Management of Resources-Based Tourism at Tikal National Park in Northern Guatemala
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Ikuko Fujisaki Management of Resources-Based Tourism at Tikal National Park in Northern Guatemala Introduction esources-based tourism is often an economic necessity in natural resources-dependent communities. Tikal National Park, located in the Petén region of northern Guatemala (Figure 1), contains an ancient Mayan urban center and was declared a mixed cultural–natural World RHeritage Site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1979 (National Geographic Book Service 1987). Since then, the number of visitors has been growing and the park has become an important tourist attraction in Guatemala (Matola and Platt 1998). Currently the Guatemalan government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are mak- ing efforts to develop resources-based sustainable ecotourism in the Petén (Norris and Wilber 1998). This study investigates the economic contribution of Tikal to the economy of Guatemala and the Petén region, and examined visitors’ satisfaction level, attitudes toward conservation, and demographics to identify the future possibilities of ecotourism promotion in the region. Mexico Tikal Peten N.P. Region Belize Mexico GUATEMALA Nicaragua Guatemala City El Salvador Figure 1. Map of Guatemala showing location of Tikal National Park. Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 77 Environmental and Ecotourism, Conservation and Development Aspects of Regional Development Tourism in Guatemala Ecotourism is a growing segment of The land area of Guatemala is the world tourism industry. The term 108,000 sq km, of which 35% is cov- “ecotourism” is a variant of “alterna- ered with forest (World Bank 1999). tive tourism,” in contrast to “mass The Guatemalan government’s efforts tourism” (Cater and Lowman 1994). to protect historically and naturally Ecotourism is defined as tourism to valuable areas increased the number of protected natural areas and stresses protected areas from 13 in 1989 to 17 ecological and sociocultural integrity, in 1994. From 1989 to 1996 the responsibility,local participation, edu- extent of the protected area estate cation, and sustainability (France nearly doubled, reaching 18,200 sq 1997; Wight 1994). km, or 17% of the total land area (Fig- In the past, it was perceived that an ure 2). International tourism is an environmental program could not contribute to local econom- ic development, and vice 20 versa. Currently, it is recog- 18.2 nized that ecotourism could promote sustainable devel- 15 opment that addresses both economic development and 13.3 10 environmental conservation Areas (Theophile 1995). Advan- 8.3 tages of ecotourism include (Thousand sq. km) 5 diversifying local economies and achieving independ- 0.99 0 ence from the donations 1989 1991 1993 1995 upon which environmental programs often depend. Year New employment opportu- Figure 2. Nationally protected areas in Guatemala. nities in tourism-related The data are based on World Development services are the most direct Indicators (World Bank 1991-1999). local benefit. Other possible economic benefits include important source of economic growth income from locally produced goods in Guatemala. During the period and fees collected from tourism (Sher- 1995-1999, tourism generated man and Dixon 1997). These benefits US$394 million in economic benefits motivate local communities’ awareness and created 63,291 jobs nationwide of environmental and resource protec- (Global InfoGroup 1999), and the tion. number of international tourists Central America is one of the increased 46% (Figure 3). world’s major nature tourism destina- tions; at the same time, its nations are 78 The George Wright FORUM facing economic and social difficulties negative side effects. (Weaver 1994). Tourism’s contribu- tion to the cumulative regional Gross Methods National Product is 2%. The host-to- Study site. The Petén, which cov- guest ratio ranges from 0.8:1 to 52:1. ers 33% of the nation’s land area, is a In Guatemala, the estimated host-to- culturally and ecologically significant guest ratio was 21:1, ranking in the region in Guatemala. According to the middle among the 10 Central Ameri- Consejo Nacional de Áreas Protegidas can nations. These countries are pro- (CONAP), the national council for moting resources-based development protected areas, all of Guatemala’s bio- approaches that aim to integrate sus- logical reserves, 99% of its cultural tainable ecological and economic monuments, and 96% of its national development (Ashuvud 1991). parks (56% of all protected areas, However, ecotourism in these excluding “special protected areas”) countries continues to constitute only are located in the Petén. Within the past few decades, rapid modernization and growth have occurred in the Petén (Reining and Soza 1998). The region’s population has increased from roughly 20,000 in 1960 (Schwartz 1990) to more than 300,000 in the mid-1990s. Despite this, a study revealed that the region’s income had decreased substan- Figure 3. Number of International Tourists in Guatemala tially (Ashuvud 1991). 1995-1999. The data were provided by the Seción de The Guatemala govern- Estadistica (Section of Statistics) of Institute ment explains that this is Guatemalteco de Tourismo (INGUAT), Guatemala’s tourism agency. the result of a lack of effi- cient natural resources a small fraction of tourist revenues. A management and strategic planning of lack of local participation in planning the region’s resources use. It request- and implementation, and small local ed the assistance of IUCN–The World economic absorption of benefits gen- Conservation Union to formulate a erated by ecotourism projects, are still national conservation strategy to problems (Whelan 1991). Additional- improve resources management for ly,over-dependence on tourism indus- long-term development. Local and tries (Lea 1999; Cater 1997) and international conservation groups also increased retail prices, land and prop- have been facilitating multilateral proj- erty values, and taxes are potential ects to develop community-based eco- Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 79 tourism and encourage visitors to istics, expenditures in the Petén, satis- explore attractions of the Petén. faction level, opinions, and demo- According to the Ecotravel Center graphics. The original English-lan- (www.ecotour.org), because visitors guage questionnaire was translated typically spend only one or two days into Spanish, French, German, and in the region, the local communities Japanese. A park visitor survey was have received few benefits from conducted during May 2000. All tourism, although tourism is one of the households who were spending time Petén’s primary industries. in the parks’ two main sites (Gran Annual visitation to Tikal National Plaza and Temple IV) were asked to Park has grown considerably since participate in a short on-site interview. World Heritage Site declaration (Fig- An 87% response rate yielded 341 ure 4). From 1981 to 1999, the num- completed interviews, including those ber of non-resident park visitors of 45 residents and 296 non-residents. increased eight times to 110,494, and Questionable answers were excluded. resident visitors increased 35 times to 27,400. This was 17% of visitors to Results Guatemala in 1999. Trip tendency. The non-residents’ Data collection. Between 1990 number of days stayed in Guatemala and 1999, the average annual incre- varied from 1 to more than 100. The 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 National 80,000 International 60,000 40,000 Number of visitors 20,000 0 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Year Figure 4. Number of visitors to Tikal National Park, 1981-1999. The data were provided by the Seción de Estadistica of INGUAT. ments of resident and non-resident average was 17 days, while 58% of vis- visitation were 6.6% and 6.9%, itors spent fewer than 10 days in respectively. Using past data as a Guatemala. The proportion of resi- guide, the 2000 visitation was estimat- dents staying overnight in the Petén ed to be 117,787 for residents and region (78%) was slightly higher than 29,291 for non-residents, or 147,078 those of non-residents (72%). Sixty- in total. three percent of the non-residents The survey instrument included spent one or two days in the region, five types of questions: trip character- while 62% of the residents spent more 80 The George Wright FORUM than three days. On average, residents visitors, $12.6 million by non-resident stayed longer (3.8 days) than non-res- visitors, and $14.2 million in total idents (2.8 days). (Table 2). While 13% of non-residents trav- Satisfaction level and opinions. eled alone, all the residents traveled Overall, the survey participants indi- with other people. The average num- cated high satisfaction levels with the ber of household members in a party service, facilities, and environment in of resident visitors (3.2) was larger the Petén (Figure 5). than that of non-resident visitors For both groups, safety and hotels (1.8). Only 30% of the non-resident in the Petén received high ratings. For visitors were using package tours. the residents, information availability Estimating visitor expenditures. and price level received the lowest rat- The mean expenditures per house- ings. Those who were dissatisfied with hold per trip within the Petén were the price level pointed out the high $176.21 for residents and $192.62 for prices in the region. For non-resi- non-residents (Table 1). Dividing the dents, information availability and average total household expenditures transportation were the two issues by the average number of accompany- with the lowest ratings. Levels of ing household members, the average agreement with described statements expenditure per trip per person was were also converted to numerical val- $55.07 for residents and $107.01 for ues (Table 3). Chi-square test showed non-residents. On average, non-resi- different levels of agreement between dent visitors spent nearly twice as residents and non-residents. much as did residents.