Local Attitudinal Responses to Tourism Development in the South-Eastern Caribbean Towns of Cahuita and Puerto Viejo de

Talamanca, Costa Rica

By: Bailey Stein

Due: December 4th, 2015

1

Abstract

The research objective of this project, conducted from October 31st – November 25th, 2015, is to examine the development life-cycle of tourism and the attitudinal responses of locals in the towns of Cahuita and Puerto Viejo de Talamanca in the Province of Limón, Costa Rica. I used semi-structured interviews to explore the attitudes of local residents and tourist companies through a series of pre-determined questions. Doxey’s Irritation Irridex of Tourism is used as a guideline to observe the attitudes of locals and companies on a scale to create a quantitative rating of their sentiments toward the tourism market. The stages of this scale are a range from euphoria, apathy, annoyance to antagonism. The length that the individuals or companies have lived in the towns is also assessed to determine when tourism entered the area and approximately gage the stage of tourism development, according to Butler’s life-cycle development model. In total, 50 interviews were collected; 20 local residents and 5 businesses from each town. The results showed a difference between the two towns; Cahuitan locals being between the euphoria and apathy stage, while locals in Puerto Viejo were clearly in apathy and approaching annoyance with tourism. Both towns are placed between the development and consolidation stages of Butler’s model due to the survey results. The interview questions implicated good perceptions of the relationships and positive benefits of tourism, yet further in depth observations demonstrated numerous perceived disadvantages to the industry as well. This study of local relationships with tourists can be utilized to aid in future management efforts and increase awareness of local sentiments toward their primary economic resource; the tourism industry.

El objetivo de esto proyecto, realizado entre Octubre 31st – Noviembre 25th, 2015, es investigar el desarrollo de turismo y las actitudes de locales en los pueblos de Cahuita y Puerto Viejo de Talamanca en la provincia de Limón, Costa Rica. Usé entrevistas semiestructuradas a investigar las actitudes de los residentes locales y las compañías de turismo entre cuestiones predeterminadas. Doxey’s Irridex de Turismo está usado para una guía a observar las actitudes de locales y compañías en un escala para crear un evaluación cuantitativa de los sentimientos a el mercado de turismo. Las etapas de esta escala son en un alcance de euforia, apatía, molestia a antagonismo. El tiempo que los individuales o compañías han vivido en los pueblos es también considerado a determinar cuándo turismo entró el área y aproximadamente que es la etapa de desarrollo turístico, de acuerdo al modelo de desarrollo turístico de Butler. En total, 50 entrevistas estuvieron colectados; 20 residentes locales y 5 negocios en los dos pueblos. Los resueltos muestran una diferencia entre los dos pueblos; los locales de Cahuita están entre las etapas de euforia y apatía, mientras los locales de Puerto Viejo están en las etapas entre apatía y acercando molestia con turismo. Los dos pueblos están entre las etapas de desarrollo y consolidación en el modelo de desarrollo turístico de Butler a causa de los resueltos de la encuesta. Las cuestiones de la entrevista implican percepciones buenas para las relaciones y beneficios positivos de turismo, aun las observaciones más profundos demuestran desventajas perceptivas a la industria de turismo también. Esto estudio de relaciones locales con los/las turistas pueden estar utilizado a ayudar en gestión del futuro y crecer conciencia de los sentimientos locales a su recurso primaria económica, la industria de turismo.

2

Introduction:

Tourism is defined as the commercial organization and operation of vacations and visits to places of interest. There are many different types including; ecotourism, rural, community and many others which are all seen within the boundaries of Costa Rica, a culturally rich and ecologically biodiverse country. Understanding local attitudes toward tourism development is vital to the success and sustainability of these tourist organizations (Dogan 2009). The Caribbean coast of Costa Rica is a highly sought after tourist destination due to its immense natural resource attractions and cultural diversity. Within the province of Limón exists the towns of Cahuita, with its national park and prosperous coral reef and Puerto Viejo de Talamanca, one of the country’s top small town beach destinations with unique night life. These 2 small tourist destinations are located along the South East Caribbean coast in the province Limón at 9 degrees 44’ 20”N 82 degrees 50’ 44”W and 9 degrees 39’ 30”N & 82 degrees 45’ 10”W, respectively. Examining perceptions and attitudes of local residents to the tourism development in these areas, will allow for increased knowledge of community involvement and methods for future management and development. It is clear that tourist destinations evolve and change over time, therefore demonstrating their dynamic nature in relation to the native population (Butler 2006).

In order to clarify impacts of tourism numerous models have been developed, one of the most influential being; Doxey’s Irridex model (Figure 2) which discusses stages of resident attitudes toward tourism (Wang 2006). Doxey’s Irritation Irridex of Tourism Model suggests that communities pass through a sequence of reactions involving the tourism industry in their area and these perceptions become more pronounced and their attitudes change with experience (Faulkner 1997). This model begins with an initial stage of euphoria and is succeeded by apathy, annoyance and antagonism (Faulkner 1997). This theory assumes that as tourism develops in an area the local attitudes toward the industry will diminish, due to a variety of factors. These levels of attitudinal responses are often based in the direct or indirect relationship that locals have with tourism (Doxey 1975). Beginning with euphoria, this signifies locals are happy that, although few, tourists are interested in their area and experience good and informal relationships with tourists. Doxey’s model suggests that as tourism increases apathy will ensue, meaning that the tourists are viewed as a source of money and the relationship with locals becomes more formal (Doxey 1975). Finally, annoyance and antagonism develop as the destination attracts more tourists through specific infrastructure for tourism, over-development and negative impacts which are the fault of the tourists (Doxey 1975). However, this model also assumes a level of homogeneity and uni-directional movement of community reactions; not always seen in tourist communities, which rather experience heterogeneity. The results may also depend on the active or more passive role which the community members play as well as their level of involvement with the tourism industry (Faulkner 1997). It is also important to note that different sectors of a community will have differing attitudes toward tourism and therefore allow for over-lapping and coinciding stages of the model to be present.

Tourism has numerous effects on local culture and changes the community as a whole; in both negative and positive ways. Some communities become overly focused on the monetary value generated by tourism, while degrading the environment or losing their host culture which was the instigation for tourism in the first place (Butler 2006). The World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) has stated that as of the year 2014, tourism contributed 9.8% to the world’s GDP and nearly 277 million people are employed through tourism, meaning that 1 in 11 people in the world work in this sector.

3

There is an expected growth of 3.8% annually, demonstrating the grand importance of the tourism sector in the world’s economy (WTTC 2015). However, we do not want to lose sight of the local communities in which these tourism projects are being conducted and the locals that inhabited the area before it became a tourist destination. Because of that, this study between Cahuita and Puerto Viejo will analyze the attitudes of locals to tourism at different levels of tourism involvement within the towns.

Tourism Development Life Cycles:

Every tourist destination is said to go through a gradual life-cycle of development, in which evolution of the town takes place and local attitudes change in accordance with the life-cycle changes (Butler 1980). This can be demonstrated on a basic asymptotic curve as the number of visitors increase and the destination becomes degraded, thus following a life-cycle that begins with exploration and ends with stagnation Figure 1 & Figure 3 (Butler 1980). This model describes the growth of visitors to a tourist destination with small numbers initially and eventually in accordance with marketing and facility provisions, growth will expand, sometimes beyond the current local population. These rapid levels of increase can reach carrying capacity which may be identified in terms of environmental or social factors (Butler 1980). In the later stages of this model we see stagnation and possible decline which is often associated with degradation of attractiveness of the area itself as well as overuse of the area and declining desire of visitors to return (Butler 1980). These stages of development are also said to attract specific types of tourists throughout an areas development life-cycle. Specifically, the adventurous travelers come during the exploration stage, into a newly identified area wishing to explore the destination. Next, those who appreciate tourist accommodations and facilities come to visit the area as growth increases and the area becomes more accessible during the developmental stage. While, lastly the calmer traveler’s visit the area as it gets older and outdated with little differences to the country of origin of the travelers, which is seen during the consolidation and stagnation stages. Using both of these models and the local perceptions gathered through interviews I will establish the stage of development in Cahuita and Puerto Viejo and the overall local attitude toward tourism development. Many of the attitudes are influenced by numerous conditions such as; proximity of locals to tourism sites, length of living in the area, jobs related to the tourist market and many others (Husbands 1989). It must be acknowledged that these are hypothetical models and every town will not fit directly into one category, therefore assumptions are made to create a level of understanding of both development and attitudinal responses to tourism within the two towns.

A case study conducted in Singapore represents the use of each of these models in regards to tourism development and local attitudes toward the industry. In Teo’s study of Singapore in 1991 he noted that locals had a view of tourists receiving better service and increasing prices of the town, but mostly for the reason of leaching more money from them. This study contained 320 Singaporean respondents. In the analysis it was found that residents have gone beyond the euphoria stage and are in the state of apathy, within Doxey’s Irridex (Teo 1994). This result was concluded from the continued welcoming of tourists by locals for their positive economic benefits and the observed short and formal interactions between the two groups, signifying that apathy was present as the locals viewed tourists as solely a monetary benefit (Teo 1994). Regarding Buter’s model of tourism; life-cycle development in Singapore was seen to have reached the consolidation stage, where the growth rate decreases yet overall visitor numbers are still increasing and exceeds the local population, as witnessed by the tourism development plan implemented by the government (Teo 1994). There is a point where saturation is

4

reached and then stagnation occurs, however accommodations can be made, often on part of the government where tourism can still be upheld and not need a rejuvenation stage (Teo 1994). This is a beneficial case study to review the utility of both tourism models and how they can be applied to other tourist destinations such as; Cahuita and Puerto Viejo de Talamanca, Costa Rica.

Story of development:

Cahuita:

Cahuita just recently celebrated 100 years after the town’s foundation in 1915, currently housing 8,293 residents. The uniqueness of the Southeastern Caribbean area and the pioneers which decided the beach was going to be their home created a precedent for the creation of this historic town. The article by costaricaway.net further describes that this history cannot be forgotten; “new laws, new regulatory plans, new projects and new interests must think and take into account the uniqueness of this land and its inhabitants…In Cahuita and Talamanca’s future plans there has to be room for everyone” (costaricaway.net 2015). This formally mentions the expansion of the city through tourist efforts yet demands respect for the historical traditions and people of the region. It also alludes to the importance of a study which assesses the local sentiments toward tourism in regards to future planning. The coral reefs, a huge part of Cahuita’s history, provided shelter for ships and also instigated the population growth of the region due to its ability to foster diverse species such as turtles, which became a primary attraction for settling in the area (costaricaway.net 2015). William Smith was the main founder of Cahuita, who originated from Jamaica, but decided to settle in Cahuita in 1828 (costaricaway.net 2015). As the community began to grow foreign companies recognized the potential and came into exploit the natural resources; for example, the United Fruit Company, Sinclair oil company and many others. Yet, the coastline was relatively untouched by these companies so the natives remained in their coastal communities and continued small conducting small crop and product trade. Coconut and cacao were the main crops along with subsistence fishing activities, yet when the Monilia fungus disease hit the cacao crop, Cahuitans and numerous other regions had to turn to a new market for their primary income (Girot 1998).

In 1978, the Cahuita National Park was created to conserve the biodiversity and abundant wildlife, which is now the pride and joy of Cahuita’s inhabitants and attracts international travelers from all over the world. Today and the past few decades, Cahuita has turned toward tourism to offer travelers the opportunity to discover Afro-Caribbean culture and the natural environment that was originally discovered by the first settlers. The entire Caribbean coast attracts international tourism, yet the census has determined that tourism provides 8% of jobs for the Atlantic coast in general, yet in Cahuita it is closer to 20% (Alfaro 2007). This demonstrates the immense importance and dependence which these locals have on the tourism market.

Puerto Viejo:

Similar to Cahuita, Puerto Viejo has a rich history in regards to its development. Previously called Old Harbor until the Costa Rican government changed the official language from English to Spanish and instituted Puerto Viejo as its new title. Like Cahuita, Puerto Viejo’s past economic structure was based on agriculture, dependent on bananas and cacao. This created some of the biggest changes in the region due to the expansion of foreign investment, migration and later development of tourism (Alfaro 2007). The region not only grew in number, but also in diversity containing its native indigenous

5

tribes, Afro-Caribbean migrants, members of the foreign investing companies as well as other migrants who moved to work in the area. Alfaro (2007); describes that the cacao production was primarily seen from 1960-1970, while in 1980-2000, Puerto Viejo slowly developed in a touristic zone. This drastic change was primarily brought about by the Monilia disease mentioned above which aggressively attacked cacao crops and made it a non-viable source of income for a huge part of the economic sector (Alfaro 2007). The banana companies also created much struggle in the development of the area due to their low paid wages, long hours and mis-treatment of workers. Strikes ensued, along with the creation of workers-labor unions, which fought the companies for better treatment and pay (Alfaro 2007). However, during this time the tourism sector was also growing and many switched to this new line of work instead of fighting the foreign transnational giants. Recently, local polls have shown that at least 30% of the population in Puerto Viejo have jobs associated with tourism, yet it is fair to assume that many others are indirectly affected by it as well (Alfaro 2007). Now, Puerto Viejo, is well-known as a popular tourist destination throughout the world for its spectacular beaches, culture and accommodations which cater to the tourism market and allow for a diverse flow of visitors to consistently support the little town on Costa Ricans Caribbean coast.

Research Problem/Objective:

The research objective of my project is to examine the development life-cycle of tourism and the attitudinal responses of locals in the towns of Cahuita and Puerto Viejo de Talamanca in the Province of Limón, Costa Rica. This case study will provide knowledge of the community’s attitude toward the existence of tourism in an important area involving the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica and the difference between two towns in different stages of tourism development. This study can aid future management methods for monitoring tourism activities and possibly gage the level of community involvement and attitudes toward the tourism within their respective towns.

Sub-Objectives:

Other objectives which will be addressed in the research and implicate the attitudes of locals toward tourism will include:

o Examining cultural impact perceptions of tourism development in the respective townso Examining environmental impacts perceptions of localso Observing the level of tourism in both towns to see if there is a difference in

development stage o Observing type of tourist stereotypes & activity differences o Examining a possible shift in tourism from one town to the other to demonstrate

difference stages of tourism development (Cahuita Puerto Viejo)

Methodology:

I conducted a convenience sample of interviews among native locals and tourist companies within the towns of Puerto Viejo de Talamanca and Cahuita between the dates of October 31 st and November 25th, 2015. These 2 small tourist destinations are located along the South East Caribbean coast in the province Limón at 9 degrees 44’ 20”N 82 degrees 50’ 44”W and 9 degrees 39’ 30”N & 82 degrees 45’ 10”W, respectively. I used semi-structured interviews to explore the attitudes of local residents and tourist companies through a series of pre-determined questions. Doxey’s Irritation Irridex

6

of Tourism is used as a guideline to observe the attitudes of locals and companies on a scale to create a quantitative rating of their sentiments toward the tourism market. The stages of this scale are a range from euphoria, apathy, annoyance to antagonism. The length that the individuals or companies have lived in the towns is also assessed to determine when tourism entered the area and approximately gage the stage of tourism development. The tourist companies were owned by either local natives or foreign investors. In Cahuita I interviewed; Coco Boutique, Tur Marisenos, Miss Edith’s Restaurant, Hakuna Matata Hostel and my key informant Jorge the owner of Willie’s Tours Costa Rica. In Puerto Viejo, Mar Boutique, Costa Rica Way Travel, ATEC, a bike shop owner and the owner of a souvenir shop. It was more difficult to find the owners of the more established and well-known businesses.

The locals were chosen at random and asked for interviews voluntarily, I later determined the length at which they had lived in the town. I utilized a semi-structured pre-determined question based interview. I had planned to conduct 10 interviews with native locals and 10 with tourist companies in each town; in total 40 interviews. However, I revised the number of interview subjects due to constrictions as well as developing beneficial information. I felt that the local interviews would be much more diverse and provide ample data to analyze while the tourist businesses would likely have similar attitudes toward tourism development in their respective towns. Therefore, I revised my interview numbers to 20 local inhabitants and 5 business owners within each town, thus conducting 50 interviews in total. The questions differed slightly on the basis of whom is being interviewed (company or local). Yet, both groups were assessed through asking questions relevant to Doxey’s Irritation Irridex of Tourism to determine their attitude toward the tourism development in their towns, which can be seen in Appendix 4, 5&6.

I began each interview with an introduction stating that I am a student studying tourism in the area. I would elaborate on my project if further questions were asked; ranging from where I was from, what institution I was with and where the information was going to be published. From there I would follow my interview questions and survey; however, if they went further into depth into a specific part of the interview I would delve deeper and sometimes ask follow-up questions to gain a full understanding of their opinions and importance in the specific subject which they brought up. Sometimes, questions had been previously answered during the conversation therefore I skipped some later questions in this event. The last question in the survey required them to read the options to describe their relationship with tourists and I would hand them the interview sheet (written in Spanish) and they would choose the best option, which I would then write down in my notebook. For the survey I also handed them a sheet written in Spanish which they would read the 3 questions and respond with the best answer for each (Appendix 6). Sometimes, respondents couldn’t chose 1 option and instead decided that there was conflicting options which were all expressed in the town’s sentiments, in this instance up to 2 or 3 answers were chosen for the question. The majority of respondents read and responded to the survey with ease, however 1 didn’t read Spanish and 1 didn’t have her reading glasses so I had to translate or ask the questions orally in these cases. After recording all of their responses I would thank them for their time and help with my research.

Results:

Gender, Age and Language

In both towns, Cahuita and Puerto Viejo, interviews were conducted to determine local sentiments toward tourism. In Cahuita, 5 local respondents were male, while the remaining 15 were

7

female. Business interviewees in Cahuita contained 3 males and 2 females. In Puerto Viejo, 7 local interviewees were males, while 13 were female. Businesses interviewed contained 2 males and 3 female owners. The ages ranged from 20-67 in Cahuita and 21-67 in Puerto Viejo (Figure 8). The average age of the respondents in Cahuita was 38.11 years, while the average age in Puerto Viejo was 39.95 (Table 3). Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish according to the abilities and desire of the respondents. Out of the 50 total interviews conducted 28%, 14 of them, were conducted in English, while the remaining 72%, 36 interviews, were conducted in Spanish.

Local Perceptions of Relationship with Tourists:

When the local residents in both towns were questioned about their relationship with tourists the majority replied saying it was a good relationship and that they are interested in the lives of the tourists. Out of 20 locals in each town, 14 responded in both with this answer, and commented on a good relationship. The next most common answer was that the relationship is formal and that the tourists are viewed as a source of money, 4 locals in Cahuita chose this answer, while only 3 in Puerto Viejo chose this. The next option was that the locals are frustrated with tourists because of specific development only for tourists, none of the locals in Cahuita chose this answer, while 3 in Puerto Viejo did. The final option was focused on sentiments of anger toward the tourists and described how there are negative impacts which are the fault of the tourists. This response generated only 1 answer in Cahuita and 0 in Puerto Viejo. This relationship and comparison between the 2 towns can be seen in Figure 4.

Business Perceptions of Tourist Relationships:

Out of the 5 business owners in each town, 4 in both responded as having a good relationship with tourists and being highly interested in their lives back home and here during their travels. However, 1 subject stated that it was part of his job while running a tour guide company to be interested in the lives of tourists or else he would not have a successful business. Puerto Viejo had 1 respondent which considered tourists to be only a source of money, while none responded in this manner in Cahuita. However, each town had 1 business owner who responded with being frustrated with tourists due to development specifically designed for tourists, while only 1 in Puerto Viejo described their relationship as angered by the negative impacts that the tourists were bringing to their town (Figure 5).

Local Survey Responses Cahuita:

The survey questions were designed to assess different aspects of tourism within each town (Appendix 6). Question #1 addresses the level of tourism development of both towns, question #2 assesses the attitudes of local residents toward tourism and question #3, the sentiments of local residents toward the tourists themselves. The number of responses varied per town for every question. The answers for Question #1 which asked which response best describes the touristic development of the area; contained the 6/20 for answer C in Cahuita (Table 1). This means that the most respondents for Cahuita thought that the destination is in development and the number of tourists are increasing, while also having positive changes on both the culture and the natural environment. The next most popular choice (5/20) was A, stating that the town had few visitors and tourism was new. Consequentially, D, E and B were the next most popular choices with D and E each having 4 responses and B having 2 (Figure 6).

8

Question #2; asked to describe the sentiments of locals about the tourism in the area. Cahuita contained 11/20 responses for A, stating that the local people are happy that the tourists are interested in their town. Response B, the local people are enthusiastic about the idea of visitors had 6/20 responses, C, tourists are taken for granted had 1 responses, and D, the local people only view the tourists as a source of money had 4 responses while E; the local people blame the tourists for all negative impacts had 0 responses (Table 1).

Question #3; asked about the description of the relationship among the local residents and the tourists. Majority 16/20 responded with A, a good relationship between locals and tourists where they are interested in the activities and lives of the tourists. Next most common answer was D 2/20; over-development annoys the local people and they are frustrated with the tourism industry (Table 1). Both B, the relationship is formal and the locals are not as interested and C, the local people are un-interested in the activities of the tourists when the numbers increase and the relationship is degraded, had 1 response (Table 1).

Local Survey Responses Puerto Viejo:

Question #1; about the development of the area contained 4/20 for the answer stating the destination has few visitors and is new to tourism, 8/20 described the location as growing with tourism as infrastructure changes with maintenance of local values, 3/20 for the development is growing and there are positive impacts on the environment and culture, 5/20 for tourist numeric growth, but negative changes to culture and environment and 1/20 for the development is only producing negative impacts. The survey questions and options are listed in Appendix 6.

Question #2; describing the locals sentiments to tourism contained 12/20 answers for local people are happy that tourists are interested in their town, 4/20 answers for local people are enthusiastic about visitors, none for the tourists are taken for granted, 4/20 answers for local people only view tourists as a source of money and 1/20 answers for the local people blame the tourists for all of the negative impacts.

Question #3; describing the local residents perceived relationship with the tourists contained; 12/20 answers for a good relationship where locals are interested in the lives of tourists, 4/20 answers for the relationship is formal and locals are not as interested in the lives of the tourists, 3/20 answers for the local people are un-interested with tourists as their numbers grow, 2/20 answers for over-development annoys the local people and they are frustrated with the tourism industry and none for the local people are angered by the tourists. All of these responses are listed in comparison to Cahuita in Table 1.

Beginning of Tourism:

In Cahuita the most common response for when tourism began was between 1975 – 1985, which corresponds directly to the creation and promotion of the national park. Whereas, Puerto Viejo residents stated that tourism began in 1985 – 1995 and has been continually growing. Also, many of my subjects discussed how there has been a shift in tourism from Cahuita to Puerto Viejo within recent years. Tourism is supposedly still growing in both areas, as the majority of the residents hope for more people to come in and bring economic gain, yet the changes in the areas have created many differing sentiments toward the tourism industry. The most common response for why tourists want to visit the

9

area was a variation on the beauty, beaches and tranquility of the area which was described by 100% of the respondents in both towns. Numerous interviewees when asked about whether more people live in the area due to tourism responded positively stating there were numerous amounts. Many described that a variety of tourists simply come, end up loving the area and buying land to stay and live. Some describes foreign business involvement in their cities, yet this was much more common among responses in Puerto Viejo than Cahuita. Cahuita inhabitants claimed to be mostly run by locals with small business owners, while Puerto Viejo hardly had any locally owned businesses left and primarily functioned through the growth of foreign business aid. This could directly relate to the stages of tourism development within each town as well as contribute to the local sentiments toward the tourists.

Perceived Cultural and Environmental Changes / Advantages and Disadvantages:

Specifically, cultural and environmental changes were addressed due to their relevance to local attitudes toward tourism and community well-being as a whole. In Cahuita there was a sense of protection that was said to come with tourism. Due to the creation of the park and the intrigue of the town for its environment, the locals feel that it is also protected by the tourists and the money they bring in. As for culture; Cahuitans believe that a mix has been created from all the diversity which tourism brings. Some believe this is a benefit, creating a universal view of the world, with shared knowledge and ideas, 6/20 respondents, while 7/20 respondents recognize the loss of local music traditions, increase in drug trade and adoption of the tourist lifestyle for the town’s youth. Regarding the advantages and disadvantages of tourism in Cahuita 100% of respondents stated economic gain as an advantage, while others consisted of meeting new people, 4/20, and learned about other countries and the world, 6/20. Disadvantages ranged along the lines of increasing crime (3/20), youth copying the tourist lifestyle (2/20), increased drug trade (11/20) and the seasonal lags (8/20) when tourism is low and money doesn’t come into the town.

Puerto Viejo, while very similar to the sentiments of locals in Cahuita had some differences. One subject described the change in culture through food, by associating changes from traditional foods like rice and beans to the now more commonly sold pizza, Italian and other types of foods. She stated that these have been imported for the tourists and drain the traditional culture from the area. She states that “I don’t change, but other businesses change – I do my culture because it is what I know”. She is a 67 year old local in Puerto Viejo, who has lived there for over 40 years. Also, respondents described the increase in the English language as the primary means of communication, as well as increase in migration to the area including foreign business owners and from bordering countries looking for work. Similar to Cahuita, the existence of drug trade and young men using this as their line of work was consistently stated throughout the local interviews (5/20). In regards to the natural environment, few responders described significant changes. However, those which appeared more knowledgeable about the subject described immense deforestation, loss of animal species, and loss of traditional methods of agriculture and fishing for more environmentally intensive methods (4/20). These changes were brought about by increasing infrastructure and development according to a few local respondents who described Puerto Viejo as being much more natural in the past, while now there are more businesses and focus on economic gain. The advantages described were similar to Cahuita; economic gain, knowing other people and understanding other cultures (15/20). However, the list of disadvantages is immense; describing loss of culture, increase in prostitution, drug trade, environmental pollution and overall dependence on the unstable system of tourism (9/20). The seasonal influx of tourism and yearly change in levels were stated as a huge factor in people’s happiness, and life satisfaction because if tourism

10

wasn’t high the community had no other method of making money. This was seen in both towns where the excessive dependence on one sector of the economy left them indebted to the tourists and the industry which brings them there.

Discussion:

Doxey’s Irritation Index Classification:

Through using Doxey’s Irridex of Tourism to assess the relationships of local residents and tourist’s one can establish a sense for the community’s sentiments toward tourism and therefore implement future management strategic planning according to these desires (Faulkner 1997). As seen in the results (Figure 4) the local residents of each town have similar sentiments toward tourists. The majority 14/20 respondents described a good relationship with the tourists that they encounter in their town. Thus, only leaving 6 respondents that didn’t share this positive attitude. Others in the towns saw tourists as solely a source of money, while some were frustrated or angered by tourists and their negative impacts on the community. This range of responses makes it difficult to categorize the populations into a single category of Doxey’s Irridex. However, from the responses given and what was observed through various personal communications I would assume that the town of Cahuita would be placed between euphoria and apathy since all but one responded stated either a good relationship or viewing tourists as a source of money. On the other hand, Puerto Viejo had 3 respondents who said they were frustrated with tourists because of specific infrastructure created for the tourists, while Cahuita had 0 (Figure 5). Through these results and further analysis of the personal communications I would place Puerto Viejo in Doxey’s category of apathy with some residents leaning toward annoyance. This rating was caused by the many residents which discussed increased prices, drugs and the party reputation of the town as a disadvantage of tourism in the area. Local people were very disheartened by this change in their home and local culture. This leads me to believe that from the small sample which I gathered there are most likely many more residents who have similar sentiments along the lines of annoyance and apathy.

Furthermore the survey answers also provide insight on the sentiments of the locals toward tourism and how they view the community as a whole feels about the industry and the tourists. Questions #2&3 from the survey are relevant to local sentiments toward tourism which can been seen in Table 1. The majority of the respondents in Cahuita (17/20) responded that the local people are happy that tourists are interested in their town and are enthusiastic about the idea of visitors (Table 1). The remaining respondents answered in the manner that tourists are taken for granted and/or looked at as solely a source of money (5/20). This demonstrates again that there is still a sense of euphoria over the idea of tourism in the area, but apathy is possibly being approached due to the answers which demonstrate money as the main interest for locals in regards to tourists. In Puerto Viejo, the majority of locals (16/20) were also happy about interested tourists and enthusiastic, while the remaining (5/20) stated they view tourists as a source of money and/or blame the tourists for all the negative impacts which are occurring in the town (Table 1). This demonstrates more extreme sentiments than we saw in Cahuita due to blaming of tourists for negative impacts, thus supporting the categorization of apathy and annoyance to describe local sentiments in Puerto Viejo.

Butler’s Life-Cycle Development Curve:

11

Question #1 of the survey directly applies to Butler’s development scale which was used to determine the tourism stage of development. There was a diverse amount of answers for this question making it difficult to place each town into a category of development. However, according to the results from locals in Table 1, the majority of residents described their town as in development, the number of tourist’s increases causing positive changes to the culture and the environment of the area. In Puerto Viejo the most common answer to the development question was that their town was growing and infrastructure was changing, but there was a maintenance of local values and culture. Using the results of this question and observations from personal communications I would place both Cahuita and Puerto Viejo between the development and consolidation stages, according the Butler’s life-cycle of development scale. This signifies that the towns are a well-defined tourist market area while still containing local involvement and control, but are likely to lose this in the near future (Butler 1980). Interestingly, Alfaro’s article discusses the percentage of local versus foreign companies in each area; Puerto Viejo containing 36% foreign business owners while Cahuita has risen to almost 65% (Alfaro 2007). These drastic observations point toward Butler’s consolidation stage where; changes in physical appearances of the area are starting to appear as peak periods of tourism exceed the local permanent population. The rate of increase of visitors will decline, although the total numbers will still increase and a huge part of the town’s economy will be intertwined with the tourism market (Butler 1980). From interviews with numerous subjects in both towns this is clearly the cycle which the towns are entering. Many comments were made discussing the slowing of seasonal growth of tourism and extreme dependence which the towns have on the tourism market. Butler 1980, even states that “such trends are evident in areas of the Caribbean and on the northern Mediterranean coast”.

Personal Observations and Conclusions:

My stay in these two towns was short, although very informative. I talked with numerous people for hours about the town’s influx of tourism and the history which led them to choose this method of economic income. I believe that there is a strong disconnect between the local populations perceptions of tourism and their economic dependence on the industry. I saw this stemming from the results of my surveys and the overall descriptions of disadvantages of tourism. As we see in Tables 1&2, the overall perceptions of tourism are favorable; with the majority of locals answering that good relationships are maintained and that development and tourism are beneficial to the community. However, from the further descriptions of the disadvantages category I noticed numerous statements about corruption of youth, loss of tradition values as well as increases in drug trade, prostitution and prices. This is the disconnect which I believe exists among the data set because the local people perceive tourism as beneficial in an economic sense, which blurs their vision to the disadvantages until directly asked what consequences there are to these types of tourist destinations.

Future Implications:

Cahuita and Puerto Viejo are small tourist cities and the residents wish to keep their local culture, people and values ingrained in the society, yet they are also heavily reliant on the influx of tourism for daily income. This creates a conundrum for the upcoming generation and the current developmental/tourism committees which regulate the town’s growth, since they need more economic gain but don’t want to lose more of their natural environment or culture due to the influences of tourism. This type of study allows for the voices of the locals to be heard and their ideas to be noticed in a manner that would otherwise not get noticed by the committees and /or governmental organizations

12

which mandate these types of decisions in regards to development. As we have seen the amount of jobs which the tourism sector of the economic market provides is substantial as well as growing (WTTC). It is a sector that cannot be pushed aside or solely run by foreign markets. The towns which these sectors are growing are best known by the native residents who deserve to take part in the decision-making and growth of the sector. Specifically, in Cahuita and Puerto Viejo we have seen the influence that this market has had, the views of the local residents and what they want from the future of tourism. Through this assessment future management plans can be made to aid the growth or structure of this market which the people depend upon for their daily livelihood. We saw an example of this in Teo 1994, where government intervention was utilized to revitalize and change aspects of the tourism market in Singapore. Some subjects mentioned a need for more government assistance with advertisement of their destinations or money to finance further development and maintenance of current infrastructure.

The social exchange theory is one which can aid in these future implications by understanding the relationship which the government agencies have with the local people. This theory can be understood as the local residents evaluating the expected costs and benefits that derive from tourism and the services which are supplied for tourists (Caliborne 2010). Essentially, “the theory is based on the assumption that tourism development comes with economic benefits in exchange for social and environmental impacts” (Caliborne 2010). Through what I observed in the towns of Cahuita and Puerto Viejo the people have high expectations of tourism in the area due to their overall dependence on this sector of the economy. The resident’s initial attitudes are favorable, yet I saw that as local participation diminished many residents became perturbed by the level of foreign investors; giving way to frustration and passive attitudes. Caliborne 2010, states that “within the context of tourism planning [is]…a process of involving all stakeholders…in such a way that decision-making is shared”. This demonstrates the need for communal planning of tourism in these types of destinations where the local people have a huge stake in the industry. From this study, it is clearly shown that tourism is the primary mode of income for the local residents, whether direct or indirect. Due to this stake in the industry a shared planning for the future is a necessity; community committees as well as governmental organizations need to cooperate to ensure a well-planned and satisfactory future for all sectors of society. Through my time spent in the towns and interview observations; I believe that tourism needs to be better monitored in regards to influx of drugs and other influences which non-locals bring into the towns. Also, increased options for work could benefit these towns since I commonly encountered descriptions of lack of tourism in low-seasons which in turn leads to financial misfortune for numerous locals during certain times of the year. Overall, more cooperation among advertising, tourism organizational committees, government and the locals needs to occur to further propagate a tourism industry which ensures benefits for all stakeholders.

Limitations and Biases:

As any study, there are limitations and biases which may skew the data gathered and analyzed. In my study I attempted to limit these through planning my methods and structuring my interviews before doing the field work, however I still ran into situations in my data which could have created biases or limitations in my data set. For example, females were interviewed with more frequency than males in both towns. This could have been accounted to the times of day in which the interviews were conducted; people could have been away from their home and at their jobs during the daytime. The language barrier was mostly another limitation of the study due to none of the respondents having

13

English as their first language and my limited understanding of the Spanish language. The initial interviews were conducted directly according to the pre-determined questions, yet as I got more comfortable with the topic and questions the interviews began to flow more easily and I could ask follow-up questions, thus making the interviews more in depth with the later respondents. Time limitations were also a huge factor in this study due to getting more familiar with the town’s geography and organizations as time passed. I felt that if I had more time I could have found more key informants and key organizations related to tourism development to interview during this time period. The level of education of the respondents may have also been a factor affecting the results. In some interviews I had to read the survey questions to the respondent due to language difference or them not being able to read the questions themselves. Finally, the sample size only grazed the entire population of the towns and therefore probably does not give a fully representative sample of the sentiments of local townspeople.

14

References:

Alfaro, E. M. (2007). El encuentro entre lógicas globales y locales: Empleo bananero y turístico en Cahuita y Puerto Viejo. Revista de ciencias sociales, (117-118).

Butler, R. W. (2006). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources. The tourism area life cycle, 1, 3-12.

Claiborne, P. (2010). Community Participation in Tourism Development and the Value of Social Capital. University of Gothenburg, Master of Science in Tourism and Hospitality Management.

Doxey, G. V. (1975, September). A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and research inferences. In the impact of tourism sixth annual conference proc of the travel research Association.

Faulkner, B., & Tideswell, C. (1997). A framework for monitoring community impacts of tourism. Journal of sustainable tourism, 5(1), 3-28.

Girot, P. O., Weitzner, V., & Borrás, M. F. (1998, June). From Conflict to Collaboration: The Case of Cahuita National Park, Limon, Costa Rica. InCrossing Boundaries," the seventh annual conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Vancouver, British Columbia.

World Travel & Tourism Council. (2015) http://www.wttc.org/research/economic-research/economic-impact-analysis/

15

Appendix 1:

16

Figure 2; Doxey, G. V. (1975, September). A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and research inferences. In the impact of tourism sixth annual conference proc of the travel research Association.

Butler, R. W. (2006). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources. The tourism area life cycle, 1, 3-12.

Appendix 2:

17

Figure 3; Butler, R. W. (2006). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources. The tourism area life cycle, 1, 3-12.

Appendix 3:

18

a b c d0

5

10

15 14

4

0 1

14

3 30

Figure 4: Relationship Comparison: Cahuita vs.

Puerto Viejo

Cahuita Puerto Viejo

Letter Choosen

# of

Res

pond

ents

a b c d0

1

2

3

44

0

1

0

4

1 1 1

Figure 5: Business Relationship Question Responses: Cahuita vs. Puerto Viejo

Cahuita Puerto Viejo

Response

# of

resp

onde

nts

Local Survey Responses Cahuita vs. Puerto Viejo (PV): See Legend

Business Survey Responses Cahuita vs. Puerto Viejo (PV): See Legend

Table 2 survey a b c d eCahuita 1 0 2 2 1 1

2 2 1 0 1 13 3 0 1 0 1

PV 1 0 1 1 3 12 2 1 1 2 13 3 1 0 1 0

Appendix 4:

Table 3

Locals Cahuita Puerto Viejo

Average Age 38.11 39.95Minimum 20 21Maximum 67 67

Interview Q’s Tourist Organization:

1) Edad de la organización 2) ¿Dónde nació usted? 3) ¿Cuándo empezó su organización? ¿Quién y por qué empezó? ¿Qué recibió el dinero para

empezar?4) ¿En su opinión cuándo empezó el turismo en esta área? ¿En qué anos había la mayoría de

turismo?

19

Table 1 survey a b c d eCahuita 1 5 2 6 4 4

2 11 6 1 4 03 16 1 1 2 0

PV 1 4 8 3 5 12 12 4 0 4 13 12 4 3 2 0

5) ¿Qué tipos de actividades ofrecen para los/las turistas? ¿Cuánto cuestan?6) ¿Cuántos turistas reciban por mes? ¿El numero está creciendo o no? ¿Por cuánto tiempo los/las

turistas quedan aquí en general?7) En su opinión, ¿Por qué los/las turistas vista este lugar?8) ¿Piensa que los/las turistas y el turismo tiene una pequeña o gran influencia en la cultural de la

comunidad? ¿Ambiente? ¿Quiere más turismo?9) ¿Qué quiere de turismo para el futuro de su pueblo?10) ¿Cuáles son algunas ventajas y desventajas de turismo para la comunidad local en el pueblo?11) ¿Piensa que el turismo ayuda la gente local?

- ¿Piensa que el turismo ayudan los extranjeros o el gobierno?12) ¿Cuáles son los beneficios de turismo? Excepto, trabajos y dinero… 13) ¿Ha habido cambios en la industria del turismo en la comunidad con respecto al pasado? Por

ejemplo: cantidad de visitantes, cantidad de oferentes, tipo de turistas que vienen, actividades que buscan)

14) ¿Cómo describe su relación con los/las turistas?a. Buena – ¿está interesado en las vidas de los/las turistas?b. Una relación formal – los/las turistas están un fuente de dineroc. ¿Esta frustrado con los/las turistas? ¿Algunos tipos de desarrollo específicamente para

los/las turistas?d. ¿Está enojado con los/las turistas? ¿Desarrollo tiene impactos negativos? ¿Es la culpa de

los/las turistas?

Interview Q’s Local Perceptions:

1) Nombre / Edad 2) ¿Dónde nació?3) ¿Cuantos años usted vive aquí?

Appendix 5:

4) ¿Qué es su trabajo? a. Si es un sector de turismo; ¿Tiene dinero suficiente de turismo para pagar sus gastos?

5) ¿En su opinión cuando empezó turismo en este área? ¿En qué anos había la mayoría de turismo?

6) ¿Qué tipo de turismo existe? ¿Cuál es la forma más popular? (ecoturismo, rural, gran escala, pequeño, nacional vs internacional)

7) ¿Qué tipo de los/las turistas existen? (edad, etnia, actividades)8) ¿Piensa usted que el turismo ha afectado la cultura, ambiente o la región en general de su

pueblo?9) ¿Hay más personas que viven en esta área a causa del turismo?10) En su opinión, ¿Por qué los/las turistas vistan este lugar?11) ¿Qué expectativas tiene del turismo para el futuro?12) ¿Cuáles son algunas ventajas y desventajas de turismo para la comunidad local en el pueblo?13) ¿Piensa que el turismo ayuda la gente local?

20

- ¿Piensa que el turismo ayudan los extranjeros o el gobierno?14) ¿Cuáles son los beneficios de turismo? Excepto, trabajos y dinero…15) ¿Ha habido cambios en la industria del turismo en la comunidad con respecto al pasado? Por

ejemplo: cantidad de visitantes, cantidad de oferentes, tipo de turistas que vienen, actividades que buscan)

16) ¿Cómo describe su relación con los/las turistas?a. Buena – ¿está interesado en las vidas de los/las turistas?b. Una relación informal – los/las turistas están un fuente de dineroe. ¿Esta frustrado con los/las turistas? ¿Algunos tipos de desarrollo específicamente para

los/las turistas?f. ¿Está enojado con los/las turistas? ¿Desarrollo tiene impactos negativos? ¿Es la culpa de

los/las turistas?

Appendix 6:

Survey: Choose the best option for the following questions

1) Which of the following better describes the current state of tourism development:

a) Destination has little visitors and tourism is newb) Tourism is growing and infrastructure is changing but maintenance of local values and culture is

still intactc) The destination is developing and the number of tourists is increasing ( positive changes are

starting to occur in culture and environment)d) The destination is developing and the number of tourists is increasing ( negative changes are

starting to occur in culture and environment)e) Now, development only produces negative impacts (write some examples

2) Which of the following better describes the feelings locals have about tourists

21

a) Local people are happy that tourists are interested in their townb) Locals are enthusiastic about the idea of people visiting c) Tourists are taken for grantedd) Only view tourists as a source of moneye) Locals blame the tourists for all the negative impacts

3) Which of the following better describes the relationships between residents and tourists?

a) Good relationship between locals and tourists – interested in their activities/lifesb) The relationship between locals and tourists is more formal – not as interestedc) Locals become un-interested in tourist activities as numbers increase – relationship is degradedd) Over-development annoys locals and they are frustrated with the tourism industrye) Locals are upset with the tourists and show their frustration with them

22