ultimately, the key actors who were asked agreed to participate—one of the most important aspects of conducting any participatory study such as this.

A number of other aspects were key to achieving the goal of improving the informational content and process of deci-sionmaking. The study team did not advo-cate any of the alternatives, nor did the team promote any long-term objectives or strategies, fostering a sense of impartial-ity. The fact that the study team does not have any long-term interests in the region or the country also appears to have helped in maintaining an air of neutrality. The outsider status of the study team may also have assisted in the collection of informa-tion and allowed the participants to speak more candidly. Considerable time was invested in defining and explaining the objectives and methods of the study to the local participants, who were called upon to help delineate the scope of the study. The relatively short time required to com-plete the study meant that the relevance of and interest in it did not erode during its implementation.

As such, the Coiba study was able to make a constructive contribution to a com-plex and politically divisive issue—by intentionally and systematically integrat-ing the political, economic, and ecologi-cal aspects of the policy questions into one process.

Carl Steinitz is the Alexander and Victoria Wiley Professor of Landscape Architecture and Planning at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design. His research interests include theories and methods of landscape planning and visual resource analysis and management. He has directed many landscape- planning studies of highly valued landscapes under pres-

Coiba National Park has qualified for nomination as a World Heritage Site.

CO

UR

TESY

OF

RO

BER

T FA

RIS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


sures for change. He received the 1996 Distinguished Practitioner Award from the International Association for Landscape Ecology (United States). As principal investigator, Steinitz was responsible for the framework and organization of the Coiba National Park study and contributed to the design of the process models and the scenarios. He may be reached at [email protected]. Robert Faris is a research associate at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design. His research interests focus on the role of natural resources and envi-ronmental management in economic development. Prior work has included studies of deforestation, coastal zone management, carbon markets, environmental valuation, and project appraisal. He has taught environmental economics at workshops and international seminars and has conducted applied policy research in numerous countries in Asia and Latin America. Faris coordinated the economic modeling in the Coiba study. He may be reached at [email protected]. Michael Flaxman is a lecturer at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design. His work focuses on the development of advanced simulation and visualization methods for landscape planning. His research is on the effects of fire management policies on the occurrence and behavior of fires. In the Coiba study, Flaxman was responsible for implementing the technical infrastructure of this study. He may be reached at [email protected]. Kimberly Karish is a doctoral student at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design. Her work focuses on the potential for ecological sustainability of ecotourism on neotropical islands. Karish coordinated the ecological modeling in the Coiba study. She may be reached at [email protected]. Andrew D. Mellinger is a GIS scientist at Earth Satellite Corporation. His areas of research include the modeling of urbanization and alternative futures, sustainable land-use planning, the role of geography in international economic develop-ment, and mapping the global distribution of malaria. In the Coiba study, Mellinger coordinated the alloca-tions in the alternative futures. He may be reached at [email protected]. Tess Canfield works primar-ily as a researcher in the fields of landscape, architec-tural, and civil engineering history. She has taught in the Master of Philosophy program in landscape architecture at the University of Edinburgh and at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design. She practiced landscape architecture in Georgia for 10 years and was chairman of the Atlanta Urban Design Commission. She is a registered landscape architect in the state of Georgia, as well as a member of the U.K. Landscape Institute and the Society of Archivists. Canfield was responsible for research on the history of the region of Coiba National Park. She may be reached at [email protected]. Lider Sucre is executive director of Panama’s National Association for the Conservation of Nature (ANCON), the country’s largest environmental NGO. Previously, he was administrative manager of a firm providing industrial maintenance to the Panama Canal and con-sultant and senior manager in management consulting firms in Boston and Panama. He was active in the Panama Audubon Society and the Foundation for the Protection of the Sea. Sucre is an avid naturalist and author of “Guatemala” in the Let’s Go Central America travel guide (Let’s Go Publications, 1997). He may be reached at [email protected]. The study has been made possible with the financial support of the AVINA Foundation and with additional support from many individuals and institutions. The study benefited from

the institutional support of the following organizations: Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design and Center for International Development; Autoridad Nacio-nal del Ambiente (National Environmental Authority); Instituto Panameño de Turismo (Panamanian Tourism Institute); Asociación para la Conservación de la Natu-raleza (Association for the Conservation of Nature); Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute; and Autoridad Marítima de Panamá (Maritime Authority of Panama). Special thanks are owed to the following individuals for participating in the elaboration of the study: Isaias Chang Urriola, Marcela Galindo, Guoping Huang, Juan Morales, and Isis Tejada. The authors acknowledge the helpful comments of Todd Capson and anonymous reviewers and thank Hector Guzman for sharing his knowledge and data on coral reefs.

NOTES

1. For more about this framework, see C. Steinitz et al., Alternative Futures for Changing Landscapes: The Upper San Pedro River Basin in Arizona and Sonora (Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2002). 2. Six of these are concisely described in Steinitz et al., ibid., as is the framework within which the Coiba study has been organized. Other recent publications include the alternative futures study of the Willamette River Basin in Oregon (D. W. Hulse, A. Branscomb, and S. G. Payne, “Envisioning Alternatives: Using Citizen Guidance to Map Future Land and Water Use,” Ecological Applications 14, no. 2 (2004): 325–41) and the California Mojave desert study (L. M. Hunter et al., “Population and Land Use Change in the California Mojave: Natural Habitat Implications of Alternative Futures,” Population Research and Policy Review 22 (2003): 373–97). 3. National Research Council, Committee on Global Change Research, The Science of Regional and Global Change: Putting Knowledge to Work (Washington: DC, National Academies Press, 2001). 4. The role of geographic information systems (GIS) in the complex mix of policy, development, conservation, and politics has been well documented from its inception in the 1960s (see, for example, T. W. Foresman, ed., The History of Geographic Information Systems (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentiss Hall, 1998). For a representative selection of current GIS capabilities and applications, see www.esri.com. 5. L. E. Guzman, “Farming and Farmlands in Panama” University of Chicago Department of Geog-raphy research paper no. 44 (December 1956); and A. Whetmore, “The Birds of Isla Coiba” in Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Vol. 134, No. 9, publication 4295 (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1957). 6. World Heritage Nomination, IUCN Technical Evaluation, Coiba National Park, Panama, ID No. 1138, http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2004/whc04-28com-inf14be.pdf. 7. M. Palm, “Coiba, de Presidio a Paraíso Prote-gido (Coiba, from Prison to Paradise), La Prensa Web, 20 March 2003, http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2003/03/20/hoy/negocios/914369.html. 8. O. Diaz-Espino, “The Rape of Panama,” The Pan-ama News, 8–21 June 2003, http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_09/issue_11/opinion_01.html; and “Coiba Legislation Sparks Furious Protests, Stalls in Legislature,” The Panama News 8–21 June 8 – 21 2003, http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_09/issue_11/news_briefs.html. 9. C. Steinitz, “A Framework for Landscape Plan-ning Practice and Education,” Process Architecture 127 (1995): 42–53. 10. The coral habitat map was generously loaned to us for use by Hector Guzman (H. M. Guzman, C. A.

Guevara, and O. Breedy, “Distribution, Diversity, and Conservation of Coral Reefs and Coral Communities in the Largest Marine Protected Area of Pacific Panama (Coiba Island),” Environmental Conservation 3 (2004): 111–21). The capabilities and advantages of GIS are many. Using GIS, one can model multifaceted, spatial, and temporal phenomena with very large and detailed data sets. The mechanisms and outcomes of different processes can be systematically explored using simula-tion analysis, varying data, parameters, or models. GIS can be an effective medium for communicating com-plex ideas as it is able to convincingly and graphically represent existing conditions and the consequences of change. GIS analyses can be linked to modes of analysis that are not spatially explicit to create a versatile analyti-cal framework to study interlinked systems. 11. BirdLife International, World Bird Database: the Site for Bird Conservation, Version 2.0. (Cam-bridge, UK: BirdLife International, 2003), http://www.birdlife.org; http://www.bocasdeltoro.com/Panamanationalpark/coiba/; J. M. Caskey, “Enchanted Emer-ald Forest Macaws,” http://www.animalsoftherainforest.com/scarletmacaw2.jpg; S. Castroviejo and M. Velay-os, eds., Flora y Fauna del Parque Nacional de Coiba (Panamá), Inventario Preliminar (Flora and Fauna of Coiba National Park (Panama), Preliminary Inventory) (Madrid: Agencia Española de Cooperación Interna-cional, 1997); R. S. Ridgely, A Guide to the Birds of Panama (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976); and Whetmore, note 5 above. 12. In forming a summary graph of the economic and ecological impacts of the 15 scenarios, the eco-logical impacts are combined into a single index using simple weights of 0.5 for terrestrial impacts and 0.25 for each of the marine impacts (such that the impacts on terrestrial and marine ecosystems are weighted equally). Alternative weighting systems would produce somewhat different aggregate results. However, the rank ordering of ecological outcomes is robust to the selec-tion of the weights. The economic index weighs local, regional, and government income equally. Again, differ-ent weighting schemes would produce different results. For example, decisionmakers might value local income more highly than income earned outside the region, leading to a different comparative measure of economic performance. 13. B. S. Halpern and R. R. Warner, “Marine Reserves Have Rapid and Lasting Effects,” Ecology Letters 5, no. 3 (2002): 361–66; and C. M. Roberts, J. A. Bohnsack, F. Gell, J. P. Hawkins, and R. Goodridge, “Effects of Marine Reserves on Adjacent Fisheries,” Science, 30 November 2001, 1920–23. 14. National Research Council, Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems (Wash-ington, DC: National Academies Press, 2001); J. N. Sanchirico, “Marine Protected Areas as Fishery Policy: A Discussion of the Potential Costs and Benefits,” Dis-cussion Paper 00-23 (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2000). 15. A. Mercado, “Industrias Tuisticas Deben Pro-teger Parques Forestales” (“Tourism Industry Should Protect Forest Parks”), El Siglo, 18 May 2003; J. Guardia, “Cientificos Unidos para Salvar La Isla de Coiba” (“Scientists United to Save the Island of Coiba”), El Panama-America, 18 May 2003; “Universi-dad de Harvard Presenta Studio sobre Coiba” (“Harvard University Presents Study of Coiba”), La Prensa Web, May 28 2003; and J. Guardia, “Cientificos de Harvard Asumen Defense de Coiba” (“Harvard Scientists Take on Defense of Coiba”), El Panama-America, 27 May 2003. 16. An agreement has been reached whereby the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute will lead the effort to create a new management plan for Coiba with the participation of ANCON and others. 17. The revenue estimates are based on entrance fees of $2 for Panamanians, $10 for foreign tourists, and $100 for a sportfishing license.

individuals and institutions. The study benefited from 8. O. Diaz-Espino, “The Rape of Panama,” ama News.com/pn/v_09/issue_11/opinion_01.htmLegislation Sparks Furious Protests, Stalls in Legislature,” The Panama News.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_09/issue_11/news_briefs.html. 9. C. Steinitz, “A Framework for Landscape Plan-ning Practice and Education,” (1995): 42–53. 10. The coral habitat map was generously loaned to us for use by Hector Guzman (H. M. Guzman, C. A.

COMING NEXT MONTHCarl Steinitz and colleagues explore alternative futures

for Mexico’s La Paz.

®

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

39 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

A Delicate Balance: Conservation and Development Scenarios for Panama's Coiba National Park

Documents

Transcript of A Delicate Balance: Conservation and Development Scenarios for Panama's Coiba National Park