Ikuko Fujisaki Management of Resources-Based at National Park in Northern

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 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 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 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 ( 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 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 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. Transporta- More than 80% of the respondents tion, lodging, and food composed answered that they were willing to pay about 60% of total expenditures for higher entrance fees to support park both groups. The “other expendi- conservation. Compared with the tures” in Table 1 included Internet, non-resident answer, the resident telephone, and facsimile services, and answer was skewed to “strongly agree” laundry. (Figure 6). The mean value was slight- Using the predicted number of vis- ly higher for resident visitors (3.3) itors to the park, the total annual than for non-resident visitors (3.1). expenditures were estimated as fol- More than half of the respondents lows: thought that the restrictions imposed En Nn + Er Nr for conservation purposes in the park were enough, while nearly 30% of the where “En” and “Er”are average non-resident visitors did not think so household expenditures of non-resi- (X2 = 16.91, df = 2, significance = dent and resident visitors, respectively, 0.0005). A majority of both resident and “Nn” and “Nr “ are the estimated (66%) and non-resident (53%) visitors number of days of non-resident and answered that the number of the days resident visitation in 2000, respective- they spent in the Petén was not ly. The estimated direct annual expen- enough (X2 = 18.16, df = 2, signifi- diture was $1.6 million by resident cance = 0.0005).

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 81 Table 1. Itemized average household expenditures of resident and non-resident visitors.

Demographics. The respondents equal for residents, while 72% of the were from 32 countries. The five high- non-residents were singles. Seventy- est proportions were from the United seven percent of residents had less States (26%), Guatemala (14%), Eng- than $20,000 in annual income. For land (11%), (6%), and the non-residents, 43% answered that (5%). The mean ages of they had less than $20,000, and 78% resident and non-resident visitors answered less than $60,000. were similar (Table 4). The largest proportion of visitors was in the age Discussion class 21 to 30 for both residents (44%) The results of this survey showed and non-residents (53%). The pro- that despite the park’s inconvenient portion of non-residents that were location, people did not stay long in between 11 and 30 was 63%. The pro- the region. However, more than half of portion of males (69%) was more than the survey participants answered that twice of that of females (31%) for resi- the number of days they spent in the dents, while the female proportion Petén was not enough. A previous sur- (57%) was larger than the male pro- vey found that ecotourists were older portion (43%) for non-residents. The than mass tourists, and the age group ratio of single to married was exactly 45-64 was likely to have more holidays Table 2. Estimated annual expenditures by park visitors.

82 The George Wright FORUM 3.0 Information availability 2.8 Price level in Peten 3.1 2.9 2.8 Transportation within Peten 3.2

Issues 3.2 Hotels in Peten 3.2 3.5 Safety in Peten 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Level of Satisfaction Non-resident Resident

Figure 5. Level of satisfaction. Mean is based on the scale: 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatis- fied, 3 = satisfied, 4 = very satisfied. annually (Boo 1990). However, this Despite residents having longer study showed a relatively young mean stays and a larger average number of age for visitors, and a majority of non- household members traveling with resident visitors were singles. The rel- them, the average household expendi- atively low average household income ture of non-residents ($192.62) was of non-resident visitors was probably higher than that of residents because of variability in their national- ($176.21). The estimated annual ities, their youth, and the large propor- expenditure in the Petén during 2000 tion of single visitors. Nearly even gen- was $14.2 million. All visitors’ expen- der proportions for non-resident visi- ditures may not be locally absorbed. tors indicated that the park attracts However, these direct expenditures both males and females. Seasonality should generate an indirect and may influence these visitors’ demo- induced economic impact, including a graphics. general rise in income level, creation of

Table 3. Level of agreement. Mean is based on the scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree.

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 83 Table 4. Demographics of visitors.

employment, and increases in govern- visitors will bring a larger gain to the mental revenue. region’s economy. Both groups were highly satisfied There are possibilities for attract- with the facilities, services, and envi- ing visitors who would stay longer in ronment in the Petén. Tourism-related the region. The wide range of ages, facilities, , and services even male and female gender propor- in the region are probably well devel- tions for non-resident visitors, and rel- oped to host various types of tourists atively lower average income indicate from abroad. The majority of respon- variability of visitor types. More than dents answered that they were willing half of the non-resident survey partici- to pay more entrance fees for the pants were in the age bracket of park’s conservation. This indicates the between 11 and 30. These people may high environmental awareness of the have the flexibility to participate in visitors. locally designed ecotourism pro-

Figure 6. Level of agreement with Statement 1 (X2 = 9.51, df = 3, significance = 0.025). Recommendations grams. Improvement of facilities and Based on the rising popularity of services is an issue managers should ecotourism and increased visits to address. The issues that showed a Tikal National Park during the past 20 lower satisfaction level, including years, use of the park will likely information availability, price level, increase in the future. Having more and transportation, should be

84 The George Wright FORUM addressed first when planning future answered that visitor restrictions in programs. For example, prior informa- the park were not enough for environ- tion about ecotourism programs and mental protection. More than 80% of other national parks in the Petén the respondents answered that they region could influence the length of were willing to pay a higher entrance stays of visitors. Since more than half fee for improvement of environmental of the survey participants answered conservation of the park. To be envi- that the number of days they spent in ronmentally sound and to promote the the Petén were not enough, there is a moral and ethical responsibilities of all potential to extend visitors’ stay in the players are basic premises of eco- region. tourism development (Wight 1994). Reassessment of the park’s conser- These efforts facilitate achievement of vation measures and entrance fees will long-term local and national benefits help future management planning. from resource-based tourism, as well Nearly 30% of the non-residents as sustainable resource management.

Acknowledgments I wish to thank the interviewers, Sergio, Hector, Chie, the members of the Association of Guides Tourism in Petén, José Luis Montúfar of CONAP,and the Seción de Estadistica of INGUAT for offering information resources. Special thanks go to Jon Moris, Dale Blahna, Akiko Ogawa, and Paul Hogue for their invaluable advice.

References Ashuvud, J. 1991. Environmental conservation for development in Central America. In Linking the Natural Environment and the Economy. C. Folke and T. Kaberger, eds. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls. Volume 1. Washington,D.C.: World Wildlife Fund. Cater, E. 1997. Ecotourism in the Third World: Problems and prospects for sustainability. In Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. L. France, ed. London: Earthscan. Cater, E., and G. Lowman, eds. 1994. Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons. France, L., ed. 1997. Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. London: Earthscan. Global InfoGroup. 1999. En Cifras: Guatemala. Volumen 1, Numero 1 [in Spanish]. Antigua, Guatemala: Global InfoGroup. Lea, J. 1997. Tourism’s economic impacts. In Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. L. France, ed. London: Earthscan. Matola, S., and E. Platt. 1998. One forest, two nations: The Chiquibut Forest of Belize and Guatemala. In Timber, Tourists, and Temples. R.B. Primack et al. eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. National Geographic Book Service. 1987. Our World’s Heritage. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Association. Norris, R., and J.S. Wilber. 1998. Community-based ecotourism in the Maya Forest: Problems and poten- tials. In Timber, Tourists, and Temples. R.B. Primack et al. eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Reining, C., and C. Soza. 1998. Illuminating the Petén’s throne of gold: The ProPetén experiment in con- servation-based development. In Timber, Tourists, and Temples. R.B. Primack et al. eds. Washington,

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 85 D.C.: Island Press. Schwartz, N. 1990. Forest society: A social history of the Petén, Guatemala. Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting. 17 February, Atlanta, Ga. Sherman, P.B., and J.A. Dixon. 1997. The economics of nature tourism: Determining if it pays. In Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. L. France, ed. London: Earthscan. Theophile, K. 1995. The forest as a business: Is ecotourism the answer? Journal of Forestry 93:3, 25-27. Weaver, D. 1994. Ecotourism in the Caribbean Basin. In Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? E. Cater and G. Lowman, eds. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons. Whelan, T. 1991. Ecotourism and its role in sustainable development. In Nature Tourism: Managing for Environment. T. Whelan, ed. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Wight, P. 1994. Environmentally responsible marketing of tourism. In Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? E. Cater and G. Lowman, eds. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons. World Bank. 1991-1999. World Development Indicators. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Ikuko Fujisaki, Spatial Information Technologies Laboratory, Department of Forest Resources, Mississippi State University, Box 9681, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762; [email protected] ❖

86 The George Wright FORUM