for instructor use only

The Road to Tortuguero INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL Cheri A. Young, University of Denver Terry G. Nicholas, University of Denver David L. Corsun, University of Denver Daryl Loth, Casa Marbella Bed and Breakfast

CASE SYNOPSIS

The case presents a decision facing a tour guide organization in Tortuguero, Costa Rica. With approximately 1,000 residents, Tortuguero was situated on a spit of land on the eastern coast, isolating it from the rest of the country due to the ocean, rivers, and a protected national park. It was inaccessible by road. Tortuguero was home to the most prolific nesting beach for giant sea turtles in the Atlantic. Turtle-based tourism was the basis of the tiny village’s economy.

Daryl Loth, a resident, father of two small children, owner of a small bed-and-breakfast, biological tour guide, and President of the Tortuguero Tour Guide Association (TGA), had to oversee a meeting of the TGA, a self-organized group of local tour guides in the village. The TGA had collected a fee of about 40 U.S. cents from each tourist taking a turtle tour and was going to choose one of three proposals for spending its $30K of revenues from the past two years.

Community members were permitted to comment at TGA meetings, and some had argued that spending money on a road to Tortuguero would launch an increase in tourists; accessibility to health care, higher education, and lower priced goods and services; and hence, an increase in prosperity and their constitutional right to social equity. Some TGA members believed that an increase in tourists would lead to more business for them and the village businesses, plus greater awareness for the plight of the endangered green sea turtles. Loth himself wanted more convenient access to better health care and lower cost of goods, especially as Tortuguero and the various lodging establishments competed with other tourist destinations in Costa Rica. Other villagers and TGA members believed the lack of convenient access to the village was one reason they had been able to protect the turtles and attract new and repeat tourists. They feared a road to Tortuguero would mark the beginning of the end of the natural beauty and the things that made the village lying on the northeastern Caribbean coast of Costa Rica so special.

This case stimulates discussion as students determine which decision they believe is best for sustaining the giant sea turtles’ nesting grounds and the tourism revenue these natural wonders produce for the community, while meeting the community’s social equity needs. What effects would the decision have on the community, the turtles, and the sustainability of ecotourism in Tortuguero in the short and longer term? Should environmental sustainability take precedence over social equity and ready access to medical care, university education, and lower prices for staple goods? What is the ethical choice?

INTENDED COURSES AND LEVELS

This case is most appropriate for graduate students or upper division undergraduate students in courses dealing with sustainability issues, such as tourism development, business sustainability, and business ethics courses. The case has been successfully classroom tested with graduate students in a hospitality/tourism strategy course.

A variety of discussion questions is provided and each question is clearly labeled as appropriate for graduate and/or undergraduate students. Additionally, we include an optional exercise appropriate for graduate students.

For Instructor Use Only

� ��

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

This case deals with issues primarily related to:

• Ecotourism: The lack of a generally accepted definition of ecotourism makes this concept as challenging to pin down as exactly what constitutes “organic” or “natural” when it comes to food. It also complicates any discussion related to tourism strategy. Probably the most comprehensive definition is Martha Honey’s, which expands on The International Ecotoursim Society definition. According to Honey (2008), true ecotourism has seven characteristics:

o It involves travel to natural destinations, often in remote areas and subject to some kind of environmental protection.

o The impact on nature and people typically caused by tourism activity is minimized, including in terms of infrastructure, energy, waste disposal, cultural sensitivity, and regulation of the number of tourists and their behaviors.

o It increases environmental awareness on the part of locals and visitors, whether from nearby communities or tourists. Educational access for locals is provided at significantly lower cost than tourists pay.

o It is self-sustaining in that conservation funds are produced.

o It empowers local people economically and via infrastructure development.

o It maintains the integrity of the local culture.

o It supports human rights and democratic movements.

• The three pillars of sustainability: These pillars are directly related to the notion of a triple bottom line (TBL), which refers to three objectives for companies: the traditional “profit” bottom line, a “planet” bottom line, and a “people” bottom line. In a tourism context, the TBL is a holistic concept of sustainability where environmental, socio-cultural, and economic considerations (the three pillars) are identified and considered concurrently in decision making.

• Ethical decision-making approaches: There are five approaches or perspectives one may take in determining whether a behavior or course of action is ethical. Each approach is based on a different set of concerns and they may produce the same or different determinations.

o Utilitarian: Seeks to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

o Rights: Concerned with the basic rights of affected parties.

o Justice: An equitable distribution of benefit/harm and whether everyone is treated fairly.

o Common good: Ensuring that policies, systems, institutions, and environments are beneficial to all as a community.

o Virtue: Seeks to achieve ideals toward which we should strive.

• Negotiation approaches: Two methods of negotiating are an integrative approach and a distributive approach. Under the distributive approach each party focuses on achieving their own goals; it is a win-lose approach, which is acceptable for short-term relationships. Under the integrative approach parties seek to satisfy everyone’s interests through collaboration, creating a win-win situation. The integrative approach focuses on information sharing and is best for nurturing long-term relationships.

• Models of tourism destination lifecycles: Multiple lifecycle models exist, though two tend to be used to explain destinations’ popularity, target audience, and likely future.


� ��

o Butler’s (1980) tourist area cycle of evolution model indicates that tourist demand for a destination is likely to follow a life cycle resembling a logistic curve characterized by six stages. In “exploration,” independent, non-local tourists discover the destination. In “involvement,” locals respond to the appearance of tourists by supplying basic services; “development” signals the influx of outside investment into the destination. “Consolidation” indicates a retreat in investment. “Stagnation” indicates that the number of tourists has ceased increasing, followed by “decline” or “rejuvenation.”

o Plog’s (2001) model suggests that destinations follow a somewhat predictable pattern of discovery, development, and eventual decline. However, Plog notes that the character of tourism destinations changes over time and their attractiveness to particular types of tourists changes as well. At each stage in their life cycle, tourism destinations appeal to a different psychographic group of travelers, “who determine the destination’s character and success” (p. 18). Plog’s traveler types are Venturers, Near-Venturers, Mid-Centric, Near Dependables, and Dependables. These traveler types vary, with the most venturesome (Venturers) seeking unique travel that enables them to experience nature and/or local culture. They are far more concerned with the experience itself than with convenience, creature comforts, and infrastructure. In contrast, Dependables seek experiences that involve familiarity, comfort and the same type and level of infrastructure they have at home.

Researchers have noted that once a tourism destination has been developed to a certain extent, it is nearly impossible to attract back the types of tourists who enjoyed the location earlier in its life cycle (Butler, 1990; Plog, 2001).

• Systems thinking and modeling: Goal achievement is an outcome of effective decision making, which reinforces a desired outcome. Systems thinking requires that one recognize the complexity of the system in which one’s goal exists. While people typically assume a linear relationship in which a series of actions or decisions directly lead to an outcome, systems thinking embeds the issue or goal in its context, accounting for the system’s complexity, in which each action can have myriad side effects deterring from the goal.

Systems’ thinking is non-linear in that it includes feedback loops demonstrating the interconnectedness of system elements. The use of systems thinking is required to make decisions that more accurately achieve a specific, intended outcome. Diagramming systems through the use of system dynamics modeling can be useful in gaining a holistic perspective in which goals and actions exist. A systems model contains feedback loops, which can either be positive or negative. Positive feedback loops are self-reinforcing; negative feedback loops are self-correcting.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

By reading and discussing “The Road to Tortuguero” case, students should be able to:

1. Identify the three pillars of sustainability (economic, environmental, and socio-cultural), and analyze the objectives of each component and how they interact and sometimes conflict.

2. Identify the economic, environmental, and socio-cultural benefits and harms that can accrue due to ecotourism development, and the methods for maximizing potential benefits while mitigating against potential harms.

3. Make complex decisions in which social, environmental, and economic aspects of sustainability are in conflict with each other using the following three methods:

a. Different ethical models of decision making;

b. An analysis of tourism destination lifecycles; and


� ��

c. A systems perspective.

4. Work toward integrative solutions to problems when stakeholder goals and/or the means to achieving goals conflict.

5. Understand what ecotourism is, determine whether Tortuguero qualifies as an ecotourism destination, and identify the potential negative effects of the lack of a universally agreed upon definition of ecotourism.

CASE USAGE/PEDAGOGY

Whether used at the graduate or undergraduate level, this case helps students grapple with competing alternatives and their long-run ethical, ecological, and social consequences. The dilemmatic nature of the case makes it perfect for stakeholder dialogue. Students, based on their final recommendation(s) or the stakeholder group they represent, can engage in a dialogue with those in other stakeholder groups. Alternatively, students can work in teams to develop solutions that meet multiple stakeholder interests and engage in a stakeholder dialogue.

Suggested Supplemental Materials Two DVDs are available regarding Tortuguero. The first is available via the Caribbean Conservation Corps and the second through a U.S.-based, non-profit called CAVU.

1. Tale of the Green Turtle. (2006). Go to: http://www.cccturtle.org/ to learn more and/or order the film. The run-time of this video is twenty-seven minutes.

2. La Communidad, Tortuguero, Costa Rica. (2006). CAVU. Go to: http://www.flightandfilm. org/?contact to learn more and order the film or watch it here: http://www.cavumedia.org/films/la-comunidad/. The run-time of this video is thirteen minutes.

These two videos give the students insights into life in Tortuguero that the written word cannot adequately convey. One video, produced by the Caribbean Conservation Corps (now the Sea Turtle Conservancy), explains the history of green sea turtle conservation efforts on Tortuguero. The second film explores the social and economic history and structure of Tortuguero through interviews with its residents. Showing these videos after processing the case provides an opportunity for further discussion as students have additional insight into the community, its members, and its challenges. Even without taking the time for post-video discussion, both are worth considering for case wrap-up. Both depict village life, showing how villagers have suffered through difficult times as logging operators came and went, and how they now focus on turtle tourism. The videos bring Tortuguero to life and solidify that the case deals with issues that affect real people. The students see them, hear their voices, and listen to their stories. As a result, the students have greater empathy for the situation the villagers face.

CASE PROCESSING TIME

Case processing can take anywhere from seventy-five to 150 minutes depending on the number of questions and exercises used, and whether either or both videos are shown in class. Though it may be tempting, we warn against using a single, fifty-minute class period to process the case. Doing so is likely to leave some important issues under-attended.

CLASSROOM PLAN

We present a variety of options from which instructors can select.

1. Ecotourism work (optional): Ecotourism work involves assigning two questions and one reading before assigning the case. These questions and the reading orient students to the tenets of ecotourism.


� ��

2. Foundation work: This work involves getting the class to answer some basic questions to record students’ opinions and start setting the foundation for discussion questions.

3. Discussion questions: Four (4) discussion questions and suggested readings help students dig deeper into analysis and decision making, with two optional discussion questions—one that focuses on ecotourism (discussion question 2), and another for tourism students only (discussion question 6).

4. Systems thinking exercise (optional; for graduate students, only): This exercise digs into system dynamics modeling of the cause and effect relationships among variables in the situation facing Daryl Loth and the Tortuguero Tour Guide Association.


� ��

Classroom Plan Matrix

Step Suggested Readings Student Audience

Questions and Exercises

Ecotourism Work (optional)

“Definition: How to know ecotourism when you see it” (pages 28–31) in Martha Honey’s (2008) book, Ecotourism and Sustainable Development. Students can read these pages for free at the following link. http://books.google.com/books?id=Jw2hy_2E5nwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=martha+honey&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zBLnUJqYNdD8qQG7pYCYAQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=martha%20honey&f=false As an alternative, students can read her principles of ecotourism at Untamed Path: http://www.untamedpath. com/Ecotourism/defining.html.

Graduate, undergraduate

Ecotourism work questions 1, 2

Foundation Work “The Road to Tortuguero” case. Graduate, undergraduate

Foundation work questions 1 and 2

Discussion United Nations Environment Programme and the World Tourism Organization (2005). Making Tourism More Sustainable. http://www.unep.fr/ shared/publications/pdf/DTIx0592xPA-TourismPolicyEN.pdf (see pages 8–14). One may consider assigning this article with the case and prior to using these discussion questions. It provides a good overview of the concept of the three pillars of sustainability in tourism development.


Discussion questions 1 and 2 (note: discussion question 2 is optional)

Discussion “Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making” from Santa Clara University found at http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ iie/v7n1/thinking.html.


Discussion question 3

Discussion None Graduate, undergraduate

Discussion questions 4 and 5

Discussion None Tourism (graduate or undergraduate)

Discussion question 6

Systems Thinking Exercise (optional)

Sterman, J. D. (2001). “System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world.” California Management Review, 43(4), 8–25.

Graduate Systems thinking exercise

ECOTOURISM WORK (OPTIONAL; ESTIMATED TIME NEEDED: 20–30 MINUTES)

We recommend that instructors assign the following two questions before assigning the case to orient the students to the principles of ecotourism.


� ��

1. What is ecotourism? How does it differ from mass tourism? Research three (3) definitions and note their sources. How do the different definitions compare and contrast? Which source is most trustworthy and why? Does Tortuguero qualify as an ecotourism destination?

2. What are the negative effects of not having a universally agreed upon definition of ecotourism? What are the implications of having many definitions in a country like Costa Rica, which has embraced ecotourism as a foundation of its national development strategy? How does the lack of a universal definition create ambiguity and permit tourism operators to falsely market themselves as ecotourism entities?

DISCUSSION

1. What is ecotourism? How does it differ from mass tourism? Research three (3) definitions and note their sources. How do the different definitions compare and contrast? Which source is most trustworthy and why? Does Tortuguero qualify as an ecotourism destination?

If students have their laptops, one can have them do a search for definitions of ecotourism in class, and have them work on a Wiki or Google doc to create a collective definition in small groups. Have the groups identify the differences that exist between mass tourism and ecotourism and note why ecotourism is more difficult to achieve. Alternatively, this question can be assigned with the case and answers submitted in writing or orally in class.

After groups work on their collective comparison and contrast of various definitions of ecotourism in the form of a Wiki or Google doc, the same groups or the class as a whole can discuss the trustworthiness of the sources, and which ones have the most credibility and why. Credibility may be judged on ulterior motives of the author, number of citations of the document by other authors, experience of the author in the field, citation of other credible sources by the author, location of source (Wikipedia versus scholarly article) and/or comparison to other definitions.

As a relatively new term, ecotourism lacks a universal definition, which has allowed many businesses to exploit the term. To add to the confusion, a variety of other terms have arisen under the false-context of ecotourism including pro-poor tourism, geotourism, responsible tourism, sustainable tourism, and adventure tourism (Honey, 2008, p. 28). As a leading researcher in the field, Honey developed a holistic definition of ecotourism, which she has subsequently used to evaluate destinations.

If one does not want to spend time having students research definitions, the definitions and resources found in IM Appendix A can simply be provided to students.

The common attributes among these ecotourism definitions include:

• Travel to natural areas.

• Conservation of destination’s environment, culture, and people.

• Low impact behavior.

• Socio-economic development of local people.

• Educational benefits for both the tourists and the local communities.

• Traveler responsibility.

• Local participation in industry and decision making.


� �

2. What are the negative effects of not having a universally agreed upon definition of ecotourism? What are the implications of having many definitions in a country like Costa Rica, which has embraced ecotourism as a foundation of its national development strategy? How does the lack of a universal definition create ambiguity and permit tourism operators to falsely market themselves as ecotourism entities?

The concept of ecotourism is similar to other concepts like “organic” or “all natural” or “low fat” or “no artificial ingredients.” Even the concept of sustainability itself remains, decades after the Brundtland Commission, a contestable concept. Thus, the question regarding the negative effects of not having a universally agreed upon definition of ecotourism lends itself to producing a lively class discussion, including a discussion about greenwashing.

The creation of the ecotourism segment of the travel industry and the lack of a universal definition has resulted in a clear division. There are destinations and operators genuinely promoting the qualities of ecotourism and others simply exploiting the new trend as a marketing tool. This situation creates a variety of problems within the tourism industry.

Students will likely address the following:

• The lack of a universal definition has created confusion among the public. By preying on “green” sentiments and modern ease of access, destinations are exploiting fragile ecosystems through illegitimate ecotourism claims.

• The evidence of successful locations illegitimately operating as ecotourism destinations promotes other locations to use the same practice. Touting a destination as eco-touristic, whether legitimately or not, is an easy means of expanding one’s market to the conscientious or adventurous traveler.

• Many developing countries find ecotourism appealing since they still possess untamed remote destinations and need a means of fueling their economy. Many of these countries have some of the most environmentally diverse ecosystems, which have yet to be explored by researchers. Destroying these locations through false ecotourism will prevent their useful exploration for science and medicine.

• A country such as Costa Rica risks destroying its own ecotourism industry by not having a unified and agreed upon definition. Conservation of the local environment, culture, and people must exist in order for ecotourism to continue in the future. If tourism operators are intentionally or unknowingly exploiting the term “ecotourism,” the resources upon which ecotourism depends could be destroyed.

• If Costa Rica’s tourism operators were found to be practicing greenwashing, the country as a whole could be associated with the negative stigma. This could cause the country’s important ecotourism industry to suffer if tourists seek more genuine ecotourism opportunities. The country, as a result, may have to further exploit its natural resources to support a weakened economy.

FOUNDATION WORK (ESTIMATED TIME NEEDED: 10–15 MINUTES)

Students are inevitably going to want to discuss the building of the road, so we recommend taking advantage of the energy generated around this topic.

1. Ask the question, “Should a road be built to Tortuguero?” Permit answers to be submitted by one of two means:

a. Using clickers

b. Secret ballot


� �

We suggest an anonymous voting system, as a student may be hesitant to take a stand when the majority is voting for the other option.

2. Share the vote count with the class, and then ask the students: “What are the pros and cons of building a road to Tortuguero?”

Have the students list the pros and cons, either individually, in small groups, or collectively as a class. If students have laptops, these lists can be developed in the forms of a Wiki or Google doc to permit collaboration; alternatively these items should be written on the board for students to reference in discussion question 1.

From our experience in teaching the case, the students may mention the following potential benefits and harms from building a road.

Pros of building a road:

• Building a road through the Tortuguero Protected Zone will have the effect of better connecting the community of Tortuguero to the rest of the country. The negative effects of the community’s isolation may be mitigated by building a road.

• There will be more ready access to health care as providers may visit Tortuguero more regularly than the current two days/week.

• The time it takes to make an emergency visit to the nearest hospital will be reduced substantially, and the trip—particularly if made at night—will be significantly safer to make. Medicines will be more readily available as the trip to a pharmacy in Guapiles or Cariari will be much shorter as well.

• Construction, trash hauling, and general supply costs—including food—may be reduced as it will no longer be necessary to make an approximately two hour (or longer) trip on a barge-type vessel to supply the community with goods and remove its trash.

• Access to higher education will increase as it will be possible for residents to commute to a regional university; though the trip will still take some time, and will not be an ideal way to attend university, it will be possible to do so without having the additional costs of living away from home.

• The quality of K–12 education in Tortuguero may also increase as teachers will be able to commute from Guapiles and/or Cariari to work, thereby expanding the pool of people (and their probable quality) willing to teach in Tortuguero.

• More Costa Ricans will have the opportunity to experience Tortuguero and come to appreciate Tortuguero National Park and the work done to save the sea turtles and their nesting ground. Day trips will be possible, whereas they are not without a road. The road is likely, therefore, to increase the number of tourists to Tortuguero.

Cons of building a road:

• The biological corridor created between TNP and Barra del Colorado National Wildlife Refuge with money donated by the Danish government will be interrupted by the road, thereby creating irreparable harm to the ecology.

• The construction itself will have significant, negative effects, which would be compounded by the noise and pollution that would result from permitting automobile traffic through the park. Automobile and bus traffic may also cause the accidental death of many animals as they may get hit by cars.


� ��

• Illegal poaching and logging may also increase due to ease of access. The resultant negative press and bad will generated internationally is likely to damage Costa Rica’s image as an ecological tourist destination, and may result in environmental groups staging protests and withholding future donations of land and/or money to the Costa Rican government.

• Day trip tourists may have the ultimate effect of chasing away the higher spending domestic and international tourists who come to Tortuguero, in part because of its remoteness.

• Day-trippers are likely to bring food and drink with them and the volume of trash and litter would no doubt increase without compensatory revenue in the community.

• People may begin camping illegally on the beach at night, thereby disturbing the nesting turtles and reducing the number that nest.

• International tourists will be able to book day trips that begin in San José and include tours provided by non-villagers.

• Occupancy in the hotels, lodges, cabins and B&Bs may go down as day trips increase. The net effect of day trip tourists may actually be a revenue reduction and cost increase to the community.

• The negatives mentioned above may be compounded by the possibility that the cost of goods may not decrease, as was the case when a road was constructed to Cahuita (see case Exhibit 4). The example of Cahuita also introduces the possibility that drug trafficking, prostitution, and crime could increase with easier access to Tortuguero.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS (ESTIMATED TIME NEEDED: 90–120 MINUTES)

1. Address the following using the three pillars of sustainability:

a. Who are the stakeholders in this situation regarding the road to Tortuguero?

b. What are the stakeholders’ goals?

c. In what ways are the different stakeholders’ goals incompatible?

d. How might a road impact their goal attainment (achieve their goal and/or block it or hinder it)?

2. (Optional) How do the stakeholders’ goals align with the principles of ecotourism? Can all their goals AND the principles of ecotourism be achieved simultaneously or are some of them conflicting and/or incompatible?

3. What should Daryl Loth do? Apply each of the five different approaches to ethical thinking—utilitarian, rights, fairness or justice, common good, and virtue—to Loth’s decision regarding the road to Tortuguero.

4. Is the TGA the appropriate decision-making entity for the issues facing Tortuguero? What should Loth do to facilitate a process that brings a community- and stakeholder-based resolution to the issues facing Tortuguero?

5. What alternatives exist to building the road or moving the boat launch? Which of these alternatives would satisfy more stakeholders’ interests than the others? If you were Loth, what alternatives would you support? Keep in mind that Loth is a part of several stakeholder groups with different goals/needs/desires.

6. For tourism students only—What might the future of Tortuguero look like in terms of the types of tourists attracted and the tourism destination itself if a road were to be built? How can Loth ensure that Tortuguero does not reach maturity and decline in its development, and instead ensure the greatest benefits for the various stakeholders?


� ��

DISCUSSION

1. Address the following using the three pillars of sustainability:

a. Who are the stakeholders in this situation regarding the road to Tortuguero?

b. What are the stakeholders’ goals?

c. In what ways are the different stakeholders’ goals incompatible?

d. How might a road impact their goal attainment (achieve their goal and/or block it or hinder it)?

Refer to IM Appendix B for an outline of the triple bottom line as applied to tourism.

Teaching Suggestion As an alternative to a simple discussion, one may want to divide students into eight stakeholder groups:

• Tortugueran small-business owners (hoteliers, restaurateurs, shop owners);

• Large resort owners;

• Residents of Tortuguero (families, students, children, elderly, sick);

• Tortuguero Tour Guide Association (TGA);

• Tourists;

• Environmental groups (Sea Turtle Conservancy, Tortuguero National Park);

• Residents and businesses in Guipiles and Cariari (the closest towns with basic services and shopping);

• Costa Rican tourism industry.

Have each stakeholder group evaluate its needs, goals, and desires from the three pillars perspective: socio-cultural, environmental, and economic. Once each group has established its own three pillars, a representative from each group can be brought to the front of the class for a multi-stakeholder dialogue. The table below delineates the major goals of each group and presents the impact of building a road from a TBL-perspective.


� ��

Stakeholder Goals TBL Implications of Road

Environmental Social Economic

Small business owners

Revenue, profit, lower cost of goods sold (CGS), increased tourism, easier access.

Increased access likely to result in increased tourism, revenue, and profit; not necessarily lower CGS.

Large resort owners

Increased tourism involving overnight stays, revenue, profit, lower CGS, preserve ecology.

Will destroy biological corridor; day visitors will increase trash, may interrupt turtle nesting; may increase poaching.

May produce overnight stays, though may decrease length of stay; revenue and profit may be flat; CGS won’t necessarily be lower.

Tortuguero residents

Social equity (lower cost of living, easier access to healthcare) day trip access to higher education, higher standard of living, preserve ecology, preserve way of life.


Increased access to regional universities and healthcare; may introduce drug trade, crime, prostitution.

May lower cost of living; may raise standard of living.

TGA Preserve ecology, no encroachment on their business from guides on the mainland, increased tourism with overnight stays, preserve way of life.


May introduce drug trade, crime, prostitution.

May create competitor guides from mainland, reducing their business.

Tourists Locals: Easier access, availability of day trips. Non-locals: easier access, preserve ecology, authentic experience.


May introduce drug trade, crime, prostitution; day traffic will reduce authenticity.

Decreased cost of access.

Environmental groups

Preserve ecology, limit access/ prevent over-visitation, preserve biological corridor.



� ��

Guapiles and Cariari residents/ businesses

Easier access, increased revenue and profit.

Increased day trip tourist traffic may increase revenue and profit.

Costa Rican tourism industry

Preserve reputation as ecotourism destination, increase tourism revenue, preserve ecology, social equity for citizens.

Will destroy biological corridor; day visitors will increase trash, may interrupt turtle nesting; may increase poaching; erodes national ecotourism brand.

Could decrease visitation and revenue; likely decrease in external financial support for conservation.

For the simulated multi-stakeholder dialogue, each representative will be responsible for trying to compromise with other stakeholders while defending his or her own group’s needs/goals/desires. Start by having each group state its top three needs/goals/desires for each of the three pillars. As the students list their group’s needs/goals/desires the instructor should make notes on points of parity and difference between and among stakeholders. The instructor can then prompt discussion by asking the representatives how they intend to achieve their needs/goals/desires and prompting opposing stakeholders when their own needs/goals/desires are infringed upon. Have representatives discuss the means to their ends, and try to compromise on how and which needs/goals/desires are achieved.

Provide the following instructions to the groups:

A. For your stakeholder group, identify your group’s needs/goals/desires from each perspective of the three pillars. For example, if you represent the stakeholder position of the Tortugueran small-business owners your needs/goals/desires in regard to the three pillars include:

i. Socio-cultural

a. A larger and wealthier population in Tortuguero to which to sell goods.

b. A sophisticated population that desires advanced goods.

c. Employees who are happy living in Tortuguero and unlikely to leave, potentially reducing employee turnover.

ii. Environmental

a. A healthy turtle population to continue attracting tourists.

b. Limited environmental regulation so the owner does not have additional operating costs.

c. A healthy environment, which promotes human health and reduces employee illness.

iii. Economic

a. A reduced cost of goods so business owners can increase their profit margin.

b. Limited access to the other towns so people have to shop at the local stores.

c. An increased number of tourists to which to sell goods.


� ��

B. Next, identify your stakeholder group’s needs/goals/desires and how meeting these objectives will impact tourism development in Tortuguero. For example, the local business owners may desire increased tourism so they have a larger customer base. However, increased tourism today may lead to a damaged ecosystem, which harms the turtles and reduces future tourism.

C. What goals do you have that are incompatible with the goals of other stakeholder groups? Is it that the goals are incompatible (meaning that both goals could not be achieved at the same time), or are the methods of goal attainment incompatible?

i. Both Tortugueran small-business owners and the TGA want to increase local income. The Tortugueran small-business owners may see an opportunity for increased tourism income by building the road and increasing accessibility to the town. Alternatively, the TGA sees the road as potentially decreasing local income because ease of access could attract lower income tourists and/or day-trippers who spend less money in Tortuguero. In this case the two stakeholders have the same goal, but different perspectives and methods of achieving that goal.

D. How might a road impact your goal attainment? Will the building of a road to Tortuguero assist in achieving your goals and/or block or hinder their attainment? Are there ways for multiple goals to be achieved using means that do not produce harms or obstacles for the goal achievement of another stakeholder group? If so, please describe. Use the list of pros and cons of building a road that the class developed as well as any additional considerations that have come up in the course of discussion. Try to find the “sweet spots” among the stakeholders in which each group can achieve a goal because the means they are using are compatible with the other groups’ means to achieving a goal.

If the students are having trouble with questions (C) and (D), one may want to discuss the following example. The “environmental groups” stakeholder group may have a goal of protecting the turtles. The “Tortugueran small-business owners” stakeholder group’s goal might be to increase tourism revenues. The goals are not necessarily in conflict; they are compatible. However, the means/methods to achieve the goals might be in conflict, because the environmental groups may want to limit the number of tourists, while the Tortugueran small-business owners may want to increase the number of tourists. The construction of a road to Tortuguero also introduces the idea that different tourist groups (day tripping locals as opposed to those currently staying for multiple nights) present different outcomes. Help the students separate their goals from the methods.

For the “Tortugueran small-business owners” group, if they are having trouble thinking of more goals beyond simply “more tourism revenue,” nudge them along by getting them to think at a community level. The focus is on revenue for the entire village in the form of exports. Help the students think about the types of jobs created, fair wages, etc. Timber operations used to be the big revenue generator in Tortuguero, but that is gone. Now the village has few options: exporting turtle products (eggs, turtle meat, etc.) or increasing tourism (an export). Farming is not an option due to the rain (200 inches/year).

For the “Tortuguero residents” group, the following summarizes a discussion that took place among some of our students. They discussed the residents’ goals and how they may obtain them through the construction of a road or via alternative means:

Tortuguero is a small community of only 1000, which means it is a close-knit community where everyone is known. The community feels that this is an advantage as it allows for a safer environment. However, like most small communities, it has only K–12 education; thus individuals seeking higher education need to travel outside of Tortuguero. The limited accessibility to other parts of the country means students from Tortuguero have to live in the areas in which they study. These additional expenses limit the number of young people who go on to university. Those who advocate for the construction of a road argue that the increase in accessibility will allow the youth of Tortuguero easier access to higher education.

The construction of a road will provide students with transportation but that does not automatically mean that the students will be able to afford the cost of schooling, including their daily commute, the cost of


� ��

meals, and any other miscellaneous expenses. In addition to the financial aspect there is the physical exertion of a daily commute. In some instances, it may even be easier to live in the city or town where the university is located. Therefore, there are other factors that limit access to education.

There are opportunities to remedy some of the social equity issues that currently exist without building a road. In particular, the villagers could work with the Costa Rican government to see if there are funds available to cover the cost of living expenses for residents of Tortuguero who seek university education that requires renting housing close to a university.

As in the case of education, the community also faces limitations in the healthcare it receives. Currently a doctor and nurse visit the village for two days a week. Again, the argument has been presented that with the construction of a road there would be easier access to healthcare. This is true; however, this may not be the only option or even the best option for the community. Ideally, the community should have a doctor and nurse living within the village. A procedure to deal with any emergency cases requiring services other than those available within the community should be incorporated in the community development plan.

Increased ease of access via a new boat launch could make it easier for the village to get more frequent visits from local medical professionals. The community could also, with the government’s assistance, at least obtain the services of a full time nurse and pharmacist in a clinic in Tortuguero Village. Revenue from a pharmacy, which would come from tourists as well as locals, could help pay the salaries of healthcare employees.

The community could purchase a boat and/or collaborate with the lodges that own their own fleets to make a boat available for emergency medical use. A roster of people experienced at navigating the canal system would need to be available evenings/nights for such emergency situations.

In terms of access to cheaper goods and services, one might argue that while Tortuguero’s remoteness has created economic opportunities for the community it has also created economic problems such as the high cost of basic goods and the high cost of transportation, which for the community translates into a higher cost of living. While it is true that the cost of living in Tortuguero is higher than in other parts of the country, building a road will not necessarily improve the economic situation of the community. The closest relevant example is Cahuita, to which a road was constructed with no reduction in the cost of living for its residents.

2. (Optional) How do the stakeholders’ goals align with the principles of ecotourism? Can all their goals AND the principles of ecotourism be achieved simultaneously, or are some of them conflicting and/or incompatible?

This optional question can be used as a follow-up question to discussion question 1. Having examined the conflicting and overlapping goals of various stakeholders, now add the frame of the principles of ecotourism to complicate it a bit more. Eight primary stakeholders exist in the case: Tortugueran small business owners (hoteliers, restauranteurs, shop owners), large resort owners, residents (families, students, children, elderly, sick), the Tour Guide Association, tourists, environmental groups (Sea Turtle Conservancy, Tortuguero National Park), residents and businesses in Guipiles and Cariari (the closest areas with basic services and shopping), and the Costa Rican tourism industry. When comparing the goals of each we find that they all conflict with the principles of ecotourism in some way. As defined by Honey (2008) there are seven principles of ecotourism:

• Involves travel to natural destinations.

• Minimizes impact.

• Builds environmental awareness.

• Provides direct financial benefits for conservation.

• Provides financial benefits and empowerment for local people.

• Respects local culture.

• Supports human rights and democratic movements.


� ��

The environmental goals of each stakeholder group are both supported and hindered through ecotourism in Tortuguero. From the perspective of the turtles, ecotourism has caused them to be the main attraction of Tortuguero and thus earned them protection. No longer are the turtles hunted for food by locals or as severely endangered by poachers. However, the environment in a broader sense suffers from the travel industry. Travelers disrupt the natural habitat through noise pollution on the canals, excessive trash, and stress on the carrying capacity of the fragile ecosystem. Growth of Tortuguero as a destination has caused the town to expand, which in turn has caused natural habitat destruction.

The socio-cultural goals of each stakeholder also align with and diverge from the principles of ecotourism. Tourism is the staple support for the local economy, but only allows for a meager quality of life for Tortuguero’s residents. In this respect, there is conflict with the principles of ecotourism because non-local operators are capitalizing on tourism, which is detracting from the benefits to the locals. Local culture remains intact in Tortuguero because of its extreme remoteness and the current absence of a road. Yet, residents’ limited exposure and accessibility to the outside world is deterring from their development of human rights and democratic movements. The locals are unable to capitalize on their constitutional right to social equity, which is inhibiting access to education and healthcare.

The economic goals of each stakeholder group greatly benefit from ecotourism. The economy saw many boom and bust cycles during the attempted establishment of the timber industry. With this failure, the village has very few exports on which it can rely for income. The hunting of turtles and their eggs could only support the economy for a limited time, and the town as a ‘beach destination’ does not have much appeal as a result of the 200+ inches of annual rainfall. Protecting the turtles through the principles of ecotourism may be the only opportunity to draw significant income to Tortuguero. As a result, conservation efforts for the turtles are naturally funded and supported. However, the standard of living in Tortuguero is low and could be improved if mass-tourism were allowed to develop. Despite the drawbacks of the area as a beach destination, the development of mass tourism could result in the development of spas, fishing charters, and adventure travel attractions. The goal of the economy to grow beyond its eco-friendly means, however, directly conflicts with Honey’s ecotourism principles.

If Tortuguero’s attempts to achieve economic goals by adding components of mass tourism while still leveraging the attraction of the green sea turtles, it runs the risk of engaging in “green washing,” presenting the facade of ecotourism while engaging in less-than-ecofriendly mass tourism practices. If exposed as doing so, Tortuguero runs the risk of losing its faithful ecotourists and its competitive advantage, and instead, would be forced to compete with other mass tourism destinations.

3. What should Daryl Loth do? Apply each of the five different approaches to ethical thinking—utilitarian, rights, fairness or justice, common good, and virtue—to Loth’s decision regarding the road to Tortuguero.

This discussion question forces students to think about what decision Loth should make, given that they have analyzed the various stakeholders’ perspectives, but without them addressing whether Loth and the TGA should be making a decision in the first place. The discussion about approaching Loth’s decision from these five ethical approaches naturally leads students to question the authority of the TGA to make the decision (which is addressed in the next discussion question).

In making a decision regarding the spending proposals facing the TGA, Loth has gathered information from the guides, community members, even his own mother-in-law. However, the facts of the situation in Tortuguero tell Loth only what is, not what ought to be. Thus, making a decision with ethical implications like the spending proposals facing the TGA requires an appeal to values and determining what standards of behavior can be considered ethical.

Various classical approaches to ethical thinking in decision making exist. Each approach gives important information with which to determine what is ethical in a particular circumstance. One’s choice of guiding


� ��

ethical philosophy will influence one’s decisions, though certainly there exist situations in which different philosophies may produce the same decision.

We recommend having students use the framework in the reading, “Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making” from Santa Clara University (see recommended readings, above). The framework presents five different approaches to ethical thinking:

• Utilitarian: Seeks to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

• Rights: Concerned with the basic rights of affected parties.

• Justice: An equitable distribution of benefit/harm and whether everyone is treated fairly.

• Common good: Ensuring that policies, systems, institutions, and environments are beneficial to all as a community.

• Virtue: Seeks to achieve ideals toward which we should strive.

If Loth approaches his decision from a utilitarian approach, he would likely argue that moving the boat launch from La Pavona will produce the greatest good for the greatest number of stakeholders in the long run. Despite the majority of residents wanting a road, Loth might disregard their wants as he believes that in the long run keeping the turtles safe and protecting the environment by making Tortuguero still a little bit difficult to get to will prevent any of the negative possible consequences that accompany a road. He would override the wishes of the people because he believes his decision would provide more good to more people in the long run, much like Dr. Archie Carr did in convincing Tortuguerans that keeping the turtles alive would provide more benefit for the community in the long run than the short term benefit of having turtles to sell or consume. Moving the boat launch will likely better protect the environment and Tortuguero’s tourism economy by limiting the need for a road. A boat ride will still be required, but it will be much safer to navigate at night and will reduce travel time to and from the major towns on the mainland. As a result, the accessibility of healthcare, goods, and other services Tortuguerans require will increase while their associated costs may decrease. There is likely to be an increase in tourism, including some day-trippers who are locals, though it may be more easily managed and some of the negative consequences of a road would be mitigated.

From a utilitarian approach, Loth would not have to convince the TGA membership that moving the boat launch would be the best option, as more members appear to favor Proposal 2 than any other. He could, however, challenge the members to think about whether moving the boat launch does provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Certainly moving the boat launch continues to protect the turtles and preserve the foreign adventure-type tourists, certainly a benefit for the tour guides. But does this really create the greatest good for as many as possible? How is the “greatest good” defined? This could be an opportunity for Loth to challenge the guides to generate alternative spending proposals from the three they already have and to think broadly as to what the greatest good entails.

Unfortunately, though the boat launch alternative seems to offer the greatest good, it does not seem to satisfy those who want a road. Depending on one’s perspective regarding the relative importance of social equity and preserving the nesting grounds and TNP, one could argue that each is a legitimate choice using the utilitarian model. The various stakeholder groups from discussion question 1 could discuss how they would make decisions according to the utilitarian approach.

If Loth were to consider his decision from a rights approach, he might question whether the TGA had a right to make a decision (despite the fact that it is their money) that would impact the entire community. Loth is certainly aware of all the parties that would be affected by the TGA’s decision: residents, business owners, tourists, tour guides, turtles, etc. Thus, from a rights approach, he might appeal to the TGA membership that it use a different approach to making a decision as to how it spends its money. For all intents and purposes, the TGA has become the de facto leader of the community. Given its resources, the TGA has acquired power and influence. But it was not democratically elected to represent the


� �

community. Loth could argue to the TGA members, making them aware of the role the TGA has come to assume and urging that it consider the process it is using to spend its revenues. He could argue that the guides were able to collect fees from tourists because of the support of the community, which has helped to make and keep Tortuguero a desirable and welcoming place to visit. While the community has benefited from the TGA’s community projects, the process has been one that keeps the TGA powerful and in the donor mentality, with the community becoming the charity case. It has not been a decision-making model based on equal representation from all parties that would be affected by a TGA decision. And unlike a democratically elected government body that sometimes makes decisions that affect the community that it represents without giving community members a say, the TGA was not elected.

Loth could argue that a road should be built to improve social equity for Tortuguero’s residents. It is worth noting that the rights approach seems to put people’s ability to make life choices above the environment. This perspective may be overly short-term focused. When one plays out some of the longer-term effects of a road, the potential economic and ecological damage may outweigh some of the benefits a road would provide, and ultimately result in ever-greater choice constraints on residents. Further, the argument that locals should have the right to choose to visit Tortuguero on a day trip puts their right to choose above residents’ rights to preserve a way of life and an ecologically based economy. Thus, depending on how long term one’s view is, either position could be supported from a rights perspective.

From a justice approach, Loth would have to make a decision that would treat everyone fairly and would provide for the most equitable distribution of benefits and harms. If he is going to treat everyone fairly, he would have to separate out his own personal feelings about how he thinks the TGA fees should be spent. Additionally, he would have to convince the TGA membership to consider how different stakeholder groups would fare given a particular spending proposal. Would some stakeholder groups suffer greater negative consequences either in the short- or long-term than other stakeholder groups? This is a great place to have the stakeholder groups from discussion question 1 discuss the harms they would suffer if a particular spending proposal were selected. Is it fair for some groups to suffer more or to receive fewer benefits than other groups?

This is also a good place to have students consider the difference between equal distribution and equitable distribution. On what basis could equity be established in this situation? Do the turtles get top billing, as they are the basis of much of the economy? If so, then the ability to financially support others appears to be the basis for distribution (as opposed to size, resources, power, contributions). Loth would be in a difficult situation in that he would have to get the membership to consider who gets the biggest share of the pie and why.

If Loth and the TGA take a common good approach to making their spending decision, they would have to take a hard look at whether their organization and its decision-making process is creating benefits for everyone as a community. This requires taking a holistic approach, keeping all stakeholders in mind. It also requires the TGA to think about the time frame (long term versus short-term perspective), and what is considered beneficial. What is considered beneficial could be from the perspective of social equity, environmental integrity, jobs growth, etc. The bottom line is that from this approach, Loth would have to break out of his tour-guides-versus-residents mentality, and get the membership to consider the situation from a holistic perspective.

Finally, the virtue approach forces one to consider the type of person she or he wishes to be, and, from a collective view, the type of community in which one wishes to reside. Loth likely wants to be considered as an advocate for the environment and for the turtles and their long-term survival. Working on behalf of the turtles with the Sea Turtle Conservancy was what brought him to Tortuguero. So enamored with the place was Loth that he married a local, had two children, and established his life there. From a virtue approach, and from a personal perspective, Loth is likely to push for any spending option that does not include a road and would reduce the pressure to build a road. Even if his desire was to be the best father he could be, this image would likely include teaching his children to value and protect the environment.


� �

Although he worries about educational and career opportunities for his children given Tortuguero’s remote location, he is unlikely to advocate for a road at the expense of his environmental ideals.

If Loth is to consider the spending proposal decision from a virtue approach at the community level, he has to consider what role the TGA plays in the community, and how the TGA could help the community achieve its ideals. Certainly something like this would require a community forum in which everyone in the community would have the opportunity to express his or her vision of the community and the ideals toward which it should strive. This would move the TGA away from its community-altruism role in which the TGA saw the community as an entity that needs its help. In such a role, the TGA ended up serving the community, but not empowering it. As a result, the systems that produced the problems or deprivations in the community in the first place are not changed. By using a virtue approach to consider the spending proposals, Loth has the potential to change the role of the TGA and empower the community. What the TGA might find when empowering the community is that alternatives to the spending proposals for increasing social equity might be found that also do not harm the environment and the turtles.

When students look at all the ethical approaches and the outcomes they produce, they likely will see that the community (as individual stakeholder groups of residents, small business owners, the resort lodge operators, etc., and as a whole) has been disempowered. The community has been neglected by government officials in general. When the government did act, it did so single-handedly and in secret in the form of bulldozing a “road” without any input from the community. By doing so, the community was thrown into considering a road as the only option. The TGA then offered another option in the form of moving the boat launch in La Pavona, but once again, the community was not involved in generating options. Thus, both the TGA and the Pococi government can hardly be viewed as empowering the community, something that might be an ethical imperative when the spending proposal decision is viewed from the various ethical approaches.

4. Is the TGA the appropriate decision-making entity for the issues facing Tortuguero? What should Loth do to facilitate a process that brings a community- and stakeholder-based resolution to the issues facing Tortuguero?

After the discussion prompted by discussion question 3 on the ethical approaches to decision making, students are likely to have some misgivings about the TGA being the decision making entity. However, in Tortuguero at the time of the case the TGA had become the defacto leader of the community. So, if the students still believe the decision should be in the TGA’s hands, do they think it is right that Tortuguerans have input but no vote? Students may argue that since the funds belong to the TGA, it is completely appropriate that its members control the outcome. However, from a rights approach (see discussion question 3), others may take the position that the decision affects all Tortuguerans and all should therefore have equal say and influence.

The position a student takes may be driven by his or her experience with related issues. For example, those who live in the Mountain West region in the U.S. are likely to be familiar with the widely-held, regional perspective that all residents are affected by decisions around the uses of Federal, and even private, lands and should, therefore, have an equal say regarding their use. Several towns/cities/counties in the state of Colorado in the U.S., for example, are currently considering a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing (fracking), even on private land. It is not unusual in that region for the voting population to want to weigh in on issues as divergent as mining, grazing, and the use of off-road vehicles. A student from elsewhere in the U.S., or another country, may make the case, however, that the TGA should control the decision. Certainly one could expect the TGA, and some in the community, to defend its right to control how its money is spent.

If the TGA, and not the entire community, makes the decision about the spending proposals, there may be significant opposition to the choice. This opposition may coalesce into a vocal group, which will produce conflict in the community. The resentment potentially experienced by those in the community who do not


� ��

agree with the decision could result in community strife, which could threaten the tourism on which the economy is based. However, choosing proposal 3 would not likely cause outrage as it is essentially a “non-spending” decision. This may be the best option for Loth to support.

Given that the TGA is going to vote on the spending proposal that day, Loth has to do something to prevent the membership from voting. This tactic will require a multi-step approach. First, Loth should make an impassioned plea to the TGA membership to vote for proposal 3 so it can buy some time to reconsider and reconfigure its role in the community, and thus perhaps alternative-spending proposals can be developed. Second, Loth needs to convince the TGA to empower the community and restrain itself from its current community-altruism role. The TGA must empower the community as a whole (including all stakeholder groups) to figure out the best solution to meeting its needs. Third, Loth and the TGA need to figure out a process to engage all stakeholder groups together as a whole. As a community, they can generate alternatives to spending proposals so that a more ethical and inclusive approach to increasing social equity while sustaining ecotourism can be developed.

Finding a way to bring all the stakeholders to the table will not be easy. There is a reason that not every decision in a country, state, province, etc. is put up for a vote among the people. Hence, representative governments exist, and sometimes government officials do not vote according to the wishes of the majority of the people. If that was not the case, the U.S. might still have slaves. Not all people are educated enough about an issue to make an informed decision, or are able to see the long-term consequences of a decision. As a result, politicians sometimes use persuasion and education to convince the masses to support the decision they have to make, and this is something that Loth will have to do with the TGA membership, and the TGA will then have to do so with the community. The focus should be on promoting mechanisms for responsible participation of civil society actors in the decision-making processes of Tortuguero.

Once he has gotten the TGA to agree to its new role, Loth and the TGA will need to engage the various stakeholder groups. This is a great opportunity to have the students recall the various stakeholders and their goals (from discussion question 1), and have them tackle the next discussion question.

5. What alternatives exist to building the road or moving the boat launch? Which of these alternatives would satisfy more stakeholders’ interests than the others? If you were Loth, what alternatives would you support? Keep in mind that Loth is a part of several stakeholder groups with different goals/needs/desires.

While the road and boat launch have been the primary solutions the TGA and residents have discussed in regard to their ongoing problems, perhaps other solutions exist that have not been considered. The $30,000 available through the TGA limits what actions can be taken but certainly it is enough money to address various stakeholders’ problems in a variety of ways.

Teaching Suggestion

Have the students refer back to the discussion question 1 dialogue and identify common goals among the stakeholders that could be solved with alternative solutions. Students should provide details describing proposed solutions, which stakeholders’ goals/needs/desires each solution satisfies, which stakeholders’ goals/needs/desires each inhibits, and why a proposed solution is a better alternative than those already on the table (including the road and boat launch). Solicit alternatives from the perspective of Loth in the same manner or have students elaborate on alternatives from Loth’s perspective.

Some alternatives that students may suggest are:

• Increasing the number of weekly visits by the medical staff;

• Having medical staff available for phone consultations;

• More frequent boat service;


� ��

• Small business loans to increase competition and drive down prices;

• Contracting a single supplier of food and goods to aggregate the buying power of the community. Contract and delivery fees could be supplemented with the TGA funds;

• Purchasing a community boat and hiring a regular and on-call boat driver to fulfill transportation needs on a scheduled and as needed basis; and

• Hiring educators from outside Tortuguero to live in the community seasonally and offer classes to high school and adult residents, teaching particular professions. These courses would offer the residents perspective on employment opportunities outside of Tortuguero and perhaps provide them with qualifications to pursue those professions. These courses would be similar to offerings found in vocational schools at secondary education levels in the U.S.

Once a number of solutions have been presented to the class, have the students re-form into their respective stakeholder groups and decide on which solution they like the best, including moving the boat launch and building the road.

Next, have the students engage in a stakeholder dialogue, discussing whether these solutions are plausible, their potential to actually achieve various goals/needs/desires, their ethical implications using the ethical frameworks from discussion question 3, how they could be modified to further satisfy various stakeholder groups, and whether or not Loth would support the proposed alternative. The instructor should point out that Loth wears a multitude of stakeholder hats: as a resident (with a child who had an emergency in the night), as a tour guide, and as a small business owner. Do any of the proposed solutions address all his needs?

How should Loth bring these various stakeholders together to propose a solution? Loth should focus on using an integrative approach (win-win) rather than a distributive approach (win-lose). Rather than approaching the issues facing the various stakeholders from a “fixed pie” perspective, get the various stakeholders to discuss how they might expand the pie. Urge them to share information that they have, and focus on the long-term health of the relationships within the community. Use the classic “orange conundrum” to explain the different between interests and positions:

There is one orange left in the kitchen. Two chefs want the same orange. They both take the position that it is critical for each of them to have the orange. They quickly decide to compromise, cutting the orange equally down the middle, so each chef gets half, but not as much as either was hoping to receive.

BUT . . . if they took the time to explore the interest that each chef had in the orange (why they needed the orange), they would have discovered that one needed the juice to make orange sauce and the other needed only the rind to make orange cake!

In the situation in Tortuguero, Loth’s position might be that he wants to move the boat launch, but his real interest is in protecting the turtles. Residents’ position might be that they want a road, but their real interest is in social equity. By focusing on why Loth and the various stakeholders have the positions they have, one discovers the real interests, interests that can be achieved via other methods besides moving the boat launch or building a road. Loth and the TGA should take the role of community negotiators, bringing the various stakeholders together and focusing on integrative solutions (see the table below). They can do this by:

• Soliciting participation from all stakeholder groups.

• Helping to elucidate interests.

• Building trust among stakeholders.

• Educating about the basis of their tourism economy (see discussion question 6).

• Focusing on the long-term (in terms of relationships and outcomes).


� ��

• Helping the community see itself not as separate stakeholders and positions, but as one and the same, an interdependent resource filled with possibilities.

Bargaining Characteristic Distributive Bargaining Integrative Bargaining Goal Get all the pie you can Expand the pie Motivation Win-Lose Win-Win Focus Positions Interests Information Sharing Low High Duration of Relationships Short-term Long-term

6. For tourism students only—What might the future of Tortuguero look like in terms of the types of tourists attracted and the tourism destination itself if a road were to be built? How can Loth ensure that Tortuguero does not reach maturity and decline in its development, and instead ensure the greatest benefits for the various stakeholders?

Refer to IM Appendix C for an outline on tourism destination lifecycles and the associated types of travelers that can also be used as a class handout.

While ecotourism consists of travel to “natural areas to understand the culture and natural history of the environment; taking care not to alter the integrity of the ecosystem; [and] producing economic opportunities that make the conservation of natural resources beneficial to local people” (Garen, 2000, 221), there exist perils as well to ecotourism. While ecotourism destinations will likely attract Venturers, they can, however, be “environmentally destructive, economically exploitative, and culturally insensitive “greenwashed” travel” (McLauren, 1998, 98). Such greenwashed travel is closer in its characteristics to mass tourism (found in the maturity and decline stages) in attracting larger numbers of tourists not as committed to traveling in an eco-sensitive manner. These tourists would likely be Mid-Centrics, Near-Dependables, and Dependables. Thus, ideally an ecotourism destination like Tortuguero wants to arrest its tourism development at the “sweet spot” so as to capture the most lucrative and environmentally and culturally sensitive and sustainable types of tourists who bring the most benefits with the fewest problems, the Venturers and Near-Venturers. Interestingly, the locals in Tortuguero do not seem interested in doing this, perhaps because they are uninformed about these types of tourists. This is a role that Loth could propose the TGA play, educating the community about the tourists who visit. Doing so might increase the likely survival of the turtles in Tortuguero more than would spending money on moving the boat launch. The community could be informed about the “sweet spot” in terms of development and collectively could develop strategies for achieving and maintaining it.

At this point, the building of a road to Tortuguero can be discussed in terms of its impact on development and the types of tourists attracted. With a road, transportation costs are reduced, and it is easier to bring in building supplies. With lower cost of transportation and ease in securing supplies, less rustic and “authentic” lodging might be built along with other services. With an increase in the services and comforts provided, other types of tourists might be attracted, such as Mid-Centrics and/or Near-Dependables.

Increased accessibility will inevitably increase interest in the area, particularly among Costa Ricans who would then be able to day trip to Tortuguero, which could change the dynamics of the tourism industry. Day-trippers would be able to bring their own provisions to Tortuguero, might not remove their trash when they leave, and may produce more litter on the beach and in the community.

Further, there exists the possibility that day trip tour packages could emanate from the capital, San Jose, reducing the revenue realized by local guides. The increasing presence of day trip tourists, whose spending in the local economy is likely to be negligible, may have the unintended effect of chasing away the more affluent, higher spending tourists who currently visit (the Venturers and Near-Venturers). Thus,


� ��

while the cost of transportation or goods may decrease, it is quite possible that the income level of locals dependent on tourism may also decrease because of the different types of tourists able to access Tortuguero.

Loth could initiate discussions, first with his fellow TGA members, and then with the broader community, in which they explore the type of tourists each of the various potential courses of action is likely to draw and the subsequent effects on the economy and the ecology. One of the tactics Loth can employ in such a discussion is to make reference to Tortuguero’s economic and social history. Though the status quo is certainly no panacea, it is far better than what existed before turtle tourism began (the second video under “Suggested Supplemental Materials” below can be shown at this point).

The tourists who travel to Tortuguero, the Venturers and Near-Venturers, are those seeking a wild and unique experience, something not easily accessed or replicated at another destination. With the construction of a road it is possible that the unique experience will be lost. Tortuguero may lose its appeal and competitive advantage, which to a large extent arises from its remoteness and ability to provide the visitor with a sense of being totally isolated from the hassle of everyday life. Its limited accessibility has helped the area remain ecologically intact, which provides an excellent opportunity for viewing wildlife that is difficult to see at other destinations. This unique experience is what allows Tortuguero to differentiate itself from other destinations.

Further, day trip tourists, who may not be aware of the environmental fragility and importance of the area, could cause significant, irreparable environmental damage. The satisfaction level of visitors could be negatively affected by such damage, as could Costa Rica’s reputation as an ecological tourist destination. If Tortuguero loses the unique experience it now offers, it would start competing directly with other destinations that offer similar experiences within the region, thereby losing its appeal. The community would be directly affected as its income level will decrease and so will its standard of living, although TNP and the protected turtle nesting areas could help to keep the site unique.

Finally, as a follow-up question, the instructor can ask: Would alternative means of access provide for the goal attainment of various stakeholders simultaneously while adhering to the principles of ecotourism?

Encourage the students to think about the alternatives generated from discussion question 5 and determine whether they are consistent and supportive of the principles of ecotourism (see discussion question 2).

SYSTEMS THINKING EXERCISE (OPTIONAL; FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY; ESTIMATED TIME NEEDED: 30–45 MINUTES)

Learning Objective: This activity will encourage effective problem solving by looking beyond simple cause and effect relationships. Students will gain an understanding of the complex systems in which all decisions exist and how the use of system dynamics modeling can help better predict the outcomes of an action.

Refer to IM Appendix D for an outline on systems thinking and modeling that can also be used as a class handout.

Instructions: Prior to this exercise students should read, “System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world” by John D. Sterman (2001).

We suggest that after reading the article the class discuss the typical linear perspective of problem solving versus the actual happenings as shown in feedback loops.

Organize students into one of the eight stakeholder groups, one group for each of the stakeholders identified in question 4. Have the students select one of their stakeholder’s goals/needs/desires, which is impacted by building a road. Students will diagram the effects of building a road on their selected goal/need/desire through the use of system dynamic modeling. The diagram will begin with the selected


� ��

goal followed by the construction of the road. Two examples of systems models that students might construct can be seen in IM Figures 1 and 2. In these two examples the stakeholder is local residents and their need is for healthcare. The residents’ need for healthcare can increase or decrease by the construction of a road; this is explored through the systems model. It is important to note that there is no right or wrong answer when developing a systems model; the student will have to use their own intuition when deciding how the model’s components interact.

In IM Figures 1 and 2 we decided that the direct connection between healthcare and the construction of a road is negatively related; as the need for healthcare increases or decreases, the pressure to construct a road simultaneously increases or decreases, respectively. The construction of a road is also positively related to regional access; having a road increases regional access, not having a road decreases regional access. We then see three loops develop from regional access, which begin with a positive relation to healthcare and local tourism but a negative relation to local business; we think that regional access will allow residents to shop outside of Tortuguero, therefore decreasing local shopping. The figures continue along in this manner with the intent of linking each tangent back to an effect on the resident’s need for healthcare. By doing this the systems model demonstrates that taking a single action to satisfy a need will trigger many other effects which could ultimately either increase (self-reinforcing loops) or decrease (self-correcting loops) that need.

IM FIGURE 1: SYSTEMS MODEL EXAMPLE 1


� ��

IM FIGURE 2: SYSTEMS MODEL EXAMPLE 2

The exercise should demonstrate the many, and unforeseen, effects a single decision can have on an entire system and how that decision may ultimately not achieve the intended goal. Feedback loops can be either positive (self-reinforcing) or negative (self-correcting). In considering the construction of the road, students should have several loops active, creating a multiple-loop system, which can have both positive and negative loops simultaneously affecting one another. There may also be many elements in single loop.

Students may find it easier to begin by brainstorming the effects of building a road and specific things that directly affect their selected goal/need/desire. For example, when constructing IM Figures 1 and 2 we took into consideration each of the following items, but not all were used:

• Regional access

• Access to healthcare

• Mortality rate

• Population levels

• Turtle habitat

• Turtle population

• Park fees which support turtles

• International tourism

• Local tourism

• Crime


� ��

• GDP per capita

• Business at local shops

• Tax revenue

• Funding for a local clinic

• Trash

• Police

• Education

• Cost of goods

• Poaching

• Drug trafficking

Have each group present its diagrams and discuss how the building of a road hinders or facilitates group goals. Each group should discuss impacts of building a road that they did not think about prior to developing the systems map.

After each group has presented, discuss as a class whether there are alternatives to building the road that could maximize the number of goals achieved (improving the canal and boats for easier transportation, building a clinic for medical treatment, or creating a new industry to improve the economy, for example).

The use of system dynamic modeling can be challenging and students may struggle to link stakeholders’ goals to the construction of a road in the diagram. We recommend that students complete this exercise using either pencil and paper or a whiteboard to allow modification as the diagram develops. The objective is to encourage students to grasp the idea of systems thinking and how a direct linear linkage between cause and effect is a naive approach to problem solving.

RESEARCH METHODS

The data for this case came from multiple sources. Two of the authors lived in Costa Rica for one year and traveled to Tortuguero three times to collect data from 2006–2007. Another of the authors lives in Costa Rica and operates an eleven-room bed-and-breakfast. This author was key in supplying the names and introductions to local residents for the purposes of setting up interviews and providing updated information. Interviews with local residents were conducted by the two visiting authors with the aid of a Peace Corp volunteer translator (as some of the interviews were conducted in Spanish). Additionally, local newspaper archives were scoured at the newspaper central offices, as only hard copies of archives were available. Newspaper articles written in Spanish were translated by a staff member of INCAE Business School in Costa Rica for use in the case.

EPILOGUE

As of the writing of this case in October 2013, there was no road to Tortuguero. Loth decided to support spending proposal 2 (to move the boat launch and increase the medical staff visits), but the TGA membership decided to support proposal 3 and not spend the money for the relocation of the boat launch or the improvement of the right-of-way. Loth continued to hope that he would be able to convince the TGA membership to relocate the boat launch in the future, but as of 2013, that had not happened. The villagers continued to discuss the merits of a road to Tortuguero. The TGA continued to function in its community-altruism role, funding various community projects it decided were worthy of funding.


� ��

REFERENCES

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for a management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5–12.

Butler, R. W. (1990). Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan Horse? Journal of Travel Research, 28, 40–45.

Garen, E. (2000). “Appraising Ecotourism in Conserving Biodiversity.” Foundations of Natural Resources Policy and Management. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Honey, M. (2008). Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who owns paradise? Washington: Island Press.

Karplus, Y., and Krakover, S. (2005). “Stochastic multivariate approach to modelling tourism area life cycles.” Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5(3): 235–253.

Liu, Z., Lo, S., Vasconcellos, P., Siguaw, J. A., and Enz, C. A. (2006). “Competitive destination planning: The case of Costa Rica.” CHR Reports, October: 5–19.

McLauren, D. (1998). Rethinking Tourism and Ecotravel: The paving of paradise and what you can do to stop it. Kumarian Press: West Hartford.

Plog, S. (1974). “Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 14(4), 55–58.

Plog, S. (2001). “Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity: An update.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(3): 13–24.

Sterman, J. D. (2001). System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review, 43, 4, 8–25.

Tourism Queensland (n.d.). “Factsheet 1.2: Sustainability, Triple Bottom Line and ‘Greenwash.’” Retrieved from http://www.tq.com.au/fms/tq_corporate/industrydevelopment/Factsheet%201_2-Sustainability%20TBL%20and%20Greenwash.pdf

United Nations Environment Programme and the World Tourism Organization (2005). “Making Tourism More Sustainable.” Retrieved from http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx0592xPA-TourismPolicyEN.pdf


� �

IM APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS OF ECOTOURISM

The International Ecotourism Society: http://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism

• Ecotourism is defined as “responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people.”

Martha Honey expands upon The International Ecotoursim Society definition stating that real ecotourism has the following seven characteristics (2008):

• Involves travel to natural destinations: Often remote areas, inhabited or uninhabited, usually under some kind of environmental protection.

• Minimizes impact: Tourism causes damage. Ecotourism strives to minimize the adverse effects of hotels, trails, and other infrastructure by using either recycled or plentifully available local building materials, renewable resources of energy, recycling and safe disposal of waste and garbage, and environmentally and culturally sensitive architectural design. Minimization of impact also requires that the numbers and mode of behavior of tourists be regulated to ensure limited damage to the ecosystem.

• Builds environmental awareness: Ecotourism means education of both tourists and residents of nearby communities. Well before tours begin, tour operators should supply travelers with reading material about the country, environment, and local people, as well as a code of conduct for both the traveler and the industry itself. Ecotourism projects should help educate members of surrounding communities by offering greatly reduced entrance fees to nationals and free educational trips for local students and those living near the tourist attraction.

• Provides direct financial benefits for conservation: Ecotourism helps raise funds for environmental protection, research, and education through a variety of mechanisms, including park entrance fees; tour company, hotel, airline, and airport taxes; and voluntary contribution.

• Provides financial benefits and empowerment for local people: Ecotourism holds that national parks and other conservation areas will only survive if there are happy people around the perimeters. The local community must be involved with and receive income and other tangible benefits (potable water, roads, health clinics, etc.) from the conservation area and its tourist facilities.

• Respects local culture: Ecotourism is not only “greener” but also less culturally intrusive and exploitative than conventional tourism. Whereas prostitution, black markets, and drugs often are byproducts of mass tourism, ecotourism strives to be culturally respectful and have a minimal effect on both the natural environment and the human population of a host country.

• Supports human rights and democratic movements: The United Nations-sponsored World Tourism Organization proclaims that tourism contributes to “international understanding, peace, prosperity, and universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.” Such sentiments are infrequently reflected in conventional mass tourism.

The Nature Conservancy: http://www.nature.org/greenliving/what-is-ecotourism.xml

• The Nature Conservancy adopts the definition articulated by the World Conservation Union: “Environmentally-responsible travel to natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and accompanying cultural features, both past and present) that promotes conservation, has a low visitor impact and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local peoples.”


� �

• Most tourism in natural areas today is not ecotourism and is not, therefore, sustainable. Ecotourism is distinguished by its emphasis on conservation, education, traveler responsibility and active community participation. Specifically, ecotourism possesses the following characteristics:

o Conscientious, low-impact visitor behavior.

o Sensitivity towards, and appreciation of, local cultures and biodiversity.

o Support for local conservation efforts.

o Sustainable benefits to local communities.

o Local participation in decision-making.

o Educational components for both the traveler and local communities.

Ecotourism in America: http://www.ecotourisminamerica.com/tools/definitions/

• It is travel to natural, relatively unchanged areas, where natural beauties are the main attraction. It’s a low-impact and small-scale form of travel aimed at avoiding the alteration of each place’s ecosystem.

• It is a sustainable kind of travel since according to its premises, it contributes to sustainable development. Sustainable development is the one which seeks to optimize the present social and economic benefits, without compromising the potential to obtain similar benefits in the future. It is also referred to as ethical tourism because it seeks the wellbeing of local communities without leaving the appreciation and conservation of the environment aside. The terms ecological tourism and nature-based travel are synonyms for ecotourism.

• It seeks to promote and support the understanding, appreciation and conservation of the environment and culture, raising awareness and producing a feeling of appreciation for biodiversity (emphasizing on the conservation of diverse plant and animal species) and for local cultures (emphasizing on preserving their indigenous features). It is also a suitable means to obtaining economic resources for the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage, supporting local efforts to this end.

• It seeks to improve local communities’ welfare, by boosting their economic and social development, creating economic opportunities which in turn will produce sustainable benefits in time. Therefore, it is an activity which promotes employment as well as economic and social development, acting as an alternative income source for social sectors living in hard economic situations.

• It seeks to educate travelers on conservation of the environment and respect for different cultures. It also pursues the creation of an ecological conscience, encouraging more activism among visitors so that they become enthusiastic and effective conservation agents.

Additional definitions of ecotourism can be found at the following websites:

• UNWTO: http://sdt.unwto.org/en/content/ecotourism-and-protected-areas.

• Untamed Path: http://www.untamedpath.com/Ecotourism/defining.html.

• Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotourism.

�


� ��

IM APPENDIX B: THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE

A commonly used concept, “the triple bottom line,” refers to three objectives for companies: the traditional “profit” bottom line, a “planet” bottom line, and a “people” bottom line. Also referred to as the three Ps (people, planet, profit), the idea of the triple bottom line is credited to John Elkington, the founder of a British consultancy called SustainAbility. Elkington and others argue that companies should focus on more than only traditional profitability; rather, they should also take into account how socially responsible and environmentally responsible they have been. The triple bottom line (TBL) approach, by measuring the financial, social, and environmental performance of a company, takes into account the full cost and benefit produced by a business.

The same is true for tourism. While communities around the globe look to tourism development for its economic benefits (profits at a community level), awareness of the social and environmental consequences of tourism development is growing.

In the context of tourism, “‘Triple bottom line’ (TBL) is a holistic concept of sustainability where ‘environmental’, ‘social’ and ‘economic’ considerations are identified and considered concurrently in decision making. It is envisaged that triple bottom line sustainable tourism development can lead to the management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity, and life support systems” (Tourism Queensland, n.d.).

The TBL approach in tourism is typically referred to as the three pillars: environmental, economic, and socio-cultural.


� ��

IM APPENDIX C: TOURISM DESTINATION LIFECYCLES

How tourism destinations move through their life cycles has been researched for years, with two distinctive models having been developed by Plog (1974) and Butler (1980). Butler’s (1980) tourist area cycle of evolution model indicates that tourist demand for a destination is likely to follow a life cycle resembling a logistic curve characterized by six stages. In “exploration,” independent, non-local tourists discover the destination. In “involvement,” locals respond to the appearance of tourists by supplying basic services; “development” signals the influx of outside investment into the destination. “Consolidation” indicates a retreat in investment. “Stagnation” indicates that the number of tourists has ceased increasing, followed by “decline” or “rejuvenation” (see IM Figure 3). IM Figure 3: Adapted from Butler (1980).

Although Butler’s model is widely cited, and there exist some studies of particular destinations’ development having conformed to his model, its use is primarily in hindsight and not to predict the future development path of a particular destination (Karplus and Krakover, 2005).

In its most basic form, Plog’s model suggests, not unlike Butler’s, that destinations follow a somewhat predictable pattern of discovery, development, and eventual decline. However, Plog notes that the character of tourism destinations changes over time and their attractiveness to particular types of tourists changes as well. At each stage in their life cycle, tourism destinations appeal to a different psychographic group of travelers, who determine the destination’s character and success (Plog, 2001, p. 18) (see IM Figure 4). Researchers have noted that once a tourism destination has been developed to a certain extent, it is nearly impossible to attract back the types of tourists who enjoyed the location earlier in its life cycle (Butler, 1990; Plog, 2001).


� ��

IM Figure 4: Adapted from Plog (2001).

In the early stages of a destination’s life cycle, Venturers (also known as Allocentrics) are attracted. These people:

• Want to explore the world and are intellectually curious;

• Make their own decisions, and do so quickly and easily;

• Have discretionary income and are willing to spend it;

• Like to try new products and services immediately after being introduced in the marketplace; and

• Are self-confident and have lots of personal energy (Plog, 2001).

Additionally, Venturers tend to:

• Travel more frequently;

• Take longer trips;

• Spend more per capita;

• Fly more;

• Prefer unusual destinations and avoid touristy spots;

• Prefer to experience local culture rather than events for tourists;

• Not want to be part of a regimented tour;

• Be active when traveling; and

• Avoid going back to the same tourist destination (Liu, Lo, Vasconcellos, Siguaw, and Enz, 2006).

At the other end of the scale are Dependables (also known as Psychocentrics). These people:

• Travel less frequently;

• Stay for shorter periods of time;

• Spend less per capita at a destination;

• Prefer to drive than to fly to have more creature comforts around them;

• Stay with friends/relatives or lowest cost lodging;

• Prefer highly developed touristy spots with service offerings that are like those at home;


� ��

• Tend to select activities that they do at home;

• Rate “sun and fun” spots highly as destinations (low activity levels);

• Use tour operators to best known places rather than booking independently when traveling internationally; and

• Are likely to return to destinations that meet their needs (Liu, Lo, Vasconcellos, Siguaw, and Enz, 2006).

Venturers are the first people to “discover” a destination and map onto the “exploration” stage of the destination life cycle created by Butler. Although Venturers tend not to return to a tourist destination once they have visited it, they do tell their friends, the Near-Venturers, who, after some time, will visit the destination.

Near-Venturers desire a few more services and little bit more comfort when they travel than do Venturers. As such, Near-Venturers stimulate “development” of more tourist-related services (the “involvement” stage of Butler’s destination life cycle). With more tourism infrastructure built, the Mid-Centrics will be attracted to the destination, signaling the “maturity” of a destination (and mapping onto the “development” and then “consolidation” stages of Butler’s life cycle). The arrival of Near-Dependables and Dependables signals the “decline” of a destination according to Plog (or “stagnation” and “decline” on Butler’s model).

Increasing prosperity and economic security can result from increased tourism development. However, if left uncontrolled and mismanaged, tourism development, or over-development, can kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Environmental degradation, marginalization of native people, and a battle for tourists based on price alone can leave a destination dependent and unhealthy and in the maturity or decline stages. When competing on price alone, a destination has developed to the point that it lacks a distinct competitive advantage. It likely is filled with all-inclusive resorts and lacks anything really unique. Once in these stages, a tourism destination will likely attract only Near-Dependables and Dependables.


� ��

IM APPENDIX D: SYSTEMS THINKING AND MODELING

Background: The achievement of a goal is dependent on effective decision making, which reinforces a desired outcome. In making decisions, people often fail to recognize the complexity of the system in which their goal exists. Typically, a linear relationship is identified in which a series of actions, or decisions, directly lead to an outcome (e.g., we can increase profitability by downsizing our workforce). This train of thought ignores the complexity of a system in which each action can have a myriad of side effects deterring from the goal (e.g., a smaller workforce increases pressure on employee performance, which reduces job satisfaction, lowering productivity and therefore lowers profitability).

Systems thinking differs from linear thinking through the use of feedback loops demonstrating the interconnectedness of a system. The use of systems thinking is required to make decisions that more accurately attain a specific, intended outcome. Diagramming systems through the use of system dynamics modeling can be useful in gaining a holistic perspective in which goals and actions exist. A systems model contains feedback loops, which can either be positive or negative. A positive feedback loop is self-reinforcing (e.g., building a road to Tortuguero will increase ease of access, which increases the number of travelers, increasing the need for more roads). A negative feedback loop is self-correcting (e.g., building a road to Tortuguero will increase ease of access, which increases the number of travelers, increasing the volume of trash, decreasing the appeal of Tortuguero, reducing the need for a road) (see IM Figure 5). IM Figure 5: Systems Modeling, Positive and Negative Feedback Loops


for instructor use only

Documents