“They just don’t get it” Local discourse dynamics around tourism development on the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica Gerjanne Voortman 9/29/15 Msc. Thesis ENP “They just don’t get it”: Local discourse dynamics around tourism development on the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica G.M. Voortman 880322-904-110 Master International Development Studies MSc Thesis Environmental Policy Group Wageningen University & Research Centre Supervisors: Dr. M.A.J. Lamers (Environmental Policy Group) Prof. Dr. V.R. van der Duim (Cultural Geography) 29 September 2015 1 Abstract In a country where tourism is the largest export product, Costa Rica’s Osa Peninsula remains a moderately visited area. Several development plans indicate however that large-scale touristic developments are awaiting the region. This research focuses on the way residents of the area give meaning to these looming developments, using discourse analysis. Ten weeks of fieldwork on the Osa Peninsula provide insights in local discourse concerning the plans for large-scale tourism development and in the ways these discourses reveal particular differentiation and fragmentation in society. Using a post-structuralist approach and rejecting essentialist views of tourism being either exploitative or beneficial for local residents, this research centres on the local dynamics connected to upcoming changes. While I expected that alliances would emerge based on the sharing of a particular objective, no explicit groups can be defined that gain a foothold on the ground. The local fragmentation stems from a lack of collective identity, related to the regions remoteness and its history of migration, which has left its traces in a current lack of leadership and lack of shared rituals. Also the strong local interdependence prevents residents from publically outspeaking their judgement or uniting against co-residents. As much as storylines are strategically uttered, silence and neutrality are strategically used in this remote area, where no one wishes to make enemies. These results support post-structuralist arguments arguing against essentialist views of a monolithic community, and show that neither clear sub-groups can be defined based on the sharing of particular characteristics. Post-structuralisms focus on local power and agency cannot be endorsed based on this research, as a certain cohesion is needed to turn passivity into action and make local voices powerful. Residents do frame society however as if it were divided in particular groups, like ‘newcomers’ versus ‘original residents’, or ‘rich’ versus ‘poor’. Building on discourse theory, this is explained as a way to reaffirm personal opinion by distancing from particular others, and to make sense of a complex situation. If the diverse population of the Osa Peninsula doesn’t find a way to unite and identify with their home ground, investors will perceive less restrictions to develop the projects they wish for. This will increase the likelihood of large-scale tourism developing soon, for the good or for the bad -depending on which discourse is drawn upon- but undoubtedly affecting the landscape and the lives of the inhabitants irreversibly. Keywords: Post-structuralism, Discourse dynamics, Tourism development, Local fragmentation, Costa Rica, Osa Peninsula 2 3 Acknowledgements The accomplishment of this thesis would not have been possible without the help of many others. I want to thank Rene and Machiel for their help in determining and demarking the appropriate topics and theories, and for their support, their confidence, and pragmatism when I needed it. I also want to express my gratefulness to all the people I interviewed, spoke with, and lived among during my stay on the Osa Peninsula. Without their trust and sincerity this work could not have been established. This thesis is also the end of and intense, insightful, and wonderful period as a university student. I am thankful to many teachers and who brought me insights that formed me as a student, scientist and person. In my personal circle I want to thank my parents and my sister, for their endless support and trust in my choices and my capacities; Jimmy for his motivational words that I needed sometimes, and his relativational words, that I needed quite often; and lastly my fellow student and dear friends, with whom I share fun and valuable moments, that might last longer in my memories that any lesson learned in university. 4 Index 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Problem statement ................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Research aim ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Research questions .................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Outline ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Context ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10 2.1 Tourism development in Costa Rica: Two-track policy ....................................................................................................... 10 2.2 The Osa Peninsula: From gold to green gold ....................................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Recent tourism developments: From green to glamour?.................................................................................................. 16 3. Theory .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 19 3.1 Differing notions of development ................................................................................................................................................. 19 3.1.1 Modernization ................................................................................................................................................................................ 19 3.2.2 Neoliberalization ........................................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.2.3 Dependency ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 3.2.4 Alternative development ........................................................................................................................................................... 22 3.2 Beyond inputs and impacts .............................................................................................................................................................. 24 3.2.1 Local Agency ................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.2 Unpacking ‘The Community’ ................................................................................................................................................... 25 3.2.3 New alliances and divisions ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 3.3 Discourse Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................. 28 3.3.1 Dominating discourse ................................................................................................................................................................. 28 3.3.2 The power of Language ............................................................................................................................................................ 29 3.3.3 Discourse-coalitions ..................................................................................................................................................................... 30 4. Methods ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 31 4.1 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 31 4.1.1 Participant observation .............................................................................................................................................................. 31 4.1.2 Semi-structured interviews