ECOTOURISM DEMAND AND SUPPLY IN EL CIELO BIOSPHERERESERVE, TAMAULIPAS, MEXICO

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council ofSouthwest Texas State University

in Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirements

for the DegreeMaster of Applied Geography

By

Scott L. Walker, B.A.

San Marcos, TexasDecember, 1997

ii

ECOTOURISM DEMAND AND SUPPLY IN EL CIELO BIOSPHERERESERVE, TAMAULIPAS, MEXICO

Committee Members Approved:

________________________James Kimmel, Ph.D., Chair

________________________Fred Shelley, Ph.D.

________________________Craig Colten, Ph.D.

Approved:

__________________________Dr. Michael WilloughbyDean of Graduate School

iii

Copyright

by

Scott L. Walker

1997

iv

For Chloe

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my research advisor, Dr. Jim Kimmel, for his assistance in guidingme through the arduous process of graduate school and thesis development. I would alsolike to thank the women of La Grupa de Mujers and the men of El Grupo de Hombresco-ops in Alta Cima, Mexico and M. en C. Sergio Medellín Morales, President of thenongovernment organization Terra Nostra in Ciudad Victoria, Mexico, for their patienceand support in this project’s logistics and administration. Also, a special thanks goes toBiol. María Isabel Ramírez Ochoa (Chabelita), who encouraged me to conduct myresearch in El Cielo and who remains my good friend to this day. However, the biggestthanks is extended to my wife who supported me in this grandiose effort from the day wequit our jobs and moved to San Marcos, Texas for this education, through the four-weeksummer semester where I was gone from home from early morning to work and thenuntil 10 or 11 p.m. two nights a week studying statistics. Without her support, thesepages would never have been written.

vi

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................... v

Tables............................................................................................................. viii

Figures............................................................................................................ ix

Abstract......................................................................................................... xi

Chapter One Introduction................................................................. 1

Ecotourism Development Model.......................................................... 1Purpose.................................................................................................. 3

Chapter Two Literature Review....................................................... 4

Demand................................................................................................. 4Supply................................................................................................... 6Tourism Matrix..................................................................................... 8

Chapter Three Description of the Study Area.................................... 10

Biosphere Reserve Concept.................................................................. 10Biophysical Description........................................................................ 12Local Community................................................................................. 15Management.......................................................................................... 15Visitation............................................................................................... 16Local Economics................................................................................... 16Community Organization...................................................................... 17

Chapter Four Research Questions and Study Methods.................. 19

Relevance of the Research..................................................................... 19Study Site.............................................................................................. 19Study Method ....................................................................................... 20

Research Question 1: What is the Demand forEcotourism in El Cielo and by Whom?..................................... 20Research Question 2: Does the Supply Meet the Demand?...... 22

vii

Chapter Five Results and Discussion............................................... 23

Data Analysis for Demand Identification.............................................. 23Demographic Data Identification - Visitor Profile.................... 23Demographic Data Identification - Visitor Distribution........... 26Site Usage Identification........................................................... 28Transportation, Motivation,and Overnight Accommodations............................................... 31Visitor Spending Patterns......................................................... 33Secondary Analysis - Relationships......................................... 34

Data Analysis for Supply Identification................................................ 36Qualitative Analysis of Supply........................................................... 39Discussion........................................................................................... 42

What is the Demand for Ecotourism inEl Cielo and by Whom?.......................................................... 42Does the Supply Meet the Demand......................................... 43

Chapter Six Recommendations and Conclusion......................... 45

Recommendations............................................................................... 45Improvements by Cooperative Members................................ 45Improvements by SEDESOL and Local Cooperatives........... 46Improvements by SEDESOL.................................................. 48

Conclusion........................................................................................... 48

Appendix........................................................................................................ 50

Survey Instrument - English................................................................ 51Survey Instrument - Spanish.............................................................. 54

Sources Consulted......................................................................................... 56

Vita................................................................................................................. 60

viii

TABLES

Table 1: Tourism Supply and Demand Matrix............................................... 9

Table 2: Correlation Coefficient Table........................................................... 35

Table 3: Recommendations from Visitors on Potential Improvements........ 37

ix

FIGURES

Figure 1: General Ecotourism Development Model...................................... 2

Figure 2: El Cielo Biosphere Reserve, Tamaulipas, Mexico......................... 12

Figure 3: El Cielo Biosphere Reserve Ecosystem Diagram.......................... 13

Figure 4: Southern Ejidos in El Cielo Biosphere Reserve............................. 18

Figure 5: Group Type.................................................................................... 23

Figure 6: Number Traveling in Group........................................................... 24

Figure 7: Age Range...................................................................................... 24

Figure 8: Annual Income Range of the Visiting Party in New Pesos............ 25

Figure 9: Annual Income Range of the Visiting Party in US Dollars........... 25

Figure 10: Annual Income Frequency Distribution Polygon Summary......... 26

Figure 11: Country of Origin.......................................................................... 26

Figure 12: Travel Time to El Cielo................................................................. 27

Figure 13: Travel Time Map........................................................................... 28

Figure 14: Previous Visits............................................................................. 29

Figure 15: Times Previously Visited.............................................................. 29

Figure 16: Number of Days Visited................................................................ 30

Figure 17: Site Visitation................................................................................ 30

Figure 18: Transportation to El Cielo............................................................. 31

Figure 19: Visitor Motivation......................................................................... 31

Figure 20: 1994 SEDESOL Study Compared to this Study........................... 32

Figure 21: Overnight Usage............................................................................ 33

Figure 22: Dollars Spent Each Day................................................................ 33

x

Figure 23: New Pesos Spent Each Day......................................................... 34

Figure 24: Spending Each Day, New Pesos and Dollars Combined.............. 34

Figure 25: Arithmetic Mean of Supply Responses......................................... 36

xi

ABSTRACT

Ecotourism development is a comparatively new research topic. Owners,

planners, and designers typically rely more on intuition rather than research when

planning for ecotourism development. Details of tourism demand and the supply of goods

and services, as well as the linkages between the two, must be understood in order to

successfully develop ecotourism as a profitable local industry. I used a visitor

questionnaire distributed over the six busiest visitation months to determine visitor

demand characteristics in El Cielo Biosphere Reserve in Tamaulipas, Mexico. The

questionnaire was also used to measure the adequacy of supply and to identify site usage

and spending patterns within the most heavily traveled tourist corridor in the reserve. I

also incorporated observations of tourists and unstructured interviews with tourists and

residents in the study, which identified that the supply of services, goods, and

infrastructure is adequate to meet the demands of four primary tourist types identified.

Likewise, I developed supply improvement recommendations to aid the residents of the

study area in accommodating growing tourist demands in the reserve, which has little

visitor management, no enforcement or compliance mechanisms, and no ongoing

monitoring of natural resources.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Typically, owners, planners, and designers in ecotourism development have relied

more on intuition and tradition than on research for land use decisions (Gunn 1994).

Ecotourism development in protected areas requires integrated decision making and

planning among land managers, host communities, and developers (Mitchell 1994; A.

Woodley 1993; Slocombe 1993). These plans must remain within the limitations dictated

by the local ecosystem (S. Woodley 1993). To develop a sustainable protected area for

ecotourism, both local supply and demand by tourists must be understood by and planned

for among all the interested parties. Otherwise, incremental, unplanned development

takes place and the option of developing the area sustainably is lost forever.

Ecotourism Development Model

Various models exist for development in protected areas (Gunn 1994; Mathieson

1982; Graefe 1990; Wolfe 1967; Whelan 1991; Drake 1991a & b; Pederson 1991;

Jubenville 1993). The general model described here integrates existing tourism,

ecotourism, and resource protection models or development processes found throughout

the literature (Figure 1). The first block, “Impact Awareness” is conducted to find out if

those who hold stakes in a protected natural resource area are aware of the potential

impacts, both positive and negative, of tourism development. The “Preliminary

Research” phase, which is this thesis, parallels Wolfe’s (1964) outdoor recreation model

consisting of demand and supply, with the geographical concepts of origin, destination,

and linkages.

2

Preliminary Research

Tourist Charact erist ics (Demand)

Supply Charact eristics

Responsibilit ies of

Stakeholders

Ident ificat ion of

Const raint s, Problems,

and Needs

Solut ion Development

(Policies, Project s, and Programs)

Evaluat e

Implement

Project

Select ion of

Standards

Compare St andards

t o Exist ing Sit uat ions

Analyze

Ident ify Cause

Develop

Solut ions

Implement

Policies

Select ion of

Indicat ors

Site

Select ion and Analysis

Impact Awareness and

Baseline Economic Dat a Research

(May 1995)

Implement

Program

Goal &

Object ive

Development

Develop

Program

Policy

Development

Project

Development

Program

Development

Design Sit e

Figure 1. General Ecotourism Development Model

It is important to identify the demand of the tourist and determine if the supply of

the destination meets that demand. Once stakeholders make that identification they can

determine what actions or adjustments must take place to meet the tourism development

goals of the interested parties. Once the actions have been identified, the stakeholders

should determine who is responsible for which actions, identify the local resources and

then develop solutions. Solutions will consist of the development of policy, projects, and

3

programs. Upon the implementation of any of these three types of solutions, stakeholders

should continually evaluate the effectiveness of their solutions and make appropriate

changes as needed.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to identify and evaluate the demand and supply of

ecotourism activities and services in El Cielo Biosphere Reserve in Tamaulipas, Mexico,

so recommendations can be made to the residents and managers of the reserve.

4

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Demand

Demand is a well-defined part of the tourism planning process. Bargur and Arbel

(1976, 76) go so far as to state that supply-demand relationships are the “cornerstone” of

planning in the tourism industry. However, the concept of demand is broad and the term

“demand” is used loosely throughout the literature to mean anything from

macroeconomic demand, to microeconomic demand, to tourism need. A study of demand

in one definition indicates the forecasting of demand in terms of visitor numbers as

related to cost (Clawson & Knetsch 1966), while others consider demand as the need for

a recreational experience in a particular place (Mitchell 1991).

The study of demand in the general fields of tourism and recreation is nothing

new. In fact, Crouch (1994) identified 80 empirical studies from the 1960s through the

1980s on the subject of demand for international tourism alone.

The difference between tourism and many other economic activities is that in

tourism people flow to the consumable rather than the consumable flowing to them.

Hence, when people begin to gather at a place, some form of planning or management

is necessary to optimize the benefits of that place. The distribution of facilities,

opportunities, and sites should be based upon tourist demand, current demographic

analysis, and the projection of the characteristics of the population (Shivers & Hjelte

1971).

5

Given empirical information about tourist demand based on population and

demographics, analysis of demand relationships can help identify four aspects of

planning. According to Bargur and Arbel (1976), these four aspects are:

1) Identifying the optimal levels of output on a local, regional, or national scale. (Number

and type of tourists the economy is willing to support.)

2) Identifying the inputs needed to meet the output levels. (Scope and categories of

services and activities.)

3) Selecting activities and services a site can profitably develop, given constraints and

features of the site.

4) Distributing activities across seasonal limitations.

Looking at demand from a different point of view, Clawson and Knetsch (1966)

stated that if an opportunity exists and people are given a free choice, many would spend

some time and money in the pursuit of recreation. Since tourism is a consumer activity

based on demand, there is a basic need to understand why people travel for pleasure or

recreation. Social anthropologists have placed recreational need in the general category of

integrative need just behind primary need (food, water, defense) and derived need (social

control, education, language) (Mercer 1973).

Shivers and Hjelte (1971, 39) support Mercer by stating that recreation is a “basic human

need” and is an “integral part of all social behavior.” Piddington (1950), a social

anthropologist, states that all societies demonstrate an existence of integrative need and

this need is intertwined in a complex relationship with primary and derived need.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, authorities associated with leisure and

recreation began to set standards for recreational places based on their perceptions of

6

human need (Mercer 1973). The standards for places where tourists gather, seeking to

fulfill their integrative needs, are usually set as ideal “detached academic

pronouncements” by recreation experts (Mercer 1973, 39). Mercer argued that these

standards are based on hunches, myths, and beliefs, not on research. Yet the “expert’s”

point of view became accepted and institutionalized.

The foundation of recreation and tourism planning should be based on the

demands set forth by a holistic set of human characteristics which include: occupation,

age, sex, race, religion, ethnicity, values, experience, education, political influence, socio-

economic status, and physical ability (Shivers & Hjelte 1971). This study was designed to

let the consumer, or tourist population, guide the standards, yet allow the local

community to anticipate and prepare by first becoming aware of the tourist’s demand.

Supply

Supply, in the context of this study, can be defined as a point of destination where

demand may be fulfilled. These supply places, or points of destination, exist due to

demand that cannot be satisfied at the point of the tourist’s origin (Mitchell 1991).

Tourism supply is anchored in two principles: one is a service to provide for the demands

of tourists and the other is a site or location that attracts the tourist (Mitchell 1994). In

planning recreational places, the location, or site, often becomes the most important

factor, although it is only a part of the formula (Clawson 1963).

Gunn (1972) classifies supply to meet the tourist’s demand into five categories:

1) transportation linking the market to the site;

2) the gateway where information is dispensed;

3) a settlement providing goods and facilities;

7

4) recreation opportunities and attractions; and

5) a network connecting the above categories.

Furthermore, the site attracting the tourist can be broken down in three categories

(Clawson & Knetsch 1966):

1) user-oriented;

2) resource-based; or

3) intermediate areas.

User-oriented areas are typically near the tourist’s home and are readily accessible. These

are city parks, playgrounds, and small urban-recreation areas. Resource-based areas are

dominated by some outstanding physical resource, such as mountains, the desert, or an

ocean. These places may be a considerable distance from the visitor’s home. Both money

and time must be spent to enjoy these places. Intermediate areas are somewhere in

between the above two. They are usually no more than two hours away from home by car

and are considered day-use or weekend-use areas. This study focused on a resource-based

site and the first four of Gunn’s supply categories, as well as the natural resources

available at the site.

8

Tourism Matrix

Mitchell (1994, 200) developed a tourism supply and demand matrix that he calls “a

geographer’s guide to the investigation of tourism “ (Table 1). This matrix is designed to

devise research questions and concentrate research efforts, as well as view combinations

of applications. The rows and columns represent concepts, while the individual cells

represent a research concentration.

The tourism matrix is both a dynamic and flexible tool for conceiving research

endeavors. In addition to any combination of cell by cell analyses, a row or column can

serve as a starting point for tourism analysis. The main point(s) for each row or column

are summarized at the end of that row or column under the title “Directives.”

Furthermore, columns and rows can be combined and studied for a more complete picture

of the tourism activity in a place.

This study was a preliminary demand/supply study. It incorporated aspects of

each of the nine cells in the tourism matrix in order to aid in the development of a

complete picture of the demands tourists make in the study area. However, the primary

focus is on columns one (demand) and two (supply). I used these columns to aid me in

deriving general questions to use in the survey instrument I developed for this

investigation. Likewise, I used it to guide me in organizing the qualitative aspects of the

study and the structure of the analysis and final discussion. I found the tourism matrix to

be a good tool for the application of theoretical demand and supply concepts.

9

Table 1. Tourism Supply and Demand MatrixDemandOrigin

SupplyDestination

ConsumptionLinkage

Directives

PurposeIntention

Motivation

CELL 1Demand and purpose. Smith refers to thisconcept as “Defining the Person” (1989, 18).What is the profile of the tourist or potentialtourist? What intentions, purposes, andmotivations drive the tourist? What values doesthe tourist have that justify their demand?

CELL 2Supply and purpose. This concept concerns the plansand motivations of those supplying the tourist’sexperiences. What are the objectives and incentivesof the providers? What values guide the providers?What management philosophies are followed?

CELL 3Consumption and purpose. Consumption is thelevel of satisfaction the tourist needs or wants.Have the tourists been satisfied? How manytourists are attracted? Can the consumption beincreased? What impacts do the networks oftransportation, communication, and destinationshave on consumption?

Ideology

StructureCategorizationStratification

CELL 4Demand and structure. This cell expands furtheron the demands of the tourist. What are thesocioeconomic attributes of the tourist? Dosocioeconomic variables lead to a hierarchy ofdemands? How are attractions perceived by thetourist?

CELL 5Supply and structure. Which demands are catered toat a particular destination? Are scarce resourcesmanaged to meet the needs of the tourist and thesupplier? Does the specific destination fit into aregional pattern? Are the destination businessescomplementary or competitive?

CELL 6Consumption and structure. What is consumed atthe destination? What infrastructure is needed atthe destination? Which tourists utilize a particulardestination? Are there any policy implications forleaders and managers concerning theconsumption of services and goods related totourism?

ActivityFacility

Institution

DistributionSite

Situation

CELL 7Demand and distribution. This concept can becompared to Smith’s analyses for “Defining andDescribing the Trip” (1989, 26). Are there spatialpatterns in the tourist’s origin? Is there arelationship between the distance traveled anddestination?

CELL 8Supply and distribution. What criterion are used tolocate tourist-oriented destinations? Is supplydistributed in a fashion that serves to benefit thetourist and the provider?

CELL 9Consumption and distribution. What is the imageof the destination? Is the destination authentic ordoes it reveal a staged authenticity? Whattransportation modes are used to arrive at thedestination? What are the patterns of touristactivity in the destination?

Environment

Directives PerceptionCognitionBehavior

ManagementResourcesLand Use

InteractionTransportationParticipation

(Mitchell, 1994)

10

CHAPTER THREE

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

The area chosen for this study was the 144,530 hectare (356,442 acre) El Cielo

Biosphere Reserve in southwestern Tamaulipas, Mexico (Figure 2). The reserve was

established in 1985 by the Secretariat of Social Development - Tamaulipas (SEDESOL).

Shortly after its establishment, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO) accepted El Cielo as a Man and the Biosphere Reserve (MAB)

of international significance due to the area’s biodiversity.

Biosphere Reserve Concept

The biosphere reserve concept utilizes zones based on a protected core, or nuclear

zone, surrounded by a buffer zone. The San José-Gómez Farías area (Figure 2) of the

reserve is designated as a buffer zone and is the most populated and accessible by road.

This area is the primary area used by tourists because of its proximity to amenities and

transportation.

11

Figure 2. El Cielo Biosphere Reserve, Tamaulipas, Mexico(Adapted from Medellín 1994)

12

Biophysical Description

El Cielo is rich in biological diversity. There are 524 plant species in the four

ecosystems (Medellín 1994). El Cielo contains 93 mammals, which represent 70% of

the mammal species found in Tamaulipas. Sixty-four neotropical bird species are found

in the reserve and 65 invertebrates have been cataloged to date. Of the vertebrates, three

are considered endangered. They are the jaguar (Panthera onca), black bear (Ursus

americanus), and pheasant (Crax rubra).

The latitude, altitude, and influence of the Gulf of Mexico create a subhumid,

cloud-forest climate. Annual rainfall ranges from 350 mm (13.7 inches) to 2,600 mm

(102.36 inches). The altitude ranges from 200 meters (600 feet) above sea level to 2,400

meters (7874 feet). At the reserve’s latitude of 24 degrees north, just south of the Tropic

of Cancer, the temperature ranges from 11° C to 30° C (55°F to 89°F) in the study area.

Four distinct ecosystems, based on vegetation type, occur in the reserve. They are:

low-tropical jungle (tropical), mountain-tropical forest (mesofilo), pine-oak forest

(encino-pino/pino-encino), and an arid vegetation zone (matorral xerófilo) (Figure 3).

Figure 3. El Cielo ecosystem diagram (Adapted from Bracho 1994).

15

Local Community

When the reserve was established, the Mexican government did not displace those

living within the reserve’s boundaries. This is not the case in many of the world’s

national parks where the local population is forcibly relocated upon establishment. Most

of these people live in ejidos, which are located in special use zones of the reserve where

Mexican law permits agriculture and day-to-day activities. This mutually acceptable

social-environmental arrangement is the core concept of a biosphere reserve.

Ejidos, according to Mexican legislation, are legal entities and the jurisdiction is

in the hands of the Mexican-born campesinos. The land holdings in an ejido consist of

ejidal plots made up of individual plots, school plots, and ejidal urban zones. Water and

forest resources within an ejido are owned and managed by the members of the ejido.

Ejidal lands are considered inalienable and nontransferable.

Two types of ejidos exist: individual and collective. In an individual ejido, land

tenure and ownership are vested in the community, but crop and pasture land is allocated

among individuals. In a collective ejido all land resources are pooled for collectively

organized production. The ejidos associated with this study are individual ejidos.

Management

El Cielo is managed by the Tamaulipas Secretariat of Social Development or

Secretaria de Desarollo Social (SEDESOL). SEDESOL retains permitting authority

involving any natural resource-consuming activities within the reserve, but lacks

compliance, monitoring, and enforcement capabilities. SEDESOL operates a research

station. One employee maintains the station and acts as a guide/natural interpreter from

time to time. No formal enforcement or monitoring personnel reside in the reserve due to

16

the lack of available resources. Monitoring is typically conducted informally by the

residents of the reserve and members of local nongovernmental organizations. Any

infractions are reported back to SEDESOL. Although there is little monitoring and

enforcement, the isolation, lack of roads, and mountainous terrain aid in protecting the

reserve from illegal activities. No commercial timber cutting currently goes on.

Visitation

While the SEDESOL research station in El Cielo had reported an annual visitation

level of 5000 people to the station in 1993, total visitation to the reserve is unknown since

day-use visitors and those not staying overnight in the research station have never been

counted or surveyed. Research station visitor-use statistics compiled by SEDESOL show

that 61% of the visitors are tourists, of which 10% are foreign and 90% are Mexican.

Students make up 23% of the visitation, while researchers make up 16% (Zambrano

1994). There was no determination as to the origin of the students.

Local Economics

Timber cutting was the historical economic activity in the area. In 1985, when the

area became protected, timber cutting ceased. Currently, timber cutting is only allowed

by permit and SEDESOL has not issued any permits since the area was designated a

biosphere reserve. Since the halt in timber cutting, nearly 70% of the inhabitants have

become, and remain, unemployed (Ramírez 1995a).

The primary source of income in the area now is palm harvesting. The mean

weekly household income in the ejido of Alta Cima is N$107.651 (US$14.002). Of this

average, only N$14.23 (US$1.85) or 1.3% is derived from ecotourism (Walker 1995). In

1 N$=New Peso2 October 1996 exchange rate.

17

San José, another ejido located within the reserve, the mean weekly household income is

N$243.75 (US$31.75). Of this average, N$27.61 (US$3.59) or 1.1% is derived from

ecotourism (Walker 1995).

Community Organization

Terra Nostra (Our Earth), a non-governmental organization based in Ciudad

Victoria, has implemented a community organization program in the ejido of Alta Cima

(Figure 4). This program identified barriers to economic and social development, as well

as environmental conservation problems. As a result of this program, the inhabitants

developed proposed projects to overcome the barriers they identified. Two of the projects

involved developing support services for ecotourism which consisted of building a rustic

hotel and restaurant/store for tourists. These projects were completed by cooperatives that

were formed as a result of the organization program. The men’s cooperative has gone on

to develop a guide service and interpretive trails in the reserve.

18

Figure 4. Southern ejidos in El Cielo Biosphere Reserve(Adapted from Medellín 1994)

19

CHAPTER FOUR

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND STUDY METHODS

Two primary questions were asked in this study:

1. What is the demand for ecotourism in El Cielo and by whom?

2. Does the supply meet the demand?

Relevance of the Research

Casual and fragmented tourism development potentially leads to resource decline,

conflict among interested parties, and disappointing results for tourists and entrepreneurs

(Gunn 1994). El Cielo is in the infant stages of its development. By first identifying and

understanding the demands and supplies of this area, stakeholders can plan development

in such a way that negative environmental, social, and economic effects are minimized

while the positive effects are maximized. With proper planning based on local

participation, this reserve could become a model for the development of protected areas.

Study Site

The Alta Cima area served as the primary focus of study. Alta Cima is a natural

gateway and gathering point in El Cielo. It is located along the only accessible road into

the reserve and it maintains a store and gate where tourists stop. Additionally, a women’s

cooperative called Grupo de Mujeres de Alta Cima operates the only restaurant/store in

the area and most tourists stop for information and food. Likewise, a small interpretive

facility is open on weekends in the ejido.

20

Study Method

Research Question 1: What is the demand for ecotourism in El Cielo and by whom?

During the peak visitation months of January, April, May, July, August, and

December (Berrones 1996), a self-administered survey in Spanish or English was given

to each group arriving in Alta Cima. The survey was given each day during the six

months. The unit of analysis was the visiting party. In most cases the visiting party also

spends from a common source or income and this tends to be “the best measure for

demand analysis” (Clawson & Knetsch 1966, 296).

After I conducted a pilot survey in September, 1996, I made adjustments in the

survey instrument based on questions that appeared confusing, went unanswered, or were

found to be misleading. The new, adjusted survey instrument was distributed to visitors

from the local store/restaurant La Fe. I designed it to be filled out during the visit and

returned upon leaving. The staff of La Fe, operated by the Alta Cima woman’s

cooperative, managed the administration of the surveys. Visitors dropped completed

surveys off in a large envelope at the store/restaurant or in a dropbox located outside the

gate of the store/restaurant.

I used the survey instrument to collect visitor information. The information I

sought was based on Mitchell’s Tourism Matrix (page 10). The numbers below, enclosed

in parentheses, indicate the corresponding matrix cell.

• Demographic Data Identification: The survey collected information concerning the

demographics of the visiting population. (1, 4, 7)

21

• Site Usage Identification: The survey contained a map of the Alta Cima-San José

area. The respondents were asked to track their travels within the reserve on this map.

(7, 9)

• Transportation, Motivation, and Accommodations: The survey collected data

concerning demand for and use of transportation, shelter, natural resources, services,

attractions, and information that visitors need, want, and use. (1, 4, 7)

• Visitor Spending Patterns: The survey identified spending patterns within the study

area. (3, 6)

Self-completed questionnaires such as the one used in this study have the

advantage of being very efficient in terms of time, financial resources, and effort the

researcher must put forth. Numerous responses can be collected in a short amount of time

and minimal financial resources are needed since surveys can be distributed from a

central location, filled out, and returned to the same location. Additionally, with proper

coding, analysis time is short (Robson 1993). Moreover, Lindberg and Huber, Jr. (1993)

recommend the use of collecting visitor statistic using surveys and they cite a successful

case study in Costa Rica.

There are some disadvantages in using this method of data collection. First, the

nature of survey research leads to limited, predetermined responses. While the researcher

can gather data on visitor actions or behaviors, s/he cannot gather data on why the visitor

responds as s/he does without further investigation. Second, demand may be

underestimated by the tourists themselves (Lindberg & Huber, Jr. 1993), thus skewing

the results. Third, in a purposive sample such as this, which is a form of a non-probability

sample, the population is not randomly selected as called for in strict applications of

22

sampling theory. Each element of the population should be given “a known nonzero

probability of being selected into the sample” (Rossi, Wright & Anderson 1983) in a true

probability sample. When a non-probability sample is used, general impressions are

typically gathered, but not data open to “rigorous statistical testing” (Dixon & Leach

1984). A purposive sample targets a category “of cases of interest to the researcher” (de

Vaus 1991, 78), in this case visitors to the reserve. A purposive sample can also identify

connections between aspects of tourism demand and the local supply (Dixon & Leach

1984). Furthermore, although validity cannot be tested, the use of a non-probability

sample does not always produce invalid conclusions (Rossi, Wright, & Anderson 1983).

Research Question 2: Does the Supply Meet the Demand?

After the demand survey phase, the results of the tourist demand study were used

as a basis for determining if the supply meets the demands required by the visiting

population. In order to better understand the demand/supply relationship a more inductive

and ongoing qualitative field study focused on supply and linkages between supply and

demand.

The qualitative analysis comprised observations of both tourists and residents,

unstructured interviews with tourists, residents, and merchants, and event descriptions

(Fox 1989, 57). Since qualitative research is a target for criticism, I followed the

following guidelines Maykut and Morehouse (1994) suggest to better ensure the

credibility of the outcomes:

1) Multiple methods of data collection were used (as explained above)

2) Checks with members of the research population were conducted to verify the

reliability of the information collected.

23

CHAPTER FIVE

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Data Analysis for Demand Identification

I compiled the results of the visitor survey and present below the descriptive

statistics of El Cielo’s visiting population. I present them in a loose correlation with

Mitchell’s Tourism Supply and Demand Matrix (Table 1) using the categories found on

page 21. Following the initial descriptive presentation, I present a more exploratory

secondary analysis that investigates numerous relationships based on the survey data.

Demographic Data Identification - Visitor Profile

Few visitors to El Cielo travel alone. Over 38% of the visitors travel with friends,

while just over 31% travel with family. Over 28% visit as an organized group (Figure 5).

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Alone Org group Familygroup

Withfriends

1.6

28.631.7

38.1

Figure 5. Group Type (n=63).

The majority of visitors travel in groups of two, yet the second most numerous group size

contains more than 14 people (Figure 6).

24

Number in group

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >14

5

23.3

13.3

5

0

1511.7

0

6.7

0 0 1.7 0 0

18.4

Figure 6. Number Traveling in Group (n=60).

I determined the age range of the typical El Cielo visitor from an age scale in the

survey instrument. I found that just under one-third of the visitors were under 15 years of

age. When considered in light of the above determination that most groups consist of

more than 14 people, one can infer that most of the visitors to El Cielo are non-university

student groups. Observations of visitors and interviews with reserve residents supports

this presumption. Meanwhile, the second most common age group to visit are those

between 31 and 35 years of age, showing up as 22% of the survey respondents (Figure 7).

Years of age

Percent

05

101520253035

0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66and >

30.9

11 9.6 11.5

22

6 3.7 1.9 2.4 0.5 0.5 0

Figure 7. Age Range (n=130).

The survey also measured the annual income range of El Cielo visitors. The

incomes, as presented here, reflect that of the unit of analysis in the study; the visiting

party. This was the best income standard available and is supported by Clawson and

Knetsch (1966, 296) as the “best measure for demand analysis.” Further, since the

income range of a person from the United States cannot be equally compared to that of a

25

person from Mexico, income in new pesos (Figure 8) and dollars (Figure 9) are presented

separately. They are again presented together with new pesos converted to dollars as a

frequency distribution graph to summarize the two variables (Figure 10). It should be

noted that, since most visitors are 15 years old and under, many of the respondents did

not have any income to report. However, a more significant variable, the estimated

amount visitors spent each day during their visit, is explored later in this section under

“Visitor Spending Patterns.”

New Pesos

Percent

0

51015

2025

30

<5000 5000-9999

10000-19999

20000-29999

30000-39999

40000-49999

50000-59999

60000-69999

70000-79000

80000-89000

>90000

25.8

16.1

6.59.7 9.7

0 03.2

6.53.2

19.4

Figure 8. Annual Income Range of the Visiting Party in New Pesos (n=31).

US Dollars

Percent

05

10152025303540

<10000-19999 20000-29999 30000-39999 40000-49999 50000-59999 60000 and >

0

12.5

37.5

25 25

0

Figure 9. Income Range of the Visiting Party in US Dollars (n=8).

26

US Dollars

Frequency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

<10000 10000-19999

20000-29999

30000-39999

40000-49999

50000-59999

60000and >

Figure 10. Annual Income Frequency Distribution Polygon Summary (New Pesos converted to US Dollars)(n=39).

Demographic Data Identification - Visitor Distribution

The spatial patterns of tourist origin are measured and presented here. As

expected, the majority are from Mexico, while one-fourth originate in the United States.

Unexpected though, were the numbers of visitors, at 12.7%, from places other than the

United States and Mexico (Figure 11). Other countries of origin included Bolivia,

Canada, Italy, Nicaragua, Poland, Spain, Romania, and Russia. Nearly all of the

respondents from countries other than the United States and Mexico indicated they were

in the reserve to do research. Likewise, they were typically traveling with large groups,

suggesting that large groups from extreme distances are often university research groups.

Origin

Percent

010203040506070

Mexico US Other

61.9

25.4

12.7

Figure 11. Country of Origin (n=63).

27

To further define the spatial patterns of visitors, each respondent was asked to

indicate the city of origin for his/her group. This data was then extrapolated to compare to

Clawson & Knetsch’s three types of recreational areas (page 7): user-oriented,

intermediate, and resource. Based on the geographical origin of respondents, a new

variable was created to describe travel time: up to two hours, up to four hours, up to six

hours, over six hours, and extreme. Up to two hours indicates an intermediate recreation

area, over six hours probably indicates a resource area where planning and financial

resources must be considered by the visitor. Extreme, as found in the graph below,

indicates those visitors having to travel extreme distances to arrive in El Cielo (Figure

12). These visitors were from New York City, Florida, Canada, and Europe.

Hours

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

up to 2 (intermediate)

up to 4 up to 6 >6 (resource)

extreme

21.2 21.225

15.4 17.3

Figure 12. Travel Time to El Cielo (n=52).

The map below demonstrates the above graph in a spatial format where travel time can be

noted from the point of view of a regional traveler.

28

Figure 13. Travel Time Map.

It should be noted that Clawson & Knetsch’s three recreational area designations

may be slightly skewed for application in Mexico, due to roads that are not ideal for high-

speed travel by automobile or bus. Also of note is that if the “greater than six hour”

category were combined with the “extreme” category in Figure 12, the percentage of

visitors utilizing the reserve as a resource area would total 32.7%. This would present a

strong case for considering El Cielo a resource recreation area.

Site Usage Identification

One indicator of natural resource demand by site is how many times a group has

visited previously, if at all. Visitors were asked if they had visited previously, and if so,

how many times. Nearly 60% of the visitors questioned had never been to El Cielo.

Meanwhile, just over 41% had previous visits (Figure 14). Of those having previous

visits, the majority had already visited 4 times, followed closely by those who had visited

8 times previously (Figure 15).

29

Previous visits

Percent

010

2030

4050

60

Yes No

41.3

58.7

Figure 14. Previous Visits (n=63).

I added a frequency polygon below to clarify that those having visited 20, 40, and

50 times previously were minimal.

Times previously visited

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 20 30 40 50

15.4

11.5

7.7

19.2

3.8

0 0

15.4

3.8

7.7

0

7.7 7.7

00.511.522.533.544.55

*f.d.

Figure 15. Times Previously Visited (n=26). *Frequency Distribution of n.

In addition to previous visit analysis, the survey captured the number of days a

group typically stayed in the reserve during a visit. One-fourth of the visitors stayed for

two days, while 20.6% stayed for less than one day, and another 20.6% stayed for only

one day (Figure 16). Given this information, one might consider the reserve as a

intermediate recreation area where visitors usually just spend weekends, in contrast to the

previous statement that the site could be considered a resource recreation area due to the

30

distance visitors typically travel. Nevertheless, it appears that although most visitors take

a long time to arrive in El Cielo, they only stay for a short period of time.

Number of days

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

< 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

20.6

25.4

11.112.7

3.21.6 1.6

0 0

3.2

20.6

Figure 16. Number of Days Visited (n=63).

Site usage can also be measured by the spatial patterns of visitor travel within the

reserve. Nearly half of the site visits in El Cielo are to Alta Cima. Just over 27% of the

visitation occurs in San José, while 16.4% takes place at the Canindo Research Station.

Even less visitation, 7.8%, occurs beyond San José (Figure 17). Thus, it is likely the

majority of tourist demand will fall on the ejido of Alta Cima.

Figure 17. Site Visitation (n=116).

31

Transportation, Motivation, and Accommodations

Also collected in the visitor survey were data related to demand for and use of

transportation and shelter. Below is the summary of data captured on transportation used

to arrive in the reserve, why a group traveled to the reserve, and what overnight

accommodations they used, if any.

Just over half (51.7%) of the visitors to El Cielo arrive by bus in Gómez Farías

and then walk the remaining distance to Alta Cima or beyond. On the other hand, 48.3%

arrived by automobile (Figure 18).

Transportation

Percent

46

474849

5051

52

PrivateAuto

Bus/walk

48.3

51.7

Figure 18. Transportation to El Cielo (n=60, s.d.=2.52).

Nearly one-third (30.2%) of the El Cielo visitors came to backpack. Twenty-

seven percent came for family vacations, while only 12.7% reported research/study as

their primary motivation (Figure 19).

Motivation

Percent

05

101520253035

Backpack Familyvacation

Research/ study

Day visit Birdwatch CampOvernight

Other

27

12.7 12.7

7.94.8 4.7

30.2

Figure 19. Visitor Motivation (n=63).

32

When visitor responses were tallied, 59% of the visitors indicated they were

tourists. Of that number, 76% indicated their country of origin was Mexico, while 24%

indicated they were from a foreign country (Figure 20). This statement is in slight

contrast with the 1994, Secretariat of Social Development (SEDESOL) count of research

station visitors (page 16) that indicated 61% of the visitors were tourists and of that

count, 90% were Mexican and only 10% were foreign (Zambrano 1994).

Percent

0102030405060708090

Tourists Mexican Tourists Foreign Tourists

1994 Study This Study

Figure 20. 1994 SEDESOL Study Compared to this Study.

Upon arrival in El Cielo, the visitor has few options for overnight

accommodations. There is a rustic hotel in Alta Cima consisting of basic rooms with

window screens, shared bath and toilet facilities, and hot water upon request. The

alternative in Alta Cima is to camp. Camping is available in a field near the hotel. A fee

is charged, but campers have access to bath and toilet facilities. Beyond El Cielo is a

government research station with cabins, although two rustic hotels are under

construction. Visitors are able to stay in these cabins if prior arrangements are made with

SEDESOL in Ciudad Victoria. Upon arrival in San José, the only way to overnight is by

camping. The graph below demonstrates the frequency of use of these, and other options

for overnight stays (Figure 21).

33

Overnight use

Percent

05

10152025303540

Hotel El Pino Camp in SanJose

Backcountry camp

Camp @ Hotel El Pino

Canindo Research

Station

Family Other

39

2217.1

12.24.9 2.4 2.4

Figure 21. Overnight Usage (n=41).

Visitor Spending Patterns

Visitor spending patterns affect the social impacts and economic development of

any isolated protected area, as well as the planning of ecotourism development activities.

The amount visitors spend each day during their visit was explored in the visitor survey.

Expenditure data were collected in both new pesos and dollars and are presented as such

(Figures 22 and 23). Likewise, new pesos were converted to dollars and the two variables

were combined to summarize the amount spent each day (Figure 24). In this combined

variable, it was determined that most visitors (63.3%) spend US$19 or less, each day

during their visit.

US Dollars

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0-14 15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60

60

6.70

20

06.7 6.7

Figure 22. Dollars Spent Each Day (n=15).

34

New Pesos

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

0-69 70-139 140-214 215-299 300-359 360-439 >440

42.2

2015.6 13.3

8.9

0 0

Figure 23. New Pesos Spent Each Day (n=45).

US Dollars

Percent

010203040506070

0-19 20-39 40-59 60 and >

63.3

26.7

8.31.7

Figure 24. Spending Each Day, New Pesos and Dollars Combined (n=60).

Secondary Analysis - Relationships

This section explores the relationships between visitor demographics and their

hotel stays, lengths of stay, spending patterns, and geographical usage

In exploring these, several questions were asked, including:

• Is it likely that visitors with higher income tend to stay in the hotel/Canindo Station,

rather than camp?

• What is the relationship between distance traveled and hotel stay?

• Do those with higher income tend to stay longer?

• What is the relationship between country of origin and length of stay?

• Is there a positive relationship between visitors who drive and higher spending?

35

• Is there a negative relationship between those who ride a bus and then walk and lower

spending?

• What is the relationship between transportation mode and area visited?

• What is the relationship between reason for visit and areas visited?

Of the relationships tested, all had weak correlation coefficients (Table 2),

indicating the lack of strong relationships between the variables compared. However, of

the relationships tested, the strongest was the relationship between income in dollars and

dollars spent per day, at a correlation of .4262. This suggests that visitors with a higher

income in dollars tended to spend more per day during their visit. One might assume the

same would be true for those earning and spending new pesos, but it was not the case.

The correlation between new peso earning and spending was .5038, but with a confidence

of only .001. Indicating an almost nonexistent relationship. No further exploration of

relationships was conducted due to the weak correlations and/or confidence levels.

Hotelstay

Length ofstay

Spending Area visited

Income -.0326p=848

-.0661p=.693

Dollars.4262p=.167Pesos.5038p=.001

Canindo-.1833p=.530

San José-.2476p=.293

Distance .0140p=.941

-.1447p=.311

.2070p=.141

.0535p=.818

-.0349p=.847

Country of origin -.1156p=.495

-.1665p=.196

.0444p=.738

.0535p=.818

-.0349p=.847

Transportation .1000p=.556

.1986p=.119

.1198p=.366

.2278p=.321

.1795p=.310

Reason .1798p=287

.2186p=.085

-.0489p=.713

-.1266p=.584

-.1902p=.281

Table 2. Correlation Coefficient Table.

36

Data Analysis for Supply Identification

The survey questions relating to supply allowed for a five-point scaled response.

The value one equaled “strongly agree” with the adequacy of the supply topic in

question, while five equaled “strongly disagree.” A sixth response was available for “no

opinion.” I calculated the arithmetic mean of the responses and listed them below.

Mean of Supply Responses

1 2 3 4 5

RecreationalOpportunity

GuideService

AvailableInformation

Trails

Lodging

BathFacilities

Restaurant

1.93

2.2

2.5

2.5

1.86

2.54

1.98

Figure 25. Arithmetic Mean of Supply Responses.

I used this method strictly to categorize and identify demand/supply relationships.

No quantifiable causal pathways or linkages were identified and the evaluation was based

solely on the perspective of the tourist. Room was available for comments under each

supply related question on the survey with the intention that El Cielo residents would be

able to gain some benefit from this portion of the study. These comments (translated into

English) are presented in the table below:

37

Topic Comments from visitorsRestaurant - What improvements would yourecommend?

• They could change the menu a little.• More information.• We liked it a lot.• Cold beer [needed].• Faster Service.• Prices are accessible.• More food choices.• More menu.

Bath facilities - What improvements would yourecommend?

• Mosquito nets [needed].• Bathrooms in different places.• Hot water.• There was no water.• The hotel should have lights in the bathrooms.• More trash containers.• Showers and bathrooms were good to have.• Latrines along the road.• Bathrooms in the camping areas.

Lodging - What improvements would yourecommend?

• Hot water and more bathrooms (Hotel).• Music or television (Hotel).• More lighting (Hotel).• It is okay here (Hotel).• Make cabins available (Canindo Station).• More information needed.• Hot water and cleaner floors and sheets

(Canindo Station).Trails - What improvements would yourecommend?

• More trails needed (Alta Cima).• They are great (Alta Cima to San José).• There are not enough signs to the trails (Alta

Cima to San José).• Signs [needed] (Alta Cima to San José).• They need rest rooms along the roads (Alta

Cima to San José).

38

Topic Comments from VisitorsInformation about the area - What informationwould you like to see?

• Would like to know the altitude of each area.• Trip guides with explanations of the area.• Signs [needed].• Diffusion of information on what is needed to

access [different areas/trails].• Topographical maps.• More guides.• More detailed descriptions about the places to

visit.• More information in Gómez Farías.• Brochures with maps, history, and flora/fauna

lists [needed].• More information about transportation.

Guide service - What improvements would yourecommend?

• More knowledge of plants and animals.• That they would be more professional.• They should involve the people [tourists] more

with questions and explanations.• The guides should know more about the plants

and animals of the area and the importance ofthe local ecology.

• More botanical information.• Pay more attention to the tourists.• That they don’t charge so much.

Recreational opportunities - What improvementswould you recommend?

• Implement sports areas.• Information on a national level.• It is very good as it is.• Don’t have rules for the caves.• They should prepare a little better the

restoration of the countryside.

Table 3. Recommendations from Visitors on Potential Improvements.

39

Qualitative Analysis of Supply

I observed and participated in community development activities, unstructured

interviews with visitors and residents, and observed visitor and resident behavior and

activities to evaluate tourism supply and the linkage between supply and demand

(consumption). I conducted this part of the study during several visits totaling 37 days

over a three-year period from 1995 to 1997. A portion of the observations and interviews

were conducted before the survey instrument was developed in order to aid in the

development of the survey itself, while another portion was conducted simultaneous to

the distribution of the surveys. I continued to conduct observations and informal

interviews after the survey data were collected and analyzed to shed light on the

quantitative conclusions. This longitudinal approach allowed for a broad view of visitor

demand and the development of supply to meet that demand, rather than a simple

“snapshot” of ecotourism in El Cielo.

In the qualitative analysis of supply I sought to explore the application of cells

two, five, and eight of Mitchell’s Tourism Supply and Demand Matrix (page 10).

Discussion surrounding these areas is presented below, beginning with supply and

purpose.

In exploring the motivations of those offering supply to tourists, the objectives,

incentives, and values of supply providers is of concern. The primary objective of most

reserve residents is economically oriented. With the shortage of

gainful employment in such an isolated area, it stands to reason that finding ways to

profit from visitors is of primary importance. Note the key word profit from visitors is

used, rather than exploit visitors. Residents are not trying to “make a killing” from

40

tourists, or trap them in any sense. They are simply trying to supplement their low

incomes using the resources at hand and have gone to great lengths to educate and

organize themselves to do so. In participating in community development forums over

the last two years, it was obvious that the values of entrepreneurs and cooperative

members are not exploitative. Environmental interests are of high concern, and

sustainable development, although an ambiguous term, is a popular concept in the

reserve, as it is throughout Mexico (Barkin 1996, Lara 1996).

The development of supply has catered to infrastructure construction, since little

infrastructure, with the exception of an existing road to the area, had previously been in

place. The development of infrastructure to meet visitor demand began with a

restaurant/store, proceeded to overnight accommodations, and then to trail development.

The development of services has followed in the form of organized guide services.

Information about the area, in the form of primitive interpretive displays and basic

brochures, has followed. What is missing is the equivalent development of visitor

management as needed to keep up with the development of infrastructure and services.

The services provided so far have been complementary, due mainly to the efforts

of a regional non-government organization’s two-year community

development program that ended in 1995. The residents of the different ejidos in the

corridor from Gómez Farías to San José maintain cooperative associations. Likewise, a

larger organized group exists among nearly all of the ejidos in the reserve for the purpose

of combining their resources to promote themselves as a whole.

An event of potential interest was taking place as this study was concluding. A

resident of San José, who is also a member of the men’s coop there, had begun to build

41

his own hotel in San José. The hotel will be privately operated and will not participate in

the cooperative. Meanwhile, the San José cooperative is building a hotel that will be

direct competition to the private hotel. This is the first competitive sign noted in the

ecotourism development of the area.

The distribution of supply deals with the physical locations of visitor services,

destinations, and attractions, as well as the distribution of benefits among visitors and

suppliers. The physical locations of destinations and attractions are based on previously

existing trails (overgrown logging roads), caves and other natural features, and the road

into the area, which funnels all visitors through two ejidos. No attempts have been made

to create more destinations or attractions, with the exception of one short interpretive trail

that has been built near Alta Cima.

Both visitors and suppliers appear to benefit mutually from the current

distribution of supply. The hotel in Alta Cima is situated at the far end of the ejido in a

former pasture area. Constant interaction between visitors, especially large groups, and

residents of Alta Cima is not a problem, due to the location of the hotel. Actually,

since visitors must pass all the way through Alta Cima to get to the hotel, residents along

the way have the opportunity to sell bread, ornamental plants, and hand-stitched table

cloths. Similarly, visitors must pass through San José to reach the main attractions. In

both Alta Cima and San José, fences and/or dense vegetation direct foot and vehicular

traffic. Moreover, most residents of Alta Cima and San José do not consider visitors as

intrusive as long as the visitors conduct themselves appropriately, which in this case

means no loud music, public intoxication, or destruction of property. Improper visitor

behavior is rare, but a few incidents have occurred where visitors have left trash behind

42

and have occasionally played loud music. Finally, most visitation occurs during the

weekends, thus leaving most of the week in a normal routine for residents.

Discussion

What is the demand for ecotourism in El Cielo and by whom?

Based on the quantitative results of the visitor survey, the “typical” visitor in El

Cielo would be a Mexican under the age of 16, who traveled by bus up to six hours with a

group of more than 14 students for the purpose of backpacking. This average visitor

probably stays in the reserve for two days and stays in the Alta Cima area with a day hike

to San José. However, it could be the case that more visitors matching this profile tended

answer the survey more often than other visitors.

In contrast to the above profile based on the survey, my observations indicate that

the typical visitor is a Mexican family with children under the age 16. The family

income is more than new pesos $90,000 (US$11,530) annually. The parents are in their

thirties and they travel two to four hours by automobile to arrive in the reserve. This

visitor has been to the reserve before for long weekends, spent two days in the

reserve, and bought meals at the restaurant. A benchmark comparison could be made

between this Mexican visitor to El Cielo and US state park visitors on weekend camping

trips.

A third visitor profile could be the small group of Mexicans on limited incomes

visiting the reserve for a long weekend. These are the visitors who will arrive by bus,

walk to an isolated area carrying backpacks and will make only small purchases while in

the reserve.

43

The last visitor profile, and one that is more difficult to describe due to their

limited numbers as visitors, is the group of researchers/students. I observed that visitors

studying in the reserve would camp in Alta Cima or stay in Canindo Station. They would

arrive by truck or van and eat some meals in the restaurant. It was more typical to

encounter this type of visitor during the week and they would only stay for two days, not

utilizing the interpretive trails or spending time at popular attractions.

Thus, the first research question, “What is the demand for ecotourism in El Cielo

and by whom?” can be summarized from visitor profiles. They are listed below by

importance of the demands they make while in the reserve:

1. Large groups of over 14 young students, spending little money, but utilizing

infrastructure and services in a structured manner (i.e. organized activities such as

guided walks, advanced planning for hotel stays, etc.).

2. Families on vacation for long weekends, spending money and utilizing services and

infrastructure.

3. Small groups visiting for long weekends, spending little money, yet utilizing some

services without structure (i.e. animal rentals, interpretive hikes without guides, etc.).

4. Medium-sized groups of six to seven visitors, spending little money, utilizing

infrastructure, yet using few services.

Does the supply meet the demand?

The short answer to this question is “yes” for the visitors profiled. The El Cielo

visitor has no shortage of attractions, services, and established infrastructure. He or she

can easily find lodging and food, as well as acquire the services of a guide or get

44

interpretive information about the area. The visitors surveyed agreed at an average of 2.2

on a one to five scale that the services in question were adequate.

The suggestions for improvements captured in the survey related mainly to two

areas: (1) poor communication of services available by the service providers, and (2)

suggestions for services that are above the level of those residents have for themselves in

a rural setting. In other words, if a community does not have electricity, then it should not

be expected that refrigerated beverages would be available. Likewise, in a community

where some families do not even have toilet facilities, visitors cannot expect public

roadside latrines. The lack of communication about available supply can be improved

through awareness and coordination by residents, however the lack of high-cost supply

and infrastructure development such as grid-based electricity and public rest rooms

alongside backroads cannot be adequately addressed given the circumstances.

45

Chapter Six

Recommendations and Conclusion

In an effort to lend application to the information previously presented, rather

than have it archived as a simple academic exercise, I will offer a series of

recommendations based on visitor comments and my observations during this study.

Following those are the conclusions of the study.

Recommendations

Supply improvements can be made in three ways in the El Cielo study area. Those

improvements that (1) cooperative members can work together to develop, (2) those that

SEDESOL can work with cooperative members to make, and (3) those that SEDESOL

can make or initiate itself.

Improvements by Cooperative Members

1-A. Businesses operated by cooperatives can improve the communication of

available services to the visitor. For example, comments on the survey indicated hot

water should be available in the hotel. Hot water is available. Since the hot water heater is

gas powered, and gas supply is limited, the heater is not on 24 hours a day. The caretaker

at the hotel must communicate with visitors that arrangements must be made to have the

hot water on.

1-B. The prices of hotel rooms should be posted at the restaurant and in the

interpretive booth. The prices of guide services and animal rentals should also be posted

in the places visitors frequent in Alta Cima and in Gómez Farías.

46

1-C. In the restaurant a menu of meals and prices should be posted. Although it is

often the case that only a limited selection of meals is available, a menu should include at

least the price of each meal (with and without meat) and price of beverages.

1-D. Restaurant staff should be trained to provide a standard of service

appropriate to the customers.

1-E. At least one public trash receptacle should be provided in each ejido, thus

encouraging proper trash disposal. The cooperatives should make a point to work

together to properly dispose of the waste.

1-F. Providing that Mexican law allows for such, topographical maps of the

reserve should be purchased in Ciudad Victoria and then resold to visitors at a small

profit. Maps for sale should be placed in the interpretive booth, Hotel El Pino, and La Fe.

1-G. A program should be established to train guides and provide interpretive

services.

1-H. A library of interpretive materials should be established.

1-I. Guides should plan organized interpretive hikes in advance for busy holiday

times. For example a sign should be posted in a public location that a tour of the

interpretive loop trail (Sendero El Vigia) would start at a predetermined time for a

nominal fee.

Improvements by SEDESOL and Local Cooperatives

Several improvements related to information dispersion could be made by a

SEDESOL and local cooperative partnerships. Since SEDESOL has access to computers,

telephones, and individuals with degrees in biological sciences, they could donate their

time in kind with some funding from the El Cielo cooperatives to do the following:

47

2-A. SEDESOL should create a simple master copy of a general brochure for the

reserve. This brochure should include limited information on primary destinations and

attractions, bus schedules from local cities, and visitor guidelines. The local cooperatives

could have photocopies of the brochure made, as funds became available. Cooperative

members could fold the brochures and place them in strategic distribution points in Alta

Cima, Gómez Farías, and surrounding towns with the aid of Terra Nostra. These

brochures could also be offered for sale at a cost high enough to recoup the expenses of

creating them. Likewise, SEDESOL should solicit photocopy donations from sponsoring

businesses in regional cities in exchange for advertisements being placed in the brochure.

2-B. SEDESOL should also develop an interpretive brochure for each trail,

destination, or attraction in the reserve. They should then make a master copy of each

brochure to be photocopied following the model in recommendation 2-A. Cooperative

members could build a box that would hold each brochure for the public to access or the

brochures could be sold for a small fee.

Although a method for developing and distributing brochures is outlined above,

stakeholders would also need to develop and take action on a plan to ensure brochure

availability. In other words, on an ongoing basis someone would have to check on the

supply of brochures and arrange for more copies to be made and distributed.

2-C. SEDESOL should fund the purchase of, or solicit the donation of, used metal

drums to be used as trash receptacles. These could then be painted by cooperative

members and maintained by residents as outlined in recommendation

1-E.

48

Improvements by SEDESOL

3. SEDESOL should take the initiative to solicit donations of goods and services

from regional businesses. As an example, there is no signage at the highway intersection

where visitors should turn to get to the reserve. SEDESOL could solicit for the regional

cement company to have a sign painted to SEDESOL specifications and installed at the

intersection. The sign would have both information for tourists and a logo for the cement

company. The only involvement of SEDESOL would need to be the arrangement of the

location for the sign and the wording, color choice, size, etc. The same idea could be

applied to brochures and other signage within the reserve.

Conclusion

Six major points can conclude the findings of this study. First, El Cielo does not

neatly fit into Clawson and Knetsch’s three categories of recreational areas. The reserve

receives a broad variety of uses and SEDESOL should consider the reserve as both an

intermediate and a resource recreation destination for tourists. Second, the reserve is

continually attracting new visitors. This suggests that visitor use planning and

management should be carried out with urgency. Plans that residents and SEDESOL

develop should be flexible to accommodate changing demands. Third, supply

improvements should be made in three primary areas: (1) dispersion of information about

the area and about available supply, (2) signage related to the trail system, and (3) the

quality of the interpretive services provided by guides. A fourth conclusion is that visitor

profiles can be identified and ranked by importance to the economy of the ejidos. The

development of visitor use plans should consider the future demands of and supply for

the identified visitor profiles. Fifth, the supply of goods, services, and infrastructure

49

meets demands by visitors, yet there is no mechanism to increase the supply as demands

increase. At the same time, there is no mechanism for keeping the demand in check,

which is the final conclusion, as resource protection and visitor usage management is

nonexistent.

The next logical step for ecotourism development in El Cielo is for SEDESOL to

develop a visitor management plan in conjunction with residents. Such a plan should be

flexible and should anticipate growth in visitation. The limits of acceptable change model

developed by the United States Forest Service

(Stankey, et al. 1985) has been successful when applied in ecotourism situations in Costa

Rica (Pederson 1996) and has been recommended by Mexican environmental tourism

leader Hector Ceballos (1994) as a prescription for development that can be successful in

Mexico. Moreover, the adoption of a limits of acceptable change approach to

management lends itself to participatory development by residents and avoids the social

and visitor experience limitations found in traditional range and wildlife management

concepts such as carrying capacity-based management planning (Stankey, McCool, and

Stokes 1984).

50

APPENDIX

51

[Representation of Original Survey Instrument in English]The original survey was formatted different on the front and back of one sheet of paper. The

questions below are the same, but reformatted for this digital copy.

El Cielo Visitor Survey Please complete one survey for each group traveling together.

1 I am traveling: (Circle one)Alone With an organized group With a family group With friends

2 Number of people traveling in your group. (Circle one.) 1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 more than 14

3 From which country does your group originate? Mexico United States Other write in the

country__________________

4 In which city does the majority of your group currently reside in or nearest to? (Circle one)Cd. Victoria Cd. Mante Cd. Madero Tampico Monterrey Mexico D.F. San Luis Potosí Saltillo Matamoros DallasSan Antonio Austin Houston Other write in the city _______________

5 Circle the age(s) of the members of your group. If there is more than one person per age group, write in the number of people underneath the age group.

Agerange 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65

Number of peoplein this age _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____range

66-70 71-75 76-80

_ ____ _____ _____

6 Circle your annual income range.US Dollars<US$10,000 - 19,999 US$20,000 - 29,999 US$30,000 - 39, 999

US$40,000 - 49,999 US$50,000 - 59,999 US$60,0000 - 69,999US$70,000 - 79,999 >US$80,000

7 By what method of transportation did you arrive in El Cielo? (Circle one)Automobile Private Bus Public Bus WalkBus/Walk Combination

8 Has your group visitied El Cielo before? (Circle one) Yes No If yes, how many times?___________

9 How many days will your group spend in El Cielo during this trip? (Circle one)Less than 1 day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 13 14 More than 14 days

10 Why has your group traveled to El Cielo? (Circle one)Visit family Birdwatch Backpack DayhikeCamp overnight Research/Study Visit for the day Family vacationOther _____________________________________

52

11 Estimate the amount of money your group spends each day in El Cielo. (Circle one)US$0 - 14 US$15 - 19 US$20 - 29 US$30 - 39 US$40 - 49 US$50 - 59>US$60

12 If your group stayed overnight in El Cileo, what facilities did your group use? (Circle all that apply)Campground near the Hotel El Pino Campsite in San José Backcountry campingFamily residence Canindo Research Station Hotel El PinoHotel in Gomes Farias

Please answer the following questions by circling the number closest your opinion.

Strongly KEY Strongly No Agree Disagree Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6

13 Is the lodging within El Cielo adequate for your group? 1 2 3 4 5 6What improvements could be made?

14 Is the trail system within El Cielo adequate for your group?1 2 3 4 5 6What improvements could be made?

15 Are the shower/bath facilities within El Cielo adequate for your group?1 2 3 4 5 6What improvements could be made?

16 Are the recreational opportunities adequate for your group?1 2 3 4 5 6What opportunities should be added?

17 Is the the restaurant La Fe adequate for your group?1 2 3 4 5 6What improvements could be made?

18 Is the information provided locally about El Cielo adequate for your group?1 2 3 4 5 6What additional information would you like to see?

19 Is the guide service within El Cielo adequate for your group?1 2 3 4 5 6What improvements could be made?

53

20 On the map of El Cielo below, please, put an X in any of the locations you visited

Thank you for your time. Please return this survey to La Fe Restaurant or to the drop boxoutside the gate at La Fe.

54

[Representation of Original Survey Instrument in Spanish]The original survey was formatted different on the front and back of one sheet of paper. The

questions below are the same, but reformatted for this digital copy.

Cuestionario de Visitadores en El Cielo Por favor, completa uncuestionario para cada grupo.

1 Estoy viajando: (Indique uno)Por mi mismo Con un grupo organizado Con un grupo familiar Con amigos

2 Numero de personas en su grupo. (Indique uno.) 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 mas de 14

3 ¿De donde viene su grupo? México Los Estados UnidosOtro que pais _____________________

4 ¿En que ciudad, o cerca de que ciudad, vive la mayoría de su grupo? (Indique uno)Cd. Victoria Cd. Mante Cd. Madero Tampico Monterrey Mexico D.F. San Luis Potosí Saltillo Matamoros DallasSan Antonio Austin Houston GuanajuatoOtro ciudad _______________________

5 Indique la(s) edad(es) de los miembros de su grupo é indique el numero de estas personas.Edad 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65

Número _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____de personasen este grupo.

66-70 71-75 76-80

_____ _____ _____

6 Indique su nivel de ingresos anuales.Pesos Nuevos<N$5,000 5,000 - 9,9999 10,000 - 19,999 20,000 - 29,999 30,000 - 39,999 40,000 - 49,99950,000 - 59,999 60,000 - 69,999 70,000 - 79,000 80,000 - 89,000 >90.000

7 ¿Que medio de transporte utilizó para llegar a El Cielo? (Indique uno)Automóvil Camión Privado Camión Público AndarCombinación de Camión/Andar

8 ¿Han visitado El Cielo anteriormente? (Indique uno) Sí ¿Cuantas veces?_______ No

9 ¿Cuantos dias se quedará Ud. y su grupo en El Cielo durante este viaje? (Indique uno)

Menos de un día 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 Mas de 14 días

55

10 ¿Cual es el motivo de su viaje a El Cielo? (Indique uno)Visitar familiars Observar pajaros Excursión Caminata AcamparVisita por un día Vacación familiarInvestigación/EstudiosOtro _________________________________

11 Calcule el promedio de dinero que su grupo gasta cada día en El Cielo. (Indique uno)N$0 - 69 N$70 - 139 N$140 - 214 N$215 - 299 N$300 - 359 N$360 - 439>N$440

12 ¿Si su grupo pernoctó en El Cielo, en donde se quedaron? (Indique todos que aplica)El campo cerca El Hotel El Pino Un campo en San José Un campo en el bosqueCasa de familia Estación Canindo Hotel El Pino Hotel en Gomez Farias Otro ______________________________

Por favor conteste las siguientes preguntas marcando el número que mas refleje suopinión.

Respuestas Exelente Muy Bueno Malo Muy Ninguna

bueno malo1 2 3 4 5 6

13 ¿Fue adecuado para su grupo el hospedaje en El Cielo?1 2 3 4 5 6¿Que mejoramientos recomendaría?

14 ¿Es adecuado el sistema de senderos dentro de El Cielo?1 2 3 4 5 6¿Que mejoramientos recomendaría?

15 ¿Son adecuados las facilidades de aseo e higiene dentro de El Cielo?1 2 3 4 5 6¿Que mejoramientos recomendaría?

16 ¿Son adecuadas las oportunidades recreativas para su grupo?1 2 3 4 5 6¿Que mejoramientos recomendaría?

17 ¿Es el restaurante La Fe adecuado para su grupo?1 2 3 4 5 6

¿Que mejoramientos recomendaría?

18 ¿Es adecuado la información local acerca de El Cielo?1 2 3 4 5 6

¿Que mas información le gustaría ver?

56

19 ¿Es adecuado el servicio de guías en El Cielo?1 2 3 4 5 6

¿Que mejoramientos recomendaría?

20 En el mapa de El Cielo que aparece abajo, por favor ponga una X en todos de los lugares que Ud. visitó.

Gracias por su tiempo. Por favor, regrese este cuestionario al restaurante La Fe o a lacasilla fuera de La Fe.

57

SOURCES CONSULTED

Bargur, Jona and Avner Arbel. 1976. A Comprehensive Approach to the Planning ofthe Tourist Industry. In Planning for Tourism Development: Quantitative Approaches, ed. CharlesE. Gearing, William W. Swart, and Turgut Var. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Barkin, David. 1996. Ecotourism: A Tool for Sustainable Development in an Era onInternational Integration? Paper presented at the Ecotourism Equation conference. In Forestry andEnvironmental Studies Bulletin. Yale University Chapter of the International Society for TropicalForestry.

Berrones Benitez, Eusebia and Margarita Reyes Arriaga. September 2, 1996.Representatives of La Grupa de Mujeres de Alta Cima. Interview by author. Alta Cima, Mexico.

Bracho, Henry & Rosa. 1994. El Bosque Mesófilo de Montaña de Tamaulipas (Themountain-tropical forest of Tamaulipas mountains). In Plan Comunitario de Manejo de RecursosNaturales (Community plan for natural resource management), ed. Armando Contreras andSergio Medellín. Ciudad Victoria: Terra Nostra A.C. y Instituto de Ecologia, A.C.

Butler, Richard. 1975. The Development of Tourism in the Canadian North andImplications for the Inuit with Supplementary Text. Renewable Resource Studies, Inuit Tapirisatof Canada. Ontario: University of Western Ontario and the University of Waterloo Ontario.

Caballos, Hector. 1994. Estrategia Nacional de Ecoturismo para México (National ecotourism strategy forMexico). Mexico D.F.: Secretaria de Turismo.

Clawson, Marion. 1963. Recreation as a Competitive Segment of Multiple Use. In Land and Water Use, ed. Wynee Thorne. Washington D.C.: American Association for theAdvancement of Science.

______ & Jack L. Knetsch. 1966. Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Crouch, Geoffrey I. 1994. The Study of International Tourist Demand: A Survey of Practice. Journal ofTravel Research 32:41-55.

de Vaus, D.A. 1991. Surveys in Social Research. 3rd edition. London: Allen & Unwin.

Dixon, Chris and Bridget Leach. 1984. Survey Research in Underdeveloped Countries. Norwich, England:Geo Books.

Drake, Susan. 1991a. Development of a Local Participation Plan for EcotourismProjects. In Ecotourism and Resource Conservation: Proceedings of the Second InternationalSymposium, ed. Jon A. Kusler. New York: Ecotourism and Resource Conservation: 252-268.

______. 1991b. Local Participation in Ecotourism Projects. In Nature Tourism:Managing for the Environment, ed. Tensie Whelan. Washington, D.C.: Island Press: 132-163.

Fennell, David A., and Paul F. J. Eagles.1990. Ecotourism in Costa Rica: AConceptual Framework. Journal of Park and Recreation Management 8:23-34.

Fox, Helen.1989. Nonformal Education Manual. Peace Corps Information Collectionand Exchange. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Training and Development.

Graefe, Alan R. 1990. Visitor Impact Management: The Planning Framework. Washington D.C.: NationalParks and Conservation Association.

58

Gunn, Clare A.1972. Vacationscape: Designing Tourist Regions. Austin: University of Texas Bureau of Business Research

______. 1994. Environmental Design and Land Use. In Travel, Tourism, andHospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers and Researchers, ed. J.R. Brent Ritchie andCharles R. Goeldner. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 243-258.

Jubenville, Alan.1993. Outdoor Recreation Management: Theory and Application.State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing.

Lara Plata, Lucio. 1996. El Ecoturismo como Alternativa de Desarrollo para lasComunidades Indígenas de México (Ecotourism as a development alternative for the indigenouscommunities of Mexico). National Indigenous Institute, Office of Research: Mexico.

Lindberg, Kreg and Richard M. Huber, Jr.1993. Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers. NorthBennington, Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.

Maykut, Pamela and Richard Morehouse.1994. Beginning Qualitative Research: APhilosophical and Practical Guide. Washington: Falmer Press.

Mathieson, Alister and Geoffrey Wall.1982. Tourism: Economic, Physical and SocialImpacts. New York: Longman.

Medellín Morales, Sergio and Armando Contreras.1994. Plan Comunitario deManejo de Recursos Naturales del Ejido Alta Cima (Community natural resource managementplan of the community of Alta Cima). Ciudad Victoria, Mexico: Proyecto ¡ORGANIZATE!, TerraNostra.

Mercer, David. 1973. The Concept of Recreational Need. Journal of Leisure Research 5: 37-49.

Metropolitan Area Planning Council. 1979. Assessing Recreation Demand. Boston: MAPC CouncilConnection.

Mitchell, Lisle S.1991. A Conceptual Matrix for the Study of Tourism. Aix enProvence, France: Université de Droit, d’Economie et des Sciences d’ Aix-Marseille.

______. 1994. Research on the Geography of Tourism. In Travel, Tourism, andHospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers and Researchers, ed. J.R. Brent Ritchie andCharles R. Goeldner. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 197-242.

Pederson, Arthur. 1991. Problems and Lessons Learned from Three EcotourismPlanning Projects. In Ecotourism and Resource Conservation: Proceedings of the SecondInternational Symposium, ed. Jon A. Kusler. New York: Ecotourism and Resource Conservation.

_____. December 1996. Wildlands Recreation and Tourism Planner. Interview byauthor. Austin, Texas.

______ and Hector Ceballos-Lascurain. nd. Nature-Oriented Tourism in the State ofGuerrero, Mexico: Issues and Recommended Policies for Local Economic Development.Washington, D.C.: Commission for the Study of International Migration and CooperativeEconomic Development.

59

Piddington, R. 1950. An Introduction to Social Anthropology, Vol. 1. London: Oliver and Boyd.

Ramírez Ochoa, Isabel María,. May 9, 1995a. Chief of Natural Resources, SEDESOL-Tamaulipas.Interview by author. Ciudad Victoria, Mexico.

______. January 2, 1995. Reporte de la Afluencia de Visitantes a la Estacion Canindo(Canindo Research Station visitation report). Cd. Victoria, Mexico: SEDESOL-Tamaulipas.

Robson, Colin.1993. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers.Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Rossi, Peter H., James D. Wright, and Andy B. Anderson. 1983. Handbook of Survey Research. New York:Academic Press.

Shivers, Jay S. & George Hjelte. 1971. Planning Recreational Places. Cranbury, New Jersey: AssociatedUniversity Press, Inc.

Slocomb, Scott D. 1993. Environmental Planning, Ecosystem Science, and Ecosystem Approaches forIntegrating Environment and Development. Environmental Management 17: 289-303.

Smith, Stephen L.J. 1989. Tourism Analysis: A Handbook. New York: Longman Scientific and Technical.

Stankey, George H., Stephen F. McCool, and Gerald L. Stokes. 1984. Limits of Acceptable Change: A NewFramework for Managing the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. [Online] Available URLhttp://www.wilderness.umt.edu/recm495d/Apdx_C.html [Accessed October 11, 1997].

_____, David N. Cole, Robert C. Lucas, Margaret E. Pederson, and Sidney S. Frissell.1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change System for Wilderness Planning. United States Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, GeneralTechnical Report INT-176.

Wall, G. 1978. Competition and Complentarity: A Study in Park Visitation. International Journal ofEnvironmental Studies 13: 35-41.

Walker, Scott. 1996. Ecotourism Impact Awareness. Annals of Tourism Research 23: 944-946.

Wolfe, Roy I. 1964. Perspective on Outdoor Recreation: A Bibliographic Survey.Geographical Review 54: 203-238.

Woodley, Allison. 1993. Tourism and Sustainable Development: The CommunityPerspective. In Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing, ed. J.G.Nelson, R. Butler, and G. Wall, Department of Geography Publication Series number 37.Waterloo: University of Waterloo: 136-147.

Woodley, Stephan. 1993. Tourism and Sustainable Development in Parks andProtected Areas. In Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing, ed.J.G. Nelson, R. Butler, and G. Wall, Department of Geography Publication Series Number 37.Waterloo: University of Waterloo.

Zambrano, Alex. 1994. Interpretation Ambiental en la Reserva de la Biosfera ElCielo, Tamaulipas (Environmental interpretation in El Cielo Biosphere Reserve, Tamaulipas).Monterrey, Mexico: Desarrollo Ecológico y de Sobrevivencia Integral, Unpublished projectproposal, photocopied.

60

VITA

Scott Walker is a native Texan, born August 31, 1965 in San Antonio, Texas toAlthea Walker (Elliott) and Charles Walker. After graduation from Livingston HighSchool, Livingston, Texas, in 1983, he entered Sam Houston State University, Huntsville,Texas. Scott was the first person in his family to obtain a university degree. He graduatedwith a B.A. in Photography in December, 1987. He then worked in San Diego, Californiaas a freelance photographer and guide/environmental educator before returning to Texasto work with the U.S. National Park Service. In August, 1993, he entered graduate schoolin the Geography and Planning Department at Southwest Texas State University, SanMarcos, Texas, while working for the Texas Natural Resource ConservationCommission. He is currently on the Education Department staff of Our Lady of the LakeUniversity in San Antonio, Texas, lending support to a geoscience grant project inconjunction with NASA and San Antonio College.

Associated publications include:

Walker, Scott L. In Process. Online International Ecotourism Conference. Annals of Tourism Research.

_____. 1997. Snorkeling in the Desert: A Practical Guide to Cuatro Cienegas. EcoTravels in Mexico; Cuatro Cienegas Home Page, May. [Online] Available URLhttp://www2.planeta.com/mader/ecotravel/border/cienegas.html.

_____. 1997. A Practical Guide to El Cielo. El Planeta Platica: Eco Travels in Latin America; Local Communities, Mountains and Sierra Issue, August vol. 4, no. 3. [Online] Available URL ttp://www2.planeta.com/mader/planeta/0897/0897.html.

_____. 1997. Death Ranks Sixth. El Planeta Platica: Eco Travels in Latin America;Local Communities, Environment and Tourism Issue, November vol. 4, no. 4.[Online] Available URL ttp://www2.planeta.com/mader/planeta/1197/1197.html.

_____. 1997. Perceived Impacts of Ecotourism Development. Annals of Tourism Research 24: 743-745.

_____. 1996. Ecotourism Impact Awareness. Annals of Tourism Research 23: 944-945.

Permanent Address: 1022 MLKSan Marcos, Texas 78666

E-Mail (Mar. 1998): elcielo@geocities.com

This thesis was typed and produced by the author.